The press review catalogues press articles related to la Quadrature's issues, compiled by its volunteers.
See also our French press review.
A coalition of nearly 20 telcos including BT, Deutsche Telekom, Ericsson, Hutchison, Nokia, Orange, Telefonica, Telenor, and Vodafone have drawn up what they call their "5G Manifesto"—outlining what they want from governments in order to deliver 5G coverage across Europe. [...]
However, there is a caveat: the telcos warn of the "danger" of strict regulation and want net neutrality rules to be watered down. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should treat all data the same, by not discriminating or applying different charges regardless of type of content or user. [...]
The telcos also want net neutrality laws to allow “innovative specialised services,” adding that “5G introduces the concept of network slicing to accommodate a wide variety of industry verticals’ business models on a common platform, at scale and with services guarantees.”
The EU-US data transfer plan took several tough hits over the past week [...].
The European Commission pushed back a deadline it set for itself to finalize the agreement by end of May to sometime before “this summer,” but isn’t giving up on the agreement struck with Washington in February. Ruling out any renegotiation in the wake of pushback from EU national regulators and the Parliament, EU officials say they’re going to implement the accord, knowing that court challenges are inevitable. Those challenges could take years to get through the court system. [...]
Uncertainty around the future of trans-Atlantic data transfers leaves more than 4,000 companies on both sides of the ocean that had signed up to safe harbor in limbo. Champions of the data pact reacted with frustration to the latest political setbacks in Europe. [...]
The European Parliament’s resolution on the privacy shield acknowledges its improvements over the safe harbor pact, but pointed out that U.S. intelligence services can still snoop on EU citizens’ data in ways that “does not meet the stricter criteria of necessity and proportionality as required under the Charter [of Fundamental Rights]” — one of the reasons safe harbor didn’t survive the beating at the European court. [...]
[TheIndependent] Any computer connected to the internet can be hacked by the US Government without a warrant, court rules
If a computer has a connection to the internet means no warrant is required for the US government to hack it, a Virginia court has ruled.
The judge angered privacy campaigners by reasoning that since no connected computer “is immune from invasion”, no user should ever expect their their activity to remain secret. [...]
Scarlet Kim, legal officer at Privacy International, told The Independent the verdict would have “astounding implications for the privacy and security of anyone who owns an electronic device”. [...]
“The justification that the rise in hacking destroys a reasonable expectation of privacy in these devices is illogical and absurd.” [...]
EU member states today (8 July) signed off on the controversial Privacy Shield agreement for data transfers to the US, locking down the final deal after the European Commission haggled for months with the US over legal details.
Four out of 28 EU diplomats abstained from the final vote. The Commission instructed diplomats not to publicly state how they voted. [...]
Schrems already said he would challenge Privacy Shield in court as well because the deal doesn’t have strict enough privacy safeguards. [...]
For the last three years, one month, and seven days, Edward Snowden has been living in exile from the United States. [...]
The implicit point is that if Snowden is going to come home, his best chance is a presidential pardon, which is unlikely to come from Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. The final days of Obama’s final term are the best chance Snowden has, which gives Wizner and his team a little more than six months to make their case.
Pardoning Snowden is the right thing to do, and if you care about a free and secure internet, you should support it [...]. Clemency is particularly important because it will be impossible to defend Snowden’s leaks as a public service in court [...].
The president has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all presidents before him combined [...] With Snowden’s push for clemency, the president has a chance to complicate that legacy and begin to undo it. It’s the last chance he’ll have.
Russia’s parliament has passed harsh anti-terrorism measures that human rights campaigners including the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden say will roll back personal freedoms and privacy [...].
The legislation obliges telephone and internet providers to store records of all communications for six months and all metadata for three years, as well as help intelligence agencies decode encrypted messaging services. Telecoms firms have complained that users rather than providers typically possess the encryption keys, and that storing this huge amount of information would require expensive new infrastructure [...].
Tanya Lokshina, the Russia programme director for Human Rights Watch, called it an attack on freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and the right to privacy that gives law enforcement unreasonably broad powers;[...].
Technical difficulties delay vote as civil liberties MEPs tinker with text. [...]
The latest draft of the directive on combating terrorism contains proposals on blocking websites that promote or incite terror attacks. Member states “may take all necessary measures to remove or to block access to webpages publicly inciting to commit terrorist offences,” says text submitted by German MEP and rapporteur Monika Hohlmeier. [...]
Estelle Masse, EU policy analyst for digital rights outfit Access, told Ars: “The new text is an improvement, but it still does not address the fundamental censorship problem that the Council of Europe warned about.” She added that it was strange the European Parliament had inserted this text into a draft law that, when originally proposed by officials in Brussels, made no mention of removing or blocking online content. [...]
Back in March, national ministers set out a common position on the proposal for an EU law to combat terrorism. The original draft of the law from the European Commission focused on preventing terrorist attacks by criminalising preparatory acts, such as training and travel abroad for terrorist purposes, and made no mention of Web blocking. This was unsurprising, given that it was about criminalising particular offences and not specific obligations on companies.
However, ministers added a note in their version saying “it seems appropriate for member states to take measures to remove or to block access to webpages publicly inciting to commit terrorist offences.” Now, one MEP seems to have taken that idea and is running with it. [...]
“This leaves the door wide open for private companies to police content and very likely over-block or delete any content they are unsure about,” EDRi (European Digital Rights) head Joe McNamee told Ars. He added that European law requires that any blocking or content restriction measures “must be provided for by law, subject to initial judicial control and periodic review.”
The US government has asked to be joined as a party in the Irish High Court case between the Austrian privacy activist and lawyer Max Schrems, and the social network Facebook. In a press release, Schrems called this "an unusual move" [...].
Schrems speculated that the US government has made this move because it wanted to defend its surveillance laws before the European Courts [...]. Schrems told Ars that he hopes to use this unexpected opportunity to grill the US government to the maximum [...].
However, as Schrems points out, "this shift in the legal basis does not remedy the fact that Facebook is still subject to US mass surveillance laws and programs, which the CJEU already found to be conflicting with EU law" [...].
Courts across the country are grappling with a key question for the information age: When law enforcement asks a company for cellphone records to track location data in an investigation, is that a search under the Fourth Amendment?
By a 12-3 vote, appellate court judges in Richmond, Virginia, on Monday ruled that it is not — and therefore does not require a warrant. [...]
Research clearly shows that cell-site location data collected over time can reveal a tremendous amount of personal information — like where you live, where you work, when you travel, who you meet with, and who you sleep with. And it’s impossible to make a call without giving up your location to the cellphone company. [...]