Die Abstimmungskampagne der Piratenpartei Zürich für die Digitale Integrität [1] kommt jetzt mit dem Versand der Abstimmungsunterlagen in die intensive Phase. Die Piraten stellen sich dabei deutlich gegen den Gegenvorschlag.

Renato Sigg, Vorstand der Piratenpartei Zürich: „Der Gegenvorschlag verwässert an den entscheidenden Punkten unsere Volksinitiative und würde die Digitale Integrität zum zahnlosen Papiertiger machen.“

Mit einem JA zur Digitalen Integrität kann der Kanton Zürich an den wegweisenden Erfolg vom Kanton Genf anknüpfen, wo in der Volksabstimmung 94% der Bürger einen vergleichbaren Schutz ihrer Daten forderten. Auf dieser Basis wurde der Kanton aufgefordert, Microsoft oder Google für Schüler nicht verpflichtend zu nutzen. [2]
[3]Die griffigen Auswirkungen im Kanton Genf kommentiert Renato Sigg: „Die Digitale Integrität ist ein zentrales Element für eine menschenwürdige Digitalisierung.“

Auch die Jugendsession 2025 fordert seit Sonntag eine „Digital Governance“, welche die digitale Selbstbestimmung, den Schutz persönlicher Daten und mehr digitale Souveränität beinhaltet.

[4]Auch in anderen Kantonen laufen gleiche Bestrebungen, direkt oder indirekt von den Piraten gefördert. Dort sind nun Vorbereitungsarbeiten im Gange, ähnliche Initiativen umzusetzen.

Die Digitalisierung ist in der heutigen Zeit wichtig und nicht wegzudenken, jedoch wird diese über die Köpfe der Menschen hinweg und oftmals gegen ihre Interessen umgesetzt. Das Grundrecht auf Digitale Integrität sorgt hier für dringend nötige Korrekturen.

Konkret lassen sich aus der Digitalen Integrität folgende Rechte ableiten:
Das Recht auf ein Offline-Leben.
Das Recht darauf, nicht von einer Maschine beurteilt zu werden.
Das Recht darauf, nicht überwacht, vermessen und analysiert zu werden.
Das Recht auf Vergessenwerden.
Das Recht auf Informationssicherheit.
Das Recht auf Schutz vor Verwendung von Daten ohne Zustimmung, welche das digitale Leben betreffen.

Jorgo Ananiadis, Präsident der Piratenpartei: „Die Inklusion muss ernst genommen werden. Auch älteren Menschen müssen wir die Möglichkeit bewahren, ihre Billete selbst zu lösen, an einem Schalter mit Menschen zu kommunizieren oder mit Bargeld zu zahlen. Die Freiheit, nicht ständig digital erreichbar oder kontrollierbar zu sein muss bestehen bleiben.“

Pascal Fouquet, Vorstandsmitglied Piratenpartei: „Alle müssen darauf bestehen können, dass im Zweifel ein Mensch eine Entscheidung fällt. Sei es bei der Bewerbung, beim Abschluss einer Versicherung oder einer medizinischen Behandlung.“

Das Recht auf digitale Unversehrtheit sollte endlich in allen Verfassungen aufgenommen werden [5]. Das Abstimmungsergebnis aus Genf, Neuenburg und der Sammelerfolg in Zürich bestätigen das wachsende Bewusstsein für digitale Rechte und den zunehmenden Bedarf nach Schutz der Privatsphäre. Der unermüdliche Einsatz der Piratenpartei, die sich seit fast einem Jahrzehnt für dieses Thema starkmacht, zeigt Wirkung [6]. Massgeblich verantwortlich hierfür ist Alexis Roussel [7].

Alexis Roussel, ehemaliger Co-Präsident der Piratenpartei und Autor des Buches „Notre si précieuse intégrité numérique“ (Unsere so wertvolle digitale Unversehrtheit): „Dies ist eine historische Chance für Zürich. Es ist der erste Schritt in Richtung einer digitalen Gesellschaft, die die Menschen schützt. Das Recht auf digitale Integrität gibt uns das Werkzeug, um gegen Massenüberwachung zu kämpfen.“

Die Piratenpartei ruft auch andere Kantone und die Schweizer Regierung auf, dem Beispiel von Genf und Neuenburg zu folgen und die digitalen Rechte in ihre Verfassungen und Gesetze aufzunehmen. Im Bundeshaus wurde im Dezember 2023 ein solcher Vorstoss abgelehnt [8]. Inzwischen hat die Staatspolitische Kommission des Nationalrates das Thema aber erneut aufgegriffen [9]. Es ist von entscheidender Bedeutung, dass die Bürgerinnen und Bürger ihre Privatsphäre und digitale Integrität geschützt wissen.

Ivan Büchi, Piratenpartei Ostschweiz
„Das Grundrecht auf digitale Integrität sichert eine humanistische Zukunft in Freiheit und Würde.“

Quellen:
[1] https://digitaleintegrität.ch/
[2] letemps.ch/cyber/donnees-perso…
[3] rune-geneve.ch/petition-integr…
[4] jugendsession.ch/2025
[5] https://www.ge.ch/votations/20230618/cantonal/4/
[6] de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_au…
[7] slatkine.com/fr/editions-slatk…
[8] parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/su…
[9] parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/su…

piratenpartei.ch/2025/11/09/ab…

The drive to protect minors online has been gaining momentum in recent years and is now making its mark in global policy circles. This shift, strongly supported by public sentiment, has also reached the European Union.

In a recent development, Members of the European Parliament, as part of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, approved a report raising serious concerns about the shortcomings of major online platforms in safeguarding minors. With 32 votes in favour, the Committee highlighted growing worries over issues such as online addiction, mental health impacts, and children’s exposure to illegal or harmful digital content.

What Is In The Report

The report discusses the creation of frameworks and systems to support age verification and protect children’s rights and privacy online. This calls for a significant push to incorporate safety measures as an integral part of the system’s design, within a social responsibility framework, to make the internet a safe environment for minors.

MEPs have proposed sixteen years as the minimum age for children to access social media, video-sharing platforms, and AI-based chat companions. Children below sixteen can access the above-mentioned platforms with parental permission. However, a proposal has been put forth demanding that an absolute minimum age of thirteen be set. This indicates that children under 13 cannot access or use social media platforms, even with parental permission.

In Short:

• Under 13 years of age: Not allowed on social media
• 13-15 years of age: Allowed with parents’ approval
• 16 years and above: Can use freely, no consent required

MEPs recommended stricter actions against non-compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA). Stricter actions range from holding the senior executives of the platforms responsible for breaches of security affecting minors to imposing huge fines.

The recommendations include banning addictive design features and engagement-driven algorithms, removing gambling-style elements in games, and ending the monetisation of minors as influencers. They also call for tighter control over AI tools that create fake or explicit content and stronger rules against manipulative chatbots.

What Do Reports And Research Say?

The operative smoothness and convenience introduced by the digital and technological advancements over the last two decades have changed how the world works and communicates. The internet provides a level field for everyone to connect, learn, and make an impact. However, the privacy of internet users and the access to and control over data are points of contention and a constant topic of debate. With an increasing percentage of minor users globally, the magnitude of risks has been multiplied. Lack or limited awareness of understanding of digital boundaries and the deceptive nature of the online environment make minors more susceptible to the dangers. Exposure to inappropriate content, cyberbullying, financial scams, identity theft, and manipulation through social media or gaming platforms are a few risks to begin with. Their curiosity to explore beyond boundaries often makes minors easy targets for online predators.

Recent studies have made the following observations (the studies are EU-relevant):

• According to the Internet Watch Foundation Annual Data & Insights / 2024 (reported 2025 releases), Record levels of child sexual abuse imagery were discovered in 2024; IWF actioned 291,273 reports and found 62% of identified child sexual abuse webpages were hosted in EU countries.
• WeProtect Global Alliance Global Threat Assessment 2023 (relevant to the EU) reported an 87% increase in child sexual abuse material since 2019. Rapid grooming on social gaming platforms and emerging threats from AI-generated sexual abuse material are the new patterns of online exploitation.
• According to WHO/Europe HBSC Volume on Bullying & Peer Violence (2024), one in six school-aged children (around 15-16%) experienced cyberbullying in 2022, a rise from previous survey rounds.

These reports indicate the alarming situation regarding minors’ safety and reflect the urgency with which the Committee is advancing its recommendations. Voting is due on the 23rd-24th of November, 2025.

While these reports underline the scale of the threat, they also raise an important question: are current solutions, like age verification, truly effective?

How Foolproof Is Age Verification As A Measure?

The primary concern in promoting age verification as a defence mechanism against cybercrime is the authenticity of those verification processes and whether they are robust enough to eliminate unethical practices targeting users. For instance, if the respondent (user) provides inaccurate information during the age verification process, are there any mechanisms in place to verify its accuracy?

Additionally, implementing age verification for children is next to impossible without violating the rights to privacy and free speech of adults, raising the question of who shall have access to and control over users’ data – Government bodies or big tech companies. Has “maintenance of anonymity” while providing data been given enough thought in drafting these policies? This is a matter of concern.

According to EDRI, a leading European Digital Rights NGO, deploying age verification as a measure to tackle multiple forms of cybercrime against minors is not a new policy. Reportedly, social media platforms were made to adopt similar measures in 2009. However, the problem still exists. Age verification as a countermeasure to cybercrime against minors is a superficial fix. Do the Commission’s safety guidelines address the root cause of the problem – a toxic online environment – is an important question to answer.

EDRI’s Key arguments:

• Age verification is not a solution to problems of toxic platform design, such as addictive features and manipulative algorithms.
• It restricts children’s rights to access information and express themselves, rather than empowering them.
• It can exclude or discriminate against users without digital IDs or access to verification tools.
• Lawmakers are focusing on exclusion instead of systemic reform — creating safer, fairer online spaces for everyone.
• True protection lies in platform accountability and ethical design, not mass surveillance or one-size-fits-all age gates.

Read the complete article here:
https://edri.org/our-work/age-verification-gains-traction-eu-risks-failing-to-address-the-root-causes-of-online-harm/ | https://archive.ph/wip/LIMUI: Protecting Minors Online: Can Age Verification Truly Make the Internet Safer?
Before floating any policy into the periphery of execution, weighing the positive and negative user experiences is pivotal, because a blanket policy based on age brackets might make it ineffective at mitigating the risks of an unsafe online space. Here, educating and empowering both parents and children with digital literacy can have a more profound and meaningful impact rather than simply regulating age brackets. Change always comes with informed choices.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Rümeysa Öztürk has been facing deportation for 227 days for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like, and the government hasn’t stopped targeting journalists for deportation. Read on for news from Illinois, our latest public records lawsuit, and how you can take action to protect journalism.

Enforce ICE restraining orders now

A federal judge in Chicago yesterday entered an order to stop federal immigration officers from targeting journalists and peaceful protesters, affirming journalists’ right to cover protests and their aftermath without being assaulted or arrested.

Judge Sara Ellis entered her ruling — which extended a similar prior order against Immigration and Customs Enforcement — in dramatic fashion, quoting everyone from Chicago journalist and poet Carl Sandburg to the Founding Fathers. But the real question is whether she’ll enforce the order when the feds violate it, as they surely will. After all, they violated the prior order repeatedly and egregiously.

Federal judges can fine and jail people who violate their orders. But they rarely use those powers, especially against the government. That needs to change when state thugs are tearing up the First Amendment on Chicago’s streets. We suspect Sandburg would agree.

Journalist Raven Geary of Unraveled Press summed it up at a press conference after the hearing: “If people think a reporter can’t be this opinionated, let them think that. I know what’s right and what’s wrong. I don’t feel an ounce of shame saying that this is wrong.”

Congratulations to Geary and the rest of the journalists and press organizations in Chicago and Los Angeles that are standing against those wrongs by taking the government to court and winning. Listen to Geary’s remarks here.

Journalists speak out about abductions from Gaza aid flotillas

We partnered with Defending Rights & Dissent to platform three U.S. journalists who were abducted from humanitarian flotillas bound for Gaza and detained by Israel.

They discussed the inaction from their own government in the aftermath of their abduction, shared their experiences while detained, and reflected on what drove them to take this risk while so many reporters are self-censoring.

We’ll have a write-up of the event soon, but it deserves to be seen in full. Watch it here.

FPF takes ICE to court over dangerous secrecy

We filed yet another Freedom of Information Act lawsuit this week — this time to uncover records on ICE’s efforts to curtail congressional access to immigration facilities.

“ICE loves to demand our papers but it seems they don’t like it as much when we demand theirs,” attorney Ginger Quintero-McCall of Free Information Group said.

If you are a FOIA lawyer who is interested in working with us pro bono or for a reduced fee on FOIA litigation, please email lauren@freedom.press.

Read more about our latest lawsuit here.

If Big Tech can’t withstand jawboning, how can individual journalists?

Last week, Sen. Ted Cruz convened yet another congressional hearing on Biden-era “jawboning” of Big Tech companies. The message: Government officials leaning on these multibillion-dollar conglomerates to influence the views they platform was akin to censorship.

Sure, the Biden administration’s conduct is worth scrutinizing and learning from. But if you accept the premise that gigantic tech companies are susceptible to soft pressure from a censorial government, doesn’t it go without saying that so are individual journalists who lack anything close to those resources?

We wrote about the numerous instances of “jawboning” of individual reporters during the current administration that Senate Republicans failed to address at their hearing. Read more here.

Tell lawmakers from both parties to oppose Tim Burke prosecution

Conservatives are outraged at Tucker Carlson for throwing softballs to neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes. But the Trump administration is continuing its predecessor’s prosecution of journalist Tim Burke for exposing Tucker Carlson whitewashing another antisemite — Ye, formerly known as Kanye West.

Lawmakers shouldn’t stand for this hypocrisy, regardless of political party. Tell them to speak up with our action center.

What we’re reading

FBI investigating recent incident involving feds in Evanston, tries to block city from releasing records (Evanston RoundTable). Apparently obstructing transparency at the federal level is no longer enough and the government now wants to meddle with municipal police departments’ responses to public records requests.

To preserve records, Homeland Security now relies on officials to take screenshots (The New York Times). The new policy “drastically increases the likelihood the agency isn’t complying with the Federal Records Act,” FPF’s Lauren Harper told the Times.

When your local reporter needs the same protection as a war correspondent (Poynter). Foreign war correspondents get “hostile environment training, security consultants, trauma counselors and legal teams. … Local newsrooms covering militarized federal operations in their own communities? Sometimes all we have is Google, group chats and each other.”

YouTube quietly erased more than 700 videos documenting Israeli human rights violations (The Intercept). “It is outrageous that YouTube is furthering the Trump administration’s agenda to remove evidence of human rights violations and war crimes from public view,” said Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Plea to televise Charlie Kirk trial renews Senate talk of cameras in courtrooms (Courthouse News Service). It’s past time for cameras in courtrooms nationwide. None of the studies have ever substantiated whatever harms critics have claimed transparency would cause. Hopefully, the Kirk trial will make this a bipartisan issue.

When storytelling is called ‘terrorism’: How my friend and fellow journalist was targeted by ICE (The Barbed Wire). “The government is attempting to lay a foundation for dissenting political beliefs as grounds for terrorism. And people like Ya’akub — non-white [or] non-Christian — have been made its primary examples. Both journalists; like Mario Guevara … and civilians.”

freedom.press/issues/time-to-e…

Last week, Sen. Ted Cruz convened yet another congressional hearing on Biden-era “jawboning” of Big Tech companies. The message: Government officials leaning on these multibillion-dollar conglomerates to influence the views they platform was akin to censorship. Officials may not have formally ordered the companies to self-censor, but they didn’t have to – businesspeople know it’s in their economic interests to stay on the administration’s good side.

They’re not entirely wrong. Public officials are entitled to express their opinions about private speech, but it’s a different story when they lead speakers to believe they have no choice but to appease the government. At the same time the Biden administration was making asks of social platforms, the former president and other Democrats (and Republicans) pushed for repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the law that allows social media to exist.

It’s unlikely that the Biden administration intended its rhetoric around Section 230 to intimidate social media platforms into censorship. That said, it’s certainly possible companies made content decisions they otherwise wouldn’t have when requested by a government looking to legislate them out of existence. It’s something worth exploring and learning from.

But if you accept the premise — as I do — that gigantic tech companies with billions in the bank and armies of lawyers are susceptible to soft pressure from a censorial government, doesn’t it go without saying that so are individual journalists who lack anything close to those resources?

If it’s jawboning when Biden officials suggest Facebook take down anti-vaccine posts, isn’t it “jawboning” when a North Carolina GOP official tells ProPublica to kill a story, touting connections to the Trump administration? When the president calls for reporters to be fired for doing basic journalism, like reporting on leaks? When the White House and Pentagon condition access on helping them further official narratives? A good-faith conversation about jawboning can’t just ignore all of that.

Here are some more incidents Cruz and his colleagues have not held hearings about:

• A Department of Homeland Security official publicly accused a Chicago Tribune reporter of “interference” for the act of reporting where immigration enforcement was occurring. Journalism, in the government’s telling, constituted obstruction of justice. That certainly could lead others to tread cautiously when exercising their constitutional right to document law enforcement actions.
• Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard attacked Washington Post reporter Ellen Nakashima by name, suggesting her reporting methods — which is to say, calling government officials — were improper and reflected a media establishment “desperate to sabotage POTUS’s successful agenda.” Might that dissuade reporters from seeking comment from sources, or sources from providing such comment to reporters?
• When a journalist suggested people contact her on the encrypted messaging app Signal, an adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said she should be banned from Pentagon coverage. The Pentagon then attempted to exclude her from Hegseth’s trip to Singapore. Putting aside the irony of Hegseth’s team taking issue with Signal usage, it’s fair to assume journalists are less likely to suggest sources lawfully contact them via secure technologies if doing so leads to government threats and retaliation.
• Bill Essayli, a U.S. attorney in California, publicly called a reporter “a joke, not a journalist” for commenting on law enforcement policies for shooting at moving vehicles. Obviously, remarks from prosecutors carry unique weight and have significant potential to chill speech, particularly when prosecutors make clear that they don’t view a journalist as worthy of the First Amendment’s protections for their profession.

Sources wanting to expose wrongdoing ... will think twice about talking to journalists who are known targets of an out-of-control administration.

There are plenty more examples — and that doesn’t even get into all the targeting of news outlets, from major broadcast networks to community radio stations. They may have more resources than individual reporters, but they’re nowhere near as well positioned to withstand a major spike in legal bills and insurance premiums as big social media firms (who this administration also jawbones to censor constitutionally protected content).

And hovering over all of this is President Donald Trump himself, whose social media feed doubles as an intimidation campaign against reporters. Our Trump Anti-Press Social Media Tracker documents hundreds of posts targeting not only news outlets but individual journalists. It’s documented over 3,500 posts. Unlike Biden-era “jawboning,” threats like these come from the very top — people in a position to actually carry them out. And unlike Biden’s administration, Trump’s track record makes the threat of government retribution real, not hypothetical.

Trump views excessive criticism of him as “probably illegal.” He has made very clear his desire for journalists to be imprisoned, sued for billions, and assaulted for reasons completely untethered to the Constitution, and has surrounded himself with bootlicking stooges eager to carry out his whims. “Chilling” is an understatement for the effect when a sitting president — particularly an authoritarian one — threatens journalists for doing their job.

It’s not only that these journalists don’t have the resources of Meta, Alphabet, and the like. They also have much more to lose. Tech companies might get some bad PR based on how they handle government takedown requests, but it’s unlikely to significantly impact their bottom line, particularly when news content comprises a small fraction of their business.

But journalists don’t just host news content, they create it. Their whole careers depend on their reputations and the willingness of sources to trust them. Sources wanting to expose wrongdoing, who often talk to journalists at great personal risk and try to keep a low profile, will think twice about talking to journalists who are known targets of an out-of-control administration.

Other news outlets might be reluctant to hire someone who has been singled out by the world’s most powerful person and his lackeys. Editors and publishers — already spooked about publishing articles that might draw a SLAPP suit or worse from Trump — will be doubly hesitant when the article is written by someone already on the administration’s public blacklist.

Unlike Biden’s antics, the Trump administration has cut out the middleman by directly targeting the speech and speakers it doesn’t like. And it wields this power against people with a fraction of the resources to fight back. If that’s not jawboning, what is?

freedom.press/issues/if-big-te…

The Black Response and Impact Boston will present The Criminalization of Self-Defense, a community education event on Thursday, November 20, from 6:00 to 8:30 PM at The Community Art Center in Cambridge, MA. We are proud to be one of the sponsors of it. Please register in advance.

It is a free and public gathering that will explore how self-defense is criminalized, particularly for Black, Brown, and marginalized survivors, and how communities can reclaim safety through resistance, advocacy, and care.

Featured Speakers will be:

• Prof. Alisa Bierria – Survived and Punished / UCLA
• Meg Stone – Impact Boston
• Kishana Smith-Osei – Massachusetts Women of Color Network
• Lea Kayali – Palestinian Youth Movement Boston

The Community Art Center is at 119 Windsor Street, Cambridge. It is a nine minute walk from Central Square and the MBTA Red Line stop there.

FREE food and childcare will be provided. TBR will collect food donations for the network of free CommunityFridges. Please bring nonperishable food items to contribute. More details are available.

masspirates.org/blog/2025/11/0…

Thanks to everyone who came out for last weekend’s Pirate Meetup at the Boston Anarchist Bookfair. Thanks also to the Boston Anarchist Bookfair and everyone who attended, presented or had a table at it.

Previously, we recorded 20 cameras around the Cambridge Community Center. Over the two days, we added 134 cameras in that area. So many of those were motion-activated doorbell cameras. Now that Amazon will allow police to search the surveillance videos their cameras record via Flock’s surveillance system, it is important we know where they are.

If you want to add to the map, consult our Mapping Surveillance page with instructions on how to create an Open Street Map account, set up a client on your phone and start hunting for cameras!

We look forward to next year’s bookfair. We will find all the cameras in the area before then, so attendees can know how to protect themselves when they are walking there.

masspirates.org/blog/2025/11/0…

The 2026 edition of the EU Open Source Policy Summit will bring together leaders from the public and private sectors to focus on one clear proposition: open source delivers digital sovereignty.

The post EU Open Source Policy Summit 2026 appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

The 39th Chaos Communication Congress (39C3) takes place in Hamburg on 27–30 Dec 2025, and is the 2025 edition of the annual four-day conference on technology, society and utopia organized by the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) and volunteers.

The post 39th Chaos Communication Congress (39C3) appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Digital rights are human rights. In a society increasingly shaped by the digital world, it is essential to emphasize the importance of everyone’s right to access, use, and create digital technologies and content. These rights encompass the protection of privacy, freedom of expression, and the right to access information online. They ensure that individuals can engage with digital platforms, participate in online communities, and share content freely and safely, without facing undue censorship, surveillance, or discrimination.

The post International Digital Rights Days appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

In 2021, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child introduced General Comment No. 25 on children’s rights in the digital environment, marking a milestone in aligning child rights with the digital age. But what real impact has it had?

The post World Children’s Day: digital futures for children – children’s rights under pressure in the digital environment appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

The Collective Redress and Digital Fairness Conference, organized by the University of Amsterdam with support from the Stichting Onderzoek Collectieve Actie, provides a forum to examine how collective redress can ensure effective judicial protection against Big Tech’s contested business practices.

The post Collective Redress and Digital Fairness Conference appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) has for a number of years organised capacity building workshops on digital rights and policies for a wide variety of stakeholders to enable better understanding of a rights-based approach to ICT policy making.

The post Workshops – Internet Rules: Understanding digital rights and policies in South and Southeast Asia appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

For the last last ten years, the EYI festival has fostered meaningful exchange, encouraged peer-to-peer and intergenerational learning, and celebrated cross-cultural connection.

The post European Young Innovators Festival appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Organised by Finance Watch, the Finance for Society Forum is a high-level event held biennially to bring together policymakers, academics, civil society, and financial sector professionals to shape the future of finance.

The post Finance For Society Forum 2025 appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).