Digital Single market plans published - EC interoperability agenda for 2017 onwards

DSM package of 18 April, contains 4 Communications (Standardisation, Cloud, IoT and eGovernment Action Plan). All these will setup the agenda for months to come.

On Standards it will specifically refer to the new Priority ICT standardisation Plan to which we have contributed and introduce an EU catalogue for Standards. There will also be a link to the revision of the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) which has just gone out for consultation. 

On Cloud, the focus is on the creation of a European Science Cloud, on high investments to create exascale infrastructures and also on the free flow of data initiative (FFDI). The FFDI inception report should be published any day now and the impact assessment together with the legislative proposal should be published end of November. 

The copyright reform is ongoing, with the legislative proposal now expected in October 2016 (previsouly June 2016). For now, another public consultation has been launched, covering the anciallary copyright and freedom of panorama (deadline 15 June).

On cybersecurity, we have replied to the public consultation which closed in March and have also sent a letter to the relevant EC representatives (both docs are in our Library). For now, that the GDPR and NIS were agreed, the discussion is all around blockchain and virtual currencies, with the EP being in the process of adopting an own initiative report (led by ECON committee) with their key points on the topic. A public consultation on the ePrivacy Directive is about to open every day now. ENISA is now focusing on the transposition of the NIS Directive providing guidelines to Member States. On GDPR, several means to assess its impact have been put in place at national level.

EU Internet Forum against terrorist content and hate speech online

EU Internet Forum against terrorist content and hate speech online: Document pool - EDRi: "What is the EU Internet Forum?

According to the European Commission, the IT-Forum’s mission is to “counter terrorist content and hate speech online”. It brings together almost exclusively US Internet companies (such as Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Google and Ask.fm), government officials and law enforcement agencies.

 While it is certainly important to address and prosecute illegal online activity, it is worrying that the EU Commission proposes yet again an initiative to encourage Internet companies to take “voluntary” actions in response to a very diverse range of possibly illegal or unwanted online activity.

As shown through numerous examples in the UK or France, such voluntary measures often come with collateral damage and have a negative impact on the freedom of expression." 'via Blog this'

ICANN analyzed by Karl Auerbach (then-Board Member)

ICANN Interview - Karl Auerbach Board Member: "As for Verisign - wow, ICANN and NTIA have been like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to Verisign. It was utterly outrageous how ICANN let its outside attorney give all of those gifts to Verisign in at least three distinct contracts. As I said on the phone, Verisign's negotiating team is so good at negotiating the pants off of ICANN and NTIA that we ought to send 'em to the Middle East to work out a peace settlement. It is amazing how ICANN and NTIA transformed Verisign's job to maintain .com, .net, and .org into permanent ownership. It's as if the US National Park service were to give the entire Grand Canyon to the company that was hired to run the hotel.

 It is outrageous that the users of the internet are being required to give up their privacy because a few trademark owners are too cheap to use the legal system. And those "law enforcement" folks at the FTC and elsewhere are trying to do an end-run around the 4th amendment by getting ICANN to violate people's privacy rather than them doing their jobs and getting a subpoena.

 Indeed whois is Megan's Law in reverse. Unlike Megan's law that publishes information about predators to the potential victims, the whois publishes the potential victims to the predators. I have my own TLD, .ewe, that is a business that will never be because ICANN, as a combination in restraint of trade, won't let me into the only viable marketplace to try my idea and risk my money. In .ewe I would use public key based certificates to represent domain name ownership. Because those could be traded without my knowledge there is no way that .ewe could present a Whois. Folks who want to complain about a web provider or spammer ought to use the IP address information, not the DNS whois. The IP information is far more likely to be accurate and lead to a real person who can lay hands on the accused computer." 'via Blog this'

Minister Ed Vaizey oral evidence - The Digital Economy - 22 Mar 2016

Oral evidence - The Digital Economy - 22 Mar 2016: "I am not going to say that I want Apple or Google broken up.

What I would say is that I do think—funnily enough, what I said to the Commissioner—that it is perfectly valid for the Commission to be looking at platforms regulation as part of the digital single market. There is an issue, and my personal starting point is, how do we protect the consumer? How do we ensure that I as an Apple customer can move, should I decide to become a Samsung customer?

I want regulation in place that makes it as easy possible for me to move my data from one of those companies to another. I want it to be as easy as possible to leave Facebook to join whatever emerging social media company may be going. If I have spent five years on Facebook accumulating photos and posts, I want to move to a system—I am not saying this will happen overnight—where you can change your social media or technology provider as easily as you might in theory change your telephone provider."'via Blog this'

For better or for worse? The Commission and its ‘better regulation’ agenda

For better or for worse? The Commission and its ‘better regulation’ agenda | Consumer Corner: [BEUC] "But are we supposed to be reassured? The deal was negotiated without any involvement of the data protection authorities, let alone public interest organisations, and the Commission was under pressure from many, including US, business interests, not to interfere with data flowing across the Atlantic. The Commission has already held meetings with business representatives to inform them of the details of the new agreement, but the actual texts are still not available publically.

Even more worrying is that this Privacy Shield does not solve the underlying problem: the EU and US have fundamentally different and therefore incompatible approaches to personal data protection.

The Commission is showing some worrying signs.

In trying to appease voices critical of its policies, it is giving up on some of its core responsibilities. What the Commission calls ‘better’ regulation should not come at any cost. And certainly not at the expense of fundamental rights or of consumer protection." 'via Blog this'

Facebook hit by German competition probe - FT.com

Facebook hit by German competition probe - FT.com: "The Bundeskartellamt said that Facebook collected large amounts of personal user data from various sources. “To access the social network, users must first agree to the company's collection and use of their data by accepting the terms of service,” it said. However, it “is difficult for users to understand and assess the scope of the agreement accepted by them”.
It said there was “considerable doubt” as to whether such a procedure was admissible under national data protection laws. “If there is a connection between such an infringement and market dominance, this could also constitute an abusive practice under competition law.” 

Facebook said: “We are confident that we comply with the law and we look forward to working with the Federal Cartel Office to answer their questions.” 

Tech industry sources said Facebook had been blindsided by the German move.
The Bundeskartellamt said it was launching the proceeding in close contact with data protection officers, consumer protection associations as well as the European Commission and the competition authorities of other EU member states. It will target the company’s Irish subsidiary and its German operation." 'via Blog this'

Apple’s “Code = Speech” Mistake

Apple’s “Code = Speech” Mistake:

"The right question to ask is whether the government’s regulation of a particular kind of code (just like regulations of spending, or speaking, or writing) threatens the values of free expression. Some regulations of code will undoubtedly implicate the First Amendment. Regulations of the expressive outputs of code, like the content of websites or video games, have already been recognized by the Supreme Court as justifying full First Amendment treatment.

It’s also important to recognize that as we do more and more things with code, there will be more ways that the government can threaten dissent, art, self-government, and the pursuit of knowledge." 'via Blog this'