[ORG PM] ORG policy update 24 March 2016

[ORG Policy Monitoring]

> https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_policy_update/2016-w12 <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_policy_update/2016-w12>
> 
> ORG policy update/2016-w12
> 
> This is ORG's Policy Update for the week beginning 21/03/2016
> 
> If you are reading this online, you can also subscribe to the email version <https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/parliamentary.monitor>.
> 
> 
> ORG's Work
> 
> Briefing <https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/investigatory-powers-bill-briefing> on the Investigatory Powers Bill.
> Official Meetings
> 
> Jim Killock attended European Digital Rights General Assembly in Berlin.
> ORG attended a Data Sharing Consultation Workshop organised by Involve and the Cabinet Office on Tuesday.
> Jim Killock participated in a panel discussion at the Internet of Things Summit 2016.
> ORG staff are attending weekly co-ordination meetings with Don’t Spy on Us <https://www.dontspyonus.org.uk/org>
> Parliament
> 
> The Investigatory Powers Bill to be considered by a Public Bill Committee
> 
> Following the Bill’s Second Reading, the Public Bill Committee is expected to hold oral evidence sessions <http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2016/march/investigatory-powers-bill-commons-second-reading/> on Thursday 24 March. The Committee is scheduled in the programme motion to conclude by Thursday 5 May 2016, but could finish earlier. The committee is set to meet again on 12 April and 14 April 2016.
> 
> You can submit written evidence before the Public Bill Committee reports (it can be before 5 May 2016). For more information on how to submit written evidence and what should be covered, click here <http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2016/march/have-your-say-on-the-investigatory-powers-bill/>.
> 
> The scope of the Investigatory Powers Bill will be the only one of its kind in Europe after Denmark decided to abandon plans for a similar system last week (17 March 2016) for the second time. The national internet “session-logging” system was found to have been technically worthless for police and security agencies and was deemed to cost £104m. Duncan Campbell offers more detailed analysis of the comparison of the two countries here: Britain to pay billions for monster internet surveillance network <http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500279596/Britain-to-pay-billions-for-monster-internet-surveillance-network>.
> 
> More information on the Investigatory Powers Bill:
> 
> Snooper's Charter: What you need to know about the Investigatory Powers Bill <http://www.computerworlduk.com/security/draft-investigatory-powers-bill-what-you-need-know-3629116/>
> Lessons from history for UK Home Sec Theresa May's Investigatory Powers Bill <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/17/snoopers_charters_a_history/>
> Elizabeth Denham to be the New Information Commissioner
> 
> Culture Secretary John Whittingdale MP </wiki/John_Whittingdale_MP> has confirmed <https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2016/03/government-confirms-preferred-candidate-to-be-the-uk-s-next-information-commissioner/> Elizabeth Denham <http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vaughn+Palmer+privacy+commissioner+Elizabeth+Denham+moving+bigger+things/11802530/story.html> as the Government’s preferred candidate to become the UK’s next Information Commissioner. Elizabeth Denham was appointed as British Columbia's Information and Privacy Commissioner <https://www.oipc.bc.ca/about/commissioner/> in May 2010. Since her appointment she has raised the profile of information rights, promoted transparency in government, and adopted a proactive approach to the enforcement of access and privacy laws in British Columbia. Ms. Denham has led investigations into several high-profile privacy breaches and has completed systemic reviews that examine the impact of new and emerging technologies on access and privacy rights.
> 
> New Initiative to Protect Children Online
> 
> Theresa May MP </wiki/Theresa_May_MP> and Baroness Joanna Shields </wiki/Joanna_Shields> hosted the first meeting <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/weprotect-fighting-online-child-sexual-exploitation> of WePROTECT <http://www.weprotect.org/> and the Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Exploitation. The board is committed to be on the forefront of the worldwide movement changing and improving how the crime of online child sexual exploitation can be prevented. Their common aim is to identify and safeguard more victims, to bring more perpetrators to justice, and ultimately to create a world free of online child sexual exploitation.
> 
> Written Question on Electronic Surveillance
> 
> Andrew Slaughter MP </wiki/Andrew_Slaughter_MP> asked <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-03-15.31078.h> Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Immigration Officers carried out equipment interference before 1 March 2016, referring to clause 96 of the Investigatory Powers Bill. The Home Office has not been able to answer the question and is not likely to do so within the usual time frame. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.
> 
> (“Clause 96 <https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjgzoDJ8dTLAhXJVRQKHR_vA0MQFgglMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2FCBP-7518%2FCBP-7518.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGuPY2K1QuSXtT2oWDfavpXqWblxA&sig2=n5LiBAsJ64TgMD7-FnfH1w> would provide that warrants may be applied for law enforcement officers and issued by a law enforcement chief, for the purpose of preventing and detecting serious crime, subject to the same test of necessity and proportionality. Warrants may in some circumstances be issued for purposes other than serious crime, where necessary to prevent death, injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health, or mitigate injury or damage to physical or mental health. This power is limited to certain agencies [see Schedule 6].”)
> 
> Written Question on Ad Blocking
> 
> Maria Eagle MP </wiki/Maria_Eagle_MP> asked a question <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-03-16.31514.h&s=ad+blocking#g31514.q0> to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on what date his department plans to host a round table on ad blocking. Ed Vaizey MP </wiki/Ed_Vaizey_MP> responded that there are currently plans to host a roundtable with representatives from all sides of the argument to discuss ad blocking in the coming weeks.
> 
> Written Question on Crypto-currency
> 
> Douglas Carswell MP </wiki/Douglas_Carswell_MP> asked a question <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-03-17.31545.h&s=bitcoin> to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he plans to implement the University College London RSCoin proposal <https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/researchers-propose-rscoin-a-permissioned-blockchain-currency-controlled-by-central-banks-1457982849>. Harriett Baldwin MP </wiki/Harriett_Baldwin_MP> responded that the Government is encouraged to see this research; however they see it as a theoretical paper by an independent institution, separate from the Bank of England's work and from Government policy.
> 
> RSCoin <http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/computer_science_news/article/bank-of-england-ucl-working-on-bitcoin-alternative-rscoin/> would use the blockchain just like bitcoin, but that the Bank of England would hold an encryption key that could be used to control the supply of the digital currency available.
> 
> Other National Developments
> 
> Copyright Infringement on Eight-second Videos
> 
> A High Court judge has ruled <http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/03/copyright-infringement-cricket-football/> that reproducing eight seconds of a video constitues a copyright infringement of the original work. The case concerns the Fanatix website and app allowing people to capture and share sports videos within fan communities. The England and Wales Cricket Board (EWCB) and Sky UK, who brought the case forward, consider the videos in question infringing on their copyright. The company behind Fanatix argued that they were allowed to use the videos under fair dealing </wiki/Fair_dealing>. Mr Justice Arnold said that even though eight seconds is not quantitatively a lot, qualitatively these videos show something of interest and value. He further explained that “the clips were not used in order to inform the audience about a current event, but presented for consumption because of their intrinsic interest and value.” This case could have further implications for people sharing gifs and vines in social media.
> 
> 
> Man Prosecuted for Circumventing UK Pirate Site Blockade
> 
> The prosecution <https://torrentfreak.com/man-faces-prison-sentence-for-circumventing-uk-pirate-site-blockade-16032/> is the first of its kind, in that it targets a person who allegedly assisted Internet users to bypass High Court orders to block The Pirate Bay and other torrent sites. The Met’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit </wiki/Police_Intellectual_Property_Crime_Unit> has charged Callum Haywood for operating several proxy sites with fraud offenses and one count of converting and transferring criminal property. The charges relate to the operation of a Pirate Bay proxy and two KickassTorrent proxies. Haywood is scheduled to appear on bail at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court on April 21 for a preliminary hearing.
> 
> Europe
> 
> Call for Privacy Shield to be Sent Back to Negotiators
> 
> A group of digital rights organisations from the EU and US has called <http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/03/privacy-shield-must-be-sent-back-to-negotiators/> for the Privacy Shield arrangement to be renegotiaited. The group stated in a letter <https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/PrivacyShield_Letter_Coalition_March2016.pdf> to European leaders that without substantial reforms, the Privacy Shield will “put users at risk, undermine trust in the digital economy, and perpetuate the human rights violations that are already occurring as a result of surveillance programs and other activities." The letter specifically calls for legislative reform of US surveillance laws, increased protections for personal data used for commercial purposes and additional redress and transparency mechanisms. According to the letter, the Privacy Shield fails to meet four conditions <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-release/art29_press_material/2016/20160203_statement_consequences_schrems_judgement_en.pdf> specified by the Article 29 Working Party regarding intelligence activities:
> 
> 1.clear, precise and accessible rules on processing;
> 
> 2. balance between collected and accessed data and rights of the individual;
> 
> 3. existence of an independent oversight mechanism;
> 
> 4.effective channels for individuals to defend themselves in front of an independent body.
> 
> Single Digital Market Strategy Workshop
> 
> The European Commission is organising a workshop <https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/stakeholder-workshop-towards-future-proof-eprivacy-legal-framework> on 12 April 2016 to discuss the main issues with providers of electronic communication services, consumer bodies, NGOs, national authorities, information society service providers and civil society. Following the adoption of the new Data Protection Regulation <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/151221_en.htm> the rules on ePrivacy would also be revised to ensure a high level of protection for data subjects and a level playing field for all market players. The Digital Single Market Strategy (DSM) was launched by the European Commission in May 2015 to strengthen trust in digital services by addressing issues of security and confidentiality breaches of communications, misuse of data stored in users’ phones and computers, nuisance calls and spam.
> 
> International Developments
> 
> FBI May Have Found Way to Unlock iPhones Without Apple
> 
> Federal authorities have cancelled <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/21/fbi-apple-court-hearing-postpone-unlock-terrorist-iphone?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H&utm_term=163065&subid=17893676&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2> Tuesday’s court hearing with Apple, claiming an outside party has found a way to crack the shooter’s phone. The government has until 5 April to determine whether it wants to pursue the case. This development does not constitute a legal victory. If anything, it raises more concerns whether the government will disclose to Apple the security flaws they used to crack the iPhone. If the federal authorities are not able to get into the phone, the case against Apple will continue.
> 
> 
> ORG Media Coverage
> 
> See ORG Press Coverage </wiki/ORG_Press_Coverage> for full details.
> 
> 18 March 2016 – The Register - Labour: We want the Snoopers' Charter because of Snowden <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/18/labour_will_support_snoopers_charter_says_keir_starmer/>
> Author: Alexander J Martin
> 
> Summary: Jim Killock quoted on attitudes towards a ‘no’ vote from Labour.
> 
> 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/20160324/afae7fab/attachment.html>