Trädtopp Live at Sazz N Jazz (Brussels 18 November 2015)

Find below the latest video from our concert at Sazz N Jazz last 28 November 2015 in Brussels.

Set 1:

1. Greasy Granny
2. Wake Me Up
3. Crystal University
4. Nothing Ever
5. Visa från Rättvik
6. Spain
7. This Masquerade
8. Afro Blue

Set 2:

1. Ain’t no sunshine
2. Haiyan
3. Angle Eyes
4. Gaia
5. Lullaby of Birdland
6. Emigrantvisa
7. Is it a crime
8. Time after time
9. Alors On Danse

Johanna Bernsel – song;
Thomas Kallstenius – flute, sax;
Gunnar Gillfors – piano;
Carlo Lombardi – bass;
Diego Naranjo – drums

Advertisements

Copyright reform: Restoring the facade of a decrepit building

Originally published at: https://edri.org/copyright-reform-restoring-the-facadeof-a-decrepit-building/

“The Special Rapporteur also proposes to expand copyright exceptions and limitations to empower new creativity, enhance rewards to authors, increase educational opportunities, preserve space for non-commercial culture and promote inclusion and access to cultural works.”

These recommendations come from the 2014 report on Copyright policy and the right to science and culture, from the UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Farida Shaheed.

On 9 December 2015, the European Commission presented its Communication on a new framework for a “modern, more European copyright”. The Communication focuses on access to content across the EU, adapting some exceptions, attempting to improve the market, and enforcing certain aspects of copyright.

................................................................. Support our work - make a recurrent donation! https://edri.org/supporters/ .................................................................

Unfortunately, however, the Commission has lost an important opportunity to launch a real reform of the broken and outdated EU copyright framework. Its Communication lacks the ambition to challenge the powerful lobbying from investors and rights-holders, and make copyright rules truly fit for the 21st century – for the benefit of all. After admitting that the “fragmentation of copyright rules in the EU is particularly visible in the areas of exceptions”, the Commission seems to be committed to not to do anything about it. By focusing only on the “low-hanging fruit” (exceptions for education and research, freedom of panorama, geo-blocking…), the Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society Günther Oettinger and Vice-President of the EU Commission Andrus Ansip are presenting a public relations campaign on the “changes” for the Digital Single Market, rather than a powerful policy document that deals with the challenges which need to be addressed.

The oldest of the norms governing copyright in the EU, the so-called InfoSoc Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society), was passed before the existence of YouTube, WordPress and Facebook. Despite the challenges and proposals mentioned in the Commission’s copyright consultation in 2014 and in the European Parliament report on the implementation of the InfoSoc Directive, the Commission failed to take them into consideration in its Communication.

Among the missing aspects that the Commission seems to be avoiding is the need to harmonise the system of exceptions and limitations fully and to make it more flexible, as United Nations (UN) Rapporteur Farida Shaheed suggested in her report. Under current EU copyright law, the exceptions and limitations listed in the InfoSoc Directive must, by law, comply with the strict interpretation of the Berne Convention’s three-step test. Therefore, there is no justification of not making all exceptions and limitations mandatory since they comply with international law, and there is no undue loss on the part of the rights-holder.

Finally, the Communication has also failed to step up firmly against the circumvention of legislators’ decisions. The Commission needs to state clear for once and for all that when democratic decisions have been made to grant flexibilities to copyright, technology companies need to abide by the law. However, this is exactly the opposite of what happens today. Companies such as Google (via its Content ID tool) allow the automatic deletion of content that is perfectly legal under EU law, while digital restriction technologies prevent private copying, even where this has been permitted by legislators.

This issue of enforcement is also one of the topics included in the ongoing public consultation on platforms, for which EDRi prepared an answering guide and a submission tool. It will also be tackled during the consultation on the enforcement of so-called Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) that the Commission launched on 9 December. Citizens now have the opportunity to raise their voice and provide a counterweight to arguments based on, for example, the flawed statistics prepared by the Office for the Harmonization of the Internal market (OHIM) and the European Patent Office (EPO) which have recently been myth-busted by the Copyright for Creativity Coalition (C4C). EDRi encourages everyone to answer these two consultations, to make citizens’ and civil society’s voices heard.

European Commission Communication: Towards a modern, more European copyright framework (09.12.2015)
http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=12526

EDRi tool to respond to the EC Consultation on Platforms (08.12.2015)
https://edri.org/platformsconsultationtool/

EDRi: EDRi summary report of responses to the copyright consultation (30.07.2014)
https://edri.org/summary-report-responses-copyright-consultation/

European Commission launches consultation on IPR enforcement (09.12.2015)
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8580

YouTube’s Content ID (C)ensorship Problem Illustrated (02.03.2010)
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/youtubes-content-id-c-ensorship-problem

C4C: Copyright Myths and Facts
http://copyright4creativity.eu/myths-facts/

(Contribution by: Diego Naranjo, EDRi)

FAQ: Passenger Name Records (PNR)

(Originally published at: https://edri.org/faq-pnr/)

The European Union will adopt soon a Directive on the long-term storage and use of “Passenger Name Records” (PNR) for the purpose of profiling individuals as possible serious criminals or terrorists.

What is a Passenger Name Records (PNR)?

Passenger Name Records (PNR) include information provided by passengers and collected by air carriers for commercial purposes. PNR can contain several pieces of additional information such as dates, itinerary and contact details. All PNR data is stored in airlines’ databases.

PNR was originally intended to be used only as a record that contains the itinerary for a passenger or for a passengers traveling as part of a group. The idea was to allow the exchange of reservation information between airlines in case passengers required using different companies in order to reach their final destination.  The PNR is created when someone books a flight. At that moment, the travel agent or the website managing the trip creates a PNR in a  computer reservation system (CRS).

What kind of data is included?

Passenger Name Records (PNR) now can include every type of data provided by the passengers, such as, but not only, the date of the trip and complete itinerary, the name and contact information, the form of payment, frequent flyer information, meal preferences and medical information. In some cases, the airlines will have access to other data such as hotel bookings, car rentals, train journeys, travel associates, etc.

Optionally, agencies may also require more data, such as fare details, tax amounts paid, the form of payment used, further contact details, age details if it is relevant to the travel, frequent flyer data and special Service Requests.

The full list of data required by the EU PNR Directive is:

  1. PNR record locator
  2. Date of reservation/issue of ticket
  3. Date(s) of intended travel
  4. Name(s)
  5. Address and contact information (t elephone number, e-mail address)
  6. All forms of payment information, including billing address
  7. Complete travel itinerary for specific PNR
  8. Frequent flyer information
  9. Travel agency/travel agent
  10. Travel status of passenger, including confirmations, check-in status, no show or go show information
  11. Split/divided PNR information
  12. General remarks (including all available information on unaccompanied minors under 18 years, such as name and gender of the minor, age, language(s) spoken, name and contact details of guardian on departure and relationship to the minor, name and contact details of guardian on arrival and relationship to the minor, departure and arrival agent)
  13. Ticketing field information, including ticket number, date of ticket issuance and one-way tickets, Automated Ticket Fare Quote fields
  14. Seat number and other seat information
  15. Code share information
  16. All baggage information
  17. Number and other names of travellers on PNR
  18. Any Advance Passenger Information (API) data collected (inter alia document type, document number, nationality, country of issuance, date of document expiration, family name, given name, gender, date of birth, airline, flight number, departure date, arrival date, departure port, arrival port, departure time, arrival time)
  19. All historical changes to the PNR listed in numbers 1 to 18

What does PNR add in terms of prevention of terrorism and transnational crimes to other existing systems?

Nothing. There are other ways to access this type of information. For example, law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies can require to access PNR data via a court order, following the regular procedures prescribed by law.

Furthermore, other measures that authorities can use to identify subjects who may be involved in criminal activity, such as the Schengen Information System(1), the Visa Information System(2), Eurodac(3) and ECRIS(4)  and API data (Advance Passenger Information).

Is it true that PNR will help to stop terrorists?

No. In many of the recent terrorist attacks the terrorists had already been flagged as people who needed further tracking.  Thus, the attackers from the last terrorist incident in Paris were already known to French authorities and details of their travels were also known (7). An EU PNR Directive would not have brought any more security, only more risks. For example, there have already been cases of people being wrongly labeled on these lists based on profiling schemes and, consequently, handed over to repressive regimes and tortured (8).

Rather than creating new surveillance measures, the EU should look for more active and effective cooperation between law enforcement agencies in the EU(5)(6).

Has the EU PNR Directive been proved to be effective, proportionate or necessary?

No. The Directive is being adopted despite concerns raised by the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and Article 29 Working Party. A study undertaken for the Council of Europe explained that “no serious, verifiable evidence has been produced by the proponents of compulsory suspicionless data collection to show that data mining and profiling by means of the bulk data in general, or the compulsory addition of bulk PNR data to the data mountains already created in particular, is even suitable to the ends supposedly being pursued –let alone that it is effective”.(9)

However, the supporters for PNR seem to follow the unquestioning belief that any form of long-term data storage – including PNR – will be valuable.

What is EDRi’s view on PNR systems?

The right to privacy and the right to data protection are fundamental rights. They are not just a social convention, but legally enforceable rights, enshrined in the Treaties, laws and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, infringements of fundamental rights (by long-term storage of such data) are only permissible if they “genuinely meet objectives of general interest”. PNR does not respect this principle.

What are the main problems of the EU PNR proposal?

  • Unlawful Blanket Data Retention: After the European Court of Justice ruling that the invalidated the Data Retention Directive, it is difficult to believe that the current PNR proposal would be considered lawful.
  • Excessive Data Retention Period: Even if the retention of data would be considered legitimate, in the PNR context the proposed five-year period significantly longer than could be reasonably deemed as necessary or proportionate. In the European Court hearing on data retention, neither the European Commission nor the individual Member States were able to give any justification for the retention periods demanded.
  • Lack of concrete protections from arbitrariness: In the text, it is unclear how the profiling will be done.
  • There are existing measures (VIS(10), SIS(11) and API(12) which already provide sufficient information: There is no evidence on whether another system would be needed.
  • Lack of evidence showing that these measures are effective, necessary and proportionate in the investigation or prevention of serious crimes: From the European Commission’s own impact assessment (13), there is no concrete evidence on the actual usefulness of PNR collection for the tackling of serious crime or terrorist offences. It is particularly worrying that the European Commission states in its proposal that “PNR data is unverified information provided by passengers” (14) while remaining convinced – despite their questionable accuracy – it could be used in real time “to prevent a crime”.
  • Lack of proportionality: Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and Article 29 Working Party agree on the lack of proportionality of the proposal. The proposed EU PNR system foresees data collection and analysis for all passengers on international flights without any sort of targeting.
  • Excessive costs: Transposing such Directive will bring significant costs for Member States. The high expenditure is confirmed by the European Commission’s impact assessment, which put the cost at hundreds of millions of euro.

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner


1 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen-information-system/index_en.htm

2 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-information-system/index_en.htm

3 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/identification-of-applicants/index_en.htm

4 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/european-e-justice/ecris/index_en.htm

5 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/justice-home-affairs/verhofstadt-calls-creation-eu-intelligence-agency-319630

6 http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/apr/ep-study-leas-exchange-info-data.pdf

7 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320070/The-deadly-blunders-run-Paris-terrorist-centre-international-manhunt-stopped-released-French-police-Belgian-border-hours-deadly-attacks.html

8 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/cdmsi/Rule_of_Law_Internet_Digital_World.pdf

9 https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/dataprotection/TPD_documents/T-PD%282015%2911_PNR%20draft%20report%20Douwe%20Korff%20&%20Marie%20Georges_15%2006%202015.pdf

10 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l14517_en.htm

11 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen-information-system/index_en.htm

12 http://www.icao.int/Security/FAL/Documents/2010%20API%20Guidelines%20Final%20Version.ICAO.2011%20full%20×2.pdf

13 European Commission impact assessment on the proposal for an EU PNR Directive: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_0132_en.pdf

14 Commission proposal for a Directive on the use of Passenger Name records, Page 3: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/com_2011_32_en.pdf

Unión Europea: luchar por la transparencia para una democracia plena

Diego Naranjo y Maryant Fernández
European Digital Rights (EDRi)

(publicado originalmente en El 4º Poder en red: http://blogs.publico.es/el-cuarto-poder-en-red/2015/12/03/union-europea-luchar-por-la-transparencia-para-una-democracia-plena/)

Bruselas es el epicentro de un proceso de toma de decisiones que afecta a más de 500 millones de personas y que casi nadie ve. A esta invisibilidad se suma la falta de transparencia en los procesos legislativos europeos. Los llamados “trílogos” y las negociaciones sobre los tratados comerciales son dos claros ejemplos de falta de transparencia, pero también una demostración de que cuando se lucha por ella, la democracia mejora.

Las trabas que hay que pasar para entrar a la sede del Parlamento Europeo en Bruselas son un buen reflejo de cómo funciona el proceso legislativo de la Unión: Mientras los turistas tienen las puertas abiertas al Parlamentarium –el centro de visitas de la Eurocámara– las casetas de obras bloquean la entrada principal del edificio desde hace semanas. Tal y como ocurre con estas barreras físicas, el acceso a los documentos oficiales se encuentra también tras varias barreras que hay que saber sortear.

Uno de los procedimientos más opacos, pero a su vez el más utilizado para aprobar nuevas medidas legislativas comunitarias, son los llamados “trílogos”. Los trílogos son una serie de reuniones entre un número muy reducido de representantes del Parlamento Europeo, del Consejo de la Unión Europea y de la Comisión Europea. Originalmente pensados como una vía excepcional para acelerar la toma de decisiones mediante acuerdos “informales”, estas reuniones a puerta cerrada liman y deciden los aspectos esenciales de la normativas comunitarias. Sólo aquellos que tienen contactos en las instituciones podrán tener acceso a los documentos, notas de reuniones y comentarios informales sobre las diferentes propuestas. ¿Y los ciudadanos?

Los ciudadanos tienen que recurrir a ONGs que tengan el peso, experiencia y conocimiento suficiente para poder tener también los contactos y recursos necesarios para acceder y analizar el material obtenido. Como es fácil de imaginar, la correlación de fuerzas entre lobbies y la sociedad civil es tal que mientras que unos luchamos para no ahogarnos en documentos de tres, cuatro o cinco columnas con las diferentes versiones de una normativa y seguir a tiempo las filtraciones que llegan de diferentes fuentes (Wikileaks, Statewatch de otras ONGs como EDRi), los lobbies tienen auténticos ejércitos de informantes, analistas y personal de comunicación para hacer llegar su mensaje.

Pero, si los trílogos son opacos, las negociaciones de los tratados de libre comercio (TTIP, TISA, CETA…) son el secretismo elevado a la enésima potencia. Bajo la excusa de que la publicación de documentos puede perjudicar las “relaciones internacionales” (especialmente entre la UE y los Estados Unidos), las negociaciones son confidenciales hasta el punto de que hasta hace poco, sólo una treintena de diputados (de un total de 750) tenían acceso a los documentos, si bien en una habitación especial en la que los teléfonos y los ordenadores no pueden ser usados.

Afortunadamente, hoy tenemos una novedad. Gracias a la presión pública y la creciente oposición a estos tratados comerciales negociados en la opacidad, la Defensora del Pueblo Europeo inició una investigación y consulta pública sobre la transparencia del TTIP, a la cual muchos respondimos. ¿El resultado? La Defensora del Pueblo ejerció presión para que haya más transparencia y la Dirección General del Comercio de la Comisión Europea elaboró una estrategia para lograrlo. Desde ayer, 2 de diciembre, todos los eurodiputados tendrán acceso a los documentos del TTIP y los mandatos de la Comisión en relación al TTIP y a TiSA han sido publicados. Mañana, el Comité de Política Comercial del Consejo discutirá sobre si hace lo mismo con el tratado comercial con Canadá, el CETA.

En cuanto a los trílogos, la Defensora del Pueblo Europeo también ha lanzado una investigación contra las tres instituciones involucradas. Grupos de activistas que incluyen a EDRi, Access Now, Access Info Europe, Corporate Europe Observatory, Statewatch o X-net han solicitado una reforma de los trílogos para que sean transparentes, abiertos y que los políticos estén sujetos al escrutinio público.

Los políticos europeos no pueden seguir dando la espalda a los ciudadanos y tomar decisiones de manera secreta. Para ello, la transparencia es fundamental. Luchar por la transparencia es luchar por la democracia.