call +44 20 7096 1079

Blog


June 21, 2013 | Javier Ruiz

EE Dragging its Feet on Mobile Data Transparency

Mobile company EE has been quite open in explaining the sale of data analytics based on their customers data in partnership with Ipsos MORI. But we are concerned that they think the storm is over and can return to business as usual. We may need your support to make them listen.

EE has already met with ORG to explain how their data services work, how they aggregate data and what general legal framework they operate. For this, we commend EE on their openness and hope that it continues.

We asked EE for a technical meeting with independent experts, but have not received any reply. In order to reassure mobile users over their concerns it’s very important to establish the exact data EE collects, stores and uses for its data products.

The first step in improving transparency would be for EE to allow an independent technical check-up on their data collection and processing. Our proposed technical expert, Richard Clayton, who is based at the Computer Laboratory of the University of Cambridge, has carried out similar work requiring balancing public information with commercial and customer confidentiality. Richard Clayton did a similar study in 2008 with behavioural advertising company PHORM.

EE’s privacy policy explains that they collect and use a wide range of data, including purchasing habits and app use. They have also told us that their data products allow for cross referencing of location data with web history and other parameters. Clearly, there is a lot going on here and customers need more information.

On the 5th of June we held a public debate in Parliament on this issue, kindly hosted by Julian Huppert. The panel included representatives from EE, Ipsos MORI, the Information Commissioner Office (ICO) and Joss Wright from the Oxford Internet Institute. At that meeting Iain Bourne from the ICO made it clear that transparency is a fundamental principle of data protection and there is room for improvement in the way the companies explain to consumers what they are doing with customer data.

We may need your help soon to get EE and other companies to continue being open about their practices. They need to know that these issues are not going away and customers are more aware of what happens to their data.

[Read more]


June 17, 2013 | Jim Killock

Jargon File blocked by O2, Youtube by Orange

We regularly collect blocking reports from mobile users, via blocked.org.uk – and we've recently had some interesting ones.

Youtube content blocked at Orange, error reportReport your blocks here. Please keep them coming! [Note: These blocks are happening on the mobile networks' child safety filtering services. These are switched on by default by all networks except Three. For more detail on mobile network filtering, see our report.]

Orange blocking Youtube videos

www.youtube.com

Orange are blocking Youtube as unsafe for children. Interestingly, this is the first time we've seen this site blocked by a major telco for child protection. The reasoning seems pretty poor. It shows the scale to which default blocks can adversely impact people. Musn't let kids watch the sneezing panda or Justin Bieber!

[UPDATE: Orange deny Youtube is blocked by Safeguard. We demo the block here; if you are on Orange and have Safeguard switched on, let us know what happens for you]

[Update 2: Orange block YouTube under the higher of two settings on their "Safeguard" child protection filters. Under the setting "Safeguard On", user generated content sites including YouTube and Twitter are blocked.  You can read a little more about these settings on the Everything Everywhere site. So this is deliberate blocking on the highest child safety filter, rather than an accidental or mistaken block for all users or for those on the "Safeguard Light" setting". The Safeguard Lite setting is switched on by default, whereas the Safeguard On setting is by choice.]

The Jargon File

catb.org/~esr/jargon/

Venerable Internet and Hacking slang guide, around since the 1970s the Jargon File is hosted by Eric S Raymond. It is currently blocked by O2, presumably because it is classed as a "circumvention" tool. Mustn’t let kids learn how to use their computers!

However, a bug with the O2 URL checker means we can't check web pages with a tilda in them to see what the classification reasoning is, or to appeal it.

[UPDATE: using http://catb.org/%7Eesr/jargon/ shows it is blocked as “hacking”)

Brains of Steel: blocked by O2

brainsofsteel.co.uk

This is a personal blog and it is difficult to see why it is classified as 'self harm' by O2. But perhaps the talk of weight loss without dieting is picked up as pro-anorexia?

[Update, 20th June 2013: This has now been reclassified and unblocked on O2]

Campaign against political correctness 

www.capc.co.uk/

Not really clear how the CAPC is harmful to children, but it is blocked by O2 as 'hate speech'. The campaign is backed by Philip Davies MP and Andrew Percy MP. Blocked by Orange and O2.

Luxury lingerie

www.thehouseofseduction.com

Blocked by Vodaphone / Virgin mobile; allowed on Orange and O2. Sells lingerie but probably not much more pornographic than an average Argos catalogue.

Mari Thomas Jewellery

Online jewellery site Mari Thomas is blocked by O2 and Orange. O2 classify the site as an 'anonymiser', for reasons that are entirely unclear.

Another gift shop blocked over Christmas 

In January we wrote about how Orange had blocked another shop www.foreverandeternity.co.uk over December of last year. Despite reporting the block in early December it took a month to get it unblocked. The reason seemed to be that the site sold engraved lighters and was categorised as smoking related. The site was thus blocked at a key commercial moment. If blocking on such a broad scale becomes more widespread, who is liable?

[Read more] (1 comments)


June 14, 2013 | Javier Ruiz

Open Data: Government Responds to Shakespeare's Review

The government has responded to the independent review of Public Sector Information (PSI) carried out by Stephan Shakespeare, chair of the Data Strategy Board. Here are our first impressions.

A National Data Strategy?

The tone of the Government's response (PDF and ODT) is of general agreement, but without a clearcut commitment to embark on the open data supply revolution asked for by Shakespeare. There will be a process to define a “National Information Infrastructure” composed of the most important datasets held by Government. This is preferred to the term “core reference data”.

A new set of criteria published on data.gov.uk will be used to assess the usefulness and transformative potential of datasets. This is a very good approach, but there is no equivalent of the US executive order forcing departments to simply do it. There are long winded references to the new EU PSI directive that will come into force in 2015. The Transparency Team at the Cabinet Office is going to help departments apply those criteria to identify the key datasets. But the Transparency Team is already quite stretched, so it will be hard to do this without extra resources.

The government will also try to involve local authorities and other public bodies, but with the Trading Funds we can only expect incremental change. There are some good ideas regarding access for micro-businesses and non-profits including a commitment to allow them increased access to the Postcode Address File.

ORG has been campaigning for the file to be freely accessible and we welcome this as a positive step, while acknowledging there is more to be done:

Recognising the continued importance of the Postcode Address File (PAF) to private sector growth and the efficient running the public sector, we have agreed with Royal Mail that they will provide the PAF for free to independent micro-businesses for one year and to and independent small charitable organisations. Royal Mail will consult in July on a radical simplification of the licensing regime for all users.

Simplified governance of Open Data policy

The government promises to tackle the proliferation of open data responsibilities, so ironically the review may cost Shakespeare his post. The one concrete commitment so far is the merger of the Data Strategy Board with the Transparency Board. The remit, authority and oversight of the new board will be an important aspect of this policy until it becomes truly embedded in the departments.

Fuzzy response on privacy

The title of the response section on privacy is Maximising the benefit from personal data. There the government expresses agreement with Shakespeare’s general approach, which they claim is reflected in the UK government’s approach to the new EU Data Protection Regulation.

This approach is meant to balance privacy with growth and innovation. Unfortunately, the evidence in relation to the UK’s engagement with the Data Protection regulations is that protection of rights comes second to perceived business interests. The UK has consistently tried to undermine the progressive proposals in the original regulations.

The response provides few concrete proposals in this area though. This is not surprising given the complexity of privacy regulation and the processes already in place in Brussels. For example, Shakespeare asked for custodial sentences for data protection breaches, but the response is that these are already possible via other legislation, such as the Computer Misuse Act.

There are some worrying moves in relation to data-sharing among departments. The Law Commission is working on a scoping project to see if there are any real legal obstacles to the free flow of data across government. This is an area we will be watching closely.

[Read more]


June 14, 2013 | Lee Maguire

Has the NSA "poisoned the well" for responsible disclosure?

Will secret arrangements between tech companies and US intelligence affect how independent security researchers disclose vulnerabilities?

Revelations about the PRISM project involve US tech companies have been compelled to provide special assistance to US intelligence agencies. This has also drawn fresh attention to "responsible disclosure" systems regarding information about security vulnerabilities in those companies' products.

Early access to security vulnerabilities, flaws in the code or design that would allow an attacker to gain privileged access to computers - from smartphones to servers - and the data they hold, is desired by governments. The information can then be used both in a defensive capacity (protecting their own systems) and offensive (attacking systems they would, for whatever reason, like access to).

A legal commercial market for security vulnerabilities exists. But many security researchers choose to disclose vulnerabilities to companies and agree to wait for a set period of time before publicly disclosing their findings. That is considered 'responsible disclosure'.

However, a report by Bloomberg today highlights the arrangement between companies such as Microsoft and intelligence agencies through which advance information about vulnerabilities is disclosed. These disclosures will be done in the knowledge that the information can be used both defensively or offensively. No implication is made that these arrangements are legally compelled rather than voluntary.

But as the secret arrangements between US tech firms and intelligence services becomes a cause for concern, will this affect how disclosure arrangements are percieved? Will researchers see themselves as assisting US intelligence? If, when they share their findings with service providers, those service providers simply share the details with intelligence agencies, aren't service providers undermining incentives to responsibly disclose? Will foreign governments regard their own citizens participating in responsible disclosure as providing electronic-arms to a foreign power?

[Read more] (1 comments)


June 14, 2013 | Peter Bradwell

EU Commission caved to US demands to drop anti-PRISM privacy clause

...and how European policy makers can undo their mistake.

Reports this week revealed that the US successfully pressed the European Commission to drop sections of the Data Protection Regulation that would, as the Financial Times explains, “have nullified any US request for technology and telecoms companies to hand over data on EU citizens.

The article, (as you can read below), would have prohibited transfers of personal information to a third country under a legal request, for example the one used by the NSA for their PRISM programme, unless “expressly authorized by an international agreement or provided for by mutual legal assistance treaties or approved by a supervisory authority.”

The relevant section is Article 42, which you can read in a leaked draft Data Protection Regulation from late 2011, available from State Watch.

The Article was deleted from the draft Regulation proper, which was published shortly afterwards in January 2012. The reports suggest this was due to intense pressure from the US. Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding favoured keeping the the clause, but other Commissioners seemingly did not grasp the significance of the article. The FT explains:

“the move came after repeated visits to Brussels by senior Obama administration officials, including Cameron Kerry, the commerce department’s top lawyer and brother of US secretary of state John Kerry, who chairs an inter-agency task force responsible for vetting EU data-exchange laws.”

In the wake of the PRISM stories and increased awareness of the powers available to the NSA through "FISAAA" (the law enabling the PRISM programme), this looks like a major error of judgment – surrendering Europeans' data and, potentially, damaging the competitive advantage that cloud services based within the EU could have offered.

In response to such strong public concerns, and the fact that EU citizens have no rights protecting their data under FISAAA, the Commission and other European policy makers need to show some leadership and stand up for the citizens they are supposed to represent, by reinstating the Article.

This is the second example that we have publicised this week of European policy makers weakening the Data Protection Regulation and thus making the NSA FISAAA surveillance on European citizens easier. We blogged this week about Baroness Ludford's amendment that would delete your right to know if your data will be transferred to a third country or international organisation. We hope the Baroness withdraws this amendment.

We thought it would be helpful to post up the relevant deleted sections, which are copied below. The full leaked Regulation that includes Article 42 in available from State Watch.

For an introduction to the FISAAA law, watch the video of Caspar Bowden's excellent ORGCon talk on this.  

From the introduction:

"Article 42 clarifies that in accordance with international public law and existing EU legislation, in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/9633, a controller operating in the EU is prohibited to disclose personal to a third country if so requested by a third country's judicial or administrative authority, unless this is expressly authorized by an international agreement or provided for by mutual legal assistance treaties or approved by a supervisory authority."

Article 42

Disclosures not authorized by Union law

1. No judgment of a court or tribunal and no decision of an administrative authority of a third country requiring a controller or processor to disclose personal data shall be recognized or be enforceable in any manner, without prejudice to a mutual assistance treaty or an international agreement in force between the requesting third country and the Union or a Member State.

2. Where a judgment of a court or tribunal or a decision of an administrative authority of a third country requests a controller or processor to disclose personal data, the controller or processor and, if any, the controller's representative, shall notify the supervisory authority of the request without undue delay and must obtain prior authorisation for the transfer by the supervisory authority in accordance with point (b) of Article 31(1).

3. The supervisory authority shall assess the compliance of the requested disclosure with the Regulation and in particular whether the disclosure is necessary and legally required in accordance with points (d) and (e) of paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of Article 41.

4. The supervisory authority shall inform the competent national authority of the request. The controller or processor shall also inform the data subject of the request and of the authorisation by the supervisory authority.

5. The Commission may lay down the standard format of the notifications to the supervisory authority referred to in paragraph 2 and the information of the data subject referred to in paragraph 4 as well as the procedures applicable to the notification and information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 87(2).

[Read more] (1 comments)


June 13, 2013 | Peter Bradwell

Baroness Ludford's proposals take away your privacy choices

Many amendments proposed by Liberal Democrat MEP Baroness Ludford to the Data Protection Regulation would leave us with less control of our personal information. In this post, we focus on consent and loopholes.

Yesterday we wrote about Baroness Ludford's amendment to the Data Protection Regulation (amendment number 1210) that would mean your data could be transferred to a third country or international organisation without you being told. In the light of the PRISM revelations, we suggested this amendment should be withdrawn.

Baroness Ludford proposed a number of other amendments that we believe would seriously weaken the Regulation and undermine the control people have over their data. In this post, we focus on two other topics – consent, and loopholes. (Overall the Baroness proposed 113 amendments – you can read them all on LobbyPlag.eu. EDRi have analysed all the amendments too.)

1. Consent

The draft Regulation defines consent as having to be 'explicit'. However, in her proposed amendment 762, the Baroness removes words including 'explicit', leaving us with a much weaker definition. Here is the amendment:

Amendment 762
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 8

(8) ‘the data subject’s consent’ means any freely given specific, [DELETED: informed and explicit] [INSERTED: and informed] indication of his or her wishes by which the data subject, [DELETED either by a statement or by a clear affirmative action,] signifies agreement to personal data relating to them being processed;

Consent is one of the legal bases of processing. It is frequently abused, especially online, where collection is often based on vague or confusing language. Sometimes businesses say it is enough that someone's behaviour – for example signing up to a website – implies that they consent to the use of their data.

Removing the word 'explicit' or by replacing the definition with more vague language would allow companies to continue to assume consent has been given. They would be able to continue to assume you have 'implied' your consent, or to include consent language in hard to understand terms and conditions. Implied consent is effectively what we have now in the UK, and it has allowed companies to basically make it up as they go along.

As we mentioned yesterday, in an article for LibDem Voice Baroness Ludford cites the European consumer BEUC's position on consent in support of her position. In a response sent to members of the LIBE Committee, BEUC have been strongly critical, adding that it was 'to their dismay...that...(she) referred to our position on ‘consent’ in isolation and without referring to the points included in the BEUC position.” BEUC go on to say that other amendments proposed by the Baroness would “systematically reduce the level of protection that consumers in the UK and elsewhere enjoy”.

2. Creating broad loopholes

The proposed Regulation as it stands would also make sure that those wishing to gather and use data can only do so if they satisfy one of six grounds. Amendments that widen these grounds create a risk that it will be too easy for businesses or organisations to use data in ill-defined ways, or in ways that people can't control.

Some of the Baroness' amendments do just that. Amendment 862 would permit processing simply on the basis of industry codes of practice – taking your consent away from you on the basis of an agreement put together by businesses – for example, advertising companies – in which they merely promise to play by the rules.

Amendment 862
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation [INSERTED: or regulatory rule or industry code of practice, either domestically or internationally,] to which the controller is subject;

Further, we are concerned about amendment 876, which potentially means that data controllers – meaning Facebook, Google or Experian – could make assumptions about what people's 'legitimate expectations' regarding the efficient delivery of a service are, and to use personal data on that basis. This should not be a decisions in the hands of the data controller.

Amendment 876
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f

(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by a controller [INSERTED: such as to detect crime or to prevent crime, fraud, loss or harm or to meet the legitimate expectations of the data subject in the efficient delivery of the service], except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.

 

There are two further reasons, on top of amendment 1210, that we remain concerned about the damage the Baroness' amendments will do to our privacy rights. We do not believe this is an overreaction. We'll post some more tomorrow.

You can contact your MEPs on our campaign website to ask them to respect our privacy rights - just visit NakedCitizens.eu.

[Read more] (1 comments)


June 13, 2013 | Jim Killock

Website filtering problems are a “load of cock”

On Tuesday, I spoke at an event organised by the Sunday Times and Policy Exchange about online pornography and child protection. This was in the run-up to the opposition debate that took place in Parliament on Wednesday on these topics.

The motion laid down by Labour says:

That this House deplores the growth in child abuse images online; deeply regrets that up to one and a half million people have seen such images; notes with alarm the lack of resources available to the police to tackle this problem; further notes the correlation between viewing such images and further child abuse; notes with concern the Government's failure to implement the recommendations of the Bailey Review and the Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection on ensuring children's safe access to the internet; and calls on the Government to set a timetable for the introduction of safe search as a default, effective age verification and splash page warnings and to bring forward legislative proposals to ensure these changes are speedily implemented.

The "1.5m" statistic has been debunked elsewhere, but the alarming point here is the deliberate conflation of child abuse images and legal material, potentially accessed by children. The motion slips from talking about child abuse images, to 'safe searches' to protect children from seeing adult material. Just as worrying is the adoption of a position in favour of default blocking by Labour. You can read a transcript of the debate on Hansard.

claire perry at policy exchange, Policy Exchange CC-BY

This is a symptom of a wider problem with this debate - a failure to properly distinguish between different categories of content, and the different methods of dealing with them.  That requires at least some understanding of the technology - the details matter.

A further problem is an unwillingness from some MPs to appreciate or even acknowledge the problems with technical solutions. In the debate on Tuesday, I tried to outline the problems with filtering, including the over and under-blocking of content.

Claire Perry helpfully described such problems as a "load of cock". Helpfully, because such a comment would be very likely to be caught by a filter and cause it to be blocked, while not, of course being pornographic. 

Claire also got applause for suggesting that blocked websites were simply collateral damage necessary to protect children. This is the kind of woolly thinking that thankfully got rejected by her government, which recognised that economic harm stems from blocking legitimate websites, for instance. After all, if you can protect children, and avoid blocking for adults, why not? Can some balance not be struck?

Unfortunately, in the eyes of many MPs, arguing for balance is betraying children. If any children can access more porn than we can technically prevent, then we have failed. Of course, filters don't always work and can be easily got round, but if our solution helps a bit, surely that is better than nothing?

These kinds of position, once you examine them, are pretty incoherent. Filters that don't work well will probably get switched off. Defaults that block too much may encourage people to remove the filters. Parents may assume their children are safe when filters are switched on. Software design is iterative not legislative; yet legislation is often favoured over industry engagement.

The child protection debate over the last two years has won Claire Perry many friends, who believe she has raised the profile of an issue and got results. Certainly, the fact that ISPs are building network level filters points to this, but I was intrigued by a question at the debate on Tuesday. Apparently children are installing Chrome, because it was suggested that helps them access porn sites and gets round filters.

We did try to tell Claire this kind of thing would happen, before she persuaded ISPs to spend millions of pounds on network filters. Even with filters, if parents leave children with admin privileges, they will be able to use their computers to trivially defeat any blocks. Some MPs in the debate in Parliament suggested only 'very clever' folk will be able to get round filtering. This isn't true – most children will find this easy.

Which leaves us with the harms on all sides, to websites, adults and children, without the supposed benefits.

Labour have essentially made the same mistake as Culture Secretary Maria Miller's letter to online companies, in which she invited Internet companies to a proposed 'summit':

Recent horrific events have again highlighted the widespread public concern over the proliferation of, and easy access to, harmful content on the internet. Whether these concerns focus on access to illegal pornographic content, the proliferation of extremist material which might incite racial or religious hatred, or the ongoing battle against online copyright theft, a common question emerges: what more can be done to prevent offensive online content potentially causing harm?

It is clear that dangerous, highly offensive, unlawful and illegal material is available through basic search functions and I believe that many popular search engines, websites and ISPs could do more to prevent the dissemination of such material.

The debate and letter confuse legal, illegal and potentially harmful content, all of which require very different tactics to deal with. Without a greater commitment to evidence and rational debate, poor policy outcomes will be the likely result. There's a pattern, much the same as the Digital Economy Act, or the Snooper's Charter.

Start with moral panic; dismiss evidence; legislate; and finally, watch the policy unravel, either delivering unintended harms, even to children in this case, or simply failing altogether.

ORG, Index on Censorship, English PEN and Big Brother Watch have written to the Culture Secretary Maria Miller demanding that civil society be present at her 'summit', to make sure these issues are addressed. We have yet to receive a reply.

[Read more] (4 comments)


June 12, 2013 | Ruth Coustick-Deal

PRISM, Free speech and creativity: Looking back on ORGCon2013

Thanks to all who came along to ORGCon2013! ORG have a summary of the major sessions, plus details on where you can find more on the sessions you missed.

Open Rights Group’s third national conference took place last weekend at the Institute of Engineering and Technology, with a fantastic set of speakers and hundreds of attendees.

Thank you to all who came along, we hope you had a great event!

Due to recent news there was a big buzz around digital rights issues, especially privacy and surveillance, at this year’s ORGCon. The day was was full of energetic debate on a diverse range of topics and was not without a fair share of controversy. With five sessions happening simultaneously, we only regret we couldn’t witness it all! There were some recurring themes and certain topics that sparked much debate. Clearly PRISM was the issue on everyone’s minds, but topics of free speech including its relationship to copyright, feminism, social media and the child’s right to know was also a big area of contention.

The day kicked off with Tim Wu’s keynote speech on The Digital Rights Movement. Wu described how new technologies and movements have a tendency towards centralisation, but that the Internet has the capability to break out of that pattern, especially due to its communication power to allow consumers and rights activists to develop alternatives and share lo-tech ideas. Nevertheless, he left delegates with the warning that ‘any device designed to liberate can be used to enslave.’

Caspar Bowden presenting on FISAA

Caspar Bowden, privacy expert, spoke to an attentive audience keen to hear his insights on FISAAA, Data Protection and PRISM or ‘How to wiretap the Cloud (without almost anybody noticing).’ Bowden began with a disclaimer that he had not known about PRISM, but deduced what was going on from open-sources. Bowden explained how UK citizens have no right to privacy under the 4th Amendment, a subject that was brought up again in John Perry Barlow’s closing speech. You can read the slides of Caspar’s presentation here and watch his talk here.

Creative Citizens panel

The Creative Citizens panel session was as lively as promised with Steve Lawson, Diane Duane and Simon Indelicate sharing their experiences of how the Internet is changing the creative industries and what is means to be an artist, taking the perspective that it isn’t so much winning at the Internet that is important , but the way in which that the Internet allows you to be a failure on such a large scale that it can begin to seem like a new kind of success. As musicians begin to pave their own way and take control of their own marketing, Lawson suggested there might be a market for digital story-tellers or documenters as the the outlook appears grim for artists who are yet to get their heads around Twitter.

This year’s ORGCon for the first time featured a series of ten minute rapid-fire talks and this session was one of the highlights of the day. The talks were a great opportunity for ORG supporters to address the conference and get their point across snappily. In her stand-out talk Milena Popova shared her experience of the tensions between feminism and the digital rights activism in her talk ‘When Worlds Collide’ calling for the digital rights community to “reach out beyond our bubble of geeks in black t-shirts and make this a welcoming community for everyone.” These sessions were a quick introduction to lots of new projects and threats - for instance Tanya O’Caroll’s talk on Panic Button, Amnesty International’s new app, got a lot of interest from developers looking to contribute to the project, and Richard King gave a useful overview of how to start-up an ORG group - take a look at his blog and get involved.

John Perry Barlow presenting at ORGCOn2013

In the closing keynote John Perry Barlow re-asserted the utopian possibilities of the Internet in his speech ‘The Freedom to Know’. Barlow, making a case for radical transparency, asserted that privacy is contextual, making the bold claim that the loss of privacy that the Internet brings may lead to a greater acceptance of our individual idiosyncrasies, face tattoos and all. He took a great range of questions and spoke on issues from the un-taxability of bitcoins to the Internet as a threat to monotheism, on collective ways to assure human rights and on American civil liberties campaigners attitude to the threat to world-wide privacy from FISAA.

If you missed out on the day, and want more of a round-up, there are lots of other ways you can go over the material. Watch Caspar Bowden’s talk on FISAA right now, follow the hashtag #orgcon, look at the photos on Flickr and keep an eye for the upcoming videos of the main sessions where you watch a lot of the event.

If you have written a blog or report on ORGCon we would love to share it and hear your thoughts, so please let us know. If you have any specific feedback on orgcon, please email ruth@openrightsgroup.org - A questionnaire for all attendees will be out soon.

 

Read more blogs on ORGCon!

Milena Popova: http://milenapopova.eu/2013/06/orgcon---world-collisions-in-practice.html

Ray Corrigan: http://b2fxxx.blogspot.ch/2013/06/orgcon-2103-fisaaa-prism.html

Andrew McStay: http://advertising-communications-culture.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-rights-group-conference-org-2013.html

 

[Read more]


google plusdeliciousdiggfacebookgooglelinkedinstumbleupontwitteremail