Dead on arrival? Dutch Parliament kills ACTA before EU vote

RT.com, 29 May, 2012

Protesters wearing Anonymous Guy Fawkes masks take part in a
 demonstration against controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
(ACTA) (AFP Photo/Jean-Philippe Ksiazek)

Lawmakers in Holland have voted to strike down the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), slammed by many as a free speech and information access choker. Dutch MPs have also ruled the government will never sign any such agreement.

The Dutch parliamentarians have opted not to wait for the EU’s vote on ACTA which is set for June, with consultations kicking off already this Thursday.

"The treaty should be taken off table, whatever the decision the European Parliament should take," said MP Kees Verhoeven, a major sponsor of Tuesday’s motion in the Dutch Parliament.

Lisa Neves Goncalves, a spokeswoman for the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, said the government had earlier this year stated it would not sign off on the treaty until it was clear it did not breach the Dutch or EU constitution.

As the controversial bill is making its slow way through the EU Parliament, the UK Pirate Party, the Open Rights Group (ORG) and the French La Quadrature Du Net are calling for more anti-bill rallies.

"The votes this Thursday, in three of the Committees responsible for offering 'Opinions' on the treaty, will really affect whether the European Parliament ultimately rejects ACTA or not. It is important that your MEP understand people's concerns. And calling your MEP will help make this happen," says the Open Rights Group in a blog post.

ACTA is an international agreement aimed at protecting intellectual property. It somewhat resembles the US’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which was shelved by lawmakers after protests.

The European Union suspended efforts to ratify the treaty in February amid a storm of protest from activists who say the agreement would stifle free speech and access to information. 

Thousands demonstrated across the EU against giving big firms the power to ban people from using the Internet for illegally swapping files. Twenty-two countries in the bloc signed up to the agreement, with a vote on its ratification due this summer in Brussels.

The US, most of the EU, Australia, Canada, Japan and several other countries have signed the ACTA treaty, but none of these signatories' parliaments have yet ratified it. This last step would make the agreement viable. As soon as ACTA is ratified by any six nations, the convention will come into force.

Related Articles:

ACTA rejected by EU Parliament committees in crucial vote

Neelie Kroes backs ACTA protests

Anti-piracy ACTA treaty referred to EU high court

Acta protests: Thousands take to streets across Europe

Marchers in London gathered outside British Music House,
home to several major rights holders

New threat to internet freedom

RNW, 15 May 2012, by Willemien Groot

 (Vladimir Kazanevsky)

        

Out of public view, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN agency, is working on a proposal to give governments more control over the internet. The effort is supported by a number of countries including Russia, Brazil and China, and if it’s successful it could mean the end of internet freedom.

After the WikiLeaks-affair and the Arab Spring, an increasing number of countries would like to ‘democratise’ the internet. China India, Brazil and South Africa all use the ITU as a platform to advance their plans, says Dieuwertje Kuijpers from the Telders Foundation, a research agency connected with the pro-market VVD party.

“It’s a useful platform for them, enabling them to set rules about what is and is not allowed on the internet.” That includes rules for both acceptable behaviour and internet regulation.

Trivial

Russia and China were the first UN members to propose setting up the International Code of Conduct for Information Security. The code lists the rights and responsibilities of states when it comes to the web. The rules also make it possible to fight internet criminals and extremists attempting to undermine the ‘economic and political stability of the state’ - in other words, bring order to the chaos. The first thing was to get rid of ‘trivial’ aspects like the right to anonymity and privacy on the web. The proposal was considered somewhat laughable in US and Europe but the controversial code of conduct is now getting a second chance.

India, Brazil and South Africa are calling for the creation of a new UN organisation to monitor and protect equal access to the internet. The UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) would consist of 50 member states, along with four advisors from the business world and society. Many people don’t realise that this committee would mean the end of the so-called multi-stakeholder principle that everyone has a say in the internet. The 50 countries represented would decide how around 6 billion people are allowed to use the internet.

Control

Dutch Green Left MP Arjan El Fassed believes that restraint is necessary:

"The growth and development of the internet is possible precisely because it belongs to everyone and no one. Many different groups would like to control aspects of the internet, from the entertainment industry to governments. The danger is that regulation will be used to disguise attempts to take control. That’s bad for everyone.”

The United Nations is the last body that should be dealing with this issue, according to Dieuwertje Kuijpers: "The UN is too bureaucratic and opaque. That makes it almost creepy.” It’s also impossible to make this kind of agreement on the basis of consensus.

The ITU has proven its usefulness in the past. The agency facilitated the liberalisation of the internet in the late eighties, guaranteeing access for everyone without restrictive international frameworks. National governments are responsible for the rules of usage. Independent organisations such as ICANN ensure the technical standards and stability of the internet.

Radical

It’s unclear exactly what the proponents of government control actually wish to accomplish. Clearly, cyber security, privacy and data storage concerns are part of their agenda, but so far the draft text has not been released to the public. Given the radical nature of the proposal, the public has a right to know more about the plan.

Arjan El Fassed thinks the Netherlands should refuse to continue negotiating until the ITU proposal is made public:

"The majority of users will benefit from an open internet, not from more control. The problem with these proposals is that civil society has almost no say. The Netherlands should have the courage to stand up for those users, like other European countries.”

"Member States shouldn’t wait for ratification, they must have a say now,” says Dieuwertje Kuijpers. "This process started back in 2005. There is no earthly reason to be taken by surprise if the proposal is presented at the end of this year at the telecom conference in Dubai.”

Picnic

The ratification of the controversial anti-piracy law ACTA has already demonstrated that politicians have little idea what these agreements entail. Specialists in the field of civil rights and internet freedom had to explain what ACTA means to computer illiterate MPs and civil servants. They cannot afford to be that ignorant this time around, says Kuijpers:

"ACTA was a picnic compared to what the ITU is planning.” 

See also: The Economist - In Praise of Chaos

Related Articles:

Neelie Kroes backs ACTA protests

Anti-piracy ACTA treaty referred to EU high court

Acta protests: Thousands take to streets across Europe

Marchers in London gathered outside British Music House,
home to several major rights holders

Neelie Kroes backs ACTA protests

RNW, 4 May 2012

Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Digital Agenda, says she appreciates the protests against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Speaking at an internet conference in Berlin, the Dutch politician said she thought it unlikely that either the ACTA international anti-piracy agreement or the US Stop Online Piracy Agreement (SOPA) would come into force.

Neelie Kroes, the European
Commissioner for Digital Agenda

ACTA has met with fierce protests in various European countries over the past months. Opponents argue that the part of the agreement aimed at combating illegal downloading endangers internet freedom. The European Parliament’s International Trade Committee is expected to vote on ratification of the agreement in July.

“We have recently seen how many thousands of people are willing to protest against rules which they see as constraining the openness and innovation of the internet,” Mrs Kroes said. “This is a strong new political voice. As a force for openness, I welcome it, even if I do not always agree with everything it says on every subject.”

Mrs Kroes, a member of the Dutch free-market liberal VVD party, described the internet as “the new frontier of freedom”. She said that crime constituted a “tiny minority of online activity”, adding that legislators should avoid an overreaction and “balance liberty and security”. Mrs Kroes went on to argue in favour of “net neutrality”, or openness of access to internet services.

The anti-piracy proposals have prompted protests
across Europe 

Related Articles:

Acta unlikely to be ratified in Europe, says Kroes

European Data Protection Official Criticizes ACTA Treaty

Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in EU parliament rejects ACTA

Anti-piracy ACTA treaty referred to EU high court

ACTA: more than just an illegal download ban

Megaupload Trial May Never Happen, Judge Says

Acta protests: Thousands take to streets across Europe

Marchers in London gathered outside British Music House,
home to several major rights holders

European Data Protection Official Criticizes ACTA Treaty

PC World, by Jennifer Baker, IDG News, Apr 24, 2012

SIMILAR ARTICLES:

• Anti-Piracy Concerns Spread to Europe
• EU Parliament to Vote on ACTA Without Waiting for a Court Decision
• European Commission to Refer ACTA Treaty to EU's Highest Court
• We Saw Where You Went: App Traces Workers' Steps Abroad
• More Criticism for Anti-piracy Agreement in Europe
• MegaUpload Founder Could Get His Property Returned

Europe's top data privacy watchdog has strongly criticized the international anticounterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA), warning that it could lead to widespread monitoring of the Internet and breaches of individuals' right to privacy.

The agreement is poorly worded, lacks precision about what measures could be used to tackle infringement of intellectual property rights online and could result in the processing of personal data by ISPs that goes beyond what is allowed under E.U. law, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) said in a 16-page opinion published Tuesday.

The opinion also says that ACTA does not contain "sufficient limitations and safeguards, such as effective judicial protection, due process, the principle of the presumption of innocence, and the right to privacy and data protection." It also warns that many of the measures to strengthen intellectual property enforcement online could involve "the large scale monitoring of users' behavior and of their electronic communications" including emails, private peer-to-peer file sharing and websites visited.

ACTA aims to enforce intellectual property rights and will enter into force after ratification by six signatory states of the total 11 -- the European Union, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the U.S. It was signed by the European Commission and 22 E.U. member states in January, but before it can become E.U. law it must be approved by the European Parliament.

However, the international antipiracy pact has failed to win favor with parliamentarians. And following large civil protests throughout Europe, many E.U. countries are back-pedaling on their decision to sign the agreement. Most have suspended ratification.

In an effort to placate critics, the European Commission, the body responsible for negotiating the agreement on behalf of the E.U., has asked the European Court of Justice to rule on whether the deal is compatible with the E.U. Charter of Fundamental Rights. But since the court will not evaluate the effectiveness or proportionality of the measures within the agreement, nor the potential outcome, anti-ACTA activists see it as nothing more than a time-wasting exercise.

The Parliament is expected to vote in June without waiting for the court ruling. It seems that it will vote against the agreement, after the parliamentarian charged with evaluating it, David Martin, recommended rejecting it.

The EDPS' opinion puts a further nail in ACTA's coffin. In February 2010, the independent supervisory authority, gave his first opinion on the treaty, which at the time was being negotiated in secret. That opinion raised privacy concerns, but Tuesday's document goes into more detail on the now public text.

ACTA includes permission for countries to create laws whereby an online service provider may be ordered by a "competent authority" to disclose the identity of a subscriber to a right holder. The EDPS points out that the "competent authority" is not defined. There is likewise no definition of "commercial scale" mentioned elsewhere in the text.

Article 23 of ACTA appears to create new categories of criminal offenses without providing for any legal definition of what they are, he continued. Generalized monitoring of Internet users could affect millions of individuals irrespective of whether they are under suspicion.

In short, according to the EDPS, ACTA raises huge privacy concerns.

The anti-piracy proposals have prompted protests
across Europe 

Related Articles:

Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in EU parliament rejects ACTA

Anti-piracy ACTA treaty referred to EU high court

ACTA: more than just an illegal download ban

Megaupload Trial May Never Happen, Judge Says

Acta protests: Thousands take to streets across Europe

Marchers in London gathered outside British Music House,
home to several major rights holders

Cispa will give US unprecedented access, internet privacy advocates warn

With echoes of Sopa, critics charge that bill will overturn US privacy protections in government attempts to track hackers

guardian.co.uk, Dominic Rushe in New York, Wednesday 18 April 2012

Wikipedia joined other major sites in going dark on 18 January to protest
 Sopa, but so far internet giants such as Wikipedia and Google have
remained silent on Cispa. Photograph: Rex Features

Washington looks set to wave through new cybersecurity legislation next week that opponents fear will wipe out decades of privacy protections at a stroke.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa) will be discussed in the House of Representatives next week and already has the support of 100 House members.

It will be the first such bill to go to a vote since the collapse of the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) in January after global protests and a concerted campaign by internet giants such as Google, Wikipedia and Twitter.

The author of the new bill, Mike Rogers, the Republican chair of the House intelligence committee, has said it is aimed at tracking the nefarious activities of hackers, terrorists and foreign states, especially China. But its critics charge the bill will affect ordinary citizens and overturn the privacy protections they now enjoy.

Opponents fear the way it is currently drafted will open up ordinary citizens to unprecedented scrutiny. The bill uses the wording: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," a phrase that if it became law would trump all existing legislation, according to critics.

In one section, the bill defines "efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy" a network as an area that would trigger a Cispa investigation. Opponents argue something as simple as downloading a large file – a movie for example – could potentially be defined as an effort to "degrade" a network.

The bill also exempts companies from any liability for handing over private information.

"As it stands the bill allows companies to turn over private information to the government and for them to use it for any purpose that they see fit, all without a warrant," said Michelle Richardson, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "For 40 years we have had legislation about wiretapping that protects people. This would overturn that and make a cyber exception."

Privacy advocates are especially concerned about what they see as the overly broad language of the bill. As people increasingly use services like Skype and other internet telephony services, Twitter and Facebook to communicate, advocates fear the bill is a land grab that would give US authorities unprecedented access to private information while removing a citizen's legal protection.

The White House has called for the bill to be tightened. In a statement, national security council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said any legislation should include "robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens".

But Richardson said with wide support in the House, the bill could still pass. "The Senate has already said it is looking at this bill as it drafts its own legislation. There is a real danger it will be rushed through," she said.

"Our concern is not about what the bill is aiming to do, it's about the way it is crafted," said Rainey Reitman, activism director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital-rights organisation.

She said the EFF has three main concerns with the bill:

• First, there is a lack of any standard for the type of information that can be collected.

• Second, all the information will go to the national security agency, the US defense department's online intelligence arm. In 2010, the NSA was found guilty of conducting surveillance programmes without warrants.

• Third, there is no clarity in the bill as to what the information will be used for. "It should be used for cybersecurity purposes only, but the bill doesn't say that," Reitman said.

Rogers claims Google has been supportive of Cispa, but the search giant has not commented. He has amended the bill, most recently taking out references to theft of intellectual property. Sopa, the last bill to try and tackle such theft, was scrapped after a global revolt. He added an amendment allowing people and companies to sue the US government if it violates the terms of use for the information.

The homeland security department was also given a greater role in collecting information, although critics noted that information would still be passed to the NSA.

Richardson called the changes "cosmetic" and said the fundamental issues remained. She said: "This bill is simply too broadly defined and overturns vital protections."

The EFF, ACLU and others have been attempting to coordinate a revolt against Cispa similar to the one that overthrew Sopa, but so far the campaign has not gathered the same momentum. Rogers has said the privacy protests are "liketurbulence on the way down to landing" for the bill.

Related Articles:

Cispa approved by House but critics urge Senate to block 'horrible' bill

CISPA Is the New SOPA: Help Kill It This Week

Web inventor warns UK on surveillance plans

The online copyright war: the day the internet hit back at big media

Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google's Sergey Brin

Exclusive: Threats range from governments trying to control citizens to the rise of Facebook and Apple-style 'walled gardens'

guardian.co.uk, Ian Katz,  Sunday 15 April 2012

Sergey Brin says he and Google co-founder Larry Page would not have been
 able to create their search giant if the internet was dominated by Facebook.
Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The principles of openness and universal access that underpinned the creation of the internet three decades ago are under greater threat than ever, according to Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

In an interview with the Guardian, Brin warned that there were "very powerful forces that have lined up against the open internet on all sides and around the world. I am more worried than I have been in the past … it's scary."

He said the threat to the freedom of the internet came from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry attempting to crack down on piracy, and the rise of "restrictive" so-called walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly controlled what software could be released on their platforms.

The 38-year-old billionaire, whose family fled antisemitism in the Soviet Union, was widely regarded as having been the driving force behind Google's partial pullout from China in 2010 over concerns about censorship and cyber-attacks.

He said five years ago he did not believe China or any country could effectively restrict the internet for long but he had been proven wrong: "I thought there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle, but now it seems in certain areas the genie has been put back in the bottle."

Although he said he was most concerned by the efforts of countries such as China, Saudi Arabia and Iran to censor and restrict use of the internet, he also warned that the rise of Facebook and Apple, which have their own proprietary platforms and control access to their users, risked stifling innovation and Balkanising the web.

"There's a lot to be lost," he said. "For example all the information in apps – that data is not crawlable by web crawlers. You can't search it."

Brin's criticism of Facebook is likely to be seen as controversial with the social network approaching an estimated $100bn flotation. Google's upstart rival has seen explosive growth, with more than 800 million members worldwide and one in two of all Americans with computer access signed up.

Brin said he and co-founder Larry Page would not have been able to create Google if the internet was dominated by Facebook. "You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive. The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open. Once you get too many rules that will stifle innovation."

He also criticised Facebook for not making it easy for users to switch their data to other services. "Facebook has been sucking down Gmail contacts for many years."

Brin's comments come on the first day of a week-long Guardian investigation of the intensifying battle for control of the internet that is being played out across the globe between governments, companies, military strategists, activists and hackers.

From Hollywood's attempts to pass legislation allowing pirate websites to be shut down, to the British government's plans to monitor social media and web use, the ethos of openness championed by the pioneers of the internet and world wide web is being challenged on a number of fronts.

In China, which now has more internet users than any country in the world, the government recently introduced new "real identity" rules in a bid to tame the country's boisterous micro-blogging scene. In Russia there are powerful calls to rein in a blogosphere that was blamed for fomenting a wave of anti-Putin protests. It has been reported that Iran is planning to introduce a sealed "national internet" from this summer.

Ricken Patel, co-founder of Avaaz, the 14 million-strong online activist network which has been providing communication equipment and training to Syrian activists, echoed Brin's warning: "We've seen a massive attack on the freedom of the web. Governments are realising the power of this medium to organise people and they are trying to clamp down across the world, not just in places like China and North Korea; we're seeing bills in the United States, in Italy, all across the world."

Writing in the Guardian today, outspoken Chinese artist and activist Ai Weiwei says the Chinese government's attempts to control the internet will ultimately be doomed to failure. "In the long run they must understand it's not possible for them to control the internet unless they shut it off – and they can't live with the consequences of that."

Brin said he was not surprised by the effectiveness with which China had so far managed to create a technological barrier against the outside world. "I'm more surprised by the acceptance … I had imagined people would be more rebellious."

Amid mounting concern over the militarisation of the internet and claims (denied by Beijing) that China has mounted numerous cyber-attacks on US military and corporate targets, he said it would be hugely difficult for any government to defend its online "territory".

"If you compare the internet to the physical world, there really aren't any walls between countries. If Canada wanted to send tanks into the US there is nothing stopping them and it's the same on the internet: it's hopeless to try to control the internet."

He reserved his harshest words for the entertainment industry, which he said was "shooting itself in the foot, or maybe worse than in the foot" by lobbying for legislation to block sites offering pirate material.

He said the SOPA and PIPA bills championed by Hollywood and the music industry would have led to the US using the same technology and approach it criticised China and Iran for using. The entertainment industry failed to appreciate that people would continue to download pirated content as long as it was easier to acquire and use than legitimately obtained material, he said.

"I haven't tried it for many years but when you go on a pirate website, you choose what you like, it downloads to the device of your choice and it will just work – and then when you have to jump through all these hoops [to buy legitimate content], the walls created are disincentives for people to buy."

Brin acknowleged that some people were anxious about the amount of their data that was now in the reach of US authorities because it sits on Google's servers. He said the company was periodically forced to hand over data and sometimes prevented by legal restrictions from even notifying users that it had done so.

He said: "We push back a lot; we are able to turn down a lot of these requests. We do everything possible to protect the data. If we could wave a magic wand and not be subject to US law, that would be great. If we could be in some magical jurisdiction that everyone in the world trusted, that would be great … We're doing it as well as can be done."

Related Articles:

More info at: http://www.thrivemovement.com/

THRIVE is an unconventional documentary that lifts the veil on what's REALLY going on in our world by following the money upstream -- uncovering the global consolidation of power in nearly every aspect of our lives. Weaving together breakthroughs in science, consciousness and activism, THRIVE offers real solutions, empowering us with unprecedented and bold strategies for reclaiming our lives and our future.

The Large Families that rule the world

How Wealth Reduces Compassion

"Recalibration of Free Choice"–  Mar 3, 2012 (Kryon Channelling by Lee Caroll) - (Subjects: (Old) Souls, Midpoint on 21-12-2012, Shift of Human Consciousness, Black & White vs. Color, 1 - Spirituality (Religions) shifting, Lose a Pope “soon”, 2 - Humans will change react to drama, 3 - Civilizations/Population on Earth,  4 - Alternate energy sources (Geothermal, Tidal (Pedal wheels), Wind), 5 – Financials Institutes/concepts will change (Integrity – Ethical) , 6 - News/Media/TV to change, 7 – Big Pharmaceutical company will collapse “soon”, (Keep people sick), (Integrity – Ethical)  8 – Wars will be over on Earth, Global Unity, … etc.)  - New ! 

Anonymous joins forces with OWS against NDAA-supporting politicians

RT.com, 28 February, 2012

Photo from anonops.blogspot.com

America’s most powerful protest groups are joining forces to warn elected officials that they will be held accountable for their actions. The campaign is called Our Polls and its being launched with help from both Anonymous and the Occupy movement.

The AnonOps Communications website revealed details early Monday this week regarding the hacktivist collective’s latest campaign. Along with the nation-wide Occupy Wall Street movement, Anonymous says they are going after the politicians in America that supported legislation that both entities have largely advocated against.

“Elected officials serve one purpose — to represent their constituents, the people who voted them into office,” reads a statement posted to the website. “Last year, many of our elected officials let us down by giving in to deep-pocketed lobbyists and passing laws meant to boost corporate profits at the expense of individual liberty.”

The legislation in question include the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act. In an act of retaliation aimed at those that supported these bills, the groups have released a roster of politicians that have not only expressed favor for the laws, but that are also up for reelection this year.

“You are one person. You have one vote. Use that vote on November 6 to hold your elected official accountable for supporting bills such as NDAA, SOPA and PIPA,” reads their statement.

Although both SOPA and PIPA have been halted in Congress, the NDAA was successfully signed into law by US President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011, granting the commander-in-chief the power to authorize the military detainment of American citizens without ever bringing charges against them.

“Our Senators and Representatives showed how little they cared about personal freedoms when they voted overwhelmingly to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),” reads Monday’s statement, which also calls the act “a prominent threat to the inalienable due process rights of every US citizen as laid out in the Constitution.”

“It allows the military to engage in civilian law enforcement, and to suspend due process, habeas corpus or other constitutional guarantees when desired. Our congressmen passed one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in the history of the United States.”

Similar legislation in the vein of the failed SOPA and PIPA acts have also been drafted since their defeat, which critics fear could cause the US government to implement a veil of censorship over the World Wide Web. Although activists with both Anonymous and Occupy have openly opposed such laws in the past, the latest campaign will at last bring both bodies together to protest any other damning legislation.

According to a statement released Monday, both groups aim to make sure that any lawmaker chosen by the American people will walks away Election Day a loser if they support any such acts.

“We are calling on voters, activists and keyboard warriors under all banners to unite as a single force to unseat the elected representatives who threaten our essential freedoms and who were so quick to minimize our individual constitutional rights for a quick corporate profit,” they write.

Although both Anonymous and OWS are described as leaderless movement with no formal organization, the AnonOps Communication website and its related Twitter accounts have served as an unofficial conduit of sorts in terms of relaying information pertaining to the hacktivist collective. The site has previously announced, confirmed and commented on hacks and other campaigns credited to Anonymous.

During last week’s installment of Anonymous’ #FuckFBIFriday campaign, the group tackled the website of GEO Group, Inc., a multi-national private prison management firm operated out of Florida. In a statement that accompanied that hack, operatives aligned with the Anon collective announced another plan put together in cooperation with the Occupy movement. In that instance, both groups intend to join forces on Tuesday this week to march in cities across America to demand an end to the suppression of the OWS movement. Hacktivists with Anonymous have also previously condemned law enforcement agencies across America for violently responding to the occupier's peaceful demonstrations which began last September in New York.

Related Articles:

Anonymous bring down Interpol website in retaliation for 25 arrests

Germans protest anti-piracy treaty

Anti-piracy ACTA treaty referred to EU high court

Germans protest anti-piracy treaty

Deutsche Welle, 27 Ferbruary 2012

Protesters have hit Germany's streets again to show their oppostion to the global anti-piracy treaty, ACTA. Several European governments, including Germany, have already postponed signing the controversial agreement.

Anti-ACTA Protesters marched in dozens of cities across Germany over the weekend, with the biggest demonstration of around 2,000 people taking place in Munich.

Rallies in Hamburg, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Mannheim and Leipzig attracted more than a 1,000 people each, while numerous smaller demonstrations took place across the country.

ACTA, as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is known, aims to fight the counterfeiting of goods like fake Gucci sunglasses and copied pharmaceutical drugs. It is also designed to reduce online piracy such as the illegal downloads of music, films and software, which the industry says is costing millions in lost revenue around the world.

Critics argue the measures to combat counterfeiting outlined in ACTA could force telecommunication companies to watch over and pass on customers' online movements to the government - which, in turn, could stifle free expression on the Internet.

Internet generation

Many of those against ACTA are in their teens and early 20s, which is hardly surprising considering that the anti-ACTA demonstrations are mainly about the Internet. 

Some protesters have donned Guy
Fawkes masks

One of those protesting on Saturday was Filip (who, like all of those at the rally, preferred not to reveal his last name). A clean-cut computer science student enrolled at the prestigious Karlsruhe University of Technology, Filip had never attended a protest before in his life.

"The Internet is important enough for me to come out in the cold weather and stand around and support everyone who is here to not pass the act," he said at the protest in the south-western town of Karlsruhe, which was attended by several hundred people.

"I don't want my Internet provider to be watching every more I make," he said, his voice almost drowned out by those around him cheering and clapping in support of the protest speakers.

Fourteen-year-old high school student Michael came to the rally to defend his right to download music.

"I can't afford the music I want to listen to and music should be available to everyone," he said, adding it was unjust for Germany to consider banning people from using the Internet who were repeatedly caught illegally downloading content like music and videos.

"Society today only takes place online, and if you don't have Internet access, then you can't be part of society anymore," he said.

The Federation of German Industries (BDI) has voiced support for ACTA. "It is not a right to use someone else's property for free," said BDI legal expert, Heiko Willems. "Copyright-holders have to decide for themselves if they will make their creations freely available or available on a commercial basis."

For 23-year-old student Shushu, the issue of illegal music and film downloads needs to be tackled in a different way.

Critics say copyright laws should be
 more thoroughly revamped, rather than
tightening Internet regulations

"The content industry needs to make us an offer of how we can legally do this, by accepting a cultural flat-rate fee or setting a monthly streaming fee without having to turn people into criminals," she said.

ACTA on ice

Several countries such as the United States, Canada, Japan and South Korea have already ratified ACTA. And up until a few months ago, ACTA seemed like a done deal in Europe as well.

In December last year, the European Council representing the European heads of government unanimously agreed to pass ACTA and the agreement was signed by 22 of the 27 European member states. ACTA can't be passed into European law, however, until every one of the European Union's member states agrees to it.

The problem for ACTA is that several European countries, including Germany, Poland the Netherlands, have postponed signing the agreement after a wave of Europe-wide protests over the past month.

In addition, the European Commission last week said it would refer ACTA to Europe's highest court, the European Court of Justice, to determine whether it limited the "EU's fundamental rights and freedoms."

Back at the Karlsruhe rally, the crowd marched through the streets chanting, "ACTA, ad acta," a play on a Latin expression used in German to archive something.

"We will keep protesting until ACTA has not just been postponed but shelved for good," one of the protesters said.

Author: Kate Hairsine

Editor: Kate Bowen

Related Article:

Anti-piracy ACTA treaty referred to EU high court

Anti-piracy ACTA treaty referred to EU high court

Deutsche Welle, 22 February 2012

The European Commission said Wednesday it would present the controversial ACTA treaty on copyright and counterfeiting law to the European Court of Justice, to rule whether it violates the fundamental rights of Europeans.

The EU Commission has asked the European Court of Justice to rule on the legality of the controversial ACTA treaty which regulates counterfeiting, copyright and Internet freedom and has been fiercly opposed around Europe.

EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said the court could adjudge independently on whether the treaty was "incompatible one way or another with the fundamental rights and freedoms of the European Union."

"This debate must be based upon facts, and not upon the misinformation and rumour that has dominated social media sites and blogs in recent weeks," De Gucht told a news conference in announcing the decision.

He said the agreement "aims to raise global standards for intellectual property rights" and said ACTA "will help protect jobs currently lost because counterfeited, pirated good worth 200 billion euros ($264 billion) are currently floating around."

Critics of the ACTA treaty have argued that it restricts Internet freedom. Recent weeks have seen mass demonstrations around Europe against the treaty, which has already been agreed to at the EU level but must still be ratified by individual member states.

Germany has refused, for now, to sign the international online anti-piracy treaty. The German government had already agreed in principle, but appears to be wavering in the face of public protest. Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger has suggested that the government was not prepared to give the treaty the green light. The United States, Japan and Canada are also among signatories.

dfm/ai (AFP, Reuters)

Related Articles:

EU court: Social networks can't be piracy brakes

Facebook and Twitter do not need anti-piracy software, says court

European Court of Justice rejects web piracy filter

ACTA: more than just an illegal download ban

Acta protests: Thousands take to streets across Europe

Loosen up copyright law, says Dutch government
Internet pirates winning the war on copyright with new software "Tribler"