Angela Merkel calls for tougher EU privacy laws

German chancellor Angela Merkel has called for more stringent EU data protection rules, after allegations that US surveillance programmes have also impacted EU citizens. Sara Yasin reports

In an interview with ARD television yesterday, the German leader called for privacy rules that apply to all member states, as online companies are currently only required to follow legislation where they are registered. Facebook, for example, is registered in Ireland and is only required to follow Irish privacy laws.

Merkel also told ARD that she expects the United States to abide by Germany’s privacy laws in the future.

While Merkel has claimed that she learned of US mass surveillance from the media, German daily Bild reported that the country’s foreign intelligence agency (BND) knew about the programme as well as storage of German data for many years now. Bild also reported that data stored was also used by German intelligence to locate citizens kidnapped abroad.

Index, along with English PEN, Open Rights Group, and Article 19 have called on the European Parliament “to support a Data Protection Regulation that helps people regain control of their personal data.”

In a letter sent to Sarah Ludford MEP, a shadow rapporteur on the European Parliament’s data protection dossier, the organisations stressed the importance of control over personal data:

Too often, people do not know how their information will be used, where it will be processed or who will have access to it. This is partly because the principles of the current data protection laws are insufficiently implemented. We believe the new Data Protection Regulation could give people more control over what happens to their information, and ensure those that collect and use data adhere to the rules.

The European Parliament has ordered a probe into allegations that the United States has spied on EU citizens and diplomats. The Civil Liberties Committee will hold an inquiry, and plans to release a report by the end of this year.

Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index. She tweets from @missyasin

Free expression guidelines a crucial opportunity for EU

As the European Commission opens a consultation on its planned freedom of expression guidelines, Index on Censorship is publishing a public note setting out what it sees as the key principles that must underpin such guidelines. 

The EU plans to use these guidelines to assess, in its varied relationships with other countries, if freedom of expression is being respected online and off. While the EU has considerable experience in setting standards for freedom of expression offline, it has been less clear until now how it plans to defend free speech online. We hope these guidelines and other initiatives set out in the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy represent effective steps in the right direction.

These guidelines are a crucial opportunity for the EU to encourage free expression. It is vital that different groups from across civil society input and argue for a full clear defence of free speech online and off.


How the European Union can protect freedom of expression (PDF)

The European Union and its member states have always been committed in theory at least to democratic principles and fundamental human rights. The EU aims to promote human rights both internally and externally, using EU influence in its external policies to push for greater human rights compliance, notably in its enlargement processes, and to a varying degree in other areas (such as neighbourhood policy (to some extent), trade policy (little) and aid policy (to some extent). All member states are signatories to the EU, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which protect freedom of expression; the EU’s own Charter of Fundamental Rights is now part of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty. However, the range of cases at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg tells us that the EU member states need to look at their own rights performance as well as to push for human rights internationally.

The EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy published in June 2012 calls for the EU to develop new public guidelines on freedom of expression online and off. This paper outlines key global issues and principles on free expression that Index believes the EU should consider as essential when it drafts these guidelines.

 (1) Protecting freedom of expression in a digital age[1]

There are a number of key issues the EU must consider to ensure the protection and promotion of digital freedom of expression in its foreign policies.

1.1 Internet governance

Establishing a global body exercising top-down control of the internet would risk increased suppression of speech, severely erode openness and inhibit innovation and creativity. Index believes the European Union should defend a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance to ensure an open and free internet is defended, and we welcome recent calls in the European Parliament for the Union to defend this freedom.

1.2 State censorship

Authoritarian states continue to be active in online censorship, from China’s Great Firewall to Iran’s plans for a “halal internet”. States should not institute network-wide filters or firewalls that create national intranets. The excessive and inappropriate use of takedown requests by governments can also have a negative impact on online debate, on social media, comment threads and beyond. Index believes that, in parallel with free speech offline, any limits made on online speech must be necessary, limited, transparent and proportionate, and takedown requests should always be backed with a court order.

1.3 Corporate censorship

Private companies face the challenge of expanding internationally while obeying national laws and respecting fundamental human rights. Meanwhile, companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google are playing a greater role in delineating the boundaries of ‘acceptable’ speech through their own terms of service. National-level libel and privacy laws often make internet intermediaries, who are not the authors or publishers of content, judge and jury over censoring content. Index believes intermediaries should not be liable for content they have not authored. In addition, national laws must not disproportionately impact upon freedom of expression, and private companies should fully respect their human rights obligations in their operations around the world.

1.4 Criminalising online speech

Increased capability to share content online means that messages some groups might find offensive can spread quickly to large audiences. Online speech deemed “offensive” is increasingly being criminalised, especially on social media platforms. This trend must be reversed. Efforts to restrict speech based on perceived offense must be narrow and limited, as outlined in the UDHR. Public prosecutors should not criminalise content based solely on real or perceived offense.

1.5 Net neutrality

Net neutrality – the principle that all data should be treated equally on networks – is an essential prerequisite for a free and open internet. Net neutrality should be written into statute. The European Parliament’s Draft Report on a Digital Freedom Strategy in EU Foreign Policy called on both the Commission and Council to codify the principle of net neutrality in appropriate regulation, “so as to strengthen its credibility in terms of promoting and defending digital freedoms around the world.” Index echoes this call.

1.6 Surveillance and privacy

Mass monitoring, surveillance and the unnecessary storage (with state access) of citizens’ use of digital communications are unacceptable breaches of fundamental human rights. The right to privacy and freedom of expression are closely linked: if individuals’ communications are monitored, that will directly chill their free expression and encourage self-censorship. Governments should not store unnecessary amounts of their citizens’ communications data. Government access to data should be limited in scope with as few bodies able to access the data as strictly necessary; transparent, subject to judicial oversight and legally defined.

A related threat is the role western technology companies are playing in producing and exporting surveillance equipment that allows governments to retain data and spy on citizens. Index welcomes the European Parliament’s recent endorsement of stricter European export controls of such “digital arms”, as proposed by Marietje Schaake, and urges the EU to follow this lead.

1.7 Copyright

Attempts to enforce traditional copyright models in the digital world risk criminalising and censoring individual users. Copyright laws should not be used to block individuals’ access to the internet. There is a need for an open debate that looks at new business models that work for both creators and users.

1.8 Access to free expression online

The latest statistics suggest 63 per cent of Europe’s population is online. As the digital world becomes an increasingly key part of social, economic and political life, access to digital communications is fundamental. The digital divide needs to be further overcome in the EU and around the world. Online censorship should not close down these spaces, and nor should other obstacles to free expression online be allowed to persist, including illiteracy, marginalisation and poverty, or discrimination by gender or by ethnicity.

1.9 Support for human rights defenders and citizen journalists

The technological innovations that have transformed the work of activists have also facilitated attacks on bloggers who push back against established networks of control. Index contends that online and citizen journalists must be given the same protection as mainstream and offline media organisations.

(2) Protecting free expression offline

2.1 Media freedom

In any democracy, citizens must be free to challenge authority. Restrictive legislation, over-regulation and a lack of plurality diminishes the media’s ability to act as a public watchdog holding power to account. Media freedom in recent years has been restricted by anti-terrorism laws, classified government documents, secrecy laws and corporate bullying of the media. Restrictions on laws that govern the press must be transparent, limited and proportionate; anti-terrorism legislation must not reduce the fundamental principle of confidentially of sources, which makes investigative journalism possible; state secrecy laws should contain a public interest defence; and commercial privacy should be limited when corporate malfeasance needs exposing in the public interest.

2.2 Media regulation

Statutory regulation of print media is inappropriate bringing politicians too close to interference in newspapers’ editorial freedom. Independent or self-regulatory regulatory bodies are the appropriate routed alongside high media standards and ethics. Where there is limited media capacity (such as terrestrial television and radio), state licensing can be justified as long as it is not used to silence critical voices. States should encourage media plurality and not limit competition but intervene to prevent media monopolies.

2.3 Libel

Archaic libel laws chill freedom of expression in too many countries around the world. The most significant chill comes from the use of criminal defamation to imprison those who criticise government officials or politicians. The use of criminal defamation laws is unjust and disproportionate, and countries should decriminalise libel in line with the recommendations of the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression.

Civil defamation laws can also chill freedom of expression. Civil defamation laws must not give rise to excessive costs or damages and have adequate defences to protect the public interest, truth and fair comment.

2.4 Balancing privacy and freedom of expression

Freedom of expression and privacy are often complementary as human rights. Free speech can be chilled if individuals fear speaking out on controversial issues because they are being watched or listened too. Privacy and anonymity are important in protecting free expression in many circumstances. At the same time, the right to privacy and the right to free expression can sometimes come into conflict: investigative journalism exposing corruption, wrong-doing, abuse of power etc, must have accessible public interest defences that allows in such circumstances some invasion of privacy that would otherwise be deemed inappropriate.

2.5 Hate speech, offence and religious freedom

Hate speech and incitement to violence are increasingly confused with offence and blasphemy. There should be a very high threshold for prosecuting hate speech. Open debate can be an effective response to intolerance.

Blasphemy laws should be repealed, in particular criminal blasphemy laws that have a significant impact on religious minorities. With the expansion of the internet, content that some religious believers find blasphemous is increasingly available. Blasphemous or offensive content is neither an incitement to violence nor a reason to respond with violence. Demands to censor offensive material also present major challenges to online hosts of user-generated content, such as YouTube, Facebook and others. Offensive speech is a subjective concept – one person’s interesting idea is another’s offensive comment – and there is no right not to be offended. Moderated sites can create their own rules as to acceptable content – just as clubs or newspapers or broadcasters do, as editorial choices – but free speech means tolerating views you do not like or find offensive.

2.6 Freedom of information

Freedom of information law is an essential component of the right to freedom of expression. Countries should have freedom of information laws that prevent the over-classification of information, reduce secrecy, have a right to appeal where governments refuse information and are low-cost for citizens to use.

2.7 Freedom of assembly

Increasingly governments have introduced fines to prevent legitimate protest without licenses or permits (that are often refused). It has become a method to reduce visible, public freedom of expression. Freedom of assembly is a human right that should only be restricted in very limited circumstances for instance the protection of other human rights.


[1] A fuller version on protecting online freedom of expression can be found in the note, Standing up to threats to digital freedom


Please let us know what you think are the greatest global challenges to free speech — and let the EU know too — by leaving a comment below.

The EU must take action on Turkey

Index on Censorship is calling on EU Enlargement Commissioner Štefan Füle to press Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at a meeting today on the need to ensure Turks can exercise freedom of assembly and expression in Turkey.

The commissioner should urge Edrogan to foster dialogue with the protesters and to allow the media to report on the demonstrations without fear of censorship.

Unprecedented demonstrations swept the country in reaction to plans to build a shopping centre on Gezi Park in Istanbul. Police reacted with violence and intimidation.


Related: Protests expose the extent of self-censorship in Turkish media | “There is now a menace which is called Twitter” | Turkey losing its way on free speech

Index Events
Join Index on Censorship and a panel of Turkish and British writers to discuss free speech in Turkey, 22 June, Arcola Theatre London


After a four-day trip abroad, Erdoğan returned to Turkey on Thursday night, where he told a crowd of supporters, “These protests that are bordering on illegality must come to an end immediately”.

Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes wrote on Monday:

“The EU insists all candidate countries meet its ‘Copenhagen Criteria’ that say candidates must be democracies who respect the rule of law and human rights. Back in 2004, when the Union’s leaders agreed to start talks Turkey was said to “sufficiently meet” those criteria.

“It is no longer clear, given its deliberate creation of media censorship, and the brutality of police in the face of mass protests, that Turkey does meet those criteria. If the EU stands for human rights in its neighbourhood, surely it should make a much stronger, robust condemnation of Turkey’s growing anti-democratic tendencies and its attacks on freedom of expression.”

An open letter to European Commission President José Manuel Barroso

Dear President Barroso,

I will be standing trial on 10 June because, as a journalist, I published the names of Greek bank account holders contained on the Lagarde list in my anti-corruption magazine, HOT DOC. I am being accused of violating privacy laws.

On 28 October, a special section of the Hellenic police, under orders from the public prosecutor’s office, arrested me before the ink was dry on the issue of the magazine containing the names of people who should have been investigated for alleged tax evasion.

I was ushered hastily into a trial which ended with my acquittal. The court found that I had violated no privacy laws. I had published only the names of people who held bank accounts at HSBC without any other details, such as the amount of their deposits. My argument to the court was that someone’s relationship with a bank is not a personal detail, since no one covers their face to walk up to an ATM. The court also accepted my contention that there were reasons of public interest for the publication of the names on the Lagarde list.

As you may already know, a disk with the names of the Lagarde list was officially handed over to the Greek government for purposes of investigating corruption and tax evasion. This investigation never happened because ministers said the list is illegal and cannot be utilized. They reached to the point of claiming that they’d lost the data.

The lack of an investigation created an atmosphere of mistrust in the political system. Greek governments appeared to be protecting alleged tax-dodgers making the public angry. At the same time, behind the scenes, the list was being used for blackmail and defamation.

At HOT DOC, we decided to publish the list as soon as we reached the conclusion that the data we had was valid. This was our duty, as citizens and as journalists. This is when we found ourselves confronted with the events described by the New York Times and other international media: “Instead of hitting tax evasion, they chose to hit the journalist who exposed it.”

The Lagarde list is not only a list of potential tax dodgers. It captures the way corruption functions in Greece—with, unfortunately, the support of the political system.

After I was acquitted, the public prosecutor’s office did something unheard of in the annals of the judiciary for a court chaired by a single judge. They appealed my acquittal, claiming that not all the incriminating evidence was taken into consideration. The original case file did not include a single element of evidence, not even the incriminating issue of the magazine. The charges were so hastily put together that they even forgot to put the official stamp of the prosecutor on the file.

President Barroso, this is a targeted and selective persecution against a magazine that fights corruption. We had to be punished. Since HOT DOC  published the Lagarde list, three Greek newspapers also published lists of taxpayers who are being investigated. One of the papers even ran the Lagarde list names with the amount of individual deposits. No charges were brought against them.

The trial on 10 June is not my trial but the trial of the independence of the Greek press. The current climate is asphyxiating freedom of the press, as independent media is heavily indebted and owners of TV channels pressure the government for contracts. Greece ranked 71st in press freedom this year, behind several developing countries and military regimes. A Greek minister recently said he would sue The Guardian for revealing that Greek police were using torture.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion with regard to addressing the Greek crisis. But the crisis cannot be addressed without democratic principles. Greece is drifting away from the standards of western democracy as they were established after World War II. Truth in the media is the first victim.

I would like you to know that, if I am found guilty, I will not ask for a suspension of my sentence. I will let myself be taken to jail. This is the only way for me to show what is truly happening in this country, which has its roots in ancient Greek democracy and claims to embrace European democracy. A corrupt system of power in my country is persecuting me for the very same reasons for which I was awarded two international journalism prizes this year.

I believe that Europe is able to preserve democracy, to highlight its civilization and to unite its citizens. This cannot be achieved when people are not free and when the press is silenced.

Thank you for your attention.

Kostas Vaxevanis


Kostas Vaxevanis is a Greek investigative journalist and Guardian/Index on Censorship Journalism Award-winner.

Related

Corruption, fear and silence: the state of Greek media today (11 April 2013)
Free speech takes a beating in Greece (25 March 2013)
Why I would go to jail for my journalistic beliefs (22 March 2013)
Winners – Index Awards 2013 (21 March 2013)
Europe has a duty to speak out on Vaxevanis (23 November 2012)