Advertise On EU-Digest

Annual Advertising Rates
Showing posts with label EU Privacy Laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU Privacy Laws. Show all posts

10/3/17

Social Media -Hate Speech: The EU gave an ultimatum to Facebook and Google about hate speech - by Jacob Kastrenakes

The European Union is once again asking Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other web companies to crack down on hate speech and speech inciting violence and terrorism — but this time, it’s taking things a step further. The European Commission has issued guidelines for web companies to follow, and it’s warning the companies that, if they don’t comply, the Commission may pass legislation. And that legislation, of course, could lead to some huge fines.

There are a handful of guidelines so far. The Commission recommends that web companies appoint a dedicated point of contact, who law enforcement can contact when illegal content is discovered. It wants web companies to allow third-party “trusted flaggers” with “specific expertise in identifying illegal content” to come in and monitor potentially illegal posts. And it asks web companies to invest in technologies that can automatically detect potentially illegal posts and speech.

The Commission would also like companies to do more to prevent illegal content from being reposted after it’s been taken down. And the Commission says time frames may need to be established for how quickly illegal content is taken down once it’s discovered. Web companies should issue public guidelines, the Commission says, so that users know how takedown requests are treated and what kind of content gets removed.

It sounds like a lot, but it mostly boils down to this: web companies should remove illegal content faster and invest in tools and employees to make it happen.

Web companies still take over a week to remove illegal content in more than a quarter of cases, says Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for the digital economy and society. “The situation is not sustainable,” Gabriel says in a statement. “Today we provide a clear signal to platforms to act more responsibly.”

And there’s a good chance web companies will take steps toward following what the European Commission suggests. 

For one, the European Union is known for levying enormous fines on tech companies — like the €2.4 billion fine on Google — and those companies would certainly like to avoid any new legislation coming down that they could one day be in violation of. But also, these companies have already been working with the EU toward reducing hate speech. 

And several European countries have already passed or considered passing their own laws on hate speech that web companies have to comply with.

A year ago, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Microsoft all agreed to hate speech rules, which required the companies to review “the majority of” hateful content within 24 hours of becoming aware of it. 

As a result of the partnership, the companies later teamed up on a new database of images and videos identified as promoting terrorism, helping the platforms quickly pull down content that had already been identified as illegal by another company.

In today’s announcement, Vera Jourová, commissioner for justice and consumers, refers back to that agreement saying it’s proof that asking web companies to more strictly regulate hate speech on their own can work. 

“The code of conduct I agreed with Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft shows that a self-regulatory approach can serve as a good example and can lead to results,” Jourová said. But she also warned that “if the tech companies don't deliver, we will do it."

The Commission says it plans to “carefully” monitor web companies’ progress in implementing these recommendations and assess whether further action needs to be taken. That’s supposed to be completed by next May. 

“Follow-up initiatives will depend on the online platforms' actions to proactively implement the guidelines,” the Commission writes. Further actions, the announcement says, include “possible legislative measures to complement the existing regulatory framework."

Read more: The EU gave an ultimatum to Facebook and Google about hate speech - The Verge

5/21/17

Facebook: The EU is right to take on Facebook, but mere fines don’t protect us from tech giants - by Julia Powles

The indomitable empire of Facebook is being assailed by a volley of arrows from Europe. The latest struck on Thursday: a  Euro 110m fine from the European commission for providing misleading information in 2014 when the commission was doing a merger review on Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp.

In August 2014, Facebook said it was unable to reliably match Facebook and WhatsApp user accounts. But in August 2016, it started doing just that. This fine recognises that Facebook lied about its technical capacities in 2014, a point the company seems to have accepted. The acquisition also allowed it to get a further identifier on its users: their phone number. Extremely valuable as today your phone number is your primary key.

Politicians such as Theresa May seem incapable of seeing the irony of Facebook being fined for lying, just as she accelerates demands to deputise Facebook as an arbiter of truth by enlisting it in the fight against child abuse, terrorism, hate speech, copyright infringement and other ills.

Nowhere in these proposals is there any plan for how effectively to oversee and monitor Facebook in this function or to pull it back if it goes too far.

The maddening reality is that lies, whether by or facilitated by Facebook, have proved to have no impact on the company’s bottom line.

The commission should have seen the permeability of Facebook and WhatsApp accounts coming and adopted a more proactive stance, at the very least by insisting on the firewalling of WhatsApp user data from Facebook. Instead, a spate of privacy and consumer protection cases is now running across Europe, trying to retrofit solutions at the national level.

Read more: The EU is right to take on Facebook, but mere fines don’t protect us from tech giants | Julia Powles | Opinion | The Guardian

1/6/17

Privacy Infringement: European privacy regulators to scrutinize WhatsApp privacy switch - by E.Auchard and A.Wendlandt

Is your personal Data Safe?
Facebook's move to relax the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the world's most popular mobile messaging application, will be closely scrutinized, the chair of Europe's leading group of privacy regulators said on Monday.

WhatsApp, which counts more than a billion users globally, said on Thursday it would start sharing users' phone numbers with Facebook, helping it to target advertisements and friend recommendations across the social media network.

It said WhatsApp users could choose not to share their account information with Facebook.

 "Each European authority will be following the changes made to WhatApp's privacy policy with great vigilance," CNIL, the French data protection commission, and the current chair of the G29 or Article 29 Working Party of European privacy regulators, said in a statement on behalf of the region-wide group.

"What is at stake is the control of individual users over their own data when they are combined by major Internet players."

The G29 is made up of representatives of the data protection authorities of each of Europe's 28-member states, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Commission.

Facebook paid more than $19 billion to acquire WhatsApp, an advertising-free service for sharing texts, pictures and videos with friends and acquaintances. At the time of the deal in 2014, WhatsApp founder Jan Koum vowed to protect data of its users and said the deal would not affect its privacy policy.

In response, Britain's data privacy regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), said it was monitoring the changes to ensure that the new policy stays within data protection laws

The French data protection authority is studying Facebook's response earlier this month to issues the regulator has raised over the company's handling of customer data for targeting advertising to the social network's members.

By Monday several European media including France Info and Switzerland's Le Temps warned readers about the policy change and gave them tips on how to avoid letting WhatsApp handing over their phone number to Facebook.

A CNIL spokeswoman said WhatsApp's privacy policy was likely to be discussed at a planned G29 meeting at the end of the month attended by representatives of each European national privacy regulator.   - Reuters Report

EU-Digest

2/11/16

EU Privacy Laws: EU Commission and USA agree on new framework for transatlantic data flows: EU-US Privacy Shield

EU-US Agreement - Transatlantic Data flows
The College of EU Commissioners recently  approved the political agreement reached and has mandated Vice-President Ansip and Commissioner Jourová to prepare the necessary steps to put in place the new arrangement. This new framework will protect the fundamental rights of Europeans where their data is transferred to the United States and ensure legal certainty for businesses.

The EU-US Privacy Shield reflects the requirements set out by the European Court of Justice in its ruling on 6 October 2015, which declared the old Safe Harbour framework invalid. The new arrangement will provide stronger obligations on companies in the U.S. to protect the personal data of Europeans and stronger monitoring and enforcement by the U.S. Department of Commerce and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), including through increased cooperation with European Data Protection Authorities.

The new arrangement includes commitments by the U.S. that possibilities under U.S. law for public authorities to access personal data transferred under the new arrangement will be subject to clear conditions, limitations and oversight, preventing generalised access. Europeans will have the possibility to raise any enquiry or complaint in this context with a dedicated new Ombudsperson.

Vice-President Ansip said: "We have agreed on a new strong framework on data flows with the US. Our people can be sure that their personal data is fully protected. Our businesses, especially the smallest ones, have the legal certainty they need to develop their activities across the Atlantic. We have a duty to check and we will closely monitor the new arrangement to make sure it keeps delivering. Today's decision helps us build a Digital Single Market in the EU, a trusted and dynamic online environment; it further strengthens our close partnership with the US. We will work now to put it in place as soon as possible."

Commissioner Jourová said: "The new EU-US Privacy Shield will protect the fundamental rights of Europeans when their personal data is transferred to U.S. companies. For the first time ever, the United States has given the EU binding assurances that the access of public authorities for national security purposes will be subject to clear limitations, safeguards and oversight mechanisms. Also for the first time, EU citizens will benefit from redress mechanisms in this area. In the context of the negotiations for this agreement, the US has assured that it does not conduct mass or indiscriminate surveillance of Europeans. We have established an annual joint review in order to closely monitor the implementation of these commitments."

The new arrangement will include the following elements:
  • Strong obligations on companies handling Europeans' personal data and robust enforcement: U.S. companies wishing to import personal data from Europe will need to commit to robust obligations on how personal data is processed and individual rights are guaranteed. The Department of Commerce will monitor that companies publish their commitments, which makes them enforceable under U.S. law by the US. Federal Trade Commission. In addition, any company handling human resources data from Europe has to commit to comply with decisions by European DPAs.
  • Clear safeguards and transparency obligations on U.S. government access: For the first time, the US has given the EU written assurances that the access of public authorities for law enforcement and national security will be subject to clear limitations, safeguards and oversight mechanisms. These exceptions must be used only to the extent necessary and proportionate. The U.S. has ruled out indiscriminate mass surveillance on the personal data transferred to the US under the new arrangement. To regularly monitor the functioning of the arrangement there will be an annual joint review, which will also include the issue of national security access. The European Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce will conduct the review and invite national intelligence experts from the U.S. and European Data Protection Authorities to it.
  • Effective protection of EU citizens' rights with several redress possibilities: Any citizen who considers that their data has been misused under the new arrangement will have several redress possibilities. Companies have deadlines to reply to complaints. European DPAs can refer complaints to the Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission. In addition, Alternative Dispute resolution will be free of charge. For complaints on possible access by national intelligence authorities, a new Ombudsperson will be created.
Next steps
The College has today mandated Vice-President Ansip and Commissioner Jourová to prepare a draft "adequacy decision" in the coming weeks, which could then be adopted by the College after obtaining the advice of the Article 29 Working Party and after consulting a committee composed of representatives of the Member States. In the meantime, the U.S. side will make the necessary preparations to put in place the new framework, monitoring mechanisms and new Ombudsman.

Background
On 6 October, the Court of Justice declared in the Schrems case that Commission’s Decision on the Safe Harbour arrangement was invalid. The judgment confirmed the Commission's approach since November 2013 to review the Safe Harbour arrangement, to ensure in practice a sufficient level of data protection as required by EU law.

On 15 October, Vice-President Ansip, Commissioners Oettinger and Jourová met business and industry representatives who asked for a clear and uniform interpretation of the ruling, as well as more clarity on the instruments they could use to transfer data.

On 16 October, the 28 national data protection authorities (Article 29 Working Party) issued a statement on the consequences of the judgment.

On 6 November, the Commission issued guidance for companies on the possibilities of transatlantic data transfers following the ruling until a new framework is put in place.

On 2 December, the College of Commissioners discussed the progress of the negotiations. Commissioner Jourová received a mandate to pursue the negotiations on a renewed and safe framework with the US.

EU-Digest

11/10/15

EU Privacy Laws: Facebook given 48 hours to quit tracking Internet users in Belgium

Facebook has been given 48 hours by a Belgian court to stop tracking Internet users who don’t have profiles with the social media company, or face fines of up to 250,000 euros a day.

The order follows a case lodged by Belgium’s privacy watchdog in June which said Facebook indiscriminately tracks Internet users when they visit pages on the site or click “like” or “share”, even if they are not members, the court said.

Facebook said it would appeal against the decision.

“Today the judge… ordered the social network Facebook to stop tracking and registering Internet usage by people who surf the Internet in Belgium, in the 48 hours which follow this statement,” the court said.

“If Facebook ignores this order it must pay a fine of 250,000 euros a day to the Belgian Privacy Commission.”

Read more: Facebook given 48 hours to quit tracking Internet users in Belgium | euronews, world news

10/6/15

EU Privacy Laws: Top EU court backs student in landmark Facebook privacy case

Europe's highest court has ruled in favor of an Austrian law student who claims a trans-Atlantic data protection agreement doesn't adequately protect consumers.

The case, which cites data Facebook allegedly provides to US intelligence agencies, has far-reaching implications for tech companies doing business in Europe.

Read more: Europe - Top EU court backs student in landmark Facebook privacy case - France 24

9/22/15

Internet: EU lawmakers fight cries of ‘digital protectionism - by Adam Sneed

As Europe’s digital chief heads stateside today, a coalition of EU lawmakers is speaking out against accusations that their continent is engaging in “digital protectionism.” Those claims have come from a number of American officials and executives — including President Barack Obama — in light of Europe’s efforts to unify its digital market as well as regulatory actions against Apple, Google, Amazon and others.

“As Members of European Parliament we are surprised and concerned about the strong statements coming from U.S. sources about regulatory and legislative proposals on the digital agenda for the EU,” they write in a statement to be released today, signed by more than 50 lawmakers. “The political debates on the way forward are not a 'Transatlantic rift' and should not be made into one. Rather they represent different views and beliefs that run right through our societies. We consider close cooperation between the EU and the U.S. as vital in a changing world.”

EU commissioner for digital affairs, told The Wall Street Journal over the weekend. He’s starting a U.S. trip today to meet with government officials and Silicon Valley executives, including Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, where he’ll try to ease concerns that the EU’s actions are targeting the American tech sector (http://on.wsj.com/1Fbpbrw). Oettinger is scheduled to speak more on the subject Thursday morning at the Center for Transatlantic Relations

Read more: EU lawmakers fight cries of ‘digital protectionism - POLI

4/7/15

EU Privacy Laws: Facebook ‘breaks EU laws’ tracking all visitors, even non-users

Even if you have opted out of the tracking option in Facebook, or don’t have account at all, the company is still watching your web movements through the use of social plugins, thereby breaking EU laws, says a report by the Belgian Privacy Commission.

A report commissioned by the BPC has discovered that Facebook tracks everyone, even logged-out users or people who don’t have an account at all, primarily through the use of cookies and the ‘like’ button which is found on more than 13 million websites worldwide.
 
According to EU law, websites must receive a user’s permission before placing any cookies on their computers. The automatic placement of tracking cookies is in “violation of European law,” that is why all EU websites ask users to ‘allow cookies’ on the first visit.

By default Facebook installs tracking cookies – tiny files containing user’s settings and previous activity – upon a visit to any page on the facebook.com domain, which translates into tracking users for advertising purposes across non-Facebook websites.

However, as the report found, for non-users or those who opted out, Facebook instead installed a special cookie called ‘datr’ which still contains a unique identifier and thus could be used to track user during every visit to a website containing a Facebook ‘like’ button.

Read more: Facebook ‘breaks EU laws’ tracking all visitors, even non-users – report — RT News

6/3/14

EU Privacy Laws: Google starts data erasure in Europe

Google started implementing a controversial data erasure provision for Europeans on Thursday, giving users the opportunity to apply to have their names removed from the results of some searches.

The development followed a European Court of Justice ruling that upheld an individual's "right to be forgotten" by deleting links to personal information that is outdated or inaccurate. About 90 percent of all web searches in Europe are through Google.

An online form is now available on Google sites in EU countries that gives users the opportunity to submit a request to have information removed. The form asks for identification and which links should be deleted and why.

Read more: Google starts data erasure in Europe | Business | DW.DE | 30.05.2014

12/4/13

Europe’s reaction to NSA spying ‘totally inadequate, no action, nothing more than words’


EU reaction to NSA spying inadequate
So far European governments reactions to the people’s anger about NSA spying on European Citizens has been totally inadequate, says Paul Murphy, Irish Member of the European Parliament from the Socialist Party in an interview with Russian TV station RT. He says this mainly is the result of the fact that most governments have put a lid on it, as the interests of big businesses prevails.

"What it illustrates", said Murphy,  "is the deep-rooted hypocrisy of the leaders of all countries of Europe and really around the world. Whereby they are happy to criticize other people spying on themselves, but they are all engaged in this, all of the major powers in the world are engaged in massive spying against each other. But also most importantly, states are involved in spying against their own people and other peoples around the world. I think what should come out from ordinary people across Europe is a clear message that we are opposed to the building of a security state, which is what’s happening, we are opposed to this massive surveillance of people and of elective representatives, and we demand people’s right to privacy".

"I think the response of the EU has been entirely inadequate", says Murphy, "and it’s being words and nothing more than words, while they continue, for example, with the negotiations on the EU-US free-trade agreement. I think it’s because they know the whole thing is full of hypocrisy and they know they are guilty probably as much as their technical capacities allows relative to the US. And I think it’s only through developing a movement and big pressure from below that the most important issue here – people’s, individuals’ rights of privacy, individual rights not to be spied upon, that that can prevail and can become a factor in the situation"

Basically the EU Commission and the EU parliament are sitting on their hands when it comes to properly handling the NSA spying affair on EU Citizens. It is  another example of why the confidence in the political establishment of the Europe Union has reached an all-time low.

7/26/13

Google does not have to delete sensitive information, says European court - final judgement not before the end of 2013 - by Juliette Garside

The European court of justice, where judges were asked to rule on whether Google should be treated under law as a publisher of information or simply a host. Photograph: Image Broker/Rex Features
Google is not obliged to delete personal information from its search results, even when that information damages an individual's reputation, an adviser to the European court of justice has decided.

In a long-running case about the "right to be forgotten" by search engines, judges have been asked to rule on whether Google should be treated under law as a publisher of information or simply a host.

The case is not due to conclude before the end of 2013 but if the court backs the adviser's findings it will spare Google from a flood of legal claims seeking the retraction of material from its searches.

The case is based on a complaint by Mario Costeja, a Spaniard who made a Google search of his name and found a newspaper announcement from 15 years earlier saying a property he owned was up for auction because of non-payment of social security contributions.

Costeja asked for the sensitive information to be deleted from Google's search results, arguing that his debts had been repaid and it was disproportionate that information that could damage his reputation with clients, employers or friends was so prominent so long after the event.

One of Spain's top courts upheld his complaint, deeming Google to be making money out of Costeja's personal data, and the case was referred to the European court of justice in March last year after Google challenged the decision.

Niilo Jääskinen, an advocate general of the European court of justice, said that companies operating in the European Union must adhere to national data protection legislation, but that did not oblige them to remove personal content produced by others.

Read more: Google does not have to delete sensitive information, says European court | Technology | The Guardian

6/10/13

PRISM: Edward Snowden: saving us from the United "Stasi" of America - by Daniel Ellsberg

Dasniel Ellsberg says: "In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material – and that includes the Pentagon Papers, for which I was responsible 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back what has amounted to an "executive coup" against the US constitution.

Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.

The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, and with the broadest possible interpretation. This makes mockery of the rule of law, let alone of the bill of rights. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp."

For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is a nonsense – as is the oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. The fact that their leaders were briefed on this and went along with it, without question, only shows how broken the system of accountability is in this country."

As one of the  founders of the US,  James Madison wrote:
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
When national security is invoked in the United States, that is what we now have. In effect, Congress has delegated its responsibilities and powers to the executive. The oversight structure has been shown to be a total sham: the congressional committees concerned have been totally co-opted. They are simply black holes of information that the public needs to know.

The surveillance revealed by Snowden's disclosures exposes this executive coup: that this is done with Congress briefed, but without the ability to resist or even debate the measures openly, makes a mockery of the separation of powers. What has been created is the infrastructure of a police state.

I do not say that the United States is a police state. We have not seen the mass detentions that would complete that process. But given the extent of this invasion of people's privacy, we do have the electronic and legislative infrastructure of one. If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale anti-war movement – like the one we had against the war in Vietnam – I fear for our democracy. If the government had then had the capability that it has now, I do not doubt there would have been mass detentions. These powers are extremely dangerous.

Read more: Edward Snowden: saving us from the United Stasi of America | Daniel Ellsberg | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

6/9/13

Privacy Protection: How to secure and encrypt your email and other communications from PRISM and the NSA. - by Ryan Gallagher

Not every communication can be tracked and eavesdropped on by the government, however, and there are ways to reduce the chances of being snooped on. First, instead of browsing the Internet in a way that reveals your IP address, you can mask your identity by using an anonymizing tool like Tor or by connecting to the Web using a Virtual Private Network. Additionally, you can avoid Google search by using an alternative like Ixquick, which has solid privacy credentials and says it does not log any IP addresses or search terms or share information with third parties.

When it comes to sending emails, if you are using a commercial provider that has been linked to the PRISM spy initiative, you can throw a spanner in the NSA’s works by learning how to send and receive encrypted emails. PGP or its free cousin GPG are considered the standard for email security, and these can be used to both encrypt and decrypt messages—meaning you can thwart surveillance unless you are unlucky enough to have Trojan spyware installed on your computer.

Novice computer users learning how to use PGP or GPG may find it a daunting prospect at first, but there are plenty of tutorials online for both Mac and Windows users that can help guide you through the process. For journalists working with confidential sources, attorneys seeking to ensure attorney–client privilege, or others whose work requires secure communications, learning how to use PGP or GPG is an absolute necessity in 2013. Organizations seeking to protect themselves from email grabs could go one step further: They could take more control of their messages by setting up their own email server instead of relying on a third-party service, helping ensure no secret court orders can be filed to gain covert access to confidential files. And if you need to store private documents online, you can use Cloudfogger in conjunction with Dropbox.

For instant messaging and online phone or video chats, you can avoid Microsoft and Google services like Skype and Gchat by adopting more secure alternatives. Jitsi can be used for peer-to-peer encrypted video calls, and for encrypted instant message chats you can try using an “off the record” plugin with Pidgin for Windows users or Adium for Mac. Like using PGP encryption, both Pidgin and Adium can take a little bit of work to set up—but there are tutorials to help ease the pain, like this for setting up Adium and this tutorial for Pidgin.

As for phone calls, if you want to shield against eavesdropping or stop the NSA obtaining records of who you are calling and when, there are a few options. You could use an encryption app like Silent Circle to make and receive encrypted calls and send encrypted texts and files, though your communications will be fully secure only if both parties to the call, text or file transfer are using the app. Other than Silent Circle, you could try RedPhone for making encrypted calls or TextSecure for sending encrypted texts.

Read more: How to secure and encrypt your email and other communications from PRISM and the NSA.

6/7/13

PRISM, secret US government spying program, mines data from Google, Facebook and others

A career intelligence officer has provided PowerPoint slides and other materials to the Washington Post that reveal that the US National Security Agency and the FBI have been tapping directly into the servers of nine US Internet companies through a clandestine government program called PRISM. The program was launched in 2007.

The nine companies – Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple – allow analysts free reign to extract audio, video, photographs, emails, Skype chats, documents and connection logs from their servers, according to the Washington Post.

Several of the companies told the Guardian, however, that they had never heard of PRISM and had not granted the government secret access to their servers.

"Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data," the search company said in a statement. "We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."

Facebook, Yahoo and Apple have made similar denials.

Read more: PRISM, secret US government spying program, mines data from Google, Facebook and others: report | GlobalPost