UK’s Snooper’s Charter Lite…Snooper’s Charter absent from Queen’s speech but there is a reference to new legislation to more accurately record and correlate users with their internet activity

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from publicaffairs.linx.net

This session’s Queen’s speech did not contain any explicit mention of the Communications Data Bill, but did make reference to proposals aimed at making it easier for law enforcement to match IP addresses to individuals. My government will continue to reduce crime and protect national security. Legislation will be introduced to reform the way in which offenders are rehabilitated in England and Wales. Legislation will be brought forward to introduce new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, cut crime and further reform the police. In relation to the problem of matching internet protocol addresses, my government will bring forward proposals to enable the protection of the public and the investigation of crime in cyberspace. The government provides more details in the briefing notes on the Queen’s Speech: [IP] addresses are generally shared between a number of people. In order to know who has actually sent an email or made a Skype call, the police need to know who used a certain IP address at a given point in time. Without this, if a suspect used the internet to communicate instead of making a phone call, it may not be possible for the police to identify them. The Government is looking at ways of addressing this issue with CSPs. It may involve legislation. Commentators have linked these proposals to comments made by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg in April, suggesting that the government could be considering some sort of intervention relating to IPv6 adoption. Right now, there are not enough IP addresses to go round for all of the devices being used. Temporary addresses are attached to computers and phones while they are online, but the records of these are patchy, which means they cannot easily be matched back to individuals. The police say a clearer picture would be a huge help in their investigations and we should explore how that can be done. — Nick Clegg, writing in The Telegraph

An Internet Suitable for Mary Whitehouse…Government wants to block anything vaguely adult from public Wi-Fi

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from dailymail.co.uk

Anything judged to be adult content is to be banned from public wi-fi networks by the end of the year, according to David Cameron’s Mary Whitehouse. Claire Perry said the move was supposedly to prevent children from stumbling across adult material when using wireless internet networks in places such as cafes and railway stations, or seeing others who may be looking at it. But one of the country’s largest internet providers has threatened to throw a spanner in the works by warning that ministers’ plans to block porn from public wi-fi could be against the law. BT says that blocking adult material from stores which use BT public wi-fi could breach 2000 legislation which bans the interception of electronic communications. Anne Heal, the representative from BT Openreach, said: There is considerable nervousness that filtering content could be regarded as intercepting data, and which could put providers in breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Act allows certain public bodies to intercept data for national security reasons, but bans everyone else from doing so. BT’s argument is that filtering web use without the user’s express permission could be regarded as the interception of data. However the six largest providers of public wi-fi have agreed to put adult content block in place. High Street companies offering free wi-fi from one of the six companies will be ‘encouraged’ to put the block in place to restrict browsing by children using mobile phones and tablets like iPads. These shops would be able to display a kid’s internet logo so parents know their children will be safe. Perry said: I’m really pleased that the internet industry is committed to providing public wi-fi that is free of adult content. It is entirely appropriate and means that children can surf the web safely in thousands of different places. Now we need to move fast in introducing family-friendly home internet filtering to make sure that our young people are not accessing violent and pornographic images.

Stop Press…Government plans for a news censor put on hold to give time to consider alternative plan proposed by newspaper editors

Read more PCC Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from telegraph.co.uk

The Government’s proposal for a Royal Charter on the future of news censorship has been put on hold after newspaper editors put forward an alternative plan. The Royal Charter was due to be signed by the Queen when she chaired the next meeting of the Privy Council on May 15, but it has now been taken off the agenda for the meeting so the Government can hold more talks with editors. Editors are unhappy with an element of statutory underpinning in the Government’s proposal, and last month they published their own proposal for a Royal Charter, which would remove Parliament’s proposed power to make changes to the regulatory system without the agreement of the industry.

Political Interference…Major newspapers reject the newspaper censor proposed by political parties

Read more PCC Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from guardian.co.uk

The majority of the newspaper industry, made up of five of the country’s largest press groups, have rejected cross-party plans for newspaper censorship and launched a bid to set up their own royal charter-backed body. News International, the publisher of the Sun and Times, the Telegraph Media Group, the Daily Mail’s publisher Associated Newspapers, Trinity Mirror and Express Newspapers published a draft royal charter saying they rejected the stitch-up put together by the three political parties. The newspapers said the original government royal charter unveiled on 15 March and endorsed by parliament: Has no support within the press. A number of its recommendations are unworkable and it gives politicians an unacceptable degree of interference in the regulation of the press. David Cameron said he was very happy to look at the proposals and his aides said he needed time to examine the gaps between what the parties had agreed and the industry was proposing. But a spokesman for the culture department stood firm by the original plans endorsed by the Commons and Lords: We want to see a tough, independent self-regulator implemented swiftly. The royal charter published on 18 March followed 21 weeks of discussion and has cross-party agreement.

People’s Hero…Nick Clegg announces that the Snooper’s Charter isn’t going to happen

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has just announced that the Communications Data Bill is dead. He said on LBC: What people dub the snoopers’ charter, that’s not going to happen — certainly with Lib Dems in government. Big Brother Watch commented: Nick Clegg has made the right decision for our economy, for internet security and for our freedom. Recording the websites we look at and who we email would not have made us safer, as some of the country’s leading cyber security academics argued this week. It would have made Britain a less attractive place to start a company and put British companies in the position of being paid by the Government to spy on their customers, something that oppressive regimes around the world would have quickly copied. Rather than spending billions on another Whitehall IT disaster that tramples over our civil liberties and privacy on an unprecedented scale, we should focus on ensuring the police have the skills and training to make use of the huge volume of data that is available. If small, technical changes to existing legislation are required, then they should be properly thought through before being subject to the widespread consultation and comprehensive assessment this plan sorely lacked. Dr Julian Huppert MP, Lib Dem spokesperson for Home Affairs and a member of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications data Bill, said: I am delighted that Nick Clegg has stood up for the British public on this. He was right to demand that these proposals be published as a draft, which gave us all a chance to see just how badly thought through the Home Office proposals were. And he is now right to say that what the Home Office propose is unacceptable. Spending billions of pounds to keep track of every website we go to, and what we do on facebook or google, is simply wrong. If we want to actually cut crime, spend the extra money on the police.

Public Internet to be Censored as Suitable for Kids…Cameron set to ban anything remotely adult from public internet networks

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from telegraph.co.uk

The Prime Minister is to announce a Government-backed censorship rules which will mean that all adult themed content is blocked in public spaces such as cafes and railway stations where children are likely to be present. Cameron said: We are promoting good, clean, WiFi in local cafes and elsewhere to make sure that people have confidence in public WiFi systems so that they are not going to see things they shouldn’t. Talks have been taking place for months between ISPs and government officials over the new censorship rules. It is not clear whether the internet firms will automatically impose the restrictions on access — or whether it will be the duty of shops and other public areas used by children to bar adult content. Industry sources said that the decision on whether to automatically restrict access in hotels could prove a more contentious issue.

Contracting Out of Libel Restrictions…House of Lords passes watered down bill that still includes many welcome reforms to UK libel law

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from guardian.co.uk

Laws that led to London being dubbed the libel capital of the world will be reformed after peers in the Lords voted to pass the defamation bill, ending a three-year campaign led by Liberal Democrat peers Lord McNally and Lord Lester. Libel reform campaigners said they were delighted overall that defamation reform was finally passing into law, although they were disappointed by the failure of a bid to bar private companies contracted to run schools, prisons or healthcare from suing ordinary citizens who criticised the work they do for the taxpayer. In the end it was the Lib Dems and Tories that did the dirty and killed some of the valuable reforms. However, the bill is a landmark piece of legislation and should provide more protection for individuals and organisations, including newspapers and broadcasters, which criticise big companies. The new law will also stop cases being taken in London against journalists, academics or individuals who live outside the country, denting the libel tourism industry, but not ending it altogether, as foreigners will still be able to lodge claims in the high court. The bill will now return to the Commons on Wednesday for formal approval with no possibility of fresh amendments. Kirsty Hughes, chief executive of Index on Censorship said she was delighted that corporations will now have to prove financial loss before they sue for libel but added it was a pity the government voted against Labour’s amendment to stop public money being used to stop citizen critics .

Open Letter to ISPs…Joint letter sent to BT, Sky, Virgin and TalkTalk by ORG, Privacy International and Big Brother Watch, asking ISPs to stand up for their customers.

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from openrightsgroup.org

Sent to: Neil Berkett, Virgin Media Jeremy Darroch, Sky Dido Harding, TalkTalk Warren Buckley, BT Jeremy Woodrow, Royal Mail Ronan Dunne, O2 Richard Tang, Zen Internet One year ago, it became public knowledge that the Government intends to introduce legislation relating to communications data. We did not learn of this in Parliament, but in media leaks. It has become clear that a critical component of the Communications Data Bill is that UK communication service providers will be required by law to create data they currently do not have any business purpose for, and store it for a period of 12 months. Plainly, this crosses a line no democratic country has yet crossed — paying private companies to record what their customers are doing solely for the purposes of the state. These proposals are not fit for purpose, which possibly explains why the Home Office is so keen to ensure they are not aired publicly. There has been no public consultation, while on none of your websites is there any reference to these discussions. Meetings have been held behind closed doors as policy has been developed in secret, seemingly the same policy formulated several years ago despite widespread warnings from technical experts. That your businesses appear willing to be co-opted as an arm of the state to monitor every single one of your customers is a dangerous step, exacerbated by your silence Consumers are increasingly concerned about their privacy, both in terms of how much data is collected about them and how securely that data is kept. Many businesses have made a virtue of respecting consumer privacy and ensuring safe and secure internet access. Sadly, your customers have not had the opportunity to comment on these proposals. Indeed, were it not for civil society groups and the media, they would have no idea such a policy was being considered. We believe this is a critical failure not only of Government, but a betrayal of your customers’ interests. You appear to be engaged in a conspiracy of silence with the Home Office, the only concern being whether or not you will be able to recover your costs. We urge you to withdraw your participation in a process that in our view is deeply flawed, pursuing a pre-determined solution that puts competition, security and privacy at risk in an unprecedented way. With best wishes, Jim Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group Nick Pickles, Director, Big Brother Watch Sam Smith, Technologist, Privacy International

Home Office in Contempt…The Home Office is refusing to reveal the basic details about exactly how invasive the snooper’s charter is

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from telegraph.co.uk

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has so far declined to explain a proposed snooping system that would allow officials to trawl through the public’s private emails, text messages and other messages sent through the internet. The Information Commissioner has now ordered the Home Office to publish advice ministers received on the design, cost and risks of the new snooping system by May 11. If the Home Office does not comply with the Information Notice issued by the Commissioner last week it will be judged as being in contempt of court . Dominic Raab, a Tory MP with an interest in human rights, requested the advice in a Freedom of Information request last summer, but May’s department has refused to publish the guidance citing supposed national security concerns. Raab said: This far-reaching scheme could drain the swamp of every email, text message and phone call made by every citizen, a tectonic shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. So, it’s astonishing that Home Office bureaucrats are risking contempt of court by trying to cover up the most basic information on how the scheme will operate in practice.

Micro-Exemptions…The Government proposes to exempt micro-companies (less than 10 employees) from having to sign up to the planned news censor

Read more PCC Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from gov.uk

The Government writes about the need for bloggers and small media companies having to sign up to the proposed news censor: Following the initial debate in Parliament, we have refined the clauses to make it absolutely clear that small blogs are outside of the scheme. The amendments, which have cross-party agreement, make clear that small blogs will not be classed as relevant publishers , and be considered by the House of Commons on Monday April 22. The provisions in the Crime and Courts Bill clauses detail the four tests that must be met to be considered a relevant publisher, which are: publish news-related material publish in the course of a business written by different authors subject to editorial controls Micro-business blogs The amendments clarify the government’s position on small blogs by further defining the exemption for blogs that are classed as micro-businesses - business with fewer than 10 employees and an annual turnover below ฃ 2 million. This is the definition used by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Despite not falling under the definition of relevant publisher, any publication that is exempt as a micro-business as a result of these amendments could still choose to join a regulator and receive the legal benefits otherwise only available to relevant publishers in the regulator. That means protection from exemplary damages. It also means that use of the arbitral arm in the regulator will be taken into account by the court when awarding costs. Additional exemptions The clauses also list certain categories of publications which are exempt, even when those tests are met. These exemptions include special interest titles, scientific or academic journals, broadcasters and book publishers as as well as a public body, charity or company that publishes news about their activities.