A vingança do Gato Constipado

wet-cat[1].jpg

O Procurador-geral da República, o divertido Souto Mora, mandou revistar o jornal 24 Horas. Toda a gente percebe porquê. Ninguém percebe para quê.
A propalada investigação das disquetes do curioso “envelope 9”, devia servir para perceber porque raio de razão estava no processo da “Casa Pia” uma listagem exaustiva de chamadas telefónicas de centenas de pessoas que teriam sido, alegadamente, investigadas durante o processo. A grande maioria dos números que constavam desta lista de bisbilhotice não tinham nenhuma relação com o escabroso assunto, eram apenas gente poderosa, certamente com contactos interessantes.
A perseguição dos jornalistas que revelaram a existência do envelope no processo, entretanto tornado público, poderá aliviar a bílis do procurador, mas não responde a nenhuma questão importante.
O procurador arrisca-se ser empurrado para o desemprego pelo riso, mas tem um prémio de consolação: terá lugar em qualquer circo que se preze ao lado do saudoso Santana Lopes. Cocó e ranheta já estão, só falta arranjar o facada.

-A Directive Fraught with Problems

In the Information Society every human action generates transaction logs. Our movements, our purchases, and our interactions with others can be routinely logged in public and private sector databases. In recognition of this, the European Union led the world in establishing a data privacy regime to limit the collection, processing, retention, and accessing of this information. Now the Council is demanding that the European Parliament reverse its position and lead the world in introducing mass surveillance of our activities.
Under existing EU law many of these logs are already available for law enforcement purposes for as long as the telecom industry service providers retain them for business purposes. Justice and Home Affairs officials are pushing to make available even greater stores of information.
The Directive proposes the collection of information on everybody’s communications and movements. The storage of such “communications traffic data” allows whoever has access to it to establish who has electronically communicated with whom and at what time and at which location, over months and years.
In recent meetings with the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 1 and 2 December 2005, it appears that the European Parliament suddenly agreed to the collection of information on everybody’s communications and movements for very broad law enforcement purposes, in spite of having rejected this policy twice before.
We call on the Members of the European Parliament to reject this policy for the following reasons.
1. This Directive invades the privacy of all Europeans. The Directive calls for the indiscriminate collection and retention of data on a wide range of Europeans’ activities. Never has a policy been introduced that mandates the mass storage of information for the mere eventuality that it may be of interest to the State at some point in the future.
2. The proposed Directive is illegal. It contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights by proposing the indiscriminate and disproportionate recording of sensitive personal information. Political, legal, medical, religious and press communications would be logged, exposing such information to use and abuse.
3. The Directive threatens consumer confidence. More than 58,000 Europeans have already signed a petition opposing the Directive. A German poll revealed that 78% of citizens were opposed to a retention policy. The Directive will have a chilling effect on communications activity as consumers may avoid participating in entirely legal transactions for fear that this will be logged for years.
4. The Directive burdens EU industry and harms global competitiveness. Retention of all this data creates additional costs of hundreds of millions of Euros every year. These burdens are placed on EU industry alone. The U.S., Canada and the Council of Europe have already rejected retention.
5. The Directive requires more invasive laws. Once adopted, this Directive will prove not to be the ultimate solution against serious crimes. There will be calls for additional draconian measures including:
• the prior identification of all those who communicate, thus requiring ID cards at cybercafes, public telephone booths, wireless hotspots, and identification of all pre-paid clients;
• the banning of all international communications services such as webmail (e.g. Hotmail and Gmail) and blocking the use of non-EU internet service providers and advanced corporate services.

We, the undersigned, call on Members of the European Parliament to recognise the significant threat to European civil liberties, consumers, and industry and to therefore reject the Directive on communications data retention.
Gus Hosein, Privacy International and Sjoera Nas, EDRI
Privacy International
European Digital Rights
Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure
Statewatch
Associação Nacional para o Software Livre (PT)
Association for Progressive Communications (International)
Attac AG Wissensallmende (DE)
Bits of Freedom (NL)
BlueLink Information Network (BG)
Bürgerrechte & Polizei/CILIP (DE)
Bulgarian Institute for Legal Development (BG)
CPSR- Canada and ES
Coopération-Solidarité-Développement (FR)
Deutsche Vereinigung für Datenschutz e.V. (DE)
Digital Rights Denmark (DK)
Digital Rights Ireland (IE)
Changenet.sk (SK)
Chaos Computer Club (DE)
Communication Rights in the Information Society (EU)
Consumentenbond (NL)
Consumer Project on Technology (US)
EDRI-observer Aljaz Marn, privacyblog.net (SL)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (US)
Electronic Frontier Finland (FI)
Electronic Privacy Information Center (US)
Emancipation syndicale et pédagogique RP (FR)
European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations
European Federation of Older Persons (EU)
Fairfax County Privacy Council (US)
Fédération Informatique et Libertés (FR)
Federation of German Consumer Organisations (DE)
Federation of Library and Information organisations (NL)
Fitug e.V. (DE)
FoeBuD e.V. (DE)
Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung e.V. (DE)
Foundation for Information Policy Research (UK)
Foundation Metamorphosis (MK)
Fundacio Escula Latinoamericana de Redes (Venezuela and IT)
GreenNet (UK)
Gustav Heinemann-Initiative (DE)
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (PL)
Humanistische Union (DE)
Index on Censorship (UK)
Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam (NL)
Internet Society Bulgaria (BG)
Internet Society Poland (PL)
IP Justice (US)
IRIS – Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire (FR)
ISPO, Internet Service Providers Association (NL)
Iuridicum Remedium (CZ)
Joint Declaration on Data Retention (DE)
Ligue ODEBI (FR)
Liberty (UK)
Netzwerk Neue Medien e.V. (DE)
Öko-Referat, Ruhr-Universität Bochum (DE)
Open Rights Group (UK)
OpenSky (CH)
Option consommateurs (Canada)
Pangea.org (ES)
Peacelink (IT)
Privacy Activism (US)
Privacy Commissioner for Brandenburg, Dagmar Hartge (DE)
Privacy Commissioner for Berlin, Dr. Alexander Dix (DE)
Privacy Commissioner of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Hartmut Lubomierski (DE)
Privacy Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Karsten Neumann (DE)
Privacy Commissioner for the Netherlands, Jacob Kohnstamm (NL)
Privacy Commissioner for Niedersachsen, Burckhard Nedden (DE)
Privacy Commissioner for Schleswig-Holstein, Dr. Thilo Weichert (DE)
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (US)
PROSA – Forbundet af It-profesionelle (DK)
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (Canada)
quintessenz (AT)
Stand (UK)
Stichting Vrijschrift (NL)
Stop1984 (DE)
Strawberrynet Foundation (RO)
Swiss Internet User Group (CH)
Syndicat de la magistrature (FR)
ver.di Fachgruppenvorstand Banken (DE)
VIBE!AT (AT)
The Winston Smith Project (IT)
Transnational Radical Party
XS4ALL (NL)
Xtended Internet (NL)
Unabhaengiges Landeszentrum fuer Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein (DE)
Unimondo Italy (IT)
Vereniging van Openbare Bibliotheken, Netherlands Public Library Association (NL)
Zöld Pók Alapítvány (HU)

4 thoughts on “A vingança do Gato Constipado”

Andronicus diz:

19 de Fevereiro de 2006 às 10:16

-A Directive Fraught with Problems

In the Information Society every human action generates transaction logs. Our movements, our purchases, and our interactions with others can be routinely logged in public and private sector databases. In recognition of this, the European Union led the world in establishing a data privacy regime to limit the collection, processing, retention, and accessing of this information. Now the Council is demanding that the European Parliament reverse its position and lead the world in introducing mass surveillance of our activities.
Under existing EU law many of these logs are already available for law enforcement purposes for as long as the telecom industry service providers retain them for business purposes. Justice and Home Affairs officials are pushing to make available even greater stores of information.
The Directive proposes the collection of information on everybody’s communications and movements. The storage of such “communications traffic data” allows whoever has access to it to establish who has electronically communicated with whom and at what time and at which location, over months and years.
In recent meetings with the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 1 and 2 December 2005, it appears that the European Parliament suddenly agreed to the collection of information on everybody’s communications and movements for very broad law enforcement purposes, in spite of having rejected this policy twice before.
We call on the Members of the European Parliament to reject this policy for the following reasons.
1. This Directive invades the privacy of all Europeans. The Directive calls for the indiscriminate collection and retention of data on a wide range of Europeans’ activities. Never has a policy been introduced that mandates the mass storage of information for the mere eventuality that it may be of interest to the State at some point in the future.
2. The proposed Directive is illegal. It contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights by proposing the indiscriminate and disproportionate recording of sensitive personal information. Political, legal, medical, religious and press communications would be logged, exposing such information to use and abuse.
3. The Directive threatens consumer confidence. More than 58,000 Europeans have already signed a petition opposing the Directive. A German poll revealed that 78% of citizens were opposed to a retention policy. The Directive will have a chilling effect on communications activity as consumers may avoid participating in entirely legal transactions for fear that this will be logged for years.
4. The Directive burdens EU industry and harms global competitiveness. Retention of all this data creates additional costs of hundreds of millions of Euros every year. These burdens are placed on EU industry alone. The U.S., Canada and the Council of Europe have already rejected retention.
5. The Directive requires more invasive laws. Once adopted, this Directive will prove not to be the ultimate solution against serious crimes. There will be calls for additional draconian measures including:
• the prior identification of all those who communicate, thus requiring ID cards at cybercafes, public telephone booths, wireless hotspots, and identification of all pre-paid clients;
• the banning of all international communications services such as webmail (e.g. Hotmail and Gmail) and blocking the use of non-EU internet service providers and advanced corporate services.

We, the undersigned, call on Members of the European Parliament to recognise the significant threat to European civil liberties, consumers, and industry and to therefore reject the Directive on communications data retention.
Gus Hosein, Privacy International and Sjoera Nas, EDRI
Privacy International
European Digital Rights
Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure
Statewatch
Associação Nacional para o Software Livre (PT)
Association for Progressive Communications (International)
Attac AG Wissensallmende (DE)
Bits of Freedom (NL)
BlueLink Information Network (BG)
Bürgerrechte & Polizei/CILIP (DE)
Bulgarian Institute for Legal Development (BG)
CPSR- Canada and ES
Coopération-Solidarité-Développement (FR)
Deutsche Vereinigung für Datenschutz e.V. (DE)
Digital Rights Denmark (DK)
Digital Rights Ireland (IE)
Changenet.sk (SK)
Chaos Computer Club (DE)
Communication Rights in the Information Society (EU)
Consumentenbond (NL)
Consumer Project on Technology (US)
EDRI-observer Aljaz Marn, privacyblog.net (SL)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (US)
Electronic Frontier Finland (FI)
Electronic Privacy Information Center (US)
Emancipation syndicale et pédagogique RP (FR)
European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations
European Federation of Older Persons (EU)
Fairfax County Privacy Council (US)
Fédération Informatique et Libertés (FR)
Federation of German Consumer Organisations (DE)
Federation of Library and Information organisations (NL)
Fitug e.V. (DE)
FoeBuD e.V. (DE)
Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung e.V. (DE)
Foundation for Information Policy Research (UK)
Foundation Metamorphosis (MK)
Fundacio Escula Latinoamericana de Redes (Venezuela and IT)
GreenNet (UK)
Gustav Heinemann-Initiative (DE)
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (PL)
Humanistische Union (DE)
Index on Censorship (UK)
Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam (NL)
Internet Society Bulgaria (BG)
Internet Society Poland (PL)
IP Justice (US)
IRIS – Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire (FR)
ISPO, Internet Service Providers Association (NL)
Iuridicum Remedium (CZ)
Joint Declaration on Data Retention (DE)
Ligue ODEBI (FR)
Liberty (UK)
Netzwerk Neue Medien e.V. (DE)
Öko-Referat, Ruhr-Universität Bochum (DE)
Open Rights Group (UK)
OpenSky (CH)
Option consommateurs (Canada)
Pangea.org (ES)
Peacelink (IT)
Privacy Activism (US)
Privacy Commissioner for Brandenburg, Dagmar Hartge (DE)
Privacy Commissioner for Berlin, Dr. Alexander Dix (DE)
Privacy Commissioner of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Hartmut Lubomierski (DE)
Privacy Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Karsten Neumann (DE)
Privacy Commissioner for the Netherlands, Jacob Kohnstamm (NL)
Privacy Commissioner for Niedersachsen, Burckhard Nedden (DE)
Privacy Commissioner for Schleswig-Holstein, Dr. Thilo Weichert (DE)
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (US)
PROSA – Forbundet af It-profesionelle (DK)
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (Canada)
quintessenz (AT)
Stand (UK)
Stichting Vrijschrift (NL)
Stop1984 (DE)
Strawberrynet Foundation (RO)
Swiss Internet User Group (CH)
Syndicat de la magistrature (FR)
ver.di Fachgruppenvorstand Banken (DE)
VIBE!AT (AT)
The Winston Smith Project (IT)
Transnational Radical Party
XS4ALL (NL)
Xtended Internet (NL)
Unabhaengiges Landeszentrum fuer Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein (DE)
Unimondo Italy (IT)
Vereniging van Openbare Bibliotheken, Netherlands Public Library Association (NL)
Zöld Pók Alapítvány (HU)
Luis Oliveira diz:

19 de Fevereiro de 2006 às 13:13

Mas o grande perigo para a liberdade de expressão em Portugal não são os extremistas islâmicos?
Nuno Ramos de Almeida diz:

19 de Fevereiro de 2006 às 13:23

Luís Oliveira,
Tem que ter em conta os últimos desenvolvimentos da ciência: o Raposo do Ocidental já provou as ligações dos fundamentalistas islâmicos com o procurador, via um gato do Lenine.
Tem até uma citação em ingês (lingua sagrada) para o demonstrar: “bin Laden, Lenine’s cat and the cold cat…”
Luis Oliveira diz:

19 de Fevereiro de 2006 às 15:16

Nuno:

Estava apenas a gracejar com o facto se ter gasto tanto tempo com o caso das gravuras dinamarquesas e tão pouco com o assunto do teu post, com o qual concordo em traços largos.

Bom resto de domingo!

Aspirina B

A vingança do Gato Constipado

4 thoughts on “A vingança do Gato Constipado”

Deixe um comentário