EU Council Presidency outlines future counter-terrorism priorities

The issues highlighted in the document were discussed by the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council on 7-8 March. It was noted that “the process of reflecting on the way forward will continue at technical level”.

On the issue of “interoperability and extended use of biometrics”, the paper says (emphasis added):
“The package on interoperability should be fully implemented. Existing databases should be filled with good quality data, and tools (such as biometrics and facial recognition) should be improved to enable querying with data across more EU information systems. All relevant competent authorities in the CT [counter-terrorism] area should have direct access to relevant information systems (notably SIS II and Prüm) to avoid information and security gaps. Connecting more systems could be explored in parallel to implementation.“

This implies an appetite for further expanding the interoperability initiative before there has been any opportunity to fully assess how it functions in practice – despite serious data protection and privacy concerns raised by specialists and some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

The Council and Parliament recently provisionally agreed a text on two key Regulations underpinning the interoperability plans.

Regarding PNR, the note recalls the importance of all Member States fully implementing the EU PNR Directive, agreed in 2016, and says:
“The collection and processing of PNR data is crucial to detect, prevent and prosecute terrorist offences, and the effective connection of the PIUs of the Member States for information exchange is a priority. The further broadening of the scope of PNR (to other means of transportation) could be explored.”

Regarding internal-external “synergies”, the Presidency highlights:
“The nexus between internal and external security has become increasingly prominent, and progress has been made in better connecting the two areas. Together with the Commission, the EEAS [European External Action Service] and the EU CTC [Counter-Terrorism Coordinator], the Presidency is further exploring ways to strengthen the links between the external and internal dimensions of security in relation to CT [counter-terrorism]. This includes focusing on the use of internal instruments to promote EU security interests related to CT in priority third countries (e.g. Western Balkans, Turkey and the MENA [Middle East and North Africa] region)…”

Other ongoing work outlined in the document concerns “violent extremism and radicalisation”; data retention; the financing of terrorism; “chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) risks, in particular chemical risks”; cooperation between EU agencies; and “emerging threats”:
“Evolving technologies such as UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain or the Internet of Things, could be misused by terrorist groups. Tackling these threats requires high-tech expertise, meaning that more efforts at national and EU level are required to address the emerging threats, including through public-private partnerships and research and development. At the same time, the opportunities of the new technologies for security need to be explored and mobilised.”

The document also includes a list of adopted counter-terrorism measures, measures awaiting formal adoption, and measures under discussion.

Biometrics, extended travel surveillance, internal-external “synergies”: Presidency note outlines future counter-terrorism priorities
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/mar/eu-terrorism-doc.htm

EU response to terrorism – state of play and way forward (28.02.2019)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/mar/eu-council-6664.pdf

(Contribution by EDRi member Statewatch, the United Kingdom)

Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that “Google has cemented its dominance in online search adverts and shielded itself from competitive pressure”. According to her findings, Google’s misconduct lasted over ten years and prevented other companies from competing in the ad market.

The fine is imposed for the way Google uses its “AdSense for Search” product, which delivers online ads to large third-party websites such as newspapers and travel sites embedding Google Search into their online presence. Embedding Google search took place via agreements, according to the Commission’s press release. Vestager’s team says they have “reviewed hundreds of such agreements in the course of its investigation”. What they found is quite alarming: Apparently, as of 2006, Google’s agreements prohibited publishers from placing search ads from competitors on their search result pages. This was later replaced with a clause reserving the most valuable ad space to Google ads and requiring any changes that publishers wanted to make be pre-approved by Google.

Google hasn’t denied the charges. In a press statement, Senior Vice President of Global Affairs, Kent Walker, said: “We’ve always agreed that healthy, thriving markets are in everyone’s interest. We’ve already made a wide range of changes to our products to address the Commission’s concerns. Over the next few months, we’ll be making further updates to give more visibility to rivals in Europe.”

Although Google ceased those practices a few months after the Commission issued a so-called statement of objections in July 2016, the EU authority still decided to impose this fine that represents 1,29 % of Google’s turnover in 2018. The fine follows two previous decisions by the Commission to impose fines of 4,3 billion euro in 2018 and 2,4 billion euro in 2017 for the abuse of dominant positions in the mobile and shopping search. Google is currently appealing both decisions in court.

Fines such as this one are paid into the general EU budget and will be deducted from next year’s Member State contributions to the EU budget. The fines therefore co-finance operations of the EU. The Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition is probably the only part of the EU administration that regularly makes more money than it costs.

European Commission Press release: Antitrust: Commission fines Google €1.49 billion for abusive practices in online advertising (20.03.2019)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm

Google hit with €1.5 billion antitrust fine by EU (20.03.2019)
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18270891/google-eu-antitrust-fine-adsense-advertising

(Contribution by Jan Penfrat, EDRi)

The urgent reform priorities set by the European Union in 2015 as preconditions for North Macedonia accession to the EU specifically require that the government fundamentally improves access to information. Some improvements were made, forcing active transparency by declassifying and publishing documents online, and allowing access to data on spending of public money.

Meanwhile, the Commission for the Protection of the Right to Free Access to Public Information (KOMSPI) that is in charge of monitoring the implementation of the law, did not function. A huge backlog of unresolved complaints is waiting for completion, because the parliament failed to appoint new commissioners and replenish its ranks.

In December 2017, an initiative for a new FOI law was launched. After a year and a half, Macedonian citizens finally received the proposed text of the new law.

EDRi member Foundation for Internet and Society – Metamorphosis endorses the process of passing the new Law on Free Access to Public Information, which would provide more efficient protection of the fundamental right to access information.

With regard to specific provisions of the proposed text, Metamorphosis suggests the following:

• Article 1, paragraph 1: The defining of political parties as public information holders in terms of income and expenditures is one of the key positive novelties of the Law on Free Access to Public Information. Metamorphosis believes that the funding of political parties should be considered public information to increase the transparency regarding the spending of public money on the part of the political parties.
• Article 3, paragraph 1, indent 7: The draft text attempts to define cases where the access to information would be of public interest by establishing a fixed list of criteria. Metamorphosis does not recommend the use of a restricted list to define public interest since a narrow definition bears the risk of limiting the exercise of the irght to access information. To avoid such limited definition, we suggest to introduce a mandatory injury test to assess the existence or not of public interest when an information is being requested, without being defined by law.
• Article 10. Metamorphosis deems the definition of public information detailed and providing legal certainty for public information holders. In addition, apart from the scale of the information, its availability on websites shall contribute to reducing the number of requests for access, thereby giving the opportunity to holders to be more efficient as regards the full implementation of the law.
• Article 21, paragraph 1: Shortening the deadline by which holders need to respond to a request from 30 to 20 days is a change Metamorphosis believes will not drastically contribute to a better implementation of the law, especially when journalists request public information. Additionally, in its work plan 2017-2022, the Government of the Republic of North Macedonia states it will implement the open government concept in full to further increase transparency. It will propose amendments for halving the deadline for response to public information requests from 30 to 15 days as it was recommended in the plan for Open Government Partnership.
• Article 31: Metamorphosis deems positive the change of the status of the authority responsible for implementing the Law on Free Access to Public Information, from a commission, as a collective body, to an agency, as an independent body, especially when it comes to leading a complaint procedure.

The positions listed above are defined following a public debate held in the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia. At the moment, the Parliament is working on amendments and the final text is expected to be given to the Members of the Parliament soon.

Urgent Reform Priorities for Macedonia, European Commission, Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/urgent_reform_priorities_en.pdf

Final report from the monitoring of the implementation of the reform priorities in the field of media for the period 01.07.2017 – 30.9.2018
http://mediaobservatorium.mk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/OMR_zavrsen_izveshtaj-EN-1.pdf

Flooded with 500 complaints, Commission for Free Access to Information awaits final members
http://meta.mk/en/flooded-with-500-complaints-commission-for-free-access-to-information-awaits-final-members/

The Commission for Protection of the Right to Free Access to Public Information of the Republic of North Macedonia
http://komspi.mk/en/

(Contribution by Foundation for Internet and Society – Metamorphosis, North Macedonia)

Article 13/17 requires content hosting providers to give their best efforts to prevent the upload or re-upload of copyright-protected works – which can only be achieved with upload filters – except if they are covered by specific copyright exceptions such as quotation, criticism or parody. For filters to function properly while taking into account those exceptions, they would need to recognise the context of the upload, that is to say information surrounding the content including personal data of the user uploading it. The question Engeler asks is under which legal basis of GDPR would platforms be able to process such personal data?

According to Engeler, platforms would be considered controllers in the sense of the GDPR because they decide which technologies they will use to monitor content. When analysing a film extract uploaded without authorisation, a filter would need to know whether it was used by a film critic – which would be legal according to the copyright exceptions listed in Article 13/17 – or by a user attempting to illegally distribute the film. Detecting such differences in the use of the same piece of content would depend on “meta information about the upload” such as the user identity, the place, and the date. This information would be considered personal data, and its analysis by the algorithm would be processing under GDPR.

The article goes on by examining the legal basis provided for in the GDPR (Article 6(1)), under which such processing would be allowed. Consent could not be freely given because all platforms would be required to have this processing in place, leaving no alternative to users. Making upload filters part of the terms and conditions would not respect the criteria of necessity of paragraph 1b, which allows the processing of personal data to execute a contract. Furthermore, the processing of personal data by content filters is neither necessary to protect the user’s vital interests, nor is it done for public or legitimate interests pursued by the platform – they don’t want an obligation to put filters in place. This leaves the platform with the legal basis whereby the processing is necessary for compliance with another legal obligation (para. 1c), which would be compliance with the copyright Directive.

However, considering the high risk of liability, smaller platforms will likely have to implement third party filters, bought as a service from bigger companies that have invested tens of millions of euros in such technologies. As a result, few big content filtering companies will be able to process the above-mentioned personal data of the vast majority of users. The new copyright Directive would thus lead to centralised filtering mechanisms.

This is problematic in regards to the principle of proportionality mentioned in the GDPR and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Such a filtering system was already discarded by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) because it failed to strike a fair balance “between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information on the other”. The legal obligation that Article 13/17 creates for platforms is incompatible with the right to protection of personal data, which makes it hard to rely on for the processing of personal data under the GDPR.

Copyright Directive: Does the best effort principle comply with GDPR? (23.03.2019)
https://www.telemedicus.info/article/3402-Copyright-Directive-Does-the-best-effort-principle-comply-with-GDPR.html

Press Release: Censorship machine takes over EU’s internet (26.03.2019)
https://edri.org/censorship-machine-takes-over-eu-internet/

SABAM vs Netlog – another important ruling for fundamental rights (16.02.2012)
https://edri.org/sabam_netlog_win/

All you need to know about copyright and EDRi (15.03.2019)
https://edri.org/all-you-need-to-know-about-copyright-and-edri/

(Contribution by Chloé Berthélémy, EDRi)

Despite the mobilisation, 348 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) gave their support to the proposed text which includes concerning restriction to freedom of expression. Noticeably, 274 stood up with citizens and voted to reject upload filters. The proposal to open the text for amendments was rejected by five votes difference. The amendments proposing the deletion of Article 13 were not even subject to a vote.

Article 13 of the copyright Directive contains a change of internet hosting services’ responsibility that will necessarily lead to the implementation of upload filters on a vast number of internet platforms. With dangerous potential for automatised censorship mechanisms, online content filtering could be the end of the internet as we know it.

Disappointingly, the newly adopted Directive does not benefit small independent authors, but instead, it empowers tech giants. More alarmingly, Article 13 of the Directive sets a dangerous precedent for internet filters and automatised censorship mechanisms – in the EU and across the globe.

said Diego Naranjo, Senior Policy Advisor at EDRi

European Digital Rights (EDRi) has long advocated for a copyright reform that would update the current EU copyright regime to be fit for the digital era, and make sure artists receive remuneration for their work and creativity. This Directive delivers none of those.

EU Member States will now have to transpose the Directive into their national laws and decide how strictly they will implement upload filters. People need to pay special attention to the national-level implementation of the Directive in order to ensure that the voted text does not enable censorship tools that restrict our fundamental rights.

Ahead of the next European Parliament elections, this vote comes as another important reminder of the impact that EU law-making can have on human rights online and offline. EDRi ensures the voice of civil society is represented in the EU democratic process and would like to thank all those involved in the battle against upload filters for their inspiring dedication towards the defence of fundamental rights and freedoms.

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

All you need to know about copyright and EDRi (15.03.2019)
https://edri.org/all-you-need-to-know-about-copyright-and-edri/

Public outcry around Article 13 reached a historical peak with almost five million individuals signing a petition against it, and thousands calling, tweeting and emailing their Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Despite the scale of the protests, legislators fail to address the problems and remove upload filters from the proposal.

Join the Action Week (20 March – 27 March) organised by the free internet community and spread the word about the #SaveYourInternet movement! Send Members of the European Parliament a strong message: “Side with citizens and say NO to upload filters!

NOW – Get active!

Kickstart the action week! Did you get your MEP to pledge opposition to the “Censorship Machine” during the plenary vote ? Did you reach out to a national news outlet to explain them why this is bad for the EU? Did you tell your best mate your meme game may be about to end? If you answered “No” to any of those questions… NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT.

21 March – Internet blackout day

Several websites are planning to shut down on this day. Wikimedia Germany is one of them. Is your website potentially hosting copyrighted content, and therefore affected by the upcoming copyright upload filter? Join the protest!
#Blackout21

23 March – Protests all over Europe

Thousands have marched the streets in the past weeks. The protests were not lastly influenced by European Commission’s allegations of the #SaveYourInternet movement as a bots-driven one, purposely misleading communication from the EU Parliament, and the attempted rushing of the final vote weeks before originally scheduled. 23 March will be the general protest day – see a map here. Commit to EU’s core democratic values and show what positive citizens’ engagement looks like!
#Article13Demo #Artikel13Demo

19 to 27 March – Activists travel to meet their MEPs

We have launched a travel grant for activists willing to travel to Strasbourg and Brussels in order to discuss with their representatives. Do you want to take part in our final effort to get rid of mandatory upload filters? Join us! The deadline to apply is Friday 15 March.
#SYIOnTour

It is very important that we connect with our MEPs and make our concerns heard every day of the Action Week. Whether you can travel or make phone calls to get in touch with your representatives, or grow awareness in your local community – it all makes a huge difference. Build on the voices of internet luminaries, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, civil society organisations, programmers, and academics who spoke against Article 13!

We need the stop the censorship machine and work together in order to create a better European Union! You can count on us! Can we count on you?

Read more

Save Your Internet Campaign website
https://saveyourinternet.eu/

Pledge 2019 Campaign Website
https://pledge2019.eu/en

Upload Filters: history and next steps (20.02.2019)
https://edri.org/upload-filters-status-of-the-copyright-discussions-and-next-steps

The European Parliament Committee in Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) is set to vote on its Report on the draft Regulation on 21 March. If the original Commission proposal is not seriously re-drafted, it could have major impacts on civil liberties online.

You can read the letter here (pdf), and below:

Brussels, 18 March 2019

Dear Members of the European Parliament,

We, the undersigned organisations, would like to express some of our views on the draft Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online published in September 2018, ahead of a key vote in the Civil Liberties Committee.

We believe that illegal terrorist content is unequivocally unacceptable offline and online. While we understand the aim of the draft Regulation, we regret that the approach taken by the European Commission and the Council of the European Union did not address the most pressing concerns we share on this text, such as the wide definitions of terrorist content and of hosting service providers falling within the scope of the Regulation, the introduction of unworkable deadlines for content removal and mandatory “proactive measures”. These requirements could necessitate the introduction of upload filters and therefore potentially lead to removal of legal content. Far from helping private and public actors curb the dissemination of terrorist propaganda online, this draft Regulation risks undermining current efforts and could have a strong impact on European citizens’ fundamental rights.

Similar concerns on the provisions of this draft Regulation have been expressed by international institutions, including the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), the three UN Special Rapporteurs in a joint opinion and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS).

We therefore urge the Civil Liberties Committee to take a proportionate approach compliant with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU acquis, by:

• Ensuring that the definition of terrorist content is aligned with the Terrorism Directive, and that the dissemination of such content is directly linked to the intent of committing terrorist offences.
• Narrowing the definition of terrorist groups to cover only those terrorist groups listed by the United Nations and the European Union.
• Limiting the definition of hosting services to services where a proven risk of propagation of terrorist content to the general public exists i.e. the scope should exclude services such as Cloud Infrastructure, Internet Infrastructure and Electronic Communication Services.
• Amending the extremely short one-hour deadline to comply with removal orders; which would lead to over-removal of legal content online and is unworkable for many enterprises.
• Ensuring that referrals are deleted from the proposal or substantially modified so they do not lead to private companies bearing the burden of deciding the legality of content instead of the judicial authorities in Member States.
• Clearly aligning the proposal with the e-Commerce Directive, ensuring that any additional measures as drafted in Article 6 are not “proactive measures” which consist, directly or indirectly, of implementing mandatory filtering mechanisms thus inadvertently introducing a general monitoring obligation.
• Ensuring that removal orders follow robust and accountable procedures and are issued by a single independent competent authority per Member State.
• Including adaptable provisions for different types of companies and organisations.

Sincerely,
Access Now – https://www.accessnow.org/
Allied for Startups – https://alliedforstartups.org/
Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) –
https://www.cccianet.org
Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) – https://cdt.org/
CISPE.cloud, representing Cloud Infrastructure Service Providers in Europe – https://cispe.cloud/
EDiMA – http://edima-eu.org
EDRi – edri.org/
EuroISPA, the pan-European association of Internet Services Providers Associations – https://www.euroispa.org
Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU – https://wikimediafoundation.org/

Open letter to the European Parliament on terrorist content online (18.03.2019)
https://edri.org/files/counterterrorism/20190318-TerroristContentRegOpenLetter.pdf

Terrorist Content Regulation: Document Pool
https://edri.org/terrorist-content-regulation-document-pool/

EDRi’s position on copyright

European Digital Rights has long advocated for a copyright reform, proposing an update of the current EU copyright regime in line with the digital era. With copyright as one of the main objectives in our current work plan, we have promoted a positive agenda aimed at fixing the main problems within the existing framework. EDRi supports the idea that authors and artists receive recognition, remuneration and support for their work and creativity. However, we believe the current proposal falls short of these expectations. Instead, it introduces problematic measures that would restrict freedom of expression and reduce access to knowledge.

Copyright and EDRi – More than a summer’s love

EDRi has been involved in copyright discussions since it was founded. In 2013, we released an important handbook that explained the foundations of the profound disconnect that has developed between citizens and the law: “Copyright – challenges in the digital era”. We also provided responses to several EU public consultations on copyright (such as this one in 2014). More, in 2016, EDRi released a series of blogposts called Copyfails. This Copyfails blog series pointed at nine crucial issues that could, if solved, lead to a modernised copyright regime that takes into consideration the needs of all parts of society. Fair remuneration for authors, for example, has been one of our key demands in the copyright reform. In addition, EDRi has been and continues to be an active stakeholder in the Observatory on IP infringements of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Civic engagement – helping people to get their voice heard

In addition to providing extensive expert input to policy makers and the general public though our publications, EDRi often meets with decision-makers at EU and national levels and participates in public events (roundtables, conference panels, debates etc.). Whenever possible, we try to amplify people’s voice by providing financial support needed for travels aimed at enhancing civic engagement. Making our community meet policy makers is often the most effective method to ensure that civil society voices are heard in the debate.

One of this financial support initiatives was launched on 7 March: a travel grant for people willing to travel and meet their elected representatives (Members of the European Parliament, MEPs) for a discussion around the current proposal of Article 13. By providing these grants, part of a wider Action Week, we aim at balancing the current debate with a civil society’s perspective. As shown by Corporate Europe’s report of the lobby money involved in this dossier, the debate has been overwhelmingly dominated by business lobby groups.

Transparency and accountability – a core EDRi value

EDRi’s work on copyright (including staff costs) is supported through our general budget. We are often also fundraising money that are project–specific, as is the case with the travel grants announced last week. Right now, we are in the process of receiving additional support for this action. Two thirds of the funds come from the Open Society Foundations, one of our core funders for the past years. The other third of the budget is covered by the annual budget of the Copyright for Creativity (C4C) Coalition, of which EDRi is a member. The funding for all travel grants, including the one launched on 7 March, involves no obligations on EDRi’s side from our funders. In other words, EDRi independently decides who benefits of the budget and what the action’s promoted policies are.

Let’s stick to the subject

The substance of our debate is the analysis of the current version of Article 13 in the Copyright Directive reform. It is unfortunate that much of the support of Article 13 currently revolves around criticism of opponents and not the opponents’ arguments.

Therefore, we invite you to place the actual subject, Article 13, at the center of your attention and to ask yourself: Why would any member of the European Parliament support a copyright reform that harms small and medium enterprises, doesn’t benefit small independent authors, instead empowers tech giants and sets the dangerous precedent for internet filters?

Read more:

Support our work
https://edri.org/donate

About EDRi
edri.org/about/ (opens in a new tab)” href=”http:// edri.org/about/ ” target=”_blank”>edri.org/about/

Copyright – challenges of the digital era
https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/paper07_web_20130202.pdf

Copyfails: Time to #fixcopyright!
https://edri.org/copyfails/

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

The proposal that will shortly be voted on by the European Parliament contain new rules regarding copyright enforcement. Websites would have to check every upload that is made by their users for possible breaches of copyright, and must block this content when in doubt. Even though memes are often extracted from a movie, well-known photo or video clip, advocates of the legislation repeat time and again that this doesn’t mean memes will disappear − they reason that exceptions will be made for that. In practice, however, such an exception does not seem workable and impairs the speed and thus the essence of memes. It will be impossible for an automated filter to capture the memes’ context.

Step 1: You upload a meme

Imagine that you’re watching a series and you see an image that you would like to share with your friends − it could be something funny or recognisable to a large group of people. Or that you use an existing meme to illustrate a post on social media. Maybe you adjust the meme with the names of your friends or the topic that concerns you at that moment. Then you upload it on Youtube, Twitter or another online platform.

Step 2: Your upload is being filtered

If the new Directive – as currently proposed – is implemented, the platform will be obliged to avoid any copyrighted material from appearing online. In order to abide the legislation, they will install automated filters that compare all material imported into the platform with all the copyrighted material. In case there is a match, the upload will subsequently be blocked. This will also be the case with the meme you intended to share online, because it originates from the television series, video clip or movie. You get the message: “Sorry, we are not allowed to publish this.”

Step 3: It’s your turn

What!? What about the exception that was supposed to be there for memes? Of course the exception is still there, but in practice it’s impossible to train filters to know the context of every image. How does a filter know what is a meme and what isn’t? How do these filters keep learning about new memes that appear every day? There are already many examples of filters that fail. Hence, you’ll need to get to work. Just like you can appeal against the online platforms’ decision when it has wrongfully blocked a picture for depicting “nudity” or “violence”, you will be able to appeal when your meme couldn’t pass the filter. That probably means that you’ll need to fill in a form in which you explain that it’s just a meme and explain why you think it should be allowed to be uploaded.

Step 4: Patience, please

After the form is filled in and you click “send”, all you can do is wait. Just like already is the case with filters of Youtube and Facebook: the incorrectly filtered posts need to be checked by real human beings, people that can assess the context and hopefully come to the conclusion that your image really is a meme. But that process can take a while… It’s a pity, because your meme was responding perfectly to current events. Swiftness, creativity and familiarity are three key elements of a meme. With upload filters, to keep the familiarity, you lose the swiftness.

Step 5: Your meme will still be posted online − or not?

At a certain moment in time, you receive a message. Either your upload has been finally accepted, or there still might be enough reasons to refuse it from being uploaded. And then what? Will you try again at another platform? That might take some days as well. The fun and power of memes is often the speed in which someone responds to a proposal of a politician, or an answer in a game show. Therefore you shouldn’t let Article 13 destroy your creativity!

#SaveYourInternet as we know it! Call a Member of the European Parlement (for free) through pledge2019.eu!

Bits of Freedom
https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/

What will happen to our memes? (11.03.2019) https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2019/03/11/what-will-happen-to-our-memes/

What will happen to our memes? (only in Dutch, 11.03.2019) https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2019/03/04/wat-gebeurt-er-straks-met-onze-memes/

Pledge2019.eu
https://pledge2019.eu/en

Save Your Internet
https://saveyourinternet.eu/

(Contribution by Esther Crabbendam, EDRi member Bits of Freedom, the Netherlands; translation by Winnie van Nunen)

Free Software for a Free Society

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is a simple but powerful idea. The four freedoms that users have when interacting with software − use, study, share and improve − empower other fundamental liberties, such as freedom of speech, freedom of press and the right to privacy. In fact, the digital sovereignty of public and private actors depends on software freedom.

edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/EDRi-gram_donate_banner.png” alt=”—————————————————————– Support our work with a one-off-donation! edri.org/donate/ —————————————————————–” class=”wp-image-8690″/>

Public administrations are important users and providers of software. They procure, fund and support the development of products and services that can affect large groups of people. However, when these endeavours do not involve Free Software, critical questions concerning security, efficiency, distribution of power, and transparency arise.

That is why FSFE informs decision makers such as politicians and civil servants on how to speed up the distribution and development of Free Software in public administration, as well as demanding appropriate legislation to insure that publicly funded software must become and remain public code.

Published in January 2019, the brochure “Public Money Public Code – Modernising Public Infrastructure with Free Software” compiles detailed and ready-to-use information about the multiple actions that can be implemented by public administrations in terms of modernising public digital infrastructure. Topics such as competition and vendor lock-in, security, procurement and international cooperation are discussed in a language the target audience understands. The publication combines the FSFE’s long-term experience with knowledge by leading experts in various areas of information and communications technology.

Public Money? Public Code!

There are many good incentives and reasons for decision makers to put publicly funded code under a Free Software licence: tax savings, transparency, and innovation – just to name a few. The FSFE’s campaign “Public Money? Public Code!” demands that publicly financed software must be available under a FOSS license.

The campaign includes an open letter to political representatives that is supported by more than 160 organisations. It has already more than 20 000 signatures, and it is still open for new supporters. FSFE is encouraging people to join activities around the campaigning for the upcoming EU elections, spreading the knowledge, and highlighting the fundamental topics to their Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

Free Software Foundation Europe – FSFE
https://fsfe.org/

Public Money Public Code – Modernising Public Infrastructure with Free Software
https://fsfe.org/campaigns/publiccode/brochure

Press release: FSFE publishes expert brochure about “Public Money? Public Code!” (24.01.2019)
https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20190124-01.html

“Public Money? Public Code!” campaign
https://publiccode.eu/

“Public Money? Public Code!” open letter
https://publiccode.eu/openletter/

(Contribution by Free Software Foundation Europe – FSFE)