04.02.21
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Series index:
- The EPO Bundestagate — Part 1: How the Bundestag Was (and Continues to be) Misled About EPO Affairs
- The EPO Bundestagate — Part 2: Lack of Parliamentary Oversight, Many Questions and Few Answers…
- The EPO Bundestagate — Part 3: A “Minor Interpellation” in the German Bundestag
- You are here ☞ Parroting the GDPR-Compliance Myth
What could possibly have led the German government to parrot the EPO’s bogus and self-serving claims about GDPR-compliance?
Summary: The EPO had been in violation of GDPR (EU) for years, both under Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos; but the lies persisted
Back in October 2019, the FDP submitted another “minor interpellation” entitled “Data protection in relation to cooperation with the EPO” (“Datenschutz bei EPA-Zusammenarbeit” – Bundestag Printed Paper [PDF] no. 19/14490).
This interpellation contained a series of questions relating to the EPO’s data protection framework, in particular in the context of data exchanges with national authorities such as the German Patent & Trademark Office.
“This interpellation contained a series of questions relating to the EPO’s data protection framework, in particular in the context of data exchanges with national authorities such as the German Patent & Trademark Office.”Under point 7. of the interpellation, the FDP explicitly raised the issue of the compliance of the EPO’s data protection framework with the GDPR (which had entered into force over a year previously in May 2018).
The relevant passage of the interpellation reads as follows (in translation):
According to the knowledge of the Federal Government, is data processing at the EPO compliant with the provisions of the GDPR, or does it have any indications that would suggest a deviation from GDPR regulations?
The response of the Federal Government was published on 12 November 2019 (Bundestag Printed Paper [PDF] no. 19/15072).
The passage of the response which addresses point 7. of the FDP’s interpellation reads as follows (in translation):
The Federal Government has no indication that the EPO does not comply with the provisions of the European data protection standards. The Board of Auditors of the European Patent Organisation, which is appointed by the Administrative Council under Article 49(1) EPC and carries out its activities in accordance with Articles 49 and 50 EPC and its Rules of Procedure and professional auditing standards, stated the following in its audit report for the financial year 2018 (document CA/20/19) (warning: epo.org link). Although the EPO, as an international organization, is not directly subject to EU rules, the basic principles of the GDPR have nevertheless been implemented, as data of European citizens are processed at the EPO. In addition, it was noted that for the sake of transparency, the EPO has already established a data protection register in the past to record all processing of personal data. Upon request, the information can be made available (publicly) to the data subject, thus ensuring the right to information.
The government’s response is another classic piece of hand-waving and obfuscation about the atrociously deficient state of the EPO’s data protection framework.
It is however worth looking at this response more closely because it seems to have come straight from the EPO’s internal “echo chamber”. There is very little evidence of any independent thought or research on the part of those responsible for drafting the government’s statement of its position.
“It seems that the reader is supposed to accept these assertions on “blind faith”.”What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that the German government appears to rely solely on the EPO’s internal audit report for the financial year 2018 (CA/20/19) (warning: epo.org link) as the basis for its “considered opinion” that the EPO’s data protection framework is GDPR-compliant.
There’s just one small problem here.
Neither CA/20/19 nor any other internal “audit report” from the EPO contains a meaningful substantive assessment of the organisation’s data protection framework and its purported compliance with GDPR standards.
The available audit reports from the EPO (CA/20/18, CA/20/19, CA/20/20) (warning: all are epo.org links) only contain cursory self-serving assertions to the effect that the organisation’s data protection framework is “relatively closely aligned” with EU data processing regulations – whatever that is supposed to mean.
What is conspicuously absent is a credible independent audit of the EPO’s data protection framework that could be considered to substantiate the self-serving assertions emanating from the EPO’s senior management.
It seems that the reader is supposed to accept these assertions on “blind faith”.
“For this reason it’s a bit disconcerting to see the Federal Government of Germany still parroting the EPO’s manifestly bogus and self-serving assertions about GDPR-compliance in such a naïve and uncritical manner in November 2019.”However, this becomes difficult when it is recalled that back in 2016 the EPO staff union (SUEPO) commissioned a report about various aspects of EPO governance from external legal experts.
This report dated 31 May 2016 – which is publicly available – found that the EPO’s data protection framework was not compliant with EU data protection standards and that it was in urgent need of a radical overhaul.
Nothing of substance has changed since May 2016.
For this reason it’s a bit disconcerting to see the Federal Government of Germany still parroting the EPO’s manifestly bogus and self-serving assertions about GDPR-compliance in such a naïve and uncritical manner in November 2019.
In the next part we will consider how this curious state of affairs came about. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FSF, GPL, Videos at 7:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Speeches such as this one are the real reason IBM, Microsoft, Google and so on still try very, very hard to ‘cancel’ the person and his message
Transcript added below.
[00:00]
I have been fighting for freedom for a long time.
22 years now, I announced the beginning of the free software movement, a social movement for freedom for computer users.
Specifically, the freedom to cooperate and the freedom to control your own computer, the freedom for users to work together in a community controlling the software that they use
This was
[00:30]
impossible in 1983 because computers don’t do anything without an operating system it’s just a piece of metal and silicon that’s totally useless.
But all the operating systems 22 years ago were proprietary software, software that keeps users divided and helpless. So, I was determined not to have to live that way when using computers I don’t want to be helpless and I don’t want to be forbidden to share with you.
[01:00]
So I decided I would do something about it. What could I do? I had no political party behind me. I couldn’t expect to convince governments or corporations to change any of their policies, but I did know how to write software. So I said I’m going to develop another operating system with the help of whoever will join in and together we will make it free software. We will respect your freedom and you will be able
[01:30]
then to use computers in freedom with this operating system. What does this freedom mean? There are four essential freedoms that make the definition of free software. And, they are: freedom 0, the freedom to run the program however you wish. Freedom 1, the freedom to help yourself. That’s the freedom to study the source code and change it to do what you wish. Then there’s
[02:00]
freedom 2, the freedom to help your neighbor. That’s the freedom to copy the program and distribute the copies to others when you wish. And freedom 3 is the freedom to help your community. That’s the freedom to publish or distribute a modified version when you wish. With all four freedoms, the program is free software. But these freedoms should not be strange to you. At least not if you cook. Because people who cook enjoy the same
[02:30]
four freedoms in using recipes. The freedom to cook the recipe when you want. That’s freedom 0. The freedom to study the ingredients and how it’s done and then change it. That’s freedom 1. Cooks frequently change recipes. And then the freedom to copy it and hand copies to your friends. That’s freedom 2. And then there’s freedom 3 [which] is less frequently exercised because it’s more work but if you cook your version of the recipe for a dinner for your friends and a
[03:00]
friend says, “that was great, could I have the recipe?”, you can write down your version of the recipe and make a copy for your friend. The same four freedoms, and this is no coincidence, because programs like recipes are works that you use for practical work. You’re using them to do something. And when you use a work to do something, if you’re not in control of it, you’re not in control of your life and if you can’t share
[03:30]
with other people you’re forbidden to be part of a community. Imagine how angry everyone who cooks would be if some day the government says, “from now on if you share or change a recipe we’re going to call you a pirate. We’re going to compare you with people who attack ships. And we’re going to put you in prison for years, because that’s forbidden cooperation.” Imagine the anger that there would be. That anger is at the basis of the Free
[04:00]
Software Movement too. We want to have freedom in using our computers. So we developed the GNU operating system throughout the 1980s and in 1992 the last missing piece was put in place. That last missing piece is a kernel called Linux. So Linux is not an operating system it is one essential component of the system which is the GNU system plus Linux the GNU / Linux system. And that system now
[04:30]
is used on tens of millions of computers. Jon Hall estimated a 100 million a year or two ago. No one really knows because you see we are all free. Nobody can keep track of what we’re doing that’s part of freedom that nobody knows what’s going on because you don’t have to tell anybody. So today it’s possible to use a computer in freedom. But that doesn’t mean freedom is safe forever. Freedom is
[05:00]
never safe forever. There’s always a danger that you’ll get somebody like George Bush who wants to take it away. Even in the countries like the US which says freedom is what we’re all about that can be turned into mere lip service. Freedoms can be crushed. So for people to have freedom we have to be prepared to defend freedom. And in order to defend our freedom we have to recognize what it means.
[05:30]
That’s the first step. So that’s why I’m here today talking to you about Free Software and the freedoms that it represents freedoms for you. Because that way you will know what your freedom means. And then maybe next year or next decade you will help use defend these freedoms and they may continue. Many people focus on encouraging more users to switch to Free Software. Well, that’s a useful thing to do,
[06:00]
but that alone is not going to bring us to freedoms that endure. If we gave everybody in the world Free Software today but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms then five years from now would they still have Free Software? Probably not, because if they don’t recognize their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall, they’ll let their freedoms slip through their fingers because they won’t bother to close their hands but
[06:30]
they don’t know why. So along with developing Free Software, along with distributing, teaching people to use it, encouraging people to try and switch to it, we have to be constantly teaching these same people why it matters. That it’s not just about how to get powerful convenient software and how to get it as cheap as possible, it’s about how you can live in freedom and be a good neighbor.
[07:00]
So how does this relate to the issue of development? Is Free Software better for development? Well that’s an understatement. Free Software is the only software whose use constitutes development. Because the use of a non-free program is not development, it is electronic colonization. What does it mean if your society increases the use of
[07:30]
non-Free software? Well that software which nobody in your city unless you happen to live in just the right place in the world nobody in you city is in a position to understand it maintain it adapt it extend it or do anything with it. It’s just like the old colonial system where the colonial power had all the industry, they made all the technology and the people in the
[08:00]
colony, they just had to buy it and weren’t supposed to understand anything or make anything they hardly even knew how to fix it. Imagine if you were buying cars and they came from the US and any time they broke you had to ship them back to the US because it’s a secret how they work inside and nobody in your country is allowed to learn how to fix them. That’s what proprietary software is like so this is not sustainable
[08:30]
development. It’s not appropriate technology, this is the technology of dependence. And dependence is exactly what that system is all about. It’s keeping people helpless. Another feature of the old, colonial system was divide and rule. Set people against each other don’t allow them to cooperate because that makes it easier to keep all of them in subjection. Now dividing
[09:00]
people and subjugating them is not just a minor side aspect of proprietary software it is what makes it proprietary software. The license says you are forbidden to share it with anyone, and you can’t get the source code so you don’t know what’s inside it so you can’t control it. Divided and subjugated. That’s the nature of proprietary software. Of course the system comes out looking like the colonial system. Another feature you might remember from the colonial system was that the colonial power would recruit a local elite, a few local people, like maybe the nobles or whoever and pit one tribe against another or they would create tribes if there weren’t tribes so they can massacre each other decades later. So the local elite, they would get certain privileges and in return they would help keep everybody else
[10:00]
down. Well you can see that today, some proprietary software companies actively recruit local elites. They set up a software development center in your country and the people who work there who are part of the local elite or they do some favors for local politicians secretly or for the government openly but it doesn’t make any difference which one either way they are buying influence in the government, converting that government
[10:30]
from a sovereign state into their local overseer of their empire whose job is to make sure everybody else becomes dependent on the same non-Free software. They say to schools, “we will help you by giving you these gratis copies of our non-Free software, so that you can turn your students into addicts of our software”. Why do I use the term addicts because
[11:00]
they develop a dependency on this software and then after they graduate you can be sure they are not going to be offered these gratis copies any more. Because it’s only the first dose that’s gratis. Once you’re addicted then you’re supposed to pay and also of course these companies whose graduates work for , those companies are not going to be offered gratis copies. So what essentially these developers, these software companies are doing is they are recruiting the schools
[11:30]
into agents to lead people into permanent, life-long dependency. These are things that the Open Source movement usually doesn’t talk about, that’s why I don’t support Open Source. Open Source is a way of promoting software that usually is Free but without mentioning these ideals. These issues of freedom. They’re left in the background. Open Source people usually talk only
[12:00]
about practical value, how do you get powerful convenient software and how much will it cost. Well Free Software probably allows you to save money too if you’re not being forced to pay for permission to use it you can probably save money. But I think that’s a secondary issue. Even in poor countries, freedom is important. We should never start saying well they’re so poor freedom doesn’t matter all they need is bread and circuses. Which they
[12:30]
had here once upon a time. And then they shouldn’t even think about being free. I think freedom is important in every country and every society whether it is rich or poor. Nonetheless, people who support Open Source often contribute to extending the Free Software community. Many of them develop Free Software. Those are useful contributions. I am not saying what they do is bad. I am saying that by itself it is not enough,
[13:00]
because it’s weak. You see, when you say the goal is to have powerful, reliable, convenient software and get it cheaply then it becomes possible for the representatives of proprietary software to say, “well we claim that we’ll deliver you more powerful, reliable software. We claimed that our total cost of ownership will be cheaper.” And I think they’re usually bullshit. When Microsoft says this it’s based on distorted facts.
[13:30]
But it’s weak. But when we say the goal is to live in freedom and to be allowed to cooperated with other people in a community, they can’t say they’re going to offer us more of that cheaper. Because they don’t offer that at all. They’re not even competing with us. They’re out of the running. Once you decide you want to live in freedom, they are out of the running. So, we are trying to help you reach
[14:00]
freedom in a community. They are trying to subjugate you, but they’ll say they’ll get you there faster. And maybe they would. …
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: The German government seems unwilling and uninterested in tackling EPO abuses; judging by the responses, which are discussed above, it feels like the EPO speaks ‘on behalf’ of the government
THE EPO has barely changed for half a decade. Corruption carries on as usual, but the media (which in general is dying) does not write about it as much as it used to. So it may seem to a lot of people like António Campinos is a big improvement over Benoît Battistelli.
“The German authorities are hopelessly blind to corruption and one might therefore say that German authorities are complicit.”The German authorities have been misled into this false notion that things are OK in EPOnia and everything is generally improving. It morever seems like the German government is nowadays just relaying talking points from EPO management. There’s not even a sense of oversight, let alone someone in charge of such oversight.
The video above goes through some translations of exchanges, some from 2015 and some from last year. The German authorities are hopelessly blind to corruption and one might therefore say that German authorities are complicit. There’s a financial incentive to play along. This is the subject of an ongoing series, with the latest part published hours ago (it’s the one about the texts above). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Entirely clueless management is a recipe for disaster
Summary: The Staff Representation at Europe’s second-largest institution cautions that the management, by its very own admission, is thoroughly dysfunctional and incapable of running the institution
The Central Staff Committee of the EPO published an interesting report at the end of last month. A reader sent us a copy, highlighting the fact that António Campinos with his maladministration continues the tradition of Benoît Battistelli, whose faulty system cost a fortune and was then canned (223 million Euros down the drain).
“The EPO is going down the drain, but some firms profit from that demise, e.g. Microsoft.”“In this publication,” says the Central Staff Committee , “we explain how the reorganisation of BIT, more than 100 ambitious projects and the removal of experienced staff mean that the ‘spaghetti structure’ is on the verge of collapse, despite massive budgets for the IT Roadmap.”
Putting aside illegal granting of European software patents, watch how they mismanage software in-house. Didn’t “HEY HI” (AI) magically fix everything?
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel
Munich,30.03.2021
sc21043cp
BIT and the mystery of the spaghetti structure
Leading by example rather than pointing the finger at others
It is both disturbing and frustrating to read the note in which VP1 and VP4 complain about the tremendous responsibility they had to assume with regards to the “complexity of our IT systems with its ‘spaghetti structure‘ [sic]”. It took them more than two years to realise this, whilst this complexity is hardly a surprise to EPO staff who deal with operating processes.
Towards the end of their note, in total contrast to the statement above, VP1 and VP4 suggest that they take no responsibility at all – and you are directly exposed to the unmitigated consequences of their failed management.
The role of BIT and previous investments
BIT is supposed to be a support service, especially for thousands of examiners at the EPO and in national offices and to make sure that the EPO can fulfil its mission as the focal point for data in the patent world.
How is it possible that the EPO finds itself in a situation today in which BIT senior management claim that they “will do [their] utmost to restore [the systems] as fast as possible” when what we see is that the same systems break down? Rather than being on top of things and making sure that this cannot happen?
Where did all the money go that was put into the IT Roadmap? At the end of the previous President’s term, we were getting green-flag messages: the new IT tools were 90% ready, just a lick of paint before it all could be launched.
Furthermore, according to the Audit on Automation by BCG, published at the beginning of 2019 by the current President and VP4, none of the now apparent problems have been detected to this extent.
And now we are told that the ‘spaghetti structure’ is on the verge of collapse?
Who is doing what in BIT
Numerous changes took place within the EPO’s IT landscape in the last two years. In parallel with the launch of BIT, yet another reorganisation took place in May 2019. As a result, almost all key positions in BIT senior management were filled by newcomers, often without substantial experience in the patent world and unfamiliar with the complexity of its processes and requirements.
At the same time, a systematic crowding out of experienced managers and staff took place1. No less than eighteen directors were removed from their management positions and declared
directors “ad personam”. It is difficult to imagine that a proper knowledge transfer or handover was ensured. Colleagues inside and outside of BIT were struggling to follow the rhythm of reassignments and to keep up to date with the mapping of areas of responsibilities.
Early warnings in vain
In June 2020, Staff Representation stated in their intervention2 during the Administrative Council that “[t]he EPO’s application landscape is immensely complex, and misconceptions about the complexity caused by overly ambitious projects can easily lead to software disasters that cause even greater stress.”
These concerns were not taken seriously enough by EPO senior management. Instead, they were confident enough to launch more than 100 ambitious projects3, almost all heavily dependent on BIT resources. Who hasn’t seen some management presentations which repeatedly used buzzwords and catchphrases like “Digital Transformation”, “Artificial Intelligence” and “Upskilling”, to name a few.
Conclusion – don’t point at others
In the end, it boils down to this: We are now seeing the consequences of a one-sided recruitment policy, oversimplification and over-ambitions which were neither backed with sufficient experience nor awareness of the complexity of the patent world. Nor was senior management willing to listen to those who had experience and made their voice heard.
Being a manager is more than just a formal role. It is about accountability and responsibility, as well as acting in a sustainable way. And not leaving a pile of shambles while pointing the finger at others.
This is what the Organisation, the staff and the users have a right to expect.
_____
1 New BIT organisation and staff changes, 02.05.2019
2 Minutes of the 163rd meeting of the Administrative Council, CA/PV 163, paragraph 50
3 Putting the SP into action, 10.03.2021
This was posted ahead of the first of April, but clearly this was no joke. The EPO is going down the drain, but some firms profit from that demise, e.g. Microsoft. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA