Dear all,
I wish you a Happy New Year (though it's not so new anymore)!
This week I had the opportunity to attend an event in Brussels which gained quite some media attention. Jan-Philipp Albrecht, a German Green MEP and rapporteur for for the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) of the European Parliament, presented his amendments to the Data Protection Regulation Draft proposed by the European Commission:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/92238...
This enormous text has also been stripped down to ten key points:
http://www.janalbrecht.eu/uploads/pics/data_protection_English.pdf
The Regulation shall replace the pre-Internet Data Protection Directive (1995). With this reform the EU is trying "to establish a comprehensive approach to data protection, to strengthen online privacy rights and to do away with the current fragmentation of 27 different national data protection laws which are costly and burdensome for businesses operating on Europe's single market". For further details, see yesterday's press release by the European Commission:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-4_en.htm?locale=en
The commission's proposal was facing the "biggest lobbying campaign in the world ever", as Joe McNamee, CEO of European Digital Rights (EDRI) has put it. Obviously, the strenghtening of users' rights and the far stricter rules for data controllers run counter the interests of companies like Facebook and Google. If personal data of individuals in the EU is handled, the Regulation will also apply to companies which are not established in the Union. To put it bluntly: It could even affect charities in San Francisco.
Quite worrysome for the Wikimedia movement was the Commission's initial proposal for a "right to be forgotten" (Art. 17), a general guarantee for data subjects to get their personal data erased, if they didn't give their explicit permission. Lacking a clear-cut, consensual definition of "personal data", even the birth date of a Hollywood actress could be handled like that.
For a volunteer project like Wikpedia based on free licenses, the "reasonable steps" to inform even third parties about personal data which has to be erased (foreseen in Art.17.2), didn't seem realistic at all. Besides, the exemptions or derogations from that rule (laid out in Art. 80) were restricted to the processing of personal data for journalistic or artistic purposes only.
According to the rapporteur's amendments, freedom of expression must be far better balanced against the foggy "right to be forgotten". Now, Art. 80 (in connection with the new Art. 17.2a) postulates the accordance with the Europan Convention of Human Rights which makes sure that the conflicting goods (privacy vs. information) are carefully weighed.
Of course, the political gaming is just about to begin. Various Commitees and shadow rapporteurs will have their say in order to draft a compromise. Besides, the whole time line for the legislative process (so-called "Trilogue" between Commission, Parliament and Council) is tough. Most of the European parties don't have any interest in making data protection a major topic during the next EU election campaign in 2014. Together with lokal Wikipedians in Brussels and NGO collegues, we will keep an eye on the further process.
Best wishes to all,
Jan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I am only commenting on the WMF's interests, and of course am not well-enough informed, however it seems to me the entire thrust of the argument for WMF concern seems paranoid and foolish in the extreme.
On 11/01/13 03:24 AM, Jan Engelmann wrote:
To put it bluntly: It could even affect charities in San Francisco.
Yes, it *would*, and this is not a bad thing. Privacy laws should be as standardized as reasonably possible as it simplifies their implementation. We don't hear such angst about other standards we attempt to comply with though they are far more burdensome, such as W3C and copyright. As far as I am aware, the WMF is generically supportive of individual privacy on the internet, not afraid of it.
Quite worrysome for the Wikimedia movement was the Commission's initial proposal for a "right to be forgotten" (Art. 17), a general guarantee for data subjects to get their personal data erased, if they didn't give their explicit permission. Lacking a clear-cut, consensual definition of "personal data", even the birth date of a Hollywood actress could be handled like that.
That is FUD, clear and simple. A public figure's personal data would be handled differently than a private individual's data; that is already true and while we do not know the specifics *we also do not know or understand the specifics of the current 27 different laws governing this data now.*
I would personally prefer a more measured coverage of the inevitable legal changes affecting the Foundation's communities.
Amgine
No, our concerns weren't paranoid at all. Have you even read the initial Draft Poposal? OK, let's shift the scenario from a WP-article about a public figure to personal data embedded in user pages or discussion pages. Then any erasure based on data protection claims would affect the consistency of the whole project. Aren't we worried about authors' retention all the time? Here is another reason why. And how do you judge the surveillence program deriving from Art 17.2? Do you think a volunteer community which is already concerned with maaany copyright and personality rights issues could handle that? And please, AGF. J Am 11.01.2013 18:41 schrieb "Amgine" amgine@wikimedians.ca:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I am only commenting on the WMF's interests, and of course am not well-enough informed, however it seems to me the entire thrust of the argument for WMF concern seems paranoid and foolish in the extreme.
On 11/01/13 03:24 AM, Jan Engelmann wrote:
To put it bluntly: It could even affect charities in San Francisco.
Yes, it *would*, and this is not a bad thing. Privacy laws should be as standardized as reasonably possible as it simplifies their implementation. We don't hear such angst about other standards we attempt to comply with though they are far more burdensome, such as W3C and copyright. As far as I am aware, the WMF is generically supportive of individual privacy on the internet, not afraid of it.
Quite worrysome for the Wikimedia movement was the Commission's initial proposal for a "right to be forgotten" (Art. 17), a general guarantee for data subjects to get their personal data erased, if they didn't give their explicit permission. Lacking a clear-cut, consensual definition of "personal data", even the birth date of a Hollywood actress could be handled like that.
That is FUD, clear and simple. A public figure's personal data would be handled differently than a private individual's data; that is already true and while we do not know the specifics *we also do not know or understand the specifics of the current 27 different laws governing this data now.*
I would personally prefer a more measured coverage of the inevitable legal changes affecting the Foundation's communities.
Amgine -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ8E7NAAoJECWEXpXQfyMwmxsIALO3zop4p6gVuyYxMoWaMUev WGkAoz0Ld+82E43EX88ctZe2kN3XZZKcekqsyZs5hmODhAOIly2dSHt/NDHHXeQo t7kxrx8pkRawa/fmA3npRlyhI+iW11ZNjdcL5JSw+ntR/6lPwN1G8sl8hx0EIpsF t8ScYo/aqc5is8524Ani1xKPKmciwH5X2eGBshT4tMIYrFXpTQ6RGib8x0JGQvj+ shtcLChkfsWAKQcXmPl/OppOPMXkhCQ2Bpt9xsjseoWR1qKfRG5bRktnP4jqhQOX PWALJDyJIj0n7H/ENLMtgc44fkvaxuaJzfOU9FbqYMa2C5S6yPQSgO1CodiUFCM= =BOm0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
We already bend over backwards to revision-delete email addresses (not to mention phone numbers and everything else) often (usually?) without any consent of or warning of more than a few minutes to those who insert them. On request we always immediately revision-delete anything else personally identifiable that anyone asks to have deleted, unless it's a compromising erotic photograph on Commons.
I read through http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/92238... and I can't see any reason why we don't already go above and beyond the proposed regulations as amended. The string "17.2" does not appear in that document. Where is "the surveillence program deriving from Art 17.2" described?
The only way I can see these regulations impacting the Foundation projects is that people with identifiable nudes on Commons will finally have a way to get them deleted.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Jan Engelmann jan.engelmann@wikimedia.de wrote:
No, our concerns weren't paranoid at all. Have you even read the initial Draft Poposal? OK, let's shift the scenario from a WP-article about a public figure to personal data embedded in user pages or discussion pages. Then any erasure based on data protection claims would affect the consistency of the whole project. Aren't we worried about authors' retention all the time? Here is another reason why. And how do you judge the surveillence program deriving from Art 17.2? Do you think a volunteer community which is already concerned with maaany copyright and personality rights issues could handle that? And please, AGF. J
Am 11.01.2013 18:41 schrieb "Amgine" amgine@wikimedians.ca:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I am only commenting on the WMF's interests, and of course am not well-enough informed, however it seems to me the entire thrust of the argument for WMF concern seems paranoid and foolish in the extreme.
On 11/01/13 03:24 AM, Jan Engelmann wrote:
To put it bluntly: It could even affect charities in San Francisco.
Yes, it *would*, and this is not a bad thing. Privacy laws should be as standardized as reasonably possible as it simplifies their implementation. We don't hear such angst about other standards we attempt to comply with though they are far more burdensome, such as W3C and copyright. As far as I am aware, the WMF is generically supportive of individual privacy on the internet, not afraid of it.
Quite worrysome for the Wikimedia movement was the Commission's initial proposal for a "right to be forgotten" (Art. 17), a general guarantee for data subjects to get their personal data erased, if they didn't give their explicit permission. Lacking a clear-cut, consensual definition of "personal data", even the birth date of a Hollywood actress could be handled like that.
That is FUD, clear and simple. A public figure's personal data would be handled differently than a private individual's data; that is already true and while we do not know the specifics *we also do not know or understand the specifics of the current 27 different laws governing this data now.*
I would personally prefer a more measured coverage of the inevitable legal changes affecting the Foundation's communities.
Amgine -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ8E7NAAoJECWEXpXQfyMwmxsIALO3zop4p6gVuyYxMoWaMUev WGkAoz0Ld+82E43EX88ctZe2kN3XZZKcekqsyZs5hmODhAOIly2dSHt/NDHHXeQo t7kxrx8pkRawa/fmA3npRlyhI+iW11ZNjdcL5JSw+ntR/6lPwN1G8sl8hx0EIpsF t8ScYo/aqc5is8524Ani1xKPKmciwH5X2eGBshT4tMIYrFXpTQ6RGib8x0JGQvj+ shtcLChkfsWAKQcXmPl/OppOPMXkhCQ2Bpt9xsjseoWR1qKfRG5bRktnP4jqhQOX PWALJDyJIj0n7H/ENLMtgc44fkvaxuaJzfOU9FbqYMa2C5S6yPQSgO1CodiUFCM= =BOm0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/01/13 10:06 AM, Jan Engelmann wrote:
No, our concerns weren't paranoid at all. Have you even read the initial Draft Poposal? OK, let's shift the scenario from a WP-article about a public figure to personal data embedded in user pages or discussion pages. Then any erasure based on data protection claims would affect the consistency of the whole project. Aren't we worried about authors' retention all the time? Here is another reason why. And how do you judge the surveillence program deriving from Art 17.2? Do you think a volunteer community which is already concerned with maaany copyright and personality rights issues could handle that? And please, AGF. J
I believe it has already been mentioned: we already do this stuff. I also mentioned I am not as familiar as I should be with the proposal, but most likely the communities can (and will, if the proposal is implemented) develop methods to comply with the surveillance program. Again, we already do.
I wonder more if the proposal is balanced and implementable, if compliance is measurable, and what incentives and disincentives it provides. On the face of it, the synopses suggest it should be supported by the WMF though it does not go as far as our communities already do.
Amgine
Hi James and Amgine,
nobody denies that Wikimedia already applies privacy by design and by default, as intended by the Commission. But we should read the draft through European lenses and that means: the intention to apply a new gold standard of privacy matters to all data controllers. For us as consumers this is very good news. Regarding the necessities of an open platform, we should accurately analyze if there are any requirements we can't comply with.
You will find the Art. 17.2 proposed by the EU commission on page 96 (left column)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/92238...
It says:
"Where the controller ... has made the personal data public, it shall take all reasonable steps, including technical measures, in relation to data for the publication of which the controller is responsible, to inform third parties which are processing such data, that a data subject requests them to erase any links to, or copy or replication of that personal data. Where the controller has authorised a third party publication of personal data, the controller shall be considered responsible for that publication."
Many law experts (IANAL) went nuts when they read this particular paragraph. The new Art. 2a (same page, right column) proposed by the rapporteur brings freedom of expression into play. So this was the basic message I wanted to give: the proposal is getting better, but still has to go through several stages of the drafting process. The Parliament is bound to find a common position until end of february.
Regards, Jan
2013/1/11 Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/01/13 10:06 AM, Jan Engelmann wrote:
No, our concerns weren't paranoid at all. Have you even read the initial Draft Poposal? OK, let's shift the scenario from a WP-article about a public figure to personal data embedded in user pages or discussion pages. Then any erasure based on data protection claims would affect the consistency of the whole project. Aren't we worried about authors' retention all the time? Here is another reason why. And how do you judge the surveillence program deriving from Art 17.2? Do you think a volunteer community which is already concerned with maaany copyright and personality rights issues could handle that? And please, AGF. J
I believe it has already been mentioned: we already do this stuff. I also mentioned I am not as familiar as I should be with the proposal, but most likely the communities can (and will, if the proposal is implemented) develop methods to comply with the surveillance program. Again, we already do.
I wonder more if the proposal is balanced and implementable, if compliance is measurable, and what incentives and disincentives it provides. On the face of it, the synopses suggest it should be supported by the WMF though it does not go as far as our communities already do.
Amgine -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ8F8/AAoJECWEXpXQfyMwtk0IAKToA+e1LDKHuT069xSM7BL2 jUDBvY8IvbEHUjwvl0J6h2WIyvdx8T9V0VeSTmfNp1C2njgu/Uvhn2VtIzuZ1WxL I4Ay6jxJbxsSCcpLffU4+t4kXTBMl39zHyCsy1/xE3dBvsjJ5sw1G00f+ym8ybt+ 8uBU2wQqdLE8X0MDd9Cy3mqHvQHNAHT+8kgVGqt0ZVCcVIg30WExyR/p2gtmmfhp JdBnojQ2kgJRbDelgE+uiXVUQ5lx1+OHvKHzvNzLMt+UIXXOZDvjWNmx4ACWjaTk tlU1sRLVxKEMt5FXbd8EkjgqFlYjeU+VXu4BFxppVSIGA7xCOwJ9ySoH/XyPaCM= =4pCb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/01/13 11:38 AM, Jan Engelmann wrote:
Hi James and Amgine,
nobody denies that Wikimedia already applies privacy by design and by default, as intended by the Commission. But we should read the draft through European lenses and that means: the intention to apply a new gold standard of privacy matters to all data controllers. For us as consumers this is very good news. Regarding the necessities of an open platform, we should accurately analyze if there are any requirements we can't comply with.
You will find the Art. 17.2 proposed by the EU commission on page 96 (left column)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/92238...
It says:
"Where the controller ... has made the personal data public, it shall take all reasonable steps, including technical measures, in relation to data for the publication of which the controller is responsible, to inform third parties which are processing such data, that a data subject requests them to erase any links to, or copy or replication of that personal data. Where the controller has authorised a third party publication of personal data, the controller shall be considered responsible for that publication."
Many law experts (IANAL) went nuts when they read this particular paragraph. The new Art. 2a (same page, right column) proposed by the rapporteur brings freedom of expression into play. So this was the basic message I wanted to give: the proposal is getting better, but still has to go through several stages of the drafting process. The Parliament is bound to find a common position until end of february.
Regards, Jan
I believe the concern the law experts may have expressed is the somewhat deliberate removal of the so-called 'safe-harbour' phrasing which might otherwise protect WMF from infractions on specific projects.
However, if I understand the proposed article 6 paragraph 1a (new) correctly[1], it would potentially cover any legitimate business purpose which would, of course, allow the current datamining to continue unabated so long as the individuals were in some way informed that personal data was being collected for a legitimate business purpose (such as serving more relevant advertising.) So the new amendment at 17.2 and at 6.1a would, imo, severely weaken the privacy protections.
I am happy to learn more about this important effort, but also wondering if the Foundation is being asked to lobby as regards this proposal or the Rapporteur's suggestions. (by the way, amendment 104 is *awesome*, in my opinion.)
Amgine
[1] 1a. If none of the legal grounds for the processing of personal data referred to in paragraph 1 apply, processing of personal data shall be lawful if and to the extent that it is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require the protection of personal data. The data controller shall in that case inform the data subject about the data processing explicitly and separately. The controller shall also publish the reasons for believing that its interests override the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject. This paragraph shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.
Hi all,
Of course, when it comes to user data protection, we're lightyears ahead of a number of for-profit, commercial enterprises nedless to be mentioned here. And yes, the new proposed changes in the parliament are going in the right direction for us, so there's no need to panic.
What we need to take away from this is that we must keep our eyes open in the future for risky law proposals or ammendments (not just in the EU).
The issue with Wiki*edia is that we're neither a company, nor a citizen nor a traditional community, so we're very easily overlooked in the lawmaking process. Also, our problems and issues are so specific and unique that they are hardly ever fully addressed by traditional NGOs or anybody else for that matter. We're the odd kid on the block.
An while it is very easy to raise valid concerns at an early stage and have them reviewed by the decision-makers, at a later stage this becomes increasingly difficult. We must learn to monitor legislation proposals concerning us and to request legal analyses early on if we see something worrisome. After all better safe than sorry, right?
Dimi
2013/1/11 Jan Engelmann jan.engelmann@wikimedia.de
Hi James and Amgine,
nobody denies that Wikimedia already applies privacy by design and by default, as intended by the Commission. But we should read the draft through European lenses and that means: the intention to apply a new gold standard of privacy matters to all data controllers. For us as consumers this is very good news. Regarding the necessities of an open platform, we should accurately analyze if there are any requirements we can't comply with.
You will find the Art. 17.2 proposed by the EU commission on page 96 (left column)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/92238...
It says:
"Where the controller ... has made the personal data public, it shall take all reasonable steps, including technical measures, in relation to data for the publication of which the controller is responsible, to inform third parties which are processing such data, that a data subject requests them to erase any links to, or copy or replication of that personal data. Where the controller has authorised a third party publication of personal data, the controller shall be considered responsible for that publication."
Many law experts (IANAL) went nuts when they read this particular paragraph. The new Art. 2a (same page, right column) proposed by the rapporteur brings freedom of expression into play. So this was the basic message I wanted to give: the proposal is getting better, but still has to go through several stages of the drafting process. The Parliament is bound to find a common position until end of february.
Regards, Jan
2013/1/11 Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/01/13 10:06 AM, Jan Engelmann wrote:
No, our concerns weren't paranoid at all. Have you even read the initial Draft Poposal? OK, let's shift the scenario from a WP-article about a public figure to personal data embedded in user pages or discussion pages. Then any erasure based on data protection claims would affect the consistency of the whole project. Aren't we worried about authors' retention all the time? Here is another reason why. And how do you judge the surveillence program deriving from Art 17.2? Do you think a volunteer community which is already concerned with maaany copyright and personality rights issues could handle that? And please, AGF. J
I believe it has already been mentioned: we already do this stuff. I also mentioned I am not as familiar as I should be with the proposal, but most likely the communities can (and will, if the proposal is implemented) develop methods to comply with the surveillance program. Again, we already do.
I wonder more if the proposal is balanced and implementable, if compliance is measurable, and what incentives and disincentives it provides. On the face of it, the synopses suggest it should be supported by the WMF though it does not go as far as our communities already do.
Amgine -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ8F8/AAoJECWEXpXQfyMwtk0IAKToA+e1LDKHuT069xSM7BL2 jUDBvY8IvbEHUjwvl0J6h2WIyvdx8T9V0VeSTmfNp1C2njgu/Uvhn2VtIzuZ1WxL I4Ay6jxJbxsSCcpLffU4+t4kXTBMl39zHyCsy1/xE3dBvsjJ5sw1G00f+ym8ybt+ 8uBU2wQqdLE8X0MDd9Cy3mqHvQHNAHT+8kgVGqt0ZVCcVIg30WExyR/p2gtmmfhp JdBnojQ2kgJRbDelgE+uiXVUQ5lx1+OHvKHzvNzLMt+UIXXOZDvjWNmx4ACWjaTk tlU1sRLVxKEMt5FXbd8EkjgqFlYjeU+VXu4BFxppVSIGA7xCOwJ9ySoH/XyPaCM= =4pCb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Jan Engelmann Leiter Politik & Gesellschaft
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Obentrautstr. 72 10963 Berlin
Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
**** Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition! http://wikipedia.de ****
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
We're the odd kid on the block.
Absolutely d'accord, Dimi, and this will also hold for the upcoming copyright consultation process. Of course, I will borrow this phrase from you ;-)
It's friday night in Berlin, folks. Hope to continue the conversation soon.
Jan
2013/1/11 Jan Engelmann jan.engelmann@wikimedia.de
Hi James and Amgine,
nobody denies that Wikimedia already applies privacy by design and by default, as intended by the Commission. But we should read the draft through European lenses and that means: the intention to apply a new gold standard of privacy matters to all data controllers. For us as consumers this is very good news. Regarding the necessities of an open platform, we should accurately analyze if there are any requirements we can't comply with.
You will find the Art. 17.2 proposed by the EU commission on page 96 (left column)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/92238...
It says:
"Where the controller ... has made the personal data public, it shall take all reasonable steps, including technical measures, in relation to data for the publication of which the controller is responsible, to inform third parties which are processing such data, that a data subject requests them to erase any links to, or copy or replication of that personal data. Where the controller has authorised a third party publication of personal data, the controller shall be considered responsible for that publication."
Many law experts (IANAL) went nuts when they read this particular paragraph. The new Art. 2a (same page, right column) proposed by the rapporteur brings freedom of expression into play. So this was the basic message I wanted to give: the proposal is getting better, but still has to go through several stages of the drafting process. The Parliament is bound to find a common position until end of february.
Regards, Jan
2013/1/11 Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/01/13 10:06 AM, Jan Engelmann wrote:
No, our concerns weren't paranoid at all. Have you even read the initial Draft Poposal? OK, let's shift the scenario from a WP-article about a public figure to personal data embedded in user pages or discussion pages. Then any erasure based on data protection claims would affect the consistency of the whole project. Aren't we worried about authors' retention all the time? Here is another reason why. And how do you judge the surveillence program deriving from Art 17.2? Do you think a volunteer community which is already concerned with maaany copyright and personality rights issues could handle that? And please, AGF. J
I believe it has already been mentioned: we already do this stuff. I also mentioned I am not as familiar as I should be with the proposal, but most likely the communities can (and will, if the proposal is implemented) develop methods to comply with the surveillance program. Again, we already do.
I wonder more if the proposal is balanced and implementable, if compliance is measurable, and what incentives and disincentives it provides. On the face of it, the synopses suggest it should be supported by the WMF though it does not go as far as our communities already do.
Amgine -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ8F8/AAoJECWEXpXQfyMwtk0IAKToA+e1LDKHuT069xSM7BL2 jUDBvY8IvbEHUjwvl0J6h2WIyvdx8T9V0VeSTmfNp1C2njgu/Uvhn2VtIzuZ1WxL I4Ay6jxJbxsSCcpLffU4+t4kXTBMl39zHyCsy1/xE3dBvsjJ5sw1G00f+ym8ybt+ 8uBU2wQqdLE8X0MDd9Cy3mqHvQHNAHT+8kgVGqt0ZVCcVIg30WExyR/p2gtmmfhp JdBnojQ2kgJRbDelgE+uiXVUQ5lx1+OHvKHzvNzLMt+UIXXOZDvjWNmx4ACWjaTk tlU1sRLVxKEMt5FXbd8EkjgqFlYjeU+VXu4BFxppVSIGA7xCOwJ9ySoH/XyPaCM= =4pCb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Jan Engelmann Leiter Politik & Gesellschaft
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Obentrautstr. 72 10963 Berlin
Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
**** Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition! http://wikipedia.de ****
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org