Amelia Andersdotter - Pirate issues

Amelia visited Czech Pirates' General Assembly in Plzeň

Jan Louzek — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:51:01 +0000

Språk Engelska

As I've writen in my earlier post, most of the central European Pirate Parties are getting ready for the elections. This literally means Germany, Luxembourg, Austria and the Czech Republic. Pirates from the last mentioned one gathered in the city of Plzeň in order to talk about the upcoming elections, to review the progress made so far and most of all - to elect a new Board and a president, which could lead the Party to the early elections in October 2013.

But not only elections were on program during the all day long meeting in Plzeň. The current member of Czech Senate (one and only Senate member representing Czech Pirates), Libor Michálek briefed about the work he made in past months. He also expressed a strong word of support for several candidates for the upcoming legislative elections in certain regions of the country. Oldřich Kužílek, one of the authors of the czech Law on public access to information (106/1999) had a presentation related to the Freedom of informations component of the Pirate program.

The whole event was closed by a final speech made by Amelia Andersdotter. Amelia especially pointed out that the current efforts for protection of the Internet must continue - as more and more users are subjected to unlimited and uncontrolled surveillance of intelligence agencies. Aside of this, Amelia was well aware of the current progress of election camapigns in Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic. That is why she proposed a better cooperation between pirate communities in all mentioned countries. As the Deník Referendum published in their own interview with Amelia, Pirates from one country can provide the necessary voluntary workforce for communities in other countries and vice versa - even if they would be distributing leaflets or posters. She also noted, how international the Pirate movement is - as a good example of this practice she mentioned countries like Russia, Norway or Switzerland, where pirate volunteers not seldomly come from.

In her opinion the future of Czech Pirate Party seems to be clear: There are many supporters now and there can be even more, as the central topics for the Party are becoming more and more important for the rest of the society. Public access to information can be one of these.

Pirate Party Europe Conference in Luxembourg

Jan Louzek — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:08:58 +0000

Språk Engelska

After a long work the foundation of the Pirate Party Europe entered one of it's final stages. The ceremony of signing the statutes and manifesto of the Pirate Party Europe took place on 4th September in Luxembourg City (Abayé de Neumünster) and it was part of the Pirate Party Europe Conference.

A day earlier me and Mattias arrived to Luxembourg to meet some of the Pirates, who decided to go to the event with us. Since the conference took place in Luxembourg, it is not surprising to see that most of the visitors came mostly from Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, France or Switzerland. There were also delegations from more far-away countries, like Spain, Russia etc. The conference began with a nice morning workshop, which was then followed by voting of amendments and possible changes in the manifesto.

In order to avoid prolonging the whole conference, the voting section was decided to be simple and strict. First of all the changes made since the Warsaw conference in July were presented and then voting begun. Most of the amendments were of cosmetic nature; some of the Pirates from Italy proposed to change the name of the title of the leading person of PP EU, due to translation reasons. The voting section was perfectly organized so the whole process did not take very long (abouth half an hour). The conclusions were clear. After the voting session Amelia and Joni (our new intern, a photographer) arrived for the signing ceremony.

The documents were signed by the Pirates of Belgium, Catalonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Russia, Sweden and Switzerland. Two representatives signed the documents on behalf of the Croatian and Finnish pirate parties, that had no . It should be also mentioned that the representative from Young Pirates was also present. The decision to sign the statutes and manifesto were regarded as historical ones, and as those that can put an end to the long negotiations and as an answer to the question "What the European Pirate Party would look like". As of now, PP EU has its basic documents and position in the European pirate movement that is clearly defined. The fact, that a member of European Parliament was present at the signing event is one those that can confirm this.

When the event ended, local Pirates continued in the election campaign in Luxembourg. As I've mentioned earlier, the Luxembourg Prime minister decided to resign due to a wiretapping scandal, that took place in Luxembourg in the first half of 2013.

This event, that is a final stage before the official foundation of Pirate Party Europe got already be mentioned in local media. There is a note in Luxemburg ones, and the results of the campaign are now known as far as in Finland. And we shouldn't also forget about the Pirate Times.

Campaigning time!

Jan Louzek — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 11:38:38 +0000

Språk Engelska

As the month of September started, the elections in Germany (22nd September), Czech Republic (25 - 26th October) and Luxembourg (20th October) are closing.

First of all, it is important to mention that the situation in all three countries stated above is incredibly different. Luxembourgian Prime minister decided to resign after a wiretapping scandal, in the Czech Republic the Prime minister decided to resign after several members of the government were accused of corruption. In Germany Angela Merkel tries to defend her position in regular elections.

How did my trip to Dresden start? In Ústí nad Labem, I joined with Alix from French Pirate Party, and then we travelled to Dresden, where we met Sebastian, one of the leading pirates of Saxony. The level of his understandings of the situation both in Saxony, as well as Germany was quite impressive. To be honest, it is hard to comment such a complex foreign policy analysis of his, especially when you are from such a small country, where politicians deal mostly with regional issues.

Intense preparations for the election campaign are underway. As I've seen in PP³ meeting, German Pirates are working on the whole campaign with their typical punctuality. The topics are clear and there is also some kind of typical Pirate sense of humor. The surprise of the meeting was presence of Austrian Pirates, which are also getting ready for election campaign in their own country.

The PP³was branded as a trilateral meeting of Czech, German and Polish Pirates. Eventhough, it had a form of a practical workshop, related mostly to the campaigning. Many questions arisen: Which cities to target in the campain the most? How to cooperate during national campaigning on international level? What is the most important thing during organizing a campaign? How to speed up communication in the group? Which topics should we focus on? How to evaluate current political situation in both Germany and Czech Republic? In the afternoon we had a videoconference with Mikuláš Ferjenčík, the chief of the Czech campaign. We were presented with a schedule of the campaign, as it was defined and prepared by Mikuláš.

General public could also see the presence of Pirates in Dresden. We made a nice "pirate" walk through the city. We draw some attention. The walk ended at Wallstrasse, where it was nicely closed by a flashmob event. At one very moment when a signal was given, all fell down, then got their bodies contours sketched out on the pavement, finally filled them with slogans about privacy and freedom, that can be lost.I personally did not participate in the flashmob, but I spent some valuable time with local people, talking with them about Pirate ideas, upcoming elections, as well as about situation in many european countries in general.

The event preceeded my arrival to Brussels, where I decided to become an intern at the office of Amelia Andersdotter, the pirate MEP. It was a great start!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jMFuiEqGd0

Pirate Vibes

Julien Bencze — Fri, 17 May 2013 16:42:30 +0000

Språk Engelska

I attach importance to personal impressions, they are subjective of course, but they are reality, non-said, subjective reality, and they are also probably feed by external, “wire-less” vibrations. You can feel in the air when an entity is alive also because of the waves it spreads all around, and sometimes you get its message. “Without words”.

The General Assembly of the German Pirate Party was a vibrant demonstration of collective vitality. Each attending person knew she/he was a living part (which means, considered as such by all the others) of a common political construction. What stroke me is the energy that came out from the well prepared and accepted confrontation of each one’s strong determination to do it right. And the good organisation of the event that has been already praised by my colleagues , where it was obvious everyone knew what he/she had to do and why, enabled to frame and project this energy towards a hopeful political future.

Around 300 proposals were debated and voted, on the party program for the next federal election in November, on the party fundamental program, its statutes, and position papers.

When the proposal was presented by a member on stage in front of the whole assembly, people who wanted to ask questions to the member registered and did so when reaching the mike after they queued along a “question” line. Those who wanted to speak for or against the proposal also took the floor to support or challenge the proposal vis-à-vis the member on stage and the audience along a “pro” or “contra” line. And then came the vote...

Most debates went easy-peasy, Some were electric; but the chairperson was always there to make sure misbehaviours were avoided, and they were. Basis democracy was indeed a reality during these three days.

To me this General Assembly strongly contrasted with the genereal assemblies of some other traditional, big parties, where members "support" or have to follow different internal party trends controlled and directed by a few, instead of having really a word to say. These supporters or followers didn't have the same level of determination in their eyes that the one I saw in Germany. Definitly not.

I just left Germany with the feeling of having my battery reloaded for the week…

Konsultation der EU-Kommission zu Betriebsgeheimnissen

Elin Andersson — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:02:20 +0000

Språk Tyska

Howto Anleitung

Mithilfe der deutschen Piraten (siehe Link) waren wir in der Lage einen Beantwortungs-Leitfaden für die Umfrage der EU-Kommission zu Immaterialgüterrechten in Bezug auf Betriebsgeheimnisse zu erstellen.

Für die Teilnahme gibt keine bestimmten Zugangsvoraussetzungen, die Deadline ist der 8. März 2013 (es ist zum Beispiel möglich einen Link für die Teilnahme an der Befragung durch eine Anfrage via eine E-Mail zu erhalten), und Du kannst einfach auf an der Umfrage teilnehmen, indem Du auf diesen Link klickst: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2012/trade-secrets_en.htm

Wir empfehlen, die Umfrage als Bürger zu beantworten, was Du in Deutscher Sprache hier machen kannst: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=tradesecrets&lang=de

Die Umfrage ist in Blöcke aufgeteilt, und wir haben unsere Antworten dementsprechend mit Kommentaren unter jedem Block strukturiert. Du kannst einen allgemeineren Kommentar zu Befragungen der Kommission am Ende dieses Blogposts finden.

Beantwortungs-Leitfaden

Abschnitt I.1

Welche Bedeutung haben Ihrer Meinung nach „Betriebsgeheimnisse/vertrauliche Geschäftsinformationen“ für (bitte alle zutreffenden Kästchen ankreuzen)

1. Forschung und Entwicklung: GERING
2. Nutzung der Innovation, d. h. die Umsetzung einer Erfindung in ein marktreifes Produkt: MITTEL
3. Die Innovations- und Wettbewerbsleistung von KMUs (Kleine und mittlere Unternehmen): MITTEL
4. Die Innovations- und Wettbewerbsleistung von international tätigen Großunternehmen: MITTEL
5. Wachstum und Beschäftigung in der EU-Wirtschaft allgemein: GERING

Kommentar: Forschung und Entwicklung profitieren am meisten vom freien Fluss der Informationen, wie man am freien Zugang zu Veröffentlichungen in der Forschung und zu Datenbanken sehen kann. Es kann wichtig sein Betriebsgeheimnisse zu wahren, wenn ein Produkt oder eine Marke aufgebaut wird, aber der freie Wettbewerb der Industrie im Gesamten profitiert mehr von einem weniger strengen Schutz von Betriebsgeheimnissen als von einer ausgeprägten Grundstruktur an Schutzmaßnahmen für Betriebsgeheimnisse. Ein höherer Grad an Informationsfluss zwischen den einzelnen Institutionen in der Gesellschaft unterstützt voraussichtlich die Gründung neuer Start-Up-Unternehmen und liefert demzufolge zusätzliche Flexibilität für den Markt.

Abschnitt I.2

Welchen Einfluss haben Ihrer Meinung nach „Betriebsgeheimnisse/vertrauliche Geschäftsinformationen“ auf Folgendes (bitte alle zutreffenden Kästchen ankreuzen):

1. Forschung in Forschungseinrichtungen: STARK NEGATIV
2. Forschung und Entwicklung in Unternehmen: SCHWACH NEGATIV
3. Die Nutzung von Innovation, d. h. die Umsetzung einer Erfindung in ein marktreifes Produkt: SCHWACH POSITIV
4. Innovation und Wettbewerbsleistung von KMUs (kleiner und mittlerer Unternehmen): SCHWACH NEGATIV
5. Die Innovations- und Wettbewerbsleistung von international tätigen Großunternehmen: SCHWACH NEGATIV
6. Wachstum und Beschäftigung in der EU-Wirtschaft allgemein: STARK NEGATIV
7. Die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der EU weltweit: SCHWACH NEGATIV
8. Wahlmöglichkeit für die Verbraucher: NEUTRAL
9. Niedrigere Preise von Waren und Dienstleistungen: STARK NEGATIV

Kommentar: Es kann unzweifelhaft so sein, dass die Verwertung einer Erfindung von der Möglichkeit vertraulicher Geschäfte oder der Aufrechterhaltung von Betriebssgeheimnissen profitiert, aber es gibt keinen Grund zu glauben, dass dies mehr Wettbewerb verursacht, oder Innovation fördert. Eher sollte es als Möglichkeit für Handelsvertreter, andere vom Wettbewerb oder Wissensaufbau fernzuhalten, gesehen werden. Im Besonderen sollte man ein Augenmerk auf die wettbewerbshindernden Effekte von Betriebsgeheimnissen legen, und auf die Fähigkeit großer Unternehmen, den Schutz von Betriebsgeheimnissen und gesetzliche Sicherung von vertraulichen Geschäftsinformationen als Methode zu verwenden, Wettbewerb zu unterdrücken, und so Unsicherheit für ihre Angestellten zu erzeugen, wenn Angestellte zu neuen Arbeitsplätzen bei anderen Arbeitgebern wechseln. Übermäßiger Schutz vonBetriebsgeheimnissen führt zu einem starken Element der Unsicherheit für Angestellte, die gezwungen sein können, sehr schwierige Einschätzungen vorzunehmen, wenn sie etwas bei der Arbeit erfahren haben, und wenn Sie mit Informationen umgehen, die ihr Arbeitgeber in Zivil- oder Strafrechtsprozessen schützen will.

Abschnitt I.3

Sind „Betriebsgeheimnisse/vertrauliche Geschäftsinformationen“ Ihrer Meinung nach wichtige Hilfsmittel für Unternehmen und Forschungseinrichtungen in der EU zum Schutz ihrer wertvollen Informationen? (Bitte nur ein Kästchen ankreuzen.)

Empfohlene Auswahl: NEIN.

Kommentar: Betriebsgeheimnisse können und werden gemeinhin von Branchenakteuren als wichtig erachtet, wenn sie ihre Produkte vermarkten, aber dies spielt keine Rolle für die exekutive Institution der EU (Kommission) oder ihrer legislativen Institutionen (Parlament und Rat). Wenn übermäßig Aufmerksamkeit auf dieses Thema gerichtet wird, kann dies mehr Blockaden für Innovation und Forschung sowie wettbewerbliche Rahmenbedingungen für Unternehmen verursachen, als dadurch, dass das Thema einfach nicht angesprochen wird.

Abschnitt I.4

Ist der rechtliche Schutz vor der unrechtmäßigen Nutzung von „Betriebsgeheimnissen/vertraulichen Geschäftsinformationen“ Ihrer Meinung nach (bitte alle zutreffenden Kästchen ankreuzen):

Auf nationaler Ebene: ÜBERTRIEBEN
Im grenzübergreifenden Rahmen in der EU: ÜBERTRIEBEN
Im grenzübergreifenden Rahmen global: ÜBERTRIEBEN

Kommentar: Übermäßiger Schutz von Betriebsgeheimnissen führt zu einem starken Element der Unsicherheit für Mitarbeiter, die gezwungen sein können, sehr schwierige Einschätzungen vorzunehmen, wenn sie etwas bei der Arbeit erfahren haben und wenn sie mit Informationen umgehen, die ihr Arbeitgeber in Zivil- oder Strafrechtsprozessen schützen will. Um sich gegen eine solch hohe Belastung der Mitarbeiter zu schützen und um die wettbewerblichen Rahmenbedingungen zu stärken, wo frühere Arbeitserfahrungen einfach in neue Unternehmen und Start-Ups übernommen werden können, ist es wahrscheinlich am sichersten, die Durchsetzung von Betriebsgeheimnissen in der großen Mehrheit der europäischen Rechtssysteme abzumildern.

Abschnitt I.7

Welche Auswirkungen haben unterschiedliche/abweichende einzelstaatliche Vorschriften über den Schutz von Betriebsgeheimnissen vor unrechtmäßiger Nutzung bei grenzübergreifenden Geschäften in der EU? (Bitte alle zutreffenden Kästchen ankreuzen.)

Vorgeschlagene Auswahl: keine negativen Auswirkungen

Wenn man zusätzlich "Sonstige (bitte angeben)" anklickt, erhält man die Gelegenheit, einen Freitext-Antwort von maximal 300 Zeichen abzugeben. Wir empfehlen antwortenden Bürgern, eine solche Antwort, basierend auf den Kommentaren zu den vorherigen Abschnitten, abzugeben.

Abschnitt I.8

Es gibt keine spezifischen EU-Rechtsvorschriften über die unrechtmäßige Nutzung von Betriebsgeheimnissen und die diesbezüglichen einzelstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften sind unterschiedlich. Sind Sie der Meinung, dass der rechtliche Schutz vor unrechtmäßiger Nutzung von „Betriebsgeheimnissen/vertraulichen Geschäftsinformationen“ auf EU-Ebene gezielt behandelt werden sollte? (Bitte nur ein Kästchen ankreuzen.)

Vorgeschlagene Auswahl: NEIN, AUF EU-EBENE SIND KEINE MAßNAHMEN ERFORDERLICH

Abschnitt I.9

Wenn Sie der Meinung sind, dass es EU-Rechtsvorschriften oder eine Empfehlung der Kommission zur unrechtmäßigen Nutzung von Betriebsgeheimnissen geben sollte, welchen Inhalt sollten diese haben? (Bitte alle zutreffenden Kästchen ankreuzen.)

Bitte NEIN bei allen Fragen ankreuzen.

Abschnitt I.10

Was wären Ihrer Ansicht nach die wahrscheinlichen Auswirkungen von Rechtsvorschriften auf EU-Ebene? (Bitte alle zutreffenden Kästchen ankreuzen.)

Vorgeschlagene Auswahl: Negative Effekte/Auswirkungen (bitte angeben)
Vorgeschlagene weitere Auswahl bei I. 10.2: Alle.
Wird bei I. 10.2 "Sonstige (bitte angeben)" angekreuzt, kann eine Freitext-Antwort von maximal 300 Zeichenabgegeben werden.

Bei diesem Kommentar wäre es möglich, das gesellschaftliche Problem anzusprechen, einer Körperschaft Rechtsschutz zu gewährleisten, obwohl von dieser keine Gegenleistung erwartet wird. Im Patentsystem wird von der Rechtsschutz genießenden Körperschaft erwartet, daß sie eine Gegenleistung in Form publizierter Ergebnisse erbringt - beim Schutz von Handelsgeheimnissen gibt es jedoch diese Gegenleistung nicht. Die öffentliche Hand würde lediglich ihre Ressourcen und Zeit aufwenden, um eine private Körperschaft zu schützen, ohne dass die öffentliche Hand oder die Öffentlichkeit davon einen Nutzen hätte.

Abschnitt I.11

Sind Sie der Meinung, dass Rechtsvorschriften auf EU-Ebene gegen die unrechtmäßige Nutzung von Betriebsgeheimnissen/vertraulichen Geschäftsinformationen die Funktionsweise des Binnenmarkts für Rechte an geistigem Eigentum verbessern könnten? (Bitte nur ein Kästchen ankreuzen.)

Vorgeschlagene Auswahl: Nein, weil (bitte angeben)

Vorgeschlagene weitere Auswahl:

die grenzübergreifende Forschungszusammenarbeit und der grenzübergreifende Wissenstransfer in der EU nicht nennenswert zunehmen werden, da andere Faktoren solche Tätigkeiten viel mehr beeinträchtigen und nicht beseitigt werden würden.
dies die Unternehmen lediglich dazu veranlassen würde, ihr geistiges Eigentum noch stärker zu überwachen und zu schützen.
Sonstige (bitte angeben): Es sollte irgendwie klar gemacht werden, dass es nicht völlig offensichtlich ist, was ein interner Markt für geistiges Eigentum ist. Bezieht sich die Kommission auf die Gesamtmenge der Lizenzen, die auf einer EU-Ebene erstellt werden oder auf die Gesamtmenge der registrierten Rechtsansprüche? Was, was, was?

Abschnitt II.1-II.4

II.1: Besitzt Ihr Unternehmen/Ihre Einheit Betriebsgeheimnisse/vertrauliche Geschäftsinformationen? (Bitte nur ein Kästchen ankreuzen.)
II.2: Bemühen Sie sich in Ihrem Unternehmen/Ihrer Einheit um den Schutz von Betriebsgeheimnissen/vertraulichen Geschäftsinformationen? (Bitte nur ein Kästchen ankreuzen.)
II.3: Haben Sie jemals Technologie-/Know-how-Transfervereinbarungen abgeschlossen?
II.4: Sind bereits Betriebsgeheimnisse/vertrauliche Geschäftsinformationen Ihres Unternehmens/Ihrer Einheit gestohlen worden? (Bitte nur ein Kästchen ankreuzen.)

Vermutlich wird die Antwort der meisten beteiligten BürgerInnen NEIN sein, aber wenn Du Eigentümer eines kleinen oder mittelständischen Unternehmens bist, solltest Du die Punkte gemäß Deiner Situation durchgehen. Außerdem könnten Vertraulichkeitserklärungen als Übereinkünfte zum Wissenstransfer gewertet werden.

Abschnitt II.7

Nutzen Sie eine andere Form des Schutzes der Rechte an geistigem Eigentum? (Bitte alle zutreffenden Kästchen ankreuzen.)

Es gibt nahezu keine Möglichkeit, dass irgendein Bürger in Europa nicht Inhaber von Urheberrechten ist; deshalb ist das Kästchen, was angekreuzt werden sollte, das Urheberrecht-Kästchen.

Abschnitt II.8

Wenn Sie keine Rechte an geistigem Eigentum nutzen, welchen Grund gibt es dafür? (Bitte alle zutreffenden Kästchen ankreuzen.)

Offene Fragestellung. Keine spezifischen Antworten empfohlen.

Abschnitt III

Dieser Abschnitt handelt von persönlichen Informationen über Dich als Bürger oder in welchem Zusammenhang Duauch immer die Antworten abgibst. Viele Fragestellungen sind offensichtlich, aber ein paar verdienen Aufmerksamkeit.

III.6: Ist Ihre Organisation beim Register für Interessenvertreter angemeldet? Wenn nicht, können Sie sich hier anmelden, bevor Sie Ihren Beitrag schicken. Wenn Du nicht weißt, was diese Angabe bedeutet, kannst Du mit NEIN antworten.
III.7 Organisation Wenn du nicht als ein Mitglied einer Organisation antwortest, kannst du "ich selbst" eintragen (wenn du als Bürger antwortest).
III.8 Kann die Kommission Kontakt zu Ihnen aufnehmen, falls nähere Einzelheiten zu den von Ihnen gemachten Angaben erforderlich sind? Wir gehen davon aus, dass das jeder selbst entscheidet.
III.9: Widersprechen Sie der Veröffentlichung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten wegen einer möglichen Beeinträchtigung Ihrer berechtigten Interessen? Dies bedeutet, dass die Kommission alle eingehenden Antworten veröffentlichen wird, sodass es für andere Bürger und Organisationen transparent wird, wer versucht die Entscheidungsfindungsprozesse der Kommission zu beeinflussen. Dies ist eine gute Referenz für eine solche Publikation: Peter Houppermans über Datenschutz.

Generelle Informationen über Umfragen

Eine Umfrage, oder in anderen Worten eine Fragenerhebung ist etwas, was die Kommission benutzt, wenn sie herausfinden will, wie verschiedene Teilnehmer einer Gesellschaft im Einzelnen über ein bestimmtes soziales Thema denkt. Die Umfrage wird durch ein Befragungssystem gestaltet, das von IBM in den 1990er Jahren entwickelt wurde.
Das heißt, dass die Umfragen für Einzelne unpraktisch zu handhaben sind, die Systeme wie Surveymonkey oder andere wesentlich nutzerfreundlichere Befragungssysteme kennen.

Die Kommission bevorzugt es gewöhnlich, basierend auf den Antwoten der Befragung Statistiken zu erstellen. Deshalb ist es wichtig, bei einer begrenzten Anzahl von Auswahlmöglichkeiten mit Ja oder Nein zu antworten. Wenn du der Frage nicht zustimmst, sollte diese in eine Art und Weise beantwortet werden, die eine Distanzierung von dem Frageziel herausstellt.

An einigen Stellen hast Du die Möglichkeit, eigene Antworten als Freitext zu formulieren. Diese Felder haben i.d.R. ein Zeichenlimit. Wegen diesen Antworten wird eine Einreichung nicht berücksichtigt, wenn sie identisch sind.

Unglücklicherweise stellt die Kommission ihre Umfragen meist nur in Englisch zur Verfügung. Deshalb kann es für die, die des Englischen nicht mächtig sind, ein Problem darstellen, an diesen Umfragen teilzunehmen.
Das Europäische Parlament richtete deshalb, zusammen mit anderen, schwere Kritik an die Kommision, da es vor allem ein ausdrückliches Ziel vieler Umfragen ist, möglichst vielen Bürgern einen einfachen Weg zu bieten, an der Gestaltung von Politik teilzunehmen.

Die Kommission muss außerdem alle Antworten, die es aus einer Umfrage erhalten hat, berücksichtigen. Normalerweise muss die Kommission auch die erhaltenen Antworten veröffentlichen, aber private Daten der Bürger werden gemäß den EU-Regularien für den Schutz privater Daten veröffentlicht. Sowohl als Individuum als auch als Interessengruppe kann man verlangen, die Antworten ganz, oder teilweise vertraulich zu behandeln. Allerdings solltest Du als Bürger deine gewählten Vertreter entweder selbst oder über eine Interessengruppe ansprechen, um sicher zu stellen, dass deine mitgeteilte Position auch berücksichtigt wird, wenn die Kommission ihren Bericht veröffentlicht.

Lower Saxony Elections

Claudia — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:09:15 +0000

Språk Engelska

Fellow-Pirate and newest intern at Amelia’s office (Hello world, nice meeting you!) reporting on Hannover weekend.

On Sunday the 20st of January there were the local state parliament elections in Lower Saxony, Germany. Aim: 5% of votes in order to get a parliament seat. Stake: entering the federal parliament in the next national election in September.

The local Pirate Party called in international troops to help out during the last day of campaigning in the run up to the final voting day on Sunday. Belgians, Czechs, Swedes, Dutch and Germans gathered in the cold Hannover for the weekend to discuss, share ideas, campaign and socialize.

Cozily gathered at the Pirate Headquarters, the weekend workshop started with an introductory welcoming briefing by host Justus Römeth of Pirate Party Niedersachsen. Next to coffee and muffins we also enjoyed the cleverly designed promotional material alongside a brief presentation on the past campaigning weeks. Skilfully organized, the Germans are skilfully organized. They have eye-catching posters, billboards, various insightful leaflets structured by topic and purpose, and sword-shaped orange balloons.

The workshop continued with a more practical exercise: the pirates wrapped head to toe in warm clothes and armed with leaflets and optimism have stepped out in the cold to make a last campaigning effort in a trip around town to several of the five Pirate Party Info stands. What an experimental idea it was, to have the international Pirates approach the Hanoverians on a politically-orientated topic. Interesting reactions were generated among passers; none of which however foreign to Pirates that are used to being prompted with surprised and intrigued faces. We always have a wicked smiled prepared to offer in return.

Later in the day when all Pirates declared themselves frozen to the marrow, the group migrated to a conference where Bruno Kramm and Laura Dornheim graced us, among others, with their presence in a discussion (in German) on Copyright and its follow-up implications. Day one gloriously ended with dinner and drinks.

On Sunday, while everyone in Lower Saxony was busy voting, the Pirates were once again grouped at the headquarters to discuss ideas and opinions on the election campaign and on future improvements. International input suggested leaflets glued to give-away books (courtesy of Sweden) and promises of campaign material sharing. Importing international pirates for campaigning was decided to be a good idea and also perhaps helpful to share available resources.

By 18:00 when the election polls were set to be announced, Pirates moved venue and were impatiently watching the huge screens that were due to show the results. Shortly however the room was filled with disappointment sighs as the poll showed lower results than expected. These were disturbing results as they may jeopardise the fall’s federal elections.

Nevertheless, a pirate is a pirate and will not be intimidated by a slippery slope. Lesson learned - assets will be maximised in the future.

Pirate Party Germany Enters Fourth State Parliament

Julia Reda — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:41:47 +0000

Språk Svenska

Last sunday, the Pirate Party Germany reached another milestone. With 7.8 percent of the vote, 20 pirates are entering the parliament of Germany's most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW). The Pirate Party is now present in four of Germany's 16 states, having scored well above 5 percent in every election since the Berlin elections in September 2011. The 20 delegates make up the largest Pirate parliamentary group to date.

Campaign poster "Education can't be cheap"

Aside from their trademark topics of civil liberties, freedom of information and transparency of the state, one of the most important campaign topics for the Pirates of NRW was proposing an educational system that will allow all students to be taught at the same schools where they can progress through a flexible course system at their individual pace. The new style of politics that many voters expect from the Pirate Party could already be witnessed on monday, as the new parliamentary group got together for its first meeting, which was streamed live to the internet and collaboratively documented in a pirate pad.

Campaign Poster "Rights to creators and consumers"

The Pirate Party NRW will be an opposition party, as the Social Democrats and the Green Party will be renewing their coalition. They had been governing North Rhine-Westphalia as a minority government since 2010, but were unable to pass a budget, which led to the 2012 re-elections. Social Democrats and Greens now have a solid majority of 128 to 109 seats. Members of the new Pirate parliamentary group have already announced that they are willing to support individual policies of the government coalition, whenever they are in accordance with the Pirate Party's platform. They are determined to respect the MP's freedom to vote according to their own conscience and foster a political culture that makes minority governments and changing majorities more feasible, as they are still very rare in Germany's political system.

Social Democrats and Greens now have a solid majority of 128 to 109 seats. Members of the new Pirate parliamentary group have already announced that they are willing to support individual policies of the government coalition, whenever they are in accordance with the Pirate Party's platform. They are determined to respect the MP's freedom to vote according to their own conscience and foster a political culture that makes minority governments and changing majorities more feasible, as they are still very rare in Germany's political system.

Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Party had its worst election result to date in NRW, going from 34.6 percent in 2010 to just 26.3 percent in 2012. The disastrous result led Merkel to fire environment minister Norbert Röttgen who had been leading the Christian Democrats in NRW. If the national coalition of Christian Democrats and Free Democrats survives for the rest of the term, the Pirates will be looking at national elections in September 2013. While a lot may still happen in the meantime, the results from NRW as well as national polls that see the Pirates at about 10 percent, are reason to be optimistic.

2000 gather for Pirate Party Germany national assembly

Julia Reda — Sun, 13 May 2012 10:26:06 +0000

Språk Svenska

Last month, the northern German town of Neumünster saw well over 1500 pirates, as well as hundreds of press representatives and guests gather for the Pirate Party Germany's national assembly, making it the largest gathering in the history of the party. Since entering the Berlin state parliament in late 2011, the Pirate Party Germany (PP-DE) has not only doubled in size, but has also started raising international attention. From the perspective of international Pirate Parties that are just starting out, the challenges faced by PP-DE in terms of ensuring equal participation of its 28,000 members are worth a closer look.

Pirates vote at the national assembly (CC-by-sa Ben de Biel)

Ensuring participation in times of exponential growth

The PP-DE's bi-annual national assemblies are the key events in its organizational structure and the highest authority in the party. Unlike all other major German parties, every single member is allowed to attend the assembly and to vote. Between 5 and 10 percent of all members usually exercise this right. Finding a large enough venue and financing an event of that size is becoming increasingly difficult.

A lively debate over possible solutions to this problem has largely rejected the idea of a delegate system. Pirates want to make use of technology to ensure the possibility of direct participation of all members. However, the German party law forbids online assemblies as they are exercised in Pirate Parties in other countries, as secret and secure elections for the board cannot be ensured when people vote from home via the internet.

The emerging solution is to have an assembly in several venues across the nation at the same time, connected via live stream. All members will still have to attend at one of the locations and vote in person. The results will be added up electronically, but each vote will have a paper trail. This model will be tested at the next national assembly in november, which will take place in two separate locations in the city of Bochum. The success of this project will be critical to continuing the PP-DE's standard of direct democracy.

National board elected

While the last assembly six months ago focused on the party's political platform, this weekend was dedicated to electing a new national board. Although the platform of the PP-DE is collaboratively created and decided upon by all members, the national board has considerable power in determining the strategy of the party by representing it in the media, making financial decisions and organizing administrative work.

Former vice-chairman Bernd Schlömer beat two other promising candidates for the chair: Former chairman Sebastian Nerz and Julia Schramm. 41-year-old Bernd Schlömer is seen as a unifying figure, having served on the board for three years and enjoying broad support from the party's members.

Nerz and Schramm are more controversial: the former because of his relatively critical stance on the party's opinion formation tool LiquidFeedback and his disagreements with the Berlin state parliamentary group, the latter for her public criticism of the strict German data protection laws, which she deemed somewhat detrimental to the free flow of information on the internet. The fact that both of them are among the other eight board members elected in Neumünster goes to show, however, that the party is hardly divided into camps and the personal positions of board members are still secondary to their ability to communicate the party's political platform.

The board. Top: Klaus Peukert, Sebastian Nerz, Bernd Schlömer, Markus Barenhoff, Matthias Schrade. Bottom: Sven Schomaker, Julia Schramm, Swanhild Goetze, Johannes Ponader (CC-by-sa Piratenpartei Deutschland)

Prague declaration on Pirate Party Europe ratified

Among the internationally significant decisions of the weekend was PP-DE's ratification of the Prague declaration authored by pirates from all over the Europe at the Pirate Parties International Conference two weeks earlier. The signatories agree to include a common election program in their platforms for the EP elections in 2014, to coordinate their campaigns, and to establish a Pirate Party of Europe. The ratification was welcomed by guests from international Pirate Parties that attended the assembly. Board member Julia Schramm has made it her goal to help facilitate broad transnational participation in writing the common election program.

Piratpartiet founder Rick Falkvinge speaking at the PP-DE national assembly (CC-by-sa Ben de Biel)

United against racism

The national assembly brought a close to a widely publicized debate: Following the success of PP-DE over the last couple of years, the party had attracted a few people with fringe right-wing positions who sought to find a place in the party known for its strong stance on freedom of speech and the pluralism of its members. While their ideologies found no basis whatsoever in the Pirate Party's progressive and international platform, some people argued that PP-DE would have to tolerate those few members' opinions within the party on the grounds of freedom of speech.

The pirates gathered in Neumünster agreed almost unanimously that racist and anti-Semitic hate speech has no room in the party. To the extent that such statements do not impinge on other people's rights or constitute denial of the Holocaust, they are rightly protected by freedom of speech - a right that protects one from criminal prosecution. Freedom of speech does not, however, protect from criticism. A party, that has by definition agreed on a more narrow set of values than society at large, can very well protect freedom of speech as a human right, while leaving no room for racism in its own ranks. PP-DE has made it very clear that it will not serve as a platform for inhuman ideologies, but will work towards a society that judges all people on the content of their character alone.

Pirates gather in front of a banner that reads "no room for racism" (CC-by Tobias M. Eckrich)

Current news about my entering the parliament

Amelia Andersdotter — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:46:50 +0000

Språk Svenska

Short version: There are transtition protocols that need to be signed before we can be MEPs. France and the UK may have almost signed by now. Belgium and Greece have still not signed. It is uncertain whether there may be additional delays until the French national elections in april 2012.

Current situation: Most member states appear to have signed. No clear info on Greece. Belgium is a mess. France is a wild-card but the UK appears to be sorting itself out!

Long version

"How does one become a parliamentarian when one is so young?" is a question I receive regularly. "How does the European Parliament keep you from assuming your role as a publically elected official for so long?" is another.

They're not keeping only me from assuming my role. There are a total of 18 Lisbon-seats, that is, seats added to the total size of the parliament (currently 736) by the Lisbon treaty, the new status of the Union (more or less), which entered into effect December 1 2009. In almost two years, many changes mandated by the treaty have not been implemented yet, among those the inauguration of the new MEPs. We come from a total of 12 European countries and represent political views from across the political spectrum in our various member states.

In spring 2010 I was contacted by L-MEP Josef Weidenholzer, an Austrian who is in the same precarious situation as myself. He suggested, and I agreed, that it was important that we collaborate to improve our situation and speed up the process of our ascension. Together with Maltese L-MEP Joseph Cuschieri (his webpage is in Maltese! one of the weirdest-looking but coolest languages of the union) we followed the first treatment of the implementation of Lisbon in the European Parliament in the Parliament constitutional committee.

It turned out that a domestic dispute in France, receiver of two additional seats according to the Lisbon treaty, regarding how they would name their extra MEPs (me, Josef and Joseph always "knew" that when inauguration time came up, we would be representatives - France did not have specified people to fill the seats) created dissent and controversy in, of course, France, but also in the EP and the Council of Ministers - how to write the transition protocols (documents describing how the change from one treaty to the next would take place) in such a way that the French domestic dispute wouldn't have to be solved at a European level? It took the parliament 6 months to figure this out, upon which a document called protocol 36, specifying the transition rules, started being circulated for signing and ratification by member state parliaments in summer of 2010.

Protocol 36 was signed and ratified by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, and because it constituted a change to the Lisbon Treaty (they had altered the wording of subparagraph c) in article 23, if I'm not mistakenly reminded) it needed re-approval by member state parliaments.

News from France uncertain and confusing. Sometimes contradictory.

This re-ratification was meant to be finished by December 1 2010. For us, it meant gathering forces and getting in touch with member state parliaments to find out when the member state parliaments were planning to treat the issue. Me and L-MEP Jens Nilsson ascertained that Sweden would ratify in October, Josef Weidenholzer and Joseph Cuschieri quickly got notifications of when ratification was to occur in Austria and Malta respectively.

Joseph Cuschieri collaborated intensively with the European Parliament local office in Malta and compiled an estimated time-frame for ratification in all member states - at this point we had some form of reference document to be used for when "lobbying" efforts were required in which member state to speed up the process as much as possible.

At some point Josef Weidenholzer too the initiative of setting up an e-mailing list!

L-MEP Kārlis Šadurskis from ~~Lithuanian~~ Latvian started writing to the ~~Lithuanian~~ Latvian embassies of all member states to ask when or how things were moving along. (revised Jun 15 2011)

France was at this time a point of constant concern - the news from France were uncertain. What needed to happen in France for protocol 36 to be approved? There were rumours of conflicts between the French socialists and the French conservatives. Inside the European Parliament it appeared that the French socialists, currently the largest national faction inside the European socialist group S&D, were unwilling to have the European Parliament take a strong role for the installation of the new MEPs - it also seemed the Conservatives of the European Parliament (EPP) were unwilling to cross the socialists in this matter. Kārlis Šadurskis figured out that there was a constitutional change under-going and that it would be completed earliest by May 12 2011. After the constitutional change was arranged, the protocols could be treated and signed by the French president and national assembly.

At this time, when there was a more definite time-frame for France (who were always the most uncertain element in this - and still are!) the focus could be shifted again to other member states that didn't yet sign: in April there was a number of them (Poland, Romania, Greece, UK, France, Belgium, and a few other ones).

L-MEP Anthea McIntyre provided continuous reports from the ratification processes in the UK. The road of protocol 36 in the various member states looks different depending on the parliamentary system in use: in the UK it passes between the Government, House of Commons and House of Lords and possibly someone else, where each step of the way is another cliff-hanger. The last news I've had from the UK are no news, which is good news - according to Anthea McIntyre the House of Lords could have objected to the ratification about 1,5 weeks ago but there have been no news of them using this privilege.

When Poland and Romania ratified about 3 weeks ago (mid-May 2011) we started talking again about trying to meet up with President Buzek from the European Parliament (whose role can be described a bit as "spokesperson" in the Parliament - chairing plenary and representing the Parliament institutionally, not politically). ~~L-MEP Tomasz Makowski assigned himself the Task, by virtue of also being from Poland.~~ President Buzek was contacted on behalf of the Polish L-MEP Arkadiusz Bratkowski. (revised Oct 23 2011).

So where does that leave us?

Belgium has six parliaments. One of them has completed ratification, one of them has announced that they are currently dealing with the issue, and the status of ratification in the remaining four is unknown.

Currently, the UK process is undergoing but probably not entirely finished (to my knowledge). In France, the office of the president must still be signing the Lisbon Protocol 36 and this has yet to happen. The news from Greece are uncertain. In Belgium, all six national parliaments must sign (Brussels parliament, Flemmish parliament, Wallonian parliament, French-speaking Community parliament (apparently Wallonia minus the German-speakers plus the French speakers of Brussels), German-speaking Community (Wallonia minus the French-speakers), federal parlament), and currently we've found out only of the German-Speaking Community signing the protocols about 3 weeks ago, the Flemmish parliament starting preparations to sign the protocols about 2 weeks ago and from the remaining parliaments there are no words. Given the precarious political situation of Belgium at the moment, it's slightly uncertain what will happen when the protocols pass all parliaments - will it still need to be dealt with at the executive (federal government) level and if so how?

One last word of caution: undoubtedly it is very positive that only four member states have still to sign, two of which (UK and France) seem to only have to undertake a pure formality, but I heard in the grapevine that France may possibly want to wait with inaugurating the Lisbon-MEPs until the time that they can fill their additional two seats in the national elections next year, 2012, in April. Whether it's within the scope of what France can or cannot do to accomplish this I don't know. Technically, the European Parliament could have made the bureaucratic decision to include the L-MEPs as observers (a special transition-status for MEPs) last year in September (2010) but decided against after opposition from what I understood to be French politicians.

Pommes de t'Eire

Amelia Andersdotter — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:43:37 +0000

Språk Svenska

"You would not believe it, but we are very protected by various intellectual property rights - geographical indications, plant variety rights and patents can all be used to keep us from proliferating and you from growing or selling potatos."

Yesterday I briefly commented on the differences between conservatism in Sweden and on Ireland (some discussions that are no longer current in Sweden may be in Ireland and vice versa, was my argument). And when talking about Ireland, how can one not be reminded of the tragic potato monoculture incident that led up to the potato famine of 1845? Close to my heart and related to potatos and monocultures are plant breeders' rights, a type of intellectual property right that is close to patent rights but applicable only to plants varieties ("varieties" like the ones illustrated below). The right entails a 20 or 25 year long protection "term" within which you are the only plant breeder who are allowed to retail your particular type of plant variety. Just as patents, it protects the rights holder from having other people continue "breeding" on their particular plant variety for commercial purposes.

The association to the on-going potato war of Belgium and ensuing intellectual property details are also not far from my mind. Dramatic headlines and democratic musings ensue as a field of potatoes outside Gent University Agricultural Department was liberated, or vandalized, by a group of activists disagreeing with the covert cultivation of GMO crops on open fields (no control over where the crops spread) in a privately-funded research project where the proceeds of the research was to fall in into the hands of the funder. The university calls the potato liberation "a scientific catastrophe and a sign that democracy is not working well" (my translation). I am of the firm belief that the democratic deficit, and the tragedies to science, agriculture and society to be found herein, lie in the circumstance that the crops are destined to fall subject to an intellecual property right that can have an impact on people who've mistakenly become associated with aforementioned crop.

As much as I respect research, since the mid-1990s there have been worrying tendencies at the European Patent Office to include plants within what's considered patentable matter. The plant variety rights are somewhat "adapted" for agriculture in so far as you're allowed to save seeds, basically (a patent right would require you to renew your license/buy new seeds for each year you want to continue industrial application of the crop). There is not really any good way of telling which type of right the private investor in the Gentsian potato field was planning to go for at the end of the research project.

But say the university and their sponsors opt for getting the "weaker" right (which is the plant breeders' right in this case).In the origins of plant variety rights I seem to recall potato farmers in the UK protested loudly their fears that the sudden emergence of an intellecual property right in the field would cause a big ownership concentration in the seed providers. Their fears turned out to be entirely justified - the market for providing original seeds is currently very centralized and intellectual property rights encourage further centralization of originators. Certainly there are reasons to criticize the university of Gent for this project, even if they label it research?

Plant breeders' rights are typically pushed by large seed enterprises (Monsanto springs to mind, but they're by no means the only actor on this market) in regions of the world where patent offices feel disinclined to include plants in the patentable subject matter, namely Latin America (who appear to be having quite a lot of unique potatos per country/region). Thus it is that most Latin American countries seem to have updated or strengthened their plant variety protection laws in the last five years. Particularly in Chile, these actions were criticized for benefiting primarily foreign investors. I would hate it for my university to be able to avoid responsibility for participating in the perpetuation of such market strategies by vague alusions to democracy and science.

Below is a sign naming various forms of potatos and the characteristic looks of each sort (list of older varieties here, pre-1960s). The rumour goes that Asterix is slowly disappearing from the market after it was discovered to be weak against a particular type of pest or mould. I like Columbo and Ostara, eat Blue Congo because it looks cool (it's dark blue!) and would like to try "Matilda". The most common sorts of potatos found in Swedish supermarkets are King Edward and Asterix.
On a side-note, it appears Spain is leading the development for climate-change-resistant potatoes.