The Dutch citizenry has rejected the new Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act. This act will now have the be amended. If not, legal action will be pursued.
Historic red line
Wednesday 21 March 2018 is a historic day: for the first time ever, the populace of a nation has spoken out against a law on intelligence services in a referendum. In this referendum, the Dutch had the chance to cast their ballots on the new Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act, better known as the ‘Tapping law’. By now, it is known that a clear majority is AGAINST the law. Privacy First considers this as a historic victory and hopes that, as a result, similar developments will unfold in other countries: developments that contravene mass surveillance and the creation of controlled societies, and that lead to better legislation with true respect for the liberty of innocent citizens.
Objections against the Tapping law
The main objections of Privacy First against the Tapping law relate to the fact that it authorizes not only large-scale tapping into the Internet traffic and communications of innocent citizens, but also allows for the storage of these data for many years and the unsupervised exchange of these data with foreign secret services. These and other concerns of Privacy First have been listed in alphabetical order. The liberty-restricting Tapping law should not be viewed in isolation, but is part of a wider negative trend, as can be read in a recent column (in Dutch) by Privacy First chairman Bas Filippini.
Right from the very start, Privacy First has supported the organization of the Dutch referendum against the Tapping law. Alongside Privacy First, there are numerous other civil organizations that have been very active over the past few months to inform the citizenry about the Act. Most of the work, however, has been done by the referendum instigators: the students of the University of Amsterdam who, at the end 2017, collected enough signatures to make this referendum possible. For this unique achievement, Privacy First gave them a Dutch Privacy Award at the start of this year. Privacy First has recently called on all political parties at municipal level to take a stand against the Tapping law. Furthermore, through public debates, advertisements and social media and through interviews on the radio, on television and in newspapers, we have been as active as possible to create a critical mass. Moreover, Privacy First organized a public debate about the Tapping law in Amsterdam. It featured various renowned speakers, among them our attorney Otto Volgenant and the Dutch National Coordinator for Counter Terrorism and Security Dick Schoof. This debate (in Dutch) has been broadcasted on NPO Politiek several times and can also be viewed on our website and on YouTube. Even according to advocates of the Tapping law, this referendum was characterized by a substantive discussion among critical and well-informed members of the public. It is also in this regard that the referendum can be called a great success, a bright day for democracy and something that has increased general awareness about privacy in the Netherlands. After today, abolishing the referendum, which is what the Dutch government intends to do, should really be out of the question.
The law should be improved. Otherwise there will be legal action.
The consequences of the Dutch referendum about the Tapping law are clear: the law should be modified and improved immediately. If not, Privacy First and various other plaintiffs (organizations) will start a large-scale lawsuit with the express purpose of having various parts of the Act declared unlawful and rendered inoperative by a judge. In 2015, Privacy First and coalition partners succeeded in suspending the Dutch Data Retention Act in the same way. In recent years, Privacy First has on several occasions warned the Dutch government as well as both houses of Dutch Parliament that a similar lawsuit against the Tapping law would be imminent. The result of the current referendum has bolstered our position enormously. By now, the summons against the government has been prepared and our attorneys are ready to litigate. The choice is up to the government: change course or back down!
"Twelve organizations teamed up to file a lawsuit to stop the implementation of a new data mining law in the Netherlands. The new law was adopted by the Dutch Senate on Tuesday and gives the intelligence services more capabilities to spy on internet traffic on a large scale.
"We trust that the Dutch judges will pull the brake and say: this law goes too far", human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas, who is representing the coalition of organizations in their lawsuit, said to RTL Nieuws. The coalition includes the Public Interest Litigation Project, civil rights organization Privacy First, the Dutch Association of Journalists, the Dutch Association of Criminal Law Attorneys and the Platform for the Protection of Civil Rights.
According to the organizations, this law is a serious violation of Dutch citizens' privacy. The case will first be presented to a Dutch court, who will test it against the European Convention of Human Rights. If the Dutch court rules against the organizations, they will take it to the European Court.
Klaas is currently preparing the case. He expects that the lawsuit will only actually start after the new law is implemented on January 1st, 2018, but he hopes it happens earlier."
Source: http://nltimes.nl/2017/07/12/lawsuit-started-new-dutch-data-mining-law, 12 July 2017.
Tomorrow morning the Netherlands will be examined in Geneva by the highest human rights body in the world: the United Nations Human Rights Council. Since 2008, the Human Rights Council reviews the human rights situation in each UN Member State once every five years. This procedure is called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
Privacy First shadow report
During the previous two UPR sessions in 2008 and 2012, the Netherlands endured a fair amount of criticism. At the moment, the perspectives with regard to privacy in the Netherlands are worse than they’ve ever been before. This is reason for Privacy First to actively bring a number of issues to the attention of the UN. Privacy First did so in September 2016 (a week prior to the UN deadline), through a so-called shadow report: a report in which civil society organizations express their concerns about certain issues. (It’s worth pointing out that the Human Rights Council imposes rigorous requirements on these reports, a strict word limit being one of them.) UN diplomats rely on these reports in order to properly carry out their job. Otherwise, they would depend on one-sided State-written reports that mostly provide a far too optimistic view. So Privacy First submitted its own report about the Netherlands (pdf), which includes the following recommendations:
Better opportunities in the Netherlands for civil society organizations to collectively institute legal proceedings.
Introduction of constitutional review of laws by the Dutch judiciary.
Better legislation pertaining to profiling and datamining.
No introduction of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) as is currently being envisaged.
Suspension of the unregulated border control system @MIGO-BORAS.
No reintroduction of large scale data retention (general Data Retention Act).
No mass surveillance under the new Intelligence and Security Services Act and closer judicial supervision over secret services.
Withdrawal of the Computer Criminality Act III , which will allow the Dutch police to hack into any ICT device.
A voluntary and regionally organized (instead of a national) Electronic Health Record system with privacy by design.
Introduction of an anonymous public transport chip card that is truly anonymous.
Privacy First did not sent its report only to the Human Rights Council but also forwarded it to all the foreign embassies in The Hague. Consequently, Privacy First had extensive (confidential) meetings in recent months with the embassies of Argentina, Australia, Bulgaria, Chili, Germany, Greece and Tanzania. The positions of our interlocutors varied from senior diplomats to ambassadors. Furthermore, Privacy First received positive reactions to its report from the embassies of Mexico, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Moreover, several passages from our report were integrated in the UN summary of the overall human rights situation in the Netherlands; click HERE ('Summary of stakeholders' information', par. 47-50).
Our efforts will hopefully prove to have been effective tomorrow. However, this cannot be guaranteed as it concerns an inter-State, diplomatic process and many issues in our report (and in recent talks) are sensitive subjects in countless other UN Member States as well.
UN Human Rights Committee
In December 2016, Privacy First submitted a similar report to the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva. This Committee periodically reviews the compliance of the Netherlands with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Partly as a result of this report, last week the Committee put the Intelligence and Security Services Act, camera system @MIGO-BORAS and the Data Retention Act among other things, on the agenda for the upcoming Dutch session in 2018 (see par. 11, 27).
We hope that our input will be used by both the UN Human Rights Council as well as the UN Human Rights Committee and that it will lead to constructive criticism and internationally exchangeable best practices.
The Dutch UPR session will take place tomorrow between 9am and 12.30pm and can be followed live online.
Update 10 May 2017: during the UPR session in Geneva today, the Dutch government delegation (led by Dutch Minister of Home Affairs Ronald Plasterk) received critical recommendations on human rights and privacy in relation to counter-terrorism by Canada, Germany, Hungary, Mexico and Russia. The entire UPR session can be viewed HERE. Publication of all recommendations by the UN Human Rights Council follows May 12th.
Update 12 May 2017: Today all recommendations to the Netherlands have been published by the UN Human Rights Council, click HERE (pdf). Useful recommendations to the Netherlands regarding the right to privacy were made by Germany, Canada, Spain, Hungary, Mexico and Russia, see paras. 5.29, 5.30, 5.113, 5.121, 5.128 & 5.129. You can find these recommendations below. Further comments by Privacy First will follow.
Extend the National Action Plan on Human Rights to cover all relevant human rights issues, including counter-terrorism, government surveillance, migration and human rights education (Germany);
Extend the National Action Plan on Human Rights, published in 2013 to cover all relevant human rights issues, including respect for human rights while countering terrorism, and ensure independent monitoring and evaluation of the Action Plan (Hungary);
Review any adopted or proposed counter-terrorism legislation, policies, or programs to provide adequate safeguards against human rights violations and minimize any possible stigmatizing effect such measures might have on certain segments of the population (Canada);
Take necessary measures to ensure that the collection and maintenance of data for criminal [investigation] purposes does not entail massive surveillance of innocent persons (Spain);
Adopt and implement specific legislation on collection, use and accumulation of meta-data and individual profiles, including in security and anti-terrorist activities, guaranteeing the right to privacy, transparency, accountability, and the right to decide on the use, correction and deletion of personal data (Mexico);
Ensure the protection of private life and prevent cases of unwarranted access of special agencies in personal information of citizens in the Internet that have no connection with any illegal actions (Russian Federation). [sic]
Update 26 May 2017: a more comprehensive UN report of the UPR session has now been published (including the 'interactive dialogue' between UN Member States and the Netherlands); click HERE (pdf). In September this year, the Dutch government will announce which recommendations it will accept and implement.
On November 2nd 2016, the Dutch House of Representatives will address a controversial legislative proposal that will introduce four week storage of the travel movements of all motorists in the Netherlands. In case both chambers of Dutch Parliament adopt this proposal, Privacy First will try to overturn this in court.
Large scale breach of privacy
It is Privacy First’s constant policy to challenge large scale privacy violations in court and have them declared unlawful. Privacy First successfully did so with the central storage of everyone’s fingerprints under the Dutch Passport Act and the storage of everyone’s communications data under the Dutch Telecommunications Retention Act. A current and similar legislative proposal that lends itself for another major lawsuit is legislative proposal 33542 (in Dutch) of the Dutch Minister of Security and Justice, Ard van der Steur, in relation to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). Under this legislative proposal, the number plate codes of all motorists in the Netherlands, i.e. everyone’s travel movements, will be collected through camera surveillance and stored for four weeks in police databases for criminal investigation purposes. As a result, every motorist will become a potential suspect. This is a completely unnecessary, wholly disproportionate and ineffective measure. Therefore the proposal is in breach of the right to privacy and thus unlawful.
The current ANPR legislative proposal was already submitted to the Dutch House of Representatives in February 2013 by the then Minister of Security and Justice, Ivo Opstelten. Before that, in 2010, Opstelten’s predecessor Hirsch Ballin had the intention to submit a similar proposal, albeit with a storage period of 10 days. However, back then the House of Representatives declared this subject to be controversial. Opstelten and Van der Steur have thus now taken things a few steps further. Due to privacy concerns, the parliamentary scrutiny of this proposal was at a standstill for several years, but now seems to be reactivated and even reinforced through a six-fold increase of the proposed retention period, courtesy of the ruling parties VVD and PvdA.
Under current Dutch national law, ANPR data of innocent citizens must be erased within 24 hours. In the eyes of the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, AP), all number plate codes that are not suspect (so-called ‘no-hits’) are to be removed from relevant databases immediately. Van der Steur’s plan to also store the number plate codes of unsuspected citizens for four weeks directly flies in the face of this. VVD and PvdA are even willing to increase this retention period to six months. The inevitable consequence, a haystack of data, would constitute a blatant violation of the right to privacy of every motorist. Any possible judicial oversight of the use of these data would do nothing to alter this.
UN Human Rights Council
In recent years, Privacy First has repeatedly expressed this position to both the House of Representatives (standing committee on Security and Justice) as well as to relevant MPs personally. Privacy First has also made its stance clear in personal meetings with Minister Opstelten (July 2012) and Minister Van der Steur (July 2014, at that time still a VVD MP). Moreover, Privacy First has recently raised this issue with the United Nations. In May 2017, the Dutch government can be held accountable for this at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
In case both the House of Representatives and the Dutch Senate will adopt the ANPR legislative proposal in its current form, Privacy First (in a broad coalition together with other civil organizations) will immediately summon the Dutch government in order to render the law inoperative on account of violation of the right to privacy. If necessary, Privacy First and co-plaintiffs will litigate all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Considering the European and Dutch case law on the subject, Privacy First rates its chances of legal success very high.
Update 20 December 2018: today the Dutch government has announced that the ANPR Act will enter into force on 1 January 2019. The summary proceedings of Privacy First against the ANPR Act will soon take place at the District Court of The Hague.
Mass storage of fingerprints violates the right to privacy
Following the Court of Appeal of The Hague, today the Dutch Council of State (Raad van State) judged that municipal (‘decentral’) storage of fingerprints under the Dutch Passport Act is unlawful on account of violation of the right to privacy. The Council of State reached this conclusion in seven administrative law cases of Dutch individual citizens (supported by civil organization Vrijbit). At the start of 2014, the Court of Appeal of The Hague handed down a similar ruling in the civil Passport case by the Privacy First Foundation and 19 (other) citizens against the Dutch government. Subsequently however, our Passport trial was declared inadmissible by the Dutch Supreme Court and was redirected to the administrative judge: the Dutch Council of State. Privacy First then submitted its entire case file to the Council of State in order to reinforce the individual passport cases pending before this body. The Council of State (the supreme administrative court of the Netherlands) now rules similar to the way the Court of Appeal of The Hague has done before. Notwithstanding the later inadmissibility before the Supreme Court, the ban on the storage of everyone’s fingerprints in databases thus stands firm once again.
Faulty judgement and procedure
As was the case with the previous judgement by the Court of Appeal of The Hague, Privacy First regrets that the Council of State was unwilling to declare the storage of fingerprints unlawful on strictly principal grounds (that is, because of a lack of societal necessity, proportionality and subsidiarity), but merely on the basis of technical imperfections. Therefore, Privacy First will advise the concerned citizens to keep on litigating all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. Considering the existing Strasbourg case law, there is a high likeliness that the Netherlands will still be condemned on principal grounds on account of violation of the right to privacy (art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR). Privacy First also expects a condemnation on account of violation of the right of access to justice and an effective legal remedy (art. 6 and 13 ECHR). After all, civil litigation against the Dutch Passport Act proved to be impossible, and administrative legal action was possible only indirectly after the rejection of individual requests for new passports or ID cards (in case the applicants refused to have their fingerprints taken). In order to obtain their current victory before the Council of State, these citizens thus have had to get by for years without passports or ID cards, with all the problems and risks this entailed.
Exceptions for conscientious objectors
In today’s judgement, the Council of State also decided that the compulsory taking of two fingerprints for a new passport applies equally to everyone and that there can be no exceptions for people who do not want to have their fingerprints taken out of conscientious objections. Privacy First is doubtful whether this verdict will stand the scrutiny of the ECtHR. Apart from a violation of the right to privacy, it seems this decision is also in breach of the freedom of conscience (art. 9 ECHR). The fact that the European Passport Regulation does not include such an exception is irrelevant as this Regulation is subordinate to the ECHR.
RFID chips and facial scans
Privacy First also deplores the fact that the Council of State was not prepared to make a critical assessment of the risks of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips (which include sensitive personal data that can be read remotely) in passports and ID cards. The same goes for the compulsory storage of facial scans in municipal databases. But these aspects, too, can still be challenged in Strasbourg.
Municipalities’ own responsibility
A small ray of hope in the judgement by the Council of State is that municipalities and mayors have their own responsibility to respect human rights (including the right to privacy) independently, even if this means independently refraining from applying national legislation because it violates higher international or European law:
"Insofar as the mayor claims that there is no possibility to deviate from the provisions (laid down in national law), the [Council of State] holds that pursuant to Article 94 of the [Dutch] Constitution, current statutory provisions within the Kingdom [of the Netherlands] do not apply if such application is not compatible with any binding provisions of treaties and of resolutions of international organizations.’’ (Source in Dutch, paragraph 6.)
This decision by the Council of State applies to all domains and could have far-reaching consequences in the future.
New ID cards for free
The ruling of the Council of State entails that for applications of new ID cards, fingerprints have been taken (and stored) on a massive scale but without a legal basis since 2009. Accordingly, Privacy First advises everyone in the possession of an ID card with fingerprints to change it (if desired) at his or her municipality for a free new one without fingerprints. If municipalities refuse to offer this service, Privacy First reserves the right to take new legal steps in this regard.
After numerous lawsuits in various European countries, the decision has finally been made: in a break-through ruling, the European Court of Justice has decided this week that a general requirement to retain telecommunications data (data retention) is unlawful because it is in violation of the right to privacy. This ruling has far-reaching consequences for surveillance legislation in all EU member States, including the Netherlands.
Previous data retention in the Netherlands
Under the 2009 Dutch Data Retention Act, the telecommunications data (telephony and internet traffic) of everyone in the Netherlands used to be retained for 12 months and 6 months, respectively, for criminal investigation purposes. This legislation stemmed from the 2006 European Data Retention Directive. However, in April 2014 the European Court of Justice declared this European Directive invalid because it violates the right to privacy. Subsequently, former Dutch minister of Security and Justice Ivo Opstelten refused to withdraw the Dutch Data Retention Act, after which a broad coalition of Dutch organizations and companies demanded in interim injunction proceedings that the Act would be rendered inoperative. The claimant organizations were the Privacy First Foundation, the Dutch Association of Defence Counsel (NVSA), the Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ), the Netherlands Committee of Jurists for Human Rights (NJCM), Internet provider BIT and telecommunications providers VOYS and SpeakUp. Boekx Attorneys in Amsterdam took care of the proceedings, and successfully so: rather uniquely (laws are seldomly rendered inoperative by a judge, let alone in interim injunction proceedings), on 11 March, 2015, the Dutch district court in The Hague repealed the entire Act at once. The Dutch government decided not to appeal the ruling, which has been final since then. Consequently, all telecom operators concerned have deleted the relevant data. In relation to criminal investigations and prosecutions, so far this does not seem to have led to any problems.
European Court makes short shrift of mass storage once and for all
Unfortunately, the April 2014 decision of the European Court left some margin for interpretation under which broad, general retention of everyone’s telecommunications data could still be allowed, for example through close judicial supervision before access and use of those data. In a Swedish and a British case about data retention, the European Court has now ensured full clarity in favour of the right to privacy of every innocent person on European territory:
"The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purpose of fighting crime, provides for general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication’’, the Court judges.
In other words: mass storage of everyone’s data for criminal investigation purposes is unlawful. After all, according to the Court this ‘‘exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society’’.
In conventional language, the Court basically says that such legislation doesn’t belong in a free democracy under the rule of law, but in a totalitatrian dictatorship instead. And this is exactly the raison d'être of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (which was inspired by universal human rights), on which the verdict of the Court is based.
Consequences for the Netherlands
Recently the current Dutch minister of Security and Justice, Ard van der Steur, has again presented to the Dutch House of Representatives a legislative proposal to reintroduce a broad, general telecommunications retention Act. Moreover, a similar legislative proposal pending in the Dutch Senate concerns the recognition and retention of number plate codes of all cars in the Netherlands (i.e. everyone’s travel movements and location data). Following the EU Court ruling, both legislative proposals are unlawful in advance on account of violation of the right to privacy. The same goes for planned mass storage of data that flow in and out of the Netherlands through large internet cables under the new Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act (and the international exchange thereof), the possible future reintroduction of central databases with everyone’s fingerprints, national DNA databases, national records which include everyone’s financial transactions, etc. etc.
Following the EU Court ruling, the Dutch government can draw one conclusion only: both the legislative proposal that regards the new telecommunications retention Act as well as the legislative proposal that relates to the registration on a massive scale of number plate codes, are to be withdrawn this instant. Otherwise Privacy First will again enforce this in court and will do likewise with every other legislative proposal that threathens to violate the right to privacy of innocent citizens on a large scale.
Privacy First wishes you happy holidays and a privacy-friendly 2017!
In the Dutch Citizens v. Plasterk case about the international exchange of data between secret services, the coalition of citizens and organizations (including Privacy First) has explained its appeal before the Hague Court of Appeals. In its statement of appeal, which was submitted to the Court on 2 February 2016, the coalition details why the ruling of the district court of The Hague (in Dutch) is wrong.
In summary, the district court of the Hague has ruled that the collaboration and exchange of data on the basis of trust between Dutch secret services and foreign secret services (among which the American NSA) may simply be continued. According to the judge, the importance of national security is the determining factor, thereby essentially giving the Dutch AIVD (general intelligence and security service) and MIVD (military intelligence and security service) carte blanche to collect bulk data of Dutch citizens via foreign intelligence agencies without any legal protection, only because of the designation ‘national security’.
The Citizens v. Plasterk coalition deems this ruling to be in flagrant breach of the right to privacy and has lodged an appeal. It must be noted that the coalition isn’t seeking to ban the collaboration with foreign services as such. However, we find that when it comes to collaborating and receiving data, strict safeguards should be maintained. Failure to do so means that data that has been obtained by the NSA and other intelligence services in violation of Dutch law, illegally end up in the hands of Dutch intelligence services. This comes down to the laundering of data through an illegitimate U-turn.
"By using NSA data, minister Plasterk and his services are laundering illegally obtained data. This case should put an end to that", says our lawyer Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm of bureau Brandeis. Read our entire statement of appeal HERE (pdf in Dutch).
The Dutch government will first have to react to our statement of appeal in a statement of defence on appeal, after which the Hague Court of Appeals will schedule a hearing and render a ruling.
Meanwhile, our coalition has been admitted to intervene in the legal proceedings against the British government that the British organization Big Brother Watch et al. have brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This is a significant development because as a result, the ECtHR may, at an early stage, be able to issue a verdict that is relevant to our Dutch case. Click HERE (pdf) for the recent decision on admissibility by the European Court and HERE for more information about the British case on the Court's website.
The Citizens v. Plasterk case
At the end of 2013, the Citizens v. Plasterk coalition summoned the Dutch government, represented by the Dutch minister of the Interior, Ronald Plasterk. This was prompted by Edward Snowden’s revelations about the practices of (foreign) intelligence services. The coalition demands that the Netherlands stops using data that have been obtained in violation of Dutch law.
In February 2014 the case almost led to minister Plasterk’s withdrawal from office. It had emerged that Plasterk had wrongfully informed the Dutch House of Representatives on the exchange of data between Dutch and foreign intelligence services. The Dutch services had passed on 1.8 million items of data to the Americans and not the other way around, as he had previously claimed.
In July 2014 the district court of The Hague rejected the claims of the coalition, after which the coalition lodged an appeal before the Hague Court of Appeals.
At the end of 2015 it became known that the coalition may participate in a British lawsuit before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The participating citizens in the coalition are: Rop Gonggrijp, Jeroen van Beek, Bart Nooitgedagt, Brenno de Winter and Mathieu Paapst. The participating organizations are: the Privacy First Foundation, the Dutch Association of Defence Counsel (NVSA), the Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ) and Internet Society Netherlands.
The case is taken care of by bureau Brandeis, in particular by our lawyers Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm and Caroline de Vries, who make use of the bureau Brandeis’s pro-bono fund.
Update 9 February, 2016: today the coalition submitted its written submissions to the European Court of Human Rights, click HERE (pdf).
"Facebook continues to breach personal data privacy rights in Europe, says a group of human rights organizations, and it demands that Facebook’s EU-US data transfers stop by February 6, 2016. Facebook has formally responded.
As previously reported, the Privacy First Foundation, Public Interest Litigation Project PILP and the Dutch Platform for the Protection of Civil Rights (collectively, “Privacy First”) sent Facebook a demand letter, to which Facebook has now replied in writing.
Facebook’s written response
Facebook responded to Privacy First’s demand letter by giving written assurances of data protection in accordance with current law–that is, those parts of the Privacy Directive that survived the ruling in Schrems, the case that invalidated Safe Harbor.
Specifically, Facebook states that “the grounds for transfer of data set out in Article 26 of the Directive remain entirely lawful,” and that it complies with “these other grounds to transfer data legally from the European Union to the United States .” Facebook further challenged the Dutch tribunal Privacy First plans to use, as lacking competence over Facebook Ireland, the party it asserts is the data controller for data of Facebook Netherlands.
Privacy First’s reply
Privacy First, in its reply through its counsel Boekx, Amsterdam, reiterated its position that the other instruments currently used as basis for EU-US data transfers (such as Standard Contractual Clauses or individual consent) are “fundamentally flawed, as these options do not resolve the problems identified by the European Court of Justice in the Schrems judgment.”
Privacy First’s reply further reserves its rights to initiate legal proceedings in the Hague “requesting a preliminary injunction and/or raising prejudicial questions with the European Court of Justice” if Facebook doesn’t stop EU-US data transfers or provide adequate protections by February 6th, 2016.
Clearly, Privacy First and its co-plaintiffs are not happy with Facebook's response. (...)
Facebook’s letter also challenges the competence of Dutch courts to hear proceedings in the Netherlands against Facebook Ireland, which it alleges is the true data controller, not Facebook Netherlands B.V. Regarding the competence issue, [Boekx] said that Dutch courts have rendered decisions in the past against both Facebook parties.
As reported, the EU and US are currently negotiating replacement of the Safe Harbor Agreement; there is a meeting of the negotiating parties scheduled for February 2nd to discuss EU-US data transfers and how to ensure protections for EU citizens in the legal uncertainties left by Schrems.
Further delays possible
Due to delay in legislation in the U.S. that may be one of the EU’s preconditions to Safe Harbor (the Judicial Redress Act), further delays in Safe Harbor resolution are expected (by some) that could take those negotiations beyond the February 6 deadline set by Privacy First. These delays could set Facebook up for proceedings that, if successful, would result in a shutdown of its EU-US data transfers. (...)"
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisabrownlee/2016/01/27/facebook-fires-back-in-eu-privacy-dispute/#2fe9f2801d5b, 27 January 2016.
"Non siamo la pecora nera, e rispettiamo le stesse regole degli altri. Potremmo così sintetizzare il nocciolo della difesa di Facebook contro le accuse di alcune organizzazioni pro-privacy e utenti olandesi che hanno chiesto, con lettera formale, di impedire il trasferimento di dati personali degli iscritti verso gli Stati Uniti, dove risiedono molti suoi data center e molte delle sue aziende inserzioniste. Minacciando azioni legali nel caso il social network non interrompa questa pratica prima del 16 gennaio. Le radici della vicenda sono note: dalla denuncia inoltrata nel 2013 dallo studente austriaco Max Schrems, fino alla recente decisione della Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea di invalidare gli accordi regolati dal Safe Harbor.Vero è che le nuove regole comunitarie travolgono non solo la creatura di Mark Zuckerberg bensì circa quattromila aziende statunitensi presenti sul Web, però è altrettanto vero che l’attenzione mediatica e le preoccupazioni si concentrano inevitabilmente su Facebook, luogo dove più di ogni altro le vite private diventano condivise. Ma anche il social network delle immagini, Instagram, e la più popolare fra le applicazioni di messaggistica, WhatsApp (entrambe proprietà dell’azienda di Menlo Park) sono coinvolti.
La lettera in questione, infatti, è stata inviata alle sedi di Facebook in California, in Olanda e in Irlanda così come alle sedi di Instagram e Whatsapp. Il mittente è uno studio legale di Amsterdam, Boekx, che parla in rappresentanza di tre associazioni pro-privacy (Stichting Privacy First, Public Interest Litigation Project e Dutch Platform for the Protection of Civil Rights) e di privati cittadini olandesi. La richiesta è, appunto, quella di interrompere il trasferimento dei dati verso gli States entro le ore 18 del gennaio, a meno di non voler incorrere in azioni legali.
Nelle parole dell’avvocato Otto Volgenant dello studio Boekx, “Vogliamo fare pressione su Facebook” e indurre Zuckerberg a pronunciarsi in merito al dibattito sulla privacy in corso nei governi di diversi Paesi. Se poi Facebook facesse ostruzionismo, la protesta degli olandesi potrebbe arrivare dapprima in un tribunale nazionale e poi da qui alla Corte Europea di Giustizia.
La replica della società californiana, arrivata tramite Forbes da un portavoce dell’azienda, Matt Steinfeld, esordisce ribadendo che il social network “utilizza i medesimi meccanismi impiegati da migliaia di altre aziende per trasferire legittimamente dati dall’Europa agli Stati Uniti e ad altri Paesi in tutto in mondo”. E poi fa una proposta: “Crediamo che il modo migliore per risolvere l’attuale dibattito sul trasferimento dei dati oltre l’oceano sia creare un nuovo patto di Safe Harbour, che garantisca adeguate tutele ai cittadini europei”. Il social network, dunque, non si sottrae alla possibilità di modifiche del regolamento ma anzi si auspica che le discussioni in corso fra organismi regolatori europei e statunitensi, e fra essi e i rispettivi governi sfocino presto in un “esito positivo”, ha dichiarato Steinfeld."
Source: http://www.ictbusiness.it/cont/news/l-attacco-olandese-e-la-difesa-facebook-non-siamo-peggio-di-altri/36065/1.html#.VoJYKfFIiUn, 17 December 2015.
Christmas column by Bas Filippini,
Chairman of the Privacy First Foundation
Principles of our democratic constitutional State are still very relevant
‘‘Your choice in a free society’’ is the slogan of the Privacy First Foundation. Privacy First has defined its principles on the basis of universal human rights and our Dutch Constitution and is reputed for professional and, if necessary, legal action in line with our free constitutional State. The mere fact that Privacy First exists, means that in recent years the aforementioned principles have come under increasing pressure. We base our (legal) actions and judgements on thorough fact-finding, to the extent possible in our working area.
‘The Netherlands as a secure global pioneer in the field of privacy’, that’s our motto. This country should also serve as an example of how to use technology whilst maintaining the principles of our open and free society. This can be achieved through legislative, executive and IT infrastructures, starting from privacy by design and making use of privacy enhanced technology.
Whereas the industrial revolution has environmental pollution as a negative side effect, the information revolution has the ‘pollution of privacy and freedom’ as an unwanted side effect.
Therefore, the question is how to preserve the basic principles of our democratic constitutional State and how to support new structures and services towards the future. As far as we’re concerned, these basic principles are neither negotiable nor exchangeable. Yet time and again we see the same incident-driven politics based on the misconceptions of the day strike at times when the constitutional State is at its most vulnerable and cannot defend itself against the emotional tide of the moment.
Paris as yet another excuse to pull through ‘new’ laws
Various politicians feed on the attacks in Paris and tumble over one another to express Orwellian macho talk, taking things further and further in legislative proposals or in emotional speeches characterized by belligerence and rhetoric. And it’s always so predictable: further restraining existing freedoms of all citizens instead of focusing further on the group of adolescents (on average, terrorist attackers are between 18 and 30 years old) that intelligence agencies already have in sight. Instead of having a discussion about how intelligence agencies can more effectively tackle the already defined group that needs to be monitored and take preventive measures in the communication with and education of this target group, the focus too easily shifts to familiar affairs whereby necessity, proportionality and subsidiarity are hard to find.
So in the meanwhile we’ve witnessed the prolonged state of emergency in France, the far reaching extension of powers of the police, the judiciary and intelligence services (also to the detriment of innocent citizens), extra controls in public space, the retention of passenger data, etc., etc. All this apparently for legitimate reasons in the heat of the moment, but it will be disastrous for our freedom both in the short as well as in the long run. In this respect the blurring definition of the term ‘terrorism’ is striking. Privacy First focuses on government powers in relation to the presumption of innocence that citizens have. We’re in favour of applying special powers in dealing with citizens who are under reasonable suspicion of criminal offences and violate the rights of others with their hate and violence. In fact, that’s exactly what the law says. Let’s first implement this properly, instead of introducing legislative proposals that throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The governments is committed to impossible 100 per cent security solutions
What often strikes me in conversations with civil servants is the idea that the government should provide 100 per cent solutions for citizens and applies a risk exclusion principle. This leads to a great deal of compartmentalization and paralyzation when it comes to possible government solutions in the area of security. Technology-based quick fixes are adhered to by default, without properly analyzing the cause of problems and looking at the implementation of existing legislation.
The government way of thinking is separate from citizens, who are not trusted in having legal capacity and are regarded as a necessary evil, as troublesome and as inconvenient in the performance of the government’s tasks. The idea that the government, serving its citizens, should offer as high a percentage as possible but certainly not a 100 per cent security (the final 10 per cent are very costly on the one hand and suffocating for society on the other) is not commonly shared. No civil servant and no politician is prepared to introduce policies to maintain an open society today (and 50 years from now) that entail any risk factors. However, in reality there will always be risks in an open society and it should be noted that a society is not a matter of course but something we should treat with great care.
Here in the Netherlands we’ve seen other forms of government before: from rule by royal decree to a bourgeoisie society and an actual war dictatorship. Every time we chose not to like these forms of society. What could possibly be a reason to be willing to go back to any of these forms and give up our freedoms instead of increasing them and enforcing them with technology? Especially in a society that has high levels of education and wherein citizens show to be perfectly able to take their own decisions on various issues. We hire the government and politics as our representatives, not the other way around. However, we’re now put up with a government that doesn’t trust us, is only prepared to deliver information on the basis of FOIA requests and requires us to hand over all information and communications about us and our deepest private lives as if we were prima facie suspects. That puts everything back to front and to me it embodies a one way trip to North Korea. You’ll be more than welcome there!
Political lobby of the industry
The industry’s persistence to overload the government and citizens with ICT solutions is unprecedented. Again and again here in the Netherlands and in Silicon Valley the same companies pop up that want to secure their Christmas bonus by marketing their products in exchange for our freedom. We’re talking about various electronic health records like the Child record and the Orwellian and centralized electronic patient record, the all-encompassing System Risk-Indication database, travel and residency records, road pricing, chips in number plates and cars, so-called automated guided vehicles (including illegal data collection by car manufacturers), number plate parking, automatic number plate recognition cameras, facial recognition in public space and counter-hacking by government agencies while voting computers are back on the agenda. Big Data, the Internet of things, the list goes on.
With huge budgets these companies promote these allegedly smart solutions, without caring about their dangers for our freedom. It’s alienating to see that the reversal of legal principles is creeping in and is being supported by various government and industry mantras. It’s as if a parasitic wasp erodes civil liberties: the outside looks intact but the inside is already empty and rotten.
From street terrorism to State terrorism
As indicated above, the information revolution leads to the restriction of freedom. It’s imperative to realize that after 4000 years of struggle, development and evolution we have come to our refined form of society and principles that are (relatively) universal for every free citizen. Just as most of us are born out of love, freedom and trust, to me these are also the best principles with which to build a society. We’re all too familiar with societies founded on hate, fear and government control and we have renounced them not so long ago as disastrous and exceptionally unpleasant. At the expense of many sacrifices and lives these principles have been enshrined in treaties, charters and constitutions and are therefore non-negotiable.
It’s high time to continue to act on the basis of these principles and make policy implementation and technology subordinate to this, taking into account the people’s needs and their own responsibility. In my eyes, a civil servant in the service of the people who places security above everything else, is nothing more than a State terrorist or a white collar terrorist who in the long term causes much more damage to our constitutional State and freedom than a so called street terrorist. The government and industry should have an immediate integrity discussion about this, after which clear codes can be introduced for privacy-sustainable governing and entrepreneurship.
Towards a secure global pioneer in the field of privacy
Privacy First would like to see government and industry take their own responsibility in protecting and promoting the personal freedom of citizens and in so doing use a 80/20 rule as far as security is concerned. By focusing on risk groups a lot of money and misery can be saved. Exceptions prove the rule, which in this case is a free and democratic constitutional State and not the other way around. Say yes to a free and secure Netherlands as a global pioneer in the field of privacy!