Pirated thoughts

Muss d'EU Parlament den SWIFT-Accord nach ënnerschreiwen?

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:56:05 +0100

Muss d'EU Parlament den SWIFT-Accord nach ënnerschreiwen?

SWIFT Agreement between US and EU

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:55:15 +0100

Ok, the agreement passed the European Council thus it is believed to be signed. But Netzpolitik.org has more information on this and disseminates the news, that the agreement wasn’t actually signed which makes up for most of the confusion.

Personally I’m trying to gather more information on the subject in cooperation with international pirate parties in order to be able to make informed decisions and we are trying to write a common press release concerning the agreement and its predecessors.

If you want to help, feel free to drop me a mail or leave a comment I will tell you where.

Video

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:22:08 +0100

Do what you want cause a pirate is free (NSFW)

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:46:41 +0100

Do what you want cause a pirate is free (NSFW)

SWIFT: Why Europe's data should NOT be send to the US

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:26:00 +0100

SWIFT: Why Europe's data should NOT be send to the US

http://www.piratenpartei.de/Pressemitteilung-091124-Internetzensur---betriebsbereite-Infrastruktur---zunehmende-Forderungen

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:12:23 +0100

http://www.piratenpartei.de/Pressemitteilung-091124-Internetzensur---betriebsbereite-Infrastruktur---zunehmende-Forderungen:

Not relevant for Luxembourg, but still quite shocking

Secrecy revealed on SWIFT agreement

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:08:00 +0100

This post is based on a press release by the pirate party Germany, I will only present the main thoughts and the interested reader may read the original in German. [1]

Apparently the EU-commission and especially the commissar for the Interior Jacques Barrot are trying to push the planned SWIFT agreement [2] through the institutions by using uncommon methods. This agreement should allow US-agencies further access to transaction data of foreign based banks. Some EU-states already voiced their concerns about the agreement, but the commission seems willing to continue the process of signing such an agreement. netzpolitik.org recently published a document [2-3] that shows how the commission tries to convince those member states to ignore their concerns and agree on the draft. It is no wonder that they are accelerating the process, because from December 1st on the parliament, with its new powers due to the Lisbon treaty, will have a right to veto such agreements.

Up to now the US have a full access to all transaction data because all data was mirrored to US-based servers. From January 1st 2010 this would change and the US is desperately trying to secure its access to data about international bank transfers. Even national transfers in Luxembourg could be concerned by such a broad access. The information includes origin of the transfer, beneficiary, account numbers, addresses and personal identification numbers (PINs).

The leaked document is meant to convince skeptics of the usefulness of the SWIFT agreement and imagines scenarios where the SWIFT-data was used to effectively solve criminal cases. But it is not shown how the data was used or could have been used and it was not analyzed if the solution of the case could have been possible without access to this data. It is also stated, that the agreement is in line with the European Parliament. Apparently this is not the case as showed in [4].

I would like that the Luxembourgish government and its commissar Viviane Reding should act as soon as possible and voice their opinion against such an agreement.

Sources:

[1] http://www.piratenpartei.de/Pressemitteilung-091125-Geheime-Tricks-bei-der-Durchsetzung-des-SWIFT-Abkommens
[2] http://www.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/SWIFT-Abkommen-2009-11-10.pdf
[3] http://www.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/COM-FAQ-Swift-2009-11-20.pdf
[4] http://www.netzpolitik.org/2009/geheimes-dokument-zeigt-die-schmutzigen-tricks-bei-den-swift-verhandlungen/
[5] http://bendrath.blogspot.com/2009/11/swift-agreement-not-in-line-with.html

Photo

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:35:24 +0100

Surveillance 2.0 in Luxembourg

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:05:18 +0100

Last week Mr. Halsdorf, Minister of the Interior, declared, that the surveillance in Luxembourg was being extended to one more zone on the “route d’Arlon” and that the surveillance system Visupol was being re-conducted for one more year. Almost every youth organization of the national parties and the pirate party reacted to this statement by issuing press releases and the member of parliament of “déi Lénk” André Hoffmann even asked Mr. Halsdorf via “question parlementaire” if there were no irregularities an unconformities with the law regarding an extension and re-conduction of the Visupol system.

I already showed you some quotes and also some YouTube clips I won’t reference anymore, they are below for the interested.

Personally I think, that we should NEVER agree on a further expansion of any sort of surveillance, those systems won’t reduce the rate of criminality but only move it to other areas. Public funded research found in the United Kingdom, that for 1000 surveillance cameras only ONE crime (mostly smaller ones) was being avoided per year. While cameras may increase the personal feeling of security, this is not true on an objective level as shown by further studies.

Luxembourg missed the opportunity to develop a clear and transparent framework to verify the success of the Visupol system by not conducting conclusive studies BEFORE the installation and we are even hiding more information as Mr. Halsdorf does not releases the study apparently conducted to allow the expansion of the surveillance zone. I think, that such a study is crucial for scholars and every citizen to allow them to make up their mind for themselves.

I clearly ask, that every expansion of Visupol should be stopped until there are conclusive and independent studies of the success and usefulness of Visupol. If such studies can not be produced by the responsible entities, then the Visupol project should be stopped as soon as possible.

"It seems to limit you; when you’re working in an office, you’re a creature in a small..."

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:34:38 +0100

“It seems to limit you; when you’re working in an office, you’re a creature in a small cell under somebody’s supervision and surveillance.”

- Jack Vance

Chef der HVA (Stasi-Auslandsaufklärung) über Videoüberwachung:...

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:04:39 +0100

Chef der HVA (Stasi-Auslandsaufklärung) über Videoüberwachung: Also das hat ja früher nicht gegeben, und das kann man auch nicht mit dem Kampf gegen den Terrorismus begründen.

Video

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:33:55 +0100

Video

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:02:48 +0100

Dr Sijbolt Noorda, (Chairman of the Association of Universities...

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:32:20 +0100

Dr Sijbolt Noorda, (Chairman of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), Paul Doop (Vice president of The Board University of Amsterdam and University of Applied Sciences Amsterdam ), Huib de Jong (Member of The Board, University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht), Martin Bossenbroek (Director, National Library of the Netherlands) and various other administrators, university professors, and university deans give their view on Open Access in a short film commissioned by SURF.

BioMed Central’s authors and editors discuss the benefits...

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:01:41 +0100

BioMed Central’s authors and editors discuss the benefits of open access publishing

Act on ACTA

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:11:07 +0100

ACTA[1] is short for Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement a treaty currently being negotiated by some countries and organizations, including the EU and the US. Apparently the US are pushing forward to achieve a consent on it by January 2010. Thus we have only little time left to act.

Leaked information on the content can be found at Wikileaks [2], at EDRI [3] and on the foundation for a free information society website. [4] If that is not enough, you can add the U.S based Knowledge Ecology International[6] to this list. That these NGO’s all use the same tone regarding to ACTA is no surprise.

None of ACTA is official; the entire negotiations have been kept secret from both the public and certain elected politicians. This practice is overly corrosive to all democracies and corrupting to global society. The process takes place without the input of the public or a wide range of other affected stakeholders such as EuroISPA [5].

The content of the treaty is shared among hundreds of corporate lobbyists like RIAA, MPAA, the pharmaceutical industries and patent lobbies. They are called cleared advisors, being allowed to have access and deliver their input - as opposed to the members of parliaments [7]! This is utterly wrong.

The involved government figures are trying to create legislation and bypass any public review, knowing that they have academic consensus against them, and that once the treaty is signed it will be extremely hard to reverse!

Other contries will then be pressured into signing the treaty, but they will not have had any part in writing or ammending it. The treaty will strongly limit civil liberties, especially regarding access to knowledge and culture. These “agreements” are remarkably obstructive to developing countries that do not yet have a developed IP industry. We risk repeating the history of powerful nations’ colonization of underdeveloped countries. This is intellectual slavery.

The supposed content of the treaty aside, the process itself in which it is created and implemented in the global political framework is to be condemned and the treaty should be stopped and abolished, regardless of the content. No democratic country should be allowed to implement legislation in such way as it is about to happen with ACTA.

The way ACTA is implemented resembles a global dictatorship of certain industry branches in complete disregard for maintainable development of society, civil liberties and proper democratic due process. The sole purpose of this treaty is to implement extreme legislation on a global scale without any public participation.

This matter does not just affect the pirate parties but all democracy-respecting organizations. A world wide united front of freedom loving citizens is needed to impede this global assault against democracy and civil liberties of each and every human being.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
[2] http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:ACTA
[3] http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number7.22/acta-mobilizing-to-stop
[4] http://action.ffii.org/acta/Analysis
[5] http://www.euroispa.org/
[6] http://keionline.org/acta
[7] http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/eu-council-may-pass-acta-silently-during-parliamentary-recess

Boyle, co-founder of Duke Law’s Center for the Study of...

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:30:58 +0100

Boyle, co-founder of Duke Law’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain, is a leader in the open access movement: he was a founding director of Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that provides licenses that let individual artists choose how to share their work freely; is a co-founder of Science Commons, which aims to expand the Creative Commons mission into the realm of scientific and technical data; and is a co-founder of ccLearn, which works to promote the development of open educational resources.

"Life’s pretty good, and why wouldn’t it be? I’m a pirate, after all."

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:11:17 +0100

“Life’s pretty good, and why wouldn’t it be? I’m a pirate, after all.”

- Johnny “Capt. Jack Sparrow” Depp

Open access now!

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:59:00 +0100

We’ve waited too long and were paying too much, there are even in Luxembourg public or semi-public institutions developing software, gathering data and more which was paid partially or completely by public funding. In this article I will give some examples of data gathered and of software developed and will provide the proof that we would all benefit from open access to these elements.

From a science point of view there is a strong research community in Luxembourg which develops strongly mostly because of public funding and the ability to use public infrastructures, these researchers are developing new applications, researching new solutions to old problems or only gathering new evidence or other data to sustain their theses. All these research results are paid for partially by the public. We as the pirate party, and I personally think that, if we pay for something it should be available to us. How can a government use public money, our money, to finance projects with no direct results for the citizens, if a researcher thinks that he doesn’t want to share his results because they might earn him money, than he will be able to find funding on the open market, but if the research will yield no financial benefit, than where is the harm to allow everyone access for only the reproduction costs?

I do think that every research being done with public funding should have as precondition to provide free access to their results and if this is not possible, to render access possible for the only cost of reproduction.

If we are speaking about software development done by public or semi-public entities, I’m wondering why they almost never release software as open source back to their “employers”, the collectivity pays for a certain piece of software, but has almost nothing to get from it. Why does a “SIGI” not releases its software under open licenses is a mystery to me, they specifically target public entities as clients, they are therefore paid by the public, they don’t “sell” their software on the open market, thus could not argue that they would loose sales (a wrong argument as shown by researchers), so that they are in a position to open up their software, this could decrease cost for the municipalities involved in SIGI and allow private companies to adapt the models developed by SIGI to their own means. SIGI is only an example, there are many more public companies able to do the same thing, but simply not doing it.

But to come back to my original open access in science topic, we have to realize, that we are paying up to 3 times for a scientific result found and consumed in Luxembourg, first we (co-)finance the original researcher, then we might (co-)finance a second researcher to evaluate the original research in a “peer-review” to finally pay for a third time the same result by having to buy the magazine where the article was published to render it accessible to students at the university or in other institutions for consultation. Unacceptable!

We need a change, the sooner, the better!

Telecom package passed the EU parliament

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:40:36 +0100

Apparently the only “pirate” currently seated in Brussels (until 1st December) is happy about the new legislation: ”To be honest, I never thought this would happen. It is not everything that we would have wanted in the best of worlds, and this is not the end of the fight for a free and open internet. But it is a much bigger step in the right direction than I would have dared to hope for.”

I want to make it clear, that the Pirate Party Luxembourg does not agree with him, as we think that instead of being happy for what did not happen with the package, he should be aiming for the best possible outcome and he should have voted against it. I personally think, that while restricting 3-strikes regulations, the telecom package still does not guarantee an internet connection for every citizen in order to voice his opinion, on the contrary it leaves the possibility to restrict the access to this important medium.

I like to compare this with the importance a television set has in Luxembourgish law. In a garnishment, you are still allowed to hold on your TV-set because it is deemed that important for your personal information, but the same legislators who agree on such rights for television owners disagree with a permanent right for access to the internet. Why are you allowed to hold on your television set if your internet connection can be cancelled in the worst case for downloading 3 songs?