[ORG PM] ORG policy update 06 October 2017

Fri Oct 6 14:18:13 BST 2017

https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_policy_update/2017-w40

  ORG policy update/2017-w40

This is ORG's Policy Update for the week beginning 02/10/2017.

If you are reading this online, you can also subscribe to the email
version or unsubscribe
<https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/parliamentary.monitor>.

    ORG’s work

  * Save the date for ORGCon 2017 - it will take place on Saturday 4
    November at Friends House on Euston Road in London. We have a second
    smaller event planned on Sunday 5 November in a different location
    (TBC). This year is all about the Digital Fightback. Confirmed
    speakers include Graham Linehan, Noel Sharkey, Helen Lewis, Jamie
    Bartlett and Nanjira Sambuli. Tickets are on sale now
    <https://orgcon.openrightsgroup.org/>!

Planned local group events:

  * ORG London <https://www.meetup.com/ORG-London/events/243072098/> is
    organising an informal pub gathering on 10 October with Myles
    Jackman to discuss the current state of digital rights legislation
    in the UK, including the progress of the Digital Economy Act.
  * Join ORG Edinburgh
    <https://www.meetup.com/ORG-Edinburgh/events/243657362/> for a free
    screening of The Internet’s Own Boy - the life story of programmer,
    writer, political and internet activist Aaron Swartz on 11 October.
    Following the screening, our Scotland Director Matthew Rice will be
    available to discuss ORG’s work.

    Official meetings

  * Javier Ruiz attended a meeting organised by the Royal Society
    <https://royalsociety.org/> and the Government Digital Service (GDS)
    to review the Data Science Ethical Framework
    <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/data-science-ethical-framework>.
  * Jim Killock attended a roundtable meeting organised by the Global
    Network Initiative <https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/> on how
    governments can most effectively address concerns about content and
    protect human rights.

    UK Parliament

        DPBill will be read second time next week

The Data Protection Bill
<https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/0066/lbill_2017-20190066_en_1.htm> is
due to be debated in the Second Reading in the House of Lords on 10 October.

/Article 80(2)/

We have previously raised our concerns about the draft Bill not
containing provisions allowing independent privacy organisations to
raise complaints without naming data subjects. Article 80(2) of the EU’s
General Data Protection Regulation is a derogation (option) that would
allow it, but the UK decided not to include it in the Bill. Such a
provision would help investigate harmful data processing practices.

The Bill will allow people to lodge a complaint themselves or designate
a qualifying organisation to file a complaint on their behalf. However
affected data subjects are not always willing to come forward as they
might not wish to be publicly associated with certain companies.

/The lack of “representative”/

Another issue arising from the draft Bill is the removal of
“representative” from the text. Originally, the EU’s General Data
Protection Regulation covers the processing of personal data of EU data
subjects by data controllers (companies) not established in the EU. In
such circumstances, the EU requires companies who are based outside of
the EU but wish to offer services to people in the EU to establish a
representative in a Member State.

The DPBill draft does not include the need for a “representative” and as
such it will not be possible to enforce all rights and obligations on
non-UK companies offering services to the people in the UK if something
goes wrong.

For more details read the blog post by Amberhawk
<http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/>.

    Other national developments

        Viewing websites or media streams of terror propaganda will be a
        criminal offence

The Home Office announced that counter-terrorism laws will be updated
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/law-tightened-to-target-terrorists-use-of-the-internet> and
will include an offence of repeatedly viewing terrorist content online.
The offence could result in a 15-year jail sentence.

The updated law is the Government’s effort to tackle online
radicalisation
<https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/89511/streaming-terror-propaganda-online-will-be>.
The changes will strengthen offence defined in Section 58 of
the Terrorism Act 2000
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000>. Section 58
applies to online material which has been downloaded and stored on the
offender’s computer, saved on another device or printed.

The new offence will apply to material that is viewed repeatedly or
streamed online. Additionally, the maximum penalty will be increased
from 10 to 15 years.

The new wording of the offence raises serious questions about safeguards
for the general public and people who view the material for legitimate
reasons. Journalists, anti-terror campaigners, academics and others may
need to view extremist content frequently. The law may dissuade
potential informants from coming forwards because they are already
criminalised.

In their statement, the Home Office said that the offence will ensure
that the defence for viewing material by mistake or out of curiosity
without a criminal intent is available, as well as “reasonable excuse”
defence which applies to journalists, academics, and others with a
legitimate interest.

Max Hill QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Independent_Reviewer_of_Terrorism_Legislation>,
regards the announcement by the Home Secretary Amber Rudd MP
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Amber_Rudd_MP> as merely an
update to an already existing offence, not a new offence altogether.

However, Hill stresses it is important that the amended version of
Section 58 does not indict individuals
<https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/law-tightened-to-target-terrorists-use-of-the-internet/>based
upon the content of the internet cache on their computers. Upon viewing
terrorist video material online once, a website might cause multiple
news stories/images to be stored in the laptop user’s cache, and the new
offence should not encompass this situation.

He further identified that the “repeated view” of terrorist material
will cause problems when attempting to define how many views constitute
“repeated” view with a criminal intent.

        Home Office to crack down on online child sexual abuse with new
        technology

The Home Office made another announcement this week regarding a new
technology they plan to use to tackle online child sexual abuse
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-office-to-crack-down-on-online-child-sexual-abuse-with-new-cutting-edge-technology>.

The Government has made an investment of £600,000 in technology that
will allow Internet companies to identify and remove indecent images of
children from websites at an “unprecedented rate”.

The technology, Project Arachnid, uses lists of digital fingerprints
(hashes) to search known illegal images and issue removal notices to the
websites that host them. Internet and social media companies will be
able to use a plugin to implement it in their systems.

The project could address parts of the Home Secretary’s (Amber Rudd MP
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Amber_Rudd_MP>) criticism this
week who said that paedophiles use end-to-end services (like WhatsApp)
to communicate beyond the reach of law enforcement
<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-whatsapp/uk-says-whatsapp-lets-paedophiles-and-gangsters-operate-beyond-the-law-idUSKCN1C8165>.

Rudd said she does not

    “accept it is right that companies should allow them and other
    criminals to operate beyond the reach of law enforcement. “We must
    require the industry to move faster and more aggressively. They have
    the resources and there must be greater urgency.”

She continued to complain about the attitude tech companies
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-41463401> show when asked to
compromise encryption they use to protect their users. Rudd explained
that she does not

    "need to understand how encryption works to understand how it's
    helping the criminals.”

        Investigatory Powers Tribunal consultation

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Tribunal> launched
a consultation on updated rules
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/648591/20170928_IPT_rules_changes_-_covering_consultation_document_Final_FOR_PU.pdf> (pdf)
governing proceedings and complaints at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000 set out the procedures the
IPT should follow. The consultation closes 10 November.

To respond to the consultation follow this link
<https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/investigatory-powers-tribunal-consultation-updated-rules>.

    Europe

        Germany’s new online hate speech code

New rules on policing online hate speech
<http://www.politico.eu/article/hate-speech-germany-twitter-facebook-google-fines/> in
Germany took effect 1 October. The law is supposed to target Internet
companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google.

Internet companies are required by the new law
<https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Dokumente/NetzDG_engl.pdf> to
remove illegal content from their platforms within 24 hours. If they
consistently fail to do so they could face fines of up to €50 million.
The law is placing more responsibility of policing the Internet on
companies. This approach is in line with other initiatives in the UK and
France.

According to the reports
<https://twitter.com/BMJV_Bund/status/841583050324639744>, Facebook and
Twitter failed to remove 70% of online hate speech within 24 hours of
being notified by users. On the other hand, Google met the criteria for
removing the illegal content.

Internet companies will need to hire representatives who will inform
local authorities about the company’s efforts to remove potential hate
speech material. The benchmark of removing content within 24 hours is
supposed to apply only in the most egregious cases. If there is a doubt
whether content should be removed, companies will have seven days to
make their decision.

Additionally, Internet companies are expected to create avenues for
their users to easily make reports of online hate speech. The changes
should be made public by early 2018.

    ORG media coverage

/See ORG Press Coverage
<https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_Press_Coverage> for full
details./

2017-09-28-The Inquirer-TfL denies it wants to sell passenger data
collected via WiFi tracking scheme
<https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3018264/tfl-denies-it-wants-to-sell-passenger-data-collected-through-wifi-tracking-scheme>
    Author: John Leonard
    Summary: ORG mentioned in relation to the TfL’s plans to collect and
    sell their customers’ wifi data.
    Topics: Data protection
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Data_protection>
2017-10-02-New Statesman-EU threatens to impose fines on tech firms that
fail to combat hate speech
<http://tech.newstatesman.com/news/eu-fines-social-media-firms-hate-speech>
    Author: Oscar Williams
    Summary: Jim Killock quoted on automated takedowns of extremist
    material will inevitably lead to mistakes being made.
    Topics: Online censorship
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Online_censorship>, European
    Union <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/European_Union>
2017-10-03-BuzzFeed-Amber Rudd's Plan To Jail People Who Repeatedly View
Extremist Material Is Being Lambasted By Campaigners
<https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/amber-laws-extremism?utm_term=.fiv0B77XWj#.moREJmmqve>
    Author: Mark Di Stefano, James Ball
    Summary: Jim Killock quoted on the government’s plans for new laws
    to criminalise streaming of extremist content being dangerous.
    Topics: Online censorship
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Online_censorship>
2017-10-02-Boing Boing-The London Underground thinks it can sell
travelers' attention and wifi data for £322m
<https://boingboing.net/2017/10/02/you-are-the-product-2.html>
    Author: Cory Doctorow
    Summary: Maria Farrell quoted on TfL not only using collected WiFi
    data to improve customer service but also to exploit it for revenue.
    Topics: Data protection
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Data_protection>
2017-10-03-Daily Mail-Kodi slams TVAddons streaming library on Twitter
saying it should be 'shut down because it brings misery to everyone'
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4945088/Kodi-slams-TVAddons-Twitter-saying-shut-down.html>
    Author: Phoebe Weston
    Summary: ORG mentioned in relation to a letter sent to
    the Intellectual Property Office
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Office> regarding
    the Digital Economy Act 2017
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2017>
    Topics: Copyright
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Copyright>, Digital Economy
    Act 2017
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2017>
2017-10-03-New Statesman-Tech experts hit back after Amber Rudd says
they are sneering and patronising
<http://tech.newstatesman.com/news/tech-experts-hit-back-amber-rudd>
    Author: Oscar Williams
    Summary: Jim Killock quoted on allowing the Government to access
    encrypted messages would move criminals off law abiding platforms
    onto the dark web.
    Topics: Online censorship
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Online_censorship>, Encryption
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Encryption>, Security
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Security>
2017-10-03-PCR Online-Amber Rudd slams 'patronising' tech experts as she
admits she doesn't understand encryption
<http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/amber-rudd-slams-patronising-tech-experts-as-she-admits-she-doesn-t-understand-encryption/039740>
    Author: Rob Horgan
    Summary: Alec Muffett quoted on the government wasting their time on
    banning encryption.
    Topics: Online censorship
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Online_censorship>, Encryption
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Encryption>, Security
    <https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Security>

    ORG Contact Details

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

  * Jim Killock, Executive Director
    <https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#jim>
  * Javier Ruiz, Policy
    <https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#javier>
  * Ed Johnson-Williams, Campaigns
    <https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#ed>
  * Lee Maguire, Tech <https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#lee>
  * Myles Jackman, Legal Director
    <https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#myles>
  * Matthew Rice, Scotland Director
  * Slavka Bielikova, Policy Officer
  * Mike Morel, Communications Officer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/pipermail/parliamentary.monitor/attachments/20171006/1a45f1c4/attachment.html>