In the Recommendations of the Senior Experts' Group on systemic Rule of Law issues relating to the communications interception (commonly known as the Priebe report), the first issue discussed is the surveillance of communications.

The report found that:

"Acting on the basis of Articles 175 and 176 of the Law on Electronic Communication, each of the three national telecommunications providers equips the UBK with the necessary technical apparatus, enabling it to mirror directly their entire operational centres. As a consequence, from a practical point of view, the UBK can intercept communications directly, autonomously and unimpeded, regardless of whether a court order has or has not been issued in accordance with the Law on Interception of Communications.". (Emphasis mine.)

Then it recommended that:

"The UBK should have no direct access to the technical equipment allowing mirroring of the communication signal. The proprietary switches should be moved to the premises of the telecommunication providers. The providers should activate and divert signals to the competent law enforcement agencies (Police, Customs Administration and Financial Police) or the security agencies (the Security and Counterintelligence Service (UBK), the Intelligence Agency, and the Ministry of Defence's military security and intelligence service) only upon receipt of the relevant court order, and only for the purposes of lawful interceptions. Under no circumstances should the UBK have the practical capability to capture communications directly." (Emphasis mine.)

Nevertheless, amendments to the Law on electronic communications are not included* in proposed Government program by Zoran Zaev published on 10.03.2017. (*The document is unsearchable, so this claim is based on reading the parts that refer to human rights.)

This outcome in the proposed Government program is in contradiction to the statements made by Mr. Zaev that the "Priebe" reforms will be a priority for the new administration. For example:

• 02.02.2017: Meeting between Zaev and [OSCE's ambassador]: Priebe reforms are our priority (link in Macedonian);
• 27.12.2016: Meeting between Zaev and [Sweden's ambassador] Staffansson: The new government must work on Priebe reforms (link in Macedonian);
• 26.12.2016: Meeting between Zaev and [Spain's ambassador] Carranza: Reforms in line with Priebe and European Commission reports in order to open the democratic process (link in Macedonian);
• 09.12.2016: Zaev promises radical implementation of Priebe's recommendations(link in Macedonian).

The proposed program promises to open a debate for a broader support to amend the Law on interception of communications. Although amending this law is needed and in line with "Priebe", amending it, according to established practice, requires 2/3 majority vote in Parliament. Given the current distribution of parties and MPs a 2/3 vote seems impossible, so it looks reasonable for the Zaev administration to seek broader support, without a straighforward promise that the Law on interception of communications will be amended.

However, to amend the Law on electronic communications such majority is not needed. For example the amendments from June 2010 were passed with 65 MPs voding of which 55 voted yes, 1 abstained, and 9 voted against. The Macedonian parliament has 120 MPs. So, unless I'm terribly misreading the poorly published document, the amendments to end UBK's capability to capture communications directly are not part of the proposed government program.

More on the topic (though not all of it is in English):
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/859
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/854
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/848
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/846
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/844
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/841
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/839
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/836
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/830

I am following the story about the warrant-less wiretapping in Macedonia carried out by the secret police since it was revealed by the opposition leader in February 2015. In the early days of this political, social, and moral crisis, I noted that the opposition party SDSM, specifically its president Zoran Zaev, frist implicated the telecommunications operators in Macedonia as collaborators in the warrant-less wiretapping, only to backtrack on that statement few weeks later.

In his early statements (12.02.2015) Zoran Zaev claimed that the wiretapping could not have happened without the knowledge of the operators, but just two weeks later (27.02.2015) Zaev said that the operators have no responsibility whatsoever at a press-conference for bombshell #5. -- from The silence of the telecom operators, June 4 2015.

The telecommunications operators also maintained that they worked and still work within the law.

All of these claims were proved wrong today, November 18 2016, when at the Special prosecutor press conference (link in Macedonian) it was revealed that:

„Тhe unlawful wiretapping of several thousands people that lived in the Republic of Macedonia in the period from 2008 to 2015 violated the privacy of their personal and family life, and the secrecy of communications"

The equipment that is installed in the operators' networks and is used for surveillance of communication in a way in which the secret police has 'direct, autonomous, and uninterrupted' access is allowed by law only in a part of the period from 2008 to 2015. This period includes 1. the months from June 2010 when the new law for electronic communications came into power, until December 2010 when the Constitutional Court canceled the articles regarding the equipment and access, and 2. the period since February 2014 when the new law for electronic communications came into power, that has the same canceled provisions (on which, this time, the Constitutional Court is silent for more than a year).

In fact, in the eight-year period from 2008 to 2015, direct, autonomous, and uninterrupted access was allowed by law in only 2.5 years. This means that the operators allowed conventional access (i.e. in a way that the secret police does not access their network autonomously at their will) knowing that there is no court order for such an access to peoples' communications, or that the equipment for direct, autonomous, and uninterrupted access was working during the entire period, even when there was no law allowing that. In the latter case it would mean that such access was made available to the secret police 2 years before the law allowing it was even discussed in Parliament.

Today's SPO press conference casts a serious doubt on the claims that operators worked according to prescribed laws. The law requires that telecommunications operators must cooperate with the SPO. Morality requires that their executives at least tender their resignations.

More on the topic (though not all of it is in English):
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/854
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/848
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/846
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/844
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/841
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/839
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/836
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/830

I'm posting the EC report on Copyright and Industrial property rights in Macedonia every year for the past 6 years. Here is the latest. For the full text visit: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy-and-progress-report/

4.7. Chapter 7: Intellectual property law

The EU has harmonised rules for the legal protection of copyright and related rights. This covers, for instance, computer programs, broadcasting and trademarks, designs, biotechnological inventions and pharmaceuticals.

The country is moderately prepared in this area. Some progress was made on customs enforcement. The commitment and capacities of the institutions responsible for enforcing and protecting intellectual property rights and the acquis vary, but remain insufficient. A satisfactory track record on investigation, prosecution and judicial handling of piracy and counterfeiting is lacking. Public awareness campaigns are not yet well developed. In the coming year, the country should in particular:
→ step up efforts to investigate and prosecute infringements of intellectual property.

On copyright and neighbouring rights, the Ministry of Culture adopted a rulebook on record-keeping of authors’ rights and holders of related rights. The Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information Society and Administration jointly established a system for electronic recording of broadcast music works. The government has not yet approved the tariff schemes of collective rights management societies and the capacity of the Ministry of Culture to deal with copyright and neighbouring rights is still insufficient.

On industrial property rights, the State Office for Industrial Property cooperated with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and with the European Patent Office on several projects, but the trademark databases of the first two should be better integrated. The State Office does not have enough staff to provide good quality services or training to the public and the business community, nor to cooperate internationally.

Some progress was made on enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Coordination Body for Intellectual Property has had a positive impact but the level of commitment differs between law enforcement institutions and sharing responsibility between 11 different law enforcement bodies hinders more efficient investigation and legal actions. The State Market Inspectorate lacks basic equipment, IT and training to ensure effective enforcement. The Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services issued 10 orders to broadcasters to prevent further violations of copyright and neighbouring rights. Some 30 misdemeanour cases were lodged with the courts, but the absence of a credible enforcement record hinders information on the follow-up action taken. The three public laboratories are still not legally authorised to detect and analyse counterfeit medicines, so their evidence is not accepted in court. Public awareness of the threats posed by counterfeit goods to health and safety remains limited.

Since February 2015 the opposition led by Zoran Zaev publishes the so called bombshells which reveal "the truth about Macedonia". They claim that the recordings contain alleged scandals, corruption, and abuses made by the leading people in the Government and the ruling political parties. They also claim that these recordings are not just some or few recordings that are made by accident, but that they are a small part of the millions of files of surveillance of communications of over 20000 citizens in Macedonia. While the main narrative stays the same, a part of the story changed over time: the part about the role of the telecom operators in this affair. In his early statements (12.02.2015) Zoran Zaev claimed that the wiretapping could not have happened without the knowledge of the operators, but just two weeks later (27.02.2015) Zaev said that the operators have no responsibility whatsoever at a press-conference for bombshell #5.

Since these statements raised suspicion about what exactly happened regarding the alleged mass surveillance of 20000 people, in February I started researching the laws. The analysis of that time led me to the following revelations:

1. Article 115 paragraph 2 of the Law for electronic communications allowed for usage of mass surveillance technology in June 2010;
2. This legal arrangement was made null and void (luckily) just 6 months later when the Constitutional court made its decision in December 2010;
3. The same legal provisions were reintroduced to the law in February 2014 when the new Law for electronic communications entered into force.

According to many sources (the opposition, journalists, political analysts) large part of the recordings were made between 2011-2014. Therefore the logical question, when the claim that 20000 people were under surveillance is undisputed,what happened with the (shortly legal) technology from 2010 in the period from 2010 to 2014?

Logically, at least for me, was to ask this question to the operators (T-Mobile, Makedonski Telekom, VIP and One) and to the regulator (AEK) in the following form:

1. Which actions did the operator take to comply with the decision of the Constitutional court of Republic of Macedonia U. No. 139/2010-0-1 from 15.12.2010?

2. Which actions did the Agency for electronic communications take in order to determine whether the telecom operators complied with the decision of the Constitutional court of Republic of Macedonia U. No. 139/2010-0-1 from 15.12.2010?

Furthermore, since the number of cases for which the courts have allowed special investigative measures, which include surveillance of communications, is a publicly available information, it was logical to ask the operators how many requests have they received individually, especially regarding the retained data of their users. This is a completely statistical information: if we know that in 2013 there were 226 approved requests for surveillance of communication, then the information how many requests were received by each operator will tell us only what was the involvement of each operator.

All of these FOI requests were denied, mostly by claiming that any answer will be a breach of "classified information". Only AEK did not respond at all. For all of the FOI requests I submitted a complaint to the Commission for protection of the right to free access of information of public interest, and now I wait for their response. I hope the Commission will find that to answer the question about complying to a court order and anonymous statistics cannot be hidden from the public.

Until we have their answer, visit this galery for the answers from the operators (in Macedonian).

Published on OKNO 5.6.2015: http://okno.mk/node/47618

The Social Democrats' goal for releasing the political 'bombshells' is not just to disclose what the ruling VMRO has done over the years, but also that they would not do the same thing when / if they are in their place. That was one of the key points of Radmila Sekerinska's speech at the meeting in Universal Hall on 10th March 2015. To quote:

We do not seek support to change one Sasho or Nikola with another of the same type. We seek support to take responsibility and to change things.

In this context the issue of authentic interpretation of the law for amnesty is a strange political move. SDSM is accusing Nikola Gruevski for "false patriotism". Why? Is that a felony? More important, VMRO supporters almost certainly will not hold this against Gruevski, because they are well trained to know that without the interpretation, SDSM would have regained power. The last is discussed in an analysis of clumsy and unprincipled PR activities of both parties in 2011. For whose benefit is the allegation of "false patriotism"? Does SDSM promise a new legal resolution for these cases, as they do for media freedom and law on communications? Have they reached an agreement about this with theirs expected coalition partner DUI?

Furthermore, it is well known that the authentic interpretation is a political move and it is probable to expect that the same thing would have be done by any Macedonian government, including one that would include SDSM. There is a diplomatic cable published on Wikileaks where we can read that SDSM calculated with the cases before the elections in 2006. Quote:

Prime Minister Buckovski told the EU Special Representative on February 10 that the government’s decision to ask for the cases “by the end of this year” was deliberately ambiguous. Ethnic Macedonians would understand that the cases finally were coming back for possible prosecution, answering past criticism that only ethnic Macedonians — such as former Interior Minister Boskovski, currently facing a war crimes trial in The Hague — had been called to account for their participation in the 2001 conflict. DUI would receive some satisfaction from the private knowledge that the first of the cases would probably not be returned until late 2006, and that the primary defendant in that case likely would be former NLA commander Daut Rexhepi (also known as Commander Leka), who is currently associated with rival ethnic Albanian party DPA.

To refresh everybody's memory, the cases were send to ICTY by the broad coalition government just ten days before the elections in 2002, and with that any work on the cases was delayed for at least four years. There is another cable on Wikileaks where we can read that Gruevski was not ambivalent towards the fact that he inherited this issue. Quote:

Gruevski replied that he understood the point, but he is in a delicate position politically. He would have no problem if the Chief Prosecutor or the courts ruled that the amnesty law indeed applies and the cases are dropped, but he believes he cannot take a stand on the issue other than to let the cases proceed. He is concerned that the main ethnic-Albanian parties, DPA and DUI, may soon introduce a measure asking parliament to take a stand on the issue. While he understood that his coalition deal with DUI could be on the line, he told us that he cannot go along with criticizing the prosecutions and then face the ethnic-Macedonian community, especially because the ICTY recently convicted ethnic-Macedonian former MoI official Johan Tarculovski of war crimes.

At the end, the 'bombshel' completely favors DUI's leader Ali Ahmeti. If he is powerful enough to negotiate something like this (and he obviously was), then the Albanians will love him even more. This goes against the promises that the 'bombshells' will not spare anyone's crime, including the Albanian parties. Therefore there is not any logical explanation why SDSM is releasing these recordings...? What is the goal? Strengthening DUI? Inter-ethnic turbulence?

In short, SDSM does not have a different principled or legal standing regarding the 'war crimes' cases, the release of the recordings will not trouble VMRO supporters since they already know that the amnesty is the lesser evil, and finally, it will not help the reconciliation of both communities.

Then there are the media. Prizma writes:

The four cases were processed in ICTY, but in 2008 were returned to Macedonian courts.

What does „processed“ mean? The US cable is more precise:

ICTY agreed to review the cases in 2002, but the tribunal declined to prosecute — or even investigate — and returned the files to Macedonia.

The journalists write that the conversation published by SDSM are 'alleged conversations between government ministers', but they do not write that the issue is 'alleged war crimes'. Unfortunately, those events are 'alleged' in the legal sense until a court decides otherwise. And since ICTY did not even undertake an investigation about these cases, who from the Macedonian political elite is going to be responsible for the delay? What if during the years when these cases were sitting in a bottom drawer in the Hague, in Macedonia someone was destroying related evidence?

But let's go back to the laws. The authentic interpretation most probably is irrelevant. If it is against international law (UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and other conventions ratified by Macedonia), and ratified conventions when ratified have priority over domestic law, then a future chief prosecutor may say that the authentic interpretation is void and reopen the cases. This kind of epilogue is possible. A new parliament can even vote on a different legal obligations. Do we have a promise that this will happen?

Moreover, the Macedonian justice system had an opportunity to work on one of these cases. What if they saw that there is nowhere to go? Public commentary, recommendations and request from organizations such as Amnesty International, are that there should be a court closure, but that does not mean that it will be with a *positive outcome for the victims*:

Macedonia’s international obligations are to thoroughly and impartially investigate all cases returned from the ICTY and, if there is sufficient admissible evidence, to ensure that all those allegedly responsible for violations of international humanitarian law are brought to justice.

So, when we already have (from the Wikileaks cable above) OSCE's expert opinion that from what they saw Macedonia does not have enough evidence, nor good enough prosecutors and judges (despite plenty of training) to work on the cases:

Additionally, OSCE has official observer status and has had the opportunity to review the files. Their experts here characterize the evidence they have seen as relatively scanty and the prosecutors and judges as apparently unprepared, despite being trained.

and that Macedonian representatives from the government, specifically the chief prosecutor, said that there is not enough evidence:

Protoger added that the Chief Prosecutor told him that it appears that there is solid evidence against only four of the 19 defendants in the Mavrovo case, and Xhemaili is not one of them. (Which begs the question why the other 15 are being tried at all.)

then, is it not better for the whole society to forget about the cases and try heal the wounds, then to go to court, where the victims might lose, and their alleged torturers to claim judicial victory?

Think about this for a moment. What if there is a complete court process after which there will be a verdict that the indicted persons are not guilty? What effect will it have on the society? The easiest thing is to talk about not following the law and that Macedonia is ignoring international legal norms, but is there something else that in this particular case matters and should be taken into account? Is it even possible in an ethnically divided state where the minority continuously does not have trust in the judicial system, and the majority thinks that there should not be any protests regarding court decisions (like in the "Monstrum" case), to have a trial like the ones being pushed under the rug?

Furthermore, any such trial would have to happen in conditions, as heard in other leaked recordings presented by SDSM, where the "judiciary is corrupted and incompetent". How come that we expect courts to deal with complicated war cases, when they cannot deal with relatively easier corruption cases? Or, now that we know that the courts "belong to Mijalkov and the family", would we request that VMRO process the cases and ask for a "politically pleasant" verdicts?

What if the decision to have authentic interpretation, beside the political pragmatism to keep the coalition together, VMRO and Gruevski saved time, money, nerves and everything else that could have been costly for the victims' families? Did they offered reconciliation and showed forgiveness on behalf of ethnic Macedonians instead of opening old wounds? Did they created from the ethnic Macedonians political winners willing to forgive instead of legal losers who will have new grievance? These are unpleasant questions to which the published content in the 'bombshell' offers no answer, and to which we will probably avoid to answer in the future as well.

Maybe this 'bombshell' is just to encourage DUI, with the help of the US. Let's hope it will not create new inter-ethnic tensions.

At an election-like meeting in Universal Hall in Skopje, the opposition party today (10.3.2015) revealed new recordings (bombshell #8) from the surveillance tapes.

There is no way to digest what we heard in the past 2-3 hours, but the initial statement (from the beginning of the disclosure process) that there is no way to do this (mass scale surveillance and thus control without the telecom operators) remains true.

In the recordings we heard alleged conversations that Tmobile Macedonia CEO Zarko Lukovski and CTO Miroslav Jovanovik participated in bulling of employees to make them vote for the ruling VMRO-DPMNE party as well as tracking people by cell phone to determine where are they on election day.

You cannot make this stuff up.

Related:

Bombshell #7: Alleged conversation of government minister Janakievski calling TMobile director Irena Misheva to cut service of opposition member's phone

Amid the wiretapping scandal Macedonian parliament votes on law to allow use of rubber bullets by the police

Zaev realeases bomb #4 - new surveillence tapes show evidence of more media meddling and survellance of 100 journalists

New leaks presented by Mr. Zaev - Media controlled by secret services

Telecom operators trying to plead innocence over wiretapping accusations; claim their actions to be consistent with a law that didn't exist in 2011

Macedonian opposition reveals evidence of mass spying

Surveillance and abuse of power - Macedonian chapter

The third headline of the day (March 2 2015), after Mr. Zaev's bombshell number 6, and the subsequent press-conference of the implicated Minister of Finance Mr. Zoran Stavrevski, is that the Macedonian police, can now use rubber bullets, electric stun devices and shock bombs (however that translates into English) to stop violence during protests.

This follows already released tapes that allege police brutality.

The latest recordings released by the opposition contain 11 conversations alleged to be between Mr. Stavrevski and the Minister of Interior Mrs. Gordana Jankulovska discussing at length corruption among their colleagues, the dismal state of the economy and the nearly bankrupted budget of Macedonia.

All of it was denied at Mr. Stavrevski press-conference.

Related:

Zaev realeases bomb #4 - new surveillence tapes show evidence of more media meddling and survellance of 100 journalists

New leaks presented by Mr. Zaev - Media controlled by secret services

Telecom operators trying to plead innocence over wiretapping accusations; claim their actions to be consistent with a law that didn't exist in 2011

Macedonian opposition reveals evidence of mass spying

Surveillance and abuse of power - Macedonian chapter

In a press conference on Friday, February 20th 2015, opposition leader Mr. Zaev revealed a third batch of leaks form the alleged 1.6 million files of warantless surveillance of over 20.000 Macedonian citizens.

The audio recordings provide the most shocking and most disturbing conversations between senior government officials and newspaper and TV editors so far. Aside from the language, the recordings reveal conspiracies, staged arrest, and plans for torture of political opponents and retaliation towards citizens who did not vote for the ruling VMRO-DPMNE party. Part of the audio is transcribed with analysis in Macedonian and published on OKNO.mk.

The recordings also reveal the close ties between Macedonia's leading news outlets and top ranking officials from the government, this time specifically with the chief of the secret police.

Over the past 5-6 years, Macedonia has fallen in media freedom rankings, only to go up 7 places from 123 on this year's RSF rating. The current media coverage of the leaks gives more proof to the point: only a handful of media outlets, most of which are on-line, provide information and analysis. The rest of about 25-30 TV and Radio stations, including the national broadcaster MRT, and newspapers remain in line with the government story that the recordings distributed to the public by the opposition party are montages made by hostile foreign government intelligence agencies made to destabilize the country.

Related:

Telecom operators trying to plead innocence over wiretapping accusations; claim their actions to be consistent with a law that didn't exist in 2011

Macedonian opposition reveals evidence of mass spying

Surveillance and abuse of power - Macedonian chapter

In a press conference covered by just a few twitter users tweeting live from opposition headquarters in Skopje, opposition leader Zoran Zaev revealed what is to be named 'the first part of the bomb' -- evidence for mass abuse of power by the current government.

There was no other live media coverage which gives you a sense of the type of country Macedonia has became under the rule of Mr. Nikola Gruevski's government. Macedonia has plummeted at 123 place on media freedom rankings.

Mr. Zaev claims that a whistleblower form Macedonia's secret police have provided recordings that prove that about 20.000 people including cabinet members and aides of Mr. Gruevski, businessmen, NGOs, Macedonian Academy of science and arts and judges. Part of the recordings were played at the press conference.

TV Telma, a local news outlet, reported that mobile phone operators have participated in the mass surveillance.

Tweeting live in English from the press conference was @tanjatania.

Related: Surveillance and abuse of power - Macedonian chapter.

Note: This article was corrected. The correct number stated by Mr. Zaev was 20.000 not 26.000.

Update: An audio recording published by SDSM (youtube link) contains 9 conversations: Mr. Zaev speaking with a reporter from Radio Free Europe, Mr. Zaev speaking with party colleague Mrs. Radmila Sekerinska, Mr. Zaev speaking with his daughter, Interior minister Mrs. Gordana Jankulovska speaking with Finance minister Mr. Zoran Stavrevski, Former PM Mr. Ljubco Georgievski speaking with an unknown person 2 times, DUI president Mr. Ali Ahmeti speaking with an unknown person, DPA president Mr. Menduh Tachi speaking with an unknown person and NDP president Mr. Rufi Osmani speaking with an unknown person.

Ribaro, a prominent Macedonian (video) blogger, reports that his newest video was taken down by Youtube after a copyright claim made by another user. The video is a commentary supporting the student protests in Macedonia made days after the second protest on 10.12.2014.

Ribaro's videos are parody, mostly on important current events in the country, and our copyright law allows for use of any work in a parody without special permission from the author. I think the same goes for the US law (assuming that Youtube uses US law as basis for decisions).

The video is, of course, available elsewhere: vimeo link; other youtube link.

This a second case of censorship related to the biggest student protest in Macedonia that aims at preserving autonomy of universities.

tl;dr One procurement, one equipment, three affairs.

What is common among the news reports of NovaTV (1 и 2), Fokus (1, 2, 3 и 4) and Bure Vesnik (1)?

They all write about suspicions procurement of equipment. Unfortunately they all assign different properties and usage to the same equipment.

It all begins with a news report on NovaTV. The first part of the news story is OK. The public is being informed about a criminal complaint filed for some equipment that that is allegedly missing from th Faculty of security in Skopje, a subsidiary of UKLO - Bitola.

In the news report on NovaTV professor Frosina Remenski describes the missing equipment: an electronic microscope, AFIS system and digital communication surveillance technology. The AFIS system was bought through the tender No. 43/2010. The other two were procured in different procedures: No. 33/2010 for the electronic microscope and No. 40/2010 for the digital communication surveillance technology.

source— e-nabavki.gov.mk

source— e-nabavki.gov.mk

At the moment when the alarm is sounded at UKLO the description of the equipment is known by one professor and probably an expert too, representatives from Transparency International and journalists. Yet, the alarm does not include danger from illegal production of biometric documents.

source— novatv.mk

However, already in the second story published by NovaTV there are speculation about equipment procured for the state television MRT. It is a speculation because the evidence offered for that procurement is "An announcement for contract for tender“ “ (screenshot from NovaTV page) clearly and unambiguously says that the procured part is just one laboratory from the tender which is divisible i.e. has different and unrelated parts as far as the bidding and buying goes. When one reads what NovaTV writes: — „Ministry of educatoin was buying crime and forensic labs for the Macedonian radio-television."-one gets the impression that NovaTV did not click on the tender documentation where it is stated that the parts of the tender planned for MRT are a studio and a audio-video lab.

After this the story is taken on by Bure Vesnik. In theirs research they too speak of the missing UKLO equipment and suspicious procurement practices. They provide screenshots from the Macedonian official gazette containing detail list of the equipment.

This time, however, even we can clearly read what is the equipment, the news report insists that this is a surveillance equipment. A quick Google search will easily dispute that: an electronic microscope (33/2010) is a microscope, Morpho's AFIS is a forensic database (43/2010) and FRED is a mobile forensic station (40/2010) —probably something like the tools they show on CSI when they do a their work outside.

Finally, Fokus takes the story of the same equipment. Suspicious procurement practices, Universities, deans and the same equipment. It is the same equipment that a while ago was surveillance equipment. Now the AFIS system becomes something with which one can produce biometric passports and identity cards.

However, Fokus does the same mistake as NovaTV. Without checking the documentation for the 43/2010 tender -- where it is clear that one AFIS is being procured, they claim that three were bought and two of them are missing.

For clarification: What is AFIS?

We constantly read that there were three AFIS and that two are missing. Where are they? When I read this, and before I knew that AFIS is an acronym for Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems, I had the idea that we are talking about three devices -- let's say three printers -- and two of them are gone.

In fact, AFIS plenty of equipment. Only the one for which we are sure that was bought, according to the list from the official gazette, has (if I counted correctly) 104 pieces of individual equipment including tables, chairs and cabinets.

source— burevesnik.org

Suddenly, the claim that two AFIS systems are missing seems very strange. In fact, if two are really missing, we are missing two whole rooms of equipment. I do not want to say that two rooms full of equipment can not be stolen. They can be, but at least there should be more to support that claim that a reference towards procurement documentation which looks like no one has read.

Conspiracy theory time

Like they say anything is possible. Laptops from the FRED purchase can be used for surveillance, which is true also for any ordinary laptop. Printers and cameras bought with the AFIS can be used for making biometric documents, which is true also for any printer and camera (Macedonian readers will remember the cheap cameras used at the Identity cards boots). It is possible that the whole documentation for the 43/2010 tender is fabricated and fake. And all of the other 200 university procurements for which Bure Vesnik claims that are surveillance equipment shopping may have fake documentation.

However, the journalists so far failed to offer any source that three AFIS systems were bought. As far as I know they failed to offer an analysis of what was sought, bought, delivered and installed with the tenders 20/2010, 25/201, 26/201 33/2010, 34/2010, 40/2010, 41/2010, 43/2010, for all labs for all public institutions

Anything is possible.

But we can only judge on what we can research and confirm.

Previously on the same topic:
Following the traces of the journalistic research
The metadata in the photos of the passports

Update 8.12.2014: The text was fully published in Oknohttp://okno.mk/node/42899

tl;dr Dated September 2014, taken by Samsung Galaxy S4 GT-I9515.

The news published by Fokus caused a lot of interest and therefore this additional information could be of use to the public debate.

Six photos are published on the newspaper’s website. Five of these photos are made between the 9th and the 10th of September 2014. This could be concluded from the metadata of the photos.

The sixth photograph is edited in Photoshop most probably by the editorial team of Fokus in order to hide the identity of the person.

According to the metadata the photos are taken with Samsung Galaxy S4 (GT-I9515), a phone which is on sale since May 2014. Even if it was bought immediately after its release for sale it could have not been used to take a photo of something related to the previous elections. (The last elections ended on April 27th 2014.)

Given the aforementioned and unless someone had already engaged in “playing” with the metadata of these photos ( which can be simply done in Photoshop as shown in photo no.6) these photos really are taken in September 2014 with a device not older than 6 months and one which is relatively expensive( more than 20.000,00 MKD, approximately 325 EUR retail price).

Updated on 30.11.2014: In the printed edition of Fokus there is one more photo, one which shows some kind of a machine. This photo is not published on the web site. This photo shows several letters of the machine’s brand. The research in the brand database of WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) provides information about a brand that is very similar to the one shown on the photo. This brand is Original Perfecta, a brand owned by a company that produces paper cutting machines.

The brand was used by the Werner Lamberz company from Leibzig, East Germany, registered for the Dannish jurisdiction in 1963.

Uptade—FAQ:

1. Wasn’t Samsung Galaxy S4 available on the market since 2013?

There are two types of Galaxy S4 models. The first one was released in 2013. This is the GT-I9505 model.. (Link to T-Mobile.mk website.) he second one is the Galaxy S4 Value Edition model GT-I9515 released for sale in May 2014 as provided for by the link in the text above.

2. Is it possible that the photos are taken in September 2014 by photographing the video?

Focus published that it received both video and photos:

Without entering into discussion whether or not taking a photo of a video and getting good quality photos is an easy job, the video published by Fokus does not contain the same footages shown on the photos. This either means that Fokus did not receive the whole video material; the published material is not complete or the photos are taken independently. There are too many possibilities.

Updated 01.12.2014:

The incomplete version of this text was published in Kurir: http://kurir.mk/makedonija/vesti/180825-FOTO-Sto-pokazuvaat-metapodatoci...

With small changes the text was published in: Republika - with small changes: http://republika.mk/?p=352925, Evesti - http://evesti.mk/2014/12/01/sto-pokazuvaat-metapodatocite/, RSM - http://rsm.mk/web/?p=21192, Puls 24 - http://puls24.mk/makedonija/vesti/foto-sto-pokazuvaat-metapodatocite-na-..., Mreza.mk - http://www.mreza.mk/%D1%88%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B6%D1....

Updated 02.12.2014:

The text was fully published in Okno: http://okno.mk/node/42741.

Parts in Vecer: http://vecer.mk/makedonija/n-snimkata-so-pasoshite-ne-e-pravena-vo-maked...

All the news fromtime.mk: http://www.time.mk/?q=%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D...

Next: Followinng the traces of the journalistic research

I'm posting the EC report on Copyright and Industrial property rights in Macedonia every year for the past 5 years. Here is the latest. For the full text visit: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy-and-progress-report/

4.7. Chapter 7: Intellectual property law

The Law on copyright and neighbouring rights was amended to regulate phonogram rights and to ensure alignment with the World Intellectual Property Organisation Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The government appointed the members of the commission for mediation in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights. The capacity of the unit for copyright and neighbouring rights (part of the Ministry of Culture) remains insufficient. Cooperation among the institutions responsible for industrial property needs to improve.

The Law on industrial property rights was amended to regulate intellectual property rights, in accordance with the Strategy on Innovation. A system for electronic filing of patent applications became operational. In 2013, the Academy for Judges and Prosecutors delivered nine training programmes to 205 members of the judiciary on protection of intellectual property rights. The State Office for Industrial Property does not have sufficient staff to ensure a quality service vis-à-vis businesses and to support innovations. Training for small and medium-sized enterprises on protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights is limited.

As regards enforcement, the Coordination Body for Intellectual Property launched 16 actions in 2013 and seized approximately 2,000 counterfeit items. There were 24 criminal prosecutions and 11 charges for misdemeanours relating to intellectual property rights. The State Market Inspectorate carried out around 120 inspections. Only 1% of the fines imposed were collected in 2013. The Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services issued 18 banning orders to broadcasters to prevent further violations of copyright and neighbouring rights. Cooperation between the Ministry for the Interior and Interpol on uncovering regional counterfeit channels resulted in the seizure of 70000 counterfeit items, closure of a number of factories producing counterfeit goods and detention of 330 people. The overall number of controls and seizures is falling however, and commitment to combating violations of intellectual property rights is not improving. Counterfeit foodstuffs, cosmetics, toiletries, medicines, toys, technical and electronic equipment continued to be sold on stalls in streets markets and in outlets. Awareness of violations of intellectual property rights and of the threats to health and safety remains limited. Training for small and medium-sized enterprises on protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights is limited. The three public laboratories are not legally authorised to detect counterfeit medicines and their analyses are not accepted as expert evidence by the courts. Counterfeiting is not considered to be organised crime and efforts to combat it remain insufficient. Data on investigations, prosecutions and trials for offences relating to intellectual property rights have been collected systematically since 2013, but the State Statistical Office has not yet produced a reliable enforcement record.

Conclusion

Some legislative progress was made in the area of intellectual property law. Enforcement efforts by all institutions continue, but the complexity of the enforcement system impedes effective protection of intellectual property rights. A track record of investigations, prosecutions and trials for offences relating to intellectual property rights is not yet available and public awareness remains limited. Overall, preparations in this area are at a moderately advanced stage.

Today the Macedonian government's spokesperson announced a new plan to set up a new domestic company which will provide on-line betting / gambling to residents in Macedonia. [Full press release in Macedonian.]

The plan will involve "disabling of betting / gambling on-line games on foreign web sites". The blockade is set to last two years beginning in March 2014.

Citing benefits for "the state and the society" the blocking of the sites will be carried out by the Agency for Electronic Communications and the Ministry for Information Society.

Given the extremely poor record of the Macedonian government on media freedom, and previous unsuccessful attempts to legislate liability for Internet access providers for content published via their services, it's not too difficult to imagine a more broad use of the blocking mechanism once it is set up.

At this point raising concern about the proposed plan for blocking access to site is the least we can do. The communities from the Internet should rally again.

In his emotional farewell to Macedonia. Harald Schenker shared his insight on the local civil society:

"Let’s now get to my favourite, the so-called civil society, some of them my friends and colleagues, others people I worked with, and others, finally, people I tried to work with. To all of them I have harsh words: civil engagement is not a job.

Civil engagement cannot be equated to euros. As long as Macedonia’s civil society sector continues merely to be a job-generating machine, you cannot expect social change, except for those working in the sector, of course.

The new, donor-driven bourgeoisie has installed itself comfortably and conformably in the centre of society, from where it aspires to more and learns to despise the have-nots, while not so secretly living in fear of being next to join those have-nots - if they are found too critical either of the power structures or the donors themselves. This is the material that kills social change."

I've written in the past on the same subject, although from a different point of view. Needless to say I agree with what Harald wrote. I think it would be a safe bet to say that most [all?] of the ex-YU countries have similar problems [or failures] of their civil society. A 2006 paper [dead link to pdf 'From the Civil sector to Civil society'] from Ismet Sejfija has some sharp commentary as well:

"In Bosnia-Herzegovina, people working in civil society organisations who analyse developments in this sector often talk about “projectomania”. The term denotes an uncritical attitude by NGOs whose entire programme of activities revolves around project funding, and whose priority is to develop projects that focus on compliance with the sponsors’ criteria, often without considering their practical relevance and viability."

The reason why I'm referencing all these writings is my stumble upon couple of new Macedonian NGO projects in the last week. The first is called "I react" and is a service for reporting municipal communal problems, and the second is called "Follow the money" and is a service for tracking municipal taxes and expenditures. Both caught my attention because I was already familiar with two other civil society projects that more-or-less provided the same services: "Repair it" and "Fiscal monitor". [It should be noted that the "react" people stated that their service had significant differences from "repair"].

So, if my memory is not faulty, these two are not the only ones having doubles. And this is the research proposal: In the given pool of donors in the country, try to find out if they coordinate and collaborate on granting funds to civil society. Do they keep an eye on 'reinventing the wheel'? How many double projects are there so far and what is their success rate?

By the way, if you are reading this and decide to apply for a research grant, please leave a comment so someone else doesn't do the same thing and we end up with two reports. ;-)

It should be said with as few words as possible: Macedonia's newly proposed law on media allows censorship. It is as simple as that.

But here is the fine print: As far as public knowledge goes, most media in the country are already owned or controlled by the government or pro-government businessmen. If a story is not supposed to be run - it wont be, as we have seen on numerous times so far. Press freedom has plummeted in recent years. And, in the strangest turn of events [and as far as the official investigation goes without any foul play], Nikola Mladenov died and with him, the fate only independent or pro-opposition media outlet hangs by a thread.

So, by the time this law is enacted there might not be anything left to censor. Nevertheless, it is the murkiest of scenarios. There is little hope that the law can be halted in Parliament and even less in the Constitutional court which is postponing decisions on 'hot' issues. Journalists are divided on the issue of censorship and the profession at worst and scared for their job and paycheck at best.

Thus, another principled battle of huge proportion lands in the laps of couple of Internet activists, free speech groups and few journalists who, at least for now, ride on the free waves of the Internet. What [can we do] now?