Veni | Вени

Bulgaria is a member of the European Union for more than three years, but it still behaves sometimes as if it does not belong there.

Here’s a recent, and most troubled example:

On July 29 one of the leaders of the ruling parties and a member of the Bulgarian Parliament, Mr. Volen Siderov, of the right wing “Ataka”, called in the Bulgarian National Radio (BNR, more or less the equivalent of the US Public National Radio), and created a huge fuss about the interview that took place on July 28 with the son of his wife, and a member of the European Parliament, Dimitar Stoyanov (who became notorious while an observer to the EU Parliament in 2006 with this insult towards a roma MEP).
The whole interview with Mr. Siderov is here (in Bulgarian), or via Google Translate here (in English).

Radio anchor, Diana Yankulova, who is well know for her professionalism and high standards of journalist ethics, apparently was shocked by the words of the Bulgarian politician, who finished his tirade with the words, “in conclusion, I want to say, that the Bulgarian National Radio will be an objective media, when it gets rid of the people of BSP and DPS” (BSP stands for Bulgarian Socialist Party, DPS – Movement for Rights and Freedom; two of the ruling parties in the previous government, and currently in opposition in the Parliament).

The case obviously will have further development, as today the Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borissov said that Ms. Yankulova is a political appointee of BSP in the National Radio. Mr. Borissov words are here (in Bulgarian), and here (in English, Google Translate)
The Prime Minister has said that indeed, there is a political appointment in the National Radio. He said, “There is tendentious behavior. I have been subject of such activities of other journalists, and I know how emotionally a man can take these things, especially when you know who they are working for” (allegedly, for the BSP)

BSP asked today the Parliament to vote on a declaration in defense of journalists. Mr. Siderov countered that Ms. Yankulova has been head of the press center of the Interior Ministry during the last two years of the previous cabinet, which influences her behavior today (note by Veni: head of press centers in the Bulgarian ministries often are journalists, who are familiar with the topics, and are respected in their profession; they are not necessarily political appointees). The declaration was not accepted by the Parliament.

The Bulgarian PM has always refused speculations, allusions, or any facts there is pressure upon journalists from the new government. Nevertheless, when a journalist from the New Television (a national TV channel) has found some sensitive information about a MP, Mr. Latchezar Ivanov, from the ruling party, and personal doctor to Mr. Borissov, she called in advance the PM to ask what she should do with the information. Only after Mr. Borissov let her use it, she made a story, which led to the resignation of Mr. Ivanov from deputy-chairman of the Parliament. Observers of the western media commented that going to the PM and political leader, and asking him what to do with such a story, is completely inappropriate.

I am writing about this case in English, because I don’t believe there’s enough energy, spirit, and independent media in Bulgaria, which will be able to cover the facts.

This latest pressure on the free media comes after a number of worrisome cases, involving journalists in the last years. Most recently Ivo Indzhev’s life was threatened, two years ago a journalist was beaten to a coma, however the case was closed by the prosecution.

The issue with Ms. Yankulova is most probably because she let people in the studio challenge a police operation in Kardjali, south Bulgaria, few days earlier. In the middle of the night, police raided a private house, and beat a family, including a young woman, who had skull injuries. The action of the police was justified by the minister, as normal, and that the injuries occurred, because the “police entered into the apartment’s bedroom somewhat hastily”. You can read more on that story at novinite.com, where the article ends with these words:

“At the end, as many times before, the public will never learn the truth and the case will be soon forgotten. Bad police work and the never ending attempts in Bulgaria to use everything and everyone for political gains make this just the latest hearsay saga – the words of the police officers against those of the family.
At least Bulgarians now know they must open doors inside their houses very cautiously at nighttime, otherwise they might get hit on the face.”

I think that, given the strong reaction against an independent journalist from the National Radio, by the ruling parties, the Bulgarian journalists already know they must not criticize the police, or for that matter, anyone from the ministers.

The question is what would the international human rights organizations do? The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee already reacted, but the voice of the European institutions is more important in Bulgaria, sigh.

As for the siege – this is not news. Every government in the last 20 years has come to power at the promise of keeping the media free and independent, and every government has stepped down not being able to fulfill its promise.

Всеки път, когато погледна какво се случва у нас, ми се иска да напиша нещо и много често се спирам самичък, но понякога не издържам :-)

Няколко примера от последните седмици:

Веселин Топалов загуби мача за световната титла, а вестниците публикуваха големи статии, в които прославят неговите качества.
Димитър Бербатов се отказа от участие в националния отбор по футбол, а вестниците публикуваха сума ти негативни материали по негов адрес (вижте например в “24 часа”).

Защо? Дали защото Бербатов си “позволи” (сякаш е трябвало да иска разрешение от пишещите братя и сестри?) да каже неща, които не се харесаха на някои от спортните журналисти и те си го връщат? Или защото Веселин Топалов се занимава с игра, която – за разлика от футбола – малцина разбират? Защото не е тайна, че всеки у нас си мисли, че може да бъде треньор, ако не националния, то поне на “Левски” или “ЦСКА”, докато освен Силвио Данаилов, не съм чул някой друг да си мисли, че има качества за ръководител на шахмата в страната. Вие решавайте.

Другото, което ми направи впечатление е конкурса за песен на “Евровизия“. Конкурсът е съвсем скоро, гласуването сигурно пак ще е противоречиво, както беше през последните години. Дали Миро ще се класира на финала или не зависи от европейците, а не от българите.

Но се загледах в представителите на Сърбия – бяха трима на техния вътрешен финал, от който сърбите с гласуване избраха 22-годишния Милан Станкович. Установих, че и на тримата песните са написани от Горан Брегович – на Милан Станкович, Емина Яхович и Оливър Катич.
Ние си нямаме композитор и изпълнител от ранга на Горан (6 милиона продадени диска, рок звезда, крал на етното, гениален “плагиатор и автоплагиатор” (по Жоро Неделчев), който да е изнесъл хиляди концерти по целия свят), но дори и тези, които имаме… Някак си не ми се вижда много реалистично да тръгнат да помогнат на нашите талантливи изпълнители по този начин. И затова на конкурсите отиват изпълнители, които сами са си написали и музиката, и текста.

Впрочем, Милан Станкович и Горан междувременно правят още нещо – песента на Сърбия е набързо преработена, за да звучи и на испански; можете да я видите като “Балканерос” (на испански, със субтитри).

Не мисля, че Сърбия има шанс да спечели отново наградата, но никога не се знае как ще гласуват европейците, особено тези, които не се намират в Сърбия; Горан е известен композитор, но точно това може да му изиграе лоша шега, защото на Балканите да си известен е минус, а не плюс.

Но мисля, че ние, българите, можем да извлечем една поука – хубаво е да имаш добри изпълнители и композитори, творци на изкуството, както се казва, но още по-добре е, ако те обръщат внимание на младите и талантливите, и им помагат. Защото, както е известно, трябва да се помага именно на талантливите; посредствените са злобни и мотивирани да успеят за сметка на по-добрите.

Като го пиша това, се замислям – дали пък това не се отнася за целия ни живот, а не само за изкуството?

В скобки: Вижте как двама от “динозаврите” на рок-музиката успяват не просто да направят кавър версия на клипа на Пол Саймън и Чеви Чейс, но и да се веселят. Горан Брегович и Здравко Чолич в песента “Маниаци”. Ако някой може да посочи български изпълнители / група, които да продължават да творят, пеят и свирят с усмивка, моля да ги посочи в коментарите по-долу.

Утре България (най-накрая) ще почете официално паметта на загиналите в катастрофата край Смоленск полски държавни лица, между които и президентът на Полша Лех Качински.

Вероятно всеки има приятели или познати в Полша, а още по-вероятно всеки е чел някоя книга* от някой от големите полски автори. Или пък е гледал някой от филмите на Кешловски, Зануси, Вайда или друг от поредицата големи полски режисьори… Някои може би си спомнят за Полша като първата социалистическа страна, в която се проведоха свободни избори, в резултат на които комунистическата партия загуби властта – още преди падането на Берлинската стена.
Тъжно е не само, че една демократична страна е загубила своя президент, а защото това е страна, която е близка и добре позната на България.

През седмицата имаше хубави думи от хора, които са работили или живели в Полша, имаше и обичайните спекулации за причините, довели до авио-катастрофата. Между нас казано – в деня преди официалния траур – на мен ми е все едно дали самолетът се е разбил заради пилотска или техническа грешка.

Скърбя с моите полски приятели и всички хора, които отдават почит на паметта на загиналите и си спомням с тъга за моя баща, който също загина в (автомобилна) катастрофа преди 35 години, почти по същото време.

Поклон!

______
* От училищните години съм запомнил книгата на Едмунд Нижурски “Способ за Алкивиад”, в отличния превод на Лилия Рачева. Ако я намерите, прочетете я. А ако можете, гледайте филма “Катин” на Вайда – разказ за избиването на полските офицери от НКВД през 1940 г. край Смоленск; полската делегация в разбилия се “Ту – 154М” отиваше на поклонение на мястото на масовото убийство.

The European Commission has published its most important document. Europe 2020.

However, after a lot of noise, and with minimum participation from European citizens (less than 500 responses, mainly from Spain, Poland, Germany, France and UK)*, the Barroso strategy Europe 2020 seems to let down the Internet users and businesses.

There is a whole section, Flagship Initiative: “A Digital Agenda for Europe” (more on it here), which seems as if written by the hands of the lobbyists, who one can meet in Brussels every minute. All the fields, where the EC says what it will do are cliches from the 20th Century textbooks. Certainly, the EC is capable of more, but why it has not delivered in this document is unknown.
The aim of the Digital Agenda is, “to deliver sustainable economic and social benefits from a Digital Single Market“. Could this really be the aim? Are not these the tools for achieving the aim? The aim can be building competitive Internet services, which should be delivered worldwide, and not only, as the “Strategy” suggest, in the European Union. These services will be provided by EU companies, which will create new jobs, create the first wave of EU IT-billionaires, bring the EU to the level of the USA. Or at least, try to do it.
The aim could (or should?) be to ensure the creation of European Amazon, European Goolge, European eBay – companies not copying these, but as big as they are. The European Union can certainly do better than just point towards high-speed Internet. The fast and ultra fast Internet is not an issue for Bulgaria (with majority of the people living in big cities having 100 Mpbs, and some even 1 Gbps connections at their homes. If Bulgaria can do it, even before joining the EU, what prevents the EU from doing it? Perhaps the fact that there is not enough entrepreneurship in the EU?

Most importantly – the whole strategy lacks even a single word about ensuring the security of the European Union cyberspace.

One can not but think that this lack of understanding of the importance of the cooperation in that area, is a symbol of the fact that the EU is, in some ways, living in the 19th century. In times, when EU citizens suffer from computer malware, hackers, cyber criminals, or just computer viruses, the European Commission is looking towards a “regulatory framework with clear rights regimes, the fostering of multi-territorial licenses, adequate protection and remuneration for rights holders“. So, instead of looking that there is hardly any content of interest for the people even in the EU itself, the Commission is already defending the interests of the big lobbyists.

The lack of vision for the EU and the EC in the field of cybersecurity is clear; the question is how to help EU Commissioner Kroes to engage more into that area. She responded in the hearings at the EU Parliament in January, among other things,

“Ivailo Kalfin (S&D, BG) elaborated on some other MEPs’ questions about the regulation of cyberspace and asked if she intends to create an office of EU cyberspace regulator, working with national counterparts in the Member States. Ms Kroes said she was aware of the scope of cybercrime, which was not limited by borders, and that she wanted Europe to become the safest place for internet consumers, but she was not keen on the idea of an EU cyberspace regulator and preferred more cooperation and a stronger role for ENISA, the European Network and Information Security Agency.”

If Mrs. Kroes indeed wants Europe to “become the safest place for Internet consumers”, the way to do it is not via ENISA, which states on its site, “Together with the EU-institutions and the Member States, ENISA seeks to develop a culture of Network and Information Security for the benefit of citizens, consumers, business and public sector organisations in the European Union.”

If the European Commission wants to have modern, secure, useful Internet for its citizens by 2020, it should do much more, than what’s written in the Europe 2020 agenda.

_____
* – I personally feel guilty for not participating, but I simply… didn’t know there’s such a discussion! Apparently, the EC needed to make this discussion better known. Veni.

German Working Group on Data Retention (AK Vorrat) has published the following press release (and accompanying information).
I copy it here, because the German Court decision is an important example of brilliant jurisprudence, and a great example what people can do together (there were 30 thousand people, who signed the motion to the Court!)!
The document below was originally sent by Patrick from Daten-Speicherung.de

“The Court’s summary of the ruling is as follows (roughly translated):

1. The preventive retention of communications data by private service providers on a permanent basis for a period of six months, as provided for by directive 2006/24/EC, is not as such incompatible with Article 10 of the German constitution [privacy of correspondence, see http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#10]; it is therefore irrelevant whether the directive has priority or not.

2. The principle or proportionality requires the legal enactment of such data retention to take into account the exceptional intensity of the interference with human rights that results of such a measure. Sophisticated and clear-worded rules with regard to data safety, data use, transparency and legal remedy are required.

3. [not internationally relevant]

4. With regard to data safety, legislation is required that provides for a high standard of safety in a clear-worded and compulsory way. It must in principle be legally ensured that this standard has regard to the technical state of art, is continuously adapted to new findings and is not fully made subject to a balancing against general financial aspects.

5. Access to and the direct use of the data is proportionate only if serving the protection of interests of preeminent importance. In the area of prosecuting crime a suspicion of a grave crime, based on specific facts, is required. Access for preventive and intelligence purposes may be allowed only on condition of an indication for a specific danger to the body, life or freedom of a person, to the existence or security of a state or of a common danger.

6. These requirements do not apply to the indirect use of the data by telecommunications operators where complying to official requests for the identification of the user of an IP address. The prosecution of administrative offenses will justify such use only in legally defined cases of exceptional importance.”

The Court ruling goes on to say that the German implementation of data retention did not satisfy the conditions set out. The provisions on data retention in German law were therefore ruled unconstitutional and invalid. This means that as of yesterday, no data must or may be retained under data retention rules in Germany (telcos mostly retain data for up to a week for “data safety” purposes however; this will continue even after yesterday’s ruling until the courts will have decided on that matter).

The conservatives in the government coalition are pushing for re-enacting data retention as soon as possible, meeting the conditions set out by the Court. The liberals in the government coalition say they are not in a hurry and want to see what will come of the revision of the data retention directive first. As the minister of justice, who is competent for drafting such a law, is a liberal, it is likely that we will be able to prevent a quick re-enactment of data retention in Germany. However it is crucial that the EU data retention requirement is revoked soon. I hope we will soon have the Commission’s reply on the formalities of a citizen’s initiative to that effect.

—

Press release by the German Working Group on Data Retention (AK Vorrat), 2 March 2010:

After data retention ruling: Civil liberties activists call for political end to retention of telecommunications data

+++ Data retention opposed by 70% of German population +++ European Citizens’ Initiative for repealing the EU directive on data retention announced +++ Legal action to be continued +++

The German Working Group on Data Retention has today announced a Europe-wide campaign to end Internet and telephone data retention. This follows the German Constitutional Court’s ruling on a mass complaint made by more than 34,000 citizens. According to a newly-published poll, 69.3% of all Germans oppose data retention, making it the most strongly rejected surveillance law.[1]

“The recording of confidential contacts and movements of the entire population in the absence of any suspicion is unacceptable and must stop immediately”, says Florian Altherr of the Working Group. “In starting an initiative to this end, the Federal Minister of Justice can count on the support of EU Commissioner Viviane Reding as well as of many states such as Austria, Belgium and Romania, all of which do not have data retention laws in place.”

“In order to bring the massive rejection of blanket data retention home to politicians we are in the process of preparing a European Citizens’ Initiative. With the signatures of one million opponents to the permanent logging of our Internet and phone use we want to persuade the EU to repeal its data retention directive”, announces data protection activist padeluun of the Working Group.

Patrick Breyer of the Group adds: “At the same time we will continue our legal fight against data retention. Today’s decision proclaiming the recording of the entire population’s behaviour in the absence of any suspicion compatible with our fundamental rights is unacceptable and opens the gates to a surveillance state.”

The German Working Group on Data Retention is making five political demands after today’s ruling:
1. The Federal Government, the Federal Minister of Justice and Parliaments must now cooperate with other like-minded states and bodies to take steps to repeal the redundant and detrimental data retention directive.
2. The German law on data retention, going far even beyond EU requirements and – according to the German Constitutional Court – unconstitutional, must not be re-enacted.
3. European citizens should be given the right to file constitutional complaints directly with the European Court of Justice.
4. The Federal Government must not agree to any further collection of information on citizens not suspected of any wrong-doing in the name of security, such as the air travelers file proposed by the EU. Mass data pools that were introduced in the past, such as the registration of Internet use by the Federal Office for Information Security or the employee information system ELENA, must be closed down.
5. An independent review of all existing “security” measures must take place in order to systematically examine their compatibility with our fundamental rights, their effectiveness, their cost, their harmful side-effects and alternatives.

Background information:

Communications data enables the tracing of who has contacted whom via telephone, mobile phone or e-mail. In the case of mobile calls or text messages via mobile phone, the user’s location is also logged. Data retention allows citizens’ movements to be traced and personal and business contacts to be monitored. Information regarding the content of communications such as personal interests and individual life circumstances can also be deduced.

A study commissioned in 2008 shows that data retention is acting as a serious deterrent to the use of telephones, mobile phones, e-mail and Internet. The survey conduced by research institute Forsa found that with communications data retention in place, one in two Germans would refrain from contacting a marriage counselor, a psychotherapist or a drug abuse counselor by telephone, mobile phone or e-mail if they needed their help. One in thirteen people said they had refrained from using telephone, mobile phone or e-mail at least once because of data retention, which extrapolates to 6.5 Million Germans in total.

German NGO Working Group on Data Retention (Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung) organised several protest marches against the scheme. Last year, 20.000 people protested against surveillance in Berlin.[2]
About Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (German Working Group on Data Retention):

The Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (AK Vorrat) is a Germany-wide organisation which campaigns against extensive surveillance in general and the blanket logging of telecommunications and other behavioral data in particular.

Homepage und contact details: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de

Footnotes and Links:
[1] Poll on data retention (in German, PDF)
[2] Protest march “Freedom not Fear”

About Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (German Working Group on
Data Retention):
The Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung (AK Vorrat) is a Germany-wide
organisation which campaigns against extensive surveillance in general and the
blanket logging of telecommunications and other behavioural data in particular.
Homepage and contact details: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de

Previous press releases:
1. Unanimous rejection of proposed telecommunications data retention
(22/01/2007)
2. Thousands of people participated in nationwide protests against data retention (07/11/2007)
3. Constitutional complaint filed against German Telecomms Data Retention Act (31/12/2007)
4. Historic class-action lawsuit filed against telecommunications data collection (29/02/2008)
5. Data retention in Germany partly suspended by Constitutional Court – NGO demands resignation of Minister of Justice (19/03/2008)
6. After ruling on data retention: activists remain confident (10/02/2009)
7. Administrative Court: Data retention is “invalid” (16/03/2009)
8. Civil Liberties Groups Ask EU to Repeal Data Retention Directive
(01/12/2009)

More information:
1. Our mission statement
2. Joint statement on data retention
3. Class-action law suit against data retention

This press release on the Internet“

Because in Bulgaria there are similar attempts (the Parliament just passed a law, which, in my opinion, enhances the data retention beyond the scope of the EU Directive, and is stretching the Constitution wide), the decision of the German Court might be of importance to Bulgaria, as well. Internet Society – Bulgaria, which I have the honor of chairing, has tried to influence (see this section at our blog, and this opinion), to the degree possible, the process in drafting the legislation in the Bulgarian Parliament, but not to the point, which would have made us feel comfortable with the language of the law. We are considering other options in the future, and we’ll be sending later today a letter to the President, the Ombudsman of the Republic, and the Chief Prosecutor, all of whom can request that the Bulgarian Constitutional court announces a particular article in the law unconstitutional.

В сайта на Народното събрание е публикувана следната стенограма, която аз пускам в частта, отнасяща се до обсъждането и приемането на текстове в Закона за електронните съобщения, с които МВР ще следи Интернет потребителите безконтролно:

ЧЕТВЪРТО ИЗВЪНРЕДНО ЗАСЕДАНИЕ
София, вторник, 22 декември 2009 г.
Открито в 9,05 ч.

Председателствали: председателят Цецка Цачева и заместник-председателят Павел Шопов

Секретари: Пламен Нунев и Петър Хлебаров

ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛ ЦЕЦКА ЦАЧЕВА: Регистрирани са 126 народни представители. Налице е кворум. Откривам пленарното заседание. (Звъни.)
…
Втора точка от дневния ред:
ПЪРВО ЧЕТЕНЕ НА ЗАКОНОПРОЕКТА ЗА ИЗМЕНЕНИЕ И ДОПЪЛНЕНИЕ НА ЗАКОНА ЗА ЕЛЕКТРОННИТЕ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ.
Водеща е Комисията по вътрешна сигурност и обществен ред, съпътстващи са Комисията по правни въпроси, Комисията по транспорт, информационни технологии и съобщения и Комисията по европейските въпроси и контрол на европейските фондове.
С доклада на водещата комисия ще ни запознае председателят на Комисията по вътрешна сигурност и обществен ред господин Анастас Анастасов.
ДОКЛАДЧИК АНАСТАС АНАСТАСОВ: Уважаема госпожо председател, господин вицепремиер, уважаеми колеги! Преди да започна с четенето на доклада, правя процедурно предложение в пленарната зала да бъде допуснат господин Веселин Вучков – заместник министър на вътрешните работи.
ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛ ЦЕЦКА ЦАЧЕВА: Гласуваме направеното процедурно предложение за допускането в пленарната зала на заместник министъра на вътрешните работи господин Веселин Вучков.
Гласували 116 народни представители: за 116, против и въздържали се няма.
Процедурното предложение е прието единодушно.
Моля квесторите да поканят господин Веселин Вучков в пленарната зала.
Господин Анастасов, имате думата.
Read more…

Пускам новия вариант на писмото, което изготвяме в групата “Не искаме МВР да ни подслушва в Интернет” във Facebook. Ако имате бележки, пишете в секцията с коментари по-долу или във Facebook.

Уважаеми дами и господа народни представители,

На вниманието ви е предложен Законопроект за изменение и допълнение на Закона за електронните съобщения. В него за пореден път се предвижда сериозно навлизане в личната сфера на гражданите. От всекиго от нас се изисква незабавно и за дълъг период занапред да плати висока цена – личната си неприкосновеност – за бъдещо несигурно събитие –ефективността на правозащитните органи. Десетки ръководители на различни служби от МВР, ДАНС и МО да имат право на достъп в реално време до трафика на Интернет потребителите чрез т.нар. интерфейс – техническо устройство, което позволява следенето на цялата комуникация в Интернет.

Независимо от декларираното желание за диалог с гражданите и експертите в областта, основната част от коментарите не са взети предвид при изготвяне на окончателния текст на законопроекта.

Предложените мерки са противоконституционни и непропорционални

Мерките са противоконституционни, защото достъп до данни чрез интерфейс прави невъзможен индивидуалният подход и преценка, които Конституцията изисква. Предоставя се неограничен достъп до лични и закриляни от закона данни чрез интерфейс. Не сме защитени и с предвиденото наблюдение от страна на Комисията за защита на личните данни. Необходим е бърз, строг и ефективен контрол върху възможни злоупотреби с личната информация на милиони Интернет потребители.

Мерките са непропорционални, защото от технологична страна, не може да се каже кога е започнала една връзка (няма еквивалент на вдигане на телефонната слушалка), нито кога е приключила (няма натискане на червеното копче на мобилния телефон). Компютрите осъществяват връзка непрекъснато с десетки, понякога стотици други компютри в Интернет. Огромният брой изброени в законопроекта служби ще получат възможността чрез този интерфейс да следят в реално време всичко, което се случва в Интернет, а не само посоченото в законопроекта.

Мерките не са необходими за прилагане на европейска директива – директива 2006/24/ЕО е вече приложена.

Предложенията на МВР са почти еднакви с тези на предишния екип на МВР, когато срещу тях се обявиха сегашният министър г-н Цветан Цветанов и сегашният лидер на СДС и народен представител Мартин Димитров (бТВ, предаването “Сеизмограф”, 21.02.2009 г., можете да го гледате на този адрес: http://marfiland.blogspot.com/2009/02/feldmarshal.html ). Очакваме от тях, в духа на това, което представят за скъсване с порочните практики на предишните управления, че няма да променят изразената тогава позиция.

Срещу подслушването в Интернет има не само широка обществена съпротива, срещу подобни мерки се произнесе и съдът. Когато МВР под ръководството на министър Румен Петков се опита да ги прокара чрез Наредба No. 40, по тяхната незаконосъобразност се произнесе и Върховният административен съд.

МВР настоява за нуждите на сигурността да се контролират само телефоните и особено мобилните телефони. В светлината на това призоваваме на първо място и незабавно от текста да отпаднат разпоредбите за използването на интерфейси от страна на Интернет-операторите.

Имаме решимост да продължим защитата на позицията си. Ще последва атакуване на закона пред КС – нещо, за което ще призовем и депутатите, и Президента, и омбудсмана. Чл.34. от нашата Конституция гласи: „(1) Свободата и тайната на кореспонденцията и на другите съобщения са неприкосновени. (2) Изключения от това правило се допускат само с разрешение на съдебната власт, когато това се налага за разкриване или предотвратяване на тежки престъпления“. Чрез промените в ЗЕС МВР иска изключението от това правило да става за престъпления, наказуеми с лишаване от свобода за повече от две години, а не само за тежки, което е противоконституционно и всеки би могъл да го разбере, дори и без дело пред Конституционния съд.

Използването на интерфейс, който ще се купува от Интернет операторите, ще доведе до фалит редица от тях и ще повиши цените на услугите.

Обезсмисля се съдебният контрол. Дава се възможност разрешенията да се подписват от стотици съдии, много често с минимален опит; липсва възможност за независим мониторинг как се прилага законът.

Обществото няма доверие в МВР и даването на допълнителни правомощия, които позволяват недобросъвестно използване, не допринася за повишаване на доверието, а напротив – засилва съмненията за злоупотреби.

Към настоящото писмо прилагаме становищата на Програма “Достъп до информация”, “Електронна граница” и “Интернет общество – България”, които най-точно отразяват проблемите, пред които ще изправите себе си, Интернет и Интернет потребителите, ако гласувате предложенията на МВР.

Надяваме се, че ще се съобразите както с доводите на специалистите, така и с евентуалните тежки последици за гражданите на Република България, които ще бъдат подложени на повсеместно подслушване и следене в Интернет, без възможност за контрол върху действията на полицията, а и с реномето на България, която ще бъде сочена като страната с най-рестриктивните закони в областта на подслушването на съобщенията.

The New York Times published on November 9 an article under the headline “Who Controls Russia?”, where the authors claim that there is a fight between President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin about the actual control over the country.

With all the respect, I tend to disagree with the concept, that “One thing is certain: Neither Barack Obama’s charm nor appeals to common interests will persuade Russia’s unsentimental leaders. Only the combination of real leverage and real inducements can move the uneasy Putin-Medvedev partnership to accommodate American and broader Western priorities”, which is the essence of the article.
The partnership between Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev is actually functioning quite well. It is only through the lenses of the western experts, who see problems in the Russian model of governance. Perhaps that is driven by the fact that the US and the West want Russia to accommodate their priorities? However, when dealing with Russia one needs not to forget that there are substantial cultural differences, and often people in the West just forget, or ignore them. One of this big differences is how the two cultures solve problems. In the US, people say, “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”. In Rursia, the proverb is “If it is working, don’t touch it”. Now, while the reader may not see a big difference, this explains probably why the experts are not (good) enough to explain the way Russia works. If the US treats Russia as a country that has to accommodate the US priorities, then no wonder there is no response to the different initiatives by the US administration. And it is not a question about Barack Obama’s charm or appeals to common interests that have to persuade “Russia’s unsentimental leaders” to do something. It is time for the US experts to accept what the Obama administration seems to have understood – that the time of the unilateral actions by the USA is over. The Russians are smart people – and they could be persuaded into good causes. If the current negotiators can’t do it, perhaps the problem is not in Russia, in Mr. Putin, or in Mr. Medvedev, but in the negotiators themselves.

To conclude – in the small newspaper space – if the experts are asking themselves who controls Russia, then they need to work with Russia, in order to find out. Trying to impose the Western values on the Russians, has not worked in the last few hundred years, and I don’t believe it will happen with combination of real leverage and real inducements. The Russian leaders are not kids, who can be lured into doing something in return for candies. As for the leverage… Archimedes said, “Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.” But, seriously, who today can claim that he is Archimedes, and, by the way, scientifically is proven that he could have move the Earth, but he would have need some 30 mln. years to do so. Is the US foreign policy ready to wait that long, or should it try something different, and more workable?

______
The opinions expressed above are those of the author,
not of any organizations, associated with or related to
the author in any given way.

Christian Engström, Pirate MEP announced today:

The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers reached agreement on a text tonight. The conciliation process is now over. The acceptance of the text was unanimous by the parliament’s delegation, i.e.: including us Pirates and Greens.
This is the final text (compared to the parliament’s last proposal):

3a. Measures taken by Member States regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks shall respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law.

Any of these measures regarding end-user’s access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process. Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. and shall guarantee a A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. and tThe right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.

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.

We would never have been able to achieve this without all the work that the community of net activists has put in. We have shown that ordinary citizens working together can make a difference. And this is only the beginning.

The internet community has begun to flex its muscles.

This is good news for the Internet users in Europe. Here’s what EDRI* said on that:

Compromise on Amendment 138. Telecom Package finalised
5 November, 2009

The European Parliament (EP) and the Council were set in reaching an agreement when they started the negotiation activities on 4 November 2009 at 7 PM. After hot debates, an agreement was reached on the 5 November, a little while after 00:30.

The adopted text on the Amendment 138 topic, now point 3a of article 1 is, according with our sources in Brussels, this one:

“3a. Measures taken by Member States regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks shall respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law.

Any of these measures regarding end-users’ access to or use of service and applications through electronic communications networks liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process. Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person of persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.”

It was clear that the original Amendment 138 has no chance, when the EP’s delegation went into the negotiations with a slightly changed text of the Council’s last proposal from 28 October 2009. The new text explained the measures “Any of these measures regarding end-user’s access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks”.

The key text from the original Amendment 138 “without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities” was turned by the EP delegation into the “shall respect the requirements of a prior fair and impartial procedure including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned and the right to an effective and timely judicial review.”

The last paragraph from the Council’s proposal was also deleted. (This shall not affect the competence of a Member State, in conformity with its own constitutional order and with fundamental rights, to establish, inter alia, a requirement of a judicial decision authorising the measures to be taken.)

Thus at least two of the concerns of the Internet users did not make it to the final text, if our sources are correct. The text doesn’t concern private actors restrictions, thus allowing ISPs to be dragged in “voluntary agreements” with the recording industry.

Moreover the text does not guarantee explicitely “the prior judicial review”, thus leaving alone the Three Strikes Law in France and an open door for other 3 strikes measures in other countries. It would have been extremely nice to see the initial wording in the final text, especially after the recent updates on ACTA (see ENDitorial: ACTA revealed, European ISPs might have a big problem).

Telecom conciliation: Parliament’s new proposal (4.11.2009)

http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/telecom-conciliation…

Telecom package meetings on Wednesday (2.11.2009)

http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/telecom-package-meet…

An evolution of “amendment 138″

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/an-evolution-of-amendment-138

EDRi-gram: EDRI Open Letter to the EP on Amendment 138 (21.10.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number7.20/edri-open-letter-amendment-138Compromise on Amendment 138. Telecom Package finalised
5 November, 2009

The European Parliament (EP) and the Council were set in reaching an agreement when they started the negotiation activities on 4 November 2009 at 7 PM. After hot debates, an agreement was reached on the 5 November, a little while after 00:30.

The adopted text on the Amendment 138 topic, now point 3a of article 1 is, according with our sources in Brussels, this one:

“3a. Measures taken by Member States regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks shall respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law.

Any of these measures regarding end-users’ access to or use of service and applications through electronic communications networks liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process. Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person of persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.”

It was clear that the original Amendment 138 has no chance, when the EP’s delegation went into the negotiations with a slightly changed text of the Council’s last proposal from 28 October 2009. The new text explained the measures “Any of these measures regarding end-user’s access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks”.

The key text from the original Amendment 138 “without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities” was turned by the EP delegation into the “shall respect the requirements of a prior fair and impartial procedure including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned and the right to an effective and timely judicial review.”

The last paragraph from the Council’s proposal was also deleted. (This shall not affect the competence of a Member State, in conformity with its own constitutional order and with fundamental rights, to establish, inter alia, a requirement of a judicial decision authorising the measures to be taken.)

Thus at least two of the concerns of the Internet users did not make it to the final text, if our sources are correct. The text doesn’t concern private actors restrictions, thus allowing ISPs to be dragged in “voluntary agreements” with the recording industry.

Moreover the text does not guarantee explicitely “the prior judicial review”, thus leaving alone the Three Strikes Law in France and an open door for other 3 strikes measures in other countries. It would have been extremely nice to see the initial wording in the final text, especially after the recent updates on ACTA (see ENDitorial: ACTA revealed, European ISPs might have a big problem).

Telecom conciliation: Parliament’s new proposal (4.11.2009)

Telecom package meetings on Wednesday (2.11.2009)

An evolution of “amendment 138″


EDRi-gram: EDRI Open Letter to the EP on Amendment 138 (21.10.2009)

_____
* – ISOC-Bulgaria is a member of EDRI.

Из стенограмата от заседанието на Министерския съвет на 28.10.2009 г.:

Румяна Желева: “Съгласно това споразумение между България и ПРООН се осъществява сътрудничество, което е с ратифицирано със закон от Народното събрание. На вашето внимание е този проект за денонсиране на споразумението и съответно на допълнителния протокол, тъй като с членството си в Европейския съюз България придоби статут на донор на помощи за развитие, което направи невъзможно привличането на външно финансиране за подобни проекти и доведе до изпълнение на проекти на ПРООН предимно с бюджетни средства, което няма особено голям смисъл при сегашната финансова ситуация.”

Обаче премиерът е на друго мнение. Ето какво пише в сайта на МС на 30.10.2009 г.:

“Доста тежко заседание. Сутринта имахме работна среща с още девет държави и крайното решение е вписването на текст, който да гарантира, че няма да бъдем донори на държави като Китай, Индия, Русия и Бразилия. Когато трябва да се плаща, то ще бъде съобразено с брутния вътрешен продукт и с моментното финансово състояние на отделните държави”, каза премиерът Борисов.
Министър-председателят проведе поотделно разговори по темата с германския канцлер Меркел, с президента на Франция Саркози, с британския премиер Гордън Браун, както и с премиерите на Полша и Унгария.
“Близо два часа се водиха преговорите, докато се съгласиха по-богатите държави с това наше искане, така че спестихме минимум по 40-50 милиона евро от тези заседания”, каза Бойко Борисов. Създадена е работна група, която ще предложи решение по обсъжданите днес теми. Нейните предложения след това трябва да бъдат одобрени с консенсус. Този документ е важен, за да бъде Европейският съюз единен, силен и водещ за срещата по климатичните въпроси в Копенхаген в началото на месец декември. На нея страната ни ще бъде представена от премиера Бойко Борисов.

И каква стана тя? Членството в ЕС е като членството в СИВ. И тогава сме се изхитряли да не помагаме с пари, а с доматено пюре и консерви “Русенско варено”.
Не може хем да твърдим, че сме бедна държава и затова няма да помагаме на другите държави, хем да сме със статут на на донор* съгласно договора ни за членство в ЕС. Най-лесно е да помагаш, когато си богат и имаш пари. Но значително по-ценно е да помагаш на по-слабите тогава, когато и ти самият не си най-силен.
Впрочем, създаването на работната група ме кара да си мисля, че предложението на тези десет държави може и да не бъде прието във вида, в който е представено у нас.

_____
* – За същото нещо години наред съдиха бившите ръководители на държавата преди 10-и ноември – че са отпускали помощи и заеми, които били невъзвръщаеми.