<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p> </p>
<div id="container" class="container font-size5 content-width3">
<div id="reader-header" class="header" style="display: block;"
dir="ltr"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_policy_update/2017-w50">https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_policy_update/2017-w50</a>
<h1 id="reader-title">ORG policy update/2017-w50<br>
</h1>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="content">
<div id="moz-reader-content" class="line-height4"
style="display: block;" dir="ltr">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page">
<div id="bodyContent" class="entry-content">
<div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"
lang="en">
<p>This is ORG's Policy Update for the week beginning
11/12/2017.
</p>
<p>If you are reading this online, you can also
subscribe to the <a rel="nofollow" class="external
text"
href="https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/parliamentary.monitor">email
version or unsubscribe</a>.
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="ORG.E2.80.99s_work">ORG’s
work</span></h2>
<ul>
<li>ORG is running a petition against the Government’s
proposals to criminalise repeated viewing of online
terrorist propaganda and compelling internet
companies to police their own networks. <a
rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://action.openrightsgroup.org/censorship-and-control-are-not-answer-extremism">Sign
the petition here!</a></li>
<li>ORG recently relaunched an improved version of the
<a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.blocked.org.uk">Blocked!</a>
tool. The new version has improved search
capabilities, makes it easier to submit unblock
requests to ISPs, and has expanded the number of
probes available for service providers.</li>
<li>ORG drafted and submitted 3 Data Protection
briefings for peers in the the House of Lords, on
the <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/immigration-exemptions:-government-position-open-rights-group-response">proposed
immigration exemptions</a>, the <a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/collective-redress:-cheatsheet">Article
80(2) proposals</a>, and the proposed <a
rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/amendments%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Bto%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Bclause%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8B173%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8B:%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Bsupporting%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Bconsumer%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Brights%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Bfor%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Ball">Clause
173 amendment</a>.</li>
<li>ORG also submitted a joint briefing to peers,
written in conjunction with <a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="https://www.the3million.org.uk">the3million</a>
and covering the DPBill immigration exemption.</li>
</ul>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Official_meetings">Official
meetings</span></h2>
<ul>
<li>Jim Killock attended a "Complicity and
Counterterrorism" roundtable on Monday 11 Dec, which
looked at Parliament’s powers to scrutinise the UK’s
counterterrorism partnerships. The event was
organised by the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on
Drones, Extraordinary Rendition, and Rule of Law.</li>
<li>Jim Killock gave an interview to BBC Radio 4's <a
rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qjfq">Week
in Westminster</a> programme about the Committee
on Standards in Public Life's recommendations to
Theresa May that social media companies should be
held accountable as publishers for the content they
carry. The programme is to be aired on Saturday 16
December.</li>
</ul>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="UK_Parliament">UK
Parliament</span></h2>
<h3><span class="mw-headline"
id="Data_Protection_Bill_enters_House_of_Lords_Report_stage">Data
Protection Bill enters House of Lords Report stage</span></h3>
<p>The Data Protection Bill entered Report stage in the
House of Lords this week, with sittings being held on
Monday 11 Dec and Wednesday 13 Dec.
</p>
<p>The immigration exemption contained in the Bill was
discussed in the report sitting on the 13 Dec.
Baroness Hamwee and Lord Paddick tabled an
ORG-supported amendment (<a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="http://lordsamendments.parliament.uk/LordsAmendment/2017-2019/DataProtectionBill/Report/10476/2158">Amendment
42</a>), which proposed to entirely delete the
exemption from the Bill. The amendment was <a
rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="http://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-12-13/debates/9622571E-8F1E-43F8-B018-C409A3129553/DataProtectionBill%28HL%29#division-9396">voted
down in a division</a>, by 222 votes to 92.
</p>
<p>The Government tabled their own amendment to the
immigration exemption, <a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="http://lordsamendments.parliament.uk/LordsAmendment/2017-2019/DataProtectionBill/Report/10437/2158">Amendment
44</a>, which was supported by Labour. This
amendment was accepted into the Bill, but did not
address any of ORG's issues with the immigration
exemption.
</p>
<p>ORG's other primary interest, Article 80(2)
amendments to the bill were not debated in this week's
report sittings. The 80(2) amendment would allow
consumer groups like the Open Rights Group to take
independent action against entities who have been
abusing data protection law. If successful, not for
profit bodies could take action on behalf of data
subjects without having to seek their mandate. The
amendment would create similar enforcement powers for
data protection as in others consumer rights like
finance, and competition. It is expected that this
will be discussed during the third Report sitting, to
take place on 11 January.
</p>
<p>Future amendments, as well as amendments that have
already been debated are <a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/dataprotection/documents.html">available
here</a>.
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline"
id="Other_national_developments">Other national
developments</span></h2>
<h3><span class="mw-headline"
id="Ethics_advisory_body_urges_Government_to_shift_liability_for_illegal_content_online_towards_social_media_companies">Ethics
advisory body urges Government to shift liability
for illegal content online towards social media
companies</span></h3>
<p>On Wednesday, the <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life"
title="Committee on Standards in Public Life">Committee
on Standards in Public Life</a> published a report
entitled <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intimidation-in-public-life-a-review-by-the-committee-on-standards-in-public-life">Intimidation
in Public Life</a>. The report considers the issues
posed by internet abuse targeting public figures,
noting that:
</p>
<blockquote>In recent years, the intimidation
experienced by Parliamentary candidates, and others in
public life, has become a threat to the diversity,
integrity, and vibrancy of representative democracy in
the UK.</blockquote>
<p>The report's findings have been interpreted as
presenting support for the <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Digital_Charter"
title="Digital Charter" class="mw-redirect">Digital
Charter</a>, and it makes a number of
recommendations, including a suggestion that the
Government should bring forward legislation to shift
the liability of illegal content online towards social
media companies. The report also recommends compelling
social media networks to implement automated
techniques to identify potentially intimidatory
content posted on their services, and use the
information to take down content as rapidly as
possible.
</p>
<p>ORG is concerned that the report's recommendations
will result in overblocking by social media firms - as
they rush to remove content as rapidly as possible to
avoid penalties or fines.
</p>
<p>Further details, and a breakdown of more of the
report's recommendations, are available on <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life/Intimidation_in_Public_Life"
title="Committee on Standards in Public
Life/Intimidation in Public Life">this ORG Wiki page</a>.
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline"
id="Government_proposes_BBFC_as_regulator_for_age_verification_for_online_pornography">Government
proposes BBFC as regulator for age verification for
online pornography</span></h3>
<p>On Thursday, the Government <a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bbfc-proposed-to-enforce-age-verification-of-online-pornography">issued
a press release</a> naming the BBFC as their
preferred regulator for age verification services for
online pornography. The regulator is designated under
s.16 <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2017"
title="Digital Economy Act 2017">Digital Economy Act
2017</a> and is responsible for ensuring that
pornographic sites comply with their obligation to
verify the age of visitors before serving them
pornographic content.
</p>
<p>The regulator is granted the power to give notice to
sites that they are not complying with AV regulations
(s.21), or to instruct ISPs to block sites outright if
they do not comply (s.23).
</p>
<p>As per s.17 Digital Economy Act 2017, the
Government’s proposal must be approved by Parliament
before the BBFC is officially designated as the
age-verification regulator.
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline"
id="Changes_proposed_to_Scottish_defamation_law_to_take_into_account_the_growth_of_the_internet_and_social_media">Changes
proposed to Scottish defamation law to take into
account the growth of the internet and social media</span></h3>
<p>The Scottish Law Commission has published <a
rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/law-reform/law-reform-projects/defamation/">a
report on defamation</a> for MSPs, including a draft
bill, to consider radical changes to the law of
defamation that take into account the growth of the
internet and social media. The Commission claim that
the changes bring Scots Law up to date while
protecting freedom of expression.
</p>
<p>The report makes a number of recommendations,
including that a defamatory statement should "only be
actionable where it is published to someone other than
the person who is the subject of it". In justifying
this, the report noted that it had considered the
primary function of defamation law, namely to protect
a person's reputation, and noted that a reputation
could not be damaged by a statement without an
audience.
</p>
<p>The report also recommends that cases should not be
allowed to be brought where the person being defamed
is deceased and, as a precautionary measure against
defamation being used as a silencing measure by the
rich and powerful, that there should be no right to
sue unless it is clear that a statement has caused
serious harm to reputation.
</p>
<p>Further recommendations can be found in the <a
rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/index.php/download_file/view/2001/821/">full
report here</a>.
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline"
id="Government_update_on_the_upcoming_biometrics_strategy">Government
update on the upcoming biometrics strategy</span></h3>
<p>Baroness Williams has <a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/science-technology/Correspondence/171130-BWT-to-Chair-biometric-strategy.pdf">reported</a>
that the Home Office biometrics strategy and
Government policy on the Police use of facial
recognition systems will be published next year.
</p>
<p>The report contains some details about the
forthcoming strategy, including that the remit of the
Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group has been
extended from DNA and fingerprints to all biometrics,
and that the College of Policing’s Authorised
Professional Practice (APP) has been updated to
reflect that the police have the right to retain the
image of an unconvicted person if there is an
exceptional reason to do so.
</p>
<p>Tech media outlet <i>The Register</i> <a
rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/14/ukgov_pushes_back_biometrics_strategy_again_but_will_use_the_tech_in_the_meantime">reports</a>
that the Home Office has delayed publication of this
strategy multiple times since 2012, and notes that the
technology is already in use, for example at the last
two Notting Hill Carnivals.
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline"
id="International_developments">International
developments</span></h2>
<h3><span class="mw-headline"
id="Vote_on_FCC.27s_net_neutrality_repeal">Vote on
FCC's net neutrality repeal</span></h3>
<p>On Thursday 14 December, the Federal Communications
Commission in the United States voted to repeal
Obama-era net neutrality provisions which were
originally approved by the Commission in 2015. Under
the now-approved proposal, the FCC has removed rules
banning ISPs from blocking or restricting access to
online content, and removed a rule barring providers
from prioritising their own content or services.
</p>
<p>If the USA removes protection for net neutrality,
this will likely bring pressure on Europe to follow
suit. European net neutrality protections are already
insufficiently strong, being abused by mobile
providers selling data packages that favour sites like
Facebook over their competitors. The conflict will be
presented by lobbyists as a balancing act to force US
internet companies to share their wealth with European
telecoms companies providing the underlying
infrastructure. The truth is that this will simply
consolidate the power of the big internet behemoths at
the expenses of SMEs, non-profits and startups.
Facebook and Google don’t need extra help from special
deals with telcos to dominate the market. The EU and
UK need to step up and protect values of openness and
competition that Trump’s government are busy
abandoning.
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline"
id="Questions_in_the_UK_Parliament">Questions in the
UK Parliament</span></h2>
<h3><span class="mw-headline"
id="Question_on_police_use_of_facial_recognition_technology">Question
on police use of facial recognition technology</span></h3>
<p><a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Haigh_MP&action=edit&redlink=1"
class="new" title="Louise Haigh MP (page does not
exist)">Louise Haigh MP</a> <a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-12-07.118230.h">asked</a>
the Secretary of Sate for the Home Department what
guidance has been issued to police forces on their use
of facial recognition technology and data protection.
</p>
<p>Nick Hurd replied that all forces were required to
show regard to the <a rel="nofollow" class="external
text"
href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/surveillance-camera-code-of-practice">Surveillance
Camera Code of Practice</a> in their use of overt
surveillance camera systems.
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline"
id="Question_on_third-party_trackers_in_Android_apps">Question
on third-party trackers in Android apps</span></h3>
<p><a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Chi_Onwurah_MP"
title="Chi Onwurah MP" class="mw-redirect">Chi
Onwurah MP</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external
text"
href="https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-12-05.117508.q0">asked</a>
the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and
Sport what assessment had been made about the
potential privacy implications of third-party trackers
in Android apps for UK citizens.
</p>
<p>Matthew Hancock answered that the Government takes
"both the protection of personal data and the right to
privacy extremely seriously", and that the Data
Protection Bill would "make our data protection laws
fit for the digital age in which an ever increasing
amount of data is being processed".
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline"
id="Written_question_about_cyber_attack_statistics">Written
question about cyber attack statistics</span></h3>
<p>Jon Trickett <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-12-05.117685.h">asked</a>
how many incidents relating to cyber attacks had been
dealt with by GCHQ in each of the last twelve months.
</p>
<p>Caroline Nokes responded that the first annual review
of the <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/National_Cyber_Security_Centre"
title="National Cyber Security Centre">National
Cyber Security Centre</a> was published in October
2017 and reported that the NCSC dealt with 590
significant cyber investigations in its first twelve
months of operation.
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="ORG_media_coverage">ORG
media coverage</span></h2>
<p><i>See <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_Press_Coverage"
title="ORG Press Coverage">ORG Press Coverage</a>
for full details.</i>
</p>
<dl>
<dt>2017-12-12-The Canary-<a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/12/12/right-wing-press-launched-front-page-war-social-media-obvious-images/">The
right-wing press has launched a front-page war
against social media. It’s obvious why.</a></dt>
<dd>Author: James Wright</dd>
<dd>Summary: Jim Killock quoted in a story about
Theresa May's ethics watchdog issuing a
recommendation for laws to be enacted treating
social media platforms as publishers of the content
they carry.</dd>
<dd>Topics: <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Online_censorship"
title="Online censorship" class="mw-redirect">Online
censorship</a></dd>
<dt>2017-12-12-BBC News-<a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42323696">Tech
firms could be held liable for extremism and abuse</a></dt>
<dd>Author: Jane Wakefield</dd>
<dd>Summary: Jim Killock quoted in a story about
Theresa May's ethics watchdog issuing a
recommendation for laws to be enacted treating
social media platforms as publishers of the content
they carry.</dd>
<dd>Topics: <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Online_censorship"
title="Online censorship" class="mw-redirect">Online
censorship</a></dd>
<dt>2017-12-12-Sky News-<a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-urged-to-prosecute-web-giants-over-abusive-content-11167820">Theresa
May urged to prosecute web giants over abusive
content</a></dt>
<dd>Author: Alexander J Martin</dd>
<dd>Summary: Jim Killock quoted in a story about
Theresa May's ethics watchdog issuing a
recommendation for laws to be enacted treating
social media platforms as publishers of the content
they carry.</dd>
<dd>Topics: <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Online_censorship"
title="Online censorship" class="mw-redirect">Online
censorship</a></dd>
<dt>2017-12-13-New Statesman-<a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="http://tech.newstatesman.com/guest-opinion/theresa-may-fine-social-media-firms">What
could possibly go wrong with Theresa May’s plans
to start punishing social media firms?</a></dt>
<dd>Author: Jim Killock</dd>
<dd>Summary: Opinion piece by Jim Killock about
Theresa May's ethics watchdog issuing a
recommendation for laws to be enacted treating
social media platforms as publishers of the content
they carry.</dd>
<dd>Topics: <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Online_censorship"
title="Online censorship" class="mw-redirect">Online
censorship</a></dd>
<dt>2017-12-13-Legal Cheek-<a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/12/can-facebook-really-listen-in-on-your-conversations/">Can
Facebook really listen in on your conversations?</a></dt>
<dd>Author: Katie King</dd>
<dd>Summary: Jim Killock quoted in story about rumours
that the Facebook app can listen to user
conversations through a device's microphone.</dd>
<dd>Topics: <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Privacy"
title="Privacy">Privacy</a>, <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Security"
title="Security">Security</a>, <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Surveillance"
title="Surveillance" class="mw-redirect">Surveillance</a></dd>
<dt>2017-12-14-Sky News-<a rel="nofollow"
class="external text"
href="https://news.sky.com/story/net-neutrality-what-a-us-vote-means-for-the-uk-11170224">Net
neutrality: What a US vote means for the UK</a></dt>
<dd>Author: Alexander J Martin</dd>
<dd>Summary: Ed Johnson-Williams quoted in story about
the potential implications that a US vote on net
neutrality might have for the UK.</dd>
<dd>Topics: <a
href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Net_Neutrality"
title="Net Neutrality">Net Neutrality</a></dd>
</dl>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="ORG_Contact_Details">ORG
Contact Details</span></h2>
<p><a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff">Staff
page</a>
</p>
<ul>
<li> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#jim">Jim
Killock, Executive Director</a></li>
<li> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#javier">Javier
Ruiz, Policy Director</a></li>
<li> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#ed">Ed
Johnson-Williams, Campaigns</a></li>
<li> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#lee">Lee
Maguire, Tech</a></li>
<li> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#myles">Myles
Jackman, Legal Director</a></li>
<li> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#alex">Alex
Haydock, Legal Intern</a></li>
<li> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#matthew">Matthew
Rice, Scotland Director</a></li>
<li> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#slavka">Slavka
Bielikova, Policy Officer</a></li>
<li> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#mike">Mike
Morel, Campaigner</a></li>
<li> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#caitlin">Caitlin
Bishop, Campaigns Communication Officer</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</body>
</html>