<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-w32</h1>
<p><span lang="en-US">This is ORG's Policy Update for the week
beginning 31/07/2015.</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h2 class="western"><a name="National_Developments"></a><span lang="en-US">National
Developments</span></h2>
<h3 class="western"><a name="Coalition_calls_for_a_.E2.80.9Cright_to_remove.E2.80.9D_content_for_children"></a>
<span lang="en-US">Coalition calls for a “right to remove”
content for children</span></h3>
<p><span lang="en-US"><a href="http://irights.uk/">iRights</a>, a
civil society initiative led by Crossbench peer Baroness Beeban
Kidron, has launched this week a list of five “iRights” for
children, one of them being the “right to remove”. This right is
defined as 'the unqualified right [for children and young adults], on
every Internet platform or service, to fully [and easily] remove data
and content they have created”. The aim is to allow young adults to
get away from potentially embarrassing past experiences. </span>
</p>
<p><span lang="en-US">This proposal is likely to be taken seriously,
as iRights is backed by European Union commissioner Neelie Kroes and
Internet safety and security minister baroness <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Joanna_Shields">Joanna
Shields</a>. The Children's Commissioner is <a href="http://irights.uk/irights-in-action-childrens-commissioner-in-england/">reportedly
inspired</a> by these proposals in her work to establish a “Growing
Up Digital” taskforce this autumn. </span>
</p>
<p><span lang="en-US">Questions <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/uk-peer-calls-for-universal-internet-delete-button-may-also-want-unicorns/">have
been raised</a> on the feasibility of this proposition. It would
require that a website knows that a particular user was a child at
the time he posted something, and implies that users know where all
copies of the information the users wants to be deleted are located.
It also raises the question of the geographical scope, especially as
Google re-affirmed last week that <a href="http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/implementing-european-not-global-right.html">it
won't apply</a> the de-indexing of inaccurate or irrelevant
informations (the “<a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/The_Right_To_Be_Forgotten">right
to be forgotten</a>') demanded by users to its worldwide and
extra-European search services. <br></span></p><p><span lang="en-US"><br></span>
</p>
<h2 class="western"><a name="European_Union"></a><span lang="en-US">European
Union</span></h2>
<h3 class="western"><a name="EU_.E2.80.93_US_data_sharing_agreement_negotiations_are_coming_to_an_end"></a>
<span lang="en-US">EU – US data sharing agreement negotiations are
coming to an end</span></h3>
<p><span lang="en-US">The European Union and the United States are,
according to a <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/eu-close-sealing-deal-united-states-data-sharing-316814">leaked
document</a>, very close to reaching a deal on the Safe Harbor, the
data sharing agreement that was put back into question after the
<a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Guardian_and_Snowden_revelations_2013">Snowden
revelations</a>. It set standards that companies could voluntarily
comply to in order to facilitate the transfer of data between the EU
and the US. In 2013, documents leaked by the whistleblower have shown
that the standard set by this programme are insufficient and not
properly enforced, so much so that the <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/European_Parliament">European
Parliament</a> <a href="https://epic.org/2014/03/european-parliament-suspend-sa.html">had
called</a> for an end to the programme altogether. </span>
</p>
<p><span lang="en-US">The <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/European_Commission">European
Commission</a> and the United States have been negotiating a new
agreement for more than two years. This went far beyond the expected
schedule, as <a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/07/29/safe-harbor-under-increased-scrutiny">no
agreement</a> could be reached on the exception for data interception
in case of national security concerns. Without providing many
details, the leaked document asserts that this problem has been
solved and that a final agreement is near. <br></span></p><p><span lang="en-US"><br></span>
</p>
<h2 class="western"><a name="International_developments"></a><span lang="en-US">International
developments</span></h2>
<h3 class="western"><a name="German_chief_prosecutor_fired_over_Netzpolitik.27s_treason_investigation_scandal"></a>
<span lang="en-US">German chief prosecutor fired over Netzpolitik's
treason investigation scandal</span></h3>
<p><span lang="en-US">Harald Range, the German senior prosecutor who
was investigating two Netzpolitik's journalists and one of their
sources for treason, <a href="http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/08/germanys-top-prosecutor-fired-over-netzpolitik-treason-probe/">was
fired</a> on Tuesday, August 4th, by the Justice Minister after a
major public and political outrage. This is the first time that
journalists have been charged with treason in Germany since 1962, and
the news <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/german-media-treason-probe-sparks-major-political-rift-154848813.html">has
sparked</a> street protests and outrage by major opposition parties.
The journalists published classified documents on the government's
plan to further mass surveillance in Germany. </span>
</p>
<p><span lang="en-US">The Chief prosecutor <a href="http://www.afp.com/en/news/german-media-treason-probe-sparks-major-political-rift">argued</a>
that this forced early retirement was an “intolerable encroachment
on the independence of the judiciary” and that “freedom of the
press and of expression [,]including on the Internet, is not
limitless”. The investigation is suspended, but not terminated, and
the scandal could go on, as opposition parties have asked for details
on the Justice Minister and the Minister of the Interior's
involvement and knowledge in this investigation. </span>
</p>
<h3 class="western"><a name="ICANN_unveils_plan_for_its_independence_from_the_US_Department_of_Commerce"></a>
<span lang="en-US">ICANN unveils plan for its independence from the
US Department of Commerce</span></h3>
<p><span lang="en-US"><a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ICANN">ICANN</a>,
a key infrastructure of the Internet whose main function is to
establish the correspondence between a domain name and numeric
address, has published this week <a href="https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-call-for-public-comment-on-iana-stewardship-transition-proposal/">a
report</a> on how it intends to deal with its new independence from
the US Department of Commerce. ICANN was under contract from the
United States since 1998, but is now moving further into a
“multi-stakeholders” model free for government interference. </span>
</p>
<p><span lang="en-US"><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/03/usa-internet-icann-idUSL1N10E0ZZ20150803">The
report proposes</a> that the technical aspect of handling Internet's
name and addresses should be transferred to a separate subsidiary
which the experts, academics and public interest advocates composing
ICANN could hold under scrutiny and replace with another if its
performance is not good enough. The organisation is <a href="https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-call-for-public-comment-on-iana-stewardship-transition-proposal/">calling
for comments</a> on its report. </span>
</p>
<p><span lang="en-US">The transition is expected to take place next
summer, despite the unwillingness of senior American politicians to
hand over the keys of this major Internet infrastructure.
Ex-president Bill Clinton has <a href="https://recode.net/2014/03/23/bill-clinton-would-prefer-u-s-oversight-of-the-internet/">expressed
fear</a> that this would be a danger for free and open Internet; the
Republicans <a href="http://time.com/58277/republicans-dont-want-america-to-give-up-control-of-web-addresses/">have
argued</a> that the “multi-stakeholders model” will allow for
foreign government, such as Russia, to "grab” control of the
Internet. Human Rights organisation such as Human Rights Watch or
Freedom House <a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/04/10/public-interest-groups-send-letter-expressing-concerns-on-dotcom-act-to-hou">have
welcomed</a> the advancement of the multi-stakeholders model, giving
more transparency to the internet governance. The argument between
both sides is mostly symbolic, as the attribution of domain name does
not have massive privacy or free speech implications. </span>
</p>
<h3 class="western"><a name="India_blocks_porn_.E2.80.93_and_then_turns_it_back_on"></a>
<span lang="en-US">India blocks porn – and then turns it back on</span></h3>
<p><span lang="en-US">On Saturday, August 1st, more than 800
pornographic websites <a href="http://www.legallyindia.com/Tech-Media-Comms/porn-sites-blocked">were
blocked</a> by Internet Service Providers (ISPs)in India, by order of
the Indian government's Department of Telecommunications. Proponents
of the ban argued that this was a first step to fight against
“violence against women and moral corruption”. The current Indian
government <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/02/26/internet-freedom_n_6758696.html">tightened</a>
its control over the Internet earlier this year, in a move that was
controversial and criticised as a blow against freedom of expression.
</span>
</p>
<p><span lang="en-US">The ban <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/5/9099387/india-reverses-porn-website-ban">was
lifted</a> on Tuesday after public outcry, and now only applies to
child pornography. ISPs still express discontent as they are held
legally responsible if they give access to a website containing child
pornography. <br></span></p><p><span lang="en-US"><br></span>
</p>
<h2 class="western"><a name="ORG_Media_coverage"></a><span lang="en-US">ORG
Media coverage</span></h2>
<p><span lang="en-US">See <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_Press_Coverage">ORG
Press Coverage</a> for full details. </span>
</p>
<dt><span lang="en-US">2015-08-06 – BoingBoing - <a href="https://boingboing.net/2015/08/06/uk-govt-wants-your-opinion-on.html">UK
govt wants your opinion on sending file-sharers to jail for 10 years</a>
</span>
</dt><dd lang="en-US">
Author: Cory Doctorow
</dd><dd style="margin-bottom:0.2in" lang="en-US">
Summary: Quotes Jim Killock on the consultation on raising maximum
jail sentence for copyright infringement
</dd><dt>
<span lang="en-US">2015-08-06 – Advanced Television - <a href="http://advanced-television.com/2015/08/06/org-questions-10-year-online-piracy-sentence-proposal/">ORG
questions 10 year online piracy sentence proposal</a> </span>
</dt><dd lang="en-US">
Author: Colin Mann
</dd><dd style="margin-bottom:0.2in" lang="en-US">
Summary: Quotes ORG's response to the consultation on raising maximum
jail sentence for copyright infringement
</dd><dt>
<span lang="en-US">2015-07-31 – BBC News - <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33736385">Rise
of facial recognition queried by US agency</a> </span>
</dt><dd lang="en-US">
Author:
</dd><dd style="margin-bottom:0.2in" lang="en-US">
Summary: Quotes Jim Killock on the implications for privacy of the
rise of facial recognition
</dd><dt>
<span lang="en-US">2015-08-02 – Torrent Freak - <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/anti-web-blocking-site-more-popular-in-the-uk-than-spotify-skype-150802/">Anti-Web
Blocking Site More Popular in the UK than Spotify & Skype</a> </span>
</dt><dd lang="en-US">
Author: Andy
</dd><dd style="margin-bottom:0.2in" lang="en-US">
Summary: Quotes Jim Killock on why Cameron's plan to ban porn for
minors won't work
</dd><h2 class="western">
<a name="ORG_contact_details"></a><span lang="en-US">ORG contact
details</span></h2>
<p><span lang="en-US"><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff">Staff
page</a> </span>
</p>
<ul><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><span lang="en-US"><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#jim">Jim
Killock, Executive Director</a> </span>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><span lang="en-US"><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#javier">Javier
Ruiz, Policy</a> </span>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><span lang="en-US"><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#ed">Ed
Paton-Williams, Campaigns</a> </span>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><span lang="en-US"><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#pam">Pam
Cowburn, Communications</a> </span>
</p>
</li><li><p><span lang="en-US"><a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#lee">Lee
Maguire, Tech</a> </span>
</p>
</li></ul>
</div>