[ORG PM] ORG policy update 18 March 2016

[ORG Policy Monitoring]

> https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_policy_update/2016-w11 <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_policy_update/2016-w11>
> 
> ORG policy update/2016-w11
> 
> This is ORG's Policy Update for the week beginning 14/03/2016
> 
> ORG’s work
> 
> ORG asked their supporters to phone their MPs to attend the IP Bill debate.
> 
> Official Meetings
> 
> Jim Killock contributed, together with Sara Ogilvie (Liberty) and Eric King (Don’t Spy on Us), to Q&A with Keir Starmer </wiki/Keir_Starmer> on mass surveillance and the Investigatory Powers Bill.
> ORG met with the rest of the Don't Spy on Us coalition to discuss outcomes of the Second Reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill.
> Parliament
> 
> The Investigatory Powers Bill Second Reading Debate
> 
> The House of Commons debated <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-15a.812.0> the Investigatory Powers Bill on Tuesday. Much of the debate surrounded several recurring points that were raised by different MPs:
> 
> Threshold for surveillance and use of the powers - Andy Burnham MP </wiki/Andy_Burnham_MP> and Joanna Cherry MP both repeatedly raised this issue calling for redefinition of investigatory powers. MPs were concerned that the thresholds are too low or too vague. Andy Burnham MP </wiki/Andy_Burnham_MP> said the threshold should be raised, “in order to make this a test of serious crime rather than any crime”. He further suggested to define national security more explicitly and consequently drop the “economic well-being” test that requires matters to be merely “relevant” to national security instead of being directly connected to it.
> Authorisation process – MPs generally welcomed the existence of double lock regime for authorisation of powers. However, Andy Burnham MP </wiki/Andy_Burnham_MP> questioned whether the Prime Minister should be only consulted by the Home Secretary, instead of being part of the process, dealing with matters of acute public concerns. Joanna Cherry MP said that the SNP appreciate the double lock on judicial authorisation as an improvement, but stressed that it does not reach far enough.
> Collection of Internet connection records – One of the biggest concerns voiced regarding the ICRs is a separation of content and contact information. Home Secretary Theresa May MP </wiki/Theresa_May_MP> claimed this separation is absolutely possible. Stella Creasy MP later challenged her statement highlighting that the Home Secretary’s statement only makes sense when talking about phone records and does not apply to more modern technology. Following a similar line of thought, Andy Burnham MP suggested that the collection of Internet connection records should only be granted for use in cases of serious crime. The debate also covered the power to require communications service providers to retain ICRs. Home Secretary stated that the government will fully reimburse reasonable operational costs for data retention but stressed, at the same time, that the current government is unable to bind any future government.
> See for further commentary : Paul Bernal - Internet Connection Records: answering the wrong question? <https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/>
> Bulk powers – Andy Burnham MP </wiki/Andy_Burnham_MP> expressed Labour’s final concerns for the Bill about exercising bulk powers and entering new territories of privacy concerns for ordinary people, despite their positive impact on risk identification. His concern was doubled by Joanna Cherry MP who considers the bulk powers a dangerous precedent on an international level, considering that no other western democracy authorises bulk powers on such scope. They both called for bulk powers to be as targeted as possible and Andy Burnham encouraged to follow one of the Joint Committee’s recommendations to establish an independent review of all the bulk powers in the Bill. Responding to these concerns, Theresa May MP </wiki/Theresa_May_MP> said “that certain bulk powers are predominantly those for foreign usage, rather than in relation to the United Kingdom. With bulk powers, where there is any interaction with individuals in the UK, the double lock authorisation is still necessary.”
> Legal professional privilege – Andy Burnham MP </wiki/Andy_Burnham_MP> pointed out that legal professional privilege needs more adequate protection and suggested it be included in the Bill instead of codes of practice. Dominic Grieve MP </wiki/Dominic_Grieve_MP> noted these comments and suggested that these matters could be looked at in Committee.
> Journalistic protection – Theresa May MP </wiki/Theresa_May_MP> stressed in her statements that with the Investigatory Powers Bill journalists' sources will experience bolstering protections. However, this particular statement came under criticism from several Labour and SNP MPs. Special treatment of journalists in the accompanying codes of practice is welcome but appears to be inadequate as a safeguard as pointed out <https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/investigatory-powers-bill-second-reading-inadequate-journalistic-protection-persists-alex-bailin-qc/> by Alex Bailin QC. The Government considers that it is acceptable to use the IPB to obtain journalists’ sources (via communications data) subject only to judicial commissioner safeguards because that process supposedly does not involve directly targeting the journalist. Andy Burnham MP </wiki/Andy_Burnham_MP> illustrated “how bereaved families, justice campaigners, environmental campaigners, journalists and trade unionists have been subject to inappropriate police investigation” and the Bill leaves them wide open to other powers in the Bill.
> Encryption – Stella Creasy MP </wiki/Stella_Creasy_MP> called for more serious scrutiny of what the encryption powers in the Bill mean, since removing encryption can create security risks. She was further supported by the SNP Stuart McDonald MP. The Conservative MPs who responded merely repeated the need for backdoor to encryption on the grounds that it is not “sensible for every citizen to have access to weapons-grade encryption” (Matt Warman MP).
> Labour and SNP abstain on the vote for the IP Bill
> 
> Labour and the SNP MPs abstained <http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2451071/snoopers-charter-ip-bill-set-to-breeze-through-parliament-despite-protests> in a vote on the Investigatory Powers Bill after the Commons debate on Tuesday 15 March 2016. Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham MP </wiki/Andy_Burnham_MP> explained <http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/03/investigatory-powers-bill-labour-and-snp-to-abstain-from-parliamentary-vote/> they would not be giving “a blank cheque” of support. Labour is demanding the Government make significant changes, including higher protection for journalists and their sources and presumption of privacy, in order to make the legislation acceptable to them.
> 
> 281 MPs voted for the Bill to pass. 15 MPs voted against the Bill, including Liberal Democrats, Green Party, Plaid Cymru, Social Democratic and Labour Party and two Labour Party MPs.
> 
> Liberty’s summary of the Investigatory Powers Bill for Second Reading in the House of Commons <https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Liberty's%20summary%20of%20the%20Investigatory%20Powers%20Bill%20for%20Second%20Reading%20in%20the%20House%20of%20Commons.pdf>
> Question on contributing to an international framework for sharing of communications data
> 
> Catherine McKinnnell MP submitted <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-03-03.29698.h&s=%28internet+OR+cyber+OR+computer+OR+web+OR+surveillance+OR+copyright+OR+%22data+sharing%22%29+section%3Awrans#g29698.r0> a written question for Secretary of State for the Home Department, to ask what plans the Government has to contribute to an international framework for the sharing of communications data. John Hayes MP </wiki/John_Hayes_MP> Minister of State (Home Office) (Security) responded that the UK and United States Governments have begun considering a framework under which US-based communication service providers could disclose data directly for serious criminal and counter terrorism investigations, in response to a warrant requesting the content of communications, and with notices requiring the disclosure of communications data.
> 
> Biometrics Commissioner Annual Report
> 
> The Biometrics Commissioner </wiki/Biometrics_Commissioner> Alistair MacGregor QC released his annual report <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biometrics-commissioner-annual-report-2014-to-2015> on Friday 11 March 2016 indicating that the number of biometric records kept on the counter-terror database has risen since October 2013. MacGregor expressed concern about the delays and errors in the reviewing and deletion of biometric profiles of terror suspects who have not been convicted. The Commissioner’s report indicates British police deleted 1.7 million DNA profiles and 1.6 million sets of fingerprints since Home Secretary Theresa May introduced legislation in 2012 requiring the removal of details belonging to those who have never been convicted of a criminal offence.
> 
> Policy Paper: The new budget to tackle hidden economy
> 
> George Osborne MP </wiki/George_Osborne_MP>’s 2016 budget included calls for new powers for bulk data acquisition in relation to financial crime. Following an announcement made at Summer Budget 2015, the government will now legislate Finance Bill 2016 <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2016-documents/budget-2016#tax-evasion-and-compliance> to extend HMRC’s powers to obtain data from online intermediaries and electronic payment providers to find those operating in the hidden economy. It was reported <http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2419392/hand-over-your-data-hmrc-wants-more-powers-to-obtain-data-in-bulk> in July 2015 that these efforts to cut tax evasion are closely related to data acquisition powers HMRC is supposed to obtain. HMRC claims <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447718/Tackling_the_hidden_economy_-_Extension_of_data-gathering_powers.pdf> that it needs even more bulk data-gathering powers because "non-compliant taxpayers continue to exploit the gaps in HMRC's data-gathering powers”. The powers will be targetting online businesses, including app stores, and payment providers, such as Paypal, e-wallets and money transfer services.
> 
> Europe
> 
> Copyright reform will not be presented until September
> 
> Lisbon Council, Bruxelles-based think tank, confirmed <http://www.lisboncouncil.net/component/news/news/681.html> in a High-Level Roundtable on ‘Media in the Digital Age: Innovation and New Business Models’ that the legislative proposal on the copyright reform will only be presented in September. Originally, a deadline for submissions a public consultation <http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8580> was set to 1 April 2016 and was later extended until 15 April 2016. Mr Andrus Ansip, European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Single Market pointed out that further consultation is needed on (a) freedom of panorama and (b) neighbouring rights (e.g. ancillary copyright)." The reform is to include a proposed regulation on "cross-border portability" which would permit EU citizens to access content from their own Member State when temporarily in another. Furthermore, the Commission will consider implementing an EU-wide "Google Tax", which would introduce licensing fees for short sections of publications used by news aggregators.
> 
> ORG Media Coverage
> 
> 11 March 2016 – Boing Boing - BRITONS: Act now to kill the Snoopers Charter <https://boingboing.net/2016/03/11/britons-act-now-to-kill-the-s.html>
> Author: Cory Doctorow
> 
> Summary: Ed Johnson-Williams quoted on the implications of the Investigatory Powers Bill for companies such as Sky, BT, Google and Facebook .
> 
> 
> 15 March 2016 - A Medium Corporation - The Investigatory Powers Bill: Britain Wants You… To Hack Your Customers <https://medium.com/@mala/the-investigative-powers-bill-britain-wants-you-to-hack-your-customers-450815f50552#.mobx7xkbm>
> Author: Danny O'Brien, Eva Halperin
> Summary: ORG quoted on how to contact your MP to oppose the Bill.
> 
> 
> 15 March 2016 – A Medium Corporation - The Investigatory Powers debate is missing one huge power: the “filter”, or police profiling engine <https://medium.com/@jimkillock/the-investigatory-powers-debate-is-missing-one-huge-power-the-filter-or-police-profiling-engine-25cd3c3d450b#.wofelcuzk>
> Author: Jim Killock
> 
> Summary: Jim Killock brings attention to “search filter” outlined in the Communications Data: Draft Code of Practice and its implications for potential abuse.
> 
> 
> 16 March 2016 – The Inquirer - Snoopers' Charter: IP Bill passes in parliament despite widespread criticism <http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2451071/snoopers-charter-ip-bill-set-to-breeze-through-parliament-despite-protests>
> Author: Stuart Sumner
> 
> Summary: Jim Killock quoted on resisting the attempts to rush the Bill through Parliament.
> 
> 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 Johnson-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>
> Ruth Coustick-Deal, Supporters <http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#ruth>
> Myles Jackman, Legal Director
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/pipermail/parliamentary.monitor/attachments/20160318/a27906b1/attachment.html>