openrightsgroup.org/app/upload…
Download

ORG statements of support for amendments to the DUA Bill tabled in the House of Commons at Report Stage

ICO Complaints procedure for vulnerable individuals – statement of support for Siân Berry MP’s amendment NC15

• The ICO acts upon the 0.00% of the (tens of thousand of) complaints it receives, effectively undermining UK residents’ right to lodge a complaint under the DPA 2018.
• The Data Protection Act 2018 lacks a genuine avenue for judicial scrutiny or redress against the ICO decisions to drop complaints.
• People in a position of vulnerability have a greater need to protect their data, but are left powerless due to the ICO inaction.
• The House of Commons has an opportunity to address these concerns by supporting amendment NC15 tabled by Siân Berry MP.

The right to an effective remedy constitutes a core element of data protection: most individuals will not pursue cases before a court because of the lengthy, time-consuming and costly nature of judicial procedures. Also, act as a deterrence against data protection violations insofar victims can obtain meaningful redress: administrative remedies (such as enforcement notices or fines) are particularly useful because they focus on addressing malpractice and obtaining meaningful changes in how personal data is handled in practice.

However, the ICO has a long track record of refusing to act upon complaints: a recent Freedom of Information disclosure revealed that the ICO took “regulatory action” in just 1 (0.00%) case out of the 25,582 complaints lodged with them in 2024.¹

Due to the Information Commissioner’s Office poor performance of their duties, victims of egregious data protection violations have, perhaps, a greater chance of winning the lottery than finding meaningful redress by complaining to the ICO. This includes people who may be in a position of vulnerability, such as victims of modern slavery, domestic abuse, gender-based violence, or victims of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) who have a high need of privacy to protect themselves from abusers and stalkers.

Likewise, the ICO has decided to drop ORG and several members of the public’s complaints against Meta’s reuse of personal data to train AI without carrying out any meaningful probe, despite substantiated evidence that Meta’s practices do not comply with data protection law.² These include the fact that pictures of children on parent’s Facebook profiles could just end up in their AI model as they are assuming consent, and yet the ICO has not even launched an investigation.³ David Erdos (Co-Director at the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law at the University of Cambridge) noted that the ICO “has issued 0 fines & 0 enforcement notices against companies under UK GDPR for an entire year (going by its own published information)”.⁴

Against this background, avenues to challenge ICO inaction are extremely limited: scrutiny of the Information Tribunal has been restricted to a purely procedural as opposed to substantive nature,⁵ and it was narrowed even further by the Administrative Court decision which found that the ICO was not obliged to investigate each and every complaint.⁶

We recommend the House of Commons to address these concerns by supporting Siân Berry MP’s amendment NC15, which would:

• Require the ICO to introduce an ad-hoc complaint procedure for people in a position of vulnerability, in order to ease their access to Justice;
• Give the right to individuals to appeal before the Information Tribunal ICO decisions to unjustly drop complaints.

This amendment would make it easier to people in a position of vulnerability to engage with and lodge a complaint to the Information Commission. Further, complainants would be provided with an effective avenue for redress before the Information Tribunal, which could review the substance of the Commissioner’s response to their complaint. By allowing individuals to promote judicial scrutiny over decisions that have a fundamental impact into how Parliament laws are enforced in practice, this amendment would also introduce a mechanism to promote accountability over how the new Commissioner uses their regulatory powers.

During the debate in the House of Lords, the government resisted these amendments by holding that the Information Tribunal would not be “competent” enough to scrutinise the substance of the ICO’s determinations. However, Information Tribunal can already hear, and decide on the substance of, appeals against enforcement actions adopted by the ICO against data controllers—notably, enforcement notices and penalty notices. Indeed, both Experian⁷ and Clearview AI⁸ were able to challenge ICO notices on their merit before the Tribunal. In turn:

• If the Tribunal is considered “experienced” enough to judge on the merit of ICO decisions affecting data controllers, it is irrational to think they would be “inexperienced, informal or simply lacking appropriate procedure rules” to judge on the merits of decisions concerning data subjects.
• Well-resourced tech companies are allowed to challenge the ICO with a cheap and lean procedure before the Tribunal, while individuals are required to undergo a complex and expensive Judicial Review if they want to challenge an ICO decision on merit. This is unfair: data protection complaints should reduce the imbalance of power between individuals and controllers, but the status quo exacerbates this imbalance instead.

International Data Transfers and rule of law requirements – statement of support for Alex Sobel MP’s amendment 10

• International Data Transfers’ (IDT) rules are an essential anti-circumvention measure that prevents organisations from transferring data to countries that lack strong data protection laws, where data can be accessed or misused in ways that would be illegal in the UK.
• Schedule 7 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill lowers’ protection for IDTs, and risks undermining the foundations upon which the UK adequacy decision was built.
• Loosing the UK adequacy decision would cost UK businesses to 1-1.6£ billion costs in legal and compliance costs alone, and threaten the functioning of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the Windsor Framework.
• The House of Commons has an opportunity to address these concerns by supporting Amendment 10, tabled by Alex Sobel MP.

Safeguards around International Data Transfers (IDT) are a fundamental component of data protection laws. Digital technologies and the Internet make it more likely that personal data may be stored or transferred outside of the UK: thus, ensuring that data protection rights “follow the data” is an essential safeguard against loopholes and data laundering.

In the UK GDPR, transfers may take place if the third country ensures an adequate level of protection. In essence, this framework is meant to ensure that individuals retain enforceable data rights and legal remedies regardless of the position their data is being stored.

Schedule 7 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill would lower protections for personal data transferred abroad, andgive discretion to the Secretary of State to authorise IDTs regardless of the existence of enforceable rights and effective remedies. Further, and even in the absence of the authorisation of the Secretary of State, Schedule 7 would allow public and private organisations to transfer personal data to a third country without the need of proving the existence of enforceable rights and effective remedies.

The risk of these provisions are self-explanatory: if the UK becomes an avenue that allows organisations to bypass EU data protection law, the UK adequacy decision will likely face invalidation by the Court of Justice of the EU or withdrawal from the European Commission. The UK was granted an adequacy decision by the European Commission in 2021, upon the basis that the UK data protection framework provided an equivalent level of protection to the EU GDPR. However, by lowering safety standards, the UK would be allowing organisations under its jurisdiction to transfer EU personal data to unsafe countries under the EU legal framework.

This risk is more than hypothetical: in the EU, civil society organisations have already denounced these same provisions, previously presented under the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and demanded that the European Commission “provide European citizens with assurance that it would repeal the adequacy decision if these proposals were to become law”.⁹ Likewise, the European Parliament expressed strong concerns about the compatibility of these proposals with UK adequacy and the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, stressing that “the UK must ensure that its data transfers to non-EU countries are based on appropriate safeguards and that a level of data protection equivalent to that afforded by the European Union is guaranteed”.¹⁰

By ignoring the threat of a judicial invalidation of the UK adequacy decision, the government risks exposing UK businesses to 1-1.6£ billion costs in legal and compliance costs alone, with an average of 10.000£ of legal costs for small and medium businesses.¹¹ Further, the invalidation of the UK adequacy decision would affect the functioning of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the Windsor Framework, thus undermining the government efforts to further institutional and economic cooperation with the European Union.

Amendment 10 from Alex Sobel MP would amend Schedule 7 of the DUA Bill and ensure that a third country cannot be considered adequate or capable of providing appropriate safeguards.

In particular, the amendment would unambiguously state that International Data Transfers (IDTs) cannot be authorised if:

• judicial protection of persons whose personal data is transferred to that third country is insufficient;
• effective administrative and judicial redress are not present;
• effective judicial review mechanisms do not exist; and
• there is no statutory right to effective legal remedy for data subjects.

Both the Conservative and Labour government have defended these provisions on the basis that they would not seek to use these powers to authorise IDTs that lower the protection afforded by the EU adequacy system. If this is true, there is no valid reason the government should not approve this amendment and increase legal certainty over the UK international data transfers’s regime.

Further, and even assuming that the government would never use these powers to authorise data transfers to unsecure countries, Schedule 7 would still allow organisations to do so in the absence of a Secretary of State’s authorisation. Amendment 10 would also address this concern as well, and prohibit public or private organisations from transferring UK residents’ personal data to third-countries at the expenses, and to the detriment, of their rights.

SCHEDULE 7 IN DETAIL

Schedule 7 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill would replace Chapter 5 of the UK GDPR.

In particular, new Article 45A would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations approving transfers of personal data to third countries or international organisations. This regime would replace adequacy regulations under the UK GDPR, and in particular it would:

• Give discretion to the Secretary of State to authorise transfers for reasons other than the level of protection for personal data. According to New Article 45B, in determining whether the data protection test is met “the Secretary of State may have regard to any matter which the Secretary of State considers relevant, including the desirability of facilitating transfers of personal data to and from the United Kingdom”. This change must be seen in light of the intention to “boost trade” by “reducing barriers to data flows”, including the possibility “to make adequacy regulations for groups of countries, regions and multilateral frameworks”.¹²
• Eliminate the requirement to consider “public security, defence, national security and criminal law and the access of public authorities to personal data”, the existence of an independent supervisory authority and of effective judicial redress. The CJEU has already invalidated two US adequacy decisions in the Schrems I and Schrems II judgements on the basis that these same requirements were missing; thus, the authorisation of IDTs to a country that lacks them would guarantee the revocation of the UK adequacy decision. However, new Article 45B only requires “respect for the rule of law and for human rights in the country or by the organisation”, “the existence, and powers, of an authority responsible for enforcing the protection” and “arrangements for judicial or non-judicial redress” are considered in the data protection test, thus heightening the risk of an authorisation by the Secretray of State that would invalidate the UK adequacy decision.
• Notably, even the Information Commissioner’s Officer has agreed that the language of the law leaves ambiguity as to weather the Secretary of State’s power to authorise data transfers having “regard to any matter they consider relevant” could override the requirement for the data protection test to be met, and stated that “It would be helpful to clarify that the matters the Secretary of State may consider do not outweigh or take precedence over the need to meet the data protection test”.¹³ While this statement was related to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, the Labour government’s decision to copy and paste the same provisions in the Data (Use and Access) Bill leaves this problem unaddressed.

Finally, Schedule 7 would amend Article 46 so that a transfer is considered to be subject to appropriate safeguards if an organisation acted “reasonably and proportionately”, or if the Secretary of State specified standard data protection clauses under new Article 47A which “the Secretary of State considers are capable of securing that the data protection test”.

This would allow public and private organisations to consider an international data transfer subject to appropriate safeguards even in the absence of enforceable rights and effective remedies. According to Article 46 of the UK GDPR, appropriate safeguards must provide “enforceable data subject rights and effective legal remedies for data subjects”. The enforceable nature of contractual clauses was identified as an essential element to ensure “appropriate safeguards” in the Schrems II judgement. However, the criteria introduced in Article 46 as amended by Schedule 7 does not consider the actual existence of enforceable rights and legal remedies, but only the due diligence of the organisation operating the transfer or the opinion of the Secretary.

The right to non-digital ID – Statement of support for Steff Aquarone MP’s amendment NC7

Digital-only systems risk deepening exclusion. As increasing numbers of services move online, those without reliable internet access, digital skills, or ID documentation are being locked out. According to Lloyds Bank’s 2024 Consumer Digital Index¹⁴, around 23% of UK adults fall into the very lower digital kills category and 1.6 million people are still offline. For these individuals, digital-only verification systems—especially those involving apps or biometric scanning—can be insurmountable barriers to accessing services, entitlements, or employment. Amendment NC7 ensures that where non-digital alternatives are reasonably practicable, they must be offered, protecting inclusion and fairness.

Vulnerable groups are disproportionately affected. Research from Age UK and the Digital Poverty Alliance¹⁵ has shown that older people, disabled individuals, recent migrants, and people experiencing homelessness are far more likely to be excluded by digital identity systems. The flawed E-visa rollout and the Home Office’s switch to digital-only immigration status left thousands of people struggling to prove their right to work, rent, or access healthcare due to system failures or lack of digital access¹⁶. Offering non-digital options is a simple way to safeguard the rights and dignity of people in vulnerable situations.

Choice and trust strengthen, not weaken, security. Providing non-digital verification alternatives not only supports inclusion but also improves trust in the system. Some users are uncomfortable sharing sensitive personal data with private tech platforms or through opaque digital ID systems. Research from the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology – Public dialogue on trust in digital identity services: a findings report attitudes to digital identity¹⁷found that people thought paper alternatives should be available to digital ID systems. By mandating that alternatives be available where practicable, NC7 ensures the public can participate on terms that respect their privacy, reduce coercion, and promote confidence in both digital and non-digital processes.

1See at: whatdotheyknow.com/request/pro…

2See openrightsgroup.org/blog/the-i…

3See openrightsgroup.org/press-rele…

4See David Erdos at: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/david-erdos-93827a11b_gdpr-dataprotection-databill-activity-7300455761669750784–k8o?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAABI2y54BGnSWSOkQPBhcEtNW8rxDVlOqFNo

5See Leighton v Information Commissioner (No. 2) (2020)103, Scranage v IC (2020), Killock and Veale, EW and Coghlan (2021)

6See Landmark Decision Handed Down on ICO’s Responsibilities in Handling Subject Access Requests, at: jdsupra.com/legalnews/landmark…

7See Tribunal rules on Experian appeal against ICO action, at: ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media…

8See Information Commissioner seeks permission to appeal Clearview AI Inc ruling, at: ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media…

9See People Vs Big Tech, Open Letter to the EU Commission regarding UK’s data bill, at: peoplevsbig.tech/open-letter-t…

10See European Parliament, OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS (10.10.2023) for the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on International Trade on the implementation report on the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, at: europarl.europa.eu/doceo/docum…

11New Economic Foundation, The cost of data inadequacy, at: neweconomics.org/2020/11/the-c…

12Consultation outcome, Data: a new direction – government response to consultation: gov.uk/government/consultation…

13See Information Commissioner’s Response to the Data Protection and Digital Information (No 2) Bill (DPDI No 2 Bill), at: ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico…

14See Lloyds Bank’s 2024 Consumer Digital Index report lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pd…

15digitalpovertyalliance.org/wp-…

16See Computer Weekly ‘UK eVisa system problems persist despite repeated warnings

‘ computerweekly.com/news/366618…

17gov.uk/government/publications…

openrightsgroup.org/publicatio…

Stop de genocide! door Cath, Herma, Auke, Janne, Arjan, Matthijs, Ruben, Anne, Davidd Wij leden van de Piratenpartij Nederland spreken ons ondubbelzinnig uit over de situatie in Gaza. Wij concluderen, samen met internationale mensenrechtenorganisaties en op basis van uitspraken van het Internationaal Gerechtshof, dat Israël zich schuldig maakt aan genocide op de Palestijnse bevolking. Deze […]

Het bericht Zwijgen kan niet meer, Israël pleegt genocide en ingrijpen is nodig verscheen eerst op Piratenpartij.

PPI is heading again to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), this time in Norway. The IGF is a UN event that brings together a large number of governments and non-profit organizations. PPI has attended the IGF for about 10 years now. Our workshop entitled “Ethical Networking: Sustainability and Accountability” will be on June 23rd at 16:15 in Workshop Room 2, Hall C. The entire event is from June 23rd to 27th. Please review the IGF website as the date nears for information about participating online: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2025-day-0-event-197-ethical-networking-sustainability-and-accountability

Anyone who wants to attend, even online, needs to register here: indico.un.org/event/1016806/

All approved events can be seen here: intgovforum.org/en/content/igf…

Last year in Saudi Arabia we also organized a workshop on Autarchy, spearheaded by Alexander Isavnin: intgovforum.org/en/content/igf…

Two years ago we had a booth in Japan: pp-international.net/2023/10/i…

The year before that PPI had a booth in Poland: pp-international.net/2021/12/p…

This year we will also be sharing a booth with the European Pirate Party.

At the moment PPI does not have any extra funding for this event. Every PPI representative is self-funded. If you would like to donate money to help our representatives attend the event, please make a donation:

pp-international.net/2025/05/i…

Our next member meeting is today, Sunday, May 11th. We will start at 8pm and it will end by 9pm.

To participate:

• go to communitybridge.com/bbb-room/m…;
• enter your name;
• enter the access code listed on the page;
• click the Join button.

Summaries of the meetings and agendas are at our wiki. You can check out the 2025, 2024, 2023 and 2022 meeting recordings.

masspirates.org/blog/2025/05/1…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

A federal judge ruled today that Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk must be released from U.S. custody. Öztürk was abducted by federal immigration authorities outside her home in Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25.

The only known evidence for deporting Öztürk was her co-authorship of an op-ed critical of Israel in a Tufts student newspaper, and Judge William Sessions III confirmed it “literally is the case there is no evidence here … absent consideration of the op-ed.”

Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), commented that “it is unfathomable that in the United States legal system, it takes 45 days for a judge to rule that people can’t be put behind bars for writing op-eds the government doesn’t like. Without a system committed to its principles, the Constitution is just words on paper, and they don’t mean much if this can happen here. Öztürk’s abduction and imprisonment is one of the most shameful chapters in First Amendment history. We’re thankful that Judge Sessions moved it one step closer to an end and we call on the Trump administration to release Öztürk immediately and not attempt to stall with any further authoritarian nonsense.”

Lauren Harper, FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, noted that the government has kept secret a memorandum, prepared before Öztürk’s detention and reported in The Washington Post, showing there were not sufficient grounds for revoking Öztürk’s visa. Harper has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the memorandum.

“The government is not allowed to hide information to prevent embarrassment or conceal wrongdoing, which is exactly what’s happening here, and Ms. Öztürk and her lawyers deserve to have access to information that could aid in her legal case. If the administration wants to not have to disclose embarrassing information about its actions, it should stop making up reasons to deport people,” said Harper.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

freedom.press/issues/order-for…

Dear friend of press freedom,

A judge ordered Rümeysa Öztürk’s release today. But it's still the 45th day she spent incarcerated by the U.S. government for writing an op-ed. Hopefully this shameful chapter in First Amendment history is nearing a close. Other press freedom news below.

Memo obtained by FPF shows DOJ’s new anti-press policy is based on lies

Last week, we argued that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s reversal of her predecessor’s policy restricting subpoenas of journalists will help President Donald Trump lie to the public.

This week we proved it. A memorandum released following a public records request by Lauren Harper, our Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, confirmed prior reports that U.S. intelligence agencies don’t believe Trump’s claims that Venezuela’s government controls the Tren de Aragua gang. Bondi’s memo cited that same reporting as an example of damaging fake news that results from leaks.

As it turns out, the journalists who reported the intelligence agencies’ position got it exactly right, and the leaks in question only damaged Trump’s reputation by exposing the deception behind his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to ship Venezuelans to gulags in El Salvador. What better way to further our late co-founder’s legacy than exposing presidential lies to justify atrocities abroad? Read our press release and the New York Times report.

Attacks on law firms and nonprofits endanger the press

It doesn’t take a law degree to see that Trump’s attacks on law firms and nonprofits could also do irreparable harm to press freedom.

To learn more about what’s at stake, we spoke to legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams; general counsel for The Intercept, David Bralow; and Albert Sellars, partner Kendra Albert. Read about and watch the conversation here.

Ed Martin should be disbarred

Ed Martin, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was mostly in the news for palling around with white supremacists when Trump pulled his nomination for the permanent job as top prosecutor in Washington. But he’s also spent his career making a mockery of the ethical rules governing attorneys.

That’s why Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and Demand Progress filed a comprehensive disciplinary complaint against Martin. As our Advocacy Director Seth Stern explained, Martin’s antics, like sending “bogus letters and tweets to intimidate people exercising First Amendment rights and his threats to target news outlets President Trump dislikes, should disqualify him from practicing law, full stop.” Read more here.

Lights, camera, national security crisis!

Trump’s recent announcement that he plans to impose a 100% tariff on movies made outside the United States has created more confusion than the ending of “Inception.”

What is Trump talking about when he claims that making movies abroad threatens national security? When Trump claims to be protecting the homeland from foreign adversaries, he is often actually protecting his own false narratives from domestic scrutiny. Read more here.

Administration seeks to appoint itself the sole arbiter of truth

Trump’s vilification of the press should be seen in the context of his larger agenda to discredit any arbiter of fact and fiction that has not kissed the ring.

The goal is to make Trump’s “alternative facts” the only facts. That’s why the administration is going after not only journalists, but everyone from prestigious universities in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to small medical journals in Glenview, Illinois. Read Stern’s op-ed in the Daily Beast here.

What does Fullerton, California, have to hide?

We joined First Amendment Coalition in a letter objecting to a ban on newspaper distribution in government buildings by the city of Fullerton, California.

As the letter explains, “The ban sends the message … that the city is hostile to the free press and discourages criticism of its policies, preferring that residents only read government-approved messaging.” Read the letter here.

What we’re reading

Fear and intimidation at Newark airport (Al Jazeera). A Palestinian-American journalist was interrogated at the border about her reporting, but she refuses to stay silent. Journalists must continue to speak up about these abuses.

Jury orders NSO to pay $167 million for hacking WhatsApp users (Ars Technica). NSO Group has a long history of helping dictators and authoritarians spy on journalists and activists. Hopefully, this multimillion-dollar verdict will finally get their attention.

Montana governor signs landmark bill, as state becomes the 37th to enact anti-SLAPP protections (Institute for Free Speech). Legislatures in red and blue states alike understand there’s nothing partisan about protecting journalists, activists, and everyone else from anti-speech lawfare.

Takeaways from AFPC-USA’s 2025 World Press Freedom Day panel (The Association of Foreign Press Correspondents USA). FPF’s Seth Stern’s “remarks painted a stark picture of press freedom under direct political attack. He warned that without structural protections, the First Amendment itself is being tested, and norms that were once assumed unbreakable are now being shattered.”.

A student journalist covered a pro-Palestine protest. Soon, her graduation came under threat (Columbia Journalism Review). Columbia hit a new moral low by targeting a student journalist for her reporting on a pro-Palestinian sit-in before changing course. Lesson learned? Nope. The university then stooped even lower by suspending student journalists for covering protests.

freedom.press/issues/fpf-prove…

It doesn’t take a law degree to see that President Donald Trump’s attacks on law firms and nonprofits could also do irreparable harm to press freedom.

Since January, Trump has strong-armed law firms and targeted nonprofits, launching salvos against institutions he sees as roadblocks on his path to greater political control.

To learn about what’s at stake, we spoke to legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams; general counsel for The Intercept, David Bralow; and Albert Sellars partner Kendra Albert at an online webinar May 2.

youtube.com/embed/rV7Y8AhM8JA?…

Albert kicked off the conversation by explaining the “dramatic chilling effect” of Trump’s executive orders against law firms that represented his political opponents or made legal arguments he didn’t agree with.

“Journalists need lawyers,” they said. “If you cow the lawyers from being able to take clients who are oppositional to the government, it’s going to harm the press.”

Last month, Albert co-authored an amicus brief in opposition to Trump’s attacks against the law firm Perkins Coie. It was signed by 61 media organizations, and led by The Intercept and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF). Hours after the webinar, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell struck down Trump’s order targeting Perkins Coie as unconstitutional.

As Bralow explained, there once was a time when small newsrooms could quickly and easily obtain pro bono legal support if they faced a First Amendment challenge, because there was an ecosystem “that was active and supportive for all these rights.” That ecosystem was already in shambles before Trump’s executive orders, he said.

“Trump’s order is just simply a frontal attack. Small news organizations simply cannot find the strong voices without the assurances that they have strong legal representation,” Bralow warned.

Abrams said that, compared to the present, the attacks on law firms he saw decades ago when he represented The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers era were “almost minor league.” Under former President Richard Nixon, for example, “There were real threats about the press” like Espionage Act violations, he said, but “never anything like what we’re seeing today.”

“I can’t think of another public elected official that’s ever gone down this road,” he said of Trump.

While some law firms are challenging Trump in court, others aren’t. Abrams believes that, despite the risks, those capitulating to him should be counterattacking instead.

"This is not an effort to clean the legal landscape,” Abrams said of Trump’s actions. “It is to punish entities that he views as enemies.”

Albert is optimistic that Trump’s executive orders will continue to fail to withstand judicial scrutiny. “Judges, I think, have been receptive to the law firms’ arguments that these EOs are unconstitutional,” Albert said.

Nonprofits, including some that are news organizations, also face significant risks. Trump has broadened the scope of his attacks to these institutions, threatening to revoke their tax-exempt statuses for taking positions or reporting stories he disagrees with.

“I don’t know how you can be a nonprofit that is trying to do right by its community, its employees, and the nation without having real significant concern right now for the sort of retaliation, the sort of the rhetoric that is coming out of the administration,” Bralow said.

He discussed how The Intercept, which is a nonprofit, has worked to “button up” and “Trump-proof” the organization. The Intercept is also helping others, including by relaunching the Press Freedom Defense Fund, which gives money to small newsrooms to address legal threats.

Abrams said that while law firms deserve a share of the criticism, we shouldn’t lose sight of who the villain is in this story. “One thing has to be clear: This is all the president’s fault,” Abrams said. “There is no equality of blame here.”

freedom.press/issues/trumps-at…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Ed Martin, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has mostly been in the news lately for palling around with white supremacists. But he has also spent his career, including his current tenure as D.C.’s interim top prosecutor, making a mockery of the ethical and professional rules governing attorneys, while threatening the rule of law in the nation’s capital and beyond.

That’s why on Wednesday, Demand Progress and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) filed a comprehensive complaint, more than 20 pages long, with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the District of Columbia Bar, laying out a myriad of actions and decisions that clash with the ethics rules governing attorneys by Martin, who calls his public office “President Trumps’ [sic] lawyers.”

News broke on Thursday that President Donald Trump will pull Martin’s nomination for the permanent U.S. attorney post, but Trump said he still plans to find a place for Martin at the Department of Justice.

Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress, said, “Ed Martin is a grave threat to civil liberties and the rule of law, so any news indicating that he will no longer be President Trump’s legal point man in D.C. is good news for the nation. But this threat is far from over. Martin’s long, documented history of shamelessly playing politics with the rule of law should disqualify him from working anywhere in government, let alone the Justice Department. We call on President Trump to keep Martin far away from any position of power, especially one that requires sound legal judgment, and nominate someone for U.S. attorney for D.C. that actually respects the rule of law and Americans’ constitutional rights.”

Freedom of the Press Foundation Director of Advocacy Seth Stern said, “Martin’s antics, including his habit of sending bogus letters and tweets to intimidate people exercising First Amendment rights and his threats to target news outlets President Trump dislikes, should disqualify him from practicing law, full stop. We’re relieved that he won’t get the U.S. attorney job, but he should not be able to work for the government in any capacity, or to trade on his shameful interim tenure to find a cushy law firm job and further damage the legal profession.”

Martin’s shady behavior detailed in the complaint includes, among other things, frivolous threats against critics of Trump and Elon Musk, baseless partisan investigations into constitutionally protected statements by Democratic lawmakers, and public threats, made without legal basis or probable cause, to investigate targets whom he acknowledges have committed no crime.

The complaint also discusses his lack of credibility and candor while under oath during the U.S. Senate confirmation process for his U.S. attorney nomination, which includes his misleading turnabout on his disturbing connections to Nazi sympathizers and his pattern of failing to disclose hundreds of appearances on far-right and Russian-controlled media outlets. It lays out Martin’s history of serious lapses in ethical and professional judgment outside the national spotlight, as an attorney and politician in Missouri, to show that Martin’s disregard for the integrity of his profession is a long-standing problem that is unlikely to change.

The complaint asks the Disciplinary Counsel to investigate Martin’s conduct and to impose sanctions up to and including disbarment. It also urges the D.C. Bar to act promptly given the ongoing serious threat Martin’s ability to practice law poses.

You can read the complaint here. Please contact us if you would like further comment, or contact Eric Naing from Demand Progress at [email protected]

freedom.press/issues/rights-or…

What has the EDRis network been up to over the past two weeks? Find out the latest digital rights news in our bi-weekly newsletter. In this edition: Apple & Meta fined for breaching DMA, civil society urges EU to act against Hungary’s pride ban, & more!

The post EDRi-gram, 7 May 2025 appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Die Bundeskanzlei teilt heute mit, dass das Referendum gegen das E-ID-Gesetz zu Stande gekommen ist. Die Piratenpartei Schweiz (PPS) als Referendumsführerin und als kritische Stimme der ersten Stunde zeigt sich erfreut über diesen demokratischen Erfolg. Die Schweizer Bevölkerung wird nun voraussichtlich am 28. September an der Urne erneut über das die elektronische Identität entscheiden können.

Die PPS hat bereits am Tag der Vernehmlassungseröffnung, am 29.06.2022, ihre Kritik am Gesetz dargelegt (Medienmitteilung [1] und SRF-Tagesschau [2]) und eine ausführliche Stellungnahme im Vernehmlassungsverfahren eingereicht. Unsere Experten wurden darauf zur Anhörung in die Nationalratskommission geladen [3], wo wir unsere roten Linien nochmals erläutern durften. Da die meisten davon im vorliegenden Gesetz überschritten wurden beschloss die Piratenpartei [4], das Referendum zu ergreifen [5].

Die Gründe, weshalb die PPS eindringlich vor den Folgen des E-ID-Gesetzes warnt:

1. Vorgetäuschte Freiwilligkeit – Faktischer Zwang durch Anwendungsbereiche und Gebühren
2. Vorgetäuschte Gründe – Bestehende Lösungen für Behördendienste
3. Datenabfluss an Unternehmen – Kommerzielle Interessen statt Bürgerschutz
4. Exzessive Datensammlung – Unnötige Speicherung besonders schützenswerter Daten
5. Unsicherer Online-Prozess – Erhöhtes Risiko für Identitätsdiebstahl

1. Vorgetäuschte Freiwilligkeit – Faktischer Zwang durch Anwendungsbereiche und Gebühren

Obwohl der Bund die E-ID als freiwillig bewirbt, deuten verschiedene Gesetzesvorhaben, politische Diskussionen und insbesondere das BGEID auf eine schleichende Pflicht hin. Das neue Jugendschutzgesetz schreibt eine Altersverifikation aller Nutzer von Video- und Gamingplattformen [6] vor und ein SocialMedia-Verbot für Jugendliche würde einen Ausweiszwang für alle bedingen. Ein Vorstoss im Bundeshaus verlangt die Identifizierung aller Kommentatoren auf Nachrichtenseiten [7], mit dem geplanten VÜPF (Art. 16 und 19) [8] sollen Messenger wie Threema ihre Nutzer identifizieren und aktuell soll sogar eCollecting nur mit einer E-ID möglich sein [9].
De Facto wird die E-ID schrittweise zur Voraussetzung für die Nutzung des Internets und die Ausübung demokratischer Rechte, was die Frage nach der tatsächlichen Freiwilligkeit aufwirft.

2. Vorgetäuschte Gründe – Bestehende Lösungen für Behördendienste

Viele der angeführten Gründe für die E-ID halten einer kritischen Prüfung nicht stand.
Behördendienstleistungen wie Steuererklärungen, Baugesuche und Kita-Gutscheine können bereits jetzt über die vom Bund und den Kantonen entwickelte AGOV-Lösung [10] abgewickelt werden. Auch ein Jugendschutz wäre damit realisierbar. Im Gegensatz zur E-ID ist AGOV vollständig staatlich und unabhängig von privaten Unternehmen wie Google oder Apple. Wir brauchen dafür keine E-ID.

3. Datenabfluss an Unternehmen – Kommerzielle Interessen statt Bürgerschutz

Der vorherige Punkt verdeutlicht, dass die E-ID primär für die Bedürfnisse von Privatunternehmen konzipiert scheint. Das BGEID erlaubt es Unternehmen zudem explizit, bei Transaktionen umfassende Personendaten inklusive Gesichtsbild zu verlangen. Dies führt dazu, dass sensible persönliche Informationen bei jeder simplen Nutzung an Unternehmen weitergegeben werden. Plattformen wie YouTube, Instagram oder TikTok könnten damit ihre Nutzer zweifelsfrei identifizieren, umfassend überwachen und die gesammelten Daten analysieren, verknüpfen und für ihre eigenen kommerziellen Zwecke nutzen. Die Verknüpfung detaillierter psychologischer Profile aus sozialen Medien mit den Daten des Schweizer Passes wäre für Werbegiganten äusserst wertvoll. Zudem würde die E-ID Onlinebetrug und Identitätsdiebstahl für Cyberkriminelle sogar noch erleichtern. Im Fall von TikTok fliessen die Daten sogar an den chinesischen Staat.
Auch die weiteren Ansinnen (siehe Punkt 1) alltägliche Handlungen mittels E-ID zu überwachen führt dazu, dass es vollkommen normal wird, sich im Internet dauernd auszuweisen.
Die E-ID wird Ausweiszwang im Internet durchsetzen [11].

4. Exzessive Datensammlung – Unnötige Speicherung besonders schützenswerter Daten
youtube.com/watch?v=epW4xEqr3m…

Beim Online-Ausstellungprozess muss man ein Gesichtsvideo einsenden [12], aus dem ein biometrischer 3D-Gesichtsabdruck erstellt werden kann. Diese sensiblen Daten sollen bis zu fünf Jahre nach Ablauf der E-ID gespeichert werden. Es besteht die reale Gefahr, dass diese biometrischen Daten später für die Gesichtserkennung im öffentlichen Raum eingesetzt werden könnten oder bei einem Cyber Vorfall Kriminellen in die Hände fallen. Diese massive Sammlung besonders schützenswerter Daten ist unnötig und äusserst bedenklich, da ein Gesicht im Gegensatz zu einem Passwort nicht geändert werden kann!
Besonders stossend ist Artikel 31 des BGEID [13], der Kantonen Gebühren für Bürger ohne E-ID erlaubt. Eine klare finanzielle Diskriminierung von Menschen mit geringem Einkommen.

5. Unsicherer Online-Prozess – Erhöhtes Risiko für Identitätsdiebstahl

Jüngste Vorfälle, bei denen Online-Ausstellungsverfahren von Banken durch Sicherheitsexperten kompromittiert wurden, zeigen die gravierenden Sicherheitsrisiken. Genau dieses Szenario droht auch bei der E-ID, was Kriminellen potenziell massenhaften Identitätsdiebstahl aller Schweizer Bürgerinnen und Bürger ermöglichen würde.

Fazit: Nein zur aktuellen E-ID

Das aktuelle BGEID genügt weder den Ansprüchen an Freiwilligkeit noch an Datensparsamkeit und Sicherheit. Stattdessen beliefert es Unternehmen mit unseren Daten und schafft gleichzeitig die Grundlagen für umfassende Überwachungsmassnahmen. Die Hauptgründe für die Ablehnung der E-ID in der ersten Abstimmung waren Bedenken hinsichtlich Sicherheit und Datenschutz [14] und diesen Bedenken wird in der neuen Fassung keine Genüge getan.

Eine E-ID, die die Bedürfnisse der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in den Mittelpunkt stellt und den Datenschutz konsequent berücksichtigt, könnte durchaus Vorteile bringen. Hierfür ist jedoch ein grundlegend anderer Ansatz erforderlich, der unnötige Datensammlungen vermeidet. Deshalb kämpfen wir Piraten weiterhin entschieden gegen das vorliegende E-ID-Gesetz und setzen uns für eine verantwortungsvolle Datenpolitik in der Schweiz ein.
Deshalb sagen wir NEIN zu dieser E-ID.

Bereits bei unserem Referendum im 2021 lehnte die Schweizer Bevölkerung an der Urne die E-ID mit 64.4 Prozent deutlich ab. Der Hauptgrund waren Bedenken zu Sicherheit und Datenschutz [14]. Für den zweiten Anlauf wurde ursprünglich eine datensparsame, auf die Privatsphäre der Bürger Rücksicht nehmende E-ID garantiert.

Pascal Fouquet, Vizepräsident der Piratenpartei Bern: „Uns wurde eine E-ID im Interesse der Bevölkerung versprochen. Bekommen haben wir das Gegenteil, ein weiteres Instrument zur Datensammlung – für Staat und Wirtschaft. Weder bei der Ausstellung noch bei der Anwendung ist sie ausreichend datensparsam. Darum sagen wir jetzt klar NEIN zur E-ID!“

Renato Sigg, Vorstandsmitglied Piratenpartei Schweiz „Aus Sicht der Piratenpartei stehen Nutzen und Risiko in keinem Verhältnis. Nicht nur wirtschaftlichen Interessen, sondern auch dem Machtstreben anderer Akteure im In- und Ausland muss mit der gebotenen Vorsicht begegnet werden.“

Die PPS ist die einzige gesamtgesellschaftliche Organisation, die dieses gefährliche Gesetz ablehnt. Wir werden die kritische Stimmen aus der bürgerlichen oder linken Bevölkerung in den nächsten Monaten mittragen.

Jorgo Ananiadis, Präsident Piratenpartei Schweiz: „Alle anderen Parteien nehmen die Risiken der E-ID billigend in Kauf und sagen Hauptsache eine E-ID. Es wird für uns Piraten ein Kraftakt sein, die Bevölkerung zu überzeugen – aber die Argumente liegen klar auf unserer Seite.“

Alexis Roussel, ehemaliger Co-Präsident der Piratenpartei Schweiz: „Mit dieser Abstimmung erhält das Schweizer Volk eine zweite Chance, sich gegen aufgezwungene Technologien zu wehren. Jetzt geht es darum, die Digitale Integrität der Menschen auf Bundesebene zu schützen.“

Wir danken allen engagierten Menschen, die beim Zustandekommen des Referendums mitgeholfen haben.

Quellen:
[1] https://www.piratenpartei.chhttps://www.piratenpartei.ch/2022/06/29/vernehmlassungseroeffnung-e-id/
[2] srf.ch/play/tv/tagesschau/vide…
[3] https://www.piratenpartei.chhttps://www.piratenpartei.ch/2024/01/22/teilnahme-anhoerung-rechtskommission-nr-zur-e-id/
[4] projects.piratenpartei.ch/proj…
[5] https://www.piratenpartei.chhttps://www.piratenpartei.ch/2025/01/10/piratenpartei-ergreift-das-referendum-gegen-das-e-id-gesetz/
[6] fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/2022/2…
[7] parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/su…
[8] fedlex.admin.ch/filestore/fedl…
[9] parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/su…
[10] agov.admin.ch/
[11] ausweiszwang-nein.ch/
[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epW4xEqr3mw&t=689s
[13] fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/2025/2…
[14] archive.ph/o/EMUyU/vox.gfsbern…

piratenpartei.ch/2025/05/07/e-…

Coming to a website near you this summer: the European Commission is close to a ‘solution’ that could force people to use their government-issued ID to get online. EDRi and EFF’s concerns about threats to everyone’s privacy and data protection, a chilling effect on access to information, and digital exclusion – harming the already most marginalised in society - remain unsolved.

The post Showing your ID to get online might become a reality – a closer look at the EU’s new age verification app appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

The Municipal Court in Prague ruled in a dispute that lasted more than four years. EDRi member IuRe represented journalist Jan Cibulka in the case. He demanded an apology from the state for the Czech state collecting information about his whereabouts or with whom he calls and writes under the data retention regulation.

The post The blanket collection of metadata on communications in the Czech Republic is illegal. Iuridicum Remedium wins data retention dispute. appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).