It shows a young white woman, evoking Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, who, faced with three aggressive attackers with Chinese, Indian and Brazilian features, is multiplied in order to encircle and pacify them. She and her eleven clones are then transformed to become the stars of the European Union flag. The slogan “The more we are, the stronger we are”, wraps up the video.

The clip failed to reckon on the reality that you cannot always pick and choose your web audience. In the hours after it went online, the clip came in for harsh criticism from web surfers and in the press. Accused of racism and sexism, it was withdrawn by the Directorate General for Enlargement, who acknowledged his mistake and has since apologised.

An error admitted is an error half-redressed, they say. But in both form and substance, this case is sobering in more ways than one.

As for the form, it illustrates the difficulty the EU has in talking to Europeans. Addressing half a billion people who do not speak the same languages, literally and figuratively, and who often have mixed opinions of EU institutions, is a daunting task. According to the latest Eurobarometer, only 31 percent of Europeans have a positive image of the EU, while 26 percent see it negatively.

As for the substance, as pointed out by Annika Ström Melin in the Dagens Nyheter, the clip reinforces the tendency of European leaders, as the economic crisis deepens, to attribute the cause to external enemies. “Blaming others for one’s problems is a conventional – and dangerous – way to forge a community,” she writes. “True, Europe is exposed to global competition, especially from China. But the Union would have much more to gain by remaining united, taking advantage of the single market and speaking with one voice.”

Yet that is precisely what it doesn’t do. The lack of education, even hostility, shown by the governments towards the accession of new states to the EU, and the divisions over the crisis they have exposed, suggest they ought to be the ones getting messages encouraging more unity and openness.

The European Parliament, which is not convinced that the text pays sufficient heed to the rights of citizens, has decided that it should be examined by European judges. MEPs are in agreement with the basic tenets of the trade agreement [...] but are wary of the consequences of its application.

El País notes that the debate which will precede a vote in parliament on 12 March will focus on -

… the bid to make Internet service providers responsible for we content, which opponents of the deal argue would open the door to digital censorship.

At the same time, The Guardian reports that European Commissioner for Justice Viviane Reding has fired a warning shot at Google “sneaking citizens’ privacy away”. Criticism has been increasingly vocal since the launch of Google’s new policy on 1st March. The Guardian writes that the French data protection agency, the Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés, has already addressed a letter to the search engine giant to warn that its new rules on privacy are no longer in compliance with the requirements of the [1995] European directive on data protection -

While they simplify the joining process for new users, the changes also mean that Google can pool data about signed-in users' web or video searches, map directions, web browsing, which ads have been clicked, and other information in order to target adverts and services at people using the web.

On 16 February the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found  that social networks cannot be forced to implement a general filter to prevent users from downloading pirated content. The court ruled in favour of the Belgian social network Netlog in its dispute with Sabam, the Belgian company that defends the interests of authors and composers. The judges in Luxembourg have thus confirmed their decision of last November, when they found that the filtering requirement could not be imposed on internet access providers. In both cases, the ECJ ruled that the filtering would violate EU rules on freedom of enterprise and personal data protection.

In late February the European Parliament should begin to study the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which was signed by the EU and a dozen other countries in late January, but which must be ratified by the bloc and by the MEPs. However, this text, initialled with some misgivings by several delegations, is the subject of an unprecedented challenge in several countries because of concerns about the extensive powers it would give governments for restricting access to the Internet in the name of the fight against piracy.

For some weeks now protests against ACTA have been carrying the day in Europe, and especially in former communist countries where sensitivity to anything touching on civil liberties is particularly acute. On February 11, once again, hundreds of thousands took to the streets, from Paris to Warsaw, from Berlin to Sofia.

Their protest was successful. Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania have now suspended the ratification of ACTA. As for the European Parliament, which passed a resolution supporting the agreement in 2010, it now seems to be leaning towards rejecting it. The Commission, which supports ACTA, will find it hard to argue that the legislation is there to protect the intellectual property of European companies. Feeling the change in the way the wind is blowing, the entertainment and publishing lobbies are imploring MEPs to approve the agreement.

The concept of the web as a space of freedom and exchange is emerging as an inviolable right in Europe. The fact remains that the issue of copyright protection – as a legitimate right – cannot remain indefinitely in the twilight zone at the European level, with states enacting separate legislation.  If authors are to freely choose what type of licence to grant to their works, whether to emphasise distribution or potential earnings, internet users must have access to appropriate forms of payment. Several systems already exist for global licensing or for payment for single downloads. As highlighted recently by Frédéric Filloux, general manager of Monday Note, formulas that link a fair price to ease of purchase and a vast and up-to-date selection can indeed compete with piracy. Piracy itself will not fade away any time soon, but it may cease to be perceived as a mortal threat to creativity.

A measure that aims to forever change our understanding of personal data protection and which attempts, once and for all, to regulate the "right to be forgotten" in the web era. In other words: do we have the right to 'disappear' from the Web those things that concern us; that we have posted, perhaps long ago, but also those things posted by others that also embarrass us?

The answer is in two sets of regulations presented to the European Parliament. The first, a directive, concerns the use of personal data by the police and judicial authorities. The second is a regulation setting the procedures according to which private citizens will be able to manage the data concerning them in their relations with government offices, businesses and social networks. Sanctions, that can rise up to 1% of turnover, are possible in case of violations.

Will this be sufficient to ensure the "right to disappear"? Probably not, Luna writes on his blog:

The right to disappear from the Web doesn't exist, neither does the right to disappear from the world. In real life [...], you can try to disappear but there will always be documents that mention you, as well as other peoples' memories. These things cannot be erased with a click or with a European law nor even an intergalactic one. The right to erase oneself from Facebook [...], to browse without leaving a trace, [...], to be warned that our data is being saved and used for commercial purposes already exists and a detailed European law is not revolutionary, but simply reinforces a principle, a fundamental human right. [...] The right, on the other hand, to eliminate every article or blog entry which mentions you, as some are claiming, doesn't exist – that is called History.

On Saturday January 21, the Anonymous group carried out a successful denial-of-access attack on several major state websites and on Monday January 23 a movement calling itself the “Polish Underground” hacked the Prime Minister’s website to post a film of a video blogger known as “Baśka”, dressed up to resemble General Jaruzelski declaring martial law.

The anti-ACTA protesters accuse the government of having failed to consult the public on the agreement and are demanding an open debate on copyright laws that has already begun in the press. “In order to protect intellectual property, ACTA uses a nuclear bomb, the effects of the explosion of which are unpredictable”, warns Gazeta Wyborcza, suggesting the treaty should be reviewed by the European Court of Justice.

The proposed directive, which is centred on the deletion of data, also includes provisions for web users’ rights to "free speech" and "access" to data used by Internet companies, and procedures for "filing complaints" or "demanding the modification or deletion" of data. However, as Público notes, "legal and other experts have indicated that the same instrument that serves to protect privacy could be used to suppress freedom of speech on the net." Fines for companies that fail to respect the new norms could amount to as much as 5% turnover, points out Público.

Along with a wide range of internet publishing companies, including a number of press groups, the newspaper’s website is participating in the launch of the initiative, which aims to show the Dutch government that “publishers and advertisers take web users’ privacy very seriously and that self-regulation could be an alternative to the cookie law currently awaiting approval from the Dutch senate. The controversial law, which will be the strictest in Europe, has caused concern among Internet companies who claim that it will reduce “the comfort of web users” and prompt major companies like Google and Yahoo “to withdraw from the Dutch market.” The Amsterdam daily explains that if the law is passed, “web users will have dozens of pop-ups to unclick” because “certain browsers like Firefox and Internet Explorer have yet to be adapted to the new regulations.”

But the question of net neutrality has recently come up once again in the light of certain applications, such as video on demand (VOD), that reduce bandwidth speed (and consequently the volume of information circulating). To cope with that problem, a number of Internet service providers (ISPs), backed by the entertainment industry (which supplies the content), want to introduce several different connection speeds – and bill services according to bandwidth.

Although some limitations on absolute net neutrality are generally accepted – for reasons of security or congestion control, for example – on a temporary, targeted and transparent basis, Internet stakeholders agree on the primacy of the principle. That consensus was recently reaffirmed by the public consultation and the summit on the open internet and net neutrality held by the European Commission on 11 November in Brussels. In her address, “Digital Agenda” commissioner Neelie Kroes made the case for a "healthy and transparent competitive environment” and adherence to the principle of free access to the Internet.

But she also brought up the possibility of allowing “network operators and services and content providers to explore innovative business models, leading to a more efficient use of the networks and creating new business opportunities at different levels of the Internet value chain”. In a word, she seemed more interested in preserving competition than in safeguarding net neutrality – which just happens to be one of the principles that make the Internet the most powerful democratic tool ever invented. So it would be regrettable if Brussels were to put that precious tool on the line.

Complaints against Google, which claims 90% of the European search engine market, have already been filed with antitrust authorities in Germany and Italy. France is also preparing to open an investigation, Le Figaro reports. "The irony is that the Internet giant is now the target of a Commission inquiry, while Microsoft has buried the hatchet with Brussels," Le Figaro comments. "It would be better for Google if the comparison stopped there. Microsoft was forced to pay €1.68 billion in fines after ten years of legal wrangling over of antitrust accusations."

The Belgian paper notes that this is tantamount to a recognition by the EU "of the role of the Internet in the exercise of fundamental rights such as the right to information and freedom of expression," which prevailed in spite of "extensive lobbying from the film and music industries." Until now, copyright holders who believed that their rights were infringed by internet users could petition ISPs to suspend their access. De Standaard reports that this will be no longer allowed: "only very serious cases involving pedophile pornography or terrorist propaganda will be considered as exceptions to the new rule."

Still, the legislation has not proven entirely in vain, according to IFPI’s chief executive: “Though the impact of the law has not been overwhelming, it has clearly had a dissuasive effect,” he told Libération. The Swedes are downloading less these days and some are opting for legal file-sharing sites. 100,000 users, however, have turned to IPREDator, a service offered by Pirate Bay for guaranteed anonymity on the web.