Article Activists v. Poland. European Court of Human Rights hearing on uncontrolled surveillance On 27 September the hearing was held at the European Court of Human Rights, following the application against Poland lodged by activists from Poland’s Panoptykon Foundation and Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, joined by a human rights attorney. The group alleges that the state violated their right to privacy by allowing the intelligence agencies to act beyond scrutiny. Their case has been supported by the United Nations special rapporteur, Polish Ombudsman and the European Criminal Bar Association, attending the Strasbourg hearing as well. 04.11.2022 Text
Article ChatGPT – AI for everyone. About time to regulate it Winter 2022/2023 seems to be a spectacular time in the history of Artificial Intelligence. It is so even though the current hype is an effect of mass popularization rather than a real scientific revolution, which in this field began quite a while ago. With the rapid growth of new users of products based on generative AI (or GP AI), its potential to wreak havoc raises an increasing number of serious concerns. 24.02.2023 Text
Article Moglen supports Snowden’s nomination for Sakharov Prize [VIDEO] Eben Moglen, famous lawyer and publicist, in cooperation with Richard Stallman created Free Documentation License GNU. Director-Counsel of the Software Freedom Center and founder of the Freedom Box Foundation at the request of Panoptykon Foundation comments on Edward Snowden’s nomination for Sakharov Prize. 08.10.2013 Text
Article AI Act: we call on MEPs to put our fundamental rights first As the European Parliament gets ready to vote on the AI Act, we call on MEPs to put our fundamental rights first and protect the people affected by AI systems. 28.04.2023 Text
Article Open Source Surveillance And Online Privacy, CPDP 2014 [VIDEO] Access of the law enforcement agencies and secret services upon more or less formal warrants and request do not cover the whole problem of the online surveillance. More and more date is available out there without any warrants – just to read, take and process. It is the situation, when the data that we all publish online, with more or less awareness of the consequences, is used by authorities mention above for whatever purposes. How purpose limitation could possibly be used to limit open source surveillance? To what extent privacy settings that by default enable or enhance making data public help in conducting this type of surveillance? How open source surveillance might influence individual? 24.01.2014 Text