[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DFRI-listan] Valenkät på temat integritet

On 05/30/2014 12:07 PM, Linus Nordberg wrote:
> | Eller så lägger man krut på frågorna så att svaren blir ja|nej|vet ej.
> Går det? Att få ett ja/nej från de politiska partierna ett valår menar
> jag.

Det vet man inte förrän efteråt, men om man styr upp frågan så här:

   [ ] Ja
   [ ] Nej
   [ ] Vet ej

   Motivera ditt svar: __________________

så går det nog att återanvända den gamla enkäten. Man kan ju titta på
hur dom har gjort på score-ep.org också (vilket är snarlikt hur man
jobbar med amendments med justifications...).

*Men det viktigaste just nu är nog att få ut ett tiotal frågor på remiss!*

Sen gör man väl bara som vanligt? Announce process -> |: deadline ->
loop :| -> publication?

Pejstar en enkät vi fick från http://renaissancenumerique.org/ innan
valet nedan (det är en fransk tänktank). Kanske finns nån intressant
frågeställning där som DFRI skulle kunna sno rätt av. Annars är det väl
bara att var och en frågar sig själv vad man skulle vilja ha svar på.
Vore trist om det bara blev PK-frågor som ingen egentligen vill veta
svaret på.

Själv skulle jag vilja fråga politikerna om dom skulle vilja vara med
och starta en användarförening i riksdagen som kör DebianParl!
Kommissionen har iallafall visat intresse :-)


Motsvarande specifik DFRI-fråga skulle kunna vara om riksdagsledamoten
skulle vilja installera PTS-knappen och anmäla webbsidor i offentlig
sektor som inte följer kaklagen.



> *Telecom Package 2013 - Net Neutrality *
> The first reading of the Telecom Package went through Parliament earlier
> this year - in April 2014. In case of a disagreement in the course of
> the co-decision procedure, the MEPs elected for the ensuing term will
> have to vote the second reading of the text. The Commission has
> presented this text as “the most ambitious project that the European
> Commission has ever proposed in 26 years of reforms”.
> As part of the draft regulation on a "single market in telecoms", the
> Parliament defined Net Neutrality as follows : “the principle according
> to which all Internet traffic is treated equally, without
> discrimination, restriction or interference, regardless of its sender,
> recipient, type, content, device, service or application”. It is the
> first time the European Union has enshrined the principle of Net
> neutrality in the law.
> Questions:
> 1. Would you say that an adapted law on traffic management is desirable ?
> [x] yes
> [ ] no
> /Write a short paragraph to justify your answer:/
> The borderline between traditional Traffic Management for the sole
> purpose of avoiding congestion and futuristic Deep Packet Inspection for
> the sole purpose of maximising profit is getting harder and harder to
> draw as energy, connectivity and jurisdiction emerge as the only
> relevant costs cloud hosting companies have. Or simply put - today,
> Traffic Management is defined by economic rather than technical factors
> or constraints. Thus, a law on traffic management is as desirable as a
> law on waste management - it is a matter of regulating financial
> incentives so that the internet remains a free and open infrastructure
> for the benefit of the society as a whole.
> http://islandsofresilience.eu/pdf/ior_full.pdf
> 2. In case of a disagreement in the course of the co-decision procedure,
> would you like to maintain this definition of Net Neutrality, especially
> for video sharing platforms, which are more stream-intensive?
> [x] yes
> [ ] no
> /Write a short paragraph to justify your answer:/
> Yes, we absolutely need to defend Net Neutrality. The particular
> activity of video sharing (commercial or not) can be served with many
> different technologies, among others peer-to-peer (e.g. joost) which
> works better the more peers are peering. Consequently, such video
> sharing works optimally in a network architecture that is truly
> decentralised. In contrast, referring to 'platforms' for video sharing
> seem to imply that video is streamed from the centre to the periphery
> (in various technical terms expressed as master/slave, server/client,
> mainframe/terminal, core/edge). It follows that the question is asking
> whether or not to create incentives for centralisation will be a matter
> of disagreement in the course of the co-decision procedure. The question
> is thus fundamentally about how the internet at such should develop in
> general and not about stream-intensive services in particular.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joost
> *Telecom Package 2013 - Roaming*
> The Commission, in the original version of the Telecom Package, proposed
> to limit phone overbilling. Parliament went further by voting the end of
> roaming fees as soon as 15 December 2015 on all received and dialled
> calls, SMS and MMS messages as well as data transfers, while providing
> the ability to charge roaming fees in case of an abnormal use or misuse.
> Then, operators have to define these criteria.
> Questions:
> 1. What was your group’s position on the end of roaming fees?
> [x] in favour
> [ ] not in favour
> *Cybersecurity*
> Cybersecurity is a critical issue at European level and the European
> Union has a budget of € 85 millions this year in order to support
> investments designed to ensure reliable cybersecurity and online privacy
> for 2020.MEPs recently adopted the NIS (Network and Information
> Security) Directive, introducing the obligation for companies to declare
> when they fall under cyberattacs.
> Questions:
> 1. What is your position on Article 15, which provides that national
> authorities may require firms and government to proceed to a security
> [ ] in favour
> [x] not in favour
> We are very concerned that governmental procurement, proposals and
> practices contributing to weakening and even to breaching security in
> the internet are still, even after Snowden and Heartbleed, repeatedly
> reported in the media. In that context, a strict application of
> Commission's original article 15.4 including public administrations as
> objects of investigation could theoretically lead to a situation where
> the police would have to report the police to the police. The EP removed
> public administrations but kept market operators as objects of
> investigation and we voted in favour of that part of the Directive.
> Further, in Committee, we proposed to focus on investigating cases of
> non- compliance with the NIS Directive to analyse the effects on the
> security of networks and information systems rather than focus on
> notification procedures for cases of suspected serious criminal nature.
> http://parltrack.euwiki.org/dossier/2013/0027%28COD%29#am-320-PE-523.040
> 2. By which means can legislators strengthen the fight against cyber
> attacks? (legal norms, transparency obligation for companies, digital
> diplomacy, etc.).
> In the European Parliament we can do quite a lot ourselves to take the
> lead in the fight against cyber attacks. For example, the
> europarl.europa.eu mail servers don't support STARTTLS which is an Open
> Standard for providing encrypted connections. That means that whoever
> can tap the network links leading to and from those mail servers can
> read all of the European Parliament's email. Legislators (i.e. MEPs)
> could themselves strengthen the fight against such cyber attacks by
> enabling their own mail servers to support STARTTLS. Further, by using
> end-to-end encryption themselves for their own emails, for example by
> joining the Greens/EFA Pilot Project on trusted email, MEPs could show
> by their own example how citizens can protect themselves against cyber
> attacks. It is of paramount importance that the knowledge about how
> citizens can protect themselves is widely deployed throughout society so
> that access to this knowledge does not become a privilege for a selected
> few. Therefore, acts relating to understanding how technology protecting
> fundamental rights actually works must not be deemed incriminating but
> rather be encouraged.
> A key issue here would also be to get European law enforcement agencies
> and intelligence agencies to stop buying data breach software and
> sell/buy vulnerabilities (like the recent Heartbleed vulnerability).
> Human rights violations in third countries could be greatly reduced if
> tax money was not spent to have such software developed (e.g.
> Bundestrojaner). Similarly, we could stop demanding that software
> products and protocols are made bad or weak by not allowing law
> enforcement and intelligence agencies to participate in standardisation
> processes. The internet is a vast (civil) platform for cultural
> expression, access to knowledge, and democratic participation and must
> not be built or re-engineered with the purpose of accommodating access
> and penetration demands of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It
> should be noted that the Parliament's NIS directive says that certain
> tasks should not be organisationally linked in any form to bodies active
> in the field of intelligence, law enforcement or defence, but should be
> performed by civilian bodies, subject to full democratic oversight.
> http://dnssec-name-and-shame.com/
> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianParl/GreensEFA
> http://www.laquadrature.net/en/bono-amendment
> *Personal Data*
> The European Union has started discussions on a new draft regulation and
> a directive to give a legal frame to the collection and processing of
> personal data.
> Whereas harmonization of the legislative framework covering personal
> data is a common desire among stakeholders, it is difficult to find the
> right balance in between privacy and innovation. Furthermore, this topic
> is considered by Member States as critical to their digital sovereignty,
> particularly with regards to the powers of national regulators.
> On 13th March 2014, the MEPs have adopted two texts proposing stricter
> rules for the collection and management of personal data.
> Questions:
> 1. What is your position on these issues, which are at the very heart of
> the forthcoming European regulations on personal data ? /For each item,
> please justify your answer./
> * the right to oblivion
> [ ] in favour
> [ ] not in favour
> /Write a short paragraph to justify your answer:/
> Neither. The the right to oblivion is an unhelpful concept as it implies
> that one individual has a right to be erased from another individual's
> memories. Such an exercise would have nothing to do with finding the
> balance between conflicting rights of individuals - which is the real
> problem at hand. People remember and forget things throughout their
> lives, only machines can store and delete data upon request. As more and
> more information about us is stored and processed, the right to oblivion
> should be seen in this light as a right to erasure of data and a right
> to rectification of data that has an impact on your life. The Parliament
> 1st reading position clarifies these rights for the digital environment,
> while maintaining a general exception for freedom of expression. It is
> important to remember that all processing of personal data needs to have
> a legal basis, so there cannot be an issue for a data controller to
> comply with a request from a citizen to exercise her right to correct or
> delete data, unless the processor has a reason for continuing to store
> and/or process the data based in law.
> * data portability
> [x] in favour
> [ ] not in favour
> /Write a short paragraph to justify your answer:/
> We are strongly in favour of data portability as can be seen from
> amendments tabled at committee stage of the Parliament's work on the
> Data Protection Regulation, for example to Article 18 paragraph 1: The
> data subject shall have the right, where personal data are processed by
> electronic means, to obtain from the controller a copy of data
> undergoing processing in an electronic, interoperable and structured
> format which is commonly used and allows for further use by the data
> subject. We justified that amendment with the following text: Data
> subject rights are indispensable for empowering data subjects to take
> the protection of their data into their own hands and enforce their
> rights against controllers. They are one of the main levers to hold
> controllers accountable. For this reason, the rights to information,
> access, rectification, deletion, and data portability should be
> strengthened to allow users to understand what happens to their data and
> to exercise control over it. Exceptions and exemptions should be very
> limited as the right to data portability is a corollary to the right of
> access. When replying to access requests, controllers must not provide
> data in formats which limits further use by the data subject. The right
> to data portability may contribute to a more competitive environment,
> especially for social networks and other online services, by allowing
> people to change service providers without difficulty. Unfortunately,
> during negotiations, we have lost the right to data portability and it
> is now reduced to cases where it is "technically feasible".
> http://parltrack.euwiki.org/dossier/2012/0011%28COD%29#am-211-PE-500.695
> * privacy by design
> [x] in favour
> [ ] not in favour
> ...[justification]...
> 2. How far should we go in consent criteria to ensure the legitimacy of
> detention and data mining?
> This question needs rephrasing, since we are talking about the
> implementation of fundamental rights. The point of departure is that
> personal data shall not be processed in absence of a legal basis given
> that data protection is a fundamental right laid down in the ECHR, EU
> Charter, and primary and secondary EU law. Further, we believe that
> individuals must be have the power to control data processing activities
> and obtaining consent should therefore remain the cornerstone of the EUs
> approach to data protection. The first reading position of the European
> Parliament defines consent as any freely given, specific, informed and
> explicit indication of the data subjects wishes by which he or she
> either by a statement or clear affirmative action agree to personal data
> concerning him or her being processed. It follows that an important
> condition for consent to be freely given etc. is that information to
> data subjects is presented in a easily comprehensible form and that
> other legal grounds for processing than consent, particularly based on
> the legitimate interests of the data controller should be clearly
> defined. Profiling activities also need to be defined and regulated,
> including the right for data subjects to obtain information about the
> logical ways of processing.
> *Culture and intellectual property*
> Digital transforms the value chain on which the cultural industries were
> based.The European Commission has started a major consultation on the
> revision of Directive 2001/29/EC regarding the harmonization of certain
> aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, and
> a major reform is expected in the next legislature. Furthermore, the
> revision of the Directive on Audiovisual Media Services is also mentioned.
> Questions:
> 1. What are the major issues of the revision of the directive on
> "copyright" for your political group?
> Up until about twenty years ago, copyright was hardly anything that
> concerned ordinary people. The rules where aimed at commercial actors
> who had the means to, for example, print books or press records. We want
> to restore copyright to its origins in that respect, because today,
> almost everybody is breaking the rules of copyright - almost every day.
> We support the digitisation of works that may otherwise be lost, but we
> don't support declaring works orphan that have actually not been
> abandoned! We are open to make registration of works a condition for
> enforcing commercial exclusivity, for example after 5 years from the
> date of publication . In general, we want to shorten the time of
> protection to something that is more reasonable than today's almost
> eternal protection time. We have suggested 20 years as a starting point
> for the discussion on that matter. As management of rights in the
> digital environment is creeping inside almost every digital activity it
> is important to reinforce that citizens have the right to have control
> over their own digital devices. This means that it must always be legal
> for a consumer to circumvent digital locks and to circumvent digital
> restrictions management systems in the context of the home and the
> private sphere. Consumer rights are of no avail if big multinational
> corporations are allowed to enforce their preferred use of consumer's
> devices and works through technical means. And lastly, article 5 of the
> Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC on exceptions and limitations must be
> adapted to the digital economy and implemented uniformly in Member
> States as to enable a harmonised digital internal market.
> 2. To compensate creators in the digital age, preference should be
given to
> [ ] a logic of private copying levy
> [ ] an increased use of licensing and contractual arrangements
> /Write a short paragraph to justify your answer:/
> Neither has a preference in the Greens/EFA group mainly because national
> practices diverge substantially with regards to how and to which degree
> the respective cultural sector is financed by levies. For example, the
> Netherlands has a deeply rooted perception of a link between levies and
> piracy (a fact highlighted by recent CJEU case law) while Sweden's model
> of extended collective licensing put levies in a different context.
> 3. Should the Audiovisual Media Services Directive be revised ?
> [x] yes
> [ ] no
> /Write a short paragraph to justify your answer:/
> We supported unanimously the EP's call on the Commission to "conduct an
> impact assessment so as to look into whether, in the light of
> developments in all audio visual media services accessible to European
> citizens, the scope of the AVMS Directive is still relevant". Further,
> the responsible committee concluded in its explanatory statement that
> "classically regulated broadcasting and on-demand services suddenly find
> themselves competing on the same screen with previously unregulated
> content from the open internet".
> /Express yourself freely on the global issues of the Internet./
> *Economy and Digital*
> Digital has infiltrated our entire economy by changing patterns of
> production, distribution and the chain of value creation. The job market
> is also concerned : new jobs replace older ones. Digital also
> facilitates the relationship in between consumers and enables new forms
> of property based on sharing. What is your reaction towards digital
> transition? Free expression
> /Some clues : What are the perks for the EU to seize the economic lever
> of the digital transition?/
> The economy is digital already, the question is how to make it serve
> social and economic justice. We have seen enormous wealth creation end
> up in convicted monopolist's pockets and we are still grappling with
> getting that money back to work for society as a whole. The digital
> network effects we (unfortunately) know well from the desktop is now
> equally strong, if not stronger, when we see them at work, on a global
> scale, on social networks and other widely deployed information
> infrastructures on the internet (such as email). We believe that Free
> Software and Open Standards play a fundamental role in many ways here,
> for example by enabling competition, creating citizen autonomy, and
> providing truly independent audit of vital societal functions.
> *The Snowden affair and PRISM program *
> The Snowden affair emphasizes the loss of moral authority of the
> government of the United States on issues related to privacy and civil
> liberties on the Internet. Many European states have strongly reacted
> against the PRISM program and the European Parliament has created a
> commission of inquiry to clarify the practices of Member States in th
> field of mass surveillance.
> /Some clues: What is the position of your group towards the work of the
> European Parliament and about the role to be played by Europe regarding
> the defence of privacy and protection of personal data of individuals
> after these revelations? How can we find a balance in between the
> imperative duty of public safety and the necessary respect for citizens'
> privacy?/
> In a democratic society based on the rule of law, fundamental rights
> need to be respected and law enforcement measures need to be justified
> as necessary and proportionate intrusions into those fundamental rights.
> We have consistently defended this line also as regards mass
> surveillance activities of the NSA and several secret services of EU
> Member States. We have also called for Edward Snowden and whistleblowers
> more generally to be offered protection. In response to the mass
> surveillance inquiry we on the one hand insist on strengthening
> oversight and control of intelligence agencies and on the other hand
> seek to strengthen data protection rights notably through the adoption
> of the Data Protection Package.
> *Big Data: the use of personal data by companies*
> For many companies, Big Data is a source of innovation and value
> creation. But along with the collection, analysis and transfer of
> massive data, privacy protection issues arise. In between the imperative
> to respect both personal data protection and the source of innovation,
> where should we place the legal cursor to frame practices?
> /Some clues: What is the position of your group on the use of personal
> data by businesses? Should it be encouraged in support of innovation and
> job creation or limited by strict laws?/
> see dp position above
> *Open Data*
> 1. What do you think of opening up public data in the interest of
> transparency ? Are you in favour of these initiatives ?
> [ ] Totally favourable
> [x] Generally favourable
> [ ] Not in favour
> /Write a short paragraph to justify your answer:/
> Transparency is a vital element to ensure democracy, particularly when
> is concerns the legislative process. However we need to look at this on
> a case by case basis.
> Again this goes into the discussion regarding fundamental rights,
> sometimes competing with each other. For instance in the data protection
> package we have sought to ensure that a conflict between for instance
> the right of data protection and access to documents is further
> regulated by national law, taking into account the specific
> circumstances in individual cases.
> 2. Should Europe go further in opening up public data?
> [x] Yes
> [ ] No
> /If so, on which specific aspects? /
> Again, looking at the European Parliament as a specific example, we
> fully support the call for full, accurate, timely, openly licensed, open
> standards-based, machine-readable access to CODICT, ACTES and ITER, and
> other databases and their interfaces and we regret that the European
> Parliament is still, apparently, providing e.g. votewatch.eu with
> privileged access to data which should promptly be made available under
> Rule 103 to anyone, without discrimination.
> http://europarl.me/open%20letter%20for%20open%20data%20Welle
> 3. Should we require more areas to open their data at European and
> national level ?
> [x] Yes
> [ ] No
> /If so, can you give some examples/
> ...[examples]...
> 4. What do you think about working on opening data standards to ensure
> the possibility of their exploitation by everybody.
> Free Software and Open Standards are prerequisites for a healthy digital
> economy.
> ____________________

DFRI-listan är öppen för alla.
Listan arkiveras och publiceras öppet på internet.
Arkiv: http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri
Listpolicy: https://www.dfri.se/regler-for-listan