Digitaler Omnibus: So unterschiedlich wollen EU-Staaten die Digitalregulierung verändern netzpolitik.org/2025/digitaler… image
Transparenzregister mit Lücken: KI-Nutzung der öffentlichen Verwaltung bleibt undurchsichtig netzpolitik.org/2025/transpare… image
Censorship by invoice: Public records cost $164,000 in Michigan township Michigan’s Grand Blanc Township thinks it has discovered a trick to weasel out of accountability: charging a reporter more for government records than most people earn in two years. Independent journalist Anna Matson filed two requests for records about the township’s fire chief, Jamie Jent, being placed on administrative leave. That decision — later lifted after outcry from residents and firefighters — reportedly came after he raised concerns about staffing issues following the tragic September shooting at the township’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The government told her she’d have to pay a combined $164,000 in labor costs ($100,000 for her first request and $64,000 for a second) for finding and reviewing the records in order for them to respond to the request. That’s ridiculous. Michigan’s legislature should act to ensure that other local governments don’t get any ideas. There’s nothing unusually burdensome about Matson’s requests. If the township’s recordkeeping is so shoddy and its search capabilities so lacking that it costs six figures’ worth of employee time to find some emails and documents, that’s the township’s problem, not Matson’s. If anything, it begs another Freedom of Information Act request to figure out how the township reached that level of incompetence, and what officials are spending money on instead of basic software. The township doubled down on evasiveness when Matson showed up to a board meeting last week to contest the fees, and it made nonsensical excuses to enter into closed session so that it could discuss its secrecy in secret. Maybe the township thinks the fees will discourage the press from trying to hold it accountable. More likely, it will do the opposite: inspire reporters to keep digging. Intrepid journalists see obvious obstruction tactics like these and think, “I must be on to something.” We’re confident Matson will eventually uncover whatever the township doesn’t want her and her readers to see. Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, like the federal FOIA and state public records laws across the country, was intended to let everyone — not just rich people — find out what their government is up to and how their money is being spent. The law allows agencies to charge reasonable fees — copying costs, mailing expenses, and limited labor charges calculated at the hourly wage of the lowest-paid employee capable of doing the work. Agencies aren’t permitted to charge for the first two hours of labor, and they can only charge for search and review time if not doing so would result in “unreasonably high costs.”Officials are taking advantage of the media’s weak financial position to hold accountability for ransom. We’re not fans of charging any labor costs for FOIAs. Tax dollars already pay for agencies to maintain public records. Allowing the public to access them is a basic government function. But putting that aside, how does finding records about one employee during a limited time frame — which was all her first request sought — cost six figures? The $64,000 price tag for the second request for departmental records is equally absurd and also shows the arbitrariness of the whole thing — how does the broader request cost less than the narrower one? This obstruction tactic is hardly a local innovation. Last year, Nebraska’s legislature had to step in after the state’s Department of Environment and Energy tried charging the Flatwater Free Press more than $44,000 to review environmental records. It claimed figuring out what exemptions to the public’s records law applied would be time-consuming — essentially making the press pay for their time figuring out legal arguments to not give it the records it wanted. The Trump administration — which has attempted to close FOIA offices and fired officials who released embarrassing information pursuant to FOIAs — recently demanded journalist Brian Karem pay a $50,000 bond just to expedite a lawsuit for documents about the classified records Trump took to Mar-a-Lago. It’s far from the first instance of fee bullying by the federal government, regardless of who is president. Trump, of course, claims he did nothing wrong by taking those documents, but doesn’t want to let the public be the judge. The situation in Grand Blanc Township is similar — the same government that may have punished a fire chief for speaking up about public safety wants to punish a journalist for asking questions about it. It’s secrecy stacked on secrecy. It’s no coincidence that so many of these overcharging cases involve requests by independent journalists or small local outlets. The government knows the news industry is struggling economically. That’s no secret. Officials are taking advantage of the media’s weak financial position to hold accountability for ransom. If they get their way, transparency will become a luxury only affordable to major media outlets that are unlikely to have much interest in public records from Grand Blanc Township in the first place. The township needs to rescind its invoice, apologize to Matson, and get her the records she’s entitled to right away. Beyond that, state legislators need to put politics aside and follow Nebraska’s example by narrowing what the government can charge the public for its own records and making those limits unambiguous (and of course, they should also remove absurd provisions exempting the governor and legislature from transparency). And if agencies have the nerve to defend these shakedowns in court, judges should hold government lawyers accountable for whatever frivolous legal arguments they concoct to justify charging well over the cost of a house in Detroit for basic transparency. freedom.press/issues/censorshi…
Werbeanzeigen: EuGH nimmt Plattformen bei Datenschutzverstößen in die Pflicht netzpolitik.org/2025/werbeanze… image
Pirate News: Airlines End Travel Information Program Steve and James discuss holiday ICE raids and airlines announcing that they will shutdown a program that sold our travel data to the government. youtube.com/embed/Eg_ci8PEozY?… Sign up to our newsletter to get notified of new events or volunteer. Join us on: Mastodon; Facebook; Blue Sky; Twitter. Check out: Surveillance Memory Bank and Resources; Our Administrative Coup Memory Bank; Our Things to Do when Fascists are Taking Over. Some links we mentioned: Trump DHS Plans Immigration Raids on Churches Over Holidays; Airlines Will Shut Down Program That Sold Your Flights Records to Government. Image Credit: 4300streetcar, CC By-SA 4.0, Wikimedia commons page. masspirates.org/blog/2025/12/0…
Für gemeinwohlorientierten Journalismus: So unterstützt ihr uns mit Spenden aus und von Unternehmen netzpolitik.org/2025/fuer-geme… image
Abstimmungsergebnis Digitale Integrität in Zürich Die Piratenpartei nimmt das Ergebnis der Volksabstimmung zur Digitalen Integrität in Zürich mit grossem Bedauern zur Kenntnis und wir bedanken uns bei allen, die Ja gestimmt haben. Wir respektieren selbstverständlich den demokratischen Entscheidungsprozess, doch das Ergebnis stellt einen Rückschlag für das wichtige Anliegen dar, ein Grundrecht auf ein selbstbestimmtes Offline‑Leben zu sichern. Renato Sigg, Präsident Piratenpartei Zürich und Mitglied des Initiativkomitees: „Ohne die Digitale Integrität wird es keine menschenwürdige Digitalisierung geben. Sie braucht es auch, um eine nachhaltig erfolgreiche Resilienz und Digitale Souveränität sicherzustellen.“ Warum ist das Ergebnis problematisch? Nur die AL stimmte für die Digitale Integrität. Die ablehnenden Parolen der etablierten Parteien – SVP, EDU, FDP, Mitte, EVP, GLP und Grüne signalisieren, dass Sie absichtlich in Kauf nehmen: Entscheidungen durch Algorithmen: Die Gefahr, dass Maschinen künftig über medizinische Eingriffe, Bewerbungsverfahren oder andere persönliche Angelegenheiten entscheiden. Umfassende Überwachung: Eine flächendeckende Erfassung, Vermessung und Analyse persönlicher Daten. Langfristige Datenspeicherung: Unbegrenzte Aufbewahrung personenbezogener Informationen ohne klare Fristen. Unsichere Datenlagerung: Risiken durch unzureichende Sicherheitsmassnahmen, die Missbrauch nahelegen. Digitale Monopolisierung von Dienstleistungen: Der Trend, physische Angebote (z. B. Billetautomaten) zugunsten rein digitaler Services abzuschaffen, wodurch Personen ohne digitale Anbindung benachteiligt werden. Dies zeigt, dass die Piratenpartei die einzige Partei ist, die sich für eine menschenwürde Digitalisierung einsetzt und die Anliegen der Bevölkerung angemessen vertritt. Melanie Hartmann, Vorstand Piratenpartei Schweiz: „Das Resultat an der Urne zeigt, dass Digitalpolitik immer noch nicht in der Mitte der Gesellschaft angekommen ist. Unabhängig davon ist und bleibt Digitale Integrität das dringend nötige Grundrecht für eine menschenwürdige Digitalisierung.“ Unser Appell Wir fordern die politischen Entscheidungsträger auf, die Bedenken von Teilen der Bevölkerung ernst zu nehmen und die folgenden Prinzipien in zukünftige Gesetzgebungen einzubetten: Transparenz: Klare Offenlegung, welche Daten erhoben werden und zu welchem Zweck. Einwilligung: Strikte Vorgaben, dass jede Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten restriktiver geregelt wird. Recht auf Vergessenwerden: Garantierte Löschung von Daten nach Ablauf eines angemessenen Zeitraums oder auf Wunsch der betroffenen Person. Datensicherheit: Verpflichtende technische und organisatorische Maßnahmen zum Schutz vor unbefugtem Zugriff. Option für Offline‑Dienstleistungen: Sicherstellung, dass grundlegende öffentliche Dienste weiterhin ohne digitale Voraussetzung verfügbar bleiben. Johannes Neukom, Vorstand der Piratenpartei Zürich: „Wir akzeptieren das Resultat, finden es aber schade, dass die Menschen die Notwendigkeit der Digitalen Integrität noch nicht erkannt haben. Der Kanton hätte als erstes alle seine M365-Projekte stoppen müssen. Diese Niederlage wird kein Hindernis sein, dass wir weiterhin für die digitalen Rechte im ganzen Kanton kämpfen werden. Eine Annahme der Initiative hätte uns diesen Kampf aber enorm erleichtert. Eine demokratische Gesellschaft ist ohne einen festgeschriebenen Schutz im digitalen Raum nicht möglich. Mit den kommenden Überwachungswerkzeugen, die dem Staat zur Verfügung stehen, wird das umso wichtiger.“ Ausblick Die Piratenpartei wird das Ergebnis gründlich analysieren und gemeinsam mit zivilgesellschaftlichen Akteuren, Experten und interessierten Bürgerinnen und Bürgern an konkreten Alternativen arbeiten. Ziel ist es, ein ausgewogenes Verhältnis zwischen technologischem Fortschritt und dem Schutz individueller Freiheitsrechte zu schaffen. Ivan Büchi,Präsident Piratenpartei Ostschweiz: „Im Verlauf der nächsten Wochen werden wir im Kanton Glarus einen Memorialsantrag zur digitalen Integrität einreichen. Das Recht auf ein offline Leben schulden wir nicht nur unseren Kindern, sondern allen Menschen, die ein Leben ohne ständige Smartphone‑Nutzung führen möchten.“ Alexis Roussel, ehemaliger Co-Präsident der Piratenpartei Schweiz und Autor des Buches „Notre si précieuse intégrité numérique“ (Unsere so wertvolle digitale Unversehrtheit): Der weitere Weg ist klar: Die Einführung des Grundrechts auf Digitale Integrität in anderen Kantonen und auf Bundesebene ist der Weg für eine digitale Gesellschaft, in der die Menschen respektiert und nicht eingeschränkt oder zur Nutzung gezwungen sind. Die Piratenpartei dankt ausserdem Philippe Burger, der mit seiner generellen grossen Unterstützung und tatkräftigen Mithilfe sowie Formulierung des Abstimmungstextes diese Volksinitiative überhaupt erst möglich gemacht hat. piratenpartei.ch/2025/12/02/ab… image
Patent office trying to silence your right to challenge bad patents The US Patent Office has put forth regulations to end the our ability to challenge improperly granted patents in the Patent Office. These new rules will be a gift to patent trolls by keeping bad patents alive to stifle innovation. As the EFF notes: People targeted with troll lawsuits will be left with almost no realistic or affordable way to defend themselves. We have until the end of Tuesday, December 2nd to file comments opposing these rules. The Biden administration tried to get these rules passed in 2023, but thousands of people stopped them. We need to stop the Trump administration from getting these rules passed! The Inter partes review (IPR) process what voted on by Congress in 2013. Congress defined how it should work and who it applies to. The Patent Office must not add additional regulations that limit our access to it. The EFF points out why these rule changes are harmful:Inter partes review, (IPR), isn’t perfect. It hasn’t eliminated patent trolling, and it’s not available in every case. But it is one of the few practical ways for ordinary developers, small companies, nonprofits, and creators to challenge a bad patent without spending millions of dollars in federal court. That’s why patent trolls hate it—and why the USPTO’s new rules are so dangerous.IPR isn’t easy or cheap, but compared to years of litigation, it’s a lifeline. When the system works, it removes bogus patents from the table for everyone, not just the target of a single lawsuit. IPR petitions are decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a panel of specialized administrative judges inside the USPTO. Congress designed IPR to provide a fresh, expert look at whether a patent should have been granted in the first place—especially when strong prior art surfaces. Unlike full federal trials, PTAB review is faster, more technical, and actually accessible to small companies, developers, and public-interest groups. As an example why we need the IPR process: Personal Audio tried to squeeze royalties from podcasters. Without IPR, EFF would not have been able to challenge their patent and Personal Audio would have continued to shake down podcasters. Please take a couple of minutes to submit your comments about why we cannot let bad patents slip through unchallenged. You can write your own or use the following draft comment we borrowed from the EFF and modified:I oppose the USPTO’s proposed rule changes for inter partes review (IPR), Docket No. PTO-P-2025-0025. The IPR process must remain open and fair. The Patent Office does not have the ability to legislate and must not limit who can take advantage of the IPR process beyond what Congress has authorized. Patent challenges should be decided on their merits, not shut out because of legal activity elsewhere. These rules would make it nearly impossible for the public to challenge bad patents, and that will harm innovation and everyday technology users. or you can use their comment as they wrote it:I oppose the USPTO’s proposed rule changes for inter partes review (IPR), Docket No. PTO-P-2025-0025. The IPR process must remain open and fair. Patent challenges should be decided on their merits, not shut out because of legal activity elsewhere. These rules would make it nearly impossible for the public to challenge bad patents, and that will harm innovation and everyday technology users. masspirates.org/blog/2025/12/0…
2026 Pirate National Conference Location Tournament: Round 3 (Final Four) The 2026 Pirate National Conference has been subject to an elimination style bracket tournament to determine where we will host what will mark the 20th birthday of the United States Pirate Party. As of today, we are down to four potential cities: Boston, Massachusetts Chicago, Illinois Seattle, Washington Vicksburg, Mississippi Results from Round 2 are posted on our Discord server. Eight other cities were previously in consideration and will no longer be considered for the 2026 conference. The eight eliminated cities, as well as the three cities that shall be eliminated by the conclusion of this tournament, shall be in permanent consideration for future Pirate National Conference locations until they have hosted. Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Louisville, Mobile, New Orleans, Plattsburgh, Portland (OR) and Providence shall all be in consideration in 2027 and beyond. We now find ourselves in the Final Four, with two matchups this week that our members and supporters can vote on. Boston (1) will take on Seattle (9) while Vicksburg (4) takes on Chicago (6). The Final Four The tournament shall conclude on December 15th. This tournament ending up in four totally different regions of the country is emblematic of the growth of this party. We might have states with a stronger presence of their Pirate Party, but our growth is nationwide and undeniable. After 20 years, the second oldest Pirate Party in the world will celebrate our conference on a boat and prepare for the next 20 years. We are looking forward to June 6th and hope you all are too. Regardless of location, the conference will be A.) held on a boat and B.) hybrid, meaning those unable to attend in-person may still attend online. Those who wish to vote can join our Discord server to find a link to the tournament. The Final Four closes out next week and the championship vote will begin from there. uspirates.org/2026-pirate-nati… image
Empfängerüberprüfung: IBAN eingeben, Klarnamen bekommen netzpolitik.org/2025/empfaenge… image