KW 18: Die Woche, in der fast niemand vom Überwachungspaket sprach
KW 18: Die Woche, in der fast niemand vom Überwachungspaket sprach
Ein Rückblick von @markusreuter auf eine Woche, in der fast niemand vom Überwachungspaket sprach:
netzpolitik.org/2026/kw-18-die…
Die 18. Kalenderwoche geht zu Ende. Wir haben 15 neue Texte mit insgesamt 107.920 Zeichen veröffentlicht. Willkommen zum netzpolitischen Wochenrückblick.Markus Reuter (netzpolitik.org)
reshared this
Erzwungene „Grenzpartnerschaft“: EU-Kommission will US-Behörden erlauben, politische Ansichten und „Herkunft“ abzufragen
Laut dem nun vorliegenden Entwurf eines Rahmenabkommens über eine „Grenzpartnerschaft“ mit der Trump-Administration dürfen US-Behörden in EU-Staaten nicht nur Gesichtsbilder, sondern auch Namen, Gesundheitsdaten oder sexuelle Orientierung in Polizeidatenbanken abfragen.
netzpolitik.org/2026/erzwungen…
Laut dem nun vorliegenden Entwurf eines Rahmenabkommens über eine „Grenzpartnerschaft“ mit der Trump-Administration dürfen US-Behörden in EU-Staaten nicht nur Gesichtsbilder, sondern auch Namen, Gesundheitsdaten oder sexuelle Orientierung in Polizeid…Matthias Monroy (netzpolitik.org)
reshared this
A2A v1: comunicazione cross-platform tra agenti AI nel Microsoft Agent Framework per .NET
#tech
spcnet.it/a2a-v1-comunicazione…
@informatica
reshared this
Dear Friend of Press Freedom:
U.S. journalist Alex Colston was detained by Israel for a second time while on board an international aid flotilla to Gaza, along with French and Turkish Al Jazeera journalists and almost 200 activists. He reports that he and other abductees were held for two days in shipping containers, in stress positions and under floodlights, while some endured further torture. Most of them have been released, but the U.S. State Department was of no help. It opted to condemn the flotillas rather than defending Americans illegally abducted in international waters.
Read on for more press freedom news. But first, tell your lawmakers to help put a stop to domestic surveillance by reforming FISA Section 702.
Join our email list to stay up to date on the issues and learn how you can help protect journalists and sources everywhere.
Full Name Email Address Subscribe See all newsletters Go to mailing list subscription page
Thanks for signing up for our newsletter. You are not yet subscribed! Please check your email for a message asking you to confirm your subscription.
Days before the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, comedian Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about President Donald Trump’s mortality. No one protested until after a gunman unsuccessfully attempted to evade security at the dinner. Trump then feigned outrage, claiming Kimmel called for his assassination. Because there’s no other reason to joke that a 79-year-old whose own health secretary says it’s a wonder he’s alive might not be long for this world.
The following day, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr and his Donald Trump lapel pin ordered Disney’s ABC, which airs Kimmel’s show, to seek early renewal of its broadcast licenses. It’s the latest escalation in Carr’s never-ending quest to kiss up to his boss by attacking free speech.
We said in a statement, “The FCC is neither the journalism police nor the humor police. This is nothing but illegal jawboning intended to intimidate ABC into kissing the ring.” And Carr’s claims that his attack on ABC is really about diversity, equity, and inclusion — not censorship — is an insult to our intelligence. That he felt the need to cite a pretext only further demonstrates that he knows full well that his prior threats of content-based retaliation were frivolous.
ABC needs to fight back to make clear that Carr’s new tactic won’t work. Otherwise it’s entirely possible he’ll try it again next time a news show inspires a late night rage tweet from his boss.
For years, World Press Freedom Day on May 3 has helped spotlight global press freedom violations. It’s a day to demand justice for journalists murdered in Gaza and Lebanon, or to celebrate the release of wrongfully detained reporters like Ahmed Shihab-Eldin.
Holding foreign regimes accountable for press freedom is essential, and it’s been a rough year for journalists’ rights all around the globe. But this year, the U.S. — which dropped to 64th out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index — needs to take a hard look in the mirror, too.
FPF joined Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in a lawsuit seeking to establish that federal agencies must abide by the Presidential Records Act, including the provision that presidential papers become subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act five years after the end of the president’s term. The suit follows the Justice Department’s nonsense memo claiming the PRA is unconstitutional and contests the White House’s internal guidance allowing deletion of text messages, despite the act’s requirements.
Those seeking to settle regulatory actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission are prohibited from publicly disputing the SEC’s claims against them. It’s a dangerous prior restraint, especially as financial regulators deal with new technologies from cryptocurrency to prediction markets. They’re sure to make mistakes, and you deserve to be informed.
We’ve assembled a group of experts, including legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams and attorneys from the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, to talk about the dangers of the “gag rule” and current efforts to challenge it at the Supreme Court. Join us on Tuesday, May 5, at 2 p.m. ET.
The Guardian
Any longer term extension must include reforms to stop illegal surveillance of journalists and other Americans. Maybe this will help: Sen. Ron Wyden said he “secured a deal that a long-term extension would not move forward without a secretive court opinion being made public, which he says reveals abuses of Americans’ rights through section 702.”
The Associated Press
Israel’s excuses for barring international press from entering Gaza were nonsense at the height of the war. They make even less sense now. It’s clearer than ever that Israel doesn’t want the world to see the truth and Americans to see what they’re bankrolling.
The Guardian
“Some executives are asking not, ‘Is the story true?’ But, ‘Is it good for business?’”
Ars Technica
News companies have caved to Carr and Trump in the past, but times have changed — Trump is highly unpopular and loses in court regularly. We hope ABC not only defends itself but goes on offense to put a stop to Carr’s jawboning for good.
NOTUS
It’s impossible to look at the firing of FOIA officials after the release of a declassified memo to FPF as “anything other than inappropriate retaliation for a lawful FOIA release,” FPF’s Lauren Harper explains.
Forward Kentucky
Kentucky’s legislature needs to step in and fix this. Government officials can’t be allowed to evade transparency by using personal devices to discuss government business.
For years, World Press Freedom Day on May 3 has helped spotlight global press freedom violations. It’s a day to demand justice for journalists murdered in Gaza and Lebanon, or to celebrate the release of wrongfully detained reporters like Ahmed Shihab-Eldin.
Holding foreign regimes accountable for press freedom is essential. But this year, the U.S. needs to take a hard look in the mirror, too.
Since last year’s World Press Freedom Day, our U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented hundreds of press freedom violations in the United States, the equivalent of more than one per day. Taken together, these incidents are evidence of an unprecedented, coordinated assault on press freedom being led by the highest levels of our government.
From the streets of Minneapolis to the halls of the Pentagon, the Trump administration is dismantling the First Amendment right to gather and report the news.
The majority of press freedom incidents cataloged by the Tracker since last May 3 are of journalists being assaulted and arrested while covering protests.
Most reporters arrested at demonstrations have their charges dropped later. But not journalists Don Lemon, Georgia Fort, and Junn Bollman. They now face bogus charges under federal prosecution for engaging in obviously constitutionally-protected reporting while covering a protest at a St. Paul, Minnesota, church in January.
They’re not the only journalists being prosecuted for covering anti-immigration enforcement protests in Minnesota. Photographer John Abernathy — who was pictured tossing his camera to another photographer to protect it, while being surrounded and arrested by federal agents at a different protest in a Minneapolis suburb last January — is also facing federal criminal charges.
Outside the context of protests, multiple federal agencies are also trying to redefine routine journalism as wrong or illegal.
Perhaps most notoriously, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tried to ban reporters from the Pentagon unless they signed what amounts to a loyalty pledge promising not to ask sources for information. Even after a court said the ban (and a subsequent rewrite) was unconstitutional, the government continues to fight for the right to exclude reporters who aren’t interested in acting as Pentagon stenographers.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and former Attorney General Pam Bondi have tried to chill reporting by accusing journalists of “doxxing” or fomenting violence against federal immigration agents by naming them or photographing them in public. They’ve threatened to prosecute CNN for reporting on an ICE-watching app and coerced app stores into removing that software, a clear violation of the Constitution.
At the FBI, Director Kash Patel launched a retaliatory “stalking” investigation into New York Times reporter Elizabeth Williamson because Williamson did her job: reaching out to Patel’s girlfriend Alexis Wilkins to ask for a comment on reporting that Patel was using government resources on Wilkins’ behalf. Even the Department of Justice thought that was too much, concluding there was no legal basis for the investigation of Williamson.
But perhaps no government official has done more to target journalism on Trump’s behalf than Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr. By threatening to punish broadcasters for reporting and editing news, and encouraging media mergers meant to benefit the Trump administration, Carr has shown he’s willing to trade the First Amendment (and whatever dignity he has left considering he wears a gilded bust of Trump as a lapel pin) for political points.
The Trump administration is also moving aggressively to shut down journalists’ relationships with their sources.
In January, the FBI raided the home of Washington Post journalist Hannah Natanson, the “federal government whisperer” who’d written about the hundreds of her confidential sources from within the government. When the agency asked a court for the search warrant allowing the raid, the government purposefully omitted any mention of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, a federal law that prohibits such raids in almost all circumstances.
More recently, the DOJ used the Espionage Act to charge Courtney Williams, a former Army employee who spoke to reporter Seth Harp about sexual harassment and discrimination in the military. Like most Espionage Act cases involving reporters and sources, this case doesn’t seem to be about national security. It’s about hiding government misconduct by retaliating against journalists and sources who expose it.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. We haven’t even gotten into the SLAPP lawsuits, the attacks on immigrant journalists, the threats to jail journalists who refuse to burn sources, the yanking of funding from public media, and so much more.
In other words, the U.S. is rapidly joining the ranks of the world’s worst press freedom offenders.
But it’s not too late to fight back.
Newsrooms can sue over press freedom violations and win. Lawmakers can reform the Espionage Act and Privacy Protection Act, and pass a federal shield law protecting journalists and their sources. Journalists can and should write and speak out about press freedom violations. The public can take action to demand that the Trump administration stop treating the First Amendment like a suggestion.
The United States can’t lead the world in defending press freedom on World Press Freedom Day when it’s actively dismantling it at home. It’s time to stop asking the Trump administration to respect the First Amendment. We need to use the courts, Congress, and the power of the people to force it.
Liberiamo le scuole dalle Big Tech
Abbiamo appena festeggiato il 25 aprile con la liberazione dal nazifascismo. La Resistenza non è finita: oggi dobbiamo liberarci dagli strumenti e dai servizi forniti dalle Big Tech per diventare autonomi dalle multinazionali e acquisire una nostra sovranità digitale, soprattutto nelle scuole.
peacelink.it/cybercultura/a/51…
#freesoftware #ooxml #odf #word #microsoft #libreoffice #nobigtech
CyberCultura - Comunicato stampa - Abbiamo appena festeggiato il 25 aprile con la liberazione dal nazifascismo.Nicola Vallinoto (CyberCultura)
reshared this
Many pirates have been writing about the growing global movement to enforce age verification on social media and other online forums. We thus started asking our communities for feedback on this issue. This blog outlines the reasons for our concerns. We outline a number of studies and media that document the issue. PPI will continue to monitor this situation and attempt to submit statements at the UN and other international forums to block age verification enforcement.
Australia now leads with the world’s first national social media ban for children under 16. In January 2026 France formally passed a law to restrict minors under 15 from accessing mainstream platforms, necessitating age verification for platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. This measure was criticized by those who highlight privacy concerns and ease of circumvention. Europe is following suit. Ireland is preparing comparable bans, which it hopes to advance at the EU level during its upcoming presidency, with many other countries also contemplating similar measures. In the UK, enforcement of age assurance systems has become a flashpoint under the Online Safety Act 2023. Within the USA as well, states have pursued distinct age-related restrictions. Virginia’s Senate Bill 854 imposes limits on minors’ social media usage.
When addressing child safety issues on Big Tech platforms, we must avoid ways that will inadvertently turn the Internet into a digital panopticon
The Brookings Institution’s 2025 analysis of U.S. children’s online safety legislation
brookings.edu/articles/childre…
Many of the age verification laws, as we know it, have attracted intense criticism as in order for them to be practically enforceable, users will inevitably have to submit to face scans and ID checks in order to verify their age. The end result is that the gatekeepers, namely governments, platforms and third-party verification providers, will be able to retain anything that traces any given accounts to any linked face biometrics and IDs, which presents massive negative implications for the right to privacy, and also the right to free expression.
Governments of some countries, particularly Malaysia and Turkey, are even shrewder in wanting to turn the Internet into a de facto digital panopticon, which doesn’t help things at all except to benefit those in power including political elites and Big Tech companies, as the Malaysian government has announced that, by mid-2026, social media platforms must verify users’ ages using national identity cards, which reportedly make their age verification law to become the strictest in the world, which will outrightly block anyone under the age of sixteen from using social media services, and seemingly excludes the comparatively privacy-safe pathways such as age inference methods of analyzing a user’s behavior, location, and account history, along with Needemand’s BorderAge solution which reportedly can check any user’s age by looking at their hand movements, instead of their faces and IDs. Malaysia’s Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil calls it “a good mechanism to verify that somebody is below or above the age of 16.” The stated goal is noble: shield children from scams, harmful videos, and other online dangers that have surged in recent years.
asia.nikkei.com/editor-s-picks…
biometricupdate.com/202604/mal…
thesun.my/news/malaysia-news/p…
As for Turkey, the authorities there are even more explicit in wanting to forcibly link every social media accounts to government IDs.
balkaninsight.com/2026/04/03/t…
But here is a blunt warning: give governments and Big Tech an inch on mandatory ID checks, and they will take a mile, just like what happened in Hong Kong when the National Security Law, passed in 2020, is followed by an arbitrary digital search law where anyone living in there are forced to consent to digital checks by police, including the disclosure of login credentials, under the threat of criminal penalty.
bbc.com/news/articles/ce8j9yj5…
What begins as “think of the children” can easily becomes the infrastructure for mass surveillance, political censorship, and the erosion of anonymous speech—the very freedoms the internet was built to protect. We have seen this playbook before, particularly in Russia.
Australia’s under-16 social media ban, rolled out in late 2025 with facial ID verification, was sold as child protection. Advocates for children and young people with disabilities warned it would backfire. They were right, as autistic teens who rely on platforms to communicate at their own pace, build friendships without the pressure of in-person interaction, or simply feel less alone have been cut off from their primary social outlets.
As one 14-year-old put it after losing access: “It feels like I’ve lost my friends.”
The ban isolates the very kids who need connection most, while determined teens simply create new accounts or use VPNs. The collateral damage was predictable—and ignored. Similar laws in the United States and elsewhere are already failing LGBTQ+ youth. Brookings Institution analysis shows that vague “online safety” rules—often paired with age gates—lead platforms to over-censor content about identity, mental health, and community support. For many queer and trans teens in unsupportive families, the internet is a lifeline.
Besides, social media platforms are also important for people with chronic or rare diseases, such as HIV and Long COVID, who find communities of fellow patients, activists in authoritarian countries who use social media to organize, and artists who built careers on these services. They too will get severely disadvantaged if those privacy-infringing blanket ban laws are passed across the globe.
techdirt.com/2026/02/17/austra…
theintercept.com/2026/03/05/ko… (archive.is/IbsEo)
In particular, for political activists and dissidents, along with corporate whistleblowers, the privacy-infringing laws will leave them vulnerable to harassment and repressions. Instances of transnational repressions like (this politico.eu/article/russia-spy…) will only become more common. Just as a perspective, Erika Cheung, a whistleblower who exposed Theranos’ frauds, was briefly an “anonymous source”, presumably in fear of corporate retaliation.
blogs.und.edu/und-today/2024/1…
When activists and whistleblowers are snuffed out by such a digital panopticon, the distance between what is said and what is known to be true will become an abyss. Of all the things at risk, the loss of an objective reality is perhaps the most dangerous. The death of truth is the ultimate victory of evil. When truth leaves us, either by letting it slip away or letting it ripped from our hands, we become vulnerable to the appetite of whatever monster screams the loudest.
Turkey’s decision to explicitly destroy online anonymity inevitably makes one question whether the true reason behind the push for age verification laws worldwide are really to protect the children or not. After all, if those governments are actually serious about children’s well being, they would’ve invested in things like air cleaners in schools and cures for long COVID, given that there are many researches demonstrating that long COVID had harmed children’s well being by a lot, even as governments worldwide had deemed the COVID pandemic to be long over.
thelancet.com/journals/laninf/…
nature.com/articles/s43856-025…
chicagotribune.com/2025/09/30/…
cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/study-…
spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/…
There is also a practical democratic strategy in the United States. In 18 states, citizens can propose constitutional amendments themselves by collecting signatures and putting the amendment directly before voters. This means that digital privacy protections do not have to wait for legislators. One possible amendment could state: “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to unreasonable governmental intrusions on digital privacy, including the right to anonymity.” Such a proposal could help protect people against privacy-intrusive age verification mandates, digital ID systems, and other forms of compulsory online identification.
ballotpedia.org/Initiated_cons…
To be extremely clear, we are not denying the fact that various issues such as enshittification on social media platforms have lead to direct impacts of mental health of their users, particularly juveniles, in light of the latest news that juries in the US have held Facebook/Meta and YouTube liable for manipulative designs—infinite scroll, autoplay, persistent notifications—that hook children into compulsive use. However, we firmly believe that improving child safety on these platforms should not come at the cost of accidentally turning the digital world into a totalitarian panopticon which will only benefit the elites after all. The problem is not that children are online; it is that platforms are engineered to exploit them for profit.
Amnesty International called the verdict “landmark,” demanding fundamental changes to platform architecture rather than blunt bans or ID mandates.
hardresetmedia.com/p/new-court…
amnestyusa.org/press-releases/…
Even prominent critics of social media harms, such as Jonathan Haidt in The Anxious Generation, have expressed reservations about universal government-mandated ID checks. Haidt rightly stresses the importance of parenting and cultural solutions alongside regulation. Blanket surveillance is not the answer. There are privacy-preserving ways to protect children. Pirates propose smarter, targeted alternatives that respect civil liberties:
kelly.senate.gov/newsroom/pres…
Beyond children, Big Tech’s enshittification demand fixing as harsh inactive-account deletion policies (especially Google’s) erase digital lives and undermine historical memory. Even worse, inadequate human support for lockouts in Facebook and Google leaves ordinary users stranded, as countless stories on forums like r/facebookdisabledme attest.
reddit.com/r/facebookdisabledm…
reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1i…
For harsh inactive-account deletion policies, we have already opined our thoughts and solutions in this previous article (pp-international.net/2026/02/d…) which include mandating some large scale web services that can conceivably include Apple, AOL, Bluesky, Discord, Facebook, Github, Google (including YouTube), Mastodon.social, Microsoft, Instagram, LinkedIn, Proton, Pinterest, Reddit, Roblox, Steam, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, WordPress, X, and Yahoo, to have thanatosensitivistic functions which lets users to decide what to do with their accounts if they die. It’d be great if there’s an European Citizens’ Initiative to tackle the issue. As for inadequate human support in account lockout situations at large-scale social media platforms, particularly Facebook and Google, we believe that there should be a legislation or a measure that will mandate these services to provide adequate amounts of support for its users.
The Pirate Party has always stood for a free, open internet where innovation serves people, not the other way around. We reject the false choice between child safety and civil liberties. We can—and must—build systems that protect the vulnerable without handing governments and corporations the keys to every citizen’s digital identity. Plans like Malaysia’s and Turkey’s are not protections; they’re the thin end of the wedge. Pirates say: not one inch. Here we’re also calling for digital blackouts on various platforms, like what happened during the anti-SOPA protests in 2012, along with real life demonstrations to protest against those privacy-intrusive laws.
Let us choose freedom, creativity, and genuine accountability instead. The open internet is worth defending—for our children and for ourselves.
Babak Tubis, Member of the Boards of PPi and the German Piratenpartei comments: “By now, 1984 is long outdated. 2026 shows just how much more the big tech companies have taken over this role, whilst governments hunger for this knowledge instead of fulfilling the mandate they received from their citizens.”
Have you noticed the news lately? Countries around the world—like Australia, France, and soon maybe others in Europe—are passing laws to keep young people off social media. The goal is to protect kids from online harm.
That sounds great, right? But there is a huge catch.
To stop teenagers from using these apps, governments are telling Big Tech companies to check our ages. How do they do that? By asking everyone to upload a government ID or scan their face.
If this happens, the internet becomes a “digital panopticon”—a place where you are constantly watched. If we give platforms and governments our private IDs, we lose our right to be anonymous online.
This does not just hurt our privacy. It hurts people who truly need the internet:
The core issue is not that children are using the internet. The real problem is how these platforms are built.
Big Tech companies design their apps to be addictive. They use endless scrolling, auto-playing videos, and manipulative algorithms to keep us glued to our screens so they can make more money. Banning users does not fix this broken system.
We do not have to choose between child safety and our civil rights. As internet users, here is what we can do and what we should demand:
We can build an internet that protects young people without turning it into a massive surveillance machine. Let’s fix the broken platforms, not punish the users. Digital rights matter!
————————————————————————————————–
The following message was prepared by members of the PPI Discord community and PPI Board. It does not necessarily reflect the views of all PPI members, but we hope it does. If any of our members have competing ideas about this issue or any other issue that they would like us to broadcast, please share them with us. We are happy to broadcast a variety of ideological opinions and diverse issues. Our goal is to create positive communication to solve problems.
This content is password-protected. To view it, please enter the password below.
Password:
Im c't-Datenschutz-Podcast berichtet Ingo Dachwitz von netzpolitik.org, wie ein Recherche-Team Milliarden Standortdaten von Datenhändlern erhielt.c't Magazin
reshared this
reshared this
reshared this
reshared this
PowerToys 0.99: Grab And Move, Power Display e miglioramenti a Command Palette
#tech
spcnet.it/powertoys-0-99-grab-…
@informatica
reshared this
reshared this
18 estensioni browser AI come RAT e Spyware: Unit 42 smonta la facciata dei tool GenAI per la produttività
#CyberSecurity
insicurezzadigitale.com/18-est…
reshared this
LAPSUS$ colpisce Checkmarx: 95 GB di codice sorgente su dark web e la supply chain dei tool di sicurezza nel mirino
#CyberSecurity
insicurezzadigitale.com/__tras…
reshared this
reshared this
reshared this
Mini Shai-Hulud: TeamPCP compromette i pacchetti npm ufficiali di SAP in un attacco supply chain enterprise
#CyberSecurity
insicurezzadigitale.com/mini-s…
reshared this
Journalismus wird weltweit immer häufiger kriminalisiert. Auch in demokratischen Ländern. Zum ersten Mal fallen in der Rangliste von Reporter ohne Grenzen über die Hälfte aller Länder in die schlechtesten Kategorien. Trump hat dabei einen weltweiten Negativ-Effekt auf die Pressefreiheit.
reshared this
Ob es auch mit den Aufstieg der Rechten Parteien zusammenhängt (also Rechts neben den Konservativen)?
de.statista.com/infografik/313…
Die Grafik zeigt die Stimmanteile der stärksten (extrem) rechten Parteien in ausgewählten Ländern bei den letzten Parlamentswahlen.Mathias Brandt (Statista Daily Data)
Reporter ohne Grenzen: Niedergang der Pressefreiheit setzt sich dramatisch fort
🎙️ #KI verändert gerade alles — wie wir arbeiten, lernen, uns informieren und uns schützen. Was steckt dahinter? Und was heißt das für uns? Max #Schrems spricht darüber mit Ö3-Redakteurin Shin Chang.
• Video: youtube.com/watch?v=lP8yLUsXyf…
• Podcast: sound.orf.at/podcast/oe3/der-o…
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.ORF Podcast (YouTube)
Andreas Kilgus likes this.
reshared this
Die EU arbeitet mit Hochdruck an der Abschiebeverordnung. ICE-ähnliche Razzien in Privatwohnungen und elektronische Fußfesseln für Menschen ohne Aufenthalt könnten Realität werden, wenn die Verordnung in dieser Form beschlossen wird – warnen Expert*innen und zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen.
netzpolitik.org/2026/abschiebe…
Die EU arbeitet mit Hochdruck an der Abschiebeverordnung. ICE-ähnliche Razzien in Privatwohnungen und elektronische Fußfesseln für Menschen ohne Aufenthalt könnten Realität werden, wenn die Verordnung in dieser Form beschlossen wird – warnen Expert*i…Timur Vorkul (netzpolitik.org)
reshared this
Abschiebeverordnung: EU will mit digitalen Mitteln mehr und schneller abschieben
🗓️ Mark your calendars for an exclusive summit on resisting the EU's digital #deregulation agenda!
We're excited to announce the summit ✊🏽 "Fight for Us, not for Them": A public interest vision for EU tech policy ✊🏽
📍Tuesday 23 June 2026, 14-18.00 CEST
11 civil society orgs will convene European lawmakers, regulators, journalists, and key civil society voices to lay out our bold alternative vision for tech laws, policies and practices.
Register now to join us online ➡️
edri.org/our-work/announcing-t…
Today, civil society orgs announce a strategic convening between European lawmakers, regulators, journalists and key civil society voices.EDRi (European Digital Rights (EDRi))
reshared this
Bye bye #Hadopi ! Et pas merci pour toutes ces années !
Le Conseil d'État vient de donner raison à La Quadrature du Net, @FDN, @franciliens et @federationfdn. Il a enjoint au Premier ministre d'abroger une partie du décret central de la Hadopi. 🥳
laquadrature.net/2026/04/30/ha…
Aujourd'hui, le Conseil d'État a donné raison à La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network (FDN), Franciliens.net et la Fédération FDN.La Quadrature du Net
reshared this
Europe’s approach to governance for advancing technology in the digital age is under pressure, with “simplification” proposals hitting the heart of core digital protections. At the same time, civil society is uniquely position to co-develop EU’s vision for a public-interest tech laws, policies and practices. Today, civil society organisations announce a strategic convening between European lawmakers, regulators, journalists and key civil society voices around a vision for tech laws and practices that center public interest, data protection and other rights.
The post Announcing the Summit “Fight for Us, not for Them”: A public interest vision for EU tech policy appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).
The @EUCommission's first review of the #DMA is out. While the law remains a powerful tool, its enforcement is falling short.
Yes, there have been early wins. But widespread non-compliance by gatekeepers, weak enforcement signals & reports of political interference risk turning ambition on paper into missed opportunity in practice.
The Commission should stop “working with gatekeepers towards compliance” & instead simply require it.
✊🏾 No more leniency for lawbreakers ➡️ edri.org/our-work/if-the-dma-i…
The European Commission says the Digital Markets Act (DMA) was “fit for purpose” and had “positive impact.EDRi (European Digital Rights (EDRi))
reshared this
The European Commission says the Digital Markets Act (DMA) was “fit for purpose” and had “positive impact.” But while it certainly has that potential, laissez-faire enforcement and political interference by the Commission undermine its effectiveness and allow gatekeepers to continue to dominate European digital markets.
The post If the DMA is fit for purpose why are the gatekeepers winning? appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).
Jure Repinc reshared this.
🚨 noyb hat heute eine Klage gegen die Hamburger Datenschutzbehörde eingereicht
Die Behörde hält das Vorgehen der Gesichtssuchmaschine PimEyes zwar für illegal, will aber keine wirksamen Maßnahmen ergreifen, weil das Unternehmen in Dubai ansässig sei.
👉 noyb.eu/de/no-action-taken-aga…
Die Hamburger Behörde hält das Vorgehen der Gesichtssuchmaschine PimEyes zwar für illegal, will aber keine wirksamen Maßnahmen ergreifen, weil das Unternehmen in Dubai ansässig seinoyb.eu
crossgolf_rebel - kostenlose Kwalitätsposts likes this.
reshared this
„Eigentlich müssten wir handeln und die Menschen schützen, aber da das Unternehmen in Dubai sitzt, fühlen wir uns nicht zuständig.‟
@politics
europeanpirates.eu/strengtheni…
Democracy is built on the idea that it serves the people. Public opinion and participation are at its core. Simply put, voices matter.…
Democracy is built on the idea that it serves the people. Public opinion and participation are at its core. Simply put, voices matter. When people speak up about problems in the system, they need protection to maintain public trust. The EU Whistleblower Protection Directive helps protect these voices and strengthens transparency and accountability.
At its heart, the Directive recognizes that without people willing to speak up, many problems in public institutions or private organizations would stay hidden.
The Directive was introduced to establish minimum protection standards across the European Union. It aims to ensure that individuals can report wrongdoing without fear of retaliation and that such reports are taken seriously.
However, recent developments highlight an important challenge. While the Directive provides a strong legal framework, its implementation across Member States has been uneven. Differences in enforcement, limited awareness, and gaps in protection continue to affect how safe individuals feel when coming forward.
Meanwhile, the European Union is entering a new phase of regulation with the EU AI Act. As artificial intelligence is assuming a larger role in decision-making, new risks are emerging that are hard to spot from the outside. In this situation, whistleblowers are even more important because they are often the first to notice problems like bias, misuse, or system failures.
The integration of whistleblower protections with the AI regulatory framework reflects a growing recognition that effective oversight of complex technologies depends on protecting those who can expose risks from within. At the same time, it raises new questions about whether existing protections are sufficient to address emerging and often non-traditional harms.
As an organization committed to transparency, digital rights, and democratic accountability, the European Pirate Party supports the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive. However, an in-depth analysis of the framework suggests that, while well-intentioned, its provisions do not always translate into effective protection in practice. In this context, the European Pirates, supported by their research and policy teams, have responded to the European Commission’s call for evidence on the evaluation of the Directive.
The submission highlights key concerns, including:
The European Pirates also set out recommendations to strengthen the Directive and ensure its continued effectiveness in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
Read the full consultation input and position paper below:
Whistleblower CONSULTATION RESPONSEDownload
Azure Data Studio è in pensione: migra il tuo workflow Azure SQL su VS Code in 10 minuti
#tech
spcnet.it/azure-data-studio-e-…
@informatica
reshared this
reshared this
Il pulsante di emergenza: revoca immediata dei token in .NET 10 con Duende IdentityServer
#tech
spcnet.it/il-pulsante-di-emerg…
@informatica
reshared this
reshared this
Perché le aziende di intelligenza artificiale vogliono che tu abbia paura di loro
Fermatevi se l'avete già sentita: un'azienda tecnologica afferma di aver creato una nuova intelligenza artificiale talmente potente da fare paura. A quanto pare, è troppo pericolosa per essere rilasciata nel mondo: le conseguenze sarebbero catastrofiche. Per fortuna, per ora la tengono sotto chiave. Volevano solo che lo sapeste.
bbc.com/future/article/2026042…
They built it. They're scared of it. They're selling it anyway.Thomas Germain (BBC)
reshared this
generationX
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Der Andreas
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •sexuelle Orientierung wird in Poliziei Datenbanken festgehalten? Aus welchem Grund? Ist es relevant ob der Drogendealer Hetero, Bi, Schwul ist?
Naja der Tourismus in die USA ist seit Trump Präsident ist, ziemlich eingebrochen.
ProScience 🇪🇺
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Kurt Battisti
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Die Texte die ich lese klingen für mich immer nach Einbahn.
Verena Rupp
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Clu | #RipNatenom 🕯
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Die Polizeien führen also bereits „rosa Listen 2.0“, die jetzt als Appeasement-Geschenk an ein faschistoides Terror-Regime missbraucht werden sollen? 😡
Dann wird mir auch klar, weshalb die Polizei immer so eifrig um das Vertrauen queerer Menschen wirbt; just die Tage wieder:
»Polizei wirbt um Vertrauen
(…) „Unsere Ansprechpersonen sind ein wichtiges Bindeglied zur Community – sie schaffen Vertrauen und begleiten Betroffene auf Augenhöhe."«
queer.de/detail.php?article_id…
Queer in Wiesbaden: In den Abendstunden wächst die Unsicherheit
queer.deUnknowable@troet.cafe
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Timo P.
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Philipp Alexander Vollmer
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Philipp Alexander Vollmer
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •In welchen Polizeidatenbanken steht die politische Ansicht eines Bürgers? Oder die Herkunft? Oder die sexuelle Orientierung?
Wenn alles mit rechten Dingen zugeht, dann müssen die Abfagen alle <nil> zurückgeben.
Boerps ☑️
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •@ui3o
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •MėMėNTō MōRi📍🇪🇺🇩🇪
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Grundsätzlich ist jeder selbst schuld, der unter den aktuellen Bedingungen noch in die USA fliegt.
Ich wüsste, dass ich allein aufgrund meiner Statements hier sowieso nicht reingelassen würde.
Erik
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Die dreckige korrupte Trump-Arschkriecher-Uschi schlägt mal wieder zu...
Und diese bodenlose Scheiße muss nicht mal durch's EU-Parlament, das ihr glücklicherweise bei sowas noch oft einen Strich durch die Rechnung macht.
Nur der Rat muss zustimmen, für uns also Dummfritze und seine Deppentruppe, wenn es schlecht läuft das dumme Faschistenschwein Doofrind...
Alles damit deren Buddies ihre Geschäftsreisen in die Diktatur einfacher haben... 🤮
Ceterum censeo afdem esse damnandum
Osterhase
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Nebst Versorgung unserer Faschos,dolle Wurst hoffentlich sagt der europäische Gerichtshof njet
gnaddrig
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •@sixtus
Aus dem Artikel:
"Das Abkommen soll dem Entwurf zufolge auf dem Prinzip der Gegenseitigkeit beruhen. EU-Mitgliedstaaten sollen also ihrerseits Zugriff auf US-Datenbanken erhalten – sofern sich die US-Regierung nicht dagegen sperrt. "
Lustig - Die EU-Behörden sollen liefern müssen, die US-Regierung soll sich weigern dürfen? Eigentümliche Virstellung von Gegenseitigkeit...
Little Detritus
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Ursula
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •HaDi
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •elbast
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Dann wird es mal.wieder Zeit zu erfragen, was die Polizeien denn über mich gespeichert haben.
datenschmutz.de/auskunft
1) Diese Behörden verlangen zur Erteilung einer Auskunft die Angabe von Anlässen oder einem „besonderen Interesse”. Es ist nicht akzeptabel, dass hier die Preisgabe möglicherweise sensibler Informationen für die Wahrung des Grundrechts auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung verlangt wird. Solange den betreffenden Behörden diese Sorte Menschenrechtsmissachtung erlaubt wird (und das wäre wohl nur durch erheblichen öffentlichen Druck zu ändern) haben Anfragen wenig oder keinen Sinn.
Generator für Auskunftsersuchen
datenschmutz.deAmethyst
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Maximus der Barmherzige
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •AmandaLibris
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Ein Grund mehr US amerikanische Produkte zu meiden.
Selbst wenn das Regime in absehbarer Zeit abgelöst werden sollte, einmal installierte Kontrollmittel werden bleiben. Und nicht zum Vorteil der Bürger dienen.
Und das Ding ist, dass die derzeitige Regierung das gleiche machen möchte.
Alter Mann
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •VHG 🇪🇺🇩🇪
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Samson - tief In Berlin
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •Ein solches Abkommen zur "Grenzpartnerschaft" (EBSP) mit den USA, kollidiert in mehreren zentralen Punkten mit der deutschen Verfassung
- Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung
aus Art. 2 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG.
- das Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip.
- Verbot der Vorratsdatenspeicherung und Massenabfrage.
u. dem fehlenden Rechtsschutz in den USA.
Sollte das EU-US-Rahmenabkommen in dieser Form beschlossen werden, gilt eine Verfassungsklage vor dem BVerfG als sicher.
RadSinensis
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •heikowittler
in reply to netzpolitik.org • • •