[ORG PM] ORG Policy Update - 24 July 2015

Fri Jul 24 15:51:30 BST 2015

 ORG policy update/2015-w30

This is ORG policy update for the week commencing on 17/07/2015.
National developments Police Scotland pushes for a new centralised system
of CCTV as report finds the current situation could be unlawful

A classified 2013 Police Scotland was brought to light by The Ferret
<https://theferret.scot/exclusive-scotlands-cctv-in-crisis/> 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 publicly
demanding for
<http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/22/police-scotland-pushes-centralised-cctv-network>
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.

The plan, as well as the revelations of the report, have alarmed privacy
campaigners. The Scottish Lib Dem
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrat_Party> Leader,
Willie Rennie, called for “steps to regulate CCTV cameras to prevent
inappropriate surveillance in our community”. Pol Clementsmith, from the
newly established Open Rights Group Scotland
<https://scotland.openrightsgroup.org/>, 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.

 Legal developments Government announces it will challenge ruling finding
DRIPA unlawful

Last week, the High Court found the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers
Act 2014 (DRIPA <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/DRIPA>) unlawful.
The Court is suspending its order until March 31st, 2016, in order “to give
parliament the opportunity to put matters right”.

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 announced
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/17/government_appeals_court_nixing_dripa_surveillance_law/>
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 European
Court of Justice
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice> judgment
<http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf>
on the Data Retention Directive. The government stated
<http://www.timebase.com.au/news/2015/AT278-article.html> that it will take
"whatever steps are necessary to ensure communications data continues to be
available when it is needed”.

 MPs challenge interception of their communications

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Tribunal>(IPT)
is hearing this week a case on the so-called “Wilson Doctrine”. This
convention, named after Harold Wilson, states that
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/23/what-is-wilson-doctrine-story-behind-mps-protection-snooping>
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.

Following whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations, Green Party
politicians Caroline Lucas MP, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, and former MP
George Galloway believe <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33631589> 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.

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 repeated this
<http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2015-07-22a.1107.2#g1107.6> week
that “obviously, the Wilson doctrine applies to parliamentarians”, a MI6
policy from February 2015 argues that
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-intelligence-service-spying-on-mps-in-defiance-of-laws-prohibiting-it-10411996.html>
the Wilson doctrine “does not prohibit the interception of
Parliamentarians’ communications”.

James Eadi QC told
<http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/24/wilson-doctrine-unworkable-bulk-interception-intelligence-agencies?CMP=share_btn_tw>
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.

 Private copying deemed unlawful

The private copying exception
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2361/contents/made>, which allows
a person who legitimately acquired a work protected by copyright to copy it
for free for his own private usage, has been declared unlawful
<http://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2015/uk/copyright-private-copying-exception-falls>
this week. The plaintiffs, three music industry trade bodies, successfully
argued that they were harmed by this exception.

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 European Copyright Directive
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32001L0029&from=EN>
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 unclear whether
<https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f892cc11-d75a-436a-b4c1-69442401e3cb>
the Government will try to re-instaure a private copying exception. In
practice
<https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f892cc11-d75a-436a-b4c1-69442401e3cb>,
private copying is widespread and considered legitimate by users.

International Reports highlights Pakistan mass surveillance of its
citizens, and possibly of worldwide traffic

On July 22nd, Privacy International
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Privacy_International> published a
report <https://www.privacyinternational.org/?q=node/624> 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.

Thanks to confidential previously unreleased documents, the reports also
reveals
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/23/pakistan-tried-to-tap-international-web-traffic-via-underwater-cables-report-says>
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.

 ORG Media coverage

See ORG Press Coverage
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_Press_Coverage> for full
details.
2015-07- 22 – The Guardian - Police Scotland pushes for centralised CCTV
network
<http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/22/police-scotland-pushes-centralised-cctv-network>
Author:
Severin Carrell Summary: Pol Clementsmith quoted on the state of CCTV in
Scotland 2015-07-22 – BBC News - CCTV use in Scotland 'may breach privacy
laws' <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-33615561> Author: Summary: Pol
Clementsmith quoted on the state of CCTV in Scotland 2015-07- 21 – Whir - UK
High Court Rules Digital Surveillance Under DRIPA Unlawful
<http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/uk-high-court-rules-digital-surveillance-under-dripa-unlawful>
Author:
David Hamilton Summary: Jim Killock quoted on the impact of the judgment
declaring DRIPA unlawful ORG contact details

Staff page <http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff>

   -

   Jim Killock, Executive Director
   <http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#jim>
   -

   Javier Ruiz, Policy <http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#javier>
   -

   Ed Paton-Williams, Campaigns
   <http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#ed>
   -

   Pam Cowburn, Communications
   <http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#pam>
   -

   Lee Maguire, Tech <http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#lee>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/pipermail/parliamentary.monitor/attachments/20150724/d6611fc1/attachment.html>