Created page with "This is ORG's Policy Update for the week beginning 26/06/2015 If you are reading this online, you can also subscribe to the [http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/parliam..."
New page
This is ORG's Policy Update for the week beginning 26/06/2015
If you are reading this online, you can also subscribe to the [http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/parliamentary.monitor email version].
== Debates ==
=== House of Lords' debate on the Anderson report ===
The House of Lords [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldhansrd/text/150708-0001.htm#15070839000405 held a debate] on Wednesday, July 8th, on the [https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IPR-Report-Print-Version.pdf report of the investigatory powers review] written by David Anderson Q.C. and in the light of the future debate on the Investigatory Powers Bill which is to be presented this Autumn. There was a consensus on the quality qnd thoroughness of the report. Lord Bates from the Home Office stated that the report show how much the intelligence and law enforcement services take into account the protection of citizens' privacy. There is indeed a tension between privacy and security, he went on to say, but people can only enjoy privacy if they have security. The means available to those who will to do us harm are evolving, so he argued that our means to fight back must evolve too.
The main point of debate between the Lords was on the question of the power to issue warrants. While Baroness Maningham-Buller argued that this power must remain with the Secretary of States, as they have political accountability, On the opposite, Lord Strasburger advocated for a judicial issuing of warrants, on the grounds that judges are here to protect individuals' liberties. Lord Scriven made a long case against mass surveillance, which he described as opposed to the values the United Kingdom must and want to defend.
== Legal Development ==
=== DRIPA discussed in Court this week ===
A hearing [https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2015/dripa-challenge-in-court-today was held at the Royal Courts of Justice] on Thursday, June 9th, to determine if the challenge to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 brought by MPs [[David Davis MP|David Davis]] and [[Tom Watson MP|Tom Watson]] was to be brought to the European Court of Justice. This challenge focuses on the conformity of this data retention law, passed in a hurry in July 2014, with European laws and the European Convention of Human Rights. [[Open Rights Group]] and [[Privacy International]] were authorised by the Court to intervene, and [https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/open-rights-group-and-privacy-internationals-submission-in-dripa-case made the point] that the European Court of Justice has already set out the requirements that domestic law must follow in order to comply with European requirement on the protection of privacy.
Liberty, the NGO representing the two MPs, opposed the government's request for a reference, as it would considerably delay the final judgment, while the so-called “Snoopers' Charter” is expected to be presented this Autumn. The Court rejecteed the reference request, and is expected to issue its judgment next week.
== International Development ==
=== Company selling surveillance software hacked ===
Hacking Team, a Milan-based company, [http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2015/07/hacking-team-gets-hacked-invoices-show-spyware-sold-to-repressive-govts/ has been hacked] this week end, and as a result, over 400 GB of data allegedly from its computers have been leaked. The company sells spyware to governments, and has been criticised by civil rights group over the year for its commerce with countries with a poor record of human rights protection. Reporters Without Borders [https://surveillance.rsf.org/en/hacking-team/ designated it} as an “enemy of the Internet” for its commerce with Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Turkey. The recent leaks add even more countries, like Sudan, to this list.
As a result, Marietje Schaake, a Dutch MEP specialised in this area, [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/italy-should-investigate-hacking-team-european-parliament-member-says has called for] member states to stop using Hacking Team services and demanded the opening of an investigation on its commercial practices, as selling spyware to Sudan and Russia could go against the European sanctions against those states.
In internal mails, high-ranks employees [http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2015/07/massive-leak-reveals-hacking-teams-most-private-moments-in-messy-detail/ have bragged about] “the evilest technology on earth” and explained ways used by the company's software to circumvent protection such as the use of TOR for anonimity or HTTPS against third-party interception.
=== Social media could have to refer any “terrorist activity” to US law enforcement ===
The US Senate Intelligence Committee approved last week a legislation whose exact content remains a secret but [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/08/us_senate_committee_wants_twitter_facebook_to_report_terrorist_posts/ has been presented as] requiring “electronic communication service providers”, that is to say e-mail services and social media, to signal to authority any content posted by suspected terrorist. Industry officials and civil liberty advocates have expressed fear this might undermines users' privacy. Industry officials have not made official comments yet, as the exact content of the legislation has not been unveiled, but one of them anonymously [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawmakers-want-internet-sites-to-flag-terrorist-activity-to-law-enforcement/2015/07/04/534a0bca-20e9-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html told the Washington Post] that “Asking Internet companies to proactively monitor people’s posts and messages would be the same thing as asking your telephone company to monitor and log all your phone calls, text messages, all your Internet browsing, all the sites you visit”.
== European Union ==
=== Parliament adopts report on copyright reforms ===
The report on copyright enforcement in Europe written by Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda [http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/copyright-meps-ditch-plans-google-tax-tourist-photo-ban-316177 was adopted by the Parliament] in plenary session on Thursday, June 9th. More than an evaluation report, this document states the position of the European Parliament on copyright, while the Commission is expected to issue a legislative proposal on it this Autumn. Adopted by a large majority (445 votes in favour, 65 against), the report didn't include, as its author [https://juliareda.eu/2015/07/eu-parliament-defends-freedom-of-panorama-calls-for-copyright-reform/ gladly pointed out], the controversial amendment doing away with “freedom of panorama”, which could have prevented citizens from posting pictures taken in public places on social networks, or Wikipedia to use pictures of recent buildings, for instance. A [https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-the-freedom-of-photography-savefop-europarl-en petition] against this amendment had received more than 550,000 supporters. The amendment on the so-called “Google tax”, which paved the way for ancillary copyright for press publishers on services such as “Google News”, was not adopted either.
The report calls for the end of geo-blocking, new exceptions on copyright for public libraries and scientific research (with data mining), and greater harmonisation of copyright laws and enforcement in the European Union.
=== Release of explanatory notes of the regulation on Net Neutrality abates fear of two-tier Internet ===
When the trialogue on the Telecoms Single Market Regulation reached an end after two years of negotiations last week, it was feared that the European Parliament only managed to obtain the end of roaming charges in the negotiation at the price of the defence of net neutrality. In particular, digital rights activist groups in Brussels pointed out the vagueness in the wording of the law. The recitals (binding explanatory notes), released this week, have [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/09/net_neutrality_deal_closes_loopholes_promises_level_playing_field_without_scaring_the_horses/ largely abated] those concerns. Estelle Massé, from the NGO Access, stated that the recitals close possible loopholes allowing two-tier Internet, and effectively protects net neutrality, without using the phrase. [http://www.cio.com/article/2946313/europe-prepares-to-enforce-its-take-on-net-neutrality.html Both Access and [[European Digital Rights]] (EDRi)] have expressed regrets that the law doesn't address the issue of “zero-rating”, which they see as anti-competitive, as those arrangements allow users can access a particular internet services without it being part of their data plan.
=== Parliament votes position on TTIP negotiations ===
After an unsuccessful first try a month ago, the European Parliament [http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/european-parliament-backs-ttip-rejects-isds-316142 adopted a position] on the TTIP negotiations on Wednesday, July 8th. The most contentious point in the debate has been the Investor State Dispute Settlement ([[ISDS]]) provision, which allows for the creation of ad hoc international tribunal in case of dispute between a state and a company. The dissent in the Social & Democrats (S&D) parliamentary group, the second largest group, over this provision was [http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/parliaments-ttip-vote-cleared-sd-new-isds-315912 the main reason] for the postponment of the vote, as many argued that ISDS was a blow to rule of law and sovereignty. Eventually, a compromise was found with a new system of tribunals with “publicly appointed, independent professional judges”, where “private interests cannot undermine public policy objectives”. Still, the position received a large opposition and was voted with 436 in favour, and 241 against. European Digital Rights (EDRi) [https://edri.org/ttip-resolution-what-did-the-parliament-say-about-digital-rights/ welcomed] the call from the Parliament to exclude data protection from the talk, and its reiteration that mass surveillance programme should be abandoned. However, the text does not exclude copyright, trademarks and patents from the negotiations.
== ORG Media coverage ==
See [[ORG Press Coverage]] for full details.
;2015-06-26 – LibDemVoice - [http://www.libdemvoice.org/willie-rennie-and-greens-patrick-harvie-support-launch-of-open-rights-group-scotland-46568.html Willie Rennie and Greens’ Patrick Harvie support launch of Open Rights Group Scotland]
:Author: Caron Lindsay
:Summary: Article covering the launch of Open Rights Group Scotland
;2015-06-29 – The Courier - [http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/calls-for-scotland-to-lead-the-way-with-digital-magna-carta-1.887132 Calls for Scotland to lead the way with ‘digital Magna Carta’]
:Author: David Martin
:Summary: Pol Clementsmith, Scotland Officer for Open Rights Group, calls for a “digital Magna Carta”
;2015-06-29 – V3 - [http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2415268/european-net-neutrality-at-threat-warn-groups European net neutrality under threat, warn rights groups]
:Author: Dave Neal
:Summary: Open Rights Group encourage citizens to contact their MEP to protect net neutrality
;2015-06-29 – Business Insider - [http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-cameron-encryption-back-doors-iphone-whatsapp-2015-7?r=US David Cameron is going to try and ban encryption in Britain]
:Author: Rob Price
:Summary: Jim Killock quoted on the dangerousness of Prime Minister's possible plan to ban encryption
== ORG contact details ==
[http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff Staff page]
* [http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#jim Jim Killock, Executive Director]
* [http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#javier Javier Ruiz, Policy]
* [http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#ed Ed Paton-Williams, Campaigns]
* [http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#pam Pam Cowburn, Communications]
* [http://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/staff#lee Lee Maguire, Tech]
[[Category: Policy updates]]