Urheberrechte: Universal Music erweitert Klage gegen Internet Archive
netzpolitik.org/2025/urheberre…
Pirates at the United Nations Office in Vienna, 2025!
We are pleased to present the following report from Kay Schroeder, PPI’s representative at the United Nations Office in Vienna. This year is the first time since before COVID that we were able to send representatives to all three UN offices (New York, Geneva, and Vienna). Please let us know if you would also like to visit the UN on behalf of PPI.
Report of Kay Schroeder on UNOV Meetings of the UNODC
The UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) invited its member states to attend the 68th Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, held from March 10th to 15th. This marked my first appearance as an ECOSOC consultant for Pirate Party International at an international conference, and I was eager to see what it would entail. I dressed in my best outfit (as shown in the picture) and arrived punctually by bike at 10 a.m. on Monday.
As it was the arrival day, most attendees were busy with accreditation, familiarizing themselves with the venue, and reuniting with colleagues. The main event took place in the Plenary Hall of Building M. On the first day, member states presented general statements outlining their perspectives on the UNODC’s work. It was quite a family atmosphere. People were respectful and most of them seemed to know each other for years. I enjoyed the relaxed atmosphere and the openminded intellectualism in the room. It appeared so unpolitical to me, very different from what I recognized in parliaments.
The 68th CND was chaired by Ambassador Shambhu Kumaran, India’s representative to the UN in Vienna.
The event’s agenda included six resolutions for adoption, outlined in the COW (Committee of the Whole) draft proposals. These proposals were deliberated in the COW sessions, chaired by Andranik Hovhannisyan, Armenia’s ambassador to Austria. Additionally, various side events hosted by member states provided in-depth perspectives on their respective challenges and proposed solutions. These sessions were essential for understanding the complexities underlying the negotiations, as drug-related issues differ significantly between countries.
While synthetic drugs were the primary focus, much discussion centered on the repercussions of decisions made during previous CNDs. One memorable side event, organized by the Colombian delegation, explored the environmental impact of cocaine regulation. They highlighted how the drastic reduction in coca cultivation—from 20,000 hectares to 2,000 hectares—had led to a sharp rise in cattle farming, increasing from 6,000 to nearly 600,000. This raised the critical question of which outcome posed a greater threat to the environment.
Environment besides was one of the critical points of the whole event. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), serving as the foundation for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, faced significant criticism and sparked ongoing disagreements regarding the proposals.
The side events were primarily organized by member states that had submitted proposals, often in collaboration with one another. As a result, these events were also joint efforts. Moreover, there were several lectures discussing the progress of drug management, treatment and prevention in specific countries.
The program was extensive, offering a wide array of insightful sessions. This made it necessary for me to carefully decide which events to attend, as all of them appeared highly engaging.
Throughout the week, the Committee of the Whole (COW) worked to refine the wording of each resolution, aiming to maximize the likelihood of their approval by the greatest number of members during the plenary session. The process strongly reminded me of the Liquid Democracy decision making approach, which we also encountered challenges with at Pirate Party Austria.
Each proposal underwent a series of revisions, as countries sought to add, remove, or rephrase elements until a final version emerged that could gain acceptance from all member states. Achieving unanimity proved to be a significant challenge at the UN, drawing notable criticism during Friday’s voting session. Nevertheless, the process unfolded as a continuous, real-time negotiation, much like the Liquid Democracy system, and faced similar challenges.
The importance of precise wording and language was paramount, particularly as each proposal faced opposition from different member states. To secure unanimity, it became evident that the proposals would need to be diluted to a point of near unrecognizability. The legalistic nature of the discussions, along with the increasing tensions throughout the week, was palpable. What began as a warm, familial atmosphere gradually evolved into a more professional and determined environment —still courteous in interactions but resolute in addressing the issues at hand.
The suspense reached its peak on Friday. It was voting day, and everyone was eager to see how things were unfolding. Certain side events were held privately for consultations, leaving the public uninformed about the progress. The COW faced certain expectations, particularly from the UNODC itself, which is acutely aware of the glaring failures in drug policy over recent years. The growing number of addiction-related impairments, particularly due to synthetic opioids like Fentanyl and Ketamine, as well as the rampant spread of pink cocaine—a drug cocktail containing MDMA, Ketamine, and various painkiller ingredients in South America—has led to harsh criticism of their own work.
This was accompanied by accusations directed at various countries, whether between consumers and producers (e.g., the US and China) or between advocates of legalization and proponents of prohibition. Decisions needed to be made, and resolutions had to be adopted. To keep it short. All proposals put forward by the COW were passed by a majority. However, the voting process highlighted weaknesses within the UN structure, similar to those seen in the EU. The U.S. government rejected all proposals, asserting that including the Sustainable Development Goals— viewed by them as a hidden global political agenda—was unacceptable under the principle of national sovereignty.
This critique arose despite the SDGs forming the foundation of the widely endorsed Agenda 2030.
Furthermore, the U.S. government fully rejected the Agenda 2030, calling for its removal during CND69. Argentina, with only one abstention, consistently aligned its decisions with those of the U.S. This stood out to me as a noteworthy and insightful example of advocacy in action.
The U.S. government’s proposal for removal, introduced as item 9, sparked extensive debate, highlighting the tensions among global interest groups. While the EU and its allies firmly opposed the proposal, it found support from the U.S., China, Russia, Iran, and Argentina. This clearly underscored a significant fault line between the states. The issue exposed weaknesses in the decision making, as the EU and its allies secured a majority in the vote due to their numerical advantage, despite not representing the relative population proportion. This outcome led to frustration among the other member states, as they also asserted their sovereignty of interpretation.
In my view, fostering greater cohesion in the future clearly requires institutional reforms, which can be achieved through further democratization.
Those are my findings of the CND 68. I hope you enjoyed the reading. Check out the pictures and stay alert for future updates on my work as ECOSOC consultant for PPI at United Nations.
For more in-depth information about the event, you can explore the CND Blog for live updates from the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs or visit the official page for the 68th Session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.
CND Blog – Live reporting from the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs
Session 68 of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.
pp-international.net/2025/03/u…
Tech-Souveränität im EU-Parlament: Demokraten gegenüber Rechtsextremen uneins
netzpolitik.org/2025/tech-souv…
Gesetz abgeschmettert: Französische Regierung wollte verschlüsselte private Kommunikation mitlesen
netzpolitik.org/2025/crypto-wa…
Panik, Provokation, Schallwaffen: Was geschah bei der Großdemo in Belgrad?
netzpolitik.org/2025/panik-pro…
Nicht mal die Evaluation klappt nach Plan: Deutschland schludert beim Whistleblower-Schutz
netzpolitik.org/2025/nicht-mal…
Jenseits des Marketingbegriffs: Was „digitale Souveränität“ für die öffentliche Verwaltung bedeutet
netzpolitik.org/2025/jenseits-…
Spionage-Apps: Neue Studie enthüllt Risiken von Spionage-Apps für Kinder
netzpolitik.org/2025/spionage-…
Projekte für Internetfreiheit: Open Technology Fund steht vor dem Aus
netzpolitik.org/2025/projekte-…
Mehr Informationen wagen: Wie eine europäische Medienplattform die Demokratie schützen könnte
netzpolitik.org/2025/mehr-info…
Whatever it takes: How a European media platform could protect democracy
netzpolitik.org/2025/whatever-…
Stellungnahme Vernehmlassung Bundesgesetz über das Verbot des öffentlichen Verwendens von nationalsozialistischen Symbolen
Die Piraten haben im Vernehmlassungsverfahren ihre Stellungnahme zum Bundesgesetz über das Verbot des öffentlichen Verwendens von nationalsozialistischen Symbolen eingereicht [1].
Die PPS lehnt den Entwurf als Ganzes ab und fordert dessen Streichung.
Grundsätzlich halten wir das geplante Gesetz für eine Symptombekämpfung einer falsch identifizierten Ursache.
Des Weiteren ist zu befürchten, dass der Entwurf zur weiteren Einschränkung der Meinungsäusserungsfreiheit, insbesondere das Verbot des öffentlichen Zeigens bestimmter Symbole. Dies könnte eine schleichende Einengung des Meinungsspektrums und eine gesellschaftliche Gewöhnung an Zensur begünstigen. Ein solches Gesetz könnte nicht nur zur Verschiebung des Overton-Fensters führen, sondern auch langfristig die Immunisierung der Gesellschaft gegen extreme Ideologien schwächen. Art. 261bis StGB bietet bereits ausreichende rechtliche Grundlagen und eine zusätzliche Strafnorm ist nicht verhältnismässig.
Darüber hinaus kritisieren wir die Widersprüchlichkeit des erläuternden Berichts, der die Probleme der Vorlage erkennt, aber dennoch ihre Umsetzung befürwortet. Statt auf Verbote und Symptombekämpfung zu setzen, sollte weiterhin Bildung und Prävention im Vordergrund stehen, um extremistische Ideologien zu entkräften. Ein Verbot könne zudem den öffentlichen Diskurs und die Erkennbarkeit extremistischer Strömungen behindern, was langfristig kontraproduktiv sei. Zudem ist die Vorlage ungeeignet, Antisemitismus wirksam zu bekämpfen, da sie sich auf die falschen Ursachen konzentrieren und zentrale problematische Gruppen unberücksichtigt lässt.
Ferner stellen wir die Sinnhaftigkeit des geplanten Gesetzes infrage, da es eine Strafnorm für Fälle einführt, die weder eine Ideologie verbreiten noch eine Person oder Gruppe diskriminieren. Der erläuternde Bericht selbst zeigt die Absurdität auf, indem er eine Lücke schliessen will, die de facto keine relevanten Rechtsverstösse umfasst. Da bereits bestehende Gesetze alle problematischen Fälle abdecken, wäre die neue Regelung nicht nur unnötig, sondern auch juristisch kompliziert, da sie weiterhin klare Abgrenzungen zu bestehenden Bestimmungen erfordern würde. Die PPS fordert daher, den Entwurf in dieser Form nicht weiterzuverfolgen.
Die Stellungnahme im Wortlaut.
[1] fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/dl/pr…
Serbien: Was wir über die mysteriöse Waffe wissen, die in Belgrad gegen friedliche Proteste eingesetzt wurde
netzpolitik.org/2025/serbien-w…
Einladung Mitgliederversammlung PPS, 5. April 2025
Wir laden Dich herzlich zu unserer nächsten, ordentlichen Mitgliederversammlung 2025 ein.
Präsenzveranstaltung; keine online Teilnahme möglich.
Samstag 05. April 2025
Ort: kultur & kongresshaus aarau
10:00 Uhr : Welcome Desk, Zählung Stimm- und Wahlberechtigte
10:30 Uhr : Versammlungsbeginn
Traktanden
Die Traktanden werden spätestens eine Woche vor der MV kommuniziert.
Organisatorisches
Unsere Versammlungen sind öffentlich und alle sind herzlich willkommen, aber stimmberechtigt sind nur Mitglieder, die den Jahresbeitrag 2025 bezahlt haben.
Die Zahlungsinformationen findest du hier: Mitgliedschaft
Danke für deinen Beitrag!
Anträge
Anträge an die Mitgliederversammlung müssen bis Samstag, 22. März 2025 / 10:00 Uhr eingereicht werden und durch mindestens 2 Piraten (= Quorum gemäss Statuten) unterstützt werden. Wir bitten auch um Übersetzungen der Anträge ins Französische/Deutsche oder auf Englisch, damit möglichst alle verstehen, was verhandelt wird. Änderungs- und Gegenanträge sind bis 1 Woche vor der Versammlung einzureichen. Die Anträge werden im Redmine erfasst und sollten mindestens folgende Kriterien erfüllen:
- Antragstext mit Begründung
- Für Statutenänderungen: alter & neuer Text im Vergleich
- Liste der Unterstützer (Quorum)
An und während der MV sind nur noch Ordnungsanträge zulässig.
Wir freuen uns, dich und viele andere Mitglieder wiederzusehen!
Liebe Grüsse
Vorstand Piratenpartei Schweiz
Version française
Nous avons le plaisir de t’inviter à notre prochaine assemblée générale ordinaire en 2025.
Événement en présentiel; aucune participation en ligne possible.
Samedi 5 Avril 2025
Où: kultur & kongresshaus aarau
10:00 : Welcome Desk, comptage des votants et des éligibles
10:30 : Début de l’assemblée
Ordre du jour
Les détails de l’ordre du jour seront communiqués environ une semaine avant l’AG.
Organisation
Nos assemblées sont publiques et tout le monde est le bienvenu, mais seuls les membres à jour de leur cotisation 2025 ont le droit de vote.
Tu trouves les informations de paiement ici : Adhésion
Merci pour ta contribution !
Motions
Les motions à l’assemblée générale doivent être soumises au plus tard le samedi 22 mars 2025 / 10:00 et être soutenues par au moins 2 Pirates (= quorum selon les statuts). Nous demandons également une traduction des motions en français/allemand ou en anglais, afin que tout le monde puisse comprendre ce qui est négocié. Les motions et les contre-propositions doivent être déposés jusqu’à une semaine avant l’assemblée. Les motions sont saisies dans Redmine et doivent remplir au moins les critères suivants :
- texte de la motion avec justification
- Pour les modifications des statuts : ancien & nouveau texte en comparaison.
- Liste des soutiens (quorum).
Lors et pendant l’AG, seules les motions d’ordre sont autorisées.
Nous nous réjouissons de te revoir, toi et de nombreux autres membres !
Meilleures salutations
Comité directeur Parti Pirate
KW 11: Die Woche, in der wir globale Ungerechtigkeit zum Thema machten
netzpolitik.org/2025/kw-11-die…
Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer: Vorratsdatenspeicherung von IP-Adressen unzulässig
netzpolitik.org/2025/bundesrec…
Interview mit Paris Marx: Das falsche Narrativ vom guten Silicon Valley
netzpolitik.org/2025/interview…
Interview with Paris Marx: The false narrative of a good Silicon Valley
netzpolitik.org/2025/interview…
Make the Investigatory Powers Tribunal on Apple Encryption a Public Hearing
Rights groups call for Apple’s closed appeal against the Home Office’s encryption-breaching order to be opened to the public.
Responding to news that Apple will be before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal on Friday, representatives from Big Brother Watch, Index on Censorship, and Open Rights Group have written to President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the Rt Hon Lord Justice Singh, calling for the case to be made public.
Read the letter
Joint letter from Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch and Index on Censorship to the President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
Read now
0
0
The letter states that the “case implicates the privacy rights of millions of British citizens who use Apple’s technology, as well as Apple’s international users”. The groups note the “significant public interest in knowing when and on what basis the UK government believes that it can compel a private company to undermine the privacy and security of its customers.”
0
According to widespread media reporting, the Home Office has served Apple with a Technical Capability Notice under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The Technical Capability Notice would force the company to build a backdoor into their end-to-end encrypted iCloud services. The company has previously stated it would “never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products, and we never will”. In response to the Home Office’s demands, Apple has withdrawn its end-to-end encrypted Advanced Data Protection tool from UK users.
0
“The Home Office’s shocking order to Apple to break encryption represents a huge attack on privacy rights and is unprecedented in any democracy. This Tribunal will determine whether the UK government can proceed in forcing access to all of our data – a matter of high public interest that must not take place in secret.”
Big Brother Watch Interim Director, Rebecca Vincent“From the moment the Apple news broke to tomorrow’s Tribunal, everything about this story has been shrouded in secrecy. This has to end. Breaking encryption would do away with our rights to privacy, would make us far less safe and secure online and would challenge the very notion of the UK as a democracy. With such high stakes we demand to know what could possibly justify this. We need answers, not more secrecy.”
Index on Censorship CEO, Jemimah Steinfeld“Holding this Tribunal in secret would be an affront to the global privacy and security issues that are being discussed. This is bigger than just the UK, or Apple. But most importantly, if the UK wants to claim the right to make all of Apple’s users more likely to be hacked and blackmailed, then they should argue for that in an open court.”
Open Rights Group Executive Director, Jim Killock
Petition: keep our apple data encrypted
Stop the Home Office from putting our security at risk by demanding a backdoor into Apple’s encrypted services
Sign the petition
Mass Surveillance
Save Encryption
Become a member
Join the movement
Joint letter: Make the Investigatory Powers Tribunal on Apple Encryption a Public Hearing
openrightsgroup.org/app/upload…
Download
Joint letter from Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch and Index on Censorship.
To: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Singh
President, Investigatory Powers Tribunal
cc: Mr Justice Johnson
Dear Lord Justice Singh,
As organisations committed to defending privacy and freedom of expression rights, we are writing in response to reports that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (‘IPT’) will be hearing Apple’s appeal against a Home Office Technical Capability Notice (‘TCN’) issued under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (the ‘IPA’) this Friday, 14 March 2025. Although the IPT can choose whether to hold hearings and whether to hold them in public or private, we invite you to make this process more transparent by opening this hearing to the public.
Our organisations have long been involved in surveillance issues in the UK and abroad, including in cases started at or ruled on by the IPT. Open Rights Group and Big Brother Watch originated complaints that led to the judgment in Big Brother Watch and others v UK1 in which the Court ruled that the UK’s bulk interception powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, predecessor to the IPA, were in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. Our organisations submitted a joint briefing to the House of Lords on the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill in January 2024, notably expressing concerns at the time on the interdiction on recipients of TCNs to disclose their existence or contents. Index on Censorship has more recently been involved in encryption-related debates due to the growing threats to freedom of expression posed by policies such as those introduced by the Online Safety Act 2023 and Ofcom’s characterisation of encryption as a risk factor in its guidance on illegal harms measures.
This case implicates the privacy rights of millions of British citizens who use Apple’s technology, as well as Apple’s international users. There is significant public interest in knowing when and on what basis the UK government believes that it can compel a private company to undermine the privacy and security of its customers.
There are no good reasons to keep this hearing entirely private, not least for the fact that the existence of the TCN has already been widely reported and that Apple’s own actions in removing its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature for UK iCloud users leave no doubt as to what triggered them – despite reports that the government considers this removal does not comply with the TCN.
According to reporting across the globe, the Secretary of State for the Home Department has issued Apple with a TCN under the Investigatory Powers Act, requiring the company to create a technical capability enabling access to end-to-end encrypted data on its iCloud service if requested by the UK Government. End-to-end encryption cannot be broken in a targeted manner – once a ‘backdoor’ into the system has been created, it can be exploited by anyone, putting the privacy and security of all users at risk.
International human rights treaty bodies have recognised the importance of end-to-end encryption to protect the right to privacy and to promote the exercise of other rights. This is because safe and secure communications can be a precondition of being able to express one’s views, seek help and protection, share vital information, or avoid censorship.
The case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), for example, recognises the role of anonymity in “promoting the free flow of ideas and information in an important manner” including by protecting people from reprisals for their exercise of freedom of expression2. The ECtHR has also recently recognised that the very threat or potential of an obligation to decrypt communications constituted an interference with Article 8 rights3, and that undermining end-to-end encryption impacts the rights of all users to defend themselves against various threats and to exercise various freedoms4. It therefore found that an “obligation to decrypt end-to-end encrypted communications risks amounting to a requirement that providers of such services weaken the encryption mechanism for all users; it is accordingly not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.”5
The IPT is required to hold hearings in public, unless doing so would threaten the public interest or prejudice national security6. All Apple iCloud users in the UK who had turned on ADP are already suffering the consequences of Apple’s decision to withdraw the protection in the country, and fully aware of the reasons for this decision. It is not conceivable that a confirmation of the existence of the TCN would threaten the UK’s interests to a level or in a form that meets the conditions for derogating from the principles of open justice. The principles that have in the past allowed the UK government to maintain an NCND policy are only relevant to the targeted interception of communications and covert surveillance7. They cannot apply to such a wide and already public piece of information about the UK’s attempts to weaken the security of services used by millions of people in and outside the UK. The IPT itself has recognised its function as a judicial body to determine whether secrecy measures are strictly necessary and proportionate to the objectives of an NCND policy8. We invite you to exercise this function with rigour and in the light of the requirements of open justice.
Further, hearings in private must be strictly confined to matters that are prejudicial to the interests mentioned in Rule 7(1) of the Tribunal Rules. As the IPT recognised in its Kennedy ruling, “purely legal arguments, conducted for the sole purpose of ascertaining what is the Jaw and not involving the risk of disclosure of any sensitive information, should be heard in public. The public, as well as the parties, has a right to know that there is a dispute about the interpretation and validity of the relevant Jaw and what the rival legal contentions are.”9 We urge you to ensure that holding all or part of Friday’s hearing in private does not derogate from this ruling.
The public interest lies in conducting this hearing in public. There is significant public interest in the matter, evident in the extensive and ongoing media reporting on it, and in the impact it will have on the rights of users of lawful services across the globe. We invite you to provide the requisite level of transparency and scrutiny over an already widely reported situation.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group
Jemimah Steinfeld, Chief Executive Officer, Index on Censorship
Rebecca Vincent, Interim Director, Big Brother Watch
1 App Nos 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15, 25 May 2021 (GC)
2 Delfi AS v Estonia (2015) EMLR 26, (147) and (149)
3 Podchasov v Russia (2024) ECHR 134, (58)
4 Podchasov v Russia (2024) ECHR 134, (76)
5 Podchasov v Russia (2024) ECHR 134, (79)
6 The Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2018, Rules 10 and 7(1) – The Investigatory Powers Tribunal website, accessed 12 March 2025
7 Kennedy and Other (2003) IPT/01/62 and IPT/01/77, (46)
8 Kennedy and Other (2003) IPT/01/62 and IPT/01/77, (58)
9 Kennedy and Other (2003) IPT/01/62 and IPT/01/77, (172)
Petition: keep our apple data encrypted
Stop the Home Office from putting our security at risk by demanding a backdoor into Apple’s encrypted services
Sign the petition
Mass Surveillance
Save Encryption
Become a member
Join the movement
Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz: Wie Polizist:innen vom Whistleblowing abgeschreckt werden
netzpolitik.org/2025/hinweisge…
Going Dark: EU-Sicherheitsstrategie könnte „Einfallstor für globale Überwachung“ werden
netzpolitik.org/2025/going-dar…
Neuer Verordnungsentwurf: EU-Kommission will mit allen Mitteln abschieben
netzpolitik.org/2025/neuer-ver…
Staatstrojaner in Italien: „Wir kämpfen gegen Repression, nicht gegen Menschen“
netzpolitik.org/2025/staatstro…
Take It Down Act: Wie ein US-Gesetz gegen sexualisierte Deepfakes zum Zensurinstrument werden könnte
netzpolitik.org/2025/take-it-d…
