Privates on Parade…A campaign against EU legislation supporting the corporate sale of personal date without consent

Read more Privacy at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from openrightsgroup.org See campaign at nakedcitizens.eu

People from across Europe are sending postcards like this to their MEPs asking them to support new proposals protecting our privacy and giving us control over what happens to our data. Join them right now – click here to send your postcard! You can choose the message and how it looks and everything. Big business isn’t standing by though. They are flooding the normal democratic process with lobbying to get the plans watered down and strip us of our right to privacy. It wants to keep on profiting from our most intimate data. Take Everything Everywhere, reported this week to be selling the data of their 27 million mobile customers to the polling company Ipsos MORI. EE customers’ personal details could have been revealed to the police without their consent. EE say that the data has been anonymised but it is often possible to re-identify people from anonymised data. Phone companies like EE have been pushing particularly hard against the new data protection plans. It’s not hard to see why. They wouldn’t be able sell their customers’ data without their consent. As they stand, the new regulations would help make sure we control what happens to our data, not the big corporations making money from data about our personal lives. Here’s what the new laws would mean for you. You’d be able to decide who gets access to your data, what they can do with it and who they can give it to. You could delete your data or move it wherever you like, whenever you like. Your data would be protected whenever you could be identified. This includes so-called pseudonymous data that could still single you out despite being stripped of personal identifiers such as names and addresses. Services that want to use your data would have to get your explicit consent beforehand so there’d be no more vague or easy-to-misunderstand ‘agreements.’ There would be severe penalties when the rules were broken to help deter companies from misusing your data and infringing your privacy. But all this is under threat. If the big corporations and their armies of lobbyists get their way, the new law won’t have any teeth and companies will just keep on invading your privacy. Help stop their full frontal assault on our personal data! Please send a postcard to your MEPs.

Promoting News Censorship…EU funding organisations that call for the establishment of state news censors

Read more EU Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from telegraph.co.uk

The European Union is quietly pouring millions of pounds into initiatives and groups seeking state-backed censorship of the press, including key allies of the reprehensible Hacked Off campaign. Said to be angered by the British media’s coverage of Brussels, the European Commission says it wants to be a moral compass against supposed press misconduct, seeking new national and Europe-wide censorship powers over journalists. The EU has spent ฃ 2.3 million on the previously unpublicised Mediadem project claiming to reclaim a free and independent media . In a policy brief co-authored by its lead British researcher, Rachael Craufurd Smith, Mediadem says it is simplistic to see state influence [over the press] as inherently stifling . Mediadem recently produced recommendations for the UK demanding the imposition of sanctions beyond an apology or correction on errant media outlets and the co-ordination of the journalistic profession at the European level . The recommendations call for the press to be controlled by the same body and on the same basis as broadcasters, who are currently tightly regulated with statutory balance obligations that do not apply to newspapers. …Read the full article

Stereotypical European Political Correctness Continues Unabated…A total porn ban was dropped by MEPs but other worrying policies were approved

Read more EU Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from rt.com and article from telegraph.co.uk See also resolution from europarl.europa.eu See report [pdf] from europarl.europa.eu

Language that would ban all online pornography throughout the EU has been dropped from a report approved by the European Parliament but other worrying aspects of the policy remain. Christian Engstrom, MEP with Sweden’s Pirate Party, explained to RT: The European Parliament said no to turning Internet service providers into porn police, and they said no to setting up authorities to regulate media. The controversial wording about a porn ban was dropped following a show of hands but controversial proposals calling for the creation of regulators with the power to police the depiction of women in media were voted through. MEPs voted for the establishment of independent regulation bodies with the aim of controlling the media and advertising industry and a mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting the sexualisation of girls. The report also still contains references to an earlier resolution passed by the parliament in 1997 which calls for statutory measures to prevent any form of pornography in the media and in advertising. Marina Yannakoudakis MEP, the Conservative spokesman on women’s rights and in the European Parliament, remained critical of proposals despite the dropping of the ban. This would be a charter for ultra-feminist interference in the way countries choose to run their media systems As such it would do women and women’s rights more harm than good The report Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU is nominally about improving rights for people across the gender spectrum. The Dutch gender extremist MEP for the Socialist Party, Kartika Tamara Liotard, tabled the report in the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) late last year. Although the resolution accepted by the European Parliament is not legally binding, it can be used as a basis to form legislation.

Stereotypical European Political Correctness…Gender extremist proposal for total EU ban on porn voted down

Read more EU Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

7th March 2013. See article from zdnet.com by Zack Whittaker

Update: Voted Down 12th March 2013. See article from news.cnet.com EU politicians have voted against a pan-European ban on all forms of porn, including on the web, at least for now. European citizens can breathe a sigh of relief after a vote in the European Parliament has rejected proposals to ban all forms of pornography – including on the Web — in the region. The European Parliament voted in favor of the report, but rejected the porn ban section. Today, 625 members of the European Parliament voted 368-159 in favor of passing the report, which aims to stamp out gender stereotypes in the region, with 98 abstaining. However, the controversial porn ban section of the proposal was rejected. This vote forms a majority opinion based on Europe’s voting politicians, from which the European Commission can form legislation. Such a law would again be voted upon, and become legally binding in the 27 member state bloc of the EU. Because the opinion of the parliament has now been made, it will make it extraordinarily difficult for the Commission to draw up similar porn-blocking legislation only to pass it back to the parliament for another vote.

European Parliament blocks constituents emails re porn censorship…Pirate Party MEP blows the whistle on a disgraceful disregard for democracy

Read more EU Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from christianengstrom.wordpress.com by Christian Engstrom, Member of the European Parliament for Piratpartiet, Sweden

Next week the European parliament will be voting on a resolution to ban all forms of pornography in media . After this information became known to a wider audience, many citizens have decided to contact members of the European parliament to express their views on this issue. This is absolutely excellent. Citizens engaging actively in the democratic process is a very positive thing, at least in my opinion. Before noon, some 350 emails had arrived in my office. But around noon, these mails suddenly stopped arriving. When we started investigating why this happened so suddenly, we soon found out: The IT department of the European Parliament is blocking the delivery of the emails on this issue, after some members of the parliament complained about getting emails from citizens. This is an absolute disgrace, in my opinion. A parliament that views input from citizens on a current issue as spam, has very little democratic legitimacy in my opinion. I will be writing a letter to the President of the European Parliament to complain about this totally undemocratic practice. In the meantime, please continue to email members of the parliament on both the issue of the porn ban and on any other issue that you feel that you want to bring to the attention your elected representatives. Citizens taking active part in the political process is a fantastic asset for a democratic system, not a spam problem. I am very disappointed that some of my colleagues in this house evidently have a different opinion.

Stereotypical European Political Correctness…Gender extremists propose a total EU ban on porn in all media

Read more EU Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from zdnet.com by Zack Whittaker

The European Parliament will vote next Tuesday on a report that could lead to a blanket ban on pornography in any forms of media, not limited to advertising, television and radio, but also the Web. Titled Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU , the report is nominally about improving rights for people across the gender spectrum. The report states that there is an increasingly noticeable tendency… to show provocatively dressed women, in sexual poses it also notes that pornography is becoming mainstream and is slipping into our everyday lives as an evermore universally accepted, often idealised, cultural element. Christian Engstro m, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Pirate Party, said on his blog that the devil is in the detail. He warned that the wording in older resolution from 1997 could lead to statutory measures to prevent any form of pornography in the media. A Dutch PC extremist for the Socialist Party, Kartika Tamara Liotard, tabled the report in the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) late last year. In one section of the new report, Liotard calls on the European Union to enforce a blanket ban on pornography in the media of the the 27 member states, which could also include online pornography. The report makes several calls on the EU: Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism. Points out that a policy to eliminate stereotypes in the media will of necessity involve action in the digital field; considers that this requires the launching of initiatives coordinated at EU level with a view to developing a genuine culture of equality on the internet; calls on the Commission to draw up in partnership with the parties concerned a charter to which all internet operators will be invited to adhere; Calls on the Member States to establish independent regulation bodies with the aim of controlling the media and advertising industry and a mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting the sexualisation of girls; This initiative report, which will be voted on is not a draft legislative measure, though it is a report to suggest that legislation should be in the future drafted and voted on.

Trending Censorship…French minister for political correctness calls for the censorship and moderation of Twitter

Read more EU Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from mashable.com See article from guardian.co.uk See  Najat Belkacem-Vallaud speech [translated by Google] original article from lemonde.fr

A series of insulting hashtags on Twittersseems to have prompted France’s minister for political correctness into calling for the censorship of Twitter. #SiMonFilsEstGay ( If my son is gay ) trended on Twitter for days in France recently. Before that, #unjuifmort ( a dead Jew ), #unbonjuif ( a good Jew ) and #SiMaFilleRame’neUnNoir ( If my daughter brings home a Black ) have come to the attention of the authorities. Now Najat Belkacem-Vallaud, Minister of Women’s Rights, said that Twitter must begin to censor hate speech. She argued that this sort of speech is illegal according to national law in the French newspaper Le Monde: At a moment when the government is implementing an action plan against violence and discrimination committed for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity, I want, without prejudice to any legal action, to call upon Twitter’s sense of responsibility, so that it can contribute to the prevention and the avoidance of misbehavior like this. I want us to be able to work together, along with the most important associated agencies, to put in place alerts and security measures that will ensure that the unfortunate events that we have witnessed in recent weeks will not occur again. Belkacem-Vallaud adds that freedom of expression cannot be used with impunity, because homophobia and racism can quickly lead to violence. Children who are homosexual are put at risk when such discussions are spread without moderation on the Internet. Jason Farago in the Guardian explains how the French minister is going beyond mere prosecution for those who post such tweets and now wants Twitter to take steps to help prosecute hate speech by reform[ing] the whole system by which Twitter operates , including her demand that the company put in place alerts and security measures to prevent tweets which French officials deem hateful.

A Shared Response…Suggestions that there should be EU wide definitions of internet material liable to take downs

Read more EU Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from computerworlduk.com

Europe’s top data protection officer has said that the concept of illegal content must be uniformly defined throughout the European Union. The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), Peter Hustinx, was responding to plans by the European Commission to reform rules on notice and action requests – the removal of illegal content online. In a statement, Hustinxs said that he was concerned that hosting service providers may be forced to process sensitive personal data when removing illegal content, which the Commission defines as intellectual property rights infringements; consumer protection law breaches; hate incitement; child abuse content; terrorism-related content; defamatory material, and privacy-invading material. Hustinx also questioned whether notice and action requests to content hosts, including social networking sites such as Facebook or user-generated content hosts like YouTube, is always the best approach. For instance, privacy infringements could be best reported to data protection authorities, he said. And some infringements such as child abuse content and terrorism-related content would require the involvement of law enforcement agencies. Hustinx added: The E-Commerce Directive clearly sets forth that service providers do not have a general obligation ‘to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity.’ The Court of Justice of the EU has emphasised this principle in several case.

Clean IT…Leak shows plans for large-scale, undemocratic surveillance of all communications

Read more Liberty News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  edri.org

A leaked document from the CleanIT project shows just how far internal discussions in that initiative have drifted away from its publicly stated aims, as well as the most fundamental legal rules that underpin European democracy and the rule of law. The European Commission-funded CleanIT project claims that it wants to fight terrorism through voluntary self-regulatory measures that defends the rule of law. The initial meetings of the initiative, with their directionless and ill-informed discussions about doing something to solve unidentified online terrorist problems were mainly attended by filtering companies, who saw an interesting business opportunity. Their work has paid off, with numerous proposals for filtering by companies and governments, proposals for liability in case sufficiently intrusive filtering is not used, and calls for increased funding by governments of new filtering technologies. The leaked document contradicts a letter sent from CleanIT Coordinator But Klaasen to Dutch NGO Bits of Freedom in April of this year, which explained that the project would first identify problems before making policy proposals. The promise to defend the rule of law has been abandoned. There appears never to have been a plan to identify a specific problem to be solved – instead the initiative has become little more than a protection racket (use filtering or be held liable for terrorist offences) for the online security industry. CleanIT wants binding engagements from internet companies to carry out surveillance, to block and to filter (albeit only at end user - meaning local network – level). It wants a network of trusted online informants and, contrary to everything that they have ever said, they also want new, stricter legislation from Member States. CleanIT (terrorism), financed by DG Home Affairs of the European Commission is duplicating much of the work of the CEO Coalition (child protection), which is financed by DG Communications Networks of the European Commission. Both are, independently and without coordination, developing policies on issues such as reporting buttons and flagging of possibly illegal material. Both CleanIT and the CEO Coalition are duplicating each other’s work on creating voluntary rules for notification and removal of possibly illegal content and are jointly duplicating the evidence-based policy work being done by DG Internal Market of the European Commission, which recently completed a consultation on this subject. Both have also been discussing upload filtering, to monitor all content being put online by European citizens. Key measures being proposed: Removal of any legislation preventing filtering/surveillance of employees’ Internet connections Law enforcement authorities should be able to have content removed without following the more labour-intensive and formal procedures for ‘notice and action’ Knowingly providing links to terrorist content (the draft does not refer to content which has been ruled to be illegal by a court, but undefined terrorist content in general) will be an offence just like the terrorist Legal underpinning of real name rules to prevent anonymous use of online services ISPs to be held liable for not making reasonable efforts to use technological surveillance to identify (undefined) terrorist use of the Internet Companies providing end-user filtering systems and their customers should be liable for failing to report illegal activity identified by the filter Customers should also be held liable for knowingly sending a report of content which is not illegal Governments should use the helpfulness of ISPs as a criterion for awarding public contracts The proposal on blocking lists contradict each other, on the one hand providing comprehensive details for each piece of illegal content and judicial references, but then saying that the owner can appeal (although if there was already a judicial ruling, the legal process would already have been at an end) and that filtering such be based on the output of the proposed content regulation body, the European Advisory Foundation Blocking or warning systems should be implemented by social media platforms — somehow it will be both illegal to provide (undefined) Internet services to terrorist persons and legal to knowingly provide access to illegal content, while warning the end-user that they are accessing illegal content The anonymity of individuals reporting (possibly) illegal content must be preserved… yet their IP address must be logged to permit them to be prosecuted if it is suspected that they are reporting legal content deliberately and to permit reliable informants’ reports to be processed more quickly Companies should implement upload filters to monitor uploaded content to make sure that content that is removed — or content that is similar to what is removed — is not re-uploaded It proposes that content should not be removed in all cases but blocked (i.e. make inaccessible by the hosting provider — not blocked in the access provider sense) and, in other cases, left available online but with the domain name removed.

A Shared Vote…One sided copyright measure rejected by the European Parliament

Read more EU Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  torrentfreak.com See  article from  publicaffairs.linx.net

In a 478 to 39 vote, the European Parliament decided to reject ACTA once and for all. Six months ago, it was all but certain that ACTA would pass unnoticed in silence. The forces fighting for citizens’ rights tried to have it referred to the European Court of Justice in order to test its legality and to buy some time. But then, something happened. A monster by the name of SOPA appeared in the United States. Thousands of websites went dark on January 18 and millions of voices cried out, leaving Congress shell-shocked over the fact that citizens can get that level of pissed off at corporate special interests. SOPA was killed. In theory, ACTA could still come into force between the United States and a number of smaller states. Ten states have been negotiating it, and six of those need to ratify it to have it come into force. In theory, this could become a treaty between the United States, Morocco, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, and Switzerland. (But wait, the Mexican Senate has already rejected ACTA. As has Australia and Switzerland in practice. The European Commissioner responsible for the treaty, Karel de Gucht, has said that he will ignore any rejections and re-table it before the European Parliament until it passes. That’s not going to happen. Parliament takes its dignity very seriously and does not tolerate that kind of contempt. In the wake of the rejection vote, EuroISPA, An organisation of ISPs at the European level, said: EuroISPA and its members welcome the European Parliament’s decision to call for a more balanced approach in the protection of the fundamental rights at stake when the EU negotiates international treaties. The European Parliament found that the intended benefits of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) were far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties and the legal uncertainties about the role of Internet Service Providers in enforcing intellectual property rights.