Getting closer to the vote on the proposed European Directive on Copyright
Next week is very important for the future of the internet; particularly for freedom of expression and information and the protection of privacy.
On Tuesday 26th of March, the European Parliament will vote on the proposed European Directive on Copyright. In the past we have hosted on our website detailed articles on this specific legislative reformation.
This proposed Directive introduces certain provisions which have a positive nature. However, some other of its provisions raise significant problems; the most important is Article 13, which, during the vote will constitute Article 17, as the text has been renumbered.
Article 13 is supposed to be set up to improve the existing situation and help the creators enjoy intellectual property rights on their works. However, it fails to achieve its scope and mostly assists the interests of major record, publishing and film companies and the interests of companies, which develop software for content control (content-control / filtering software).
Article 13 also does not eliminate, in any case, the serious pathogenesis of the existing regime. Specifically, it lacks a specific provision for combating false claims related to intellectual property rights, while its general, badly written and unclear provisions would lead to a slew of preliminary rulings to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Article 13 causes new problems and is unable to ensure a reasonable balance between, on the one hand, the right to the protection of intellectual property and on the other hand the rights to freedom of expression, information and respect of personal privacy. Each type of material, which users of the internet upload on platforms of content exchange, as photos, texts, personal messages, videos, etc. will be subject to control and will not be published to the effect that the filtering software deems that there is an infringement.
Numerous experts have been sounding the alarm about the consequences of Article 13 and the uploading filters for Freedom of Expression and Information on the Internet and its diversity:
– The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Information, David Kaye, has substantially expressed his contradiction to Article 13.
– The Federal Commissioner for Personal Data Protection of Germany, Ulrich Kelber, has clearly stressed that Article 13 leads to a tremendous growth of giants of online services and creates challenges for the protection of privacy on the Internet.
– The Minister for Justice and Citizen’s Protection of Germany, Katerina Barley, has invited German Members of the European Parliament to vote down Article 13.
– 169 specialised and prominent academics in the field of intellectual property, have underlined that the provisions of Article 13 are misleading.
Furthermore, the number of Members of the European Parliament committing to vote down article 13 in the vote of Tuesday is constantly rising!
MEPs, which are independent or represent European political parties from every political field, as the Greens/European Free Alliance (GREENS/EFA), the European United Left (GUE/NGL), the European People’s Party (EPP), the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) have already openly expressed their opposition to Article 13.
Finally, many people are expressing their dissatisfaction with Article 13 and its very serious effects. More than 100,000 people have participated in the demonstrations that took place in many European countries on Saturday 23 March.
Call your representatives in the few days left!
Ask them to vote down Article 13!
Homo Digitalis in the European Parliament #SaveYourInternet #Pledge2019
Many members of Homo Digitalis who live in Belgium organized important meetings with Greek MEPs arguing against Article 13 of the new copyright directive of the EU.
Representatives of large civil society organizations that have taken significant actions on the protection of human rights in the modern digital age were in the European Parliament these days.
All together we gave a loud message against internet censorship and against violation of privacy and freedom of expression and information.
The number of MEPs who have committed to vote against Article 13 on Tuesday’s vote (26/03) is rising. Independent MEPs or representatives of European parties from every political area such as Greens-European Free Alliance(Greens-EFFA), European United Left-Nordic Green Left(GUE-NGL), European People’s Party (EPP), Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe(ALDE) have openly expressed their opposition to Article 13.
We must unite our voices to claim our rights!
Free and open Internet needs you!
There are two days left until the last vote in the European Parliament (possibly on 26.03.2019), which will be crucial for the future of the Internet. More than one hundred Members of the European Parliament (of which the only Greeks are Ms. Sophia Sakorafa and Mr. Nikolaos Chountis) have already committed to vote down Article 13, while citizens in more than 23 cities in Member States of the European Union raise their voices in demonstrations against Article 13.
Many European citizens have participated until now in the campaign Pledge 2019. Since the end of February, when the campaign started, more than 1200 calls and 72 hours of discussion have been carried out. The specific numbers are unprecedented for such a short period of time and conclusively prove people’s active interest and their will to be part of the political debate, when the step is given. Also, citizens in this way express their disappointment about unfounded accusations that many emails and tweets sent the previous period to MEPs have been actions of fake automated accounts!
Numerous experts have been sounding the alarm about the consequences of Article 13 and the uploading filters for Freedom of Expression and Information on the Internet and its diversity:
– The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Information, David Kaye, has substantially expressed his contradiction to Article 13.
– The Federal Commissioner for Personal Data Protection of Germany, Ulrich Kelber, has clearly stressed that Article 13 leads to a tremendous growth of giants of online services and creates challenges for the protection of privacy on the Internet.
– The Minister for Justice and Citizen’s Protection of Germany, Katerina Barley, has invited German Members of the European Parliament to vote down Article 13.
– 169 specialised and prominent academics in the field of intellectual property, have underlined that the provisions of Article 13 are misleading.
– The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has invited European legislators to improve the provisions and put the necessary balance between the Protection of Intellectual Property and the Protection of Freedom of the Expression and Information.
– Sir Tim (Tim Berners-Lee), one of the creators of World Wide Web has openly expressed his contradiction to Article 13 and the risks caused to open Internet.
Nobody can claim that he/she didn’t know the significant negative effects of Article 13! We should act and persuade MEP’s to set aside the several political interests and defend European citizens’ rights!
Finally, many people are expressing their dissatisfaction with Article 13 and its very serious effects. More than 100,000 people have participated in the demonstrations that took place in many European countries on Saturday 23 March.
Call your representatives in the few days left!
Ask them to vote down Article 13!
The interview of Irene Kamara
Irene Kamara is a PhD researcher at TILT and affiliate researcher at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (LSTS). She follows a joint doctorate track supported by the Tilburg University and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Her PhD topic examines the interplay between standardisation and the regulation of the right to protection of personal data.
Prior to joining academia, Irene had been working as an attorney at law before the Court of Appeal in Athens. She also did traineeships at the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Standardisation Organisations CEN and CENELEC. In 2016, she collaborated with the European Commission as external expert evaluator of H2020 proposals on societal security.
Irene is selected as a member of the ENISA Experts List for assisting in the implementation of the Annual ENISA Work Programme. In 2015, Irene received a best paper award and a young author recognition certificate from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the United Nations Agency for standardisation.
– Even though you had a great start at your professional career as a lawyer, you decided to follow a PhD. Your dedication to academic research has led to a successful path with many interesting publications. Looking back, how hard was to make this decision though, and what advice would you give to people facing this dilemma?
| Indeed, I was working for several years as an attorney at law before the Court of Appeals in Athens. Legal practice offered me valuable lessons, among others how different law in the books from law on the ground is, working efficiently under pressure, contact with clients, and task prioritisation. Those are lessons I still carry with me in my academic career. I was always fascinated by data protection, privacy, confidentiality of information in electronic communications and I decided to take a career break for a year and follow the TILT’s master program on law and technology. I feel that as a practicing lawyer you always need to learn and evolve. Tilburg’s Law & Tech master program, as you know, offers courses on privacy & data protection, intellectual property, regulation of technologies, e-commerce and gives the student the opportunity to become an expert in cutting-edge topics. After the master, I was offered a researcher position at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel under the mentorship of prof. Paul De Hert. At VUB, I decided I wanted to do a PhD. I realised that via research you have the opportunity to reach out to a bigger audience than merely your clients as a legal practitioner, and adopt a pro-active approach to problem solving, than a re-active one which is often the case in legal practice. Of course what weighed in my decision was also the quality of the working environment and conditions and the high standards in research. Both TILT/Tilburg University and LSTS/VUB have been wonderful homes, allowing me to evolve and progress as a professional, by actively encouraging independent thinking and inter-disciplinary research. To colleagues facing such dilemma, I would say dare to take a risk and leave your comfort zone. Test yourself with a research visit at an institution, writing an academic paper and presenting it at a conference. And keep in mind that academic life is not an easy one, either. And my advice is to choose an academic institution and a mentor that recognises and appreciates your hard work. |
– You have participated as a speaker in panels at top level conferences and events all around the world. The Computers, Privacy, and Data Protection Conference at Brussels, and the IGLP Conference at Harvard Law School are some of them. How did all these experiences shape your research and why is it important for researchers to exchange thoughts with other experts in a global level?
| I believe that participation in conferences is a necessary component for every scholar. Not only for sharing and exchanging knowledge, but also for validating and enriching your research results, cross-fertilising ideas. I am against the old-school approach of researchers, especially PhDs, isolated in an office and writing up articles. While there is probably scientific theoretical value in the outcomes of such research as well, the result will most likely lack societal impact. I usually select the conferences depending on the audience from which I would like to get feedback for my research. The IGLP Harvard conference last year was a great opportunity to expose my thoughts to a global law audience from literally all around the world. I met so many academics being interested in my research or working on complementary topics. IGLP stands exactly for this: investing in creating a stable network of people eager to exchange their ideas globally and assist each other. Besides such conferences, I am lucky that my home institutions, TILT and LSTS organise the annual CPDP conferences and the bi-annual TILTing conferences, to which I participate. Those are very good examples for broadening one’s research interests. |
– Your PhD topic examines the interplay between standardisation and the regulation of the right to protection of personal data. Tell us more about this field and the projects you are working on.
| My current research field is human rights with a focus on data protection and privacy, regulatory instruments such as standards, certifications, and codes of conduct, and new technologies. My PhD looks at how soft law, such as technical standards, interacts with human rights regulation, with a focus on personal data protection. While there is a visible regulatory sphere in regulating data protection, that is the Union’s secondary legislation, there is also a set of rules embedded in technical standards that is not so visible. Such rules might translate legal requirements to technical controls or prescribe a set of policies and behaviors to controllers and processors that go beyond the letter of the law. I am researching this interplay and the various roles standardisation might play in regulating data protection. Other than my PhD project, an interesting project I have been working on as a principal researcher is the study on certification of Art. 42 and 43 of the General Data Protection Regulation for DG Justice & Consumers of the European Commission. Last year, I also collaborated with ENISA on a study on privacy standards. That was an exciting project. I worked together with standardisation experts, civil society and industry to produce the report. |
– You are member of various important organizations. One of them is the Netherlands Network for Human Rights Research (NNHRR). In the Netherlands, organizations, such as Bits of Freedom, and universities, such as the Tilburg University have an active role as regards the promotion and protection of Human Rights in the digital age. What do you think about the situation in Greece in this field? Can civil society organizations and academia, work together to push for positive outcomes?
| Although barely in the spotlight, the role of NGOs and academia is fundamental for defending societal interests. There are also some exceptions like the recent CNIL fine on Google. As far as I am concerned, so far there hasn’t been a coordinated initiative fighting for digital rights in Greece. I see Homo Digitalis as an initiative aiming to fill this gap, by not only informing the broader audience through awareness raising campaigns but also flagging false and unfair practices, participating in public consultations, strategic litigation. |
– You have joint publications with great academics in the field, such as Paul de Hert and Eleni Kosta. If you could share an advice with young researchers reading this interview, what would that be?
| Paul and Eleni are both my PhD supervisors and have been great mentors in my academic career so far. I have certainly learned a lot from collaborating with them. I would advise new researchers to share and exchange ideas with colleagues, take risks in exploring new fields, set goals and work hard to achieve them. And also very important: don’t be afraid to aim high. |
Homo Digitalis joins forces with Statewatch, Privacy International, Digital Courage and ApTI
We sent an open letter to call on MEPs in the European Parliament Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) to oppose to the introduction of mandatory fingerprinting for national identity cards.
Mandatory fingerprinting is prescribed in the proposal for a Regulation on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement.
The voting is on 11th March.
Homo Digitalis in Together magazine
Four of the founding members of Homo Digitalis spoke to journalist Elina-Sofia Chasidou about the organization’s activities
Homo Digitalis submits a memorandum on the Personal Data Draft Law
On Tuesday 26 February 2019 Homo Digitalis, as a follow-up to the meeting with the Special Regulatory Committee of the Ministry of Justice, Transparency and Human Rights for the Draft Law on Personal Data, submitted a memorandum containing proposals to the Committee.
Homo Digitalis argued for the adaptation of provisions on the Draft Law for Personal Data, enabling civil society organizations to support citizen’s rights, according to Article 80, paragraph GDPR.
You can read the whole memorandum in Greek here.
Pledge2019.eu: Voters poised to make upload filters a dealbreaker in EU elections
Millions of Europeans are on record rejecting “upload filters” on the internet, which the European Parliament is set to vote on just weeks ahead of the EU elections. Today, Austrian digital rights NGO epicenter.works and partner organisations from across Europe, including Homo Digitalis, are launching the campaign Pledge2019.eu, inviting representatives to pledge to reject upload filters, and voters to reach out with a clear message: We will only vote for politicians who vote against this attack on our freedom of speech.
Pledge2019.eu allows voters from all EU member states to call their representatives free of charge and ask them to pledge to reject Article 13 of the controversial EU Copyright Directive.
“Europeans have made their opposition to upload filters crystal clear in a petition that is closing in on a record-breaking 5 million signatures. However, a malicious rumor circulating in Brussels dismisses these concerned citizens as ‘bots’. That made it necessary to empower voters to speak directly to their representatives, removing all doubt that they are real and that this issue is of real consequence to them”, says Bernhard Hayden, copyright expert at epicenter.works.
“Article 13 threatens the foundations of the free and open internet”, Hayden explains: ”It will leave websites and apps no choice but to install upload filters, effectively censorship machines that must approve anything users wish to post or upload. Levied with the impossible task to prevent any and all copyright infringement before it happens, these filters will inevitably block thousands of legitimate acts of free expression. Diversity online is additionally at risk as small platforms may cave under the onerous obligations and legal uncertainty.”
The final vote in the European Parliament may take place as early as March, with the exact date yet to be announced. The 751 representatives from 28 member states will have the option to reject the entire project or remove the most controversial articles.
“The opposition to Article 13 is not fake, it’s not mere clicktivism, and it’s certainly not in service of any corporate interest – it’s Europeans participating in EU democracy and standing up for their fundamental rights. Seven years ago, citizens successfully defeated the ACTA treaty. This year, they will again make their voices heard”, says Hayden.
Homo Digitalis participates additionally in the #SaveYourInternet campaign.
Watch the campaign's video!
Homo Digitalis at the annual meeting of Digital Freedom Fund
Homo Digitalis had the pleasure and honour to participate at the annual developing strategy meeting, by the organisation Digital Freedom Fund in Berlin. The most prominent civil society organizations at Member State level of the Council of Europe took part in the meeting, focusing their attention on the protection of human rights in the digital era.
Representatives from 48 organisations, including our co-founder Lefteris Chelioudakis, exchanged views and planned future joint actions in sectors, such as the interventionism of national law enforcement authorities through the use of new technologies (face identification systems, algorithmic profiling, video camera applicable to human body), net neutrality and the implementation of the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The meeting lasted two days and our organisation had the opportunity to create new alliances and to share ideas and knowledge with specialists from the sector. Our warm thanks to the organisation Digital Freedom Fund for inviting us to take part. Homo Digitalis is the first Greek organisation invited to this meeting.
Following the two-day meeting, a consultation with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights Mr. Philip Alston, which Homo Digitalis had also the honour to attend. Discussions on issues concerning the digital services of a welfare state, the negative effects of the automated decisions and the use of algorithms also took place.