Kader Arif, rapporteur for ACTA in the European Parliament

Share/Bookmark

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/world/europe/rare-opposition-protests-in-hungary.html

Share/Bookmark

Europe versus Facebook’s 22 complaints:

1. Pokes.
Pokes are kept even after the user “removes” them.

2. Shadow Profiles.
Facebook is collecting data about people without their knowledge. This information is used to substitute existing profiles and to create profiles of non-users.

3. Tagging.
Tags are used without the specific consent of the user. Users have to “untag” themselves (opt-out).
Info: Facebook announced changes.

4. Synchronizing.
Facebook is gathering personal data e.g. via its iPhone-App or the “friend finder”. This data is used by Facebook without the consent of the data subjects.

5. Deleted Postings.
Postings that have been deleted showed up in the set of data that was received from Facebook.

6. Postings on other Users’ Pages.
Users cannot see the settings under which content is distributed that they post on other’s pages.

7. Messages.
Messages (incl. Chat-Messages) are stored by Facebook even after the user “deleted” them. This means that all direct communication on Facebook can never be deleted.

8. Privacy Policy and Consent.
The privacy policy is vague, unclear and contradictory. If European and Irish standards are applied, the consent to the privacy policy is not valid.

9. Face Recognition.
The new face recognition feature is an inproportionate violation of the users right to privacy. Proper information and an unambiguous consent of the users is missing.

10. Access Request.
Access Requests have not been answered fully. Many categories of information are missing.

11. Deleted Tags.
Tags that were “removed” by the user, are only deactivated but saved by Facebook.
Filed with the Irish DPC

12. Data Security.
In its terms, Facebook says that it does not guarantee any level of data security.
Filed with the Irish DPC

13. Applications.
Applications of “friends” can access data of the user. There is no guarantee that these applications are following European privacy standards.

14. Deleted Friends.
All removed friends are stored by Facebook.

15. Excessive processing of Data.
Facebook is hosting enormous amounts of personal data and it is processing all data for its own purposes.
It seems Facebook is a prime example of illegal “excessive processing”.

16. Opt-Out.
Facebook is running an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system, which is required by European law.

17. Like Button.
The Like Button is creating extended user data that can be used to track users all over the internet. There is no legitimate purpose for the creation of the data. Users have not consented to the use.

18. Obligations as Processor.
Facebook has certain obligations as a provider of a “cloud service” (e.g. not using third party data for its own purposes or only processing data when instructed to do so by the user).

19. Picture Privacy Settings.
The privacy settings only regulate who can see the link to a picture. The picture itself is “public” on the internet. This makes it easy to circumvent the settings.

20. Deleted Pictures.
Facebook is only deleting the link to pictures. The pictures are still public on the internet for a certain period of time (more than 32 hours).

21. Groups.
Users can be added to groups without their consent. Users may end up in groups that lead other to false impressions about a person.

22. New Policies.
The policies are changed very frequently, users do not get properly informed, they are not asked to consent to new policies.

http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Complaints/complaints.html

Share/Bookmark

EUDataProtectionSupervisor: No privacy without net neutrality “78. Inspection techniques based on traffic data and inspection of IP payloads, i.e. the content of communications, may reveal users’ Internet activity: websites visited and activities on those sites, use of P2P applications, files downloaded, emails sent and received, from whom, on what subject and in which terms, etc. ISPs may want to use this information to prioritise some communications, such as video on demand, over others. They may want to use it to identify viruses, or to build profiles in order to serve behavioural advertising. These actions interfere with the right to the confidentiality of communications.” http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2011/11-10-07_Net_neutrality_EN.pdf

[Via http://www.laquadrature.net/en/no-privacy-without-net-neutrality ]

Share/Bookmark

David Friedman

Share/Bookmark

“[...] Data Retention Directive does not meet the requirements set out by the rights to privacy and data protection, for the following reasons:

• the necessity of data retention as provided for in the Data Retention Directive has not been sufficiently demonstrated;
• data retention could have been regulated in a less privacy-intrusive way;
• the Data Retention Directive lacks foreseeability.

86. The EDPS calls upon the Commission to consider seriously all options in the impact assessment including the possibility of repealing the Directive, either per se or combined with a proposal for an alternative, more targeted EU measure.

87. A future Data Retention Directive could be considered only if there were agreement on the need for EU rules from the perspective of the internal market and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and if, during the impact assessment, the necessity of data retention, supported and regulated by the EU, could be sufficiently demonstrated, which includes a careful consideration of alternative measures. Such an instrument should fulfil the following basic requirements:

• It should be comprehensive and genuinely harmonise rules on the obligation to retain data, as well as on the access and further use of the data by competent authorities.
• It should be exhaustive, which means that it has a clear and precise purpose and the legal loophole which exists with Article 15(1) of the ePrivacy Directive is closed.
• It should be proportionate and not go beyond what is necessary.” http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2011/11-05-30_Evaluation_Report_DRD_EN.pdf

Share/Bookmark

How to exit the euro – a proposal from 1997 http://moslereconomics.com/2011/05/16/how-to-exit-the-euro-a-proposal-from-1997/

Share/Bookmark

An API for European Union legislation http://api.epdb.eu/

Share/Bookmark

“Hungary Is a Disgrace for Europe”:

[...] It’s strange, the more some countries profit from the European Union, the more prone they are to anti-European sentiments. The constitutional state has largely been abolished, future elections are effectively meaningless, the media are being whipped into line, as are theaters and museums and everything else that could shape the nation’s culture.

Barely a trace remains of pluralism, of variety, of the basic features of a free society. If you talk to people in Hungary about politics these days, you’re confronted with fear, like in the days of East Germany. In this state, Hungary no longer belongs in the EU. It is a disgrace for Europe. But Europe is saying nothing. [...]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-757971.html

Share/Bookmark

Werner Hoyer, Minister of State, Germany

Share/Bookmark

Tyler Cowen

Share/Bookmark

WARNING- Euro Zone Automatic Fiscal Stabilizers Deactivated! “[...] Can all this be avoided? Yes, and the remedy is both simple, immediate, and would quickly lead to unprecedented global prosperity.

All the euro zone has to do is have the ECB write the check, and announce immediate and annual distributions of 10% of GDP to member nations to pay down their outstanding debts, and at the same time impose national deficit ceilings sufficiently high to promote desired levels of aggregate demand. And the penalty for non compliance would be the withdrawal of ECB support. This would remove credit concerns, without increasing government spending, so there would be no inflationary impact.

And all the rest of the world has to do is recognize that federal taxes function to regulate aggregate demand, and not to fund expenditures per se. And then set taxation and/or government spending at levels that sustain desired aggregate demand.

They need to know the question is not whether longer term the budget deficit is sustainable- as it’s always nominally sustainable- but instead worry about sustaining aggregate demand at desired levels, both long term and short term.

But, unfortunately, I see the odds of a catastrophic collapse in aggregate demand as far higher than the odds of an awakening to a global understanding of actual monetary operations.” http://moslereconomics.com/2011/03/30/warning-euro-zone-automatic-fiscal-stabilizers-deactivated/

Share/Bookmark

OPINION ON [...] THE NEW CONSTITUTION OF HUNGARY, EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION):

“[...] IV. The process of the adoption of a new Constitution

14. At the date of the visit of its delegation, the text of the draft Constitution had not yet been
released. The Commission was informed that the draft was being finalised and it was
envisaged to present it very soon to the majority’s parliamentary group (FIDESZ) and to
subsequently submit it to Parliament (by 15 March 2011). The adoption of the Constitution
was foreseen for 18 April 2011. – 5 – CDL-AD(2011)001

15. The Venice Commission notes that, while initially associated to this process in the
framework of the Ad-hoc Committee for Drafting the Constitution, the opposition forces were
for several months not participating in the elaboration of the draft and that there was no longer
a dialogue between the majority and the opposition in this regard. It understands that the
opposition’s decision to withdraw from the process was in particular linked to the limitation of
the powers of the Constitutional Court with regard to the constitutionality of Acts and Bills on
state budget and taxes, adopted by the Hungarian parliament in November 2010.

16. Moreover, concerns have been raised within the civil society over the lack of transparency
of the process and the inadequate consultation of the Hungarian society on the main
constitutional challenges to be addressed in this context. Since the draft was only submitted to
the Parliament on 14 March 2011, only limited public debate could take place on the changes
and novelties that the future Constitution might introduce.

17. The tight schedule established for its adoption is also a serious source of concern and has
been raised by most of the interlocutors of the Commission.

18. The Commission would like to recall that transparency, openness and inclusiveness,
adequate timeframe and conditions allowing pluralism of views and proper debate of
controversial issues, are key requirements of a democratic Constitution-making process.

19. In its opinion, a wide and substantive debate involving the various political forces, nongovernment organisations and citizens associations, the academia and the media is an
important prerequisite for adopting a sustainable text, acceptable for the whole of the society
and in line with democratic standards. Too rigid time constraints should be avoided and the
calendar of the adoption of the new Constitution should follow the progress made in its debate. [...]” http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-AD(2011)001-e.pdf

Share/Bookmark

“THE BASIC LAW OF HUNGARY (draft): GOD, BLESS HUNGARIANS! National Credo: [...]“:

http://www.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/BRNEDA224_004970.pdf

http://www.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/CONSTITUTION_in_English__DRAFT.pdf

Cf. http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/hungarys-new-constitution-family-friendly-hostile-gays-news-503455

Share/Bookmark

Common tax rules for companies operating in EU: “How it works
Corporate tax rates in the EU will not change. EU countries will continue to decide on their own corporate tax rates.
When calculating their taxes, companies would have a choice of using the different national systems or the single set of rules.
For example, a company may have operations in four EU countries – three with profits and one with a loss.
The company would be able to file one tax return instead of four. It would add up its profits, subtract its losses and use the common rules to calculate deductions and exemptions – arriving at a single taxable sum.
Each of the four countries would collect taxes on a portion of the taxable sum – based on their national rates. The portion would be calculated through a formula set out by the rules.
For the proposal to become law, the EU’s governments must agree to it after consultation with the European Parliament.” http://ec.europa.eu/news/economy/110318_1_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/common_tax_base/index_en.htm

Share/Bookmark