28 Nov 2016

European and Canadian civil society groups call for rejection of CETA

By Maryant Fernández Pérez

Today, on 28 November 2016, European Digital Rights (EDRi) co-signed a statement together with over 450 civil society organisations. In the statement, civil society from both Europe and Canada express concerns about the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and therefore call for its rejection. CETA should be renegotiated, but for that to happen, there must be political will to do so.

ceta_mapleleaf_sharepic

You can read the statement below. The statement is also available in Czech, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Polish and Romanian:

We, the undersigned civil society organisations from Canada and Europe, hereby express our deep concern about the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada. During the long process of the deal’s negotiations and legal check, we repeatedly pointed out major problems with the CETA text. We provided concrete inputs, which could have triggered a shift towards a more transparent and democratic trade policy with the protection of the environment and people’s fundamental rights at its core. But our concerns have not been addressed in the CETA as signed in October 2016. This is why we are stating our firm opposition to the ratification of the agreement.

Our objections are shared by a growing number of citizens on both sides of the Atlantic. A record 3.5 million people from all over Europe have signed a petition against CETA and its twin agreement, the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.[i] Over 2,100 local and regional governments have declared themselves TTIP- and CETA-free.[ii] Constitutional challenges against CETA have been filed in Germany[iii] and Canada [iv] and the legality of CETA’s controversial privileges for foreign investors will likely be ruled on by the Court of Justice of the European Union.[v]

On both sides of the Atlantic, farmers, trade unions, public health, consumer, environmental and digital rights groups, other NGOs, as well as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have rejected the agreement.[vi] In October 2016, concerns in four sub-federal Belgian governments about the agreement’s negative impacts, and, in particular, its dangerous “investment court system”, nearly stopped their federal government from signing CETA.

Despite the controversy, the Canadian government and the EU institutions are trying to expedite CETA’s ratification. In Canada, legislation that would bring the agreement into force has already been introduced, without allowing time for any public consultation on the final agreement. The European Parliament also seems set to cut short its internal consultation processes, thereby limiting debate over ratifying the 1,600-page-long CETA text. After that, large parts of the agreement would be brought into force provisionally – long before the parliaments of all 28 EU member states have had their say.

To gain support for CETA ratification and allay concerns, numerous declarations have been attached to the text in the past months. But not a letter of the CETA text has been changed since its final version was published in early 2016. And the accompanying statements, including an EU-Canada “Joint Interpretative Instrument”, do nothing to fix the problems arising from the problematic CETA text, as experts have demonstrated.[vii]

We wish to highlight some of our fundamental concerns about the agreement as signed:

  • CETA would empower thousands of corporations to sue governments over legitimate and non-discriminatory measures to protect people and the planet. Nothing in the agreement or the accompanying declarations would stop corporations from using CETA’s investor rights to bully decision-makers away from public interest regulation, for example to tackle climate change. CETA even leaves the door open to “compensating” corporations for unrealised future profits when a change in policy affects their investment. Far from “radically” reforming the investor-state dispute settlement process, CETA expands and entrenches it.[viii]
  • CETA’s Investment Court System (ICS) grants highly enforceable rights to investors – but no corresponding obligations. It does not enable citizens, communities or trade unions to bring a claim when a company violates environmental, labour, health, safety, or other rules. It risks being incompatible with EU law as it establishes a parallel legal system, allowing investors to circumvent existing courts. The ICS is discriminatory because it grants rights to foreign investors that are neither available to citizens nor to domestic investors.[ix]
  • In stark contrast to the rights for corporations, CETA’s provisions on labour rights and sustainable development cannot be effectively enforced through sanctions. They remain empty statements with no bearing on the dangers that other chapters in the agreement pose to workers’ rights, environmental protection and measures to mitigate climate change.[x]
  • CETA severely limits governments’ ability to create, expand, and regulate public services and reverse failed liberalisations and privatisations. CETA is the first EU agreement which makes the liberalisation of services the rule and public interest regulation the exception. This threatens people’s access to high-quality services such as water, transport, social and health care, as well as attempts to provide public services in line with public interest goals.[xi]
  • An independent study of CETA’s economic impacts predicts jobs would be lost in both Canada and Europe, economic growth would be slower than without the deal, and the rather small income gains would go overwhelmingly to capital owners – not workers. As a result, inequality is expected to be higher under CETA than without the agreement.[xii]
  • CETA makes Canada and the EU more vulnerable to financial crises by further liberalising financial markets and severely restricting reforms aimed at removing key causes of financial instability and ensuring better protection of consumers and the economy as a whole.[xiii]
  • CETA would drive up Canadian prescription drug costs by at least Can$850 million per year (€583 million). It would negatively impact fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy and data protection and limit the EU’s and Canada’s ability to roll back excessive intellectual property rights (IPR) that limit access to knowledge and innovation. Some of CETA’s IPRs resemble closely the text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which was rejected by the European Parliament in 2012.[xiv]
  • CETA’s rules on regulatory cooperation and domestic regulation will put additional burdens on regulators and strengthen the role of corporate lobbyists in the policy-making process, potentially undermining much-needed public interest policy-making.[xv]
  • On both sides of the Atlantic, CETA would expose farmers to competitive pressures that undermine their livelihoods with little gain to consumers; increase corporate control over seeds; obstruct buy-local food policies; and threaten high food processing and production standards, undermining efforts to boost sustainable agriculture.[xvi]
  • Precautionary measures to protect consumers, public health and the environment could be challenged under CETA based on claims that they are overly burdensome, not “science based” or are disguised trade barriers. Nothing in the CETA text or accompanying declarations effectively protects the role of the precautionary principle in European regulatory policy, while some sections even refer to conflicting principles.[xvii]

CETA is the result of a largely secret negotiation process between the previous Canadian government and the previous European Commission. The final CETA text and accompanying declarations ignore almost all of the reasonable and very specific amendments proposed by civil society [xviii] to address the flaws of the agreement. The most recent attempts to re-open the negotiations, by the government of the Walloon region in Belgium, were blocked. Now, only a ‘take it or leave it’, yes or no vote on the 1,600-page agreement is possible.

We urge:

  • the European Parliament, the Canadian Parliament, as well as national, provincial and regional parliaments, which have a say in the ratification, to defend the rights and interests of the people they represent against the threats posed by CETA by voting against the ratification of the agreement;
  • the many municipal and other regional and provincial governments that have raised concerns over CETA to make their voices heard in the ratification process;
  • these parties to begin a thorough, democratic consultation, including of civil society, on the foundations of a new, fair and sustainable trade agenda.

As it stands, CETA is not a progressive trade deal. It would be a mistake to adopt this treaty with its many worrying provisions as a model for agreements to come. CETA is a backward-looking and even more intrusive version of the old free trade agenda designed by and for the world’s largest multinationals. We need a paradigm shift toward a transparent and inclusive trade policy founded on the needs of people and our planet. Ratifying CETA will take us many steps further away from this much needed change.

Signatories:

International

Center for International Environmental Law, International
FIAN International, International
GRAIN, International
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), International
IATP – Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, International
IOGT International, International
Naturefriends International, International
Public Services International (PSI), International
SumOfUs, International
ActionAid International, International
No Vox International, International

European organisations

ClientEarth, Europe
Compassion in World Farming, Europe
European Digital Rights (EDRi), Europe
European Environmental Bureau, Europe
European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), Europe
European Transport Workers’ Federation, Europe
European Secretariat of the World March of Women, Europe
Federation of Young European Greens, Europe
Food & Water Europe, Europe
Foodwatch, Europe
Friends of the Earth Europe, Europe
Greenpeace, Europe
Seattle to Brussels network, Europe
The Health and Trade Network, Europe
UNI Europa, Europe

Canadian organisations

Breaking the Silence Maritime Guatemala Solidarity Network PEI Chapter, Canada
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Canada
Canadian Environmental Law Association, Canada
Canadian Health Coalition, Canada
Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Canada
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Canada
Citizens in Action, Canada
Common Frontiers, Canada
Cooper Institute, Canada
Coordination québécoise de la Marche mondiale des femmes, Canada, Quebec
Council of Canadians, Canada
Don’t Frack PEI, Canada
Environmental Coalition of Prince Edward Island (ECO-PEI), Canada
Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ), Canada
Green Economy Network, Canada
Group of 78, Canada
MacKillop Centre for Social Justice, Canada
MiningWatch Canada, Canada
National Farmers Union, Canada
National Union of Public and General Employees, Canada
OpenMedia, Canada
PEI Coalition for a Poverty Eradication Strategy, Canada
PEI Federation of Labour, Canada
PEI Health Coalition, Canada
People’s Health Movement Canada/Mouvement populaire pour la santé au Canada, Canada
PharmaWatch Canada, Canada
Prince Edward Island Food Security Network, Canada
Public Service Alliance of Canada, Canada
Save Our Seas and Shores, Canada
Seafarers International Union of Canda, Canada
Trade Justice Network, Canada
Unifor, Canada
United Steelworkers, Canada
Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux (APTS), Canada, Quebec
Alternatives, Canada, Quebec
AmiEs de la Terre Québec, Canada, Quebec
Association canadienne des avocats du mouvement syndical (ACAMS-CALL), Canada, Quebec
Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale (AQOCI), Canada, Quebec
Attac-Québec, Canada, Quebec
Centrale des syndicats démocratiques (CSD), Canada, Quebec
Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ), Canada, Quebec
Centre international de solidarité ouvrière (CISO), Canada, Quebec
Centre justice et foi, Canada, Quebec
Chapitre montréalais du Conseil des Canadiens, Canada, Quebec
Coalition des associations de consommateurs du Québec (CACQ), Canada, Quebec
Coalition Solidarité Santé, Canada, Quebec
Collectif pour un Québec sans pauvreté, Canada, Quebec
Comité pour les droits humains en Amérique latine (CDHAL), Canada, Quebec
Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN), Canada, Quebec
Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain (CCMM-CSN), Canada, Quebec
Eau Secours! la coalition québécoise pour une gestion responsable de l’eau, Canada, Quebec
Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ), Canada, Quebec
Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ), Canada, Quebec
Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec (FECQ), Canada, Quebec
Fédération interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec (FIQ), Canada, Quebec
Front d’action populaire en réaménagement urbain (FRAPRU), Canada, Quebec
Génération nationale, Canada, Quebec
L’R des centres de femmes du Québec, Canada, Quebec
L’Entraide missionnaire, Canada, Quebec
Ligue des droits et libertés, Canada, Quebec
Mouvement d’éducation populaire et d’action communautaire du Québec (MÉPACQ), Canada, Quebec
Réseau québécois des groupes écologistes (RQGE), Canada, Quebec
Réseau québécois sur l’intégration continentale (RQIC), Canada, Quebec
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP-Québec), Canada, Quebec
Syndicat des Métallos, Canada, Quebec
Syndicat des professionnelles et professionnels du gouvernement du Québec (SPGQ), Canada, Quebec
Unifor Québec, Canada, Quebec
Union des consommateurs, Canada, Quebec
Union des employés et employées de service section locale 800 (UES 800), Canada, Quebec
Union paysanne, Canada, Quebec

EU member state organisations

AK EUROPA, Austria
3 F Frederiksborg, Denmark
A contre-courant, Belgium
AB “Švyturys” trade union, Lithuania
ActiveWatch, Romania
ACV-CSC, Belgium
AEFJN, Belgium
Afrika Kontakt, Denmark
Aire, Spain
AITEC, France
AK Fracking Braunschweiger Land, Germany
Aktion gegen arbeitsunrecht (action against labour injustice), Germany
aktion21-austria, Austria
Alcohol Policy Youth Network, Slovenia
ALEBA – Association Luxembourgeoise des Employés de Banque et Assurance, Luxembourg
Alliance D19-20, Belgium
Alliance for Cancer Prevention, United Kingdom
Amis de la Terre, France
AMPOS – Association of Professional Musicians of Symphonic Orchestras, Spain
An Claíomh Glas, Ireland
An Taisce, Ireland
Animalia, Finland
ANSOL – Associação Nacional para o Software Livre, Portugal
Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft (AbL), Germany
Arran Lleida, Spain
Asamblea de andalucia (ada), Spain, Andalucia
ASAMBLEA FRACKING NO MERINDADES NORTE DE BURGOS, Spain
ASiA- Associació Salut i Agroecologia, Spain
Asociația Mai Bine, România
Asociația Pro Educatie, Istorie si Cultură Corvinias, Romania
Asociaţia România Vie / Romania Alive Society, Romania
Associació Catalana de Juristes Demòcrates, Spain Catalunya
Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi, Spain
Ateneu Cooperatiu La Baula, Spain – Lleida (Catalonia)
Ateneu Popular Garriguenc, Spain Catalunya
Attac Austria, Austria
Attac DG, Belgium
Attac Finland, Finland
Attac France, France
Attac Germany, Germany
Attac Hungary, Hungary
Attac Ireland, Ireland
Attac Italia, Italy
Attac Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Attac Norway, Norway
Attac Spain, Spain
AVALOT -Joves de la UGT de Catalunya-, Spain
Balkani Wildlife Society, Bulgaria
Baloldali Alternatíva Egyesülés, Hungary
Berufsvereinigung der bildenden Künstler Österreichs, Zentralverband, Austria
Biodynamiske Forbrugere, Denmark
Bio-Lëtzebuerg, Luxemburg
Blue 21 e.V., Germany
Both ENDS, The Netherlands
Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND), Friends of the Earth Germany, Germany
Bündnis TTIP Stoppen, Austria
Campact e.V., Germany
Campagna Stop TTIP Italia, Italy
Campaign against Climate Change, United Kingdom
Campaña #NoalTTIP, Spain
Cancer Prevention & Education Society, United Kingdom
Casal d’amistat amb Cuba de Lleida, Spain Catalonia
CEDD – Centrul de Excelenta pentru Dezvoltare Durabila, Romania
CEDSALA, Spain Valencia
Centar za životnu sredinu/ Friends of the Earth Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Center for Encounter and Active Non-Violence, Austria
Centre for Global Education, Ireland
CGIL (Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro), Italy
CGT, France
CGT Lleida, Spain
Christliche Initiative Romero (CIR), Germany
CIG, Spain Galicia
Civilek Mecsekért Mozgalom, Hungary
Clare Says No To TTIP & CETA, Ireland
Clean Air Action Group, Hungary
CLIAB, Spain
Climaxi, Belgium
CNCD-11.11.11, Belgium
COAG, Spain
Colla Ecologista d’Almassora, Spain
Collectif amainte, France
Collectif Roosevelt, France
Comhlámh, Ireland
COMISIONES OBRERAS (CS CCOO), Spain
Comúdelleida, Spain
Confederacion de Autonomos del Taxi de la Comunidad Valenciana, Spain Valencia
Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT-Spain), Spain
Confederación General del Trabajo de Almería CGT-Almería, Spain
Confederación Intersindical, Spain
Coomhola Salmon Trust, ltd., Ireland
Coordinadora d’ONGD i aMS de Lleida, Spain
Coordination Climat Justice Sociale Genève, Switzerland
Coordination Rurale, France
CorA Network for Corporate Accountability, Germany
Corporate Europe Observatory, Belgium
COSPE Onlus, Italy
CRASH – Coalition for Research and Action for Social Justice and Human Dignity, Finland
Csalán Környezet- és Természetvédő Egyesület, Hungary
Csermely Környezetvédelmi Egyesület, Hungary
de-clic.ro, Romania
Den Haag TTIP-vrij, The Netherlands
Deutscher Naturschutzring (DNR), Germany
Distretto di Economia Solidale Altro Tirreno, Italy
Eco Ruralis – In support of peasant farming, Romania
ECOAR))), Spain Galicia
Ecocity, Greece
Ecologistas en Acción, Spain
Economistas Sin Fronteras, Spain
EH TTIP/CETA Ez Kanpaina, Spain, Basque Country
Ekologistak Martxan, Spain, Basque Country
ELA (Basque Workers Solidarity), Spain, Basque Country
Emmaus Aurinkotehdas, Finland
End Ecocide On Earth, Austria
Entrepueblos/entrepobles/entrepobos/herriarte, Spain
Environmental Planning and Education Network, Hungary
Estonian Society for Nature Conservation, Estonia
European Anti Poverty Network Ireland, Ireland
“Europe and We” Association, Bulgaria
EWHN, European Work Hazards Network Denmark, Denmark
Fairtrade Lëtzebuerg, Luxembourg
Fairwatch, Italy
Fauna Alapítvány, Hungary
Fédération Artisans du Monde, France
Federation of Independent Trade Unions in Education (FSIE), Romania
Federation Syndicale Unitaire (FSU), France
Fem Poble (Sant Pere de Ribes), Spain
FENPROF, Portugal
FIAN Deutschland, Germany
FIAN Österreich, Austria
FIAN Sweden, Sweden
FÍS NUA, Ireland
FNCTTFEL, Luxembourg
Focus, association for sustainable development, Slovenia
Fondation COPERNIC, France
Forebyggelses-og Patientraadet.FPR, Denmark
Forschungs- und Dokumentationszentrum Chile-Lateinamerika e.V., Germany
Forum Umwelt & Entwicklung, Germany
Foundation Bluelink, Bulgaria
Foundation for the environment and agriculture, Bulgaria
Frack Free Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom
Fracking Free Bulgaria, Bulgaria
Friends of the Earth Cyprus, Cyprus
Friends of the Earth Finland – Maan ystävät ry, Finland
Friends of the Earth Ireland, Ireland
Friends of the Earth Malta, Malta
Friends of the Earth Spain, Spain
Friends of the Earth Sweden / Jordens Vänner, Sweden
Friends of the Landless, Finland
FUGEA, Belgium, Wallonia
Fundació Ateneu Pere Mascaró, Spain, Illes Balears
Fundacio nous horitzons, Spain
Fundacion mundubat, Spain
Fundacja Kuźnia Kampanierów, Poland
Fundacja Strefa Zieleni, Poland
Fundacja Zielone Światło / Green Light Foundation, Poland
G3W-M3M, Belgium
GAIA – Environmental Action and Intervention Group, Portugal
GegenStrömung, Germany
Gen-ethisches Netzwerk, Germany
GENUK, Gemeinnütziges Netzwerk für Umweltkranke e.V., Germany
Giligan Nature Conservation and Tradicion Preserve Association, Hungary
GLOBAL 2000 – Friends of the Earth Austria, Austria
Global Justice Now, United Kingdom
GMB Trade Union, United Kingdom
GMO Free Bulgaria, Bulgaria
GRECS-Grup de Recerca Exclusió i Control Social-Universitat de Barcelona, Spain
Green Budget Europe, Belgium
Green Economy Foundation, Ireland
Green Foundation Ireland, Ireland
Green institute, Greece
Green Liberty, Latvia
Greentourism Ecologic Association, Romania
4th Group of the United Left – Social movements and individuals, Slovenia
Grupo espeleologico merindades, Spain
Hazards Campaign, United Kingdom
Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Europe
Health and Environment Justice Support, Germany
Hungarian Network of Social Forum, Hungary
Icv terres de lleida, Spain
Initiativ Liewensufank- IBFAN Luxemburg, Luxemburg
Initiative Wissenschaft gegen TTIP, Germany
Initiativplattform TTIP stoppen Oberoesterreich, Austria
INKOTA-netzwerk e.V., Germany
Inspi-Ráció Egyesület, Hungary
Institut za trajnostni razvoj – Institute for Sustrainable Development, Slovenia
Institute of Global Responsibility (IGO), Poland
Instytut Spraw Obywatelskich INSPRO, Poland
International Presentation Association, Ireland
International Small Business Alliance, Ireland
Intersindical Valenciana, Spain País Valencià
Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Ireland
Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, Ireland
Iuridicum Remedium, z. s., Czech Republic
Joves d’Esquerra Verda, Spain
Karl Marx Society, Hungary
Kauno regiono energetinių įmonių jungtinė darbininkų profsąjunga, Lithuania
Keep Ireland Fracking Free, Ireland
Kehys – The Finnish NGDO Platform to the EU, Finland
KMU gegen TTIP, Austria
Közép-dunántúli Biokultúra Egyesület, Hungary, Europe
Kulturrat Österreich, Austria
La Casa Azul del Occidente, Spain
Les Amis de la Terre, Belgium
Letterbreen and Mullaghdun Community, United Kingdom
Links Ecologisch Forum (LEF), Belgium
Lithuanian Industry Trade Union Federation, Lithuania
Lithuanian Seafarers’ Union, Lithuania
Lithuanian Trade Union of Health Care Employees, Lithuania
LobbyControl, Germany
LRT darbuotojų profesinė sąjunga, Lithuania
Luonto-Liitto / The Finnish Nature League, Finland
Magosfa Foundation, Hungary
Magyar Antifasiszta Liga, Hungary
Mandate Trade Union, Ireland
Marchas de la dignidad-madrid, Spain
Marea Blanca de Ponent i Pirineus, Spain Catalonia
Mareas ciudadanas, Spain
May Day, Denmark
Mediterranean Antinuclear Watch (MANW ), Greece
MedSOS, Greece
Meer Democratie, The Netherlands
Mehr Demokratie, Germany
Mercy International Association, Ireland
Milieudefensie, The Netherlands
MOC, Belgium
Moral Cerdit Association, Hungary
Mouvement Ecologique, Luxembourg
Mouvement politique des objecteurs de croissance (mpOC), Belgium
Mouvement Rural de Jeunesse Chretienne, France
Mouvement Utopia, France
Movement for Just Society (Gibanje za pravično družbo- GPD), Slovenia
MTVSZ / Friends of the Earth Hungary, Hungary
Mundubat, Spain Basque Country
Nacion humana universal, Spain
National Justice and Peace Network, United Kingdom
Naturefriends Greece, Greece
NaturFreunde Deutschlands, Germany
New Wind Association, Finland
No Transat !, Belgique / Belgium
NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark, Denmark
Non ao TTIP Galiza, Spain Galicia
ÖBV – Via Campesina Austria, Austria
ÖGB – Austrian Trade Union Federation, Austria
OGM dangers, France
Oikos – Cooperação e Desenvolvimento, Portugal
OMAL, Spain
Open Cages, Lithuania
Organisation des producteurs de lait, France
Padrines i Padrins Flautes de Mallorca, Spain
Paz con Dignidad, Spain
PCS, United Kingdom
PEAH – Policies for Equitable Access to Health, Italy
Pénzügyi Szervezetek Lakossági Figyelője Egyesület, Hungary
People Before Profit, United Kingdom
People’s Front, Hungary
Peoples Movement, Ireland
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Finland, Finland
Plataforma Algarve Loivre de Petróleo, Portugal
Plataforma Não ao Tratado Transatlântico, Portugal
Plataforma no al TTIP Sevilla, Spain
Plataforma pel Dret a Decidir del País Valencià, Spain País Valencià
Plataforma STOP CETA Ponent i Pirineus, Spain
Plateforme Stop CETA & TTIP, Luxembourg
Platform Aarde Boer Consument, The Netherlands
Polyán Egyesület, Hungary
PowerShift e.V., Germany
Presentation Interprovincial Justice Desk, Ireland and the UK
Procés Constituent, Spain (Catalonia)
Protestival, Slovenia
Quercus – Associação Nacional de Conservação da Natureza, Portugal
Quintessenz – Verein zur Wiederherstellung der Bürgerrechte im Informationszeitalter, Austria
Red andaluza no al TTIP, Spain
Réseau Semences Paysannes, France
Rettet den Regenwald, Germany
Right2Water Campaign Ireland, Ireland
Skiftet, Sweden
Slow Food Ireland, Ireland
Slow Food Italy, Italy
Social movement for Sustainable Development of Slovenia – TRS (Drštvo Gibanje TRS9), Slovenia
Social Justice Ireland , Ireland
Sociedad cultural gijonesa, Spain
Solidary Bulgaria, Bulgaria
SOM ENERGIA, Spain
Som lo que Sembrem, Spain Catalonia
STEI Intersindical, Spain Balearic Islands
Stop CETA Alliance Ireland, Ireland
STOP Desahucios Hernani, Spain
Stop TAFTA Luxembourg, Luxembourg
StopTTIP uk, United Kingdom
STOP TTIP CETA TiSA Greece, Greece
Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczne EKO-UNIA, Poland
Students against TTIP UK, United Kingdom
Susivienijimas ŽALI.LT, Lithuania
Sustainable Water Network, Ireland
SZAB, Hungary
Technical Engineering and Electrical Union, Ireland
The Barn Owl Foundation, Hungary
The Danish Ecological Council, Denmark
The Environmental Pillar, Ireland
The Irish Food Writers’ Guild, Ireland
The Irish Wildife Trust, Ireland
Tid til fred – aktiv mod krig, Denmark
Towards Sustainability Association, Hungary
Trade Justice Movement, United Kingdom
Trade union of Lithuanian food producers, Lithuania
Trades Union Congress, United Kingdom
transform! italia, Italy
Transitie Nederland, The Netherlands
Transnational Institute (TNI), The Netherlands
Trócaire, Ireland
TTIP and Agriculture coalition, The Netherlands
TTIP Network Finland, Finland
TTIPunfairHandelbar, Germany
UAB Siauliu energetikos statyba profesine sajunga, Lithuania
UFISC, France
UGT (Unión General de Trabajadores), Spain
UGT de Catalunya, Spain
UGT LLEIDA, Spain – Lleida Catalonia
ULC Union Luxembourgeoise des Consommateurs nouvelle a.s.b.l., Luxembourg
Umanotera, Slovenia
Umweltinstitut München e.V., Germany
Unconditional Basic Income Europe, Belgium
Unión Sindical Obrera (USO), Spain
Union Syndicale Fédérale, Europe
Union syndicale Solidaires, France
UnternehmensGrün e.V., Germany
USTEA (Unión de Sindicatos de Trabajadoras y Trabajadores en Andalucía), Spain
Utopia, Slovakia
Vaistinių darbuotojų profesinė sąjunga, Lithuania
Védegylet Egyesület, Hungary
Vida, Austria
Visnyeszéplaki Faluvédő és Közművelődési Egyesület, Hungary
Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment, Ireland
Vrijschrift, The Netherlands
War on Want, United Kingdom
WEED – World Economy, Ecology & Development, Germany
Wicklow (Eire)&Friends Against TTIP/CETA, Ireland
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Netherlands, The Netherlands
World March of Women(WMW)- Cordination CATALONIA, Spain Catalonia
wwoof italia, Italy
XminY het actiefionds, The Netherlands
Young Friends of the Earth Cyprus, Cyprus
Za Zemiata, Friends of the Earth Bulgaria, Bulgaria
ZDRUŽENJE ZA EKONOMSKO DEMOKRACIJO, Slovenia
Zelena akcija / Friends of the Earth Croatia, Croatia
ZERO – Association for the Sustainability of the Earth System, Portugal
Zivilcourage Innviertel, Austria
Zöld Akció Egyesület (Green Action), Hungary
Zold Volgyert Egyesulet, Hungary


Notes:

[i] Interactive map of the European initiative against TTIP and CETA

[ii] TTIP and CETA free zones in Europe

[iii] Information on the constitutional challenge against CETA at Germany’s constitutional court

[iv] Constitutional challenge against CETA at the Federal Court of Canada

[v] See, for example: Investment Court System in CETA to be judged by the ECJ

[vi] See, for example: Civil society groups call on European governments to reject the CETA agreement; Joint Canadian Trade Union statement on CETA; Small and medium-sized enterprise from across Europe call on European governments to reject the CETA agreement

[vii] See, for example: The Great CETA swindle; The EU-Canada Joint Interpretive Declaration/Instrument on the CETA; CETA to be signed unchanged, but less likely to be ratified after Wallonian resistance

[viii]See, for example: CETA – Trading away democracy

[ix] See, for example: The Zombie ISDS. Rebranded as ICS, rights for corporations to sue states refuse to die

[x] See, for example: “Labour rights”, in: Making sense of CETA

[xi] See, for example: CETA and Public Services

[xii] CETA without blinders: how cutting ‘trade costs and more’ will cause unemployment, inequality and welfare losses

[xiii] See, for example: “The financial services chapter: Inflating bank profits at the expense of citizens”, in Making sense of CETA

[xiv] See, for example: ACTA-CETA similarities; Trade and Privacy: Complicated bedfellows? How to achieve data protection-proof free trade agreements?; and “Patents, copyright and innovation” and “Canada-specific concerns”, in Making sense of CETA

[xv] See, for example: “Limiting how and what government regulates” and “More cooperation for less regulation”, in Making sense of CETA; and CIEL letter to Minister-President Magnette

[xvi] See, for example: “CETA’s threat to agricultural markets and food quality”, in Making sense of CETA

[xvii] CETA, TTIP and the EU precautionary principle

[xviii] For examples of specific amendments put forward by trade unions and environmental organisations, see: Protocol on Dispute Settlement and Institutional Mechanisms for the trade and sustainable development and trade and labour provisions; Understanding on the Provision of Public Services and Procurement; Protocol on Investment Protection; Understanding on the Precautionary Principle; BUND proposals for amendments on public services, the precautionary principle and the promotion of renewable energy.

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
25 Nov 2016

New leaks confirm TiSA proposals that would undermine civil liberties

By Heini Järvinen

Today, on 25 November 2016, German blog Netzpolitik.org in association with Greenpeace published new leaked documents concerning the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), a “trade” agreement that is currently being negotiated between 23 members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), including the European Union.

The new leaks confirm the problems identified in previous leaks, including serious threats to freedom of expression and protection of personal data of European citizens.

The proposals on privatised censorship are particularly worrying

said Joe McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Creating a power to undermine our free speech with no accountability is reckless and contrary to literally all relevant provisions of international law.

In September 2016, Wikileaks and Greenpeace Netherlands published other documents on TiSA. In the light of today’s leaks, what’s new from a civil liberties perspective?

  1. Liability protections: while having provisions to promote freedom of expression will be a step forward, the latest US made a proposal in TiSA which does not respect the rule of law and would remove rights to freedom of expression. The proposal is that internet companies would not be liable for any damage caused by voluntary restrictions of individuals’ free speech if they undertake such restrictions “in good faith” because they feel that the communications are “harmful or objectionable”. The proposal even extends to when this damage is caused implementing regulation-by-algorithm – in other words when using technical means, such as automatic filtering, to do so. This would privatise the regulation of the human right to receive, impart and seek information. It would almost inevitably lead into privatised censorship of completely legal information by governments (through pressures to online companies), or online companies themselves (acting in their own commercial interest).
  2. Net neutrality: The EU had taken a step towards the right direction and proposed some improvements to the text on net neutrality, the principle that all the internet traffic has to be treated equally, which is crucial for fair competition between online services, for innovation, and for freedom of expression. The leaks show that the US and Colombia proposal officially oppose these improvements. The US has net neutrality rules and this position was taken before the elections. Why hasn’t it supported the EU here?
  3. Data flows: The leaks show that the pressure to include “data flows” and “free flow of data” in the agreement is persistent. The European Commission announced previously that data protection will be left out of TiSA. However, the European Commission Directorate General for Trade (DG Trade) has stated that they will ensure free data flows and provisions against data localisation. Bringing these topics into the discussions will almost inevitably bring data protection and privacy onto the negotiation table.

A big coalition of organisations around the world is worried about the proposals in the draft core text, the e-commerce, telecommunications, financial services and localisation annexes of TiSA. These leaks are not reassuring.

tisa_sharepic_01_edri

TiSA is being negotiated formally since March 2013. A Ministerial Meeting to conclude the talks was scheduled on 5-6 December. The meeting has been cancelled due to outstanding issues and the recent developments in the US.

Read more:

TiSA-leaks: Fundamental rights shall be levered out for free trade – also in the internet (25.11.2016)
https://netzpolitik.org/2016/tisa-leaks-fundamental-rights-shall-be-levered-out-for-free-trade-also-in-the-internet/

Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), Annex on Electronic Commerce (25.11.2016)
https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2016/11/tisa_annex_on_electronic_commerce.pdf

Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), Annex on Telecommunications Services (25.11.2016)
https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2016/11/tisa_annex_on_telecommunications_services.pdf

Global letter on TiSA, data protection and privacy (02.11.2016)
https://edri.org/files/TiSA/globalletter_dataprotection_privacy_20161102.pdf

Corporate-sponsored privacy confusion in the EU on trade and data protection (12.10.2016)
https://edri.org/corporate-sponsored-privacy-confusion-eu-trade-data-protection/

TiSA leaks set alarm bells ringing (20.09.2016)
https://edri.org/tisa-leaks-set-alarm-bells-ringing/

EDRi analysis of the TiSA leaks of September 2016 (20.09.2016)
https://edri.org/files/tisaleaks_edrianalysis_20092016.pdf

EDRi’s position paper on TiSA (January 2016)
https://edri.org/files/TiSA_Position_Jan2016e.pdf

Study launch: The EU can achieve data protection-proof trade agreements (13.07.2016)
https://edri.org/study-launch-eu-can-achieve-data-protection-proof-trade-agreements/

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
24 Nov 2016

Terrorism Directive: Document pool

By Maryant Fernández Pérez

I am convinced that the only effective way to tackle terrorism is firmly rooted in the respect of fundamental and human rights.

EU Security Union Commissioner Sir Julian King, 14 November 2016.


The European Commission proposed the Draft Directive on Combating Terrorism (the “Terrorism Directive”) in December 2015. Since then, the legislative process to adopt it has been fast-tracked, which reduces the space for meaningful public participation, transparency and accountability.

The Directive is expected to be finalised by the end of 2016. On 17 November, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission concluded the so-called “trilogue“. This means that a political agreement has been reached among the very few people representing the three institutions. Next, both the Council and the Parliament will have to formally adopt the Directive. Amendments are possible, in theory. However, their adoption will be in practice close to impossible. After the Directive is finalised in Brussels, EU Member States will have to give meaning to vague and unclear wording when implementing the Directive.

If changes are not introduced in the Terrorism Directive, abuses to freedom of expression and privacy will be made in your Member State!

EDRi doesn’t give up and keeps pushing for a human rights agenda in the Terrorism Directive. In this document pool, you will find the relevant information, documents and analyses of the Terrorism Directive. We’ll update this document pool as the process advances.


Legislative Texts

More information in PRELEX (EU Database on preparatory acts), OEIL (European Parliament’s Legislative Observatory) and IPEX (Interparliamentary Exchange Platform).


EDRi’s analyses and recommendations


EDRi statements


terrorism_directive_process
(Click image to see the full sized infographics, or download the PDF here.)

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
23 Nov 2016

#5 Freedom not to be labelled: How to fight profiling

By EDRi

This is the fifth blogpost of our series dedicated to privacy, security and freedoms. In the next weeks, we will explain how your freedoms are under threat, and what you can do to fight back.

blogpost_05_sharepic_01

Profiling: What is it and how does it work?

Algorithms gather data from your social media activities, emails, browsing history and so on. Now that the Internet of Things is becoming more and more used, it adds its share to the amount of information collected and stored. As a result of all this data available about your personality, preferences and activities, you can be more and more easily labelled and placed in categories.

These categories may or may not be correct. You might end up “mislabelled” and put into a wrong category. For example, according to a French government website, you might be in the process of being radicalised if you change your eating habits, leave full-time education or stop your sporting activities and stop watching TV. Of course, you might just be a student writing your thesis.

Research has shown that for example a person’s ethnic group, sexual orientation, religion or relationship status can be surprisingly accurately guessed from simply assessing their Facebook “likes”. These insights are possible, even though many users avoid clicking on links that would obviously reveal these details.

Based on this “labelling”, decisions can be taken about you: if you will be selected for a job interview, or picked for a special security screening at the airport. Or you could be offered either a discount or higher prices for a service or a product.

How to claim back your freedom not to be labelled

If you believe that a profiling measure has produced legal effects or significantly affected you (credit worthiness, reliability, conduct) you can contact Data Protection Authorities (DPA) to exercise your rights, such as the right to object to automatic decision-making and the right access to the information collected about you. Unfortunately, not all the DPAs have a user-friendly approach, and issuing a request can be fairly complex in some countries, such as Belgium. However, in other countries like France, the authorities offer a template-based model to simplify the complaint system for their citizens. The new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is due to become binding law in all EU Member States in 2018, will strengthen and clarify both these rights and the ability of national data protection authorities to implement them.

spoofer_thumbnail
Random Agent Spoofer is an add-on for Firefox browser. It hinders browser fingerprinting – collecting information that allows to identify you – by allowing you to automatically choose random browser profiles.

cookie_thumbnail
Self-Destructing Cookies is an add-on that removes the general purpose cookies when they are no longer used by open browser tabs. Also, it detects and removes the tracking cookies as soon as they are spotted.

sheriff_thumbnail
$heriff allows you to know differential pricing in real time.

In the webseries “Do Not Track”, produced by ARTE TV in collaboration – with Mozilla, you can discover more about profiling, for example how much data you provide when “liking” things on Facebook, and how that affects not only you but also your friends and relatives. Watch the third episode, “Like mining” here:

do_not_track_episode3

What can politicians do to safeguard your freedoms online?

The rules on online privacy in the EU (ePrivacy Directive) will be soon updated. This law deals with privacy and confidentiality of communications for the entire EU, and it affects tracking and other issues related to your freedoms online. Are politicians ready to fight for your protection?

Read our previous blogposts here, and stay tuned to our next blogposts to know more about your freedoms online, and how they are threatened!


Read more:

6 times it’s more expensive to be a woman (12.04.2016)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-things-women-pay-more-for-than-men-2014-01-17

Need a Reservation? That Could Depend On How Big You Are on Twitter (Really) (30.09.2010)
http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/marketing-las-vegas-palms-hotel-klout-scores/146189/

Is social profiling discrimination? (03.05.2012)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/is-social-profiling-the-new-racism/2012/05/03/gIQAXQQDzT_blog.html

The dangers of high-tech profiling, using Big Data (07.08.2014)
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/06/is-big-data-spreading-inequality/the-dangers-of-high-tech-profiling-using-big-data

Do Not Track: Episode 3 – Like Mining
https://donottrack-doc.com/en/episode/3

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
16 Nov 2016

State of emergency worsens digital crackdown in Turkey

By Guest author

According to a new report by Freedom House, web freedom across the globe declined for the sixth consecutive year. Turkey placed among the red-flag states in terms of web freedom in 2015-2016 and is now rated “not free” in “Freedom on the net 2016” report after repeated blocking of social media. The country’s status score is “61/100 not free” with 13/25 for obstacles to access, 21/35 for limits on content and 27/40 for violations of user rights.

01_turkey

Turkey entered a state of emergency on 21 July 2016, and this will remain until 21 January 2017, if no further extensions are made by the government. Along with unprecedented attacks on media pluralism and prosecution of journalists, writers, academics and public servants after failed coup attempt, internet restrictions continue at an alarming rate in the country.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Support our work with a one-off-donation! https://edri.org/donate/ -----------------------------------------------------------------

Tensions heightened in the country following general elections in June and November of 2015 and a series of deadly terrorist attacks. Gag orders on the dissemination of images and videos of the bombings were introduced by the authorities, resulting in the blocking of hundreds of websites – over 100 000 websites were reportedly blocked as of 2016. Gag order blocking continues to increase, affecting a wide variety of political, social, and religious content. Access to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube was repeatedly throttled until the companies removed controversial content. Specific hashtags related to the bombing locations, like #Istanbul, #Ankara, and #Diyarbakir, were temporarily filtered from Instagram. Counterterrorism operations in the southeastern region of the country repeatedly resulted in the suspension of 3G networks, affecting millions of residents for days at a time. The most significant obstacle to internet access in Turkey remains the shutting down of telecommunications networks during security operations, mainly in the southeastern part of the country. These internet shutdowns are obvious violations of the right to information and access at a moment when internet access is of huge importance to individuals. Dozens of news agencies, media outlets and social media accounts covering Kurdish issues have been either blocked or shut down for allegedly promoting terrorist propaganda over the past year.

The most recent social media blockage that also included virtual private network (VPN) restrictions occurred starting on 4 November. Alternative Informatics Association (Alternatif Bilisim) released an emergency notice for further dissemination and international coverage. This strategic operation was also planned at a specific time when detainment and arrest of dissident politicians took place in southeast Turkey.

Turkey is consistently featured among the countries with the highest number of removal requests sent to Twitter. Of all of the tweets “withheld” by Twitter around the world in the second half of 2015, Turkey accounted for almost 90 percent. According to Transparency Report, requests from courts and government agencies reached 2211 and rose to 2493 in the first half of 2016. In each reporting period, Twitter indicated it complied in 23 percent of cases. Twitter did file a court case after being fined by the Turkish information and communications technology authority (BTK) for failing to remove “terrorist propaganda”. Over the past year, hundreds of Twitter users faced charges of insulting government officials, defaming President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, or sharing propaganda in support of terrorist organisations. In some cases, individuals, mostly journalists have been imprisoned.

Privacy and data protection is also a sensitive issue in Turkey. Even though a new data protection law has been adopted, how this law will be implemented still remains a mystery with the dismissal of the Turkish Telecommunications Authority (TIB) and transfer of all authority to BTK. The Alternative Informatics Association issued a press release on the massive data leak in March 2016, including the addresses, identity numbers, and other personal information of almost 50 million Turkish citizens. Binali Yildirim, Transport and Communication Minister at the time, admitted that the breach appeared to date back to at least 2010. An expert stated that the data was taken from the government’s official Population Governance Central Database (MERNIS) around 2009 and later illegally sold to foreclosure firms.

Active internet users and developers in Turkey were alarmed and shocked on 9 October 2016 when cloud storage services including Google Drive, Dropbox and Microsoft’s OneDrive as well as code hosting service GitHub were blocked by the government to suppress the leak of emails belonging to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Berat Albayrak, who is the son-in-law of President Erdogan. The ban was lifted after 48 hours following the public protest and pressure by prominent actors of the digital market.

Digital surveillance and cyber security measures are also worrisome for netizens in Turkey. Before the passage of the Homeland Security Act in March 2015, the law allowed Turkish security forces to conduct intelligence wiretapping for 24 hours in urgent situations without a court order. With the new law, the time limit was increased to 48 hours; the new requirement is that wiretapping officials notify their superiors. In addition, the Ankara High Criminal Court is solely authorised to decide whether the wiretapping is legitimate. It is necessary to mention that despite constitutional guarantees, most forms of telecommunication continue to be tapped and intercepted.

With social media purported as a threat to national security, intrusive government surveillance and the proven use of sophisticated malware tools by law enforcement authority, internet freedom is on a very negative course in Turkey.

Freedom on the net 2016: Silencing the messenger: Communication apps under pressure
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2016

Freedom on the net 2016: Turkey, country profile
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2016/turkey

To no one’s surprise, Erdogan backs extending Turkey’s state of emergency (29.09.2016)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/29/to-no-ones-surprise-erdogan-extends-turkeys-state-of-emergency-after-failed-coup/

New internet shutdown in Turkey’s Southeast: 8% of country now offline amidst Diyarbakir unrest (27.10.2016)
https://turkeyblocks.org/2016/10/27/new-internet-shutdown-turkey-southeast-offline-diyarbakir-unrest/

Emergency notice: Internet blockages in Turkey
https://www.alternatifbilisim.org/wiki/Emergency_notice:_Internet_blockages_in_Turkey

Transparency report: Turkey
https://transparency.twitter.com/en/countries/tr.html

Twitter sues Turkey over ‘terror propaganda’ fine
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/twitter-sues-turkey-terror-propaganda-fine-160107173150687.html

Journalist detained in Turkey over tweets
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/journalist-detained-in-turkey-over-tweets.aspx?pageID=238&nID=98552&NewsCatID=341

Turkey blocks Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive and GitHub to stop email leaks
http://thenextweb.com/asia/2016/10/10/turkey-reportedly-blocks-google-drive-dropbox-onedrive-github-stop-email-leaks/

National Security Council under Erdoğan updates top secret national security “book”
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/national-security-council-under-erdogan-updates-top-secret-national-security-book.aspx?pageID=238&nID=81757&NewsCatID=338

EDRi: Turkey: “The worst menace to society” helps to defeat the coup
edri.org/turkey-worst-menace-society-helps-defeat-coup/

(Contribution by Asli Telli Aydemir, EDRi member Alternative Informatics Association, Turkey)

EDRi-gram_subscribe_banner

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
16 Nov 2016

GFF launches its strategic litigation for civil rights

By Guest author

EDRi observer Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF, Society for Civil Rights) has launched its first case and published its website. GFF is a Berlin-based non-profit NGO founded in 2015. Its mission is to establish a sustainable structure for successful strategic litigation in the area of human and civil rights in Germany and Europe.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Support our work with a one-off-donation! https://edri.org/donate/ -----------------------------------------------------------------

GFF’s initial cases will focus on protecting privacy, freedom of information and freedom of the press against state intrusion. These are the realms that GFF’s founders are most active in and that currently present both particularly critical challenges as well as litigation opportunities. GFF’s long-term mission is to help protect and strengthen human and civil rights in general by legal means, thus permanently improving human and civil rights law all over Europe.

Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte
https://www.freiheitsrechte.org/

(Contribution by Malte Spitz, EDRi observer Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte, Germany)

EDRi-gram_subscribe_banner

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
16 Nov 2016

New EU network to combat the “challenges stemming from encryption”

By Guest author

The European Union intends to simplify investigative authorities’ access to encrypted content. This emerged from the replies to a questionnaire that was circulated to all Member States by the Slovak Presidency of the EU Council. After a “reflection process”, efforts in this area are, according to the summary of the replies, intended to give rise to a framework for “cooperation” with internet providers. It remains unclear whether this will take the form of a recommendation, regulation or directive or, indeed, what “cooperation” might mean.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Support our work - make a recurrent donation! https://edri.org/supporters/ -----------------------------------------------------------------

The replies to the questionnaire are now being examined by the Friends of the Presidency Group on Cyber Issues (FoP Cyber), which also held discussions on “increasing tendencies to exploit encrypted communication in order to hide criminal activities, identities and crime scenes”. Those taking part included the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Defence Agency (EDA) and other EU institutions. FoP Cyber’s recommendations will then be addressed at the meeting of the next Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) on 17 November in Brussels.

Focus on encrypted communications sent via Facebook, Skype, WhatsApp and Telegram

The non-public questionnaire was first published online by the British civil rights organisation Statewatch. Following a freedom of information request, the Council Secretariat lifted its non-public classification. The summary of the replies is also classified, but has now also been published by Statewatch.

The questionnaire was responded to by authorities from 25 Member States. The police agency Europol also submitted replies. Twenty-one participants responded that their investigators often or almost always ran up against encrypted content or devices, and that this applied especially to encrypted communications sent via Facebook, Skype, WhatsApp and Telegram.

While neither suspects nor people charged with crimes are under the legal obligation to disclose encryption keys or passwords in the participating Member States, a number of governments are working on relevant legislation. Internet providers are obliged to disclose these encryption keys or passwords, however, and a judicial order is not always required for this. This also applies to the interception of encrypted communication with the objective of decrypting the data at a later stage. However, there is often a lack of sufficient technical capacity, which is why decryption is defined as being among the top three challenges. There are further shortcomings with respect to financial resources and personnel capacities for corresponding measures.

03_encryption

“Transcription, decoding or decrypting of the recording subject”

The Slovak Presidency of the EU Council arrives at the conclusion that “practical solutions” should be sought that allow for the possible disclosure of encrypted data or devices. The cooperation of public prosecution offices, which is currently scheduled for harmonisation in the area of e-evidence, may be drawn upon to this end. This likewise involves entering into cooperative partnerships with Internet Service Providers (ISPs); much of the communications data isolated in the course of cross-border investigations is encrypted.

To facilitate the cooperation between investigative authorities, the European Union in 2014 adopted the European Investigation Order, a directive that must be implemented by the Member States by 2017. An “issuing state” may request that an “executing state” assist with efforts to gather evidence in the event of criminal proceedings. The European Investigation Order stipulates the procedure for administrative cooperation regarding the “transcription, decoding or decrypting of the recording subject”.

Germany proposes “software that records communications before they are encrypted”

The extent to which state trojan programmes could also number among “practical solutions” remains unclear. The German Federal Ministry of the Interior has, at any rate, proposed appropriate tools in its reply to the questionnaire:
“For ongoing telecommunications activities, one possibility would be to access the corresponding information technology system and to install software that is specially designed for this purpose. This software records communications before they are encrypted and ensures that it is exclusively ongoing telecommunications that are intercepted.”

German federal authorities have now established a Central Authority for Information Technology in the Security Sector (ZITiS) for the deployment of state trojans, which has an initial complement of 60 permanent posts with additional staff scheduled to join them at a later stage.

Europol as a hub for investigative authorities

In the summer 2016, the European Union established the European Judicial Cybercrime Network (EJCN), which has now been tasked with addressing “the challenges stemming from encryption”. The EJCN is scheduled to commence its work on 24 November and will, along with Europol, cooperate closely with Eurojust, whose task is judicial cooperation. On 2 June 2016, Eurojust held a Strategic Seminar “Keys to Cyberspace” which focussed also on access to encrypted data and locked mobile devices, for example by using a suspect’s fingerprints previously collected or compel a suspect to provide passwords.

Further objectives of the EJCN include speeding up international legal assistance procedures and improving cooperation with ISPs and cross-border investigative measures in cyberspace. This cooperation extends to the transatlantic region; the European Union is currently working on procedures that will enable European investigative authorities to submit direct enquiries to private service providers in the US.

One of the tasks of the EJCN is to enhance the direct cooperation with service providers in the US. Eurojust reports a strong wish “for an intervention of the EU legislator” to oblige the companies to answer direct requests from national authorities or at least fix minimum requirements and standards for such requests.

In order to simplify legal assistance for digital investigations, the US has now dispatched a state attorney to Europol. The police agency is, according to the Council Document, intended to function as a hub in the area of encrypted telecommunications. Further assistance could be provided by the European Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA). Europol and ENISA recently discussed legal and technical options for dealing with encryption at a private conference in the summer.

This article was originally published at https://digit.site36.net/2016/11/03/new-eu-network-of-judicial-authorities-to-combat-the-challenges-stemming-from-encryption/

Justice and Home Affairs Council, 08-09/12/2016
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/jha/2016/12/08-09/

Encryption of data – Questionnaire
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXV/EU/11/57/EU_115720/imfname_10656033.pdf

Tackling encryption: law enforcement agencies favour practical, effective solutions for access rather than new legal powers? (27.10.2016)
http://statewatch.org/news/2016/oct/eu-council-encryption-debate.htm

Council conclusions on improving criminal justice in cyberspace (09.06.2016)
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/jha/2016/06/cyberspace–en_pdf/

Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014L0041

ZITiS is the new German Government cyber unit in wake of terror attacks (15.08.2016)
http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/50297/terrorism/zitis-german-cyber-unit.html

On lawful criminal investigation that respects 21st Century data protection, Europol and ENISA Joint Statement
https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/enisa-position-papers-and-opinions/on-lawful-criminal-investigation-that-respects-21st-century-data-protection

Eurojust strategic seminar-Keys to cyberspace
http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press/News/News/Pages/2016/2016_06_03_Eurojust-strategic-seminar-Keys-to-cyberspace.aspx

(Contribution by Matthias Monroy, Bürgerrechte & Polizei/CILIP, Germany)

EDRi-gram_subscribe_banner

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
16 Nov 2016

Dutch government wants to keep “zero days” available for exploitation

By Guest author

The Dutch government is very clear about at least one thing: unknown software vulnerabilities, also known as “zero days”, may be left open by the government, in order to be exploited by secret services and the police.

We all benefit from a secure and reliable digital infrastructure. It ensures the protection of sensitive personal data, security, company secrets and the national interest. It is essential for the protection of free communication and privacy. As a consequence, any vulnerability should be patched immediately. This is obviously only possible when unknown vulnerabilities are disclosed responsibly. Keeping a vulnerability under wraps is patently irresponsible: it may be found simultaneously by others who abuse it, for example to steal sensitive information or to attack other devices.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Support our work with a one-off-donation! https://edri.org/donate/ -----------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the Dutch government takes a weaker and more dangerous approach. In a statement released on 8 November, the government said it may keep unknown vulnerabilities in software and hardware available for use by the police and intelligence services. It seems that the statement has been drafted with the intention to leave as much room as possible for the police to hack into devices all over the internet.

Most importantly, the statement lacks a much needed vision. As society increasingly relies on the availability and security of our digital infrastructure, a clear vision on the government’s role is necessary. This is especially true now that governments regularly make proposals that can have a high impact on the trust in our digital systems.

The statement fails to address all of the relevant aspects of the security problems it raises. For example, the government focusses only on the situation where a police or intelligence service accidentally stumbles on an unknown vulnerability. It ignores the fact that those vulnerabilities may be acquired on the black market, or that they may be shared amongst intelligence services.

05_zero_days

Another area where the statement is far from complete: the application of such vulnerabilities by the police is discussed only in the context of the proposed power to hack into computers. The government conveniently ignores the fact that the police is using technology for extracting data of confiscated mobile phone with special forensic devices. Those devices make use of unknown vulnerabilities in order to be able to access the phones. This means that the Dutch government is using unknown vulnerabilities on a daily basis and is thereby supporting the shady market for those vulnerabilities.

The Dutch government goes into lengths explaining it put a lot of thought into deciding whether to disclose the unknown vulnerability or not disclose and thereby keep it for exploitation. The list of possible reasons for not disclosing the vulnerability is long, not exhaustive, and the criteria are formulated rather vague. For example: “Delaying the disclosure of information about an unknown vulnerability in software that is widely used is not reasonable.” Nor it is excluded.

And last but not least, the government claims there is sufficient oversight on police and intelligence services. When police is using such an unknown vulnerability, oversight is in the hands of the public prosecutor, which can’t be named an independent party. The Review Committee for the Intelligence and Security Services (CTIVD) is responsible for the oversight on the Dutch intelligence services. Although they operate fairly independently, their oversight happens only after the vulnerability has already been used.

The government should do all that is in its power to make our digital infrastructure as secure as possible. The Dutch government is capable of doing that: earlier this year the government said no to weakening encryption. A similar approach should also apply here: all unknown vulnerabilities are immediately reported to the manufacturer. The police should have authorities that facilitate criminal investigations, but they should not be allowed to hack computers over the internet using technical vulnerabilities.

Memorandum from NL government to parliament on vulnerabilities in hard- and software (08.11.2016)
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2016Z20636&did=2016D42511

Proposal from NL State Secretary of the Security and Justice department to introduce a power for the Dutch police to remotely hack into computers (22.12.2015)
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ministerie-van-veiligheid-en-justitie/documenten/kamerstukken/2015/12/23/wetsvoorstel-computercriminaliteit-iii

Dutch government says no to weakening encryption (14.01.2016)
https://www.bof.nl/2016/01/14/dutch-government-says-no-to-weakening-encryption/

(Contribution by Rejo Zenger, EDRi member Bits of Freedom, the Netherlands)

EDRi-gram_subscribe_banner

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
16 Nov 2016

EU copyright reform proposal discussed in Romania

By Guest author

On 10 November 2016, EDRi member Asociația pentru Tehnologie și Internet (ApTI) and Internet Advertising Bureau România (IAB România) organised a debate regarding the European Commission’s copyright reform proposal and its impact on digital rights.

The goal of the debate was to communicate the participants’ positions to the Romanian representatives taking part in the European negotiations.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Support our work with a one-off-donation! https://edri.org/donate/ -----------------------------------------------------------------

There were 27 participants representing a wide array of interests, such as publishers, online technology companies, mainstream media, independent journalists, bloggers, vloggers, academics, content creators and internet users. The meeting had two main topics of debate:

  1.  mandatory filtering of content being uploaded to online platforms
  2. ancillary copyright (the “link tax”)

The reform could have a significant impact for multiple types of online businesses, such as content creators and content aggregators, online platforms, as well as anybody who publishes content on the internet.

The views that the participants presented included the following:

  • The impact assessment doesn’t take into account the rights of the internet users;
  • The reform proposal ignores the realities of today’s digital environment and treats internet users as simple consumers, instead of rightfully treating them as both creators and consumers, who enjoy the same rights as any other traditional content creator;
  • The proposal doesn’t recognise the potential and the importance of supporting education;
  • Vague definitions and unclear terms such as “proportionate”, “appropriate” or “reasonable” will create difficulties for those in charge of enforcing the law. This will lead to subjective interpretations and, thus, to abuses;
  • The proposal endangers freedom of speech because of the proposed automatic filtering of content uploaded to online platforms. Any attempt to regulate the activity of online platform can lead to abuses of power and censorship;
  • New business models need to be facilitated, instead of extending copyright in order to prop up traditional models. Traditional businesses need to keep up with the evolution of the digital world and adapt, instead of demanding new rights in order to hold on their market position at the expense of users;
  • Despite needing to protect all stakeholders, the balance of copyright is being pushed towards satisfying the demands of the big music and movie industries, and away from protecting small creators and users. Any more measures that increase the powers of copyright holders will have the result of blocking innovation and development.

The participants identified the need for a specialised court handling copyright cases in order to decide what is unauthorised content and what is not. The reality is that judges in Romania do not have a common practice in respect of copyright law. They often lack understanding on how technical enforcement for copyright protection affects the online world and user rights.

Moreover, awarding online platforms both the power to decide on what content can be uploaded and to decide what needs to be filtered leads to possible abuses and to very sensitive situations where automatic solutions prove very limited.

07_copyright_romania

The first public consultation in Romania on the copyright reform proposal was organised on 11 November 2016 by the Ministry of Culture. The national consultation process is ongoing and comments are welcomed in English and Romanian at [email protected]. EDRi member ApTI submitted a preliminary position and encourages further discussions and sending comments and opinions to the ministry. ApTI also one of the signatories of Creative Commons open letter to the EU Member States, signalling the flawed copyright reform tentative and asking for a major policy shift.

ApTI: Preliminary point of view on the copyright reform (only in Romanian)
http://www.apti.ro/opinie-preliminara-reforma-copyright-ministerul-culturii

Creative Commons open letter to EU Member States
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/3/36/Creative_Commons_Letter_to_European_Member_States_on_Commission_Copyright_Proposal.pdf

(Contribution by EDRi member Asociația pentru Tehnologie și Internet, Romania)

EDRi-gram_subscribe_banner

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
10 Nov 2016

EU Copyright Directive – privatised censorship and filtering of free speech

By Joe McNamee

The European Commission’s proposal on copyright attempts something very ambitious – two different measures that would restrict free speech, squeezed into a single article of a legislative proposal.

article13_sharepic_02

The proposed Directive:

1) requires internet companies to install filtering technology to prevent the upload of content that has been “identified by rightsholders”

Internet service providers that “store” “large amounts” of “works” or “other subject matter” would be required to filter uploads to their service. Interestingly, the text does not say “illegal uploads” or “unauthorised uploads”, but simply uploads that have been identified. What does this mean? It means that any video that an individual creates that includes a clip or a picture identified by a rightsholder would have to be blocked. It means any meme that contains an image identified by a rightsholder would have to be blocked. It means that any parody that uses a work identified by a rightsholder would have to be blocked.

2) seeks to make internet providers responsible for their users’ uploads

The European Commission claims that the proposal is complementary to the E-Commerce Directive (which gives limited protection from liability to internet providers). However, the explanatory “recitals” describe the activities of internet hosting companies in a way that would mean that pretty much no company would be protected. In order to defend themselves from liability, they would have to aggressively monitor and delete any information from any user that generated any legal risk.

3) gives internet users no meaningful protection from unfair deletion of their creations

The European Commission proposal to deal with the inevitable, unfair restrictions of their freedom of speech is that individuals should be able to appeal to private redress mechanisms created by the companies that imposed the unfair restrictions. As weak as this safeguard would be, the situation is slightly worse. Restrictions imposed by companies are almost always done on the basis of their terms of service, rather than the law. As a result, very few of the inevitable, unfair deletions will be done on the basis of law, so even this very limited “safeguard” will not exist in reality.

What can I do?

  • Spread the word on Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, shout it from the rooftops!
  • Contact your national ministry responsible for copyright to tell them this is unacceptable.
  • Contact members of the European Parliament (MEPs) – you can use Openmedia’s campaign page at https://act1.openmedia.org/savethelink

Our detailed analysis of Article 13 and the associated explanatory “recitals” can be downloaded from: https://edri.org/files/copyright/copyright_proposal_article13.pdf

Press Release: New copyright directive fails at every level (14.09.2016)
https://edri.org/press-release-new-copyright-directive-fails-every-level/

Copyfails: Time to #fixcopyright! (23.05.2016)
https://edri.org/copyfails/

The Copyright Reform – a guide for the perplexed (02.11.2016)
https://edri.org/copyright-reform-guide-for-the-perplexed/

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close