U bent hier


Thai Activist Jailed for the Crime of Sharing an Article on Facebook

Thai activist Jatuphat “Pai” Boonpattaraksa was sentenced this week to two and a half years in prison—for the crime of sharing a BBC article on Facebook. The Thai-language article profiled Thailand’s new king and, while thousands of users shared it, only Jutaphat was found to violate Thailand’s strict lese majeste laws against insulting, defaming, or threatening the monarchy.

The sentence comes after Jatuphat has already spent eight months in detention without bail. During this time, Jatuphat has fought additional charges for violating the Thai military junta’s ban on political gatherings and for other activism with Dao Din, an anti-coup group. While in trial in military court, Jatuphat also accepted the Gwangzu Prize for Human Rights.

When he was arrested last December, Jatuphat was the first person to be charged with lese majeste since the former King Bhumibol passed away and his son Vajiralongkorn took the throne. (He was not, however, the first to receive a sentence—this past June saw one of the harshest rulings to date, with one man waiting over a year in jail to be sentenced to 35 years for Facebook posts critical of the royal family.) The conviction, which appears to have singled Jatuphat out among thousands of other Facebook users who shared the article, sends a strong message to other activists and netizens: overbroad laws like lese majeste can and will be used to target those who oppose military rule in Thailand.

In addition to sending a frightening message to activists like Jatuphat who disseminate information, the ruling may reinforce existing chilling effects on journalism in Thailand. The lese majeste laws that can be used to target dissidents also limit what journalists and news organizations—particularly those with in-country staff or correspondents who rely on access to Thailand—can report about Thai politics. The BBC article in this case was a relatively objective, factual profile of King Vajiralongkorn, showing that even seemingly tame reporting and commentary may be construed as illegal. Even covering a case like Jatuphat’s can constitute a violation of lese majeste law, as reporting the details of a lese majeste crime may constitute reproducing illegal content and put journalists in a position to be accused of illegal royal defamation themselves.

Jatupat’s case is only the latest in the Thai government’s increasingly repressive and arbitrary attempts to chill expression online and censor content critical of the state, including banning interaction with certain exiled dissidents and making it a crime to simply view lese majeste content. These extremes are not just about stopping the flow of information; they are also about spreading fear among users that the authorities may be watching what they read, share, and say online. For users to have the best chance at fighting back, they need safe forums for peaceful debate, deliberation, and discussion online: forums that don’t dangerously tie their comments to their real identities and lives.

Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

Bike Gear Company Nearly Run Over by Patent Troll

Rick Pepper is passionate about designing cool products for cyclists and other adventurous types. He started his company Elevengear as a one-person shop in 2007, and it’s since grown to a small, successful team. But all of that could have changed when his company was sued for allegedly infringing a group of obscure patents on delivery and tracking protocols.

Before Rick even realized that he’d been sued, his inbox was flooded with solicitations from lawyers offering to take on his case. “I remember getting an email that I thought was super spammy,” Rick recalls. “It said something like, ‘Hey, since you’re in a bit of legal difficulty, and we have experience with cases like this …’ I thought for sure it was a scam. I thought it was one of those Nigerian prince sort of things.”

“Of course we shouldn’t infringe legitimate patents. But broadly worded and incredibly vague patents are just a shakedown.”

If only it were. Rick had really been sued by Eclipse IP (now called Electronic Communication Technologies LLC), a classic patent troll whose business is demanding licensing fees from real, practicing companies. Eclipse accused Elevengear of infringing three patents. U.S. Patent No. 7,119,716 (the ’716 patent) covers letting the recipient of a notification send a message requesting a change in settings for future notifications. U.S. Patent No. 7,479,899 is a continuation of the ‘716 patent and relates to a delivery recipient sending a message in order to change delivery settings or to provide information to the delivery person. Finally, U.S. Patent No. 7,876,239 (also a continuation of the ’716 patent) covers the practice of sending the recipient of a delivery a notification that that delivery is coming from an authorized source. Although Elevengear is based in Sebastopol, California, and Eclipse was a Florida company, the suit was filed across the country in a federal court in New Jersey.

When Rick realized that the lawsuit was real, he was floored. The patents struck him as incredibly broad and vague. As it happened, some of Eclipse’s patents had already had claims found invalid under Alice v. CLS Bank, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that says that an abstract idea does not become a patentable invention simply by being implemented on a computer. A federal judge in California had ruled that claims from three of Eclipse’s patents (also relating to notification technology) were invalid. In fact, this ruling invalidated more than a dozen claims from the ’716 patent itself.

The timing for Elevengear couldn’t have been worse: Rick was in the middle of launching a new product called Crashtag, an emergency identification tag for cyclists that doubles as a beer bottle opener. He was investing money into a new website and production costs; the last thing he needed was an expensive lawsuit. Rick is the first to admit that his business was on the line: “Our company would have folded, we would have packed up our tent, and I would have gotten another graphic design job.” Fortunately for Rick and his team, Alice came to the rescue.

Rick hired attorney Brian Mitchell to represent Elevengear. Through Mitchell, Elevengear struck back by filing a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California seeking a court order that all of Eclipse’s asserted patent claims were invalid under Alice v. CLS Bank. Indeed, Elevengear pointed out (PDF) that a court had already found similar claims invalid. Eclipse dropped its infringement suit and settled (on confidential terms) with Elevengear before the court ruled on these issues.

Rick remembers his team’s mellow celebration when the legal fight was over. “It wasn’t like, ‘We won!’ It was more like, ‘Well, we didn’t die this time.’” Patent trolls have a seemingly endless arsenal of bad patents to use against practicing companies. A small company like Elevengear can never rest easy when the next legal threat might be just around the corner.

Rick finds it deeply troubling that some lobbyists want to destroy Alice. “We’re small companies working on interesting new ways to do things. Of course we shouldn’t infringe legitimate patents. But broadly worded and incredibly vague patents are just a shakedown. If we didn’t have Alice as a tool to defend ourselves, it would have some serious economic implications.”

Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

Komt er een referendum over het sleepnet?

Bits of Freedom (BOF) - 16 augustus 2017 - 4:45pm
Nog geen week geleden lanceerde een aantal studenten het initiatief om een referendum te houden over de nieuwe wet voor de geheime diensten. Vandaag kondigden ze aan dat de grens van de vereiste 10.000 handtekeningen voor de eerste fase al is gehaald. Dat is erg knap: in vakantietijd binnen een kleine week zoveel handtekeningen ophalen. Het toont maar weer eens aan dat heel veel mensen niet op een vrijheidsbeperkend sleepnet zitten te wachten.
Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

Whistleblower Chelsea Manning, Techdirt Founder Mike Masnick, and Free Expression Defender Annie Game Named Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award Winners

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - nieuws - 16 augustus 2017 - 2:59pm
Full Frontal’s Ashley Nicole Black Keynotes Ceremony for Honorees Sept. 14 in San Francisco

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) announced today that whistleblower and activist Chelsea Manning, Techdirt editor and open internet advocate Mike Masnick, and IFEX executive director and global freedom of expression defender Annie Game are the distinguished winners of the 2017 Pioneer Awards, which recognize leaders who are extending freedom and innovation on the electronic frontier. This year’s honorees—a whistleblower, an editor, and an international freedom of expression activist—all have worked tirelessly to protect the public’s right to know. 

 The award ceremony will be held the evening of September 14 at Delancey Street’s Town Hall Room in San Francisco. The keynote speaker is Emmy-nominated comedy writer Ashley Nicole Black, a correspondent on Full Frontal with Samantha Bee who uses her unique comedic style to take on government surveillance, encryption, and freedom of information. Tickets for the ceremony are $65 for current EFF members, or $75 for non-members.

Chelsea E. Manning is a network security expert, whistleblower, and former U.S. Army intelligence analyst whose disclosure of classified Iraq war documents exposed human rights abuses and corruption the government kept hidden from the public. While serving in Iraq, Chelsea worked to release hundreds of thousands of classified war and State Department files on the Internet, including a video depicting the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians and two Reuters reporters by U.S. troops. Chelsea’s conscious-driven leaks exposed critical information about U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and made it available online to journalists and citizens around the world, greatly contributing to public knowledge, understanding, and discussion of the government’s actions. While serving seven years of an unprecedented 35-year sentence for leaking the documents, she became a prominent and vocal advocate for government transparency and transgender rights, both on Twitter and through her op-ed columns for The Guardian and The New York Times. She currently lives in the Washington, D.C. area, where she writes about technology, artificial intelligence, and human rights.

Mike Masnick is the founder and editor of the popular and respected Techdirt blog and an outspoken activist for digital rights, the First Amendment, and a free and open Internet. For 20 years Mike has explored the intersection of technology, policy, civil liberties, and economics, making Techdirt a must-read for its insightful and unvarnished analysis. He was a powerful voice in the fight against SOPA, and coined the term “The Streisand Effect.” Today Mike is in a fight for Techdirt’s survival—he and the weblog are targets of a $15 million libel lawsuit for publishing articles disputing claims of a man who says he invented email. The case pits Mike and Techdirt against the self-proclaimed email inventor and his lawyer, who, bankrolled by Peter Thiel, brought down Gawker. Mike has vowed to stand up for a free and independent press and fight this attempt to silence—or drive out of business—his blog for publishing First Amendment-protected opinions.

Annie Game is Executive Director of IFEX, a global network of over 115 journalism and civil liberties organizations that defends and promotes freedom of expression as a fundamental human right. IFEX exposes threats to online free expression, focuses on bringing to justice those who harm or kill journalists, and advocates for the rights of media workers, women and LGBT journalists, citizen journalists, and activists. For over 10 years Annie has led IFEX’s efforts to free imprisoned journalists, defend online activists targeted by repressive regimes, provide tools for organizing successful campaigns advocating for free expression, and expose legislation aimed at quelling free speech. Under Annie’s leadership, IFEX has begun pairing more traditional free expression organizations with their more digitized counterparts with a focus on building organizational security capacities. Annie has been activist throughout her career in the NGO sector and is also a published writer and broadcaster of satire and humor.  

“It’s an honor to celebrate this year’s Pioneer Award winners and the work they’ve done to fight for transparency and the rights of all people to freely express their opinions, passions, and beliefs without fear of censorship or retaliation,” said EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn. “In these turbulent times, it’s essential that the Internet remain free and open and a source of critical information for people around the world. This group of pioneers, often in the face of great personal risk, have stood up courageously and relentlessly for users, for freedom, and for truth. Their work is an inspiration as we continue to defend global digital rights.”

Awarded every year since 1992, EFF’s Pioneer Awards recognize the leaders who are extending freedom and innovation on the electronic frontier. Previous honorees have included Malkia A. Cyril, Aaron Swartz, Laura Poitras, and Citizen Lab.

Special thanks to Airbnb and Ron Reed for supporting EFF and the 2017 Pioneer Awards ceremony. If you or your company are interested in learning more about sponsorship, please contact nicole@eff.org.

To buy tickets to the Pioneer Awards:

Contact:  RebeccaJeschkeMedia Relations Director and Digital Rights Analystrebecca@eff.org
Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

AP stelt Bas den Hollander aan als algemeen directeur (a.i.)

Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (nieuws) - 16 augustus 2017 - 2:09pm
Bas den Hollander is per 15 augustus 2017 werkzaam als algemeen directeur (a.i.) bij de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP). De heer Den Hollander zal de komende tijd de ambtelijke organisatie van de AP leiden in het veranderproces. Dat proces is het gevolg van de inwerkingtreding van ingrijpende en omvangrijke nieuwe Europese privacywetgeving.

A.B. 375, California’s Broadband Privacy Act, Very Close to Becoming Law

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - nieuws - 16 augustus 2017 - 1:57pm
Internet users across California have been calling their state legislators to demand they restore their broadband privacy rights by passing A.B. 375.

So far that public pressure has been overriding the opposition from major cable and telephone companies (although many ISPs based in California actually support the privacy rules) as the bill continues moving forward. If you have not had a chance to call your state senator, please make that call soon before the bill moves to the Senate floor in the coming weeks.

Take Action

Tell your representatives to support online privacy.

Next Steps for A.B. 375

mytubethumb play %3Ciframe%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FcgW9PACVBq4%3Fautoplay%3D1%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube.com

EFF testified before the state legislature on the need to fill the gap created by Congress when it repealed the broadband privacy regulations enacted by the Federal Communications Commission and prohibited the FCC from taking further measures to protect consumers’ personal data. We actively worked to combat the misinformation campaign launched by the bill’s opponents in a last ditch effort to kill the bill. If A.B. 375 becomes law, Californians will have the protections they were originally going to receive from the federal regulations.

Now that two key Senate committees have passed the legislation with bipartisan support, A.B. 375 sits in the Senate Rules Committee. It will be sent to the Senate floor for a vote after some technical amendments are made.

Several state senators requested that the bill’s author, Assemblymember Ed Chau, who also chairs the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, further amend the legislation to more tightly conform to the FCC’s rules. Both the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communicationsand the Senate Judiciary Committee noted differences between the FCC privacy rules and A.B. 375. These included a slightly broader definition of personal information in state law and the inclusion of the California Public Utilities Commission’s definition of broadband service providers.

California’s A.B. 375 Will Also Ban Pay-for-Privacy Schemes

The only substantive difference between A.B. 375 and the FCC’s privacy rules is a ban on making people pay even more for broadband in exchange for privacy protections. AT&T specifically trotted out a plan to charge people $30 more per month for the privilege of not selling their personal information.

Source: https://twitter.com/wattsteve/status/465182632016240640/photo/1

Since the FCC decided to not ban pay-for-privacy schemes outright and Congress went further by impairing the agency’s ability to protect consumer privacy, AT&T appears to be contemplating bringing back its privacy tax on already high subscription fees. If A.B. 375 becomes law though, those plans will never hit Californians.

The Bill Must Be Approved by the Legislature By September 15th

This is the official deadline for bills that can be contemplated by the Governor in California. That means we have one month for the bill to pass the Senate and the Assembly. There’s no doubt that Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon’s lobbying arms will push even harder on California’s legislators to kill the bill. If you are a California resident, you have to make sure you call your elected official and register your support with A.B. 375, the California Broadband Privacy Act.

Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

Streit um freie Bilder: Fotodienste Unsplash und Pixabay stören sich an Copycats

iRights.info - 16 augustus 2017 - 1:08pm

Wer Bilder möglichst unkompliziert verwenden will, wird häufig bei Seiten wie Pixabay und Unsplash fündig. Doch kürzlich haben beide Dienste ihre Regeln geändert. Sie suchen nach Wegen, um sich gegen Anbieter zu wehren, die ihren Dienst kopieren.

Ein Foto als Hintergrund für die Website, zur Anzeige in einer App oder einer Software: Besonders leicht zu verwenden sind Bilder, wenn sie mit der Freigabe „Creative Commons Zero“ (CC0) versehen sind. Jeder kann solche Inhalte kostenlos weiterverwenden, ohne nachzufragen oder andere Bedingungen beachten zu müssen.

Unsplash und Pixabay gehören zu den bekanntesten Plattformen für Fotos, die unter der CC0-Freigabe stehen. Doch beide Dienste sind von der weitestmöglichen Freigabe in letzter Zeit abgerückt, zumindest zeitweise. Unsplash gab Mitte Juni bekannt, eine eigene „Unsplash-Lizenz“ einzuführen, die an die Stelle der CC0 treten soll. Auch Pixabay wechselte Ende Juli auf eine eigene Lizenz, ruderte dann aber wieder zurück.

Creative Commons Zero (CC0)

Die Freigabe „Creative Commons Zero“ (CC0) macht es möglich, Inhalte so weiterzuverwenden, als wären sie bereits frei von Urheberrechten. CC0-Inhalte können ohne Nachfrage zu beliebigen Zwecken kopiert, veröffentlicht oder auf andere Weise verwendet werden. Anders als die regulären Creative-Commons-Lizenzen enthält CC0 keine weitere Bedingungen wie etwa eine Namensnennung.

CC0 besteht rechtlich betrachtet aus mehreren Komponenten: Urheber oder Rechteinaber erklären damit, auf etwaige Rechte an ihrem Werk vollständig zu verzichten. Für Länder, in denen ein solch vollständiger Verzicht nicht vorgesehen ist, sind zusätzliche Regelungen enthalten: Jeder erhält eine Lizenz ohne weitere Bedingungen und eine verbindliche Zusage, möglicherweise verbleibende Rechte nicht durchzusetzen.

Dienste wollen sich gegen „Copycats“ wehren

Hintergrund des Wechsels: Beide Plattformen stören sich an Dritt-Anbietern, die die Kataloge von Pixabay und Unsplash nutzen und damit eigene, funktional und gestalterisch oft ähnlich aufgebaute Dienste aufbauen. Das Phänomen heißt „Copycats“. Sie sollen durch neue Bestimmungen ausgeschlossen werden. Simon Steinberger, Geschäftsführer von Pixabay, erklärt auf Anfrage von iRights.info, dass es mehrere solcher Webseiten gebe, die den Dienst kopierten.

Dabei gehe es nicht um Seiten, die nur mehr oder weniger umfangreich Bilder aus dem Pixabay-Bestand kopieren würden. Solche Übernahmen, etwa auf der Fotoseite Pexels.com, seien letztlich in Ordnung. Pixabay selbst blendet bei der Suche auch Bezahlbilder vom Dienst Shutterstock ein und finanziert sich über Provisionen, wenn diese verkauft werden. Steinberger stören Anbieter, die den Dienst Pixabay als solches kopierten und zugleich ihren Katalog vor allem mit den dort veröffentlichten Bildern füllten.

„Der Anbieter Maxpixel/Freegreatpicture.com ist hierfür ein besonders dreistes Beispiel“, sagt Steinberger. „Die Betreiber dieser Website haben nicht nur über 900.000 von knapp über einer Million Pixabay-Bilder kopiert, sondern auch gleich unseren Client-seitigen Quellcode sowie das gesamte Design“. Eine Anfrage von iRights.info an die Kontaktadresse von Freegreatpicture.com blieb bislang unbeantwortet. Auf der Seite wird zu den Bildern Werbung eingeblendet. Sie ist in mangelhaftem Englisch gestaltet und versteckt die Angabe, wer sie wo registriert hat.

Ahnlich äußern sich die Betreiber von Unsplash. Die Seite startete ursprünglich als Seitenprojekt des Web-Startups „Crew“ aus Montreal, heute ist Unsplash eine eigenständige Firma. „Wir unterstützen es nicht, wenn andere massenhaft Unsplash-Fotos duplizieren, um damit ähnliche und konkurrierende Dienste aufzubauen“, schreiben die Macher auf ihrer Seite. Unsplash nennt keine konkreten Dienste und verweist darauf, dass andere Seiten den Katalog automatisiert kopierten und dabei gefälschte Nutzerkonten anlegten.

Neue Lizenz bei Unsplash, Hin und Her und Pixabay

Die CC0-Freigabe verbietet keine Übernahme der Inhalte, sondern erlaubt es vielmehr, die Werke ungefragt und bedingungslos zu verwenden. In der neuen Lizenz von Unsplash heißt es nun, die Bilder seien frei, ohne Beschränkungen und ohne weitere Angaben zu nutzen. Es sei aber untersagt, „Bilder von Unsplash zusammenzustellen um sie in in einem ähnlichen oder konkurrierenden Dienst zu nutzen“ (eigene Übersetzung). Ein Hinweis auf die CC0-Freigabe findet sich nicht mehr.

Auch Pixabay führte zunächst eine eigene Lizenz ein, die die CC0-Freigabe mit zusätzlichen Beschränkungen versehen sollte, löschte diese jedoch nach ein paar Tagen wieder. Stattdessen gilt für alle hochgeladenen Bilder wieder wie gehabt die CC0-Freigabe. Die Betreiber haben aber einen Passus in die Nutzungsbedingungen aufgenommen, der unter anderem das „Massenkopieren von Inhalten“ untersagt. Zudem soll damit Data Mining, Scraping und anderes automatisches Auslesen verhindert werden, wenn es nicht von Pixabay erlaubt wurde.

Was bedeuten die Änderungen für Nutzer?

Wer auf eigenen Seiten Bilder verwendet, die bereits unter CC0 freigegeben wurden, muss daran nichts ändern: Eine bereits erteilte und gültige CC0-Freigabe besteht prinzipiell fort. Auch die neue „Unsplash-Lizenz“ gilt nicht rückwirkend für bereits unter CC0 freigegebene Fotos. Sie betrifft aber diejenigen Bilder, die seitdem auf Unsplash hochgeladen und dann weiterverwendet werden.

Wer auf Unsplash eigene Fotos veröffentlicht hat, sollte gegebenenfalls prüfen, ob die CC0-Freigabe erhalten geblieben ist. Da Pixabay nach einigem Hin und Her bei der CC0-Freigabe der einzelnen Bilder bleibt, ergeben sich zumindest für einfache Nutzer keine Änderungen.

Warum sind die Änderungen dennoch kontrovers?

Bei einigen Nutzern der Dienste fanden die Änderungen Zustimmung, die sie in Foren-Einträgen äußerten. Andere sind dadurch verunsichert. Ryan Merkley, Geschäftsführer von Creative Commons, kritisierte den Schritt von Unsplash. Die neue Lizenz widerspreche dem Gedanken einer Freigabe ohne Bedingungen. Zwar stehe es Unsplash frei, geschäftliche Entscheidungen zu treffen und neue Bedingungen einzuführen. Dabei dürften aber nicht die Inhalte beschädigt werden, die für die Allgemeinheit freigegeben wurden.

Die Unsplash-Macher verteidigen ihre Entscheidung: „Der Geist unserer Lizenz ist der Gleiche. Unser Ziel ist, so nah wie möglich an CC0 zu bleiben, aber die Copycats draußen halten zu können“, schreiben sie in einer Antwort.

Auch der temporäre Lizenzwechsel bei Pixabay sorgte für ähnliche Diskussionen. Sie machten sich besonders daran fest, dass die CC0-Freigabe ursprünglich eingeschränkt werden sollte. John Weitzmann, Rechtsleiter bei Creative Commons Deutschland, erklärt auf Nachfrage: „Ein Überschreiben der CC0 mit zusätzlichen Bedingungen ist den Creative-Commons-Regeln nach nicht vorgesehen.“ Denn die CC-Lizenzen seien aus gutem Grund standardisiert. Immer neue Varianten führten zu einem Lizenzchaos, das freien Inhalte schade.

Die Kritik von Creative Commons zeitigte erneute Änderungen: Während Unsplash offenbar noch kleinere Klarstellungen vornahm, kehrte Pixabay wieder zur CC0-Freigabe zurück, ergänzt um die erwähnten Nutzungsbedingungen. Sie sollen es Pixabay in Extremfällen leichter machen, gegen Anbieter vorzugehen, die den Dienst kopieren. Man wolle aber nicht die Einsatzmöglichkeiten der Bilder selbst beschränken, betont Simon Steinberger von Pixabay. John Weitzmann von Creative Commons meint, dass den Diensten auch andere Mittel gegen Copycats zur Verfügung stünden, die sie prüfen sollten. „Zugunsten beider Dienste könnten auch wettbewerbsrechtliche Regeln greifen“, sagt er.

Freie Inhalte und Copycats: Eine Gratwanderung

Der Streit um Copycats und neue Regeln und Lizenzen zeigt, dass die Fotodienste in einer schwierigen Gemengelage stecken. Auch bei verständlichem Ärger über Dienste, die freie Inhalte ausnutzen, sollten die Gegenmittel gut gewählt sein. Mit seiner neuen Lizenz könnte sich Unsplash am Ende auch schaden. Nutzer, die durch die Änderungen abgeschreckt sind, dürften sich eher anderen Plattformen zuwenden, die weiterhin auf die CC0-Freigabe setzen. Wenn die Fotodienste aber gar nichts gegen Anbieter tun, die auch ihren Nutzern und Beiträgern übel aufstoßen, steht ebenfalls Vertrauen auf dem Spiel.

Doch auch Creative Commons sollte aufmerksam sein, wie der Umgang mit zweifelhaften Copycats in einer Welt freier Inhalte aussehen kann. Wer wie Pixabay und Unsplash mit Geschäftsmodellen rund um freie Inhalte experimentiert, wird sonst eher von den Creative-Commons-Werkzeugen Abstand nehmen. Insellösungen, bei denen jeder seine eigene Lizenz verwendet, sind aber kein Gewinn für das digitale Gemeingut. Welche Regeln geeignet, welches Verhalten unerwünscht ist, wird jetzt wohl breiter diskutiert werden müssen.

Mag je op Twitter dreigen met militair ingrijpen?

IusMentis - 16 augustus 2017 - 8:14am

Amerikaans president Donald Trump heeft via Twitter opnieuw een waarschuwing gegeven aan Noord-Korea, las ik in De Morgen. “Alle militaire eenheden zijn volledig klaar”, klinkt het. En eerder, omineuzer: fire and fury zou het regenen, als Noord-Korea niet ophoudt met haar dreigementen. Wat de semi-serieuze vraag oproept, mag dat wel, op Twitter een ander land dreigen met militair ingrijpen of zelfs nucleaire aanval?

De Twitter TOS en meer specifiek de Twitter Rules zijn duidelijk:

Any accounts and related accounts engaging in the activities specified below may be temporarily locked and/or subject to permanent suspension.
Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism. (…)
Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease.

Het zou bij dergelijke acties niet uit moeten maken wat je status is, of je nu spreekt als gewone individuele burger of als politicus. Alleen zijn dit soort regels natuurlijk niet bedoeld voor situaties waarin landen uitingen doen. Het strafrecht (waar deze normen aan ontleend zijn) is immers bedoeld voor de burger, niet voor een regeringsleider die officiële uitspraken doet. (En ja, wat Trump twittert is officieel.) Het voelt dus niet helemaal logisch om de Twitter TOS te hanteren om een presidentiële uitspraak met regeringsbeleid erin aan te pakken. Alsof je de Kijkwijzer wat laat vinden van een grensconflict.

De kans dat Twitter wat gaat doen tegen het account van Trump lijkt me dan ook minimaal. Weliswaar zeggen ze dat de regels voor iedereen gelden, maar men weegt nieuwswaarde mee en je kunt veel vinden van Trump, maar nieuwswaarde heeft het zeker wat hij Twittert.


Afkomstig van de blog Internetrecht door Arnoud Engelfriet. Koop mijn boek!

Congress is At Home, So Pay Your Members a Visit

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - nieuws - 15 augustus 2017 - 7:44pm

It’s August. In the United States, that means members of Congress will be swinging back home to their home districts to check in with their state-side staffers, hit some fundraisers, and maybe host a few public events.

You can meet them. Constituents can request meetings with members of Congress while they are home this August by contacting their local congressional offices. If you coordinate a meeting request with a few local allies, you’ll likely be able to meet with staffers, and you may even be able to meet with your member of Congress herself.

Meetings like this matter—a lot. When members hear repeatedly from multiple constituents about overlapping concerns, those views can influence how they vote on policy issues, especially if they think those concerns will animate controversy that might complicate their careers. With so many issues vital to digital rights looming in the congressional calendar, this August is a critical time for Internet users to pressure Congress to do the right thing on mass surveillance, net neutrality, and rules that insulate platforms for liability based on content written by users.

Here are some of the key issues to bring up this August, whether in meetings with your Members of Congress, or when writing for public audiences:

Ending mass surveillance under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act

At the end of the year, a key provision of U.S. surveillance law is set to expire, Section 702. This is the law underpinning the NSA’s mass surveillance of Internet communications—including content—of foreign persons outside the United States, who of course communicate with Americans. Thanks to the Snowden revelations, we now know that millions of Americans are impacted by this surveillance (the exact number of which the government refuses to disclose) and Congress must vote to either reauthorize the law, or allow it to expire as scheduled. We know Congress will take this up in the next few months, so now is the ideal time to deliver a simple message: this surveillance is unconstitutional and unacceptable, and Congress should allow this dangerous provision to expire unless it first enacts significant reforms to curtail mass surveillance powers. Above all, Congress should resist attempts to make this provision of law permanent by insisting that any potential re-authorization include a five-year sunset.

Defending protections that enable free expression on the Internet

There's a dangerous new threat in Congress to your right to free speech and expression online, and it's already gained the support of a frightening number of lawmakers. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA, S. 1693) wouldn’t help punish sex traffickers. What it would do is drastically weaken 47 U.S.C. § 230 (commonly known as "CDA 230" or simply “Section 230”), one of the most important laws protecting free expression online. It would expose startups that run online services to the risk of overwhelming criminal and civil liability for the actions of their users. Sex trafficking is a serious problem, and Congress should be applauded for turning its attention to it, but this bill is not the solution. We support a clear message to Congress: don't support SESTA or any other attempt to weaken protections for online speech under Section 230. If you run or work in a business that relies on Section 230 protections, then explain to your members of Congress how SESTA would threaten your job.

Defending net neutrality rules that preserve equal opportunity online

A few months ago, incoming Federal Communications Commission Chair Ajit Pai announced his plans to eliminate the clear, enforceable protections for net neutrality that the Commission had implemented in 2015. People have filed a record-breaking 18 million comments with the FCC, the majority of them opposing the Commission’s plan to roll back protections for net neutrality (and it’s not too late to submit your own). Now, Congress is planning a hearing on the issue in September. Members of Congress must hear from their constituents that net neutrality protections are essential for our right to communicate and organize online. Without the FCC’s light-touch rules protecting net neutrality, corporate and other dominant voices would be able to pay for fast lanes, leaving competing startups, whistleblowers, or people with minority views without access to a fair playing field. Tell your Member of Congress why a free, open, and content-neutral Internet matters to you and your community. Finally, if you can visit Washington in September, sign up to join the fly-in day to defend net neutrality.

Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

Wanneer zijn toestemmingsvinkjes nou verplicht?

IusMentis - 15 augustus 2017 - 8:19am

Een lezer vroeg me:

Hoe zit het nu precies met die vinkjes die je overal moet zetten om toestemming te geven voor van alles en nog wat? Sommige sites doen dat niet (met algemene voorwaarden), anderen zelfs niet met nieuwsbrieven. Wat zegt de GDPR hierover?

Het is een misverstand dat je alleen akkoord kunt gaan met algemene voorwaarden door een vinkje of iets dergelijks. De wet eist niet meer dan dat je gewezen bent op de voorwaarden en dat je mocht begrijpen dat ze van toepassing zouden zijn. Dat kan prima door enkel de tekst “Door op ‘Bestellen’ te klikken, gaat u tevens akkoord met de verkoopvoorwaarden.” op te nemen net boven de bestelknop. (Wel even linken naar een downloadbare versie van die voorwaarden.)

Meer algemeen zegt de wet eigenlijk nergens dat een aparte handeling nodig is om instemming met wat dan ook te verkrijgen. Rechtshandelingen zijn vormvrij, zoals dat heet. Het mag op iedere manier, zolang maar duidelijk is dát die handeling opgevat gaat worden als instemming. Dat vinkje is dus eigenlijk sowieso nergens voor nodig en volgens mij vooral gemakzucht om het zo op te nemen.

Of nou ja, één wet wel, namelijk de privacyverordening oftewel AVG/GDPR. Wanneer daaronder toestemming vereist is, dan moet die “door middel van een verklaring of een ondubbelzinnige actieve handeling” worden verkregen. Dit houdt in dat de handeling waarmee toestemming wordt gegeven, niet voor meerdere interpretaties vatbaar mag zijn. Een bestelknop in een webwinkel kan dus niet tevens worden gebruikt om toestemming mee te vragen, zoals met een tekst “Door uw bestelling te plaatsen, gaat u tevens akkoord met ontvangst van onze nieuwsbrief” onder die knop. Het is immers niet ondenkbaar dat mensen wel de prominent vormgegeven knop zien maar niet de tekst daaronder.

Specifiek wordt daarbij verder nog bepaald:

Indien de betrokkene toestemming geeft in het kader van een schriftelijke verklaring die ook op andere aangelegenheden betrekking heeft, wordt het verzoek om toestemming in een begrijpelijke en gemakkelijk toegankelijke vorm en in duidelijke en eenvoudige taal zodanig gepresenteerd dat een duidelijk onderscheid kan worden gemaakt met de andere aangelegenheden.

De toestemmingsvraag moet dus echt apart komen te staan. En ik denk dat het in de praktijk dan vrijwel onvermijdelijk is dat er een vinkje bij komt te staan, al is het maar om vast te stellen dat de persoon echt bedoeld had die toestemming te geven. Een apart vormgegeven paragraaf over privacytoestemming voldoet wel aan het ‘zodanige presentatie’ vereiste, maar ik aarzel of je dat ondubbelzinnig genoeg kunt vinden.


Afkomstig van de blog Internetrecht door Arnoud Engelfriet. Koop mijn boek!

Bedrijven tracken je ook in de fysieke wereld

Bits of Freedom (BOF) - 15 augustus 2017 - 8:00am
Je mobiele telefoon verklapt voortdurend overal je aanwezigheid en bedrijven buiten dat uit.
Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

Rising Demands for Data Localization a Response to Weak Data Protection Mechanisms

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - nieuws - 14 augustus 2017 - 9:30pm
Don't Trust Data Localization Exceptions in Trade Agreements to Guarantee Protection of Personal Data

The digital economy relies on cross-border provision of services and goods, and in the past government trade regulators have embraced the borderless nature of the Internet and adopted light-touch regulation. But with the growing perception of data as the new oil, governments around the world are now flexing their muscles and stepping up efforts to limit or tax cross-border data flows. Multiple countries have enacted laws localizing storage and processing of data within their territory or subjecting cross-border transfers to to strict conditions.

The wave of data localisation policies suggest that a marked regulatory shift is underway. National localization is creating tension within trade negotiations such as RCEP, NAFTA, and TiSA in which countries like the United States, Singapore, Thailand and Japan, along with tech companies, are seeking to prohibit data localization practices.

Although governments push for data localization to achieve diverse policy goals, there is an inherent conflict between the logic of most data localization efforts and the policy objectives that countries pursue by participating in free trade agreements. Resolving localization demands and reconciling conflicting ideologies and interests may be difficult to achieve through trade agreements.

As in the case of copyright rules in trade agreements, developing trade solutions to data localization are sure to get caught up in the wider socio-politics of trade and Internet governance. Negotiating on data localization for the protection of personal information creates the risk of compromise on protections that should be a minimum guarantee, as countries could lay down localization conditions as a trade-off for respecting privacy rights.

Policy Objectives for Pursuing Data Localisation

Government demands for localization are driven by diverse rationales, one of which is security or surveillance concerns. Consider China's National Security Law which limits operations and maintenance of "critical Internet infrastructure" to mainland China as matter of national and cyber security. Similarly, Vietnam and Indonesia mandate maintaining in-country servers for access by law enforcement agencies.

The desire to attract investment, fuel innovation and create competitive advantage for local companies is another important logic driving localization efforts. When framed from the narrative of economic and employment gains, localization is politically appealing and enjoys support of local business constituencies. This approach seems to be at working for some countries. Google and Amazon Web Services (AMS) have announced data centers in Singapore, Taiwan and Japan. Alibaba Cloud, the computing arm of the Chinese company, announced that it would be setting up data centers in India and Indonesia.

Protection of national autonomy or efforts to reign in the hegemony of US firms is also used to drum-up support for introducing rules for transfers of data. Last week, India's telecom regulator issued a consultation paper exploring measures to address cross-border flow of information and jurisdictional challenges in the digital ecosystem. The regulator's move appears to be triggered by its displeasure with Apple's refusal to list an app developed by the regulator that tracks user's messages and call logs to identify spam.

Beyond the economic rationale, there is a growing perception that nations able to control data flows will fare better in the Internet governance order. For developing and developed countries alike, leadership with regard to digital economy is linked to establishing their claims of sovereignty in cyberspace. Therefore, nations mandate storage and processing of data within their jurisdiction. In a similar vein, governments may also lay down conditions for allowing transfer of data such as the company’s nation of incorporation or principal sites of operations and management. The new Chinese cybersecurity regulation defines the notion of territory not only based on the location of operations, but also of ownership.

Not all localization demands are blanket bans on data transfers or on the use of foreign servers. Establishing local facilities can also be incentivized by raising the costs of the data transfer to other jurisdictions either through tedious procedures or through strict compliance obligations. A recent example would be the security review procedure for transfer of personal information laid down under the Chinese cybersecurity law. Other localization laws are narrow in scope. Think of South Korea’s Land Survey Act banning exporting local mapping data to foreign companies that do not operate domestic data servers. India's National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy requires all data collected using public funds to be stored within the borders of India.

Balancing Data Protection and Data Localization in Trade

Another important issue driving localization demands is privacy and protection of personal information. The inclusion of commitments prohibiting localisation mandates in treaties is promoted by industry groups [PDF] as a victory for user rights, security and openness of the Internet... but it’s not quite as simple as that. Some countries argue that limiting how personal data can be transferred across borders is one of the only practical ways they have to protect the privacy of their citizens, in the absence of a more comprehensive shared data protection regime between the countries concerned.

Thus concerns about the lack of control over user data and its transfer, processing and storage in jurisdictions with autocratic governments, a weak rule of law, or surveillance programs, have led governments to recognise data protection as a legitimate reason to limit transfer of data. For example, without such exceptions, sensitive health information from Canada and Australia could be processed in jurisdictions with weaker privacy protections. The European Union also maintains that data protection and privacy are legitimate reasons to place limits cross-border transfer of data, and its Privacy Shield agreement with the United States is its attempt at doing exactly this.

Not surprisingly, there has been strong pushback from the US and large tech firms on this stance. Last week, the Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC) a US-based technology group has alleged that several countries, including India, China, South Korea, Russia, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico and Indonesia have turned to discriminatory policies and forced localisation that unfairly disadvantage American companies. The group has submitted a report to the Trump Administration and is urging for an intervention from the Trump administration to remove barriers to trade.

There is no agreement on where to draw the line between data protection based restrictions on data flows that are protectionist and against trade and liberalisation, and those that are necessary to guarantee the rights of citizens. Privacy experts have argued that data protection is qualitatively different from forced localization and the issue of data localization for data protection would disappear if nations implement stronger privacy laws or adopted baseline best practices. Nevertheless countries continue to pursue carving exemptions for data protection in trade agreements.

Several regional trade agreements under discussion include provisions addressing the cross-border transfer of personal information. Texts and analysis of TTIP, TPP, TISA and NAFTA seems to suggest an emerging strategy on data localization linked to transfer of personal information. Participating nations commit to general obligations to not restrict data flows or to require localization of infrastructure, facilities or restriction on transfer of ICT goods and services. For the RCEP, which includes countries with strong national localization strategies or ambitions such as China and India, and countries like Australia and Japan that oppose localization, it is as yet unclear how data localization will be treated.

A strategy to harmonize national approaches followed in the TPP which may see adoption in other trade agreements such as NAFTA and RCEP would be to create exceptions for countries to the general obligations against data localisations. Exceptions allowing restrictions have to based on “legitimate public policy concerns” and are expected to provide the flexibility to accommodate national approaches in regional agreements. Not including such exceptions could require certain countries to roll-back data protections guaranteed to citizens in order to allow cross-border transfer. Global trade bodies recognise the need for flexibility and the World Trade Organization provides such exceptions under Article XIV of its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).

Yet the problem with this is it exposes data protection rules to the possibility of trade complaints about whether these rules are legitimate and proportionate—and these complaints would be heard by a panel of trade lawyers, who have no particular expertise in privacy law or human rights. A lot depends on the implementation of restrictions crafted under these exceptions. When specifying exceptions it is important that governments lay down conditions to facilitate transfer of data where privacy concerns have been adequately addressed. Thinking through and being critical of effectiveness of de-identification measures or thresholds for meaningful informed consent will go a long way in understanding if restricting data to a jurisdiction is a long-term solution for protecting personal data.

EFF’s Recommendation

We believe that countries should consider other measures apart from data localization for strengthening data protection in trade agreements. While there is no global framework for data protection, there are regional initiatives such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Privacy Principles and APEC's Cross Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) system. Such mechanisms could be a starting point for harmonising national approaches and gaining consensus on data protection.

The CBPR features principles and guidelines for the development of a system of voluntary cross-border transfer of personal information in the region. In addition to Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the US, nearly two dozen private companies are also participatory members in the CBPR framework. Earlier this year, South Korea became the fifth member and Singapore and the Philippines are expected to join in the near future. The incentives for integration of such a template will depend on how far countries can accommodate domestic strategies to be harmonious with global rules. By themselves, Australia, India, China, Japan and South Korea are large economies and their role in regional structures and ambitions will influence their role in trade negotiations.

Since the APEC privacy principles do not impose obligations on its member organisations with respect to privacy, but merely confirm a baseline level of protection, Mexico has asked for more in the NAFTA negotiations which begin this week. It is pushing for a Privacy Shield style agreement that would require U.S. companies to abide by Mexico's stronger data protection rules if they wish to gain access to the benefits of liberalized trade within the NAFTA region. The response from the United States remains to be seen, but we can expect some pushback against this suggestion.

Calls to regulate data localization laws in trade agreements aren't going to go away while the factors driving these laws remain, and weak cross-border data protection is one such factor. But data localization isn't a comprehensive solution to this problem, as it doesn't guarantee that data will be secure or adequately protect it against misuse. Pushing localization for short-term social, political and economic gains could ultimately harm users and innovators.

Given the complex political and cultural contexts driving data localization, reconciliation of the multitude of interests and ideologies will not be easy.  Ideally, the privacy and personal data of users would be protected through measures that support a free and open Internet, and that would not be vulnerable to being overturned by trade tribunals who place the free flow of data above the human rights of users. Threading this needle is a challenge in the best of conditions, but doing so under the closed, opaque, and lobbyist-dominated conditions of trade negotiations makes it even harder.

Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

In J20 Investigation, DOJ Overreaches Again. And Gets Taken to Court Again.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - nieuws - 14 augustus 2017 - 9:25pm

We’ve already written about problems with the government’s investigation into the J20 protests—a series of demonstrations on January 20, the day of President Trump’s inauguration—which resulted in the arrest of hundreds of protesters.

But prosecutors in DC are still at it. And they’re still using unconstitutional methods to pursue their investigation.

This time they served a search warrant on hosting provider DreamHost that would require the company to turn over essentially all information on a website it hosts, www.disruptj20.org—a site that was dedicated to organizing and planning the protest.

Did you click on that link? Well, that’s apparently information the government wants to know. In just one example of the staggering overbreadth of the search warrant, it would require DreamHost to turn over the IP logs of all visitors to the site. Millions of visitors—activists, reporters, or you (if you clicked on the link)—would have records of your visit turned over to the government. The warrant also sought production of all emails associated with the account and unpublished content, like draft blog posts and photos.

No plausible explanation exists for a search warrant of this breadth, other than to cast a digital dragnet as broadly as possible. But the Fourth Amendment was designed to prohibit fishing expeditions like this. Those concerns are especially relevant here, where DOJ is investigating a website that served as a hub for the planning and exercise of First Amendment-protected activities.

DreamHost did the right thing: it stood up for its users. It offered the government a chance to narrow the scope of the warrant. And when the government refused, DreamHost went to court.

A hearing is scheduled for August 18, in Superior Court in Washington, D.C. EFF will continue to monitor the situation.

Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

EFF Urges Supreme Court to Protect Your Cell Phone Location Data from Over-Curious Cops

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - nieuws - 14 augustus 2017 - 6:01pm
Outdated ‘Third Party’ Doctrine Lets Law Enforcement Violate Your Privacy

Washington, D.C - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged the U.S. Supreme Court today to curb law enforcement’s expansive tracking of suspects’ cell phones, arguing that police must get a warrant before collecting the detailed location data that all phones generate as part of their routine functioning.

The defendants in U.S. v. Carpenter were convicted after hundreds of days of location data collected from their wireless carriers associated them with a string of armed robberies. But investigators obtained those location records through a lower legal standard than needed for a warrant, relying on the “third-party doctrine”—an outdated legal standard that says if you voluntarily give certain information to entities like banks or the phone company, you have no expectation of privacy in the data.

“The Supreme Court developed the third-party doctrine at a time when everyone used rotary-dial, land-line phones, which couldn't reveal very much about the people who used them,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch. “The location data our cell phones generate now is much more detailed. As cell phones connect to cell towers and antennas hundreds of times a day, it creates a non-stop flow of information on everywhere we travel—revealing things like when we're at home, whether we're seeing a therapist, where we worship, or what kind of political meetings we might attend. This is far too sensitive information to obtain without a warrant based on probable cause.”

Judges in several states and some federal courts have already recognized that the third-party doctrine should not apply to cell site location data. Meanwhile, in two major recent decisions, the Supreme Court found that modern technology requires updated interpretations of privacy law in order to safeguard constitutional rights. In 2014, the court held that the astounding amount of sensitive data stored on smartphones requires police to obtain a warrant before accessing data on an arrestee’s device. And in a landmark 2012 decision, the court decided that using a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s car is a search under the Fourth Amendment. As it’s impossible to use mapping services, fitness trackers, or many other technologies without sharing data with third-parties, extending these decisions is critical to preserving privacy in the 21st century.

 “Taking advantage of everyday conveniences shouldn’t mean that we have to relinquish our constitutional rights,” said EFF Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker. “We’ve seen the Supreme Court move in the right direction in these cases, and we hope they continue that trend here.”

For our amicus brief in U.S. v. Carpenter:

For more on this case:

Contact:  AndrewCrockerStaff Attorneyandrew@eff.org
Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

Insert User: User Feedback

Bits of Freedom (BOF) - 14 augustus 2017 - 8:18am
Aflevering 6 met Sacha van Geffen, Jons Janssens, Yoeran, Kees Plattel, Nalden en Ton Siedsma.
Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

6 manieren om zorg te dragen voor je gebruikers

Bits of Freedom (BOF) - 14 augustus 2017 - 8:16am
In 6 stappen naar échte user-friendliness.
Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

Ook berichten op de zakelijke telefoon kunnen privé zijn

IusMentis - 14 augustus 2017 - 8:09am

Wat doe je als je als werkgever het vermoeden krijgt dat een personeelslid haar concurrentiebeding overtreedt? Dan ga je natuurlijk op zoek naar bewijs. Vandaag de dag is dan de laptop of zakelijke telefoon van die werknemer een handige bron van bewijs: deze biedt immers toegang tot mailaccounts, WhatsAppgespreken en ga zo maar door. Maar zoals uit dit vonnis blijkt, moet je als werkgever echt uitkijken met daar zomaar in gaan snuffelen.

De werknemer was in dienst bij een bedrijf voor tandheelkundige zorg. Op zeker moment kreeg het bedrijf een vermoeden dat de werknemer dingen ondernam voor een concurrent, en dat daarbij ook mogelijk vertrouwelijke informatie richting die concurrent zou zijn gegaan. Dat zou in strijd zijn met het concurrentiebeding uit haar arbeidsovereenkomst.

Tijd voor een onderzoek dus. De zakelijke telefoon bood een ingang: via die telefoon kon men eenvoudig toegang krijgen tot communicatie via Facebook, Gmail en Whatsapp. (Zo te lezen was de werknemer automatisch ingelogd vanaf die telefoon op deze diensten, zonder apart wachtwoord.) Na de werknemer op nonactief gesteld te hebben, kreeg men de telefoon terug en kon erop worden gekeken. Daaruit bleek dat er inderdaad communicatie was met werknemers en management van een concurrent.

Maar mag je nu in zulke informatie kijken? Nee, aldus de rechter. Ook al is het een zakelijke telefoon, die gesprekken zijn privé en daar heb je dus van weg te blijven als werkgever.

Nu whatsapp en hotmail tot de privé-domein van [gedaagde] behoren, heeft Ivory door zich daarin toegang te verschaffen zonder instemming van [gedaagde] zonder meer inbreuk gemaakt op haar recht op privacy (artikel 8 EVRM). Deze inbreuk is dermate ernstig, te meer nu [gedaagde] als gevolg daarvan zelf geen toegang meer had tot haar whatsapp en hotmail, dat het belang van Ivory bij de inbreuk, namelijk het achterhalen hoe ver de concurrerende activiteiten van [gedaagde] reiken, onvoldoende is om de ernst van de inbreuk te rechtvaardigen. Er is dan ook sprake van onrechtmatig verkregen bewijs.

Maar zoals wel vaker gezegd, dat betekent niet dat het bewijs dus buiten beschouwing blijft. In Nederland is onrechtmatig verkregen bewijs bruikbaar als bewijs. Dat je het bewijs onrechtmatig verkreeg, is iets waar je apart op afgerekend wordt.

In dit geval zitten er verder weinig consequenties aan, wat ik wel opmerkelijk vind. De berichten laten zien dat de werknemer inderdaad bezig was onder de duiven van de werkgever te schieten, onder meer door prospects door te spelen aan de concurrent zodat die ze over kon nemen. Ook werden financiële informatie en klantgegevens doorgemaild. Dat is vrij ernstig en inderdaad een overtreding van het concurrentiebeding. Mogelijk dat de rechter daardoor weinig sympathie meer over had om de werkgever af te rekenen op het onrechtmatig snuffelen? (Of het is zo simpel als dat er geen schadevergoeding werd gevorderd, dus ook niet kon worden toegewezen.)


Afkomstig van de blog Internetrecht door Arnoud Engelfriet. Koop mijn boek!

Open Access Can't Wait. Pass FASTR Now.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - nieuws - 11 augustus 2017 - 9:57pm

When you pay for federally funded research, you should be allowed to read it. That’s the idea behind the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (S.1701, H.R.3427), which was recently reintroduced in both houses of Congress.

FASTR was first introduced in 2013, and while it has strong support in both parties, it has never gained enough momentum to pass. We need to change that. Let’s tell Congress that passing an open access law should be a top priority.

Take action

Tell Congress: It’s time to move FASTR

The proposal is pretty simple: Under FASTR, every federal agency that spends more than $100 million on grants for research would be required to adopt an open access policy. The bill gives each agency flexibility to implement an open access policy suited to the work it funds, so long as research is available to the public after an “embargo period” of a year or less.

One of the major points of contention around FASTR is how long that embargo period should be. Last year, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved FASTR unanimously, but only after extending that embargo period from six months to 12, putting FASTR in line with the 2013 White House open access memo. That’s the version that was recently reintroduced in the Senate.  The House bill, by contrast, sets the embargo period at six months.

EFF supports a shorter period. Part of what’s important about open access is that it democratizes knowledge: when research is available to the public, you don’t need expensive journal subscriptions or paid access to academic databases in order to read it. A citizen scientist can use and build on the same body of knowledge as someone with institutional connections. But in the fast-moving world of scientific research, 12 months is an eternity.

A shorter embargo is far from a radical proposition, especially in 2017. The landscape for academic publishing is very different from what it was when FASTR was first introduced, thanks in larger part to nongovernmental funders who already enforce open access mandates. Major foundations like Ford, Gates, and Hewlett have adopted strong open access policies requiring that research be not only available to the public, but also licensed to allow republishing and reuse by anyone.

Just last year, the Gates Foundation made headlines when it dropped the embargo period from its policy entirely, requiring that research be published openly immediately. After a brief standoff, major publishers began to accommodate Gates’ requirements. As a result, we finally have public confirmation of what we’ve always known: open access mandates don’t put publishers out of business; they push them to modernize their business models. Imagine how a strong open access mandate for government-funded research—with a requirement that that research be licensed openly—could transform publishing.

FASTR may not be that law, but it’s a huge step in the right direction, and it’s the best option on the table today. Let’s urge Congress to pass a version of FASTR with an embargo period of six months or less, and then use it as a foundation for stronger open access in the future.

Take action

Tell Congress: It’s time to move FASTR

Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

De week van Amazon Echo wiretapping, Spearphishing en SHA2017

Bits of Freedom (BOF) - 11 augustus 2017 - 5:03pm
Een stukje service van ons naar jou toe: mooie, ontroerende, zorgwekkende en/of hilarische linkjes over internetvrijheid die we deze week ontdekten en graag met je delen.
Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten


Abonneren op Informatiebeheer  aggregator - Privacy