<div dir="ltr">
<style type="text/css">h3.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans Fallback"; }h3.ctl { font-family: "FreeSans"; }h2.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans Fallback"; }h2.ctl { font-family: "FreeSans"; }h1 { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }h1.western { font-family: "Liberation Serif",serif; }h1.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans Fallback"; font-size: 24pt; }h1.ctl { font-family: "FreeSans"; font-size: 24pt; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }</style>
<h1 class="western">ORG policy update/2015-w30</h1>
<p>This is ORG policy update for the week commencing on 17/07/2015.</p>
<h2 class="western"><a name="National_developments"></a>National
developments</h2>
<h3 class="western"><a name="Police_Scotland_pushes_for_a_new_centralised_system_of_CCTV_as_report_finds_the_current_situation_could_be_unlawful"></a>
Police Scotland pushes for a new centralised system of CCTV as report
finds the current situation could be unlawful</h3>
<p>A classified 2013 Police Scotland was brought to light by <a href="https://theferret.scot/exclusive-scotlands-cctv-in-crisis/">The
Ferret</a> this week. It reveals information worrying for Scottish
citizens' privacy, such as failures to audit some CCTV networks for
compliance with data protection laws or a “clear lack of strategic
leadership and accountability”. To keep the 2,800 cameras network
fit for purpose, Police Scotland is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/22/police-scotland-pushes-centralised-cctv-network">publicly
demanding for</a> a several million pounds plan in order to put in
place a centralised and more reliable network. The agency said it was
part of an “ongoing dialogue” with Scottish Ministers, councils
and CCTV partnerships to pursue this plan.
</p>
<p>The plan, as well as the revelations of the report, have alarmed
privacy campaigners. The Scottish <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrat_Party">Lib
Dem</a> Leader, Willie Rennie, called for “steps to regulate CCTV
cameras to prevent inappropriate surveillance in our community”.
Pol Clementsmith, from the newly established <a href="https://scotland.openrightsgroup.org/">Open
Rights Group Scotland</a>, warned against a “sleepwalking into a
surveillance state”, and drew attention on the “ catalogue of
errors […] potentially breaching data-protection laws on a daily
basis” published by The Ferret.
</p>
<p><br><br>
</p>
<h2 class="western"><a name="Legal_developments"></a>Legal
developments</h2>
<h3 class="western"><a name="Government_announces_it_will_challenge_ruling_finding_DRIPA_unlawful"></a>
Government announces it will challenge ruling finding DRIPA unlawful</h3>
<p>Last week, the High Court found the Data Retention and
Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (<a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/DRIPA">DRIPA</a>)
unlawful. The Court is suspending its order until March 31st, 2016,
in order “to give parliament the opportunity to put matters right”.
</p>
<p>DRIPA was rushed through Parliament in July 2014 and allows for
the bulk collection of metadata. The challenge brought by two MPs,
David Davis and Tom Watson, as well as several NGOs (including
Liberty and Open Rights Group) was successful, but the government
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/17/government_appeals_court_nixing_dripa_surveillance_law/">announced</a>
it will appeal the judgment. Security minister John Hayes declared
that communications data are “crucial in the investigation of
serious crime”. He disagreed “absolutely” with the argument
that DRIPA didn't reach the safeguards necessary to make blanket data
retention lawful according to <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice">European
Court of Justice</a> <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf">judgment</a>
on the Data Retention Directive. The government <a href="http://www.timebase.com.au/news/2015/AT278-article.html">stated</a>
that it will take "whatever steps are necessary to ensure
communications data continues to be available when it is needed”.
</p>
<p><br><br>
</p>
<h3 class="western"><a name="MPs_challenge_interception_of_their_communications"></a>
MPs challenge interception of their communications</h3>
<p>The <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Tribunal">Investigatory
Powers Tribunal</a>(IPT) is hearing this week a case on the so-called
“Wilson Doctrine”. This convention, named after Harold Wilson,
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/23/what-is-wilson-doctrine-story-behind-mps-protection-snooping">states
that</a> UK intelligence agencies will not spy on MPs or members of
the House of Lords. If they decide to do so for national security
reasons, the Prime Minister should warn the Parliament.
</p>
<p>Following whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations, Green Party
politicians Caroline Lucas MP, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, and
former MP George Galloway <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33631589">believe</a>
their communications were intercepted and have brought the case to
the IPT. They argue that it is “vital” that “people feel able
to communicate freely with their representatives in Parliament”.
The Tribunal will have to rule, among other things, if the Wilson
Doctrine has force in law.
</p>
<p>Documents made public during the hearing already highlights a
discrepancy between the government's position on the Doctrine, as
presented to the Parliament, and the intelligence agencies'
interpretation of it. While the government <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2015-07-22a.1107.2#g1107.6">repeated
this</a> week that “obviously, the Wilson doctrine applies to
parliamentarians”, a MI6 policy from February 2015 <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-intelligence-service-spying-on-mps-in-defiance-of-laws-prohibiting-it-10411996.html">argues
that</a> the Wilson doctrine “does not prohibit the interception of
Parliamentarians’ communications”.
</p>
<p>James Eadi QC <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/24/wilson-doctrine-unworkable-bulk-interception-intelligence-agencies?CMP=share_btn_tw">told</a>
the IPT on Friday, July 24th, that the doctrine “simply cannot work
sensibly” with the bulk interception taking place in the UK. He
argued that the doctrine does not have force in law, and as such does
not impose legal restraints on the agencies.
</p>
<p><br><br>
</p>
<h3 class="western"><a name="Private_copying_deemed_unlawful"></a>Private
copying deemed unlawful</h3>
<p>The <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2361/contents/made">private
copying exception</a>, which allows a person who legitimately
acquired a work protected by copyright to copy it for free for his
own private usage, has been <a href="http://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2015/uk/copyright-private-copying-exception-falls">declared
unlawful</a> this week. The plaintiffs, three music industry trade
bodies, successfully argued that they were harmed by this exception.
</p>
<p>The initial decision was given on June 19th but the question of
whether the Court will refer the case to the European Court of
Justice was left open until this week. The <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32001L0029&from=EN">European
Copyright Directive</a> establishes that a copyright private
copying exception legislation must also provide fair compensation for
rights holders. The British law didn't provide such a compensation
has the British legislator argued that the harm caused to rights
holders would be negligible. This argument was rebutted by the Court.
It is <a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f892cc11-d75a-436a-b4c1-69442401e3cb">unclear
whether</a> the Government will try to re-instaure a private copying
exception. <a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f892cc11-d75a-436a-b4c1-69442401e3cb">In
practice</a>, private copying is widespread and considered legitimate
by users. <br></p><p><br></p>
<h2 class="western"><a name="International"></a>International</h2>
<h3 class="western"><a name="Reports_highlights_Pakistan_mass_surveillance_of_its_citizens.2C_and_possibly_of_worldwide_traffic"></a>
Reports highlights Pakistan mass surveillance of its citizens, and
possibly of worldwide traffic</h3>
<p>On July 22nd, <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Privacy_International">Privacy
International</a> published <a href="https://www.privacyinternational.org/?q=node/624">a
report</a> on communications surveillance in Pakistan. It argues that
domestic and international threats to the country have been used by
the government to establish surveillances practices “less and less
targeted and more widespread against ordinary civilians”. It
denounces abuses of power by intelligence agencies, which have spied
on opposition politicians and Supreme Court judges. It advises the
government to look into these abuses and pass clearer laws, but also
to investigate the extent and legality of the UK Government
Communications Headquarters' (GHCQ) and the US National Security
Agency's (NSA) actions in Pakistan.
</p>
<p>Thanks to confidential previously unreleased documents, the
reports also <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/23/pakistan-tried-to-tap-international-web-traffic-via-underwater-cables-report-says">reveals</a>
that a Pakistani intelligence agency, the Inter-Services
Intelligence, sought to tap worldwide internet traffic via underwater
cables. It tried to buy technology from an European company allowing
it to scoop data in “landing sites” in the country’s port city
of Karachi, a major node through which a massive amount of data from
Africa, North America, India and Europe transits. Such a system
“would rival some of the world’s most powerful surveillance
programmes”. Privacy International stated that it is not clear
whether Pakistan acquired such a technology.
</p>
<p><br><br>
</p>
<h2 class="western"><a name="ORG_Media_coverage"></a>ORG Media
coverage</h2>
<p>See <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_Press_Coverage">ORG
Press Coverage</a> for full details.
</p>
<dt>2015-07- 22 – The Guardian - <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/22/police-scotland-pushes-centralised-cctv-network">Police
Scotland pushes for centralised CCTV network</a>
</dt><dd>
Author: Severin Carrell
</dd><dd style="margin-bottom:0.2in">
Summary: Pol Clementsmith quoted on the state of CCTV in Scotland
</dd><dt>
2015-07-22 – BBC News - <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-33615561">CCTV
use in Scotland 'may breach privacy laws'</a>
</dt><dd>
Author:
</dd><dd style="margin-bottom:0.2in">
Summary: Pol Clementsmith quoted on the state of CCTV in Scotland
</dd><dt>
2015-07- 21 – Whir - <a href="http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/uk-high-court-rules-digital-surveillance-under-dripa-unlawful">UK
High Court Rules Digital Surveillance Under DRIPA Unlawful</a>
</dt><dd>
Author: David Hamilton
</dd><dd style="margin-bottom:0.2in">
Summary: Jim Killock quoted on the impact of the judgment declaring
DRIPA unlawful
</dd><h2 class="western">
<a name="ORG_contact_details"></a>ORG contact details</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff">Staff page</a>
</p>
<ul><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#jim">Jim
Killock, Executive Director</a>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#javier">Javier
Ruiz, Policy</a>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#ed">Ed
Paton-Williams, Campaigns</a>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#pam">Pam
Cowburn, Communications</a>
</p>
</li><li><p><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#lee">Lee
Maguire, Tech</a>
</p>
</li></ul>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;line-height:100%"><br>
</p>
</div>