<div dir="ltr"><h1 id="reader-title">ORG policy update/2015-w31 - ORG Wiki</h1>
<p>This is ORG's Policy Update for the week beginning 24/05/2015
</p><p><br></p><h2><span id="Open_Rights_Group.27s_work" class="mw-headline">Open Rights Group's work</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h2><h3><span id="ORG_asks_for_clarification_and_transparency_from_Intellectual_Property_Police_Unit" class="mw-headline">ORG asks for clarification and transparency from Intellectual Property Police Unit</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h3><p>Open Rights Group <a href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/letters/pipcu-correspondence-refocusing-on-general-issues" class="external text" rel="nofollow">has written</a>
to the City of London Police's Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PICPU)
to ask for clarification on the important questions left unanswered in
our previous correspondence. PICPU, operational since 2013, tackles
serious and organised IP crime committed using an online platform.
</p><p>One of the main concerns is the issuing of take-down requests
without a court order, which can lead to arbitrary censoring of the
Internet. This lack of judicial oversight is disturbing, even more so
given PICPU's partnership with advertisers and rights holders who can
identify and report alleged copyright infringing sites to the unit.
Furthermore, ORG calls for the publication of guidelines and more
transparency on the way PICPU operates.
</p><h3><span id="Response_to_the_Intellectual_Property_Office_consultation_on_higher_penalties_for_online_copyright_infringement" class="mw-headline">Response to the Intellectual Property Office consultation on higher penalties for online copyright infringement</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h3><p>Mid-July, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has launched an <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-penalties-for-online-copyright-infringement" class="external text" rel="nofollow">open consultation</a>
on a proposal to bring the maximum sentence for online copyright
infringement up to par with physical infringements – that is, ten years
in jail.
</p><p>In its response, Open Rights Group <a href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/response-to-ipo-consultation-on-raising-jail-sentences-for-online-infringement" class="external text" rel="nofollow">has called attention</a>
to the impact of this proposal on end users who are not part of a
criminal enterprise. Physical and online copyright infringement are, in
several important ways, different. In particular, sharing physical
copies of a work protected by copyright to a large number of people
would require an “infrastructure clearly beyond the reach of ordinary
citizens”, while it is easily done online, and can even be done
unwillingly. Moreover, copyright protection laws have a strict liability
criteria, which means that the defendant needs only to be responsible
to be found guilty, whether he intended or understood that he was
committing an infringement or not.
</p><p>In practice, the sentences for online infringement are already
very harsh, and the propose changes could “make non commercial online
infringers end up with much higher sentences than hardened criminals
dealing with physical goods”. The sentence for unwillingly uploading a
copyrighted material becomes ten years in prison, it would be <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60" class="external text" rel="nofollow">three years longer</a> than the sentence for theft.
</p><h2><span id="National_Developments" class="mw-headline">National Developments</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h2><h3><span id="If_pornographic_websites_can.27t_prevent_children_from_accessing_them.2C_they_will_be_banned.2C_says_Cameron" class="mw-headline">If pornographic websites can't prevent children from accessing them, they will be banned, says Cameron</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h3><p>Prime Minister <a title="David Cameron MP" href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/David_Cameron_MP"> David Cameron</a> <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/curbing-access-to-pornographic-websites-for-under-18s" class="external text" rel="nofollow">announced on Thursday</a>,
July 30th, that age verification mechanisms will have to be put in
place on pornographic websites to prevent children from accessing them. A
consultation will be launched this autumn in order to find a consensus
on the best ways to restrict children's access to such websites. The
government declares it would prefer voluntary agreement, such as a
blocking of content through payment providers, but is “prepared to
legislate [...] if the industry fails to self regulate”. This could mean
making it an offence in the UK “to publish pornography online without
age verification controls”.
</p><p>The government has of yet to specify how this would work, given
that there are a lot of pornographic sites operating from outside the
UK. <a title="Open Rights Group" href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Open_Rights_Group">ORG</a> Executive Director, Jim Killock, <a href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press/releases/david-cameron-calls-to-shut-down-porn-sites-without-age-restricted-controls" class="external text" rel="nofollow">warns that</a>
in order to block foreign pornographic websites, “the government would
have to introduce a national firewall, which would censor sites for
everyone, and would likely be widely circumvented.”
</p><h3><span id="Freedom_of_Information_to_be_reviewed_by_a_commission_of_high-ranking_civil_servants" class="mw-headline">Freedom of Information to be reviewed by a commission of high-ranking civil servants</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h3><p>The implementation of the <a title="Freedom of Information Act 2000" href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_2000">Freedom of Information Act 2000</a>
(FoI) is to be reviewed by a cross-party commission, ten years after it
was enforced. The law allows citizens to obtain informations hold by
public authorities, unless they are confidential, sensitive or personal.
The announcement of this review comes just a month after the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11682359/Government-departments-routinely-deleting-emails-despite-freedom-of-information-laws.html" class="external text" rel="nofollow">revelation</a>
by an insider source that public administration bodies automatically
delete a large numbers of email, thus making them unusable for FoI
requests.
</p><p>The composition of the commission has attracted criticisms. Former home Secretary <a title="David Davis MP" href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/David_Davis_MP">David Davis</a> has <a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5deb6d12-26bd-407d-bba3-481e4b98b923" class="external text" rel="nofollow">argued</a>
that the absence of civil rights campaigners and journalists in the
commission will make it “harder for people to have confidence” in its
findings and its opinion on the balance between accountability and the
need for confidentiality on certain matters.
The Commission is expected to publish its findings by the end of
November 2015.
</p><h2><span id="International_Developments" class="mw-headline">International Developments</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h2><h3><span id="Google_refuses_to_comply_with_French_demand_to_apply_right_to_be_forgotten_globally" class="mw-headline">Google refuses to comply with French demand to apply right to be forgotten globally</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h3><p>Google <a href="http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/implementing-european-not-global-right.html" class="external text" rel="nofollow">has announced</a>
on Thursday, July 30th, that it refuses to comply with the CNIL (the
French data protection authority) demand to apply the “right to be
forgotten” worldwide. This right emerged from a judgment of the European
Court of Justice in 2014 stating that citizens have the right to obtain
from search engines that they de-index links if the information
concerning them is “inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant or
excessive”.
</p><p>This right was <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/right-to-be-forgotten-google-accused-of-deliberately-misinterpreting-court-decision-to-stoke-public-anger-9582985.html" class="external text" rel="nofollow">controversial</a> at its launch, and contested by Google, but after one year of enforcement the results <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/14/google-accidentally-reveals-right-to-be-forgotten-requests" class="external text" rel="nofollow">have been judged</a> positive. But another problem arose in June when the CNIL <a href="http://www.politico.eu/article/france-challenges-google-on-right-to-be-forgotten/" class="external text" rel="nofollow">announced</a>
it would fine Google if it kept applying this right only on European
national domains (such as <a href="http://google.co.uk">google.co.uk</a>) and not worldwide (<a href="http://google.com">google.com</a>).
This makes the judgement ineffective, argued the data protection
authority.
</p><p>In its reply this week, Google warned against the “serious
chilling effects” of defending such a position, as countries with
Internet censorship could also argue that content outlawed in their
countries should be in-indexed globally. Furthermore, Google argues that
97% of French Google users choose a European domain.
</p><h3><span id="German_tech_news_journalists_investigated_for_treason_for_publishing_classified_documents_on_mass_surveillance" class="mw-headline">German tech news journalists investigated for treason for publishing classified documents on mass surveillance</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h3><p>Two journalists and unknown sources of Netzpolitik, a German tech and policy news website, <a href="https://netzpolitik.org/2015/suspicion-of-treason-federal-attorney-general-announces-investigation-against-us-in-addition-to-our-sources/" class="external text" rel="nofollow">are being investigated</a>
for treason on account of the publication of classified government
documents earlier this year. These documents described the German
government's plan to expand surveillance on the Internet, with methods
that the German website has compared to the NSA's mass data acquisition.
The journal, financed by voluntary donations, stated that it will “not
be intimidated”, and has called for a dropping of the charges and public
scrutiny of the expansion of mass surveillance. “From the beginning,
the charges against our alleged source(s) were politically motivated and
targeted to crush the necessary public debate about internet
surveillance Post-Snowden. Whistleblowers in the public interest need
protection, not prosecution as ‘treason”, <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/german-investigation-netzpolitik-coverage-leaked-surveillance-documents-confirmed" class="external text" rel="nofollow">argued</a> one of the journalists under investigation.
</p><p>A large section of German public opinion, via Twitter, plus the
Green Party and the chair of the Bundestag's legal affairs committee, <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/german-press-politicians-criticize-absurd-netzpolitik-inquiry/a-18619716" class="external text" rel="nofollow">have condemned</a> this move, described as a blow to freedom of information and the rule of law.
</p><h3><span id="White_House_rejects_a_petition_to_pardon_Edward_Snowden" class="mw-headline">White House rejects a petition to pardon Edward Snowden</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h3><p>Lisa Monaco, the US President's Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, <a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden" class="external text" rel="nofollow">responded</a>
this week to a petition demanding pardon for Edward Snowden's
whistleblowing on secret surveillance programs. Monaco argued that
Snowden should “accept the consequences of his actions[,] come home to
the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers”. She maintained
that Snowden's actions “had severe consequences for the security of our
country and the people who work [...] to protect it.” This last point
has always been a matter of contention, as other officials <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/claims-edward-snowdens-whistleblower-files-5882142" class="external text" rel="nofollow">have pointed out</a>
that the kind of documents leaked by Snowden didn't contain information
that could allow the identification of undercover agents.
</p><h2><span id="Reports" class="mw-headline">Reports</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h2><h3><span id="Report_on_Scottish_sovereignty_in_the_age_of_mass_surveillance_by_member_of_ORG_Scotland_Advisory_Board" class="mw-headline">Report on Scottish sovereignty in the age of mass surveillance by member of ORG Scotland Advisory Board</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h3><p>Alistair Davidson, <a href="https://scotland.openrightsgroup.org/" class="external text" rel="nofollow">Open Rights Group Scotland</a> advisory board member, issued on Tuesday, July 28th, <a href="http://allofusfirst.org/library/scottish-sovereignty-in-the-age-of-mass-surveillance/" class="external text" rel="nofollow">a report</a>
on Scottish Data security and sovereignty on Tueday, July 28th. This
followed revelations that mass surveillance undermined the <a href="http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/07/uk-government-admits-that-mps-arent-safe-from-mass-snooping/" class="external text" rel="nofollow">Wilson doctrine</a>, which was designed to protect Parliamentarians from being spied on by the intelligence services.
</p><p>The report's main recommendation is a massive transition to open
source software, which are “more trustworthy” as they are “publicly
auditable”, and thus cannot contain undetectable “backdoors” such as the
ones used by agencies such as <a title="Government Communications Headquarters" href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters">GCHQ</a> or the <a class="mw-redirect" title="NSA" href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/NSA">NSA</a>.
It also supports an investment in critical infrastructures and the use
of encryption in Scottish government as well as private sector
communications.
</p><h2><span id="ORG_Media_coverage" class="mw-headline">ORG Media coverage</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></h2><p>See <a title="ORG Press Coverage" href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_Press_Coverage">ORG Press Coverage</a> for full details.
</p><dl><dt>2015-07-30 – IBTimes - <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/david-camerons-internet-porn-shut-down-could-lead-national-firewall-akin-china-1513367" class="external text" rel="nofollow">David Cameron's internet porn shut down could lead to 'national firewall' akin to China</a>
</dt><dd>Author: Anthony Cuthbertson
</dd><dd>Summary: Jim Killock quoted on what how a ban on porn websites could mean the creation of a national firewall.
</dd></dl><dl><dt>2015-07-30 – The Inquirer - <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2420058/david-cameron-wants-to-block-non-age-verifiying-porn-sites" class="external text" rel="nofollow">David Cameron wants to block non-age verifying porn sites</a>
</dt><dd>Author: Dave Neal
</dd><dd>Summary: Jim Killock quoted on whether a ban on porn websites is a realistic goal
</dd></dl><dl><dt>2015-07-31 – Tech Week Europe - <a href="http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/e-regulation/porn-clampdown-questioned-173869" class="external text" rel="nofollow">How we’re fighting back against the UK surveillance state—and winning</a>
</dt><dd>Author:
</dd><dd>Summary: ORG's press release on David Cameron's announcement on a possible ban on porn websites
</dd></dl><dl><dt>2015-07-31 – Mirror - <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-shut-down-porn-6168615" class="external text" rel="nofollow">David Cameron wants to shut down porn sites - but will it work? Everything you need to know</a>
</dt><dd>Author: Dan Bloom
</dd><dd>Summary: Jim Killock quoted on what how a ban on porn websites could mean the creation of a national firewall.
</dd></dl></div>