What has the EDRi network been up to over the past few weeks? Find out the latest digital rights news in our bi-weekly newsletter. In this edition: Halloween is over… but digital rights horrors remain

The post EDRi-gram, 13 November 2025 appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

In early October, digital human rights organization Bits of Freedom took Meta to court. The organization demanded that Meta offers its users on in apps such as Instagram and Facebook the option to choose a feed that is not based on profiling. The judge ruled in favour of Bits of Freedom and ordered Meta to modify its apps within two weeks. Meta claimed that such changes were impossible to deliver in that timeframe and asked the Amsterdam Court of Appeal for a postponement. The court has now ruled that Meta will indeed be granted a postponement.

The post Judge grants Meta limited postponement in Bits of Freedom lawsuit appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

In his opinion, the Court’s Advocate General assesses the compliance of the French law regulating the collection of biometric data by police with EU data protection criteria. Although his interpretation remains strictly theoretical and fails to account for the reality of police practices in France, one of his proposals might become handy for people when seeking redress after abusive data collection.

The post Climate justice action repression vs EU data protection law: the Advocate General’s opinion appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

While the EU's AI Act aims to regulate high-risk AI systems, it is undermined by major loopholes that allow their unchecked use in the context of national security and law enforcement. These exemptions risk enabling, among others, mass surveillance of protests and discriminatory migration practices. To prevent this, EDRi affiliate Danes je nov dan has published recommendations for Slovenia to adopt stricter national safeguards and transparent oversight mechanisms.

The post The AI Act isn’t enough: closing the dangerous loopholes that enable rights violations appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

127 civil society organisations and unions are urging the European Commission to halt its planned Digital Omnibus, warning that the proposals would weaken core EU laws like the GDPR and AI Act, and represent the biggest rollback of digital rights in EU history.

The post Forthcoming Digital Omnibus would mark point of no return appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Press freedom just scored a $3 million win in Kansas. The county that participated in an illegal raid on the Marion County Record in 2023 is cutting big checks to journalists and a city councilor to settle their lawsuits.

As part of the settlement, the Marion County Sheriff’s Office also made a statement of “regret” for the raid, saying, “This likely would not have happened if established law had been reviewed and applied prior to the execution of the warrants.”

You think? Any police officer or judge with half an understanding of the First Amendment should’ve known better than to ask for or sign off on the raid on the Record and the home of owners Eric and Joan Meyer.

But apparently, police don’t always read the law, and judges may need a refresher, too. Let’s break down the flashing red lights any judge or cop should heed before storming a newsroom.

The First and Fourth amendments strongly protect against searches of journalists and newsrooms.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause, which means a likelihood that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at a particular place. The government must also specify the place to be searched and the thing to be seized.

When a search warrant targets materials protected by the First Amendment — like notes, recordings, drafts, and materials used or created by journalists — the Fourth Amendment’s requirements must be scrupulously followed, the Supreme Court has said.

This means that judges must be extra strict in applying the Fourth Amendment’s requirements when a search impacts First Amendment rights, which it will any time it involves a journalist or newsroom. What judges should never do is allow overly broad searches where police rifle through journalists’ desks and computer files willy-nilly in the hopes of turning up something “incriminating.”

The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 forbids the use of search warrants to seize materials from journalists, with only a few narrow exceptions.

The PPA is a federal law that requires law enforcement to get a subpoena, not just a search warrant, in most cases when dealing with reporters and newsrooms. Subpoenas give journalists the chance to challenge a demand for documents or equipment in court before police can seize them. If police had sought a subpoena for the Record’s newsgathering materials, for instance, the newspaper could have successfully challenged the demand in court, meaning that the newsroom would never have been raided and the Record’s confidential sources would have been protected.

There are narrow exceptions to the PPA’s subpoena requirement, including when there is probable cause to believe a journalist has committed a criminal offense related to the material sought. But, in general, the offense cannot relate to the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of newsgathering materials or information.

Journalists can read a guide on our website for more information about the PPA.

State shield laws are another barrier to newsroom searches.

Almost every state has a reporter’s shield law on the books that protects journalists from the compelled disclosure of their confidential sources and unpublished information, and sometimes protects against the forced disclosure of nonconfidential information, too. Courts around the country have also recognized a First Amendment and common law reporter’s privilege that can provide similar protections.

Kansas’ shield law, for instance, applies to “any information gathered, received or processed by a journalist, whether or not such information is actually published, and whether or not related information has been disseminated.” It forbids compelling a journalist from disclosing unpublished information or confidential sources until after a court hearing.

Other states’ shield laws have similar protections. Barging into a newsroom and searching it violates those laws and the established processes for law enforcement to obtain information from the press.

Accessing publicly available information or information provided by a source is not a crime, and is protected by the First Amendment.

Seems obvious, but judging by how often this comes up, maybe not.

Everyone has a First Amendment right to read, watch, or view publicly available information. It’s not a crime to access a record made publicly available by a government agency (as reporters at the Record did), to read something that someone published on a public website, even if it was published by accident, or to photograph police officers in public.

Journalists also have a right to publish information given to them by a source, even if the source obtained it illegally, as long as the journalist didn’t participate in the illegality. That means that if a source gives a journalist a document or recording that the source stole, the journalist can’t be punished for publishing it.

Because these things are not crimes, it also means that accessing publicly available information or publishing information that a source illegally obtained can’t be the basis for a raid on a newsroom or search of a journalist’s materials.

Next time, think before you raid.

The $3 million settlement is a step toward accountability, but it can’t undo the damage to the Record’s journalists or sources, and especially not to Joan Meyer, who died the day after police invaded her home.

If local communities don’t want to keep learning First Amendment law the expensive way, they must insist that law enforcement actually read the Constitution and the law before targeting the press.

freedom.press/issues/kansas-co…

Last month, we wrote to the Hyattsville Immigration Court in Maryland to express our alarm over a report that two journalists from Capital News Service had been expelled for not seeking express permission from the federal government to cover immigration proceedings.

Not only was that a blatant First Amendment violation, it was contrary to the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s own fact sheet, in which the arm of the Justice Department said that coordinating media visits with the government in advance was “encouraged,” not mandatory. It’s hard to blame journalists for not wanting to go out of their way to put themselves on the radar by “coordinating” with an administration that abhors the free press.

But we noticed another problem with the fact sheet. It said reporters “must” check in upon arriving at immigration court. We’d been hearing anecdotes for some time about journalists being asked to “check in” at lobbies of immigration courts in other parts of the country. The fact sheet confirmed it.

We expressed our concerns to the EOIR, which was (surprisingly) responsive to our initial letter, despite the shutdown. It confirmed that, as CNS reported, the journalists’ access had been restored and they were free to report on immigration court proceedings.

It also stated that journalists are not required to either coordinate visits with the government in advance or check in with courthouse personnel upon arrival. It explained that it prefers journalists check in so that they can arrange for priority seating, but that they do not have to do so. And it issued a new fact sheet to make that clear. Yes, the fact sheet reflects that EOIR, like far too many local and federal agencies, still unconstitutionally demands that all media inquiries be routed through a public information office. But that‘s a battle for another day.

We’re posting the email exchange and new fact sheet below so that any journalist who is told something to the contrary can show it to whoever is giving them incorrect information.

And kudos to the unnamed EOIR official who took care of this promptly. Let’s hope the Trump administration doesn’t fire them for gross competence.

freedom.press/static/pdf.js/we…

freedom.press/static/pdf.js/we…

freedom.press/issues/no-journa…

Ahoy Pirates,

Our next PPI board meeting will take place on 18.11.2025, 14:00 UTC / 15:00 CET.

All official PPI proceedings, Board meetings included, are open to the public. Feel free to stop by. We’ll be happy to have you.

Where:jitsi.pirati.cz/PPI-Board

Agenda: Pad: https://etherpad.pp-international.net/p/ppi-board-meeting-2025-08-05-vnly0cj

All of our meetings are posted to our calendar: pp-international.net/calendar/

We look forward to seeing visitors.

Thank you for your support,

The Board of PPI

pp-international.net/2025/11/p…

PPI’s main delegate at the United Nations Office of Geneva, Mr. Carlos Polo, attended events of the Environmental Programme (UNEP) this August. We attach some pictures of his visit, and we offer some comments about the efforts of our organization in helping to shape environmental policy.

The UNEP oordinates environmental work across the UN, but it is not the only organization. The UN has now created the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Each organization deals with separate environmenal issues and hosts its own conferences that include negotiations between nations and sometimes ask for statements and opinions of NGOs like our own. Currently the UNFCCC is hosting the COP conference in Brazil.

Carlos was able to observe the UNEP negotiations, but as we are not a nation (aka Party) we do not have a voice. Furthermore, we are not yet members of any of these conventions. PPI needs to establish more direct activities that promote environmental protection so that we can be accepted as members of these organizations, in addition to the Economic and Social Affairs Committee (ECOSOC) where we are already members.

We are hoping to make a bigger impact on international environmental governance. As an NGO, our abilities are limited. NGOs often watch from the back of the room. Our speaking time is scarce. The actual negotiation where the decisions are made take place behind closed doors, and we are simply able to only provide statements at the conference or as a published policy statement. One additional opportunity is that we can host side events. We have discussed cohosting a side even with other NGOs. If anyone is interested in collaborating, please contact us.

board@pp-international.net

Donations

pp-international.net/donations…

pp-international.net/2025/11/g…

Riportiamo la traduzione del post pubblicato da Patrick Breyer sul suo blog Poco prima di un incontro decisivo a Bruxelles, l’esperto di diritti digitali ed ex membro del Parlamento europeo, il Dott. Patrick Breyer, lancia l’allarme. Con un “ingannevole gioco di prestigio”, un controllo obbligatorio e ampliato della messaggistica privata viene imposto dalla porta sul retro…

Source