Domain: statewatch.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to statewatch.org.
Stories · 7
-
EU Copyright Reform Proposes Search Engines Pay For Snippets (thestack.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader reports that the European Commission "is planning reforms that would allow media outlets to request payment from search engines such as Google, for publishing snippets of their content in search results." The Stack reports: The working paper recommends the introduction of an EU law that covers the rights to digital reproduction of news publications. This would essentially make news publishers a new category of rights holders under copyright law, thereby ensuring that "the creative and economic contribution of news publishers is recognized and incentivized in EU law, as it is today the case for other creative sectors." -
Endorse EDRI's Statement Against Data Retention
Ville Oksanen writes "Privacy International (PI) and European Digital Rights (EDRI) have published their joint answer to the consultation on mandatory data retention. The European Commission asked for public comments on a proposed retention regime across Europe between 12 and 36 months for all traffic data generated by using fixed and mobile telephony and Internet. As Statewatch puts it: 'This is a proposal so intrusive that Ashcroft, Ridge and company can only dream about it, exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act.' EDRI and PI are currently collecting endorsements from organizations and companies for their stamement here. This is unfortunately not enough to stop the process - expecially more should be done in the member states, which ultimately decide the fate of the proposal. So contact your local politicians today!" -
EU Still Looking at Mandatory Data Retention
An anonymous reader writes "Following up on a previous Slashdot article, European civil rights advocacy group Statewatch is detecting more rumbles of a possible weakening of privacy rights in the EU. The European council has been testing the waters for a new policy mandating retention of communications "traffic data" by all member states. The previous policy (adopted May 30) merely allowed an exception to EU privacy law for member states who wished to retain such data. Under the leaked draft proposal, law enforcement is to be allowed access to "traffic data" (identifying source, destination, time, etc.), which is similar to current US law. However, much worse is the requirement that telco providers retain such data for 12-24 months. Text of the draft framework decision is available. Also analysis by Statewatch. Backup link (in case of Slashdot effect)." -
EU Still Looking at Mandatory Data Retention
An anonymous reader writes "Following up on a previous Slashdot article, European civil rights advocacy group Statewatch is detecting more rumbles of a possible weakening of privacy rights in the EU. The European council has been testing the waters for a new policy mandating retention of communications "traffic data" by all member states. The previous policy (adopted May 30) merely allowed an exception to EU privacy law for member states who wished to retain such data. Under the leaked draft proposal, law enforcement is to be allowed access to "traffic data" (identifying source, destination, time, etc.), which is similar to current US law. However, much worse is the requirement that telco providers retain such data for 12-24 months. Text of the draft framework decision is available. Also analysis by Statewatch. Backup link (in case of Slashdot effect)." -
EU Still Looking at Mandatory Data Retention
An anonymous reader writes "Following up on a previous Slashdot article, European civil rights advocacy group Statewatch is detecting more rumbles of a possible weakening of privacy rights in the EU. The European council has been testing the waters for a new policy mandating retention of communications "traffic data" by all member states. The previous policy (adopted May 30) merely allowed an exception to EU privacy law for member states who wished to retain such data. Under the leaked draft proposal, law enforcement is to be allowed access to "traffic data" (identifying source, destination, time, etc.), which is similar to current US law. However, much worse is the requirement that telco providers retain such data for 12-24 months. Text of the draft framework decision is available. Also analysis by Statewatch. Backup link (in case of Slashdot effect)." -
Europol Describes Data Retention Desires
freakyboff writes "Found this on cryptome.org - It's a confidential document from Europol, basically a wish list of all data that they would like people to keep. Many things that violate peoples privacy are in the minimum requirements, such as caller line identification and assigned IP for dial-up Internet access; e-mail and ftp server logs; and companies running web servers should keep information on what information users put on their servers." Statewatch is a good source for more information. I find it odd that Europe is moving from a position of protecting a great deal of data with fairly strong laws to requiring that telecommunications companies store data on their customers for as long as seven years so that law enforcement can go data-mining - skipping the intermediate step of making it optional. -
Digital Surveillance for EC Governments
Joel Rowbottom writes: "The Council of the European Union (the 15 EU governments) is about to back the demands of EU "law enforcement agencies" for full access to all telecommunications data to be written into all Community legislation in the future, and for existing laws to be re-examined - a move that is even more far-reaching than the decision to sign up to the FBI plan for the interception of telecommunications. At the centre is the issue of a seven-year period of data retention. There's a lot more about it at statewatch.org including an up-to-date store of relevant documents." The BBC and the Register have articles about this. Both news articles mention this seven-year data retention period, but I don't see it in any of the recent documents, which only discuss general "requirements" for law enforcement, such as tapping and access to calling records. From what I'm reading, law enforcement seems to be concerned about getting rid of the requirements to erase data about communications traffic (under the EU privacy laws) rather than creating affirmative requirements to store such data.