EDRi-gram 16.13, 27 June 2018

[rmstock]

======================================================================
EDRi-gram 16.13
fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe

EDRi-gram 16.13, 27 June 2018
Read online: https://edri.org/edri-gram/edri-gram-16-13/

=======================================================================
Contents
=======================================================================
1. MEPs ignore expert advice and vote for mass internet censorship
2. Moving Parliament's copyright discussions into the public domain
3. NCC publishes a report on tech companies' use of "dark patterns"
4. ENAR and EDRi join forces for diligent and restorative solutions to
illegal content online
5. Key modifications needed in the Whistleblowers Directive proposal
6. Restoring freedom of expression in Spain: End the "gag law"
7. Recommended Action
8. Recommended Reading
9. Agenda
10. About

=======================================================================
1. MEPs ignore expert advice and vote for mass internet censorship
=======================================================================
In a vote today, 20 June, the Legal Affairs Committee of the European
Parliament voted for  a Copyright Directive, which includes measures to
monitor and filter virtually all uploads to the internet.

The Copyright Directive includes the controversial Article 13, which
mandates the mass monitoring and censorship of internet uploads. The
vote comes after widespread criticism of these measures and against the
advice of civil society, of leading academics and universities, of
research institutions, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom
of Opinion and Expression and even the inventors of the internet and of
the world wide web.

"Upload filters are opposed by every independent, expert voice in this
debate. If the campaign keeps growing like it is, we will save the
internet from the censorship machines," said Diego Naranjo, Senior
Policy Advisor at EDRi.

The next step is a negotiation between the Parliament and the EU Member
States. A final vote of the European Parliament on the outcome of that
negotiation will take place around the end of 2018.

" Will Parliamentarians be willing to publicly support such an awful
proposal, just weeks before the 2019 elections?" asked Joe McNamee,
Executive Director of EDRi. "Time will tell."

EDRi will continue on its efforts to inform the public and MEPs on the
dangers of the proposed Copyright Directive, and will continue to offer
constructive opposition to the measure in the run-up to the final
plenary vote.

Read more:
We can still win: Next steps for the Copyright Directive (20.06.2018)
https://edri.org/next-steps-copyright-directive-article-13

Copyright reform: Document pool
https://edri.org/copyright-reform-document-pool/

EU Censorship Machine: Legislation as propaganda? (11.06.2018)
https://edri.org/eu-censorship-machine-legislation-as-propaganda/

Censorship Machine: Busting the myths (13.01.2017)
https://edri.org/censorship-machine-busting-myths/

=======================================================================
2. Moving Parliament's copyright discussions into the public domain
=======================================================================
With just eleven months to go before the 2019 European elections,
European citizens' reactions to certain aspects of the Copyright
Directive means that there is more interest than ever in what decisions
are being made by the European Parliament, as well as how these
decisions are made. With European elections looming next year, this is
great news for pro-Europeans and a great opportunity for the Parliament
to demonstrate its democratic credentials... or great news for
Eurosceptics if the Parliament fails to deliver.

However, representatives of the copyright lobby, as well as certain
Parliamentarians claim that citizens are misinformed. In order to
clarify the issues, we have prepared a detailed line by line analysis of
the adopted text in Article 13 in the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI).

It is likely that, next week (4/5 July), there will be a vote on whether
to start secretive, undemocratic closed-door "trilogue" meetings with
the EU Council, or to have a public discussion of the full Parliament in
September.

An open debate and an opportunity for all MEPs to have their say on this
clearly very important topic would greatly benefit the democratic
process. For this reason, civil society has urged MEPs to vote for a
public debate on the Directive and, therefore, against the negotiating
mandate.

A public discussion would help clarify some of the misunderstandings
that have been circulating:

1. "This is only about Google and Facebook"
The definition describing the companies that are covered is very
unclear. Indeed, Axel Voss MEP said on German TV that he was not even
sure if Google and Facebook are covered and that the scope of the
Directive will be subject to interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the European Union (Zapp, NDR TV, 13 June 2018).

2. "This is only about videos and music"
Article 13 covers all kinds of content that can be uploaded – text,
images, music, audiovisual content and even choreography.

3. "The JURI text does not include any mention of upload filters"
The text refers to:
-  "measures leading to the non-availability of copyright or
related-right infringing works or other subject-matter" (Article 13.1) -
which means upload filters
-  based on the relevant information provided by rightholders (Article
13.1a) – which means the lists of files to be filtered out
- such as implementing effective technologies (recital 38) – which means
upload filters.

4. "The proposal says that the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be
respected in the agreements between rightsholders and service providers"
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is binding on Member States and the
European Commission. It is not binding on agreements between private
companies.

5. "No personal data will be processed by the filters"
The proposal says that there must be a complaints mechanism in place.
How can users complain about their work being filtered when it will be
impossible to match the complainant with the material that has been
filtered?

6. "Memes are not covered"
The EU Copyright Exception for parody has been implemented differently
across the EU and not implemented at all in some Member States.
Therefore, unquestionably, memes are covered by the proposal and would
be filtered by very imperfect algorithms, if the proposal is adopted in
its current form.

7. "Agreements have to be "appropriate and proportionate""
Yes, this is true. But for whom do they need to be appropriate and
proportionate? Logically, they need to be appropriate and proportionate
for the parties to the agreement – and users are not parties to the
agreements!

8. "There is an obligatory complaints mechanism"
Article 13 makes it clear that internet companies are free to impose
their own terms and conditions. So, internet companies would have a
choice – admit that content was being filtered on the basis of the law
and implement a complicated and expensive complaints mechanism – or
filter on the basis of their terms and conditions and avoid the expense
of implementing a complaints mechanism. They won't implement a
meaningful complaints mechanism!

9. "There is no general monitoring obligation"
A general obligation to monitor all uploads searching for millions of
text, audio, audiovisual and image files is a general monitoring obligation.

Read more:
We can still win: Next steps for the Copyright Directive (20.06.2018)
https://edri.org/next-steps-copyright-directive-article-13/

Press Release: MEPs ignore expert advice and vote for mass internet
censorship (20.06.2018)
https://edri.org/press-release-meps-ignore-expert-advice-and-vote-for-mass-internet-censorship/

EU Censorship Machine: Legislation as propaganda? (11.06.2018)
https://edri.org/eu-censorship-machine-legislation-as-propaganda/

Copyright Directive: Busting the myths (13.12.2017)
https://edri.org/censorship-machine-busting-myths/

(Contribution by Joe McNamee, EDRi Executive Director)

=======================================================================
3. NCC publishes a report on tech companies' use of "dark patterns"
=======================================================================
Today, the Norwegian Consumer Council (NNC), a consumers group active on
the field of digital rights, has published a report on how default
settings and "dark patterns" are used by techs companies such as
Facebook, Google and Microsoft to nudge users towards privacy intrusive
options.

The term "dark patterns" refers to the practices used to deliberately
mislead users through exploitative nudging. The NNC describes them as
"features of interface design crafted to trick users into doing things
that they might not want to do, but which benefit the business in
question, or in short, nudges that may be against the user's own interest".

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires services to be
developed according to the principles of data protection by design and
data protection by default and obliges companies to make a lawful use of
their users' data. With the entry into operation of the GDPR last May,
the three companies had to update the conditions of use of their
services, which they did by using a wide variety of "dark patterns". The
report focuses on five of them which overlap with each other and that
together form the big picture of how companies mislead users to "chose"
invasive instead of data protection-friendly options. This is done by
putting in place the following mechanisms:
1. Default settings
Facebook and Google hide and obscure the privacy settings, making it
much easier and visible for the user to accept the most intrusive options.

2. Taking the hand of the user to mislead him
Usually, the services push users to accept unnecessary data collection
through a combination of positioning and visual cues. Facebook and
Google go a step further by requiring a much larger amount of steps to
limit data collection, in order to disincentive citizens to protect
themselves.

3. Invasive options go first
All three companies presented as the positive option the settings that
maximise data collection, creating doubts on the user and even ethical
dilemmas. The companies do not explain the full consequences of their
choices but frame their messages focusing on the theoretical positive
sides of allowing wider data collection, such as the improvement of the
user experience.

4. Rewards and punishments
A typical nudging strategy is to use incentives to reward the "right"
choice, and punish choices that the service provider deems undesirable.
The reward is often described as "extra functionality" or a "better
service" (without making clear what this means in practice), while the
punishment might be the loss of functionality or the deletion of the
account if they decline, which has been the strategy of Facebook and
Google. 5. Time pressure: When it came to completing the settings
review, all the three services put pressure on the user to complete them
at a time determined by the service provider. This was made without a
clear option for the user to postpone the settings review and not making
clear either whether the user could still use the service or not.

The report concludes that these service providers are just giving users
the "illusion of control" while nudging them toward the options more
desirable for the companies.

Read more:
DECEIVED BY DESIGN: How tech companies use dark patterns to discourage
us from exercising our rights to privacy (27.06.2018)
https://fil.forbrukerradet.no/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-06-27-deceived-by-design-final.pdf

GDPR: noyb.eu filed four complaints over "forced consent" against
Google, Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook (25.08.2018)
https://noyb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/pa_forcedconsent_en.pdf

GDPR explained
https://gdprexplained.eu/

(Contribution by Maria Roson, EDRi intern)

=======================================================================
4. ENAR and EDRi join forces for diligent and restorative solutions to
illegal content online
=======================================================================
The European Network Against Racism (ENAR) and European Digital Rights
(EDRi) joined forces to draw up some core principles in the fight
against illegal content online. Our position paper springs both from the
perspective of victims of racism and that of free speech and privacy
protection.

The European Commission has so far not been successful in tackling
illegal content in a way that provides a redress mechanism for victims.
In fact, the European Commission has been way too long focused on a
"public relations regime" on how quickly and how many online posts have
been deleted, while not having a diligent approach for addressing the
deeper problems behind the removed content. Indeed, the European
Commission has been continuously promoting rather superficial
"solutions" that are not dealing with the problems faced by victims of
illegal activity in a meaningful way.

At the same time, the European Commission's approach is undermining
people's rights to privacy and freedom of expression by urging and
pressuring internet giants to take over privatised law enforcement
functions. As a consequence, ENAR and EDRi have agreed a joint position
paper following our commitment to ensure fundamental rights for all.

Our joint position paper relies on four basic principles:

1. No place for arbitrary restrictions - Any measure that is implemented
must be predictable and subject to real accountability.

2. Diligent review processes - Any measure must be implemented on the
basis of neutral assessment, rather than being left entirely to private
parties, particularly as they may have significant conflicts of interest.

3. Learning lessons - Any measure implemented must be subject to
thorough evidence-gathering and review processes.

4. Different solutions for different problems - No superficial measure
in relation to incitement to violence or hatred should be implemented
without clear obligations on all relevant stakeholders to play their
role in dealing with the content in a comprehensive manner. Illegal
racist content inciting to violence or discrimination should be referred
to competent and properly resourced law enforcement authorities for
adequate sanctions if they meet the criminal threshold. States must also
ensure that laws on racism and incitement to violence are based on solid
evidence and respect international human rights law.

This paper follows cooperation between the two organisations over the
past few years to bring the digital rights community and the anti-racist
movement together in a more comprehensive way. The common initiative
comes at a time where the European Commission is consulting stakeholders
and individuals to provide their opinion on how to tackle illegal
content online until 25 June 2018. EDRi developed an answering guide for
individuals that consider that the European Union should take a
diligent, long-term approach that protects for the victims of illegal
content, such as racism online, and victims of free speech restrictions.

Read more:
ENAR-EDRi Joint position paper: Tackling illegal content online -
principles for efficient and restorative solutions (20.06.2018)
https://edri.org/files/enar-edri_illegalcontentposition_final_20180620.pdf

EDRi Answering guide to EU Commission's "illegal" content "consultation"
(13.06.2018)
https://edri.org/answering-guide-eu-commission-illegal-content-consultation/

Commission's position on tackling illegal content online is
contradictory and dangerous for free speech (28.09.2017)
https://edri.org/commissions-position-tackling-illegal-content-online-contradictory-dangerous-free-speech/


EU Commission's Recommendation: Let's put internet giants in charge of
censoring Europe (28.09.2017)
https://edri.org/eu-commissions-recommendation-lets-put-internet-giants-in-charge-of-censoring-europe/


(Contribution by Maryant Fernández Pérez, EDRi Senior Policy Advisor)

=======================================================================
5. Key modifications needed in the Whistleblowers Directive proposal
=======================================================================
The fact that the European Commission has drafted a proposal for a
Directive for the protection of whistleblowers is welcome news. It is
the result of the prolonged efforts of many activist organisations and
several EU policy-makers, particularly in the European Parliament.
Nevertheless some changes have to be done to secure the objectives of
the draft Directive and the rights of access to information. The
European Commission opened consultations for the Directive, that allow
feedback to be provided until 13 July. In order to help you participate
in the consultations, X-net created a model law for the full protection
of whistleblowers , and here X-net brings you its views on the key
changes needed in the Directive proposal.

1. Broadening the definition of a whistle-blower (and the importance of
"public interest" justifications)
The first concern is to be found in the draft's definition of
whistle-blower. While the definition is very broad, it is nevertheless
restricted to persons reporting illegal activities that are in some way
connected to their work environment. The vast majority of cases of
whistle-blowing fall into the category of employees. However there also
are numerous examples where the wrongdoing is detected by a persons who
have no working relationship with the body/persons committing the
wrongdoing in question.

What is more, in X-net's extensive experience working with
whistle-blowers, at least 15% of the incidents do not involve any
employment relationship. The whistle-blower may be someone who is
personally affected by a crime, or a researcher, journalist or activist
who uncovers evidence, as was the case with Ramsay Orta or the Flexispy
whistle-blowers. In other cases, the whistle-blower may be in a personal
relationship with those involved in the plot (e.g. the Pujol case in Spain).

It is X-net's belief that it is absolutely necessary to ensure that all
citizens are afforded the protection they deserve when reporting
wrongdoing. This  is particularly important when there is inadequate
protection of journalists and other persons that ensure that information
in the public interest reaches the public. (See point 4 on
"intermediaries and facilitators").

If it is true that "persons who report information about threats of harm
to the public interest (...) make use of their right to freedom of
expression... [which] encompasses media freedom and pluralism"(Par.21),
then every citizen is entitled to equal whistleblower protections. Union
citizenship offers substantive equal treatment rights, including the
constitutionally protected liberty "to participate in the democratic
life of the Union" (TEU, Title II, Article 10). If it exempts
non-workplace whistleblowers from special protections, the Directive
would fall short of respecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
EU treaties (Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

Another position that X-net considers inappropriate is the attempt to
link the effectiveness of the evidence obtained in reporting illicit
acts to issues of morality. We believe that the aim of this Directive
must be to facilitate the discovery of grave injustices, and that for
the purpose of this objective, it is irrelevant whether the person who
uncovers them does so with good or bad intentions, as long as their
reports correspond to the facts. For this reason, we believe that
requiring protection for the whistle-blower to be offered, "provided
that the respondent acted for the purpose of protecting the general
public interest" hinders and runs counter to the Directive's objective.

Finally, and more generally, Article 14 (g) of the proposed Directive
refers to "coercion, intimidation, harassment or ostracism at the
workplace" when, in practice, such reprisals are not confined to the
workplace environment. They can be exacted on workers and non-workers
alike and, more often than not, occur outside this environment – in the
private realm of the whistleblower. Thus, X-net strongly suggests that
the "workplace" restriction be eliminated.

X-net understands the intention of the European Commission to limit the
scope of the draft Directive so as not to encroach on Member State
competencies or areas of law covered by existing legislation. However,
X-net suggests that the scope of the Directive state explicitly in a new
provision that the Directive covers wrongdoing that affects the public
interest, otherwise we leave a considerable number of potential
whistle-blowers unprotected.

2. Ensuring anonymity of the source
The confidentiality provisions in the draft Directive are insufficient.
The ability to lodge a formal complaint anonymously must be ensured, as
the European Parliament recommended in its Resolution of 24 October 2017
on legitimate measures to protect whistle-blowers, arguing that "...the
option to report anonymously could encourage whistle-blowers to share
information which they would not share otherwise; (...) stresses that the
identity of the whistle-blower and any information allowing his or her
identification should not be revealed without his or her consent;
considers that any breach of anonymity should be subject to sanctions"
(paragraph 49).

As X-net states in its model law, there is "a situation of asymmetry of
forces between the public and institutions or corporations, making it
impossible in practice for people to fulfil their duty as citizens to
report any wrongdoing of which they may be aware, as well as to report
improper behaviour, irregularities or illegal activities."

The use of technological tools allows us to be more efficient in
protecting the confidentiality and anonymity of those who provide
relevant information. This makes it possible for us to correct this
asymmetry. We must preserve the anonymity of private persons because
they are vulnerable when they expose themselves to serve the common good.

The difference between anonymity and confidentiality resides in the fact
that anonymity is the only way a source of information can wholly manage
her or his own protection and the use that is made of the information.
The weaknesses and porosity of reporting systems based solely on
confidentiality have been amply demonstrated. Besides, there are
additional and evident dangers in centralising all the power
(information) in just a few hands, namely those of company directors and
senior office holders in the public administration, leading to serious,
massive abuses, as has already happened at other times in history.

3. Freedom to determine the most appropriate channel for disclosure
The third problem encountered is that the proposed Directive does not
encourage the whistleblower to choose the most appropriate reporting
channel. This will undermine much of the usefulness of the Directive, if
left unamended.

In cases where whistle-blowers have used the internal channels of the
entity they wished to report for abuses, X-net has observed that this
usually resulted in destruction of evidence and personal suffering.

The extensive obligation included in the draft Directive requiring
complaints be lodged internally first, forcing the whistle-blower to
prove that she or he has good reasons for not doing so, would prevent
many of the worthy objectives of this Directive from being realised.
These "good reasons" are not defined and would lead in some cases to
arbitrary decisions by the state or the courts, discouraging action. In
fact, in the vast majority of cases, the whistle-blower would not be
protected under such circumstances (see the cases of Snowden or
Luxleaks, among countless others).

It is entirely legitimate to discourage the infliction of needless harm
to an entity's reputation. However, the use of internal complaint
mechanisms are not necessarily appropriate and whistle-blowers need to
be able to choose the most effective course of action. In the case of
Snowden or in the case of Luxleaks, for example, such a mechanism would
not have led to any effective reforms.

Any obligation to first make use of internal channels should be both
circumscribed and linked to evidence of their demonstrated
effectiveness. Along these lines, X-net suggests the inclusion of
provisions that would help to guarantee the effectiveness of internal
channels (e.g. independent reviewer, the mechanism allows for
anonymity). This would encourage entities to establish more effective
internal mechanisms.

4. The Protection of intermediaries and facilitators also be assured
In X-net's model law on the Protection of Whistle-blowers the
facilitator is defined as "a person or legal entity that contributes,
facilitates or aids the whistle-blower in revealing or making public
information constituting reason to blow the whistle/disclose of wrongdoing."

In the vast majority of cases, citizen platforms, NGOs, journalists and
trade unionists are indispensable in helping the whistleblower, and they
also suffer serious retaliations. The case of Luxleaks in which the
journalist has been sentenced as the whistle-blower, is just one example.
While the role of intermediaries and facilitators is valued in the
introduction to the Directive, this should be reflected in explicit
protections for the entitites taking on such roles in the text of the
Directive. It is essential they receive the same protection consistently
throughout the provisions of the Directive.

Specifically, and by way of example, Article 15.7 of the draft Directive
covers only the 'worker' and not the person that publishes it. Moreover,
the definition of 'report' and 'reporting person' (Art.3 "Definition)
should include whoever facilitates or publishes the information, if we
really wish to protect the freedom of the press and information.

5. Addressing the misuse of data protection (and other rights and freedoms)
One of the purposes of protecting whistle-blowers is to redress the
asymmetrical power dynamic between powerful entities and citizens. We
have long observed that powerful interests initiate lawsuits for slander
or violation of "intellectual property" rights or trade secrets (the
cause of the long battle during the adoption of the 2016 Trade Secrets
Directive ). A clear provision is needed in the Directive in order that
these elements cannot be used as an excuse to undermine and inhibit
public interest reporting and freedom of information.

In recent years, we have witnessed a surge in the misuse data protection
rights to challenge whistle-blower protections. X-net works to actively
promote and protect the fundamental rights to privacy and data
protection. It equally promotes the importance of transparency in public
institutions and large corporations, and believe that society benefits
when power asymmetry between the citizen and powerful entities is reduced.

Data protection cannot and should not be used to dissuade people from
reporting illegal activity (this is clear in the GDPR, articles 85-86).
X-net does not believe that such protections should be equally applied
to members of the public and public servants or heads of companies whose
activities can have an impact the majority of the population.
Whistle-blowers are neither saints nor devils. Their personal reasons
are their own. The romantic aura surrounding whistle-blowers must be
corrected, so the practice of denouncing abuses becomes the norm in a
democratic society, and not a heroic act. This must be the ultimate goal
of the Directive.

This the shorter version of the original article published by X-net. You
can read here
https://xnet-x.net/en/recommendations-modifications-draft-ec-directive-protection-whistle-blowers/

Read more:
The European Parliament calls for protection of whistleblowers (31.10.2017)
https://edri.org/european-parliament-calls-protection-whistleblowers/

The EU must take action to protect whistleblowers (31.05.2017)
https://edri.org/eu-must-take-action-protect-whistleblowers/

Protecting whistleblowers – protecting democracy (31.01.2017)
https://edri.org/protecting-whistleblowers-protecting-democracy/

(Contribution by X-net, EDRi member, Spain)

=======================================================================
6. Restoring freedom of expression in Spain: End the "gag law"
=======================================================================
Spain has been one of the countries of the European Union that has most
shamefully stood out for its government's attitude against freedom of
expression and information. During the government of former President
Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish parliament passed the controversial "gag
law"- as it was popularly known - which entered into force on 1 July
2015. This law amended the Spanish penal code by, among other things,
reinforcing the penalties of "glorification of terrorism" and
"humiliation of the victims of terrorism" and introducing limitations on
protests and imposing administrative sanctions against demonstrators.

One of the most obvious consequences that this law has had for freedom
of expression and information online have been the criminal cases
against many political activists, artists, and politicians because of
their tweets. In its last report "Tweet...if you dare: How
counter-terrorism laws restrict Freedom of Expression in Spain", Amnesty
International denounces the lack of legitimate purpose of the law,
considering it too broad and too vague and with an evident purpose of
targeting those expressing dissident opinions against the Spanish
political system.

Among the limitations that this law has imposed on online activity are:

1. Arbitrarily restricting access to websites that promote or advocate
"terrorism"
The text is written with such an ambiguous wording that it condemns not
only the dissemination of criminal content but also simple access to it.
This implies that accessing these websites is, itself, a crime,
regardless of whether the person simply wanted to be informed or whether
they are actually involved in a terrorist activity.

2."Seriously disturbing the public order"
Without any definition of what the law considers to be "seriously
disturbing the public order". This ambiguity has lead to arbitrary fines
to journalists when they were covering a public event.

3. Organizing online protests
The gag law punishes "unauthorised protest" which could be fined between
30,000 and 600,000 euro if the protest takes part near institutions such
as the Spanish parliament, which happened with the protest organised by
the "7N against gender violence".

4. Posting pictures of police officers which imply a "danger for their
personal of family security"
The doubt is of course what does "danger" mean. How exactly will the law
measure "danger"? Again, it is not defined. The result is freedom of
expression is curtailed, with fines ranging from 600 to 30,000 euro, and
with such extreme consequences as fining a women for posting a picture
of a police car parked illegally in a parking spot reserved for people
with disabilities.

5. Penalising content sharing platforms
Platforms such as the sport streaming website "Rojadirecta". Despite the
legitimate intent to limit copyright infringements, the consequences of
this measure will be creating legal uncertainty for hundreds of small
businesses that have nothing to do with infringements.

6. Restriction of online protests
The "gag rule" punishes with criminal penalties the dissemination of
messages on the internet which may be considered as "glorification or
justification" of terrorism or "the dissemination of slogans" which may
incite others to commit offences. This has undoubtedly been the most
controversial part of the law and the most arbitrarily applied. Under
the pretext of committing "glorification of terrorism", an extremely
abusive interpretation of this offence has been used. As a consequence,
rappers, professional puppeteers and visual artists have been charged or
prosecuted by the Spanish justice because of the politically content of
their lyrics, plays or even the meaning of their artistic pieces.
The other battlefield has been Twitter where, since 2014, four
coordinated police operations – called the "Spider Operations" - led to
a big number of people arrested for posting messages and jokes on social
media platforms referring, among other topics, to ETA's terrorist
attacks addressed to members of the Franco dictatorship. One of the most
famous cases was the conviction of the rapper "Strawberry" for tweeting
about ETA's terrorist attacks. Although most of the people accused were
released without charges or were not imprisoned , there are particularly
worrying cases such as the recent convictions of rappers Pablo Hassel
and Valtonyc, the latter currently on the run.

After almost 3 years since this law was approved, one of the first tasks
of the new Spanish government is to take down the "gag law". The idea of
fixing the law by making amendments within the law, as the Socialist
party has pointed out, is not enough. As associations such as the
Platform for the Defence of Freedom of Information (Plataforma en
Defensa de la Libertad de Información), Amnesty International, Rights
International Spain and Spanish EDRi member X-Net have expressed, the
only solution is to call for the repeal of the law.

Read more:
Amnesty International Report: "Tweet...if you dare. How
counter-terrorism laws restrict Freedom of Expression in Spain" (13.03.2018)
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/EUR4179242018ENGLISH.PDF

UN Rapporteur demands respect for freedom of expression online (14.06.2017)
https://edri.org/un-rapporteur-demands-respect-for-freedom-of-expression-online/

Xnet: Legislation that restricts freedom of expression of action and
organization in the Spanish State (available only in Spanish) (01.12.2015)
https://xnet-x.net/leyes-coartan-libertad-expresion-accion-organizacion/

Spanish Citizens' Security law: There is still some hope (21.06.2015)
https://edri.org/spanish-citizens-security-law-hope-not-lost/

Spanish Citizens' Security Bill: Many restrictions, few freedoms
(28.01.2015)
https://edri.org/spanish-citizens-security-bill-many-restrictions-few-freedoms/

(Contribution by Maria Roson, EDRi intern)

=======================================================================
7. Recommended Action
=======================================================================
Save your Internet!
The fight is not over! We can still win against the Censorship Machine!
www.saveyourinternet.eu

Open call presentation proposals for Copy Camp 2018
CopyCamp will take place from 11 to 12 October 2018 in Warsaw.
Meet in an international, interdisciplinary group of artists, experts,
scientists, and activists,  exchange experiences, and show that this law
affects everyone. Join us and share your story!
http://copycamp.pl/en

=======================================================================
8. Recommended Reading
=======================================================================
Rufus Pollock: The Open Revolution
https://openrevolution.net/

What 7 Creepy Patents Reveal About Facebook (with wonderful
illustrations of André Wee)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/21/opinion/sunday/facebook-patents-privacy.html

The Wiretap Rooms: The NSA's hidden spy hubs in eight U.S. cities
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs/

Why Do We Care So Much About Privacy?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/06/18/why-do-we-care-so-much-about-privacy

=======================================================================
9. Agenda
=======================================================================
22.09.2018, Dresden, Germany
Symposium Datenspuren 2018
https://www.datenspuren.de/2018/

28.09.2018, Berlin, Germany
#FIfFKon18 Brave New World
https://www.fiff.de/fiffkon18-brave-new-world

============================================================
12. About
============================================================
EDRi-gram is a fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights by
European Digital Rights (EDRi), an association of civil and human rights
organisations from across Europe. EDRi takes an active interest in
developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge
and awareness through the EDRi-gram.

All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips
are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and are
visible on the EDRi website.

Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. See the full text at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Newsletter editor: Heini Jarvinen - edrigram@edri.org

Information about EDRi and its members: http://www.edri.org/

European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in
the EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider
making a private donation.
https://edri.org/donate/

- EDRi-gram subscription information
subscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request@mailman.edri.org
Subject: subscribe
You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request.
Unsubscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request@mailman.edri.org
Subject: unsubscribe

- Newsletter archive
Back issues are available at:
http://www.edri.org/newsletters/

- Help
Please ask edrigram@edri.org if you have any problems with subscribing
or unsubscribing.