Enclosed is a copy of a recent EDRi (European Digital Rights) I received in my email account. We could use a body like this.
It is rather lengthy. I found it interesting to see the European point of view.
==================================================

EDRi-gram

This is a fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe by
European Digital Rights (EDRi).

EDRi-gram 14.23, 30 November 2016

Read online: https://edri.org/edri-gram/14-23/

===================================================
Contents
===================================================

1. Commission responds to Ombudsman investigation on EU Internet Forum
2. Info warfare in Serbia: The hidden hand of internet interventionism
3. The post truth of “Threat intelligence”
4. Dutch BBA 2016: Facial recognition, medical data and safe messaging
5. Free flow of data – what is it?
6. European Union Directive on counterterrorism is seriously flawed
7. Freedom not to be labelled: How to fight profiling
8. Recommended Action
9. Recommended Reading
10. Agenda
11. About

========================================
1. Commission responds to Ombudsman investigation on EU Internet Forum
========================================

April 2016, the European Ombudsman launched an investigation into the
European Commission's failure to disclose information of the “EU
Internet Forum”. The EU Internet Forum brings together US internet
companies (Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Google), government officials,
and law enforcement agencies to discuss how to reduce the accessibility
of undefined “terrorist material” (as defined by 28 different national
laws that are not even properly implemented in some countries) and badly
defined “hate speech” online.

It is certainly important to address and prosecute illegal online
activity. However, it is worrying that the Commission proposes yet again
an initiative to encourage internet companies to take “voluntary”
actions in response to a very diverse range of possibly illegal or
unwanted online activity. As shown through numerous examples around the
globe, voluntary measures by online service providers often come with
collateral damage and have a negative impact on the freedom of expression.

In 2015, EDRi requested access to documents related to the EU Internet
Forum. As a result, we only received heavily redacted documents that
revealed nothing but an apparent disregard for the fundamental rights of
European citizens. In February 2016, we filed the complaint to the
Ombudsman in which we argued that the Commission wrongly refused full
access to two documents.

According to rules on access to documents, the EU Commission can refuse
access and make use of certain exceptions, for instance, for the
protection of public security. In its response to EDRi, the EU
Commission made use of this exception and argued that by making
documents and details of the initiatives public “would allow them
[terrorist groups] to circumvent counter-terrorism measures”.

The fact that the Commission uses the term “circumvention” in the
context of reducing online accessibility of undefined “terrorist
material”, demonstrates that the restriction of communications was the
object of discussions with industry representatives The Commission
identified the circumvention as a risk to the restriction on the freedom
of communication of the initiative. This means that there is a
restriction on the freedom of expression and this, in turn, means that a
legal basis is required, as detailed to Article 52 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In a letter to the Ombudsman
of 29 November 2016, EDRi responded therefore that the EU Commission is
obliged to make at least the underlying legal basis or reasoning public.
The Commission has previously used the rather tenuous argument that, if
it or Member States persuade companies to implement measures without a
law, then this is “voluntary” and therefore the Commission and the
Member States are no longer bound by the primary law of the European Union.

Secondly, the Commission claimed that releasing the documents would
undermine public security in a foreseeable and not purely hypothetical
manner. To prove the real nature of the threat, the Commission quoted
two press articles which report on threats to CEOs of US-based IT companies.

In our response, we argued that in the absence of a confirmation by law
enforcement, press reports and claims by industry representatives in the
media are insufficient proof of the reality of the threat. Furthermore,
we found it clearly implausible to argue that revealing additional
details regarding the scope of the initiative would lead to a new threat
for the industry representatives.

The EU Internet Forum will meet again on 8 December 2016. In the absence
of transparent procedures, we will continue to communicate on potential
threats to our rights and freedoms.

Complaint ref. 292/2016/PMC – EDRi's comments on the reply by the EU
Commission (29.11.2016)
https://edri.org/files/EDRi_comments_on_ECs_reply_20161129.pdf

Ombudsman complaint procedure file
http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/correspondence.faces/en/67709/html....

EDRi's complaint
https://edri.org/files/2016-EU-Ombudsman-complaint.pdf

EDRi: EU Commission under investigation for EU Internet Forum documents
(30.05.2016)
https://edri.org/commission-under-investigation-eu-internet-forum/

Isis hackers “threaten” Facebook and Twitter founders for shutting
accounts (25.02.2016)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/isis-hackers-threaten-facebook-...

(Contribution by Kirsten Fiedler, EDRi)

===================================================
2. Info warfare in Serbia: The hidden hand of internet interventionism
===================================================

Over the past couple of years, the digital environment in Serbia has
become a new area for battle over information control. We’ve witnessed
technical attacks on online media websites, attempts at suppressing
information online, organised social media campaigns for narrative
control, as well as offline tactics such as detentions, threats and
equipment seizure. SHARE Foundation has been monitoring the state of
digital rights and freedoms in Serbia from May 2014, having seen a large
number of violations during the floods that hit the region at that time.

After more than two years of collecting and organising data, SHARE Lab
researchers, an investigative data reporting team of SHARE Foundation,
mapped and quantified the data and compiled it in a two-part story of
information warfare tactics in Serbia, influenced by the politics of
hidden “internet interventionism”. Governments are now able to use
sophisticated ways of pressuring the free flow of information on the
internet, which are often hard to detect. SHARE Lab examined some of
these methods based on local experience from Serbia, as it is possible
that they could be used by other governments around the world.

The first part of the research covers propaganda, domination and attacks
on online media, while the second part is focused on the social media
battlefield, arrests and detentions of individuals. Findings of the
research have shown that online media news in Serbia, especially those
during the campaign for parliamentary elections held in April 2016, are
short-lived with a “lifespan” of just around two hours when they are
commented on and shared, after which they are lost and replaced with new
short-lived content. The info-sphere is dominated with fabricated
comments, which are relentlessly upvoted or downvoted, depending on
whether or not they support the narrative of government officials. A
very similar method is applied on the two most popular social media
platforms in Serbia: Facebook and Twitter. Technical attacks on media
websites that publish content critical of government actions, attempts
of suppressing “undesirable” internet content, as well as targeted
attacks on individuals, such as manipulations with their online
identities, make up the rest of the matrix of domination in the Serbian
info-sphere.

On the other hand, challenges are also present in the offline arena:
journalists, activists and netizens expressing their opinions and views
online faced arrests and detention. This was most evident during the
above mentioned floods, when citizens were called in for questioning by
the police on suspicion they were “inducing panic” with their posts on
social media. There was also the problem of “selective reaction” from
the authorities; they reacted quickly in cases of threats made to
high-ranking state officials, but were not so diligent when journalists
or activists were targeted. These pressures lead to insecurity and fear,
a chilling effect on the general public, privacy violations and
discouraging public dialogue on matters of public interest.

Full research: Mapping and quantifying political information warfare
https://labs.rs/en/category/information-warfare/

Part 1 : Propaganda, domination & attacks on online media (26.10.2016)
https://labs.rs/en/mapping-and-quantifying-political-information-warfare

Part 2 : Social media batllefied, arrests & detentions (26.10.2016)
https://labs.rs/en/mapping-and-quantifying-political-information-warfare-2/

SHARE Lab
https://labs.rs/en/home/

Internet remembers everything (28.05.2014)
http://shareconference.net/en/defense/internet-remembers-everything

(Contribution by Bojan Perkov, SHARE Foundation, Serbia)

===================================================
3. The post truth of “Threat intelligence”
===================================================

In the context of identifying the root cause of security breaches or
attacks, we often see the threats emerging from weapons such as botnets,
viruses, malware, etc. However, the biggest network security threats can
also reside within a company. For the this reason, modern techniques of
network security forensics - the process of identifying the root cause
of network-based crimes - rely on threat intelligence. Threat
intelligence facilitates the implementation of a range of preventive
measures. Let's have a look into one of the many definitions of this term.

"Threat intelligence is evidence-based knowledge, including context,
mechanisms, indicators, implications and actionable advice, about an
existing or emerging menace or hazard to assets that can be used to
inform decisions regarding the subject's response to that menace or
hazard." - Gartner, definition of threat intelligence

With the increase of attacks on the internet and the supporting
infrastructure, the efforts to make these systems more secure has seen a
rapid rise. The cyber security industry is shifting from the traditional
"detect and improve" approaches towards "predict and prevent"
methodologies, as they aim to build fail-safe security solutions. The
advancements in the fields of machine learning, artificial intelligence,
data mining, and pattern matching had contributed substantially to
predict the future attacks based on the previous failures of the system
when they were attacked and compromised. Undoubtedly, these technologies
have provided new dimensions of protecting any internet companies'
assets, which the classical cryptography failed to address. Indeed, the
"predict and prevent" methodologies of securing internet businesses is a
must have weapon to survive in the constant arms race of the internet.

---------------------------------------------
Support our work - make a recurrent donation!
https://edri.org/supporters/
---------------------------------------------

With the increase of attacks on the internet and the supporting
infrastructure, the efforts to make these systems more secure has seen a
rapid rise. The cyber security industry is shifting from the traditional
"detect and improve" approaches towards "predict and prevent"
methodologies, as they aim to build fail-safe security solutions.
Advancements in the fields of machine learning, artificial intelligence,
data mining, and pattern matching had contributed substantially to
predict the future attacks based on the previous failures of systems
when they were attacked and compromised. Undoubtedly, these technologies
have provided new dimensions of protecting any companies' network
assets, which the classical cryptography failed to address. Indeed, the
"predict and prevent" methodologies of securing internet businesses is a
must-have weapon to survive in the constant arms race of the network
security.

The network security companies selling threat intelligence products rely
on many machine learning techniques to intelligently predict the future
occurrence of security breaches. The expression threat intelligence is
not only trendingin the world of internet jargon, it has also made its
way to the most frequently used word everywhere in the sales pitches of
the security industry. This fancy buzzword may attract more customers
(mainly big corporations) to adapt the threat intelligence products
within their systems. However, it raises some privacy concerns from an
end-user point of view.

Traditional threat intelligence software includes honeypots, firewall
policies, and various pattern recognition techniques. However, due to
the increased demand for addressing insider threats, modern software is
very much focused on recording and recognising anomalous human
behaviour. In simpler words, nothing but the software could monitor
people's computers (mainly desktops) and present insightful analytics in
a very sophisticated manner. Not so surprisingly, some of these
companies can be found in the Surveillance Industry Index (SII) built by
Privacy International and Transparency Kit.

A recently published exploratory analysis investigates the modus
operandi of Modern Threat Intelligence Software (MTIS) to highlight the
privacy risks associated with it. It is based on live demos, information
in brochures and websites, and individual interactions. Read the full
analysis here:
https://medium.com/@privacypies/threat-intelligence-ad15c54d1a0d#.kdqsf6f1v

Privacy International: Surveillance Industry Index (SII)
https://sii.transparencytoolkit.org

Transparency Kit
https://transparencytoolkit.org/

(Contribution by Siddharth Rao, Ford-Mozilla Open Web Fellow, EDRi)

===================================================
4. Dutch BBA 2016: Facial recognition, medical data and safe messaging
===================================================

An anonymous country singer, the watchdog-walking service and the
I-have-nothing-to-hide musical. These were just a few elements thrown in
by theatre producers and performers Oscar Kocken and Daan Windhorst.
Just add a crash course “Lying with charts”, a few tasteful awards, and
you have an awards ceremony – simultaneously funny and serious – about
privacy.

Which emotions did Hans de Zwart, Director of the Dutch EDRi member Bits
of Freedom show when he talked about a world full of cameras that
analyse faces and facial expressions? With the help of a set of websites
and promotional videos, he showed what the current state of facial
recognition technology is. Although its use is still limited, it will
definitely expand rapidly during the years to come. Yet another chapter
from Orwell’s novel “1984” is about to become reality.

---------------------------------------------
Support our work with a one-off-donation!
https://edri.org/donate/
---------------------------------------------

Of course, an award ceremony needs the awards. Edith Schippers, Dutch
Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport, received the Big Brother Award
for her bill for the expansion of health insurance companies’ ability to
obtain access to the medical files of patients in order to tackle fraud.
For the public that nominated the minister, this is one of many cases in
which the doctor-patient confidentiality is being crumbled.

The experts granted their award to the municipality of Rotterdam. Since
2006, municipalities have the legal means to refuse housing to
“unemployed newcomers” in certain neighbourhoods of the city. By now,
fifteen municipalities have consulted the police on whether they are
familiar with these people. “Citizens are being labelled as potential
risks, and they are in fact preventively punished for actions they have
not yet committed, based on criteria and data of which they are not even
aware”, said Bart de Koning, one of the experts.

The “Felipe Rodriguez Award” is the award Bits of Freedom grants for an
extraordinary contribution to enhancing privacy. This year, the award
was given to Open Whisper Systems, the developer of the encrypted
instant messaging and voice calling application Signal and the
end-to-end encryption protocol of the same name. Signal enables users to
communicate securely: only the receiver can decrypt the sender’s
message. Open Whisper System’s goal is to make mass surveillance
impossible. Therefore, they even helped competing mobile apps, such as
WhatsApp, Facebook and Google’s Allo, that now allow over a billion
people to communicate securely. During her speech, Lilia Kai, Open
Whisper Systems developer, urged the audience to remain optimistic: “We
cannot win a war against surveillance if we are losing a battle against
ourselves.”

As a part of the Big Brother Awards, the attendees could visit an
exhibition “Rendering Realities” by Leonardo Selvaggio. Entering the
exhibition, they were handed out masks to protect themselves against
facial recognition.

This article was originally published at
https://www.bof.nl/2016/11/23/recap-of-the-dutch-big-brother-awards-2016...

Video: Big Brother Awards 2016
https://media.bof.nl/media/20161114-bba-registratie-720P.m4v

Open Whisper Systems at the Dutch Big Brother Awards
https://www.bof.nl/2016/11/23/open-whisper-systems-at-the-dutch-big-brot...

(Contribution by Daphne van der Kroft, EDRi member Bits of Freedom, the
Netherlands)

===================================================
5. Free flow of data – what is it?
===================================================

The “think tank” European Centre for International Political Economy
(ECIPE) recently produced a database of “restrictions on data”. The
database lists laws which, in ECIPE’s opinion, are barriers to trade in
65 economies worldwide, including the European Union, and it was
produced apparently due to influence from “the business community”.

The database considers the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC as a
barrier to trade and a cross-border restriction on “data flows” in
particular. One of the examples of such barriers is the Google Spain
ruling. The description in the database is not entirely accurate,
describing it as a right for individuals “to seek the deletion of links
on search engines” about themselves if “the data appear to be
inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation
to the purposes for which they were processed and in the light of the
time that has elapsed”. In fact, the “right” only covers searches done
on the basis of an individual’s name and not a “deletion of links”.

---------------------------------------------
Support our work with a one-off-donation!
https://edri.org/donate/
---------------------------------------------

Similarly, the United States’ Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which
reduces incentives for internet companies to delete content is also
listed as a restriction on data. Illogically, failure to implement the
broadly similar EU e-Commerce Directive in some countries is also listed
as a barrier.

But things get even more peculiar. US internet companies in the Computer
and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) are actively campaigning
to have the right to restrict the communications of their users in a
completely arbitrary way, without fear of any liability for unjustified
restrictions on freedom of communication when they “voluntarily exceed
their legal obligations”. The CCIA has also been lobbying for such a
provision in the US and the EU and, coincidentally or not, the United
States has now been pushing for this new, arbitrary restriction to be
included in the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). TISA is currently
being negotiated between the EU, the US and a variety of other members
of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). At the same time as demanding
this right to restrict the freedom of communication of internet users,
the CCIA is also campaigning for the “free flow of data”.

Two of CCIA’s members are Google and Facebook, who can be assumed to be
supportive of CCIA positions, including on the “free flow of data”.
However, both of them have chosen to voluntarily implement the
restrictive DMCA on a global level. This leads, for example, to Google
voluntarily removing 77,1 million web addresses from its index for
copyright reasons in the period 29 October 2016 to 29 November 2016.

Meanwhile, the European Commission seems to be strongly in favour of the
“free flow of data”, as illustrated by numerous statements and speeches
by Commission Vice-President Andrus Ansip. While insisting that this
only refers to data “other than personal data”, several of the examples
referred to relate explicitly to personal data. This strong Commission
support for the free flow of data is being offered at the same time as
restricting the proposed measures on text and data mining, at the same
time as proposing that web hosting companies should implement upload
filtering technologies and at the same time as Commissioner Guenther
Oettinger is praising the big telco “5G manifesto” that attacks net
neutrality – and net neutrality is the very essence of free flow of data.

How is this possible? Humpty Dumpty has the answer:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it
means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many
different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

EDRi: New leaks confirm TiSA proposals that would undermine civil
liberties (25.11.2016)
https://edri.org/new-leaks-confirm-tisa-undermine-civil-liberties/

Joint industry letter on free flow of data (15.11.2016)
http://cdn.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Joint_Industry_Letter_...

ESF Policy Committee letter on European Commission, Data Flows & EU
Trade Policy
http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-40238.pdf

Google transparency report: Requests to remove content due to copyright
https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/?hl=en

EDRi: EU Copyright Directive – privatised censorship and filtering of
free speech (10.11.2016)
https://edri.org/eu-copyright-directive-privatised-censorship-and-filter...

EDRi: ENDitorial: Is 5G as terrible as the telecoms providers claim it
is? (27.07.2016)
https://edri.org/enditorial-5g-terrible-telecoms-providers-claim/

(Contribution by Joe McNamee, EDRi)

===================================================
6. European Union Directive on counterterrorism is seriously flawed
===================================================

European Union Member States must ensure that a new effort to
standardise counterterrorism laws does not undermine fundamental
freedoms and the rule of law, a group of international human rights
organisations said today.

Amnesty International, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR),
European Digital Rights (EDRi), the Fundamental Rights European Experts
(FREE) Group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Commission of
Jurists (ICJ) and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) are warning that
the overly broad language of the new EU Directive on Combating Terrorism
could lead to criminalising public protests and other peaceful acts, to
the suppression of the exercise of freedom of expression protected under
international law, including expression of dissenting political views
and to other unjustified limitations on human rights. The Directive’s
punitive measures also pose the risk of being disproportionately applied
and implemented in a manner that discriminates against specific ethnic
and religious communities.

The groups call on EU Member States to ensure that implementation of the
Directive in national law includes additional safeguards to guarantee
compliance with regional and international human rights obligations.
These safeguards are especially important to ensure that any new laws
passed, which will remain in place for years to come, cannot be used
abusively by any government, including any that may be tempted to
sacrifice human rights and due process in the name of pursuing security.

"A terrorism Directive put together without a proper consultation,
without any impact assessment and without meaningful public debate
creates the worst possible outcome," said Joe McNamee, Executive
Director of European Digital Rights. "It is too unclear to be
implemented in a harmonised way across the EU, too shrouded in secrecy
to have public legitimacy and too open to interpretation to prevent
wilful abuse by governments seeking to exploit its weaknesses."

The groups also noted that the legislative process for adopting this
Directive lacked transparency and opportunity for critical debate. There
was no impact assessment of the proposal, negotiations moved forward
without parliament-wide review of the text, and the proposal was rushed
through behind closed doors and without any meaningful consultation of
civil society.

Despite the inclusion of a general human rights safeguarding clause and
repeated caution from our organisations the final text fails to fully
protect human rights within the EU:
- The Directive repeats the EU’s already overly broad definition of
‘terrorism,’ which permits states to criminalise, as terrorism, public
protests or other peaceful acts that they deem ’seriously destabilise
the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures
of a country or an international organisation.’
- Significantly, the Directive requires states to criminalise a series
of preparatory acts that may have a minimal or no direct link to a
violent act of terrorism, and may never result in one being committed.
For example the offences of participating in a terrorist group,
travelling or receiving training for terrorist purposed are not
adequately defined. Unless these broadly outlined offences are subject
to careful drafting and strong safeguards in national law, they are
likely to lead to violations of rights, including the right to liberty
and freedoms of expression, association, and movement.
- The Directive criminalises the public distribution of messages,
including messages that ‘glorify’ terrorist acts, if the distribution is
intentional and causes a danger that a terrorist offence may be
committed. However, such a low threshold is likely to lead to abuse if
not limited, as the UN recommends ‘to incitement that is directly
causally responsible for increasing the actual likelihood of an attack’.
The Directive should have incorporated this language to avoid
unjustified interference with freedom of expression.

We welcome the Directive’s protection of activities of recognised
humanitarian organisations. However we remain concerned that the
protection does not expressly extend to all individuals providing
medical or other life-saving activities that international humanitarian
law (IHL) protects during times of armed conflict.

States should take the Directive as an opportunity to reassess their
counterterrorism laws, policies and practices and engage with civil
society and other stakeholders. We welcome the European Commission’s
commitment to formally include civil society organisations in their
activities to support transposition of the Directive.

Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, and the
Open Society Foundations: Joint submission on the European Commission’s
proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on Combating Terrorism and Replacing Council Framework Decision
2002/475/JHA on Combating Terrorism
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/submission-ec...

Amnesty International, International Commission of Jurists, Open Society
Foundations: After a fast-track process the European Parliament takes a
troubling position on counterterrorism in Europe (13.07.2016)
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/press-releases/after-fast-track-p...

EDRi: Terrorism Directive: Document pool
https://edri.org/terrorism-directive-document-pool/

Joint civil society statement on counterterrorism and human rights: The
EU and its Member States must respect and protect human rights and the
rule of law (01.03.2016)
http://www.enar-eu.org/IMG/pdf/2016_joint_statement_ct_and_hr_final.pdf

ENAR statement on counter-terrorism from an equality perspective:
Everyone should feel safe in Europe
http://www.enar-eu.org/IMG/pdf/enar_statement_counter-terrorism_policies...

===================================================
7. Freedom not to be labelled: How to fight profiling
===================================================

This is the fifth blogpost of our series dedicated to privacy, security
and freedoms. In the next weeks, we will explain how your freedoms are
under threat, and what you can do to fight back.

Profiling: What is it and how does it work?

Algorithms gather data from your social media activities, emails,
browsing history and so on. Now that the Internet of Things is becoming
more and more used, it adds its share to the amount of information
collected and stored. As a result of all this data available about your
personality, preferences and activities, you can be more and more easily
labelled and placed in categories.

These categories may or may not be correct. You might end up
“mislabelled” and put into a wrong category. For example, according to a
French government website, you might be in the process of being
radicalised if you change your eating habits, leave full-time education
or stop your sporting activities and stop watching TV. Of course, you
might just be a student writing your thesis.

Research has shown that for example a person's ethnic group, sexual
orientation, religion or relationship status can be surprisingly
accurately guessed from simply assessing their Facebook “likes”. These
insights are possible, even though many users avoid clicking on links
that would obviously reveal these details.

Based on this “labelling”, decisions can be taken about you: if you will
be selected for a job interview, or picked for a special security
screening at the airport. Or you could be offered either a discount or
higher prices for a service or a product.

How to claim back your freedom not to be labelled

If you believe that a profiling measure has produced legal effects or
significantly affected you (credit worthiness, reliability, conduct) you
can contact Data Protection Authorities (DPA) to exercise your rights,
such as the right to object to automatic decision-making and the right
access to the information collected about you. Unfortunately, not all
the DPAs have a user-friendly approach, and issuing a request can be
fairly complex in some countries, such as Belgium. However, in other
countries like France, the authorities offer a template-based model to
simplify the complaint system for their citizens. The new General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is due to become binding law in all
EU Member States in 2018, will strengthen and clarify both these rights
and the ability of national data protection authorities to implement them.

- Random Agent Spoofer is an add-on for Firefox browser. It hinders
browser fingerprinting – collecting information that allows to identify
you – by allowing you to automatically choose random browser profiles.
- Self-Destructing Cookies is an add-on that removes the general purpose
cookies when they are no longer used by open browser tabs. Also, it
detects and removes the tracking cookies as soon as they are spotted.
- $heriff allows you to know differential pricing in real time.

What can politicians do to safeguard your freedoms online?

The rules on online privacy in the EU (ePrivacy Directive) will be soon
updated. This law deals with privacy and confidentiality of
communications for the entire EU, and it affects tracking and other
issues related to your freedoms online. Are politicians ready to fight
for your protection?

6 times it’s more expensive to be a woman (12.04.2016)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-things-women-pay-more-for-than-men-20...

Need a Reservation? That Could Depend On How Big You Are on Twitter
(Really) (30.09.2010)
http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/marketing-las-vegas-palms-hotel-klo...

Is social profiling discrimination? (03.05.2012)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/is-social-profilin...

The dangers of high-tech profiling, using Big Data (07.08.2014)
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/06/is-big-data-spreading-in...

Do Not Track: Episode 3 - Like Mining
https://donottrack-doc.com/en/episode/3

===================================================
8. Recommended Action
===================================================

Clickclickclick!
Click the button? Check out how easy it is to track you!
https://clickclickclick.click/

===================================================
9. Recommended Reading
===================================================

Terrorism Directive: Document pool (24.11.2016)
https://edri.org/terrorism-directive-document-pool/

A disappointing TTIP human rights assessment
https://blog.ffii.org/?p=30735

Watch: Do Not Track - a personalized documentary series about privacy
and the web economy
https://donottrack-doc.com/en/intro/

New counter-terror powers coming after hasty, secret negotiations on EU
Directive completed
http://statewatch.org/news/2016/nov/eu-ct-dir-final.htm

===================================================
10. Agenda
===================================================

26.12.2016, Hamburg, Germany
33C3 – the 33rd Chaos Communication Congress
https://events.ccc.de/

24.01.2017, Brussels, Belgium
Privacy Camp 2017
https://privacycamp.eu/

====================================================
12. About
====================================================

EDRi-gram is a fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights by
European Digital Rights (EDRi), an association of civil and human rights
organisations from across Europe. EDRi takes an active interest in
developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge
and awareness through the EDRi-gram.

All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips
are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and are
visible on the EDRi website.

Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. See the full text at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Newsletter editor: Heini Jarvinen - edrigram@edri.org

Information about EDRi and its members: http://www.edri.org/

European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in
the EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider
making a private donation.
https://edri.org/donate/

- EDRi-gram subscription information
subscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request@mailman.edri.org
Subject: subscribe
You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request.
Unsubscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request@mailman.edri.org
Subject: unsubscribe

- Newsletter archive
Back issues are available at:
http://www.edri.org/newsletters/