On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Dimitar Dimitrov <
dimitar.dimitrov(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:
#PRISM #EUdataP
1. Prism and Data Protection - Reactions and Wikimedia actions
Why is this relevant?
As stated elsewhere, rights of privacy are necessary for intellectual
freedom [1]. As a major global information provider we are part of the
“bigger” picture.
What happened?
As announced, the Wikimedia Foundation has signed a letter urging the US
government for more transparency as a reaction to recent surveillance
debates. [2] Other signatories include Mozilla, Reporters Without Borders
and companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft. Wikimedia Deutschland
has signed an open letter too, to “ensure respect for the fundamental right
to privacy and informational self-determination”. [3] Other signatories are
the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons Deutschland,
Transparency International and Greenpeace. Meanwhile, there is considerable
debate in Brussels on whether Snowden could and should be nominated for the
Sakharov (freedom of thought award by European Parliament) and Nobel
prizes.
What comes next?
The Snowden case has significantly changed the landscape for the current
and future data protection and internet privacy regulations. It would be
wise to think about whether we (the Wikimedia movement) have or should have
clear positions on these topics in the future, or, whether it would be
wiser stay out of it for the most part.
With regards to "thinking about this", besides the discussion on meta, it
may be interesting/informative to this group that WMDE had a Poll on
related issues:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Umfragen/Stop_Watching_Us
With an almost 50/50 split between do something (banners, blackout) and do
nothing (either do nothing now, or avoid the issue altogether).
#L4E
3.Licences for Europe - Inside the work groups
Why is this relevant?
This is a consultation process by the European Commission on licensing of
digital content. It is seen as part of a larger initiative to completely
overhaul copyright, although there have been voices questioning the
seriousness of such an intention. Generally speaking, this dialogue must be
seen in the context of the Commission currently bargaining the agenda for a
future Copyright reform - which aspects will we be on the table in the next
few years.
What happened?
At the mid-term plenary session the work done so far in the work groups
has been presented. The most relevant group for us - User Generated Content
- has seen the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) leave the process and
being replaced by a group that claims to represent User Generated projects,
but no one has heard of.
This is currently forcing all remaining civil society organisation in the
work group to consider whether they should stay on board of a “pseudo”
discussion. Content-wise, the talk dominated by industry organisations is
going toward created more licensing for user-generated content, on top of
what we already have.
What comes next?
As Wikimedia’s core issue is user-generated content and the Commission is
looking for new civil society partners to join the consultation, it would
be useful to decide until September whether we want to participate or stay
out due to the fact that we can’t gain (almost) anything and the
credibility of the process has taken numerous hits.
My own sense is that we should stay out, but look for ways to make clear
why we are staying out. Perhaps we can discuss more at Wikimania, Dimi.
#NnT
5. Notice and Takedown - And now what?
Why is this relevant?
Notice and Takedown procedures define legally who is responsible for
(allegedly) unlawful content online and how to handle such cases in
practice. It is very likely that the questions of liability will be
defined or refined if it comes to a Directive.
What happened?
It is presently unclear whether this Commission will go ahead and propose
a Takedown and Notice Directive. Regardless of that development, a
Recommendation (non-binding) is in the making and expected by the end of
the year. Meanwhile, a group of 6 MEPs has released a letter [14] urging
Commissioner Barnier to go ahead a publish a draft Directive and not hide
the obviously heated discussions by shifting focus to a Recommendation.
What comes next?
There is not enough information for the moment to know what will be
proposed and when. However, if a Recommendation is made, there is no way to
change it in Parliament and it is up to each Member State whether they want
to implement it or not.
Further links:
We have a Notice and Takedown file on Meta, which needs your help [15]
A good overview of the topic so far by
IPtegrity.com [16]
Relatedly, Michelle was interviewed by EFF about CDA 230:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/cda-230-success-cases-wikipedia
Luis