http___blog.veni.com__cat_22_2.xml
http___blog.veni.com__cat_43_1.xml
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 9.2 9.3 10.1 11.1 12.1 12.2 13.1 13.2 14.1 16.1 16.2 17.1 18.1 19.1 19.2 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.1 24.1 24.2 24.3 25.1 26.1 26.2 27.1 28.1 29.1 29.2 30.1 31.1 32.1 32.2 33.1 34.1 35.1 36.1 36.2 36.3 37.1 37.2 38.1 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 40.1 40.2 40.3 40.4 40.5 41.1 41.2 41.3 42.1 42.2 43.1 44.1 45.1 46.1 47.1 48.1 49.1 50.1 51.1 51.2 52.1 53.1 54.1 54.2 55.1 56.1 56.2 56.3 57.1 57.2 58.1 58.2 59.1 59.2 60.1 61.1 62.1 65.1 65.2 66.1 67.1 68.1 68.2 69.1 70.1 71.1 72.1 72.2 73.1 74.1 75.1 76.1 77.1 77.2 77.3 78.1 78.2 79.1 79.2 79.3 80.1 81.1 81.2 81.3 81.4 82.1 82.2 82.3 82.4 83.1 83.2 84.1 85.1 85.2 85.3 86.1 87.1 87.2 87.3 87.4 88.1 90.1 91.1 92.1 93.1 94.1 95.1 95.2 96.1 96.2 97.1 98.1 98.2 98.3 99.1 99.2 99.3 100.1 100.2 100.3 100.4 101.1 101.2 101.3 101.4 101.5 101.6 101.7 101.8 102.1 103.1 103.2 104.1 104.2 104.3 104.4 104.5 105.1 105.2 106.1 107.1 108.1 108.2 109.1 109.2 110.1 111.1 112.1 112.2 112.3 112.4 112.5 113.1 113.2 114.1 114.2 115.1 116.1 117.1 117.2 118.1 119.1 119.2 119.3 120.1 121.1 121.2 122.1 123.1 123.2 124.1 125.1 127.1 127.2 127.3 128.1 129.1
Personal blog | Личен блог Българското “Интернет общество” е една от организациите, подписали писмо от името на европейски Интернет общества до ETNO – лобистката организация на европейските телекоми. Прочетете пълния текст на писмото (на английски). Включете се в борбата срещу опитите на телекомите да сменят правилата за ползване на Интернет с цел повишаване на собствените си печалби, за сметка на потребителите, разбира се. This year in July gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and head of the US Cyber Command participated at DefCon, the hackers conference in Las Vegas. In his address, gen. Alexander said, among other things, “This is the world’s best cybersecurity community. In this room right here is the talent our nation needs to secure cyberspace.” And he further asked the hackers to help educate the US Congress. As someone, who is regularly meeting the top Russian cyber folks, I already know (unofficially, of course) how the words of gen. Alexander were met in Moscow. And you can judge about the official Russian reaction on your own, if you read this or this article, published in the Russian media. But as someone, who lives in Washington, I can also imagine what the reaction in the US will be, if a speech like this happens to be announced by a Russian general, say, in St. Petersburg. A headline like “Putin’s general summons hackers to help Mother Russia” seems possible. Of course, one may argue, that perhaps some Russian general has already spoken to the Russian hackers, but this would never be made public, because “press in Russia is not free”, but I won’t agree with this. I won’t speak for the press, but the Internet in Russia today is pretty open and publishes a lot of news, which cannot make the mainstream media – same like in the US, or Bulgaria, or wherever. If there has been such a meeting, it hardly would be kept secret. In the aftermath of DefCon, there are some good lessons for all. Asking hackers to help defend their own country is not necessarily bad – certainly, it’s sounds much better than asking them to help attack another country. Such a dialogue could have started earlier, not in 2012, and nobody knows if it will continue. But if it will, it should be out, in the open, for all to see. In the same public way the USA should be talking to foreign governments on cyber – with understanding of the cross-cultural differences, but also making sure everyone is aware that securing cyberspace is in the interest of all countries and citizens, and is a task for everyone – governments, businesses, civil society. This dialog has started many years ago, but there’s not enough progress. It is high time for a breakthrough. The author was chairman of the Bulgarian President’s IT Advisory Committee (2002-2012), and host of the first international South Eastern Europe Conference on Cyber Security Cooperation. The views, expressed in this article are his personal ones, and do not reflect views of any of the organizations the author is affiliated or working with. (Текстът по-долу е предоставен екслузивно на Infoweek) Когато преди няколко дни ме питаха как най-кратко мога да охарактеризирам АСТА, казах че са нужни само две думи: “Долу АСТА!” Аз лично заставам срещу АСТА с опита си като Интернет оператор от 1993 до 2008 г., като основател и шеф на “Интернет общество – България”, като системен оператор от 1990 до 1993 г., като един от авторите на промените в нашето законодателство, които направиха достъпа до Интернет свободен за конкуренция, позволиха появата на гласовите услуги в Интернет (т.нар. VoIP) и т.н. Насреща ми какво виждам – министри-еднодневки, които Началника (с главно “н”) им може да смени когато си поиска – хора, които може би не ползват изобщо Интернет и ако им кажеш “скайп” се сърдят: “Що ме псуваш, бе!?”. Освен тях в защита на АСТА се изказаха автори, които не разбират защо не получават пари за създадените от тях произведения и са възмутени от Интернет, а не от своите издатели, които ограбват труда им и набеждават зловещата Глобална мрежа за истинския престъпник. Не мога да не спомена и другите набедени защитници – т.нар. организации за управление на колективни права, които би трябвало да събират и разпределят парите за автори, продуценти и изпълнители съгласно предвидените в закона практики. Моето мнение за АСТА се споделя от милиони хора, може би не само с тези две думи “Долу АСТА!”, но с повече, по-аргументирани и по-цялостни. Вашите читатели могат да ми се доверят, но аз бих им препоръчал да прочетат и какво казват и други известни и уважавани по цял свят хора и експерти като Нели Огнянова, Боян Юруков (тук, тук, тук), Пейо Попов (тук, тук), Димитър Ганчев, адв. Емил А. Георгиев (тук, тук, тук, тук и тук), Григор Гачев (тук, тук и тук), например. Вашите читатели могат да се опитат и да намерят противното мнение на някакви чиновници от администрацията, които всъщност нямат избор и са длъжни да защитават незащитимата позиция, че АСТА е нещо добро. Длъжни са, защото ако сега кажат, че са сбъркали, какво ще се случи? Бойко ще ги уволни. Ако кажат, че частните лобистки организации са ги натиснали, за да предложат подписването на АСТА, Бойко ще ги уволни. Ако си признаят, че не са разбрали за какво става дума… Бойко пак ще ги уволни. Вашите читатели могат да потърсят и мнението на неколцина заблудени автори, които си мислят, че YouTube ги ограбва. Те, горките, не знаят, че YouTube публикува съдържание с уредени авторски права и спазва законите… Тези автори не знаят, че българският Закон за авторското право и сродните му права урежда и финансовите им претенции срещу Интернет потребителите у нас. Дали не го знаят, защото организациите, които би трябвало да се занимават с колективното управление на правата им вероятно знаят само финансовата операция “събиране”, но не и “разпределяне” – аз лично не знам. Но знам, че крайният потребител, меломанът, фенът не могат да са престъпници заради това, че искат да слушат музика и да гледат филми свободно (свободно, а не безплатно, неуважаеми лобисти, политици и др.п.!) , а опитите на държавата да ги обяви за престъпници е обречен на провал. И липсата на сериозни присъди по изсмуканите от пръстите на лобистите и милиционерите дела е достатъчно доказателство за това, че и съдът мисли като мен. Затова – долу АСТА! Моя статия от “24 часа”, публикувана там със заглавие “Достъпни цени за интернет – с конкуренция”. ВЕНИ МАРКОВСКИ, ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛ НА УС НА “ИНТЕРНЕТ ОБЩЕСТВО – БЪЛГАРИЯ” В “24 часа” бе публикувано писмо на сем. Паси до еврокомисарите Крус, Рединг и Дали. В него се предлага да се премахнат “ограниченията за достъп на гражданите и посетителите на ЕС до интернет”, като при това се прави аналогия с намаляването на таксите за роуминг, дело на г-жа Рединг. Като човек с над 20-годишен опит в предоставянето на интернет достъп в страната и по света, не мога да не приветствам идеята за свободен достъп. Същевременно от писмото, а и от реакцията в медиите у нас се вижда, че има объркване между “свободен” и “безплатен”. Интернет е свободен там, където няма регулиране. Достъпът му в България е значително по-евтин и по-бърз, отколкото в другите страни членки на ЕС или в САЩ. България бе посочена за пример на страна с най-бърз достъп до интернет и на миналогодишната конференция на Международния съюз по далекосъобщения – най-представителната конференция на тази авторитетна организация. Принос за липсата на държавна регулация в България има и нашата организация, която се пребори с правителството на Костов през 1999 г. и след дело във Върховния административен съд постигна премахването на лицензионния режим. Хубаво е, че у нас всяко последващо правителство поддържаше тази политика на ненамеса на държавата в предоставянето на интернет достъп. Но достъпът до интернет не е безплатен – така както не е безплатно и електричеството или топлата вода в банята (пример, който дават сем. Паси). Това, че интернет достъпът е скъп в западните страни членки на ЕС, е факт, но той може да се промени, ако ЕК насърчи появата на конкуренция – нещо, за което ние можем да им дадем съвет. Само с по-малко лицензиране и повече конкуренция ще се постигне интернет да се предоставя на европейските граждани при достъпни условия и цени. Затова насърчаваме пращането на писма до еврокомисарите, особено от страна на политици, каквито са Гергана и Соломон Паси, но тези писма трябва да са насочени в целта, а не да бият покрай нея. Безплатен интернет достъп няма. Има достъп до интернет, който може да се предоставя от операторите, но срещу реклама (така е решен въпросът в някои паркове и обществени заведения в София). Това обаче е въпрос, който не може да бъде решен от ЕК. Хубаво би било сем. Паси да изпратят второ уточняващо писмо, в което да поискат от ЕК: - да накара телекомите с монополно или господстващо положение да дадат достъп до каналната си мрежа и до т.нар. последна миля на интернет операторите; - да промени европейското законодателство така, че интернет операторите да не бъдат лицензирани или регистрирани, което е свързано както с административни такси (т.е. ще се отрази на цената на услугите), така и с възможност за чиновнически произвол; - да последва примера на Холандия и да въведе изискване за т.нар. неутралност на мрежата, т.е. да не позволи операторите да таксуват с различни, понякога и допълнителни, такси клиентите си за достъпа до различни видове услуги (напр. телекомите да таксуват интернет потребителите или Google с по-високи тарифи за достъп до YouTube) Такова писмо бихме подкрепили и ние, а и вероятно ще бъде приветствано от цялата европейска интернет общност. И ако то бъде прието и изпълнено от еврокомисарите, тогава ще има и свободен, а може би дори и безплатен Интернет за всеки европеец. In a response to a letter from a friend of mine, who lives in Washington, DC, Anelia Atanassova to the European Commissioner Oettinger, the European Commission responds as follows: Luxembourg – 27-04-2011 ENER Dl/AW/ams ARES(2011) Mrs. Anelia Atanassova E-mail: [deleted] Subject: Nuclear plant Belene Dear Mrs. Atanassova, Thank you for your e-mail of April 6th to Commissioner Oettinger, who asked me to reply to you. The choice to use nuclear power or not in the national energy mix is a sovereign decision of every Member State. On 7 December 2007, the Commission gave its favourable opinion on the establishment of a new nuclear power plant at Belene based on Article 43 of the Euratom Treaty. The Commission, in its opinion, took into account the information from the investor that the chosen design at Belene includes various passive safety systems as well as improved protection against external hazards, such as earthquakes and air crashes. In addition, every project to construct a new nuclear power plant has to undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) following, in particular, the procedures established under Directive 85/337/EEC (EIA Directive), as amended*. The competent national authorities are responsible for carrying out the EIA. To draw lessons from the earthquake and tsunami impact on nuclear installations in Japan a first High Level Conference (15 March 2011) expressed the broad support to the principle of a European approach for a comprehensive safety and risk assessment of nuclear installations. This was furthermore endorsed by the extraordinary Energy Council of 21 March 2011. On 25 March 2011, the European Council stressed the need to fully draw the lessons from these events, and to provide all necessary information to the public. To this end, the safety of all EU nuclear plants should be reviewed, on the basis of a comprehensive and transparent risk and safety assessment (“stress tests”). The Commission has no information that the EU’s environmental or energy goals are violated. Sincerely yours, Peter FAROSS This letter should put an end to the speculation if the European Commission could interfere in the decision of Bulgaria to build or not build a new nuclear station. The decision is entirely Bulgarian, and there’s no excuse from the usual type “Europe wants|doesn’t want something”. Един приятел от Македония, Филип Стояновски, е написал следната статия, която препечатвам тук (и двата блога са под условията на “Криейтив комънс”: Огласот има наслов „’Реденка‘ до Банско“ при што првиот збор се однесува на некоја област во Бугарија каде што може да се изнајми сместување. Можеби понесени од националистичките предрасуди за „истите народи и исти јазици“ помислиле дека напишаното на бугарски ќе биде разбирливо за говорителите на македонскиот. Иако како јазици од иста–словенска–група, македонскиот и бугарскиот имаат заеднички особини, како различни јазици имаат и – разлики. Така, зборот „вреди“ (за Бугарите што не знаат македонски превод на англиски has value) на бугарски значи „прави штета“. Зборот „реденка“ кој на бугарски не значи ништо, на македонски значи „сексуален однос во кој поголема група мажи еден по еден полово општат со една жена“, односно оргија во која бројот на активните сексуални партнери е многу поголем од бројот на пасивните, при што таа оргија може и да не биде доброволна (англиски gang bang). Не верувам дека огласувачите имале намера да се рекламираат преку ова значење, иако веројатно ќе добијат многу повеќе кликови од посетителите на интернет заинтересирани за порно содржини отколку што би добиле ако најмеле преведувач и лектор по македонски.” Не знам дали рекламодателите са публикували рекламата сами, с идеята, че македонците ще дойдат в Банско, водени от мисълта как ще си правят “реденка”, дали това е дело на “Гугъл” или някой македонец си е направил майтап с рекламодателите, като не им е казал какво означава тази дума. Каквото и да е – рекламата е смешна, а реакцията на Филип е бърза и точна. По-добре е да се посмеем върху българо-македонските разговори, вместо да се правим на историци:-) Мисля, че това решение ще е полезно за всички заинтересовани страни. Решение по дело C-467/08 PADAWAN/SGAE Посочената такса може да се прилага за такива носители, когато те могат да се използват от физически лица за лично ползване Съгласно Директивата относно хармонизирането на някои аспекти на авторското право и сродните му права в информационното общество* притежатели на изключителното право на възпроизвеждане на аудио, визуален или аудио-визуален материал са авторите, артистите изпълнители и продуцентите. Въпреки това държавите членки могат да разрешат изготвянето на копия за лично ползване, при условие че притежателите на правото получават „справедливо обезщетение“. Последното трябва да допринесе за това притежателите на права да получат подходящо възнаграждение за използването на техните произведения и други закриляни обекти. Испанското законодателство, което транспонира директивата, е разрешило да се възпроизвеждат вече разпространени произведения, когато възпроизвеждането е извършено за лично ползване от физическо лице, което е придобило по законен начин достъп до произведенията. В този контекст производителите, вносителите или разпространителите трябва да заплащат на дружествата за колективно управление на права върху интелектуална собственост еднократно обезщетение, определено за всеки вид възпроизвеждане, под формата на „такса за копиране за лично ползване“. Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE), дружество за колективно управление на права върху интелектуална собственост в Испания, иска от дружеството PADAWAN, което продава носители под формата на CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, както и MP3 плейъри, заплащане на „таксата за копиране за лично ползване“ за цифровите носители, пуснати на пазара в периода 2002—2004 г. Като счита, че прилагането на тази такса — независимо от това дали носителите са предназначени за лично ползване, упражняване на търговска дейност или свободна професия — противоречи на посочената директива, PADAWAN отказва да плати. Съдът, който разглежда делото на първа инстанция, осъжда последното да заплати сума в размер на 16 759, 25 EUR. Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Областен съд на Барселона, Испания), сезиран с жалбата на PADAWAN, по същество пита Съда кои критерии следва да се вземат предвид при определяне на размера и схемата за получаване на „справедливото обезщетение“. В постановеното на днешна дата решение Съдът отбелязва, че трябва да се приеме, че „справедливото обезщетение“ се предоставя поради претърпените от автора вреди вследствие на възпроизвеждането на негово защитено произведение без надлежно разрешение. Следователно тези вреди са основният критерий за изчисляване на размера на обезщетението. Освен това Съдът посочва, че директивата изисква поддържането на „справедлив баланс“ между притежателите на права и ползвателите на закриляни обекти. Ето защо по принцип лицето, което е извършило такова възпроизвеждане за лично ползване, следва да поправи вредите, като заплати дължимото на притежателя на правото обезщетение. Безспорно, от една страна, вредата, която може да настъпи в резултат на всяко отделно лично ползване, може да се окаже незначителна и поради това да не породи задължение за плащане и, от друга страна, могат да възникнат практически затруднения, свързани с определянето на самоличността на лицата, ползващи копията за лични цели, както и със задължаването на последните да обезщетят притежателите на права. При тези обстоятелства държавите членки могат да въведат „такса за копиране за лично ползване“, чието заплащане се дължи от лицата, които разполагат с оборудване, апаратура и носители за цифрово възпроизвеждане. Всъщност дейността на тези лица, а именно предоставянето на разположение на лицата, ползващи копията за лични цели, на оборудване, апаратура и носители за възпроизвеждане или на свързана с възпроизвеждане услуга, представлява необходимата фактическа предпоставка, за да могат физическите лица да получат копия за лично ползване. Освен това не съществува пречка за това размерът на таксата да се отразява в цената на носителите за възпроизвеждане или в цената на свързаната с възпроизвеждане услуга, така че в крайна сметка тежестта на таксата да се понася от лицата, ползващи копията за лични цели, и да не се нарушават изискванията за „справедлив баланс“. На следващо място Съдът заключава, че схема на „такса за копиране за лично ползване“ е съвместима с посочения „справедлив баланс“ само когато разглежданите оборудване, апаратура и носители за възпроизвеждане могат да бъдат използвани за копиране за лично ползване и следователно да причинят вреди на автора на защитеното произведение. Всъщност той приема, че по необходимост съществува връзка между прилагането на „таксата за копиране за лично ползване“ и използването за възпроизвеждане за лично ползване. Следователно прилагането без разграничение на таксата за всички видове оборудване, апаратура и носители за цифрово възпроизвеждане, включително в хипотезата, в която последните са придобити от лица, различни от физическите, за цели, явно различни от тези за копиране за лично ползване, не е в съответствие с директивата. За сметка на това след като разглежданото оборудване е предоставено на разположение на физически лица за лични цели, съвсем не е необходимо да се установява, че последните действително са изготвили копия за лично ползване и по този начин действително са причинили вреди на автора на защитеното произведение. Основателно може да се предположи, че тези физически лица напълно са се възползвали от предоставянето на разположение, тоест се предполага, че са използвали всички функции на посоченото оборудване**, включително тази за изготвяне на копия. Така самата способност на това оборудване или апаратура да изготвя копия е достатъчна, за да обоснове прилагането на таксата за копиране за лично ползване, при условие че посоченото оборудване или апаратура е предоставено на разположение на физически лица в качеството им на лица, ползващи копията за лични цели. На последно място Съдът припомня, че с оглед на дадените отговори националният съд следва да прецени дали испанската схема на „такса за копиране за лично ползване“ е съвместима с директивата. ЗАБЕЛЕЖКА: Преюдициалното запитване позволява на юрисдикциите на държавите членки, в рамките на спор, с който са сезирани, да се обърнат към Съда с въпрос относно тълкуването на правото на Съюза или валидността на акт на Съюза. Съдът не решава националния спор. Националната юрисдикция трябва да се произнесе по делото в съответствие с решението на Съда. Това решение обвързва по същия начин останалите национални юрисдикции, когато са сезирани с подобен въпрос. Пълният текст на решението е публикван в уебсайта на CURIA. * – Директива 2001/29/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 22 май 2001 година относно хармонизирането на някои аспекти на авторското право и сродните му права в информационното общество (ОВ L 167, стр. 10; Специално издание на български език, 2007 г., глава 17, том 1, стр. 230). www.curia.europa.eu ** – Съдът се е произнесъл в този смисъл по повод предоставянето на разположение на телевизионни устройства в хотелските стаи (Решение на Съда от 7 декември 2006 г. по дело SGAE, C-306/05; вж. също прессъобщение № 95/06). източник: Служба “Преса и информация” на Съда на ЕС. Bulgaria is a member of the European Union for more than three years, but it still behaves sometimes as if it does not belong there. Here’s a recent, and most troubled example: On July 29 one of the leaders of the ruling parties and a member of the Bulgarian Parliament, Mr. Volen Siderov, of the right wing “Ataka”, called in the Bulgarian National Radio (BNR, more or less the equivalent of the US Public National Radio), and created a huge fuss about the interview that took place on July 28 with the son of his wife, and a member of the European Parliament, Dimitar Stoyanov (who became notorious while an observer to the EU Parliament in 2006 with this insult towards a roma MEP). The whole interview with Mr. Siderov is here (in Bulgarian), or via Google Translate here (in English). Radio anchor, Diana Yankulova, who is well know for her professionalism and high standards of journalist ethics, apparently was shocked by the words of the Bulgarian politician, who finished his tirade with the words, “in conclusion, I want to say, that the Bulgarian National Radio will be an objective media, when it gets rid of the people of BSP and DPS” (BSP stands for Bulgarian Socialist Party, DPS – Movement for Rights and Freedom; two of the ruling parties in the previous government, and currently in opposition in the Parliament). The case obviously will have further development, as today the Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borissov said that Ms. Yankulova is a political appointee of BSP in the National Radio. Borissov words are here (in Bulgarian), and here (in English, Google Translate) The Prime Minister has said that indeed, there is a political appointment in the National Radio. He said, “There is tendentious behavior. I have been subject of such activities of other journalists, and I know how emotionally a man can take these things, especially when you know who they are working for” (allegedly, for the BSP) BSP asked today the Parliament to vote on a declaration in defense of journalists. Siderov countered that Ms. Yankulova has been head of the press center of the Interior Ministry during the last two years of the previous cabinet, which influences her behavior today (note by Veni: head of press centers in the Bulgarian ministries often are journalists, who are familiar with the topics, and are respected in their profession; they are not necessarily political appointees). The declaration was not accepted by the Parliament. The Bulgarian PM has always refused speculations, allusions, or any facts there is pressure upon journalists from the new government. Nevertheless, when a journalist from the New Television (a national TV channel) has found some sensitive information about a MP, Mr. Latchezar Ivanov, from the ruling party, and personal doctor to Mr. Borissov, she called in advance the PM to ask what she should do with the information. Only after Mr. Borissov let her use it, she made a story, which led to the resignation of Mr. Ivanov from deputy-chairman of the Parliament. Observers of the western media commented that going to the PM and political leader, and asking him what to do with such a story, is completely inappropriate. I am writing about this case in English, because I don’t believe there’s enough energy, spirit, and independent media in Bulgaria, which will be able to cover the facts. This latest pressure on the free media comes after a number of worrisome cases, involving journalists in the last years. Most recently Ivo Indzhev’s life was threatened, two years ago a journalist was beaten to a coma, however the case was closed by the prosecution. The issue with Ms. Yankulova is most probably because she let people in the studio challenge a police operation in Kardjali, south Bulgaria, few days earlier. In the middle of the night, police raided a private house, and beat a family, including a young woman, who had skull injuries. The action of the police was justified by the minister, as normal, and that the injuries occurred, because the “police entered into the apartment’s bedroom somewhat hastily”. You can read more on that story at novinite.com, where the article ends with these words: “At the end, as many times before, the public will never learn the truth and the case will be soon forgotten. Bad police work and the never ending attempts in Bulgaria to use everything and everyone for political gains make this just the latest hearsay saga – the words of the police officers against those of the family. At least Bulgarians now know they must open doors inside their houses very cautiously at nighttime, otherwise they might get hit on the face.” I think that, given the strong reaction against an independent journalist from the National Radio, by the ruling parties, the Bulgarian journalists already know they must not criticize the police, or for that matter, anyone from the ministers. The question is what would the international human rights organizations do? The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee already reacted, but the voice of the European institutions is more important in Bulgaria, sigh. As for the siege – this is not news. Every government in the last 20 years has come to power at the promise of keeping the media free and independent, and every government has stepped down not being able to fulfill its promise. Всеки път, когато погледна какво се случва у нас, ми се иска да напиша нещо и много често се спирам самичък, но понякога не издържам :-) Няколко примера от последните седмици: Защо? Дали защото Бербатов си “позволи” (сякаш е трябвало да иска разрешение от пишещите братя и сестри?) да каже неща, които не се харесаха на някои от спортните журналисти и те си го връщат? Или защото Веселин Топалов се занимава с игра, която – за разлика от футбола – малцина разбират? Защото не е тайна, че всеки у нас си мисли, че може да бъде треньор, ако не националния, то поне на “Левски” или “ЦСКА”, докато освен Силвио Данаилов, не съм чул някой друг да си мисли, че има качества за ръководител на шахмата в страната. Вие решавайте. Но се загледах в представителите на Сърбия – бяха трима на техния вътрешен финал, от който сърбите с гласуване избраха 22-годишния Милан Станкович. Установих, че и на тримата песните са написани от Горан Брегович – на Милан Станкович, Емина Яхович и Оливър Катич. Ние си нямаме композитор и изпълнител от ранга на Горан (6 милиона продадени диска, рок звезда, крал на етното, гениален “плагиатор и автоплагиатор” (по Жоро Неделчев), който да е изнесъл хиляди концерти по целия свят), но дори и тези, които имаме… Някак си не ми се вижда много реалистично да тръгнат да помогнат на нашите талантливи изпълнители по този начин. И затова на конкурсите отиват изпълнители, които сами са си написали и музиката, и текста. Впрочем, Милан Станкович и Горан междувременно правят още нещо – песента на Сърбия е набързо преработена, за да звучи и на испански; можете да я видите като “Балканерос” (на испански, със субтитри). Не мисля, че Сърбия има шанс да спечели отново наградата, но никога не се знае как ще гласуват европейците, особено тези, които не се намират в Сърбия; Горан е известен композитор, но точно това може да му изиграе лоша шега, защото на Балканите да си известен е минус, а не плюс. Но мисля, че ние, българите, можем да извлечем една поука – хубаво е да имаш добри изпълнители и композитори, творци на изкуството, както се казва, но още по-добре е, ако те обръщат внимание на младите и талантливите, и им помагат. Защото, както е известно, трябва да се помага именно на талантливите; посредствените са злобни и мотивирани да успеят за сметка на по-добрите. Като го пиша това, се замислям – дали пък това не се отнася за целия ни живот, а не само за изкуството? В скобки: Вижте как двама от “динозаврите” на рок-музиката успяват не просто да направят кавър версия на клипа на Пол Саймън и Чеви Чейс, но и да се веселят. Горан Брегович и Здравко Чолич в песента “Маниаци”. Ако някой може да посочи български изпълнители / група, които да продължават да творят, пеят и свирят с усмивка, моля да ги посочи в коментарите по-долу. Утре България (най-накрая) ще почете официално паметта на загиналите в катастрофата край Смоленск полски държавни лица, между които и президентът на Полша Лех Качински. Вероятно всеки има приятели или познати в Полша, а още по-вероятно всеки е чел някоя книга* от някой от големите полски автори. Или пък е гледал някой от филмите на Кешловски, Зануси, Вайда или друг от поредицата големи полски режисьори… Някои може би си спомнят за Полша като първата социалистическа страна, в която се проведоха свободни избори, в резултат на които комунистическата партия загуби властта – още преди падането на Берлинската стена. Тъжно е не само, че една демократична страна е загубила своя президент, а защото това е страна, която е близка и добре позната на България. През седмицата имаше хубави думи от хора, които са работили или живели в Полша, имаше и обичайните спекулации за причините, довели до авио-катастрофата. Между нас казано – в деня преди официалния траур – на мен ми е все едно дали самолетът се е разбил заради пилотска или техническа грешка. Скърбя с моите полски приятели и всички хора, които отдават почит на паметта на загиналите и си спомням с тъга за моя баща, който също загина в (автомобилна) катастрофа преди 35 години, почти по същото време. Поклон! * От училищните години съм запомнил книгата на Едмунд Нижурски “Способ за Алкивиад”, в отличния превод на Лилия Рачева. Ако я намерите, прочетете я. А ако можете, гледайте филма “Катин” на Вайда – разказ за избиването на полските офицери от НКВД през 1940 г. край Смоленск; полската делегация в разбилия се “Ту – 154М” отиваше на поклонение на мястото на масовото убийство. [powered by WordPress.] 26 queries. 0.999 seconds
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 7.1 8.1 9.1 9.2 10.1 10.2 10.3 11.1 12.1 12.2 13.1 13.2 14.1 15.1 15.2 15.3 16.1 16.2 16.3 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.1 24.1 25.1 25.2 26.1 27.1 28.1 29.1 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 31.1 31.2 31.3 33.1 33.2 34.1 35.1 36.1 37.1 38.1 39.1 40.1 41.1 42.1 42.2 42.3 43.1 43.2 44.1 44.2 45.1 45.2 46.1 47.1 48.1 51.1 51.2 52.1 52.2 52.3 53.1 54.1 54.2 55.1 55.2 56.1 57.1 58.1 59.1 60.1 61.1 61.2 61.3 62.1 62.2 63.1 64.1 64.2 64.3 65.1 66.1 66.2 67.1 67.2 67.3 68.1 69.1 70.1 71.1 72.1 72.2 72.3 72.4 73.1 74.1 74.2 74.3 74.4 74.5 76.1 77.1 78.1 79.1 80.1 81.1 82.1 83.1 84.1 85.1 86.1 87.1 88.1 88.2 89.1 89.2 89.3 90.1 90.2 90.3 91.1 91.2 91.3 91.4 92.1 93.1 93.2 94.1 94.2 94.3 94.4 95.1 95.2 96.1 97.1 98.1 98.2 99.1 99.2 100.1 101.1 101.2 102.1 103.1 103.2 103.3 104.1 104.2 104.3 104.4 104.5 104.6 105.1 105.2 105.3 105.4 105.5 106.1 107.1 107.2 107.3 108.1 108.2 109.1 110.1 112.1 112.2 112.3 113.1 114.1 115.1 116.1 117.1 117.2 118.1 119.1 119.2 120.1 120.2 120.3 121.1 121.2 122.1 122.2 122.3 123.1 123.2 123.3 123.4 123.5 125.1 126.1 127.1 128.1 128.2 128.3 129.1 129.2 130.1 130.2 131.1 131.2 132.1 133.1 134.1 135.1 136.1 136.2 137.1 138.1 139.1 139.2 139.3 139.4 140.1 140.2 140.3 141.1 141.2 142.1 143.1 144.1 145.1 146.1 147.1 148.1 149.1 150.1 151.1 152.1 153.1 154.1 155.1 157.1 158.1 159.1 160.1 161.1 162.1 163.1 165.1 166.1 167.1 168.1 169.1 169.2 169.3 170.1 171.1 171.2 172.1 173.1 174.1 176.1 176.2 176.3 177.1 178.1 179.1 179.2
Personal blog | ЛичeH блor The last few months have shown a number of signs that cooperation in cyber space is not just necessary, but it is vital for the survival of the Internet as we know it. There is no need to provide links to all the articles and news stories that talk about the dangers of cyber attacks on the infrastructure in the USA or other countries – you can find plenty of them. There were stories about Russian authorities speaking on banning Gmail, Skype and other services that use encryption. There were accusations by Google that China has hacked into accounts of US governmental officials. There were stories about the European Union trying to build an EU computer and emergency response team (CERT). And there were stories about hackers getting personal data from Sony, from Citi bank, breaking into the RSA algorithm, etc., etc. There were also stories about the newly published US Strategy on international cyber space. And there were stories about new legislation, mainly in the US, to deal with the cyber threats. Not talking about the stories telling that the US military may use conventional force to fight with cyber attacks*. What misses really in these stories is the answer to the question “So, what?” Indeed, having all this information, one may only ask themselves, “What can be done to minimize the damages, deal with the criminals, and at the same time avoid the option of isolating, or even shutting down the Internet?”. The key word is cooperation. It is not new – among the first documented attempts of many governments to meet and talk on cybersecurity cooperation is the international meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria in 2003, as you can see here (in English). One may even note that even the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime is also an attempt by many governments to reach an agreement on how to deal with cyber criminals. Some countries have joined, but some countries have shown lack of desire to even consider joining. Internet is the hot word in many conversations – there are national, regional and international conferences and conversations going on constantly. People talk about connecting the next billion to the Net, about providing high speed access to developing countries, and about controlling the Internet. Most recently, French President Sarkozy invited a number of Internet geeks and businessmen to talk about the future of the Internet at the last G8 meeting in France. But what is missing from all these talks, are concrete results. Every specialist has an opinion, and while they are all trying to navigate between each others opinions, nothing happens. There are powerful business, non-profits and government entities, based in the key countries – US, Russia, China, to name a few, which are competing for the attention of the policy makers, but not much is really happening. And one might be surprised, that the urging now comes from governments, rather than from the businesses. Big international business seems to not be much interested in encouraging international cooperation in the field of cybersecurity and combating cybercrime. Governments and parliaments worldwide do exactly the opposite: they regularly come with initiatives, but without the support of the business, and the usual lack of confidence from non-profits, these initiatives can’t really fly. Of course, some of the initiatives of the governments are also not viable. Recently there have been talks about either trying to push forward the Budapest convention to be signed and ratified by other countries, or that there’s a need of a new Cyber treaty, which should be created under the UN, or perhaps under the ITU. While it is tempting to believe that these options are both good, the reality might prove differently. The Budapest convention remains still as a monument of the western countries’ desire to somehow both regulate, and take into account the basic human right principles. The UN has shown that it might take ages to reach an agreement on any issue. The ITU has its own internal issues, with increased budget problems, lack of enough expertise, and attempts to change its scope of activities from telecommunications only to include some of the modern technologies, and these alone do not give it enough power to do something “real”, regardless of the desire of the ITU Secretary-General to move the cybersecurity agenda forward. Bilateral talks are one possible, quick and easy to achieve solution. And while some argue that there is no way to reach bilateral agreements between each and every country, what they miss is, that actually it is not necessary to reach such agreements between each and every country. The good example could come from the main players – China, Russia, USA, EU, but also Turkey, Ukraine, Brazil. And reaching a general understanding on the terms and conditions for an agreement might be very helpful to other countries, which would like to join the efforts of the “big ones”. A possible platform for reaching such agreements might be G8, G20 or the OECD. Alternatively, the OECD could actually prepare the draft framework of agreement to be accepted by any interested state. Once such agreements are in place, and result in lowering cybercrime traffic between the participating countries, there will be no better example for the others. While there is no need to go into details right at this moment in what such an agreement might include, there are at least several key issues, which it has to have, among them: - education and training of law-enforcement, judges, prosecutors in how to combat cybercrime. Without proper education and training, no matter how good the national or international legal framework is, there will be no success in lowering the level of cybercrime. - support to national parliaments with legal expertise on introducing / changing the adequate legislation, mainly the Penal / Criminal Code If cybercrime is not defined in the Penal code, then it is not a crime, so it can’t be punished. - bringing public awareness. If the people of a certain country are thinking that cybercrime does not concern them, because they don’t have enough users, or developed credit card system, or because the victims are overseas, that needs to be addressed. Losses from cybercrime are not imminent to the countries where the victims are (today, that’s mainly US and EU), but because of insecure business environment, certain countries are just excluded from the innovation and investment wave. This article is based on extensive research and communication in the last couple of years. Some serious efforts in the field of cybersecurity cooperation were made by the US administration in 2003, but the real work started with the Obama administration (with the International Strategy for Cyberspace, the National Cybersecurity Initiative, and back to the first days of his presidency, with the 60-day cyberspace policy review, which produced a number of documents). The USA efforts were quickly followed by some major countries, and regional organizations, among them attention must be paid to: - the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and their document (in Russian) on cooperation in ensuring international information security, which was recently ratified by the required four countries, and is now in force. - the efforts of the European Union to define properly its cyber policy. The EU and European Commission efforts have faced some constraints, but they are moving again slightly, with coming hearings in the European Parliament, and decision to enhance the role of ENISA. One must notice also the work of the GGE (Governmental Group of Experts) – a body that reported to UN Secretary-General on cybersecurity issues. Some of their work is reflected in opinions, expressed by the chair of the group, Russian foreign ministry official Mr. Andrey Krutskikh (see for example here, in Russian). In summary, there’s a lot of new stuff happening in this area, but the efforts so far are not far reaching to the extent required by the stage of development of the Internet. Losses of online companies grow bigger, but they are addressed mainly through insurance companies and financial institutions. Many consider securing cyberspace as building better firewalls, and enhancing the security of their networks. * Something I wrote about in 1998, as published in the Bulgarian Military Journal, issue 5. (in Bulgarian, use Google Translate to get the sense) In a response to a letter from a friend of mine, who lives in Washington, DC, Anelia Atanassova to the European Commissioner Oettinger, the European Commission responds as follows: Luxembourg – 27-04-2011 ENER Dl/AW/ams ARES(2011) Mrs. Anelia Atanassova E-mail: [deleted] Subject: Nuclear plant Belene Dear Mrs. Atanassova, Thank you for your e-mail of April 6th to Commissioner Oettinger, who asked me to reply to you. The choice to use nuclear power or not in the national energy mix is a sovereign decision of every Member State. On 7 December 2007, the Commission gave its favourable opinion on the establishment of a new nuclear power plant at Belene based on Article 43 of the Euratom Treaty. The Commission, in its opinion, took into account the information from the investor that the chosen design at Belene includes various passive safety systems as well as improved protection against external hazards, such as earthquakes and air crashes. In addition, every project to construct a new nuclear power plant has to undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) following, in particular, the procedures established under Directive 85/337/EEC (EIA Directive), as amended*. The competent national authorities are responsible for carrying out the EIA. To draw lessons from the earthquake and tsunami impact on nuclear installations in Japan a first High Level Conference (15 March 2011) expressed the broad support to the principle of a European approach for a comprehensive safety and risk assessment of nuclear installations. This was furthermore endorsed by the extraordinary Energy Council of 21 March 2011. On 25 March 2011, the European Council stressed the need to fully draw the lessons from these events, and to provide all necessary information to the public. To this end, the safety of all EU nuclear plants should be reviewed, on the basis of a comprehensive and transparent risk and safety assessment (“stress tests”). The Commission has no information that the EU’s environmental or energy goals are violated. Sincerely yours, Peter FAROSS This letter should put an end to the speculation if the European Commission could interfere in the decision of Bulgaria to build or not build a new nuclear station. The decision is entirely Bulgarian, and there’s no excuse from the usual type “Europe wants|doesn’t want something”. The changes in East Europe were thanks to this man, Gorbachev. Without him, instead of writing this blog entry, I would have probably been either in prison, or in exile in West Berlin. And yes, West Berlin would still have been surrounded by “that wall”. So, thank you, Mr. Gorbachev. Spasibo, Mikhail Sergeevich, for tearing down that wall – around West Berlin, and around the socialist camp. Thank you for freeing the minds and souls of hundreds of millions imprisoned people in the soviet system, and for allowing them to live their own lives. You might not be fully recognized by some of the elderly people from the previous generation, but my generation – people who were around 20 in 1989, will remember you as the one who brought freedom and democracy. Spasibo bolshoe. I saw an article from Julian Popov, a Bulgarian blogger, dedicated to the reaction in online media about the support, provided by Bulgaria to Israel in fighting with the recent fires. One has to read the international news, see here Associated Press via Yahoo News. Julian writes about the Bulgarians, who publish their opinions at the end of online articles – namely Internet trolls, I’d say – who are writing in negative terms about the decision of the Bulgarian PM Boyko Borissov (himself a former firefighter), to send 91 Bulgarians to help Israel fight the fires. My contribution to the conversation: I got emails today from top level Israel diplomats, and from top level American foreign policy experts to congratulate Bulgaria; each of them with the same words: “Go Bulgaria!” People in Bulgaria should know better when to criticize the government, and when to say a few good words about it, or even be proud of it. I have been critical towards the current Prime Minister (and with pretty good reasons, I have to admit), but one has to be able to acknowledge when a good thing is done. That’s called, having principles and being fair. November 11, 2010, marked the day when the new IDN ccTLD .pф (Cyrillic for Poccийckaя Фeдepaция, Russian Federation) was opened for general registration. Prior to that date the registration was open only for trademark owners and governmental institutions. Before the registration started, in an interview for the KoMMepcaHTЪ (Commersant) daily, Andrey Kolesnikov, CEO of the Coordination Center for .ru/.pф, said that they expect to have about 100,000 domain names registered by the end of the year. It turned out they needed less than three hours to reach to the 100,000 domain names! Such a gold rush was not expected, and numbers continued to grow – 200,000 within 6 hours from the beginning of the registration period. And more than 460,000 by today. We’ll be waiting to hear more on the history and the development of the Russian IDN ccTLD during the ICANN meeting in Cartagena, where several of the Russian ccTLD top management people will be present. And we’ll prepare a posting on that topic, with more details for the general public. We hope that these details might be helpful in the launch of other new TLDs. There are hundred of publications in the Russian central media, and even more all over the web, with people sharing opinions about who might be these registrants, why there are so many domains registered, and what does the fact of so many domains mean for the Russian Internet. It will be also interesting to see in exactly one year how many of these domains will be renewed. But certainly the Russian IDN ccTLD has made history. More on the Russian ccTLD Coordination Center here (in Russian). Statistics from the Russian IDN ccTLD here (in Russian). More on the ICANN IDN program here. Interesting background information The Cyrillic IDN ccTLD started as an idea, discussed during the meeting of the Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov with his Russian colleague President Vladimir Putin on January 18, 2008 in Sofia, Bulgaria. The Bulgarian President’s office published last week the transcript from that meeting. Asked by President Putin, the Russian foreign minister responds, “As for the usage of Cyrillic in the Internet, our experts have already reviewed these issues, we have contacts with the international structures [ICANN], now we are solving the technical questions and the contacts between our specialists on that issue, of course, will confirm our commitment that Cyrillic should be used in the domain names. As for the consultations, as a whole, we are very happy from our cooperation [between Russia, Bulgaria, and ICANN].” UPDATE FROM November 18, 2010: As of today, November 18, the number of domains in .pф (.rf IDN ccTLD) passed half a million. As the Coordination Center announced, the 500000th domain registered was MeTaллokoHcTpykции74.pф (xn--74-6kctqamahahrlb5apjiu5d.xn--p1ai – in puny-code). This number brings .pф on 17th place among all European domains. Domains, which were delegated, or a working, account to more than 162,000. Most of them are already used in advertising, not only as single words, but as whole phrases, which are easy for the Russian speaker to understand. glossary: ccTLD – country code top-level domain CEO – chief executive officer IDN – internationalized domain names ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers .ru – the top level domain for Russia .pф (.rf in Cyrillic) – the top level domain for Russia in Cyrillic script Bulgaria is a member of the European Union for more than three years, but it still behaves sometimes as if it does not belong there. Here’s a recent, and most troubled example: On July 29 one of the leaders of the ruling parties and a member of the Bulgarian Parliament, Mr. Volen Siderov, of the right wing “Ataka”, called in the Bulgarian National Radio (BNR, more or less the equivalent of the US Public National Radio), and created a huge fuss about the interview that took place on July 28 with the son of his wife, and a member of the European Parliament, Dimitar Stoyanov (who became notorious while an observer to the EU Parliament in 2006 with this insult towards a roma MEP). The whole interview with Mr. Siderov is here (in Bulgarian), or via Google Translate here (in English). Radio anchor, Diana Yankulova, who is well know for her professionalism and high standards of journalist ethics, apparently was shocked by the words of the Bulgarian politician, who finished his tirade with the words, “in conclusion, I want to say, that the Bulgarian National Radio will be an objective media, when it gets rid of the people of BSP and DPS” (BSP stands for Bulgarian Socialist Party, DPS – Movement for Rights and Freedom; two of the ruling parties in the previous government, and currently in opposition in the Parliament). The case obviously will have further development, as today the Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borissov said that Ms. Yankulova is a political appointee of BSP in the National Radio. Mr. Borissov words are here (in Bulgarian), and here (in English, Google Translate) The Prime Minister has said that indeed, there is a political appointment in the National Radio. He said, “There is tendentious behavior. I have been subject of such activities of other journalists, and I know how emotionally a man can take these things, especially when you know who they are working for” (allegedly, for the BSP) BSP asked today the Parliament to vote on a declaration in defense of journalists. Mr. Siderov countered that Ms. Yankulova has been head of the press center of the Interior Ministry during the last two years of the previous cabinet, which influences her behavior today (note by Veni: head of press centers in the Bulgarian ministries often are journalists, who are familiar with the topics, and are respected in their profession; they are not necessarily political appointees). The declaration was not accepted by the Parliament. The Bulgarian PM has always refused speculations, allusions, or any facts there is pressure upon journalists from the new government. Nevertheless, when a journalist from the New Television (a national TV channel) has found some sensitive information about a MP, Mr. Latchezar Ivanov, from the ruling party, and personal doctor to Mr. Borissov, she called in advance the PM to ask what she should do with the information. Only after Mr. Borissov let her use it, she made a story, which led to the resignation of Mr. Ivanov from deputy-chairman of the Parliament. Observers of the western media commented that going to the PM and political leader, and asking him what to do with such a story, is completely inappropriate. I am writing about this case in English, because I don’t believe there’s enough energy, spirit, and independent media in Bulgaria, which will be able to cover the facts. This latest pressure on the free media comes after a number of worrisome cases, involving journalists in the last years. Most recently Ivo Indzhev’s life was threatened, two years ago a journalist was beaten to a coma, however the case was closed by the prosecution. The issue with Ms. Yankulova is most probably because she let people in the studio challenge a police operation in Kardjali, south Bulgaria, few days earlier. In the middle of the night, police raided a private house, and beat a family, including a young woman, who had skull injuries. The action of the police was justified by the minister, as normal, and that the injuries occurred, because the “police entered into the apartment’s bedroom somewhat hastily”. You can read more on that story at novinite.com, where the article ends with these words: “At the end, as many times before, the public will never learn the truth and the case will be soon forgotten. Bad police work and the never ending attempts in Bulgaria to use everything and everyone for political gains make this just the latest hearsay saga – the words of the police officers against those of the family. At least Bulgarians now know they must open doors inside their houses very cautiously at nighttime, otherwise they might get hit on the face.” I think that, given the strong reaction against an independent journalist from the National Radio, by the ruling parties, the Bulgarian journalists already know they must not criticize the police, or for that matter, anyone from the ministers. The question is what would the international human rights organizations do? The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee already reacted, but the voice of the European institutions is more important in Bulgaria, sigh. As for the siege – this is not news. Every government in the last 20 years has come to power at the promise of keeping the media free and independent, and every government has stepped down not being able to fulfill its promise. Just got this note, and know that people might be interested to see what’s going on in Israel: The European Commission has published its most important document. Europe 2020. However, after a lot of noise, and with minimum participation from European citizens (less than 500 responses, mainly from Spain, Poland, Germany, France and UK)*, the Barroso strategy Europe 2020 seems to let down the Internet users and businesses. There is a whole section, Flagship Initiative: “A Digital Agenda for Europe” (more on it here), which seems as if written by the hands of the lobbyists, who one can meet in Brussels every minute. All the fields, where the EC says what it will do are cliches from the 20th Century textbooks. Certainly, the EC is capable of more, but why it has not delivered in this document is unknown. The aim of the Digital Agenda is, “to deliver sustainable economic and social benefits from a Digital Single Market“. Could this really be the aim? Are not these the tools for achieving the aim? The aim can be building competitive Internet services, which should be delivered worldwide, and not only, as the “Strategy” suggest, in the European Union. These services will be provided by EU companies, which will create new jobs, create the first wave of EU IT-billionaires, bring the EU to the level of the USA. Or at least, try to do it. The aim could (or should?) be to ensure the creation of European Amazon, European Goolge, European eBay – companies not copying these, but as big as they are. The European Union can certainly do better than just point towards high-speed Internet. The fast and ultra fast Internet is not an issue for Bulgaria (with majority of the people living in big cities having 100 Mpbs, and some even 1 Gbps connections at their homes. If Bulgaria can do it, even before joining the EU, what prevents the EU from doing it? Perhaps the fact that there is not enough entrepreneurship in the EU? Most importantly – the whole strategy lacks even a single word about ensuring the security of the European Union cyberspace. One can not but think that this lack of understanding of the importance of the cooperation in that area, is a symbol of the fact that the EU is, in some ways, living in the 19th century. In times, when EU citizens suffer from computer malware, hackers, cyber criminals, or just computer viruses, the European Commission is looking towards a “regulatory framework with clear rights regimes, the fostering of multi-territorial licenses, adequate protection and remuneration for rights holders“. So, instead of looking that there is hardly any content of interest for the people even in the EU itself, the Commission is already defending the interests of the big lobbyists. The lack of vision for the EU and the EC in the field of cybersecurity is clear; the question is how to help EU Commissioner Kroes to engage more into that area. She responded in the hearings at the EU Parliament in January, among other things, If Mrs. Kroes indeed wants Europe to “become the safest place for Internet consumers”, the way to do it is not via ENISA, which states on its site, “Together with the EU-institutions and the Member States, ENISA seeks to develop a culture of Network and Information Security for the benefit of citizens, consumers, business and public sector organisations in the European Union.” If the European Commission wants to have modern, secure, useful Internet for its citizens by 2020, it should do much more, than what’s written in the Europe 2020 agenda. * – I personally feel guilty for not participating, but I simply… didn’t know there’s such a discussion! Apparently, the EC needed to make this discussion better known. Veni. German Working Group on Data Retention (AK Vorrat) has published the following press release (and accompanying information). I copy it here, because the German Court decision is an important example of brilliant jurisprudence, and a great example what people can do together (there were 30 thousand people, who signed the motion to the Court!)! The document below was originally sent by Patrick from Daten-Speicherung.de The preventive retention of communications data by private service providers on a permanent basis for a period of six months, as provided for by directive 2006/24/EC, is not as such incompatible with Article 10 of the German constitution [privacy of correspondence, see http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#10]; it is therefore irrelevant whether the directive has priority or not. The principle or proportionality requires the legal enactment of such data retention to take into account the exceptional intensity of the interference with human rights that results of such a measure. Sophisticated and clear-worded rules with regard to data safety, data use, transparency and legal remedy are required. [not internationally relevant] With regard to data safety, legislation is required that provides for a high standard of safety in a clear-worded and compulsory way. It must in principle be legally ensured that this standard has regard to the technical state of art, is continuously adapted to new findings and is not fully made subject to a balancing against general financial aspects. Access to and the direct use of the data is proportionate only if serving the protection of interests of preeminent importance. In the area of prosecuting crime a suspicion of a grave crime, based on specific facts, is required. Access for preventive and intelligence purposes may be allowed only on condition of an indication for a specific danger to the body, life or freedom of a person, to the existence or security of a state or of a common danger. These requirements do not apply to the indirect use of the data by telecommunications operators where complying to official requests for the identification of the user of an IP address. The prosecution of administrative offenses will justify such use only in legally defined cases of exceptional importance.” The Court ruling goes on to say that the German implementation of data retention did not satisfy the conditions set out. The provisions on data retention in German law were therefore ruled unconstitutional and invalid. This means that as of yesterday, no data must or may be retained under data retention rules in Germany (telcos mostly retain data for up to a week for “data safety” purposes however; this will continue even after yesterday’s ruling until the courts will have decided on that matter). The conservatives in the government coalition are pushing for re-enacting data retention as soon as possible, meeting the conditions set out by the Court. The liberals in the government coalition say they are not in a hurry and want to see what will come of the revision of the data retention directive first. As the minister of justice, who is competent for drafting such a law, is a liberal, it is likely that we will be able to prevent a quick re-enactment of data retention in Germany. However it is crucial that the EU data retention requirement is revoked soon. I hope we will soon have the Commission’s reply on the formalities of a citizen’s initiative to that effect. Press release by the German Working Group on Data Retention (AK Vorrat), 2 March 2010: After data retention ruling: Civil liberties activists call for political end to retention of telecommunications data +++ Data retention opposed by 70% of German population +++ European Citizens’ Initiative for repealing the EU directive on data retention announced +++ Legal action to be continued +++ The German Working Group on Data Retention has today announced a Europe-wide campaign to end Internet and telephone data retention. This follows the German Constitutional Court’s ruling on a mass complaint made by more than 34,000 citizens. According to a newly-published poll, 69.3% of all Germans oppose data retention, making it the most strongly rejected surveillance law.[1] “The recording of confidential contacts and movements of the entire population in the absence of any suspicion is unacceptable and must stop immediately”, says Florian Altherr of the Working Group. “In starting an initiative to this end, the Federal Minister of Justice can count on the support of EU Commissioner Viviane Reding as well as of many states such as Austria, Belgium and Romania, all of which do not have data retention laws in place.” “In order to bring the massive rejection of blanket data retention home to politicians we are in the process of preparing a European Citizens’ Initiative. With the signatures of one million opponents to the permanent logging of our Internet and phone use we want to persuade the EU to repeal its data retention directive”, announces data protection activist padeluun of the Working Group. Patrick Breyer of the Group adds: “At the same time we will continue our legal fight against data retention. Today’s decision proclaiming the recording of the entire population’s behaviour in the absence of any suspicion compatible with our fundamental rights is unacceptable and opens the gates to a surveillance state.” The German Working Group on Data Retention is making five political demands after today’s ruling: The Federal Government, the Federal Minister of Justice and Parliaments must now cooperate with other like-minded states and bodies to take steps to repeal the redundant and detrimental data retention directive. The German law on data retention, going far even beyond EU requirements and – according to the German Constitutional Court – unconstitutional, must not be re-enacted. European citizens should be given the right to file constitutional complaints directly with the European Court of Justice. The Federal Government must not agree to any further collection of information on citizens not suspected of any wrong-doing in the name of security, such as the air travelers file proposed by the EU. Mass data pools that were introduced in the past, such as the registration of Internet use by the Federal Office for Information Security or the employee information system ELENA, must be closed down. An independent review of all existing “security” measures must take place in order to systematically examine their compatibility with our fundamental rights, their effectiveness, their cost, their harmful side-effects and alternatives. Background information: Communications data enables the tracing of who has contacted whom via telephone, mobile phone or e-mail. In the case of mobile calls or text messages via mobile phone, the user’s location is also logged. Data retention allows citizens’ movements to be traced and personal and business contacts to be monitored. Information regarding the content of communications such as personal interests and individual life circumstances can also be deduced. A study commissioned in 2008 shows that data retention is acting as a serious deterrent to the use of telephones, mobile phones, e-mail and Internet. The survey conduced by research institute Forsa found that with communications data retention in place, one in two Germans would refrain from contacting a marriage counselor, a psychotherapist or a drug abuse counselor by telephone, mobile phone or e-mail if they needed their help. One in thirteen people said they had refrained from using telephone, mobile phone or e-mail at least once because of data retention, which extrapolates to 6.5 Million Germans in total. German NGO Working Group on Data Retention (Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung) organised several protest marches against the scheme. Last year, 20.000 people protested against surveillance in Berlin.[2] About Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (German Working Group on Data Retention): The Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (AK Vorrat) is a Germany-wide organisation which campaigns against extensive surveillance in general and the blanket logging of telecommunications and other behavioral data in particular. Homepage und contact details: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de Footnotes and Links: [1] Poll on data retention (in German, PDF) [2] Protest march “Freedom not Fear” About Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (German Working Group on Data Retention): The Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (AK Vorrat) is a Germany-wide organisation which campaigns against extensive surveillance in general and the blanket logging of telecommunications and other behavioural data in particular. Homepage and contact details: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de Previous press releases: Unanimous rejection of proposed telecommunications data retention Thousands of people participated in nationwide protests against data retention (07/11/2007) Constitutional complaint filed against German Telecomms Data Retention Act (31/12/2007) Historic class-action lawsuit filed against telecommunications data collection (29/02/2008) Data retention in Germany partly suspended by Constitutional Court – NGO demands resignation of Minister of Justice (19/03/2008) After ruling on data retention: activists remain confident (10/02/2009) Administrative Court: Data retention is “invalid” (16/03/2009) Civil Liberties Groups Ask EU to Repeal Data Retention Directive More information: Our mission statement Joint statement on data retention Class-action law suit against data retention Because in Bulgaria there are similar attempts (the Parliament just passed a law, which, in my opinion, enhances the data retention beyond the scope of the EU Directive, and is stretching the Constitution wide), the decision of the German Court might be of importance to Bulgaria, as well. Internet Society – Bulgaria, which I have the honor of chairing, has tried to influence (see this section at our blog, and this opinion), to the degree possible, the process in drafting the legislation in the Bulgarian Parliament, but not to the point, which would have made us feel comfortable with the language of the law. We are considering other options in the future, and we’ll be sending later today a letter to the President, the Ombudsman of the Republic, and the Chief Prosecutor, all of whom can request that the Bulgarian Constitutional court announces a particular article in the law unconstitutional. I got this as an email from a friend: How they can manufacture a good bottle of beer at Kamenitza AD, Plovdiv, 95, Kapitan Raicho Str., and transport it several thousand miles and deliver it to Trade Fair on 75th Street and 37th Avenue in Jackson Hts., New York City, and sell it to me for $1.49 (excluding deposit) is beyond me. But I thank all the people and processes that enable it. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. Long live Kamenitza.nyc.* * about the .nyc: Tom Lowenhaupt is the enthusiast driving the bid for creating a new top-level domain for New York City, .nyc. Read more here. Wikipedia writes about the beer here. ** Needless to say, this posting is private, and has nothing to do with any of the organizations I work with, for, upon ;) [powered by WordPress.] 26 queries. 1.181 seconds