U bent hier

Privacy

Britse overheid pleit voor offline versie van '3-2-1' regel voor back-ups

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 3:51pm
Bij het maken van back-ups is het belangrijk om een offline versie van de '3-2-1' regel te volgen, zo stelt het Britse National ...

Frans UWV lekt persoonlijke gegevens van 43 miljoen mensen

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 3:07pm
Het Franse UWV, France Travail, is slachtoffer geworden van een cyberaanval waarbij de persoonlijke gegevens van waarschijnlijk ...

Bankhelpdeskfraudeurs moeten Rabobank 80.000 euro terugbetalen

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 2:53pm
tDe rechtbank heeft drie mannen wegens bankhelpdeskfraude veroordeeld tot taakstraffen en voorwaardelijke gevangenisstraffen. ...

Nissan waarschuwt 100.000 mensen voor datalek door ransomware-aanval

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 2:31pm
Nissan gaat honderdduizend klanten, medewerkers en dealers in Australië en Nieuw-Zeeland waarschuwen dat hun gegevens bij een ...

SIDN gaat korting geven op domeinnamen met geldig security.txt-bestand

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 2:06pm
De Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland (SIDN), de organisatie die de .nl-domeinnamen beheert, gaat een financiële ...

Amerikaanse dna-onderzoeker manipuleerde resultaten in honderden zaken

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 1:40pm
Een dna-onderzoeker van het Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) heeft dna-resultaten in honderden zaken gemanipuleerd, zo ...

VS neemt 1,4 miljoen dollar aan crypto in beslag van helpdeskfraudeurs

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 12:31pm
De Amerikaanse autoriteiten hebben met hulp van een cryptobedrijf 1,4 miljoen dollar aan crypto in beslag genomen dat ...

Minister: bank mag klant niet zomaar limiet opleggen voor storten contant geld

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 12:03pm
Banken mogen hun klanten niet zomaar limieten opleggen voor het storten van contant geld, zo stelt demissionair minister Van ...

Ierse overheid lekte vaccinatiegegevens 1 miljoen burgers via 'misconfiguratie'

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 11:27am
De Ierse overheid heeft eind 2021 de vaccinatiegegevens van een miljoen personen gelekt. Het ging om volledige namen, ...

Gemeenten willen gezichtsscan tegen identiteitsfraude gaan inzetten

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 10:55am
Verschillende Nederlandse gemeenten willen een gezichtsscan tegen identiteitsfraude gaan inzetten. Bij de aanvraag van een ...

Belastingdienst lanceert nieuwe Toeslagen-app voor controleren gegevens

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 10:18am
De Belastingdienst heeft een nieuwe Toeslagen-app gelanceerd waarmee toeslagontvangers voor al hun toeslagen hun gegevens ...

Minister: Chinese routers en switches niet per definitie een risico

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 10:08am
Chinese routers en switches zijn niet per definitie een risico. Om dit te kunnen beoordelen is onder meer het proces waarvoor ...

Video recording of “Unlocking Knowledge Conference” now available

International Communia Association - 14 maart 2024 - 9:58am

On the 6th of March 2024, we were delighted to welcome a full house at our “Unlocking Knowledge Conference” at Town Hall Europe. At this event, we asked academics, civil society representatives and EU policymakers about the issues knowledge institutions and researchers still face when accessing and using copyrighted materials in their activities, particularly in their digital activities. COMMUNIA defends that the introduction of a targeted legislative instrument, a Digital Knowledge Act for Europe, covering the needs of knowledge institutions in the digital environment, would be the way forward for aligning and updating the legal framework for European research and other public interest activities. If you were unable to make it to the event or would like to rewatch, the recording is now available.

Panel on legal uncertainty and exposure to liability 

Teresa Hackett (EIFL) moderated the first panel on legal uncertainty and exposure to liability when working with copyrighted materials. Martin Senftleben (Professor, University of Amsterdam) kicked off the panel by questioning whether the present EU legal framework is sufficiently broad for all contemporary research activities. He described the sources of legal uncertainty in the current legal framework and explained how the application of the three-step test, with its open-ended norms subject to the CJEU interpretation, gives rise to a liability risk for users. To counterbalance this risk, he highlighted that in the CJEU jurisprudence the subjective knowledge/intention of the user have been factored in the equation. He also referred to the liability limitations that exist in some civil law systems in the Americas and in the U.S. (where damages are capped when the user acted in good faith), as a potential policy mechanism that can be explored in Europe to address the liability risk.  

Annabelle Shaw (British Film Institute) provided some insight on the issues which collection managing institutions face on a day-to-day basis and made the point that smaller institutions in particular lack the legal framework to make them confident enough to make their collections accessible without fear of litigation.

Michael Arentoft (Head of Unit, European Commission DG RTD.A.4) reiterated that open science is fundamental to the EU and it is a priority action point in the European Research Area (ERA) Policy Agenda, noting the link between the European Research Area and the free circulation of knowledge in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (see Article 179). He highlighted the need for a system for disseminating findings and data and stated that we should take seriously the opportunity cost we are already incurring by not making datasets FAIR. He further explained some of the policy options explored in the study launched in the context of Action 2 of ERA. These options include the introduction of a general research exception and of a EU-wide secondary publication right. As a next step after the publication of the Commission’s upcoming study, the Commission will have to clarify which recommendations will lead to legislative measures and which ones to non-legislative measures. Responding to the question whether legislative measures should take the form of a regulation addressing the needs of researchers, Arentoft remarked that this would depend on the policy motivation. If they determine that there is a need for sector specific legislation, then this could take the form of a single act or a more targeted intervention, such as a secondary publication right.

Panel on obstacles to use digital formats, due to refusals to license by rightholders

Teresa Nobre (COMMUNIA) moderated the second panel on obstacles to use digital formats, due to refusals to license by rightholders, which started with a presentation of the preliminary findings of a study on this subject, commissioned by COMMUNIA and the IFLA Foundation to Christophe Geiger (Professor, Luiss Guido Carli University) and Bernd Justin Jütte (Assistant Professor, University College Dublin). Bernd Justin Jütte reminded the audience that current mechanisms to enforce users rights are insufficient and often ineffective, as right holders can still instrumentalize their exclusive rights and apply distribution (or access) strategies to prevent the proper exercise of users rights. He defended that copyright must establish positive obligations for right holders to provide access for specific purposes, arguing that an obligation to grant a specific license to enable a specific use under an exception can be derived from the ratios of the relevant exceptions.

Stephen Wyber (IFLA) presented some European examples of libraries facing refusals to license (or to license under reasonable pricing and conditions) digital materials for e-lending purposes. He encouraged us to think that the shift to digital could be seen as deregulation by stealth, urging policymakers to come up with a legislative agenda to make sure that the market as a whole also works for knowledge institutions.

MEP Karen Melchior (Renew Europe) talked about the changing role of public libraries in our current increasingly digital society. She noted that in Denmark publishers are inhibiting this transformation by not providing access to digital books at the same rate as physical ones. She warned us that, in the absence of appropriate changes to the legal framework, we might not see the expansion of access to knowledge that this digital revolution promises, and encouraged the audience to not let rights holders hijack the conversation.

A Digital Knowledge Act for Europe

In his closing remarks Felix Reda (former MEP and COMMUNIA member) made an argument for a unified act to support European research rather than surgical changes to existing legislation. Looking back on his 10 years of experience working in Parliament and civil society, he remarked that while he was sometimes able to add provisions for researchers (in case of the Digital Services Act) or damage control where necessary (Art. 17 of the EU Copyright Directive would originally have applied to University research repositories), the needs of researchers was never the starting point for any of these legislations. He reminded the audience that while universities are under pressure to operate more and more under market principles, they thus far haven’t gotten the same support to be competitive by removing bureaucratic hurdles as classical businesses have had in the past. Reda is convinced that we need a Digital Knowledge Act and asked the question: “Do we want all this public funding to be spent on actual knowledge production or on compliance with a very complicated legal mechanism?” 

The post Video recording of “Unlocking Knowledge Conference” now available appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

Mozilla blijft Manifest V2-extensies in Firefox voorlopig ondersteunen

Security.NL - 14 maart 2024 - 9:40am
Mozilla blijft op Manifest V2-gebaseerde browser-extensies in Firefox voorlopig ondersteunen en als er wordt besloten om ...

Mag de onderaannemer van de zonnepanelen deze uitzetten als je niet betaalt?

IusMentis - 14 maart 2024 - 8:14am

Intrigerende bij Tweakers: Vorig jaar zijn bij mij zonnepanelen aangelegd. De omvormers en gateway zijn van Enphase. Het hele proces was bijzonder rommelig, en achteraf werd ik gebeld door iemand die claimt de onderaannemer te zijn. Die gaf aan dat de hoofdaannemer failliet is gegaan, en dat ik aan hem moest betalen. Als ik dat niet zou doen, dan zou hij de zonnepanelen op afstand buiten werking stellen. Dat “buiten werking stellen” is een administratief eenvoudig dingetje: standaard worden installateurs van deze systemen als “maintainer” in de beheersoftware aangemerkt. Alleen zij kunnen dan dingen aanpassen. De klant kan alleen lezen en heeft verder geen controle.

De praktische workaround is zelf een bedrijf aanmelden bij Enphase (dit hoeft niet echt te bestaan) en die als maintainer op te voeren. Alleen is onduidelijk of daarmee de oude maintainer wordt verwijderd. De dreiging van afsluiting zit dus nog steeds in de lucht.

De vraag of het mág wordt daarmee relevant. In principe mag een dienstverlener of aannemer maatregelen nemen als hij niet wordt betaald. Denk aan de aannemer die de voordeursleutel niet geeft (of een hek om de schuur zet) als de klant de factuur niet betaalt. Alleen: dat moet je vóór levering doen, want “het retentierecht eindigt doordat de zaak in de macht komt van de schuldenaar of de rechthebbend” (art. 3:294 BW). Wel moet dat dan “vrijwillig en zonder voorbehoud” gebeuren.

Bij het Tweakers-bericht lees ik dat de zonnepanelen “vorig jaar” zijn geplaatst. Dan mag ik wel vermoeden dat ze ondertussen opgeleverd en in gebruik genomen zijn, zodat volgens mij die regel over einde retentierecht opgaat. Dus de aannemer mag ze niet meer terug in zijn macht nemen en eisen dat er betaald wordt.

Een extra complicatie is natuurlijk dat het hier gaat om een onderaannemer, niet de contractspartij van de consument. Die heeft nooit betaald gekregen van die hoofdaannemer, omdat die in de tussentijd failliet is gegaan.

Het simpele antwoord is dan: ik heb als consument niets te maken met die onderaannemer, omdat ik daar geen contract mee heb. Die mag me dus niet dwingen tot betalen en al helemáál niet de spullen weghouden tot ik dat doe.

Het ligt alleen iets complexer. Zolang de zonnepanelen nog eigendom zijn van de onderaannemer, mag deze ze onder zich houden tot zíjn opdrachtgever – de hoofdaannemer dus – betaald heeft. Dat is zeg maar hetzelfde als een leverancier die de panelen niet levert zodat installatie niet kan gebeuren. Vereist is dan wel dat de panelen dan eigendom zijn van de onderaannemer, en dat hangt natuurlijk sterk af van hoe de taakverdeling was. Én de boel mag nog niet opgeleverd zijn.

Arnoud

Het bericht Mag de onderaannemer van de zonnepanelen deze uitzetten als je niet betaalt? verscheen eerst op Ius Mentis.

SXSW Tried to Silence Critics with Bogus Trademark and Copyright Claims. EFF Fought Back.

Special thanks to EFF legal intern Jack Beck, who was the lead author of this post.

Amid heavy criticism for its ties to weapons manufacturers supplying Israel, South by Southwest—the organizer of an annual conference and music festival in Austin—has been on the defensive. One tool in their arsenal: bogus trademark and copyright claims against local advocacy group Austin for Palestine Coalition.

The Austin for Palestine Coalition has been a major source of momentum behind recent anti-SXSW protests. Their efforts have included organizing rallies outside festival stages and hosting an alternative music festival in solidarity with Palestine. They have also created social media posts explaining the controversy, criticizing SXSW, and calling on readers to email SXSW with demands for action. The group’s posts include graphics that modify SXSW’s arrow logo to add blood-stained fighter jets. Other images incorporate patterns evoking SXSW marketing materials overlaid with imagery like a bomb or a bleeding dove.

Graphic featuring parody of SXSW arrow logo and a bleeding dove in front of a geometric background, with the text "If SXSW wishes to retain its credibility, it must change course by disavowing the normalization of militarization within the tech and entertainment industries."

One of Austin for Palestine's graphics

Days after the posts went up, SXSW sent a cease-and-desist letter to Austin for Palestine, accusing them of trademark and copyright infringement and demanding they take down the posts. Austin for Palestine later received an email from Instagram indicating that SXSW had reported the post for violating their trademark rights.

We responded to SXSW on Austin for Palestine’s behalf, explaining that their claims are completely unsupported by the law and demanding they retract them.

The law is clear on this point. The First Amendment protects your right to make a political statement using trademark parodies, whether or not the trademark owner likes it. That’s why trademark law applies a different standard (the “Rogers test”) to infringement claims involving expressive works. The Rogers test is a crucial defense against takedowns like these, and it clearly applies here. Even without Rogers’ extra protections, SXSW’s trademark claim would be bogus: Trademark law is about preventing consumer confusion, and no reasonable consumer would see Austin for Palestine’s posts and infer they were created or endorsed by SXSW.

SXSW’s copyright claims are just as groundless. Basic symbols like their arrow logo are not copyrightable. Moreover, even if SXSW meant to challenge Austin for Palestine’s mimicking of their promotional material—and it’s questionable whether that is copyrightable as well—the posts are a clear example of non-infringing fair use. In a fair use analysis, courts conduct a four-part analysis, and each of those four factors here either favors Austin for Palestine or is at worst neutral. Most importantly, it’s clear that the critical message conveyed by Austin for Palestine’s use is entirely different from the original purpose of these marketing materials, and the only injury to SXSW is reputational—which is not a cognizable copyright injury.

SXSW has yet to respond to our letter. EFF has defended against bogus copyright and trademark claims in the past, and SXSW’s attempted takedown feels especially egregious considering the nature of Austin for Palestine’s advocacy. Austin for Palestine used SXSW’s iconography to make a political point about the festival itself, and neither trademark nor copyright is a free pass to shut down criticism. As an organization that “dedicates itself to helping creative people achieve their goals,” SXSW should know better.

Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

Protect Yourself from Election Misinformation

Welcome to your U.S. presidential election year, when all kinds of bad actors will flood the internet with election-related disinformation and misinformation aimed at swaying or suppressing your vote in November. 

So… what’re you going to do about it? 

As EFF’s Corynne McSherry wrote in 2020, online election disinformation is a problem that has had real consequences in the U.S. and all over the world—it has been correlated to ethnic violence in Myanmar and India and to Kenya’s 2017 elections, among other events. Still, election misinformation and disinformation continue to proliferate online and off. 

That being said, regulation is not typically an effective or human rights-respecting way to address election misinformation. Even well-meaning efforts to control election misinformation through regulation inevitably end up silencing a range of dissenting voices and hindering the ability to challenge ingrained systems of oppression. Indeed, any content regulation must be scrutinized to avoid inadvertently affecting meaningful expression: Is the approach narrowly tailored or a categorical ban? Does it empower users? Is it transparent? Is it consistent with human rights principles? 

 While platforms and regulators struggle to get it right, internet users must be vigilant about checking the election information they receive for accuracy. There is help. Nonprofit journalism organization ProPublica published a handy guide about how to tell if what you’re reading is accurate or “fake news.” The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions infographic on How to Spot Fake News is a quick and easy-to-read reference you can share with friends:

how_to_spot_fake_news.jpg How to Spot Fake News - IFLA

To make sure you’re getting good information about how your election is being conducted, check in with trusted sources including your state’s Secretary of State, Common Cause, and other nonpartisan voter protection groups, or call or text 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683) to speak with a trained election protection volunteer. 

And if you see something, say something: You can report election disinformation at https://reportdisinfo.org/, a project of the Common Cause Education Fund. 

 EFF also offers some election-year food for thought: 

  • On EFF’s “How to Fix the Internet” podcast, Pamela Smith—president and CEO of Verified Voting—in 2022 talked with EFF’s Cindy Cohn and Jason Kelley about finding reliable information on how your elections are conducted, as part of ensuring ballot accessibility and election transparency.
  • Also on “How to Fix the Internet”, Alice Marwick—cofounder and principal researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill’s Center for Information, Technology and Public Life—in 2023 talked about finding ways to identify and leverage people’s commonalities to stem the flood of disinformation while ensuring that the most marginalized and vulnerable internet users are still empowered to speak out. She discussed why seemingly ludicrous conspiracy theories get so many views and followers; how disinformation is tied to personal identity and feelings of marginalization and disenfranchisement; and when fact-checking does and doesn’t work.
  • EFF’s Cory Doctorow wrote in 2020 about how big tech monopolies distort our public discourse: “By gathering a lot of data about us, and by applying self-modifying machine-learning algorithms to that data, Big Tech can target us with messages that slip past our critical faculties, changing our minds not with reason, but with a kind of technological mesmerism.” 

An effective democracy requires an informed public and participating in a democracy is a responsibility that requires work. Online platforms have a long way to go in providing the tools users need to discern legitimate sources from fake news. In the meantime, it’s on each of us. Don’t let anyone lie, cheat, or scare you away from making the most informed decision for your community at the ballot box. 

Categorieën: Openbaarheid, Privacy, Rechten

Kaspersky: stalkerware vaker op Android aangetroffen dan iPhones

Security.NL - 13 maart 2024 - 5:24pm
Stalkerware wordt vaker op Androidtelefoons dan iPhones aangetroffen, zo stelt antivirusbedrijf Kaspersky. De virusbestrijder ...

Amerikaanse burgerrechtenbeweging tegen TikTok-verbod: schendt grondwet

Security.NL - 13 maart 2024 - 4:47pm
De populaire video-app TikTok moet niet in de Verenigde Staten worden verboden, zoals een nieuw Amerikaans wetsvoorstel ...

Franse privacytoezichthouder: stop met periodiek wijzigen wachtwoorden

Security.NL - 13 maart 2024 - 4:17pm
Organisaties moeten stoppen met de verplichte periodieke wachtwoordwijzigingen voor normale gebruikers, zo stelt de Franse ...

Pagina's

Abonneren op Informatiebeheer  aggregator - Privacy