[ORG PM] ORG Parliamentary Update - July 31st

[Alexandra Stefanou]

ORG policy update/2015-w31 - ORG Wiki

This is ORG's Policy Update for the week beginning 24/05/2015


Open Rights Group's workORG asks for clarification and transparency from
Intellectual Property Police Unit

Open Rights Group has written
<https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/letters/pipcu-correspondence-refocusing-on-general-issues>
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.

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.
Response to the Intellectual Property Office consultation on higher
penalties for online copyright infringement

Mid-July, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has launched an open
consultation
<https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-penalties-for-online-copyright-infringement>
on a proposal to bring the maximum sentence for online copyright
infringement up to par with physical infringements – that is, ten years in
jail.

In its response, Open Rights Group has called attention
<https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/response-to-ipo-consultation-on-raising-jail-sentences-for-online-infringement>
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.

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 three years longer
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60> than the sentence for theft.
National DevelopmentsIf pornographic websites can't prevent children from
accessing them, they will be banned, says Cameron

Prime Minister David Cameron
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/David_Cameron_MP> announced on
Thursday
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/curbing-access-to-pornographic-websites-for-under-18s>,
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”.

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. ORG
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Open_Rights_Group> Executive
Director, Jim Killock, warns that
<https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press/releases/david-cameron-calls-to-shut-down-porn-sites-without-age-restricted-controls>
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.”
Freedom of Information to be reviewed by a commission of high-ranking civil
servants

The implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_2000>
(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 revelation
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11682359/Government-departments-routinely-deleting-emails-despite-freedom-of-information-laws.html>
by an insider source that public administration bodies automatically delete
a large numbers of email, thus making them unusable for FoI requests.

The composition of the commission has attracted criticisms. Former home
Secretary David Davis <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/David_Davis_MP>
has argued
<http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5deb6d12-26bd-407d-bba3-481e4b98b923>
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.
International DevelopmentsGoogle refuses to comply with French demand to
apply right to be forgotten globally

Google has announced
<http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/implementing-european-not-global-right.html>
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”.

This right was controversial
<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>
at its launch, and contested by Google, but after one year of enforcement
the results have been judged
<http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/14/google-accidentally-reveals-right-to-be-forgotten-requests>
positive. But another problem arose in June when the CNIL announced
<http://www.politico.eu/article/france-challenges-google-on-right-to-be-forgotten/>
it would fine Google if it kept applying this right only on European
national domains (such as google.co.uk) and not worldwide (google.com).
This makes the judgement ineffective, argued the data protection authority.

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.
German tech news journalists investigated for treason for publishing
classified documents on mass surveillance

Two journalists and unknown sources of Netzpolitik, a German tech and
policy news website, are being investigated
<https://netzpolitik.org/2015/suspicion-of-treason-federal-attorney-general-announces-investigation-against-us-in-addition-to-our-sources/>
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”, argued
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/german-investigation-netzpolitik-coverage-leaked-surveillance-documents-confirmed>
one of the journalists under investigation.

A large section of German public opinion, via Twitter, plus the Green Party
and the chair of the Bundestag's legal affairs committee, have condemned
<http://www.dw.com/en/german-press-politicians-criticize-absurd-netzpolitik-inquiry/a-18619716>
this move, described as a blow to freedom of information and the rule of
law.
White House rejects a petition to pardon Edward Snowden

Lisa Monaco, the US President's Advisor on Homeland Security and
Counterterrorism, responded
<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden> 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 have pointed out
<http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/claims-edward-snowdens-whistleblower-files-5882142>
that the kind of documents leaked by Snowden didn't contain information
that could allow the identification of undercover agents.
ReportsReport on Scottish sovereignty in the age of mass surveillance by
member of ORG Scotland Advisory Board

Alistair Davidson, Open Rights Group Scotland
<https://scotland.openrightsgroup.org/> advisory board member, issued on
Tuesday, July 28th, a report
<http://allofusfirst.org/library/scottish-sovereignty-in-the-age-of-mass-surveillance/>
on Scottish Data security and sovereignty on Tueday, July 28th. This
followed revelations that mass surveillance undermined the Wilson doctrine
<http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/07/uk-government-admits-that-mps-arent-safe-from-mass-snooping/>,
which was designed to protect Parliamentarians from being spied on by the
intelligence services.

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 GCHQ
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters>
or the NSA <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/NSA>. It also supports an
investment in critical infrastructures and the use of encryption in
Scottish government as well as private sector communications.
ORG Media coverage

See ORG Press Coverage
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_Press_Coverage> for full
details.
2015-07-30 – IBTimes - David Cameron's internet porn shut down could lead
to 'national firewall' akin to China
<http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/david-camerons-internet-porn-shut-down-could-lead-national-firewall-akin-china-1513367>
Author:
Anthony Cuthbertson Summary: Jim Killock quoted on what how a ban on porn
websites could mean the creation of a national firewall. 2015-07-30 – The
Inquirer - David Cameron wants to block non-age verifying porn sites
<http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2420058/david-cameron-wants-to-block-non-age-verifiying-porn-sites>
Author:
Dave Neal Summary: Jim Killock quoted on whether a ban on porn websites is
a realistic goal 2015-07-31 – Tech Week Europe - How we’re fighting back
against the UK surveillance state—and winning
<http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/e-regulation/porn-clampdown-questioned-173869>
Author:
Summary: ORG's press release on David Cameron's announcement on a possible
ban on porn websites 2015-07-31 – Mirror - David Cameron wants to shut down
porn sites - but will it work? Everything you need to know
<http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-shut-down-porn-6168615>
Author:
Dan Bloom Summary: Jim Killock quoted on what how a ban on porn websites
could mean the creation of a national firewall.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/pipermail/parliamentary.monitor/attachments/20150731/5fdb80e0/attachment.html>