Tag Archives: Tele2

Legal Blackmail: Zero Cases Brought Against Alleged Pirates in Sweden

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/legal-blackmail-zero-cases-brought-against-alleged-pirates-in-sweden-180525/

While several countries in Europe have wilted under sustained pressure from copyright trolls for more than ten years, Sweden managed to avoid their controversial attacks until fairly recently.

With Germany a decade-old pit of misery, with many hundreds of thousands of letters – by now probably millions – sent out to Internet users demanding cash, Sweden avoided the ranks of its European partners until two years ago

In September 2016 it was revealed that an organization calling itself Spridningskollen (Distribution Check) headed up by law firm Gothia Law, would begin targeting the public.

Its spokesperson described its letters as “speeding tickets” for pirates, in that they would only target the guilty. But there was a huge backlash and just a couple of months later Spridningskollen headed for the hills, without a single collection letter being sent out.

That was the calm before the storm.

In February 2017, Danish law firm Njord Law was found to be at the center of a new troll operation targeting the subscribers of several ISPs, including Telia, Tele2 and Bredbandsbolaget. Court documents revealed that thousands of IP addresses had been harvested by the law firm’s partners who were determined to link them with real-life people.

Indeed, in a single batch, Njord Law was granted permission from the court to obtain the identities of citizens behind 25,000 IP addresses, from whom it hoped to obtain cash settlements of around US$550. But it didn’t stop there.

Time and again the trolls headed back to court in an effort to reach more people although until now the true scale of their operations has been open to question. However, a new investigation carried out by SVT has revealed that the promised copyright troll invasion of Sweden is well underway with a huge level of momentum.

Data collated by the publication reveals that since 2017, the personal details behind more than 50,000 IP addresses have been handed over by Swedish Internet service providers to law firms representing copyright trolls and their partners. By the end of this year, Njord Law alone will have sent out 35,000 letters to Swede’s whose IP addresses have been flagged as allegedly infringing copyright.

Even if one is extremely conservative with the figures, the levels of cash involved are significant. Taking a settlement amount of just $300 per letter, very quickly the copyright trolls are looking at $15,000,000 in revenues. On the perimeter, assuming $550 will make a supposed lawsuit go away, we’re looking at a potential $27,500,000 in takings.

But of course, this dragnet approach doesn’t have the desired effect on all recipients.

In 2017, Njord Law said that only 60% of its letters received any kind of response, meaning that even fewer would be settling with the company. So what happens when the public ignores the threatening letters?

“Yes, we will [go to court],” said lawyer Jeppe Brogaard Clausen last year.

“We wish to resolve matters as much as possible through education and dialogue without the assistance of the court though. It is very expensive both for the rights holders and for plaintiffs if we go to court.”

But despite the tough-talking, SVT’s investigation has turned up an interesting fact. The nuclear option, of taking people to court and winning a case when they refuse to pay, has never happened.

After trawling records held by the Patent and Market Court and all those held by the District Courts dating back five years, SVT did not find a single case of a troll taking a citizen to court and winning a case. Furthermore, no law firm contacted by the publication could show that such a thing had happened.

“In Sweden, we have not yet taken someone to court, but we are planning to file for the right in 2018,” Emelie Svensson, lawyer at Njord Law, told SVT.

While a case may yet reach the courts, when it does it is guaranteed to be a cut-and-dried one. Letter recipients can often say things to damage their case, even when they’re only getting a letter due to their name being on the Internet bill. These are the people who find themselves under the most pressure to pay, whether they’re guilty or not.

“There is a risk of what is known in English as ‘legal blackmailing’,” says Mårten Schultz, professor of civil law at Stockholm University.

“With [the copyright holders’] legal and economic muscles, small citizens are scared into paying claims that they do not legally have to pay.”

It’s a position shared by Marianne Levine, Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Stockholm University.

“One can only show that an IP address appears in some context, but there is no point in the evidence. Namely, that it is the subscriber who also downloaded illegitimate material,” she told SVT.

Njord Law, on the other hand, sees things differently.

“In Sweden, we have no legal case saying that you are not responsible for your IP address,” Emelie Svensson says.

Whether Njord Law will carry through with its threats will remain to be seen but there can be little doubt that while significant numbers of people keep paying up, this practice will continue and escalate. The trolls have come too far to give up now.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Съд на ЕС: предоставяне на потребителски данни на полицията – кога?

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2018/05/16/ecj_privacy/

Известно е Заключението на Генералния адвокат по дело  C‑207/16 въз основа на преюдициално запитване, отправено от Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona (съд на провинция Тарагона, Испания).

Запитването се отнася до тълкуването на понятието „тежки престъпления“ по смисъла на практиката на Съда, установена с решение Digital Rights Ireland и решение Tele2 Sverige и Watson  – в които това понятие се използва като критерий за преценка на законосъобразността и пропорционалността на намесата в правата по членове 7 и 8 от Хартата на основните права на Европейския съюз  –  именно съответно правото на зачитане на личния и семейния живот, както и правото на защита на личните данни.

Запитване е направено в контекста на производство по жалба против съдебно решение, с което на полицейски органи е отказана възможността да им бъдат предадени   данни, притежавани от мобилни телефонни оператори, с цел идентифициране на лица за нуждите на наказателно разследване. Обжалваното решение е мотивирано по-специално със съображението, че деянията, предмет на това разследване, не съставляват тежко престъпление, в разрез с изискванията на приложимата испанска правна уредба.

Въпросите:

„1)      Може ли достатъчната тежест на престъплението като критерий, обосноваващ засягането на признатите в членове 7 и 8 от [Хартата] основни права, да се определи единствено с оглед на наказанието, което може да се наложи за разследваното престъпление, или е необходимо освен това да се установи, че с престъпното деяние се увреждат в особена степен индивидуални и/или колективни правни интереси?

2)      Евентуално, ако определянето на тежестта на престъплението с оглед единствено на наказанието, което може да се наложи, отговаря на конституционните принципи на Съюза, приложени от Съда на ЕС в решението му [Digital Rights] като критерии за строг контрол на Директивата[, обявена за невалидна с това решение], то какъв следва да е минималният праг за наказанието? Допустимо ли е по общ начин да се предвиди праг от три години лишаване от свобода?“.

Тоиз разговор е добре известен на българите от времето на прилагането на Директива 24/2006/ЕС за задържане на трафичните данни, обявена от Съда за невалидна. Тогава имаше разногласия по въпроса кое е тежко и кое е сериозно престъпление и как целта за защита на обществения интерес се съотнася с правото на защита на личния живот и личната кореспонденция. Генералният адвокат също прави препратка към Директива 24/2006/ЕС.

ГА по първия въпрос:

90.      Според мен следва да се внимава, за да не се възприеме твърде широко разбиране относно изискванията, поставени от Съда с тези две решения, за да не се препятства, или поне не прекомерно, възможността на държавите членки да дерогират установения от Директива 2002/58 режим, която им е предоставена с член 15, параграф 1 от същата, в случаите, в които разглежданите намеси в личния живот едновременно преследват законна цел и са с ограничен обхват, каквито е възможно да настъпят в случая в резултат от искането на разследващата полицейска служба. По-конкретно считам, че правото на Съюза допуска възможността за компетентните органи да имат достъп до държаните от доставчици на електронни съобщителни услуги данни за идентификация, позволяващи да се издирят предполагаемите извършители на престъпление, което не е тежко.

91.      С оглед на това препоръчвам на Съда да отговори на преформулирания преюдициален въпрос, че член 15, параграф 1 от Директива 2002/58 във връзка с членове 7 и 8 и член 52, параграф 1 от Хартата трябва да се тълкува в смисъл, че мярка, която за целите на борбата с престъпленията дава на компетентните национални органи достъп до идентификационните данни на ползвателите на телефонни номера, активирани с определен мобилен телефон през ограничен период, при обстоятелства като разглежданите в главното производство води до намеса в гарантираните от споменатата директива и Хартата основни права, която не е толкова сериозна, че да налага такъв достъп да се предоставя само в случаите, в които съответното престъпление е тежко.

ГА по втория въпрос:

96.      Според мен право да определят какво представлява „тежко престъпление“ имат по принцип компетентните органи на държавите членки. Независимо от това, благодарение на преюдициалните запитвания, с които юрисдикциите на държавите членки могат да сезират Съда, същият е натоварен да следи за спазването на всички изисквания, произтичащи от правото на Съюза, и по-специално да осигури последователно прилагане на закрилата, предоставена от разпоредбите на Хартата.

107.  Ако понятието „тежко престъпление“ по смисъла на съдебната практика, установена с решения Digital Rights и Tele2, бъде прието от Съда за самостоятелно понятие на правото на Съюза, то би трябвало да се тълкува в смисъл, че тежестта на дадено престъпление, която може да оправдае достъпа на компетентните национални органи до лични данни съгласно член 15, параграф 1 от Директива 2002/58, трябва да се измерва, като се вземат предвид не само наказанията, които е възможно да бъдат наложени, но и съвкупност от други обективни критерии за преценка като упоменатите по-горе.

121. В заключение считам, че ако Съдът постанови — в разрез с това, което препоръчвам — че за да се квалифицира престъплението като „тежко“ по смисъла на неговата практика, установена с решение Digital Rights, следва да се отчита единствено предвиденото наказание, на втория преюдициален въпрос би следвало да се отговори, че държавите членки са свободни да определят минималния размер на съответното наказание за целта, стига да спазват изискванията, произтичащи от правото на Съюза, и по-специално онези изисквания, съгласно които намесата в основните права, гарантирани с членове 7 и 8 от Хартата, трябва да остане изключение и да бъде съобразена с принципа на пропорционалност.

Да напиша и името на този Генерален адвокат – Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe от Дания. Успял да застане едновременно на най-разнообразни позиции, като един електрон.

IP Address Fail: ISP Doesn’t Have to Hand ‘Pirates’ Details to Copyright Trolls

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-fail-isp-doesnt-have-to-hand-pirates-details-to-copyright-trolls-180414/

On October 27, 2016, UK-based Copyright Management Services (CMS) filed a case against Sweden-based ISP, Tele2.

CMS, run by Patrick Achache of German-based anti-piracy outfit MaverickEye (which in turn is deeply involved with infamous copyright troll outfit Guardaley), claimed that Tele2 customers had infringed its clients’ copyrights on the movies Cell and IT by sharing them via BitTorrent.

Since Tele2 had the personal details of the customers behind those IP addresses, CMS asked the Patent and Market Court to prevent the ISP from deleting the data before it could be handed over. Once in its possession, CMS would carry out the usual process of writing to customers and demanding cash settlements to make supposed lawsuits go away.

Tele2 complained that it could not hand over the details of customers using NAT addresses since it simply doesn’t hold that information. The ISP also said it could not hand over details of customers if IP address information had previously been deleted.

Taking these objections into consideration, in November 2017 the Court approved an interim order in respect of the remaining IP addresses. But there were significant problems which led the ISP to appeal.

According to tests carried out by Tele2, many of the IP addresses in the case did not relate to Sweden or indeed Tele2. In fact, some IP addresses belonged to foreign companies or mere affiliates of the ISP.

“Tele2 thus lacks the actual ability to provide information regarding a large part of the IP addresses covered by the submission,” the Court of Appeal noted in a decision published this week.

The problem appears to lie with the way the MaverickEye monitoring system attributed monitored IP addresses to Tele2.

The Court notes that the company relied on the RIPE Database which stated that the IP addresses in question were allocated to the “geographic area of Sweden”. According to Tele2, however, that wasn’t the case and as such, it had no information to hand over.

CMS, on the other hand, maintained that according to RIPE’s records, Tele2 was indeed the controller of the IP addresses in question so must hand over the information as requested.

While the Patent and Market Court said that Tele2 didn’t object to the MaverickEye monitoring software in terms of the data it collects on file-sharers, it noted that CMS had failed to initiate an investigation in respect of the IP addresses allegedly not belonging to Tele2.

“CMS has not invoked any investigation showing how the identification of the IP addresses in question is made in this case or who at Maverickeye UG was responsible for this,” the Court writes.

“Nor did CMS use the opportunity to hear representatives of Tele2 or others with Tele2 in mind to discover if the company has access to any of the current IP addresses and, if so, which.”

Considering the above, the Court notes that Tele2’s statement, that it doesn’t have access to the data, must stand.

“In these circumstances, CMS, against Tele2’s appeal, has not shown that Tele2 holds the information requested by the disclosure order. CMS’ application for a disclosure order should therefore be rejected,” the Court concludes.

The decision cannot be appealed so Copyright Management Services won’t get its hands on the personal details of the people behind the IP addresses, at least through this process.

The decision (Swedish, pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

The Pirate Bay’s Domain Suffers “40% Traffic Drop” After Dutch Blocking

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bays-domain-suffers-40-traffic-drop-after-dutch-blocking-180302/

Over the past several years, Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN has been engaged in continuous legal action against local ISPs Ziggo and XS4All. BREIN felt they should block The Pirate Bay to reduce copyright infringement but the ISPs felt blocking was disproportionate.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and then to the EU Court of Justice for clarification. Last June, the ECJ ruled that as a platform effectively communicating copyright works to the public, The Pirate Bay can indeed be blocked by ISPs.

The case will go back to the Supreme Court which is likely to give permanent blocking the go ahead. However, BREIN wanted a blocking decision more quickly and got one last September when The Hague Court of Appeal told Ziggo and XS4All to block The Pirate Bay pending a Supreme Court decision.

With The Pirate Bay blocked by the ISPs from September last year, BREIN has been monitoring the effect of the blockade on traffic to the site. In a statement, the anti-piracy outfit suggests that blocking is doing its job.

“Monitoring by ComScore shows that the number of unique visitors to thepiratebay.org from the Netherlands has dropped by more than 40% between September 2017 and December 2017 after internet providers Ziggo and XS4ALL were ordered by the court to demand access to the site on the basis of BREIN’s claim,” BREIN writes.

Ziggo is the largest cable operator in the Netherlands and XS4All one of the longest standing, so it comes as no surprise to learn that traffic to The Pirate Bay’s main domain has been hit. However, since the site can be accessed in numerous different indirect ways, including via proxies, mirrors and VPNs, to name a few, does BREIN’s claim that “blocking works” still hold water?

According to BREIN director Tim Kuik, yes it does.

“We also are blocking many proxies and mirrors. There is a whole list of them which also changes. New ones are added and others may be deleted,” Kuik informs TF.

“The monitoring compares like with like and shows a trend that correlates with other sources. I think this trend holds true for all blocked sites.”

So, to be clear, the 40% does not represent a drop in Dutch traffic to The Pirate Bay’s site and/or content overall, it only represents traffic which goes directly to the specific thepiratebay.org domain. Anyone circumventing the blockade isn’t counted.

Of course, that’s not to say that the overall traffic numbers from the Netherlands aren’t down as well, but there are no public figures to prove that one way or another. The precise impact of proxies and mirrors is also unclear but Kuik thinks that the blockades themselves send a message.

“Bypassing a blockade requires users to take action to illegally download and it is now clear that they are committing a criminal offense and most people do not want that,” he says.

VPNs are undoubtedly an effective unblocking solution for some but Kuik doesn’t believe they represent a big threat, currently at least.

“We think VPN use is not common under the average user, that is more something for the hardcore and not all of those will use it for access to illegal sources,” he informs TF.

While BREIN is fairly relaxed about VPNs for now, the group suggests it could take action if they begin to pose a risk to the site-blocking regime they’ve fought so hard for.

“If it becomes problematic, blocking could in principle also be demanded from VPN services,” Kuik warns.

Given the 40% figure and the caveats above, it is likely that the direct traffic figure to The Pirate Bay’s domain will fall again in the months to come. Mid-January a Dutch court ruled that local Internet providers KPN, Tele2, T-Mobile, Zeelandnet and CAIW must follow Ziggo and XS4All by also blocking The Pirate Bay.

There’s no doubt that blocking has at least some effect on direct traffic to pirate sites and it’s clear that entertainment industry groups feel it’s essential as part of a bigger anti-piracy toolkit.

Thus far, however, pirates have proven to be extremely resilient so the Netherlands will probably need further action against a much broader range of sites if blocking is to have any meaningful effect.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Yet More Copyright Trolls Invade Sweden Demanding Much More Money

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/yet-more-copyright-trolls-invade-sweden-demanding-much-more-money-171221/

Back in 2016, so-called copyright-trolling landed in Sweden for the first time via an organization calling itself Spridningskollen (Distribution Check). Within months, however, it was all over, with the operation heading for the hills after much negative publicity.

February this year, another wave of trolling hit the country, with Danish law firm Njord Law targeting the subscribers of several ISPs, including Telia, Tele2 and Bredbandsbolaget. Thousands of IP addresses had been harvested by its media company partners, potentially linking to thousands of subscribers.

“We have sent out a few thousand letters, but we have been given the right to obtain information behind many more IP addresses that we are waiting to receive from the telecom operators. So there are more,” lawyer Jeppe Brogaard Clausen said in October.

But while Internet users in Sweden wait for news of how this campaign is progressing, multiple new threats are appearing on the horizon. Swedish publication Breakit reports that several additional law firms in Sweden are also getting in on the action with one, Innerstans Advokatbyrå, already sending out demands to alleged file-sharers.

“By downloading and uploading the movie without permission from the copyright holder, you have committed a copyright infringement,” its letter warns.

“However, the rightsholder wishes to propose a conciliation solution consisting of paying a flat rate of 7,000 kronor [$831] in one payment for all of the copyright infringements in question.”

The demand for 7,000 kronor is significantly more than 4,500 kronor ($535) demanded by Njord Law but Innerstans Advokatbyrå warns that this amount will only be the beginning, should an alleged pirate fail to pay up and the case goes to court.

“If this happens, the amount will not be limited to 7,000 kronor but will compensate for the damage suffered and will include compensation for investigative costs, application fees and attorney fees,” the company warns.

Breakit spoke with Alex Block at Innerstans Advokatbyrå who wouldn’t reveal how many letters had been sent out. However, he did indicate that while damages amounts will be decided by the court, a license for a shared film can cost 80,000 kronor ($12,800).

“This will last for a long time, and to a large extent,” he said.

Of course, we’ve reported on plenty of these campaigns before and their representatives all state that people will be taken to court if they don’t pay. This one is no different, with Block assuring the public that if they don’t pay, court will follow. The credibility of the campaign is at stake, he notes.

“It’s our intention [to go to court], even if we prefer to avoid it. We must make reality of our requirements, otherwise it will not work,” he says.

Breakit says it has seen a copy of one letter from the lawfirm, which reveals a collaboration between US film company Mile High Distribution Inc. and Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Ltd.

Mircom is extremely well known in trolling circles having conducted campaigns in several areas of the EU. German outfit Media Protector is also involved, having tracked the IP addresses of the alleged pirates. This company also has years of experience working with copyright trolls.

With several other law firms apparently getting in on the action, Swedish authorities need to ensure that the country doesn’t become another Germany where trolls have run rampant for a number of years, causing misery for thousands.

While that help may not necessarily be forthcoming, it’s perhaps a little surprising that given Sweden’s proud and recent history of piracy activism, there appear to be very few signs of a visible and organized pushback from the masses. That will certainly please the trolls, who tend to thrive when unchallenged.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Copyright Trolls Hit Thousands of Swedish ‘Pirates’ With $550 ‘Fines’

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-trolls-hit-thousands-of-swedish-pirates-with-550-fines-171023/

In 2016, mass ‘copyright-trolling’ hit Sweden for the first time. An organization calling itself Spridningskollen (Distribution Check) claimed its new initiative would save the entertainment industries and educate the masses.

Following a huge backlash, however, the operation shut up shop and retreated, tail between its legs. But for those who expected the trolls to disappear altogether, bad news was just around the corner.

In February 2017, Danish law firm Njord Law was found to be at the helm of a new troll operation targeting the subscribers of several ISPs, including Telia, Tele2 and Bredbandsbolaget. Some 42-pages of court documents revealed that thousands of IP addresses had been harvested, potentially linking to thousands of subscribers.

After receiving permission from the courts to obtain the personal details of alleged pirates, things went a little quiet. However, according to local news outlet IDG, the floodgates have now been opened, with several thousand ISP subscribers receiving cash demands from Njord Law in recent weeks.

“We have sent out a few thousand letters, but we have been given the right to obtain information behind many more IP addresses that we are waiting to receive from the telecom operators. So there are more, ” lawyer Jeppe Brogaard Clausen told the publication.

Indeed, an indication of the scale of the operation can be found in the order obtained to target customers of ISP Telia. In that batch alone the court granted permission for Njord Law to obtain the identities behind 25,000 IP addresses.

Earlier this year, Clausen said that after identifying the subscribers he wanted to “enter into non-aggressive dialogue” with them. As we predicted, this apparently friendly introduction would simply lead to inevitable demands for cash.

“Have you, or other people with access to the aforementioned IP address, such as children living at home, viewed or tried to watch [a pirate movie] at the specified time?” Njord Law now writes in its letters to alleged pirates.

“If so, the case can be terminated by paying 4,500 SEK [$550].”

According to IDG, lots of movies are involved, both from local and international distributors. Earlier this year, CELL, IT, London Has Fallen, Mechanic: Resurrection, Criminal and September of Shiraz were named as possible titles.

The inclusion of these titles come as no surprise since several have turned up in similar trolling cases all over Europe and the United States. In common with schemes elsewhere, BitTorrent tracking was carried out by MaverickEye, a German-based company that is part of the notorious Guardaley trolling operation.

Like most ‘trolling’ cases, figures on how many people are paying up in Sweden are hard to come by. Clausen won’t say how many have parted with cash, but the lawyer says that 60% of the letters have elicited some kind of response. In previous similar projects in the UK, around a fifth of targets paid some sort of settlement, with no contested cases reaching the courts.

Njord Law insists, however, that those who don’t pay in Sweden may have to face the legal system.

“Yes, we will [go to court],” says Clausen. “We wish to resolve matters as much as possible through education and dialogue without the assistance of the court though. It is very expensive both for the rights holders and for plaintiffs if we go to court.”

While it’s impossible to predict how these cases will go, the usual tactic is to attack the low-hanging fruit first. People who admit some form of guilt can expect the most pressure while those who deny the allegations flat out (subscribers aren’t necessarily infringers) are likely to be placed in a file to be dealt with last, if at all.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Съд на ЕС: запазване на трафични данни и данни за местонахождение

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/tele2-sverige-ab/

Стана известно решение по съединени дела C‑203/15 и C‑698/15    с предмет преюдициални запитвания, отправени на основание член 267 ДФЕС от Kammarrätten i Stockholm (Административен апелативен съд Стокхолм, Швеция) и от Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (Апелативен съд (Англия и Уелс) (гражданско отделение, Обединено кралство) с в рамките на производства Tele2 Sverige AB  срещу Post- och telestyrelsen и Secretary of State for the Home Department  срещу Tom Watson и др.

Преюдициалните запитвания се отнасят до тълкуването на член 15, параграф 1 от Директива 2002/58/ЕО (Директива за правото на неприкосновеност на личния живот и електронни комуникации), изменена с Директива 2009/136/ЕО  във връзка с членове 7 и 8 и член 52, параграф 1 от Хартата на основните права на Европейския съюз.

 Запитванията са отправени по два спора, първият от които е между Tele2 Sverige AB и  Комитет по пощи и далекосъобщения на Швеция,  PTS и се отнася до разпореждане на последния за запазване от Tele2 Sverige на данните за трафика и на данните за местонахождението на абонатите му и регистрираните ползватели.  Вторият спор е   между граждани и МВР на Обединено кралство  относно съвместимостта с правото на Съюза на член 1 от Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (Закон от 2014 г. относно запазването на данните и правомощията по разследване,   „DRIPA“).

Преюдициални въпроси:

„1)      Съвместимо ли е общо задължение за запазване на данни — което се отнася до всички лица, всички електронни съобщителни средства и всички данни за трафик без никакво разграничаване, ограничаване или изключение за целите на борбата с престъпността […] — с член 15, параграф 1 от Директива 2002/58 с оглед на членове 7 и 8 и член 52, параграф 1 от Хартата?

2)      При отрицателен отговор на първия въпрос, може ли все пак такова задължение за запазване да бъде разрешено, при условие че:

а)      достъпът на националните органи до запазените данни е установен съгласно уточнения в точки 19—36 [от акта за преюдициално запитване] начин и

б)      изискванията за защита и сигурност на данните са уредени съгласно уточнения в точки 38—43 [от акта за преюдициално запитване] начин, и

в)      всички релевантни данни се запазват за срок от шест месеца, считано от датата на прекратяване на съобщението, и впоследствие се изтриват съгласно изложеното в точка 37 [от акта за преюдициално запитване]?“.

и по второто дело:

1)      Установява ли решение Digital Rights (и конкретно точки 60—62) императивни изисквания на правото на Съюза, приложими по отношение на националния режим на държава членка относно достъпа до запазени в съответствие с националното законодателство данни, за да бъде този режим в съответствие с членове 7 и 8 от Хартата?

2)      Разширява ли решение Digital Rights обхвата на членове 7 и/или 8 от Хартата отвъд границите на приложение на член 8 от ЕКПЧ, определени в практиката на Европейския съд по правата на човека?“.

Съдът посочва, че

при публични комуникационни мрежи  трябва да се изготвят специфични законови, подзаконови и технически разпоредби, за да се защитят основните права и свободи на физическите лица и легитимните интереси на юридическите лица, по-специално по отношение на увеличаващата се способност за автоматизирано съхранение и обработка на данни за абонати и потребители (7). Трябва да се вземат мерки, за да се предотврати неоторизираният достъп до съобщения, за да се защити конфиденциалният характер на комуникациите, включително както на съдържанията, така и на всякакви данни, свързани с такива съобщения, посредством публични комуникационни мрежи и налични електронни комуникационни услуги. Националното законодателство в някои държави членки забранява само преднамерения неразрешен достъп до съобщения.(21)

Вярно е наистина, че член 15, параграф 1 от Директива 2002/58 допуска държавите  да въвеждат изключения от принципното задължение  за гарантиране на поверителността на личните данни. Но изключенията се тълкуват стриктно – защото иначе дерогирането  на това задължение може  да се превърне в правило, като изпразни до голяма степен от смисъл принципа (89). Изключенията  трябва да бъдат  строго  пропорционални на предвидената цел.

Националната правна уредба като разглежданата по дело C‑203/15   предвижда общо и неизбирателно запазване на всички данни за трафик и данни за местонахождение на всички абонати и регистрирани ползватели на всички електронни съобщителни средства и   задължава доставчиците на електронни съобщителни услуги систематично и непрекъснато да запазват тези данни без каквото и да било изключение.

Дори ефективността на борбата с тежката, и особено с организираната престъпност и тероризма, да може до голяма степен да зависи от използването на модерни техники на разследване, сама по себе си подобна цел от общ интерес не би могла по никакъв начин да обоснове приемането като необходима за целите на тази борба на национална правна уредба, предвиждаща общо и неизбирателно запазване на всички данни за трафик и данни за местонахождение.

 Изводите –

1)      Член 15, параграф 1 от Директива 2002/58/ЕО (Директива за правото на неприкосновеност на личния живот и електронни комуникации), изменена с Директива 2009/136/ЕО  във връзка с членове 7, 8 и 11 и член 52, параграф 1 от Хартата на основните права на Европейския съюз трябва да се тълкува в смисъл, че не допуска национална правна уредба, която за целите на борбата с престъпността предвижда общо и неизбирателно запазване на всички данни за трафик и данни за местонахождение на всички абонати и регистрирани ползватели на всички електронни съобщителни средства.

2)      Член 15, параграф 1 от Директива 2002/58, изменена с Директива 2009/136, във връзка с членове 7, 8 и 11 и член 52, параграф 1 от Хартата на основните права трябва да се тълкува в смисъл, че не допуска национална правна уредба, която регламентира защитата и сигурността на данни за трафик и на данни за местонахождение, и по-специално достъпа на компетентни национални органи до запазените данни, като в рамките на борбата с престъпността не ограничава този достъп само до целите за борба с тежката престъпност, не го подчинява на предварителен контрол от юрисдикция или от независима административна структура и не изисква разглежданите данни да се запазват на територията на Съюза.

Съдът не се произнася по въпроси, сравняващи нивото на защита с предоставената по ЕКПЧ, тъй като “макар признатите от ЕКПЧ основни права да са част от правото на Съюза като общи принципи, както потвърждава член 6, параграф 3 ДЕС, все пак, докато Съюзът не се присъедини към тази конвенция, тя не представлява юридически акт, формално интегриран в правния ред на Съюза“.

Filed under: Digital, EU Law, Media Law Tagged: съд на ес

Using Pi to experience another’s reality

Post Syndicated from Alex Bate original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/using-pi-experience-anothers-reality/

Have you ever fancied being part of a real-life version of Being John Malkovich, without the danger of becoming trapped in a portal into the mind of an actor? This project helps you experience just that.

European telecoms operator Tele2 recently relaunched their phone and internet service with a particularly hefty data plan offering 100GB that customers can use across nine different devices, and they asked creative agency Your Majesty to market the new offering. The agency had a novel take on the brief:

In Sweden, a lot of discussion around connectivity tends to be negative, especially when it comes to controlling our exposure to media that can alter our outlook on our surroundings and the world. What if we made a campaign to show limitless connectivity in a way that changes our perspective?

Striving to alter that negative viewpoint, they didn’t focus on anything as simple as nine devices all working at once, but rather went in a very different direction.

Tele2: Settle For More – Case Film

Tele2 is a Swedish telecom company that provides phone and Internet services. They are re-launching in a big way to become the best data provider in the country and asked us to create a campaign to showcase a killer offer.

The final outcome was an immersive online experience, allowing viewers the chance to ‘step inside the minds’ of nine Swedish celebrities, including actor Joel Kinnaman and our favourite Queen of – ahem! – shoddy robots, Simone Giertz.

Users of the Pi-powered device

A custom backpack housed a 3D-printed rig to support a Raspberry Pi 3 for collection of sensor data, and a colour-grading box for footage recorded by a GoPro-equipped helmet.

Image of components

“Wait: did she just say ‘collection of sensor data’?” Yes. Yes, I did. Along with the video and audio streams from the on-board GoPro and microphone, the system collected data on heart rate, emotional state, and even sweat. Delicious.

screenshots from the device

The brain sensor data collected from the EEG then controls the colour of the footage as it’s relayed back to the audience: green for calm, yellow for happy, red for angry, and blue for sad. We can confirm that Simone’s screen turned a deep shade of purple on more than one occasion, and her heart rate actually shot up when she thought she had burned out some servos.

Videos from the various participants can be viewed at the Tele2 YouTube channel, including Joel, Simone, entrepreneur Cristina Stenbeck, and altitude instructor Anna Lundh.

Working with marketing agency Edelman Deportivo and digital studio Wolfmother Co., Your Majesty documented the impact of the campaign on Bēhance, so check it out.

The post Using Pi to experience another’s reality appeared first on Raspberry Pi.