<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="container content-width3 font-size5"><div class="reader-header header" dir="ltr"><a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_policy_update/2018-w16-17" class="">https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_policy_update/2018-w16-17</a> <br class=""><div class="domain-border"></div>
<h1 class="reader-title">ORG policy update/2018-w16-17</h1>
</div>
<hr class="">
<div class="content">
<div class="line-height4 moz-reader-content" dir="ltr"><div id="readability-page-1" class="page"><div id="bodyContent" class="">
<div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" lang="en" class=""><p class="">This is ORG's Policy Update for the two week period beginning 16/04/2018.
</p><p class="">If you are reading this online, you can also subscribe to the <a rel="nofollow" href="https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/parliamentary.monitor" class="">email version or unsubscribe</a>.
</p>
<h2 class=""><span id="ORG.E2.80.99s_work" class="">ORG’s work</span></h2>
<ul class=""><li class=""> Javier Ruiz and Myles Jackman have been invited to attend the
House of Lords on 2 May 2018 to answer questions on proposals for
internet governance and regulation.</li>
<li class=""> Ed Johnson-Williams has returned to ORG following a period of
paternity leave, and we bid farewell to Caitlin Bishop, who worked for
ORG for 6 months as our Campaigns and Communications Officer.</li></ul>
<h2 class=""><span id="Official_meetings" class="">Official meetings</span></h2>
<ul class=""><li class="">Javier Ruiz attended the House of Lords to give evidence to the
Select Committee on the European Union on the proposed UK-EU Security
Treaty.</li>
<li class="">The ORG Advisory Council met to discuss current and future plans and strategy for ORG.</li>
<li class="">Myles Jackman appeared on Victoria Derbyshire to discuss age verification.</li>
<li class="">Myles Jackman and Alex Haydock attended an event hosted by the <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.scl.org/" class="">Society for Computers and Law</a> that discussed the use of evidence from IoT devices during legal proceedings.</li>
<li class="">Jim Killock attended a meeting at Google about content takedown requests.</li>
<li class="">Mike Morel and Alex Haydock attended and assisted with a variety of
local group events on free speech, including: Leeds, Manchester,
Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cambridge, and Bristol.</li>
<li class="">Javier Ruiz gave a presentation at a workshop on Data Analytics in the Public Sector.</li>
<li class="">Javier Ruiz attended a meeting at the University of Essex with IPCO staff.</li></ul>
<h2 class=""><span id="UK_Parliament" class="">UK Parliament</span></h2>
<h3 class=""><span id="Data_Protection_Bill" class="">Data Protection Bill</span></h3><p class="">The <a rel="nofollow" href="https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/dataprotection.html" class="">Data Protection Bill</a> continues its way through the House of Commons this week, with the Bill's Report Stage yet to be announced.
</p><p class="">The opposition amendment for the Immigration Exemption has support from the Labour, Lib Dem, and Green parties.
</p><p class="">The Government currently hasn't conceded on Article 80(2), and
suggest that a review is needed before they will consider implementing
the power.
</p><p class="">A rebel amendment was also tabled by Conservative back-bench MPs,
and which also has some support from Labour MPs, was tabled to
introduce controls on health data sharing - and to ensure that such data
could not be shared with anyone other than the police.
</p>
<h2 class=""><span id="Other_national_developments" class="">Other national developments</span></h2>
<h3 class=""><span id="BBFC_Consultation_on_Age_Verification" class="">BBFC Consultation on Age Verification</span></h3><p class="">On the 23rd April 2018, the British Board of Film Classification
(BBFC) closed their consultation on their age verification guidelines
for online pornography. The consultation called for the public’s views
on the guidance that the BBFC plan to issue to the providers of age
verification tools.
</p><p class="">Open Rights Group submitted a response and highlighted a number
of issues with the proposed age verification system, and over 500 people
used our online tool to submit their own responses.
</p><p class="">We raised a number of points for the BBFC to consider:
</p>
<ul class=""><li class=""> The aim of age verification is defined as being for the
“protection of children”, however, under scrutiny, it is clear that the
scheme will be unable to achieve this aim.</li>
<li class=""> This consultation indicates that the BBFC intend to consider
material which ought to be out-of-scope for an age verification system,
such as extreme pornography and child abuse material.</li>
<li class=""> The BBFC also indicate that they intend to consider the
effectiveness of a response to a non-compliant person before issuing it,
but do not indicate an intent to consider the proportionality of that
response.</li>
<li class=""> The scheme as a whole lacks any specific and higher level of
privacy protection, despite the existence of unique problems. In
particular, any data breaches cannot be properly compensated for in
terms of reputational, career and relationship consequences.</li>
<li class=""> The scheme risks infringing free expression rights by granting the BBFC web blocking powers.</li>
<li class=""> The ability of the BBFC to give notice to ancillary service
providers creates legal uncertainty and incentivises disproportionate
actions on non-UK persons.</li>
<li class="">As a whole, the age verification scheme fails to understand the
limitations faced by the BBFC in terms of regulating overseas providers
in a fair and proportionate manner.</li></ul><p class="">Our full response has been published <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2018/bbfc-consultation-response" class="">here</a>.
</p>
<h3 class=""><span id="Judgment_in_Liberty.27s_.22People_v_Snooper.27s_Charter.22_case" class="">Judgment in Liberty's "People v Snooper's Charter" case</span></h3><p class="">The High Court <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/liberty-v-home-office/" class="">handed down judgment</a> this week in the case of <i class="">Liberty v Secretary of State for the Home Department</i>. The judgment concerned Part 4 of the <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016" title="Investigatory Powers Act 2016" class="">Investigatory Powers Act 2016</a> (IPA), which substantially reimplemented the powers from <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/DRIPA" title="DRIPA" class="">DRIPA</a> into UK law.
</p><p class="">The court confirmed that the current powers outlined in the IPA
are incompatible with EU law on the same grounds as the decision given
by the Court of Appeal in the case of <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department_v_Watson_%26_Others" title="Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson & Others" class="">Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson & Others</a>, namely the fact that:
</p>
<ul class=""><li class=""> Access to retained data is not limited to the purposes of combating 'serious crime'; and</li>
<li class=""> Access to retained data is not subject to review by a court or independent body.</li></ul><p class="">The Court provided the Government with a deadline of 1 November 2018
to ensure that the legislation was amended to comply with EU law. The
general data retention regime of the IPA remains, as long as the
Government can ensure that the law complies with the above requirements
by November.
</p><p class="">The Court declined to consider some of the grounds presented by
Liberty in the case, as a result of a pending reference to the Court of
Justice of the European Union in the case of <i class="">Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal</i>.
</p><p class="">Fundamentally, the Court disagreed with the position that the
data retention powers of the IPA amounted to "indiscriminate" or "mass"
surveillance. They said: "we reject the Claimant’s contention that Part 4
of the 2016 Act is inconsistent with EU law because it provides for the
general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data".
</p>
<h2 class=""><span id="ORG_media_coverage" class="">ORG media coverage</span></h2><p class=""><i class="">See <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_Press_Coverage" title="ORG Press Coverage" class="">ORG Press Coverage</a> for full details.</i>
</p>
<dl class=""><dt class="">2018-04-26-Digital Journal-<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3751024" class="">Firm Announces New Solutions to Remove Arrest and Mugshot Records from the Web</a></dt>
<dd class="">Author: DeleteMyMugshot</dd>
<dd class="">Summary: Jim Killock quoted in a press release from a company who specialise in removing police mugshots from the internet.</dd>
<dd class="">Topics: <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Data_protection" title="Data protection" class="">Data protection</a></dd>
<dt class="">2018-04-23-The Guardian-<a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/23/home-office-data-exemption-sparks-fears-of-renewed-windrush-scandals" class="">Home Office data exemption sparks fears of further Windrush scandals</a></dt>
<dd class="">Author: Owen Bowcott</dd>
<dd class="">Summary: ORG litigation threats with Leigh Day and the3million
against the Immigration Exemption mentioned in a story about the
Windrush scandal.</dd>
<dd class="">Topics: <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Data_protection" title="Data protection" class="">Data protection</a></dd>
<dt class="">2018-04-18-Engadget-<a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/18/voting-tech-gerrymandering-av-star-vote/" class="">Our democracy is broken. Why can't technology fix it?</a></dt>
<dd class="">Author: Andrew Tarantola</dd>
<dd class="">Summary: ORG's 2014 publication about the dangers of electronic voting mentioned.</dd>
<dd class="">Topics: <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Electronic_voting" title="Electronic voting" class="">Electronic voting</a></dd>
<dt class="">2018-04-16-Digit-<a rel="nofollow" href="https://digit.fyi/electronic-voting-scotland/" class="">Scottish Government Gives Go-Ahead For E-Voting Pilot</a></dt>
<dd class="">Author: Dominique Adams</dd>
<dd class="">Summary: Matthew Rice quoted in a story about electronic voting trials.</dd>
<dd class="">Topics: <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Electronic_voting" title="Electronic voting" class="">Electronic voting</a></dd>
<dt class="">2018-04-13-BBC News-<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43752344" class="">Google loses 'right to be forgotten' case</a></dt>
<dd class="">Author: BBC News</dd>
<dd class="">Summary: Jim Killock quoted in a story about the 'right to be forgotten'.</dd>
<dd class="">Topics: <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Data_protection" title="Data protection" class="">Data protection</a></dd>
<dt class="">2018-04-13-The Guardian-<a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/13/right-to-be-forgotten-courts-must-decide-balance-between-privacy-and-public-interest" class="">Google cases are a battle between right to privacy and right to know</a></dt>
<dd class="">Author: Jamie Grierson</dd>
<dd class="">Summary: Jim Killock quoted in a story about the 'right to be forgotten'.</dd>
<dd class="">Topics: <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Data_protection" title="Data protection" class="">Data protection</a></dd>
<dt class="">2018-04-13-The Telegraph-<a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/13/criminals-can-claim-right-forgotten-following-landmark-google/" class="">Criminals can claim 'right to be forgotten' following landmark Google case</a></dt>
<dd class="">Author: Olivia Rudgard</dd>
<dd class="">Summary: Jim Killock quoted in a story about the 'right to be forgotten'.</dd>
<dd class="">Topics: <a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Data_protection" title="Data protection" class="">Data protection</a></dd></dl>
<h2 class=""><span id="ORG_Staff_Details" class="">ORG Staff Details</span></h2><p class=""><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff" class="">Staff Contact Page</a>
</p>
<ul class=""><li class=""><b class=""><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:jim@openrightsgroup.org" class="">Jim Killock</a></b>, Executive Director</li>
<li class=""><b class=""><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:javier@openrightsgroup.org" class="">Javier Ruiz</a></b>, Policy Director</li>
<li class=""><b class=""><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:martha@openrightsgroup.org" class="">Martha Dark</a></b>, Chief Operations Officer</li>
<li class=""><b class=""><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:matthew@openrightsgroup.org" class="">Matthew Rice</a></b>, Scotland Director</li>
<li class=""><b class=""><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:myles@openrightsgroup.org" class="">Myles Jackman</a></b>, Legal Director</li>
<li class=""><b class=""><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:mike@openrightsgroup.org" class="">Mike Morel</a></b>, Campaign Manager</li>
<li class=""><b class=""><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:ed@openrightsgroup.org" class="">Ed Johnson-Williams</a></b>, Policy and Research Officer</li>
<li class=""><b class=""><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:slavka@openrightsgroup.org" class="">Slavka Bielikova</a></b>, Policy Officer</li>
<li class=""><b class=""><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:alex.haydock@openrightsgroup.org" class="">Alex Haydock</a></b>, Legal Officer</li>
<li class=""><b class=""><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:lee@openrightsgroup.org" class="">Lee Maguire</a></b>, Tech</li></ul>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div></body></html>