These proposals will be voted upon on the Mumble Conference on the 18./19./20.11.2013 starting everyday at 20:00 CET in the German NRW-Mumble Room PPEU. When we have finished working our way through the proposals, the Conference will be over. All parties are invited to send delegates there to speak for their parties and any other interested pirates may also attend.

CEEP Amendments

New Text of CEEP

We suggest to name the document as “Athens Declaration” (or any other name similar to this) to show that it is in the tradition of the Uppsala Declaration.

As an introductory text before the Preamble, we like to also add the following text:

“We, the European Pirate Parties, hereby declare,

building up on the foundations of the Uppsala Declaration of 2008,

fulfilling the promise of the Prague Declaration of 2012,

that we go into the coming elections of the European Parliament in the year 2014 united.

We will use the following topics that we identified as being in our common interests as the base platform to work together on European-wide election campaigns and later also in the European Parliament.

We, the Undersigned, commit ourselves to strive to incorporate the following topics also into our national election programmes:”

We need to make sure that it is clear that this text is not a national election programme which needs to be accepted by the GA. There has been a big discussion on the nature of the text that we have been producing in Athens. To ensure that there will be no misunderstandings we would like to add this text.

Add a paragraph before the Preamble that explains what is this document:

“We, the Pirates Parties from the EU Member States that stand for the next elections for the Parliament of the EU have agreed to a Common European Election Programme that has been jointly developed and later voted by the members of each single party.”

Change the Preamble like this:

Preamble

Today's European Union as a supranational institution is a project of its member states rather than of its citizens. PIRATES hold are of the opinion that the future of Europe ought to be organised in the common interests of all European citizens, as well as the interests of member states. Therefore all PIRATES in the European Union have adopted this election programme and strive together to make our vision of the European Union reality. The democratic deficit within the European Union has existed since the beginning and has not been sufficiently been addressed in the course of the integration process. An important goal of all PIRATES will be to fix this and to build a solid democratic foundation for the European Union. In order to achieve that this goal it will be crucial to design political processes that are more citizen friendly and to encourage the development of a common European cultural space while protecting existing cultures.

The EU should live up to its own principles on subsidiarity and decisions should not be taken at an EU level if they can be better resolved on a national, regional or local level. Political decisions at the European level need to be preceded by Europe-wide debates - allowing for adequate participation of all. Without equal, non-discriminating communication, adequate participation will cannot come into existence; hence, no proper decisions representing the general public interest may should be taken. The internet as a new sphere of communication offers tremendous opportunities, providing the possibility for political development, helping to overcome political top-down, one-way communication, and breaking the dominance of the mass media. PIRATES will therefore defend the freedom of the internet with fierce determination at the European level as well as on the global scale.

Explanation:

• Just grammatical corrections. We'd like to ask PPUK to look further into the whole text of the programme (if you haven't already done so).
• Common European space is enough
• https://piratenpad.de/p/changesbyPPCZ

We also suggest as an alternative to change the Preamble in the following way:

“(…) common European cultural political space while preserving the cultural diversitywhile protecting existing cultures.

Move last paragraph of the “Preamble” to “Net Policy” section (As the first introductory paragraph of the Net Policy section, with no added title.)

“The internet as a new sphere of communication offers tremendous opportunities, providing the possibility for political development, helping to overcome political top-down, one-way communication, and breaking the dominance of the mass media. PIRATES will therefore defend the freedom of the internet with fierce determination at the European level as well as on the global scale.”

Word change in section “Democracy Add-On for Europe”:

From: “Changes in EU primary legislation (e.g. a treaty) may only come into effect, if a majority of EU citizens approve in a simultaneous vote across the EU,”

To: “Changes in EU primary legislation (e.g. a treaty) should only come into effect, if a majority of EU citizens approve in a simultaneous vote across the EU,”

See above:

To: “Changes in EU primary legislation (e.g. a treaty) shall only come into effect, if a majority of EU citizens approve in a simultaneous vote across the EU,”

In section “Better Citizen Direct Participation”, if demand is satisfied there's no need for a referendum:

From: “We want citizen initiatives that can modify constitutions, laws, etc. always being followed by a referendum.”

To: “We want citizen initiatives that can modify constitutions, laws, etc. and are always being followed by either the approval of the relevant legislative body or by a referendum.”

More specific section title:

From: “Removal of Unfair Barriers”

To: “Removal of Unfair Barriers to Political Participation”

We propose to strike out the last half-sentence in the topic “Removal of Unfair Barriers”:

“We PIRATES want a larger and more direct participation of the citizens in the policy debate and decision making process, both individually and collectively. We therefore demand the removal of unfair barriers to the participation of new political parties in the EU elections, such as the requirement of collecting a certain number of signatures in order to stand for election.”

The reason is that there is no clear position of the German Pirates on the collection of signatures to stand for election. Some Pirates are in favour of having to collect a reasonable amount of signatures to show that the party is a serious one and others are against it completely. If we strike it out, we don't need to decide on the dispute and after all, it doesn't add anything to the point, but illustrating it.

Modify first sentence in section “Transparency of Public Sector”:

From: “Transactions of the public sector, including private entities carrying out by delegation a public role, must be transparent.”

To: “The activities and transactions of the EU administration and national public sectors, including private entities carrying out by delegation a public role or receiving a certain amount of income from the public budget, must be totally transparent.”

Add the following text to the CEEP:

PIRATES propose a fundamental reform of the EU-policy on refugees and asylum. The European approach must be based on the acknowledgement of human rights and fully respect the Geneva Convention on Refugees and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

All member-states should be equally willing to accept refugees and asylum-seekers according to their financial capacity. No individual member-state should be left alone with the financial, logistic and administrative burden; European solidarity is called for instead.

EU-neigbourhood-policy and EU-development policy should be geared towards lasting improvement of living conditions and focus on the promotion of human rights in all partner countries and regions. We denounce all tendencies to create a repressive apparatus of survey and control in Europe.

Explanation:

The text is a slightly changed version from the German proposal on the subject. We've changed some parts ( Take a look here to compare the versions) for the following reasons:

• we'd like to withdraw from that “command” tone; expressions like must or unacceptable are too binding and it can't make it through our board in the approval process in such way

• “capacity” is a broad term; we need in this case some specification, otherwise it gives a space for own - and sometimes negative - interpretation

• last, the Frontex. It's an unkown issue in the Czech republic therefore it seems really unnecessary in the common program; plus it's only a statement - it doesn't offer solution or way; and there was even an opinion that this statement without proof or explanation might seem falsely - and though we believe you what is Frontex like, we can't afford such baseless (in the program!) statements

Please change the text in the following way:

To preserve our historical heritage of freedom rights and to ensure the effectiveness of the security and law enforcement, we advocate that a public information collection, control and monitoring is in the future only targeted at people who are actually suspected of committing or preparing a crime, and is allowed and supervised by the judiciary power. To protect our open society and in the interest of an efficient security policy, we want to give up automated data collection, data storage and data matching. In a free Europe such a wide detection of many innocent people is unacceptable and harmful.

Include reference to European directive in section “Ensure Everyone's Privacy”:

“The European directive on storing data [include reference] dictates watching and storing information about all telecommunications connections and also about movement of all cellphones.”

Editorial note:[Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC]

Alternative proposal to the one above:

“The European Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC dictates watching and storing information about all telecommunications connections and also about movement of all cellphones.”

Remove mention to other European pirate parties in section “Ensure Everyone's Privacy”:

From: “We, in cooperation with other European pirate parties, seek the abolishment of this directive.”

To: “We, [the] European pirate parties, seek the abolishment of this directive.”

Word removal in second paragraph of section “Systematic Evaluation of Existing Surveillance Powers and Programmes”:

From: “We may accept surveillance of citizens in a public space only in clearly defined cases and only at the necessary minimum level.”

To: “We accept surveillance of citizens in a public space only in clearly defined cases and only at the necessary minimum level.”

Convert bullet point into sentence in third paragraph of section “Systematic Evaluation of Existing Surveillance Powers and Programmes”:

From: “Prohibition of wide spying (cameras, communication, mobile phones etc.).”

To: “We will work for the prohibition of wide spying (cameras, communication, mobile phones etc.).”

Change the text in the following way:

From: “Public spaces are full of cameras that allow watching movement, face identification, and connection with information about traffic without acceptable reasons for this kind of encroachment on privacy.”

To: “Public spaces are full of cameras that allow watching movement, face identification and linking it to information about our travels and routes without acceptable reasons for this kind of encroachment on privacy.”

Convert bullet point into sentence in fourth paragraph of section “Systematic Evaluation of Existing Surveillance Powers and Programmes”:

From: “Prohibition of electronic and biological spying.”

To: “We will work for the prohibition of electronic and biological spying.”

Alternative to the proposal above:

To: “We will strive for the prohibition of electronic and biological spying.”

In article 3, “Remove Excessive Monitoring”, modify the first bullet point, so that it mentions explicitly the keyword “metadata”:

From: “suspicionless, widespread retention of all telephone, cell phone, e-mail and Internet Connections”

To: “suspicionless, widespread retention of all telephone, cell phone, e-mail and Internet Connections' data or metadata”

Change the text in the following way:

From: “3. Remove Excessive Monitoring

We want to abolish unnecessary and excessive surveillance of the EU, including:

• suspicionless, widespread retention of all telephone, cell phone, e-mail and Internet Connections

• the use of biometrics in passports and visas, also with asylum seekers

• the transfer of passenger and payment data to third countries such as the USA and generally, the delivery of personal data to countries without effective protection of fundamental rights

• the compulsory introduction of digital metering devices (“smart meters”) without the affected persons having a choice

• the enhanced surveillance of external borders (“Eurosur”)

• the cross-border access to police data (“principle of availability”) without a strong and effective European data protection and protection of fundamental rights.”

To: “3. Remove excessive monitoring

We want to abolish unnecessary and excessive surveillance of the EU, including:

• suspicionless, widespread retention of all telephone, cell phone, e-mail and Internet Connections

• the use of biometrics in passports and visas, also with asylum seekers

• the transfer of passenger and payment data to third countries such as the USA and generally, the delivery of personal data to countries without effective protection of fundamental rights

• the compulsory introduction of digital metering devices (“smart meters”) without the affected persons having a choice

• the compulsory introduction of any industrial system automatically processing personal/private information (eg. digital “smart meters”), without the affected persons having a choice.

• the enhanced surveillance of external borders (“Eurosur”)

• the cross-border access to police data (“principle of availability”) without a strong and effective European data protection and protection of fundamental rights

At the same time, we want to enforce:

• strict standards for any industrial systems automatically processing personal/private information (eg. “the Internet of things”) - essentialy making those systems open source, publicly documented and peer-reviewed.”

PPCZ explanation: In the case of any industrial systems automaticaly processing personal information: One thing is right to opt-out (refuse them completely), which is a good option, but which can be found to be economically challenging for most of the population. We may also request introduction of certain general standards covering all kinds of similar automatical collection of personal data by industrial systems and consumer utilities - which is already known as “the Internet of things”. Eg. when implementing smart meters technology, operators must simply grant, event to those, who will agree to use them, that the layer with access to technical data has no access to layer with access to personal data and no automatic asociation can be made (which may require such things as periodicaly dynamicaly assigning smart meter IDs). The technology was originally supposed to be targeted toward effective allocation of available energy resources in time, for example by micromanaging power utilities by distributing information about energy costs - which could be implemented as anonymously, as eg. operation of traffic lights regulating road traffic, elevator controls, etc. One possible approach is to request open documentation (or open source programming) of every industrial system processing any kind of personalized information, so independent 3rd party audit of its function is possible.

Add after the second paragraph:

“Even if a consent with personal data trading was expressed, the person affected by data trade must not be deprived from access to the summary of all data, which was passed to any third party involved. Metadata created as a side effect of using complex information systems should be considered to be personal data too. There must be also way to request list of such third parties, which were provided with these personal data, and supported method for filling such request must be comparable to method which was used for expressing consent in the first place (eg. online form when consent was expressed using online form and paper form, when consent was expressed by signature, etc.).”

PPCZ explanation: original proposal is too weak and would actually result just into adding single checkbox, voicing user's consent with “automatic data processing”, which is currently present in these services anyway. And this wouldn't prevent service providers from requiring this consent before providing any service, so it effectively will NOT result in ANY policy change from the side of current Big Data players, like Facebook or Google. One approach may require more traditional/bureaucratic form on consent, like signature and not just electronic interaction. More radical and perhaps also more effective and interesting approach would be to demand, that even if person voices consent with processing or trading of collected personal data, irrevocable mechanism simillar to perphaps “partial copyright on personal data” grants person right to request list of all 3rd parties, which were provided access to this personal data as a result of this consent (which would naturally result in not only advertisers, but also organisations like NSA appearing in these lists, if practices of service providers/Big Data players won't change after this year's event) Example of this is well-known case of Facebook, and information about number of people visiting one's profile. It is absolutely ok for Facebook to decide to not disclose this information to it's users: but once this information is traded with any third party (like advertisers, NSA, or so on), the users concerned must not be deprived from the right to know this information too. Another way to express this: Should user's metadata be processed by any third party, this processing becomes part of user's metadata, and as such, user must not be deprived the right to access such metadata.

About the paragraph “Unify Police Standard Procedures Towards more progressive ones”

The first sentence ist really vague and we don't see any possibility to apply it concretly, because there is many way to understand it. Furthermore, this idea sound more as a “national theme” than a european one (until we have a european police…).

Word change in section “Mandatory Use of Free Software in Public Administration”:

From: “We will initiate the migration of the public sector to free software which doesn't have security risks rising from the hidden code and does not bring the dependency on a specific supplier.”

To: “We will enforce the migration of the public sector to free software which doesn't have security risks rising from the hidden code and does not bring the dependency on a specific supplier.

Alternatives to the Proposal above:

To: “We will drive the migration of the public sector to free software which doesn't have security risks rising from the hidden code and does not bring the dependency on a specific supplier.

or

To: “We will implement the migration of the public sector to free software which doesn't have security risks rising from the hidden code and does not bring the dependency on a specific supplier.

Move section “Promotion of the Commons” to the “Trade Agreements” section:

“Promotion of the Commons We want to work towards provisions in trade agreements which support the use and development of open formats and free libre open source software and regulate the mutual recognition of licence models like Creative Commons.)”

Change the text on Copyright in the following way:

Copyright

We, the European Pirates, want a fair and balanced copyright law based on the interests of society as a whole.

We strive for abolition of information monopolies. Information monopolies prevent people from sharing and using information. The politicians have given in to a series of information monopolies that supposedly motivate creators, inventors and producers to be more active. In reality though, the only ones benefiting from beneficiaries of the monopolies are huge corporations whereas the market as a whole is failing suffering (bullying of the collective societies, patent wars, etc. orphan works). Our goal is to create an environment where the motivation to create goes hand in hand with the freedom of information.

We therefore demand that copying, providing access to, storing and using literary and artistic production for non-commercial purposes must not just only be legalised but also protected by law and actively promoted to improve the public availability of information, knowledge and culture; because this is a prerequisite for the social, technological and economic development of our society. Everyone shall be able to enjoy and share our cultural heritage free from the threat of legal action or censorship.

The commercial monopoly given by copyright should be restored to a reasonable term. Derivative works shall always be permitted, with exceptions which that are very specifically enumerated in law with minimal room for interpretation.

The internet as a communicative space knows no borders. PIRATES consider artificial national barriers for cultural goods within the European internal market as a hindrance for to the European integration process and demand their abolishment. Overall, a change of approach is required in the area of rights to immaterial goods and their restrictive enforcement. Further monopolies in the sectors of information and culture have to be prevented. By law, the state should only allow or maintain monopoly rights for immaterial goods if these are not conflicting with the general interest. Any monopoly-rights must be temporarily limited; neither their time-span nor their scope may be enlarged retrospectively.

The creation of so-called “commons”, such as free software, free cultural goods, open patent pools and free, open education must be promoted and legally protected.

Social life, increasingly taking place in digital spaces, must not be restricted by rights to immaterial goods. “Fair-Use Regulations” will ensure that. We demand European standards for copyright contracts to strengthen the position of creators versus processing and collecting entities and to create a balance in the interest of the general public.

European collecting societies must ensure comprehensive transparency and fair participatory rights for their members.

Explanation:

• Just grammatical corrections. We'd like to ask PPUK to look further into the whole text of the programme (if you haven't already done so).
• Explain or cross out the orphan works, it's not sure, what is the problem
• https://piratenpad.de/p/changesbyPPCZ

Word change in fifth paragraph of section “Copyright”:

From: “The internet as a communicative space knows no borders.”

To: “The internet as a communicative space should know no borders.”

Word change in sixth paragraph of section “Copyright”:

From: “Social life, increasingly taking place in digital spaces, must not be restricted by rights to immaterial goods. “Fair-Use Regulations” will ensure that.”

To: “Social life, increasingly taking place in digital spaces, must not be restricted by rights to immaterial goods. “Fair-Use Regulations” should ensure that.”

Alternative to the proposal above:

To: “Social life, increasingly taking place in digital spaces, must not be restricted by rights to immaterial goods. “Fair-Use Regulations” shall ensure that.”

Please add the following paragraph to the CEEP:

“Patents and Health

Health must be regarded as the most important commodity for the citizens of each European State and its visitors. Universities and Institutes should be able to carry out scientific research for Health and Medicine without being encumbered by patents. Patents for Health and Medicines should expire before every other patent.”

Reasoning: The effect of patents on health and the price of medicine is an important point, and from our point of view it is worthy of a bit more emphasis. This is also an argument we often use when explaining the every day side effects of patents to ordinary people.

Word change in last paragraph of section “Patents in the Information Age”:

From: “We want freer and fairer markets without the limitations of current patent law, which therefore needs to be reformed or replaced with an approach that actually makes sense, instead of one that further stifles innovation.”

To: “We want freer and fairer markets without the limitations of current patent law, which therefore needs to be reformed or replaced with an approach that actually promotes innovation, instead of one that further stifles it.”

Word change in section “Degradation of Private Monopolies and Opening Markets”:

From: “Even if the patenting of industrial goods in the past is generally seen as a success story (neither provable nor refutable),”

To: “Even if the patenting of industrial goods in the past is often assumed to have been a success story (neither provable nor refutable),”

Add to the above:

“In many fields the growth of the number of granted patents made checking existing patents when building new inventions impractical and turned innovative business into a game of ambushes where overbroad, cryptic and often trivial patents are used to attack competition instead of extending the common knowledge by public disclosure.”

Word change in section “Degradation of Private Monopolies and Opening Markets”:

From: “The increasing international competition also leads to an increasingly misappropriated use of the patent system, where you often can not see a compensation for the society any more.”

To: “The increasing international competition also leads to an increasingly misappropriated use of the patent system, where you often can not see a large enough compensation for the society any more that balances the negative impact.”

Alternative to the proposal above:

To: “The increasing international competition also leads to an increasingly misappropriated use of the patent system, where you often can not see a sufficient compensation for the society any more that balances the negative impact.”

Remove repetition in section “Degradation of Private Monopolies and Opening Markets”:

The crossed bit is repeated again below:

”(Patenting of trivialities or even) The blocking of progress by patents should be prevented at all costs.”

Alternative to the proposal above:

”(Patenting of trivialities or even) The blocking of progress by patents should be prevented at all costs.”

Remove word in section “Degradation of Private Monopolies and Opening Markets”:

“This (also) applies in particular to the field of the pharmaceutical industry.”

Word change in section “Degradation of Private Monopolies and Opening Markets”:

From: “Patents on pharmaceuticals also have some impact that is ethically highly reprehensible.”

To: “Patents on pharmaceuticals often have an impact on public health that is ethically highly reprehensible.”

Word change in second paragraph of section “Patents in the Information Society”:

From: “Patents should definitely never be given for things that are trivial, non-substantial, computer programs, business models, life–forms or anything unethical.”

To: “Patents should definitely never be given for things that are trivial, non-substantial, or unethical, and specifically not for computer programs, business models, or life–forms.”

Move section “International Regulation of Intellectual Monopolies” to “Trade Agreements” section:

“International Regulation of Intellectual Monopolies We PIRATES strive for a revision of the TRIPS Agreement in favour of reducing exclusive rights on immaterial goods, especially in patent and copyright regulations, in accordance with our programmatic goals. The same shall apply to other trade agreements which include similar or even more far-reaching regulations on patents and copyright (TRIPS+). We will only give our consent to new trade agreements, if they do not contain regulations about immaterial goods which are contrary to our convictions on the matter.)”

We like to reintroduce the following topic which was rejected in Athens:

“Legal Guarantee for Anonymous, Pseudonymous and Autonymous Access to Network Services

We PIRATES reject a constraint to use legal names on the Internet.

We are committed to guarantee citizens the anonymous access to the Internet and the users of social networks and similar services a pseudonymous and an autonymous access to these services by law. The freedom of expression and self-definition of a person may not be curtailed for reasons of ostensible safety.”

And suggest as an alternative proposal instead:

“Legal Guarantee for Anonymous Access to the Internet We PIRATES reject a constraint to use legal names on the Internet. We are committed to guarantee citizens the anonymous access to the Internet by law. The freedom of expression and self-definition of a person may not be curtailed for reasons of ostensible safety.”

Like this we will leave out the disputed point about how to identify trolls in forums and kick them out effectively.

Addition in section “Comprehensive Information and Public Hearings”:

“The European Parliament needs to be informed right from the start and comprehensively about the state and the strategy of negotiation of Trade Agreements.”

About the paragraph on International Trade, “Taking in Account the interest of small and medium-sized companies”

The line:” The EU should be more active in enforcing anti-monopoly and pro-competition policies “ is really problematic (far too lapidary). We are quite according with the rest of this section but this sentence has to be removed, because it bring nothing more but a clear “ultra-liberal” touch on our programm.

We will veto the text on energy policy, even if all the text is taken from the German proposal. There has been a heated discussion in the German Pirate Party about the question, if we should have any position on energy policy at all, if we don't have a clear commitment against nuclear power as a part of it. As the opinion was divided and it is a topic close to the heart of many German Pirates we will rather veto the topic than lose support for the CEEP as a whole.