Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:53:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:53:19 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: [BCPolitics] Re: [Is Sweden's New Anti-Internet Law Part of a Fascist Trend There?] (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:35:36 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: Pierre Lasson Subject: [BCPolitics] Re: [Is Sweden's New Anti-Internet Law Part of a Fascist Trend There?] From: Franklin Wayne Poley Thank you for the information, Pierre. I didn't know the extent to which this law had spread to other countries. It is the greatest threat to the internet, to electronic democracy I have yet encountered so I am going tp pass this information on to various lists where activists are involved from labor to current affairs lists. Electronic democracy IS the (near) future of democracy itself and this law is obviously an attempt to thwart democracy. The best excuse you could make for it is that it protects people being named on the internet from libel. But there are already libel laws so what is its real purpose? It is to thwart democracy. We must watch those responsible for this very closely. I believe this is a fascistic trend and if you can find an individual leading it I will gladly take it up with him or her BY NAME on the internet. Sincerely-FWP. On 5 Nov 1998, Pierre Lasson wrote: > > Franklin, > the Swedish law is indeed based on a EU directive: > http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/dataprot/directiv/directiv.html > > Some five countries have already implemented it. Others, like Germany and > France, have not. Mr Bangemann at the Commission has warned all member > countries that they face penalities if they disregard the directive. > This is the law of the EU. The approval of the Parliaments of the member > countries is only formal. > > As you see below, Simon Davies in the UK sees the law as a protection against > companies and organizations, while in Sweden, both activists and government > representatives > focus on the limitations on free speech. > But there can be only one law. > The Swedish law is to a great extent a translation of the EU directive. > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > EU Privacy Law Giving Business the Jitters > > > Reuters > 23-OCT-98 > > BRUSSELS, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Alistair Tempest, head of a European > group representing companies involved in direct marketing, has had to > reassure a lot of people lately that the world will not collapse on > October 25. > > That is the day a new European Union law imposing strict controls on > the way companies and public agencies use data about individuals takes > effect. Most controversially, it requires governments to block > organisations from transferring data to non-EU countries that don't offer > similar privacy protection. > > "I get constant calls from people saying it's terrible, it's > absolutely dreadful, it's Black October 25," Tempest said. "They have > desperate images of (EU officials) pulling telephone wires out. This isn't > going to happen." > > But the new measures-- which give consumers broad rights to know and > control how information about them is used-- have sent jitters through the > business world, especially multinational companies that must ship > everything from personnel files to information about consumers around the > globe. > > They fear they are about to face a multitude of EU-wide versions of a case > involving American Airlines (AA) in Sweden, which already has a tough > national privacy law. > > Swedish authorities ruled in 1995 that AA could not ship certain > personal information about its passengers, for example health > conditions, to its SABRE global computer reservations system without > their specific permission. > > AA has appealed, but has lost two lower court rulings. > > THE LAW'S PROVISIONS > > The 15-member EU adopted the data protection directive in 1995 as part of > its effort to create a single market. With some EU countries enacting > strict privacy laws of their own, it feared that the absence of common > rules would lead those with tougher measures to block the flow of data to > the others. > > The law, which applies to the public and private sectors, covers > computerised data and some paper files. It says data can be collected only > under certain conditions, for example if an individual has unambiguously > consented or the information is needed to implement a contract the person > has requested. > > "Sensitive" data, however-- such as racial origin, political opinions, > religion, health or sexual activities-- can be processed only if the > individual has explicitly agreed. > > Individuals must be informed how details of their lives are used, have > access to the data and be able to ask that it be corrected or erased. They > also have the right to prevent data from being shipped to direct > marketers. > > National authorities must be appointed to monitor the law, investigate > complaints and order changes to data processing operations. Individuals > also have the right to win compensation from an organisation that has > misused data. > > Except under specifed circumstances, data may be transferred only to > third countries that provide an "adequate" level of protection-- a > provision that has especially riled companies that do business in the > United States. > > The United States, which has no plans to enact a comprehensive privacy > law, has been trying to prove to the EU it can provide adequate protection > through industry codes of conduct. Talks between the two sides are > continuing. > > A DELAYED IMPACT > > The EU directive is not expected to have a huge immediate impact, > partly because only five EU states have implemented it so far-- > Greece, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and Britain (which, however, still > needs to adopt secondary legislation). > > Furthermore, many European companies are already used to coping with > tough national data protection laws-- in Sweden, for example, which > adopted an EU-style law in 1974. > > Dutch Data Protection Commissioner Peter Hustinx said his unit > receives about 1,000 formal complaints a year under national law, many > dealing with use of data about employees' health. > > Hustinx, who heads a working party of national data protection > officials that has been charged with helping to implement the EU > rules, said industries will be given some breathing space to adapt to the > new regime. > > "I don't expect much to happen on Monday morning," he said. "This is > an exercise for the long term and will certainly take some time to > settle." > > He said his committee is working with business sectors to develop > codes of conduct that will clear the way for them to ship data abroad. > > The International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents > the global airlines industry, for example, hopes to win EU clearance > for proposed changes to strengthen its existing "recommended practice" on > personal data, said Monique De Smet of IATA's Brussels office. > > The Federation of European Direct Marketing (FEDMA) has also submitted a > draft code of conduct to the EU. Tempest, FEDMA's director-general for > public affairs, said it hopes the text will clarify certain provisions in > the EU directive. > > For example, one measure requires companies to notify individuals when > they collect personal data from a third party. FEDMA wants to ensure that > organisations compiling mailing lists must notify only those whose names > they actually intend to use. > > "You shouldn't have to write to them to say, 'I'm just about to launch (a > magazine), your name has appeared on a list I've rented but we're not > interested in selling you this magazine," he said. > > When it comes to sending data to third countries without strict laws, > Hustinx said his committee is open to voluntary codes of conduct, as long > as they have some teeth. > > "(It must) deliver sufficient compliance mechanisms, things like > redress and compensation," he said. > > PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL READY TO POUNCE > > In contrast to the business community, privacy-rights advocates have > welcomed the EU directive with glee. > > Simon Davies, director of Privacy International in London, said the EU law > would make a noticeable difference in countries such as Britain that have > not traditionally had strict privacy controls. > > "Some information practices will have to be fundamentally altered," he > said. "The question of consent and the implications for direct marketers, > the Internet and a variety of government agencies is just huge." > > He said Privacy International will be closely monitoring > implementation of the EU law, which it sees as a global model, and > will take court action to enforce it if necessary. > > Davies said the group had targeted 25 agencies and multinational > companies, ranging from Microsoft and American Express to Coca Cola > and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. It wants them to provide > information about their internal privacy controls and the specific nature > of their data flows outside Europe. > > He said the group will also target European Internet service providers > since some Web sites require consumers to provide personal information > before allowing them to register. > > "We would argue that the ISPs are going to have to close down sites," he > said. > > > Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited.All rights reserved. > > > > > culturex@opus.vcn.bc.ca wrote: > Pierre: I am utterly shocked and dismayed by this. So far the three email > opinions I have received are all in agreement. You could spend up to two > years in jail just for naming a political adversary in a public email. In > my three decades long adult lifetime I haven't come across any > legislation as draconian: antidemocratic to the point of fascistic. > It will play havoc with all kinds of legitimate political activity on the > internet such as welfare-workfare reform, labor union activism and > partisan political contests. But I have to see its long-term objective as > staving off the advent of direct electronic democracy itself and > preventing the use of internet to hold politicians accountable. > Well, if we can't harangue the individual Swedish politicians, we'll > have to harangue the whole damned country! What are they going to do > then-declare war on Canada? > FWP. > > On 1 Nov 1998, Pierre Lasson wrote: > > > Please forward, if you think it merits attention. > > I cant post to CTRL. > > > > > > I can confirm that Malecki is right. > > A EU-directive from the 24th of October 1995 was implemented in Sweden the > > 24th of October 1998. > > This law is the law of the Union. Greece and Italy have also implemented the > > law. Portugal and the UK are close to doing so, if they haven't already. > > > > No EU country can refuse to pass the law. This is a binding EU-directive. > > Some countries are stalling. If they don't pass the law, any EU citizen can > > sue for damages, according to Prime minister Goran Persson. > > > > It is called the Data Privacy Act. The good thing with the law is that > > restrictions are placed on companies and organizations. They will have to > > apply for permission before creating registers. This is appreciated by some > > privacy groups. > > But the governments appoint the bureaucrats who are to decide about > > permissions. They will have enormous power. > > > > The law makes all mention of names without consent in email illegal in the > > entire EU. This is a law that cannot be upheld, of course, but critics can > be > > targeted and the potential threat stifles debate on usenet and on the > > mailinglists. > > Although personal use of information has a certain protection, a paper > > register with too much information on a football team, for example, may be > > illegal. It certainly is illegal if it is spread around without permission. > > The use, not the misuse, is criminalized and > > uncertainty is created. > > This law is a danger to free speech. Some of us feel as if some kind of coup > > has taken place. > > The Union shows totalitarian tendencies. > > > > Some groups have been given privileges: journalists, writers and "artists". > > We have a new aristocracy with a monopoly on free speech. > > > > The debate over here has centred on the restrictions on the individuals, not > > the organizations. In at least one other country, the restrictions on the > > individual have been played down, so as not to create an uproar. > > I recommend a visit at www.pul.nu > > There is a text in English there. > > > > > -Caveat Lector- > > > > > > To follow up on this please contact Bob Malecki directly. > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:39:33 -0800 (PST) > > > From: Franklin Wayne Poley > > > To: Bob Malecki > > > Cc: Workfare-Discuss@icomm.ca > > > Subject: Re: SV: DW: Sweden Outlaws Discussion Archives? (fwd) > > > > > > On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Bob Malecki wrote: > > > > > > > >At 16:20 31-10-98 -0800, Franklin Wayne Poley wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>What do Europeans on the list think of this new law? If you can't > > > > >>mention the villains by name at risk of two years in jail, there will > > > > >>be quite a slow down in anti-workfare activism on the net. > > > > > > > > The law which came into effect last week is already in big trouble. All > > > > political parties here in Sweden have condemned it and are claiming that > > > > it denies the right to free speech. > > > > > > > > Most people here are completely ignoring it and some have made it a > > > > principle to fight it quite publically. So the law although now in place > > > > is not being implemented and is now been sent back to be worked over. > > > > > > > Thank you for the valuable feedback, Bob. You know I almost didn't post > > > this because I thought the very idea of such legislation was so far > > > fetched, even fascist, that it must have been misinformation. I'm serious. > > > That is why I almost just went for "delete and forget about it". Plus I > > > haven't seen it elsewhere on the discussion lists. It is of staggering > > > implications for the future of direct electronic democracy which is surely > > > the future for all of the European and North American democracies. > > > Imagine-up to two years in jail in Sweden for haranguing your political > > > enemies on the internet! With the rest of the European Union considering > > > that law for adoption. FWP. > > > > > > -> Workfare-Discuss, the list for fighting workfare internationally > > > -> To subscribe, send subscribe workfare-discuss to majordomo@icomm.ca -> > > > List web site, http://www.icomm.ca/workfare/ > > > > _snip_ > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > > > > *** British Columbia-the world's first direct electronic democracy under > development http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/BCPolitics; > http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex *** > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > *** British Columbia-the world's first direct electronic democracy under development http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/BCPolitics; http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.