|
Anti-Muslim hate must be challenged. Silencing criticism of Islam won't help
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017
|
|
| See article from
secularism.org.uk |
|
|
Open Rights Group comment on the Queen's Speech
|
|
|
| 23rd June 2017
|
|
| See article from
openrightsgroup.org |
There are references to a review of Counter-terrorism and a Commision for Countering Extremism which will include Internet-related policies. Although details are lacking, these may contain threats to privacy and free speech. The government has opted
for a "Digital Charter", which isn't a Bill, but something else. Digital Charter This isn't a Bill, but some kind of policy intervention. Perhaps the
Digital Charter will be for companies to voluntarily agree to, or a statement of government preferences. It addresses both unwanted and illegal
content or activity online, and the protection of vulnerable people. The work of CTIRU and the IWF are mentioned as examples of work to remove illegal or extremist content. At this point, it is hard to know exactly what harms will
emerge, but pushing enforcement into the hands of private companies is problematic. It means that decisions never involve courts and are not fully transparent and legally accountable. Counterterrorism review
There will be a review of counterterrorism powers . The review includes "working with online companies to reduce
and restrict the availability of extremist material online". This appears to be a watered down version of the Conservative manifesto commitment to give greater responsibility for companies to take down extremist material from
their platforms. Already Google and Facebook have issued public statements about how they intend to improve the removal of extremist material from their platforms. Commission for Countering Extremism
A Commission will look at the topic of countering extremism, likely including on the Internet. This
appears to be a measure to generate ideas and thinking, which could be a positive approach, if it involves considering different approaches, rather than pressing ahead with policies in order to be seen to be doing something. The quality of the Commission
will therefore depend on their ability to take a wide range of evidence and assimilate it impartially; it faces a significant challenge in ensuring that fundamental rights are respected within any policy suggestions they suggest.
Data Protection Bill A new Data Protection Bill , "will fulfil a manifesto commitment to ensure the UK has a
data protection regime that is fit for the 21st century". This will replace the Data Protection Act 1998, which is in any case being removed as the result of the new
General Data Protection Regulation passed by the European Parliament last year. Regulations apply directly, so the GDPR does not need
to be 'implemented' in UK law before Brexit. We welcome that (at least parts of) the GDPR will be implemented in primary legislation with a full debate in Parliament. It is not clear if the text of the GDPR will be brought into
this Bill, or whether it supplements it. This appears to be a bill to at least implement some of the 'derogations' (options) in the GDPR, plus the new rules for law enforcement agencies, that came in with the new
law enforcement-related Directive and have to be applied by EU member states.
The bulk of the important rights are in the GDPR, and cannot be tampered with before Brexit. We welcome the chance to debate the choices, and especially to press for the right of privacy groups to bring complaints directly.
|
|
Theresa May hints that she will continue her policies to make the internet less secure from hackers, phishers and thieves
|
|
|
| 15th June 2017
|
|
| See press release from openrightsgroup.org
|
Open Rights Group has responded to Theresa May's post-election hints that she will continue with Conservative plans for Internet clampdowns. Executive Director Jim Killock said: To push on with these extreme
proposals for Internet clampdowns would appear to be a distraction from the current political situation and from effective measures against terror. The Government already has extensive surveillance powers. Conservative proposals
for automated censorship of the Internet would see decisions about what British citizens can see online being placed in the hands of computer algorithms, with judgments ultimately made by private companies rather than courts. Home Office plans to force
companies to weaken the security of their communications products could put all of us at a greater risk of crime. Both of these proposals could result in terrorists and extremists switching to platforms and services that are more
difficult for our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor. Given that the priority for all MPs is how the UK will negotiate Brexit, it will be especially hard to give the time and thought necessary to scrutinise these
proposals. It could be tempting to push ahead in order to restore some of Theresa May's image as a tough leader. This should be resisted. With such a fragile majority, greater consensus will be needed to pass new laws.
We hope that this will mean our parliamentarians will reject reactionary policy-making and look for long-term, effective solutions that directly address the complex causes of terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
15th June 2017
|
|
|
Pandora Blake announces an end to new content on her website citing unviable age verification requirements soon to be demanded by UK law See article from dreamsofspanking.com
|
|
The conservative manifesto on internet censorship
|
|
|
| 21st May 2017
|
|
| See article from buzzfeed.com See
article from rsf.org |
Buried at the very end of the Conservative election manifesto is a line of text that could have an enormous impact on how Britons use the internet in the future. Conservative advisers suggested to BuzzFeed News that a future Tory government would be
keen to rein in the growing power of Google and Facebook. The proposals -- dotted around the manifesto document -- are varied. There are many measures designed to make it easier to do business online but it's a different, more social conservative
approach when it comes to social networks. Legislation would be introduced to 'protect' the public from abuse and offensive material online, while everyone would have the right to wipe material that was posted when they were under 18. Internet
companies would also be asked to help promote counter-extremism narratives -- potentially echoing the government's Prevent programme. There would be new rules requiring companies to make it ever harder for people to access pornography and violent images,
with all content creators forced to justify their policies to the government. The Manifesto states: Our starting point is that online rules should reflect those that govern our lives offline.
It should be as unacceptable to bully online as it is in the playground, as difficult to groom a young child on the internet as it is in a community, as hard for children to access violent and degrading pornography online as it is in
the high street, and as difficult to commit a crime digitally as it is physically. New laws will be introduced to implement these rules, forcing internet companies such as Facebook to abide by the rulings of a regulator or face
sanctions: We will introduce a sanctions regime to ensure compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law.
A levy on tech companies -- similar to that charged on gambling companies -- would also be used to support awareness and preventative activity to counter internet harms. The Conservatives even see this model going further, announcing
their desire to work with other countries develop a global set of internet regulation standards similar to those we have for so long benefited from in other areas like banking and trade.
May's manifesto also raises concerns about
online news, warning it is willing to take steps to protect the reliability and objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy, while pledging to ensure content creators are appropriately rewarded for the content they make available
online. On a more positive note, the Conservative party manifesto contained one significantly welcome provision, which was that the party would not proceed with implementing the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry, and would repeal Section 40 of
the Crime and Courts Act 2013 -- both measures that RSF has campaigned for. RSF and other free expression groups viewed Section 40 as threatening to press freedom, particularly its cost-shifting provision that, if implemented, could have held publishers
that did not join the state-approved regulator liable for the costs of all claims made against them, regardless of merit. In contrast, both the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos stated that the parties would disgracefully move forward with
the unjust stage two of the Leveson Inquiry. |
|
The Open Rights Group wonders whether the Digital Economy Act will lead to the blocking of 4.6 million porn sites
|
|
|
|
14th May 2017
|
|
| See article from openrightsgroup.org
See article from thenextweb.com |
A Freedom of Information request to the DCMS has revealed that porn company MindGeek suggested that the BBFC should potentially block millions of porn sites if they didn't comply with Age Verification requirements outlined in the Digital Economy Act.
MindGeek, who are also developing Age Verification technology, said that the Government's plans to prevent children from seeing pornography would not be effective unless millions of sites could be blocked. Notes made by the company and sent to the DCMS state:
A greylist of 4M URLs already exists from Sky, but lets assume that's actually much smaller as these URLs will I suspect, be page- level blocks, not TLDs. The regulator should contact them all within that 12 months,
explaining that if they do not demonstrate they are AV ready by the enforcement date then they will be enforced against. "On the enforcement date, all sites on the greylist turn black or white depending upon what they have demonstrated to the
regulator.
Corey Price, VP of Pornhub, separately noted: It is our corporate responsibility as part of the global tech community to promote ethical and responsible behavior. We
firmly believe that parents are best placed to police their children's online activity using the plethora of tools already available in modern operating systems. The law has the potential to send a message to parents that they no longer need to monitor
their children's online activity, so it is therefore essential that the Act is robustly enforced. Despite the law, those seeking adult content can still circumvent age verification using simple proxy/VPN services. Consequently the
intent of the legislation is to only protect children who stumble across adult content in an un-protected environment. There are over 4 million domains containing adult content, and unless sites are enforced against equally, stumbling across adult
content will be no harder than at present. If the regulator pursues a proportionate approach we may only see the Top 50 sites being effected 203 this is wholly unacceptable as the law will then be completely ineffective, and simply discriminate against
compliant sites. We are therefore informing, and closely monitoring the development of the regulations, to be published later this year, to see if they achieve the intended goals of the Act.
MindGeek could stand to
gain commercially if competitor websites are blocked from UK visitors, or if the industry takes up their Age Verification product. Executive Director of Open Rights Group, Jim Killock said: There is nothing in the Act to stop the BBFC from blocking 4.6 million pornographic websites. The only constraint is cash.
This leaves the BBFC wide open to pressure for mass website blocking without any need for a change in the law.
When giving evidence to the
Public Bill Committee , the chief executive of the British Board of Film
Classification, David Austin implied that only tens of sites would be targeted: We would start with the top 50 and work our way through those, but we would not stop there. We would look to get new data every quarter,
for example. As you say, sites will come in and out of popularity. We will keep up to date and focus on those most popular sites for children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
9th May 2017
|
|
|
UK newspapers warn internet users that porn websites will soon be censored by the BBFC See article from metro.co.uk
|
|
Comments on the passing of the Digital Economy Bill which feeds British porn viewers to the scammers, blackmailers and ID thieves
|
|
|
| 2nd May 2017
|
|
| 29th April 2017. See article from
openrightsgroup.org |
The Digital Economy Bill (DEBill) will require that porn sites verify the age of their users in order to prevent under 18s from viewing pornography. Despite concerns that this will leave porn users vulnerable to hacks and security risks, the
Government has failed to amend the Bill so that privacy is written into the legislation. Instead, Codes of Practice will place the responsibility for protecting people's privacy with porn sites not the companies supplying age verification technology.
Executive Director Jim Killock said: Age verification is an accident waiting to happen. Despite repeated warnings, parliament has failed to listen to concerns about the privacy and security of
people who want to watch legal adult content. As we saw with the Ashley Madison leaks, the hacking of private information about people's sex lives, has huge repercussions for those involved. The UK government has failed to take
responsibility for its proposals and placed the responsibility for people's privacy into the hands of porn companies.
Censorship regime The Bill will also enable the creation of a censorship
regime as the BBFC will be given powers to force ISPs to block legitimate websites without any judicial process. These powers were added to the Bill, when it became apparent that foreign porn sites could not be compelled to apply age verification. During
parliamentary scrutiny, they were extended to include other content, not just pornography, raising further concerns about the threat to free speech. Killock added: These new powers will put in
place a vast system of censorship which could be applied to tens of thousands of adult websites. The BBFC will be under pressure to censor more and more legal content. This is a serious assault on free speech in the UK.
Almost 25,000 ORG supporters signed a petition calling for the Government to reject plans for blocking legal pornography.
Comment: Royal Assent 2nd May 2017 See article from pandorablake.com Thanks to Alan
The Digital Economy Bill has received the royal assent. Interesting comments and links on Pandora Blake's blog. Apparently a thrilling thirteen parliamentary jobsworths could be arsed to turn up for the final debate in the House of
Comics. I would think it's now in the interest of porn producers, as well as their British customers, to drop any restrictions on access via VPNs and to help UK punters get round any attempted firewall. Pandora seems to know more
about the matter than the 650 political twats together! See latest news from pandorablake.com See also
a good write up of how the bill will effect porn sites and their readers from pandorablake.com
|
|
|