Read more uk_internet_censors.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk
ICO’s Data Protection Training
The Pavlov Method
nodding dog
 ☑  Yes I won’t read this message. and yes you can do what the fuck you like with my porn browsing data
 ☑  Yes please do, I waiver all my GDPR rights
 ☑  Yes I won’t read this message. and yes, feel free to blackmail me
 ☑  Yes you can do anything you like ‘to make my viewing experience better’
 ☑  Yes, no need to ask, I’ll tick anything

Digital Minister Margot James has apologised for the six-month delay on the so-called porn block, which had been due to take effect today (16th July). It is designed to force pornography websites to verify users are over 18.

But the law has been delayed twice – most recently because the UK government failed to properly notify European regulators. James told the BBC:

I’m extremely sorry that there has been a delay. I know it sounds incompetent. Mistakes do happen, and I’m terribly sorry that it happened in such an important area,

Of course the fundamental mistake is that the incompetent lawmakers cared only about ‘protecting the children’ and gave bugger all consideration to the resulting endangerment of the adults visiting porn sites.

It took the government months, but it finally started to dawn on them that perhaps they should do something to protect the identity data that they are forcing porn users to hand over that can then be pinned to their porn browsing history. They probably still didn’t care about porn users but perhaps realised that the scheme would not get of the ground if it proved so toxic that no one would ever sign up for age verification at all.

Well as a belated after thought the government, BBFC and ICO went away to dream up a few standards that perhaps the age verifiers ought to be sticking to try and ensure that data is being kept safe.

So then the whole law ended up as a bag of worms. The authorities now realise that there should be level of data protection, but unfortunately this is not actually backed up by the law that was actually passed. So now the data protection standards suggested by the government/BBFC/ICO are only voluntary and there remains nothing in law to require the data actually be kept safe. And there is no recourse against anyone who ends up exploiting people’s data.

The Open Rights Group have just written an open letter to the government to ask that government to change their flawed law and actually require that porn users’ data is kept properly safe:

The Rt Hon Jeremy Wright QC MP Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Re: BBFC Age Verification Privacy Certification Scheme

Dear Secretary of State,

open rights group 2016 logo We write to ask you to legislate without delay to place a statutory requirement on the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to make their privacy certification scheme for age verification providers mandatory. Legislation is also needed to grant the BBFC powers to require compliance reports and penalise non-compliant providers.

As presently constituted, the BBFC certification scheme will be a disaster. Our analysis report, attached, shows that rather than setting out objective privacy safeguards to which companies must adhere, the scheme allows companies to set their own rules and then demonstrate that these are being followed. There are no penalties for providers which sign up to the standard and then fail to meet its requirements.

The broadly-drafted, voluntary scheme encourages a race to the bottom on privacy protection. It provides no consistent guarantees for consumers about how their personal data will be safeguarded and puts millions of British citizens at serious risk of fraud, blackmail or devastating sexual exposure.

The BBFC standard was only published in April. Some age verification providers have admitted that they are not ready. Others have stated that for commercial reasons they will not engage with the scheme. This means that the bureaucratic delay to age verification’s roll-out can now be turned to advantage. The Government needs to use this delay to introduce legislation, or at the least issue guidance under section 27 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, that will ensure the privacy and security of online users is protected.

We welcome the opportunity to bring this issue to your attention and await your response.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Killock Executive Director Open Rights Group

Advertisements
Read more parl.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

online id card Despite concern among some groups of witnesses, a shift in approach in the UK Government’s position seems on the horizon. The Minister for Digital and the Creative industries, for example, implied support for a universal digital ID in a recent interview with The Daily Telegraph in 2019:

think there are advantages of a universally acclaimed digital ID system which nowhere in the world has yet. There is a great prize to be won once the technology and the public’s confidence are reconciled.

On 11 June 2019, DCMS and the Cabinet Office announced their intentions to launch a consultation on digital identify verification in the coming weeks. The following actions were set out:

  • A consultation to be issued in the coming weeks on how to deliver the effective organisation of the digital identity market.

  • The creation of a new Digital Identity Unit, which is a collaboration between DCMS and Cabinet Office. The Unit will help bring the public and private sector together, ensure the adoption of interoperable standards, specification and schemes, and deliver on the outcome of the consultation.

  • The start of engagement on the commercial framework for using digital identities from the private sector for the period from April 2020 to ensure the continued delivery of public services.

Single unique identifiers for citizens can transform the efficiency and transparency of Government services. We welcome the Government’s announcement in June 2019 that it will consult shortly on digital identity. While we recognise that in the UK there are concerns about some of the features of a single unique identifier, as demonstrated by the public reaction to the 2006 Identity Card Act, we believe that the Government should recognise the value of consistent identity verification. The Government should facilitate a national debate on single unique identifiers for citizens to use for accessing public services along with the right of the citizen to know exactly what the Government is doing with their data.

Offline Comment: Privacy International explains some of the reasons why this is a bad idea

14th July 2019. See article from privacyinternational.org

privacy international logo The debate shouldn’t be about having insight into how your identifier is used. It should be about making sure that identifiers are never usable.

After all, any unique identifier will not be limited to government use. Whether through design or commercial necessity, any such number will also find it’s way into the private sector. This was another fear highlighted in the mid-2000s, but it has played out elsewhere. For example, the Indian Supreme Court, in their ruling on the Aadhaar system that provided a unique number to more than a billion people, that there were dangers of its use in the private sector: Allowing private entities to use Aadhaar numbers will lead to commercial exploitation of an individual’s personal data without his/her consent and could lead to individual profiling.

Given everything that’s happened since, the 13 years since the 2006 ID Card Act (that was repealed in 2010) can seem like a lifetime. But it’s clear that the concerns expressed then remain prescient now. Now that we know so much more about the risks that the exploitation of people’s data plays – and the targeting, profiling and manipulating of individuals and groups – we should be even more fearful today of such a system than we were a decade ago. Furthermore, it’s been shown that we do not need such a unique identifier for people to securely access government services online, and it’s on such concepts we must build going forward.

See the full article from privacyinternational.org

Read more uk_internet_censors.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

YouTube logo Ben McOwen Wilson the head of YouTube UK said that the website not remove drill music videos from the platform saying that they provide a place for those too often without a voice.He Said that YouTube must work with government and regulators to find a balance on removing content.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, McOwen Wilson had a knock at the vague government internet censorship plan outline in the Online Harms white paper. He said it was right that anything which is illegal offline should not be permitted online, but added that deciding when to remove videos which were legal but could be considered potentially harmful was a greater issue facing the tech industry.  He said:

Drawing a line on content that should be removed isn’t always clear. For example, as communities are working to address the issue of gang violence, we too find ourselves developing the right way to play our part.

While some have argued there is no place for drill music on YouTube, we believe we can help provide a place for those too often without a voice.

To strike this balance, we work with the Metropolitan Police, community groups and experts to understand local context and take action where needed.

Read more me_internet.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

jesus shepherd Twitter has blogged about its recent censorship rules update:

Our primary focus is on addressing the risks of offline harm, and research shows that dehumanizing language increases that risk. As a result, after months of conversations and feedback from the public, external experts and our own teams, we’re expanding our rules against hateful conduct to include language that dehumanizes others on the basis of religion.

Starting today, we will require Tweets like these to be removed from Twitter when they’re reported to us:

Religious groups are viruses. They are making this country sick.

It is always one of the unintended consequences of censorship is that it often applies most to those that are supposed to be in need of protection. Eg religious groups are the ones that are most likely to be pulled up for hate directed at other religious groups.

So will Twitter ban such bible quotes as:

But [Moses] made his own people go out like sheep — Distinguishing between them and the Egyptians, as a shepherd divideth between the sheep and the goats, having set his own mark upon these sheep, by the blood of the Lamb sprinkled on their door-posts. And they went forth as sheep, not knowing whither they went. And guided them in the wilderness — As a shepherd guides his flock.

(Psalm 78:52-54)

10th July 2019. See article from ispa.org.uk and article from techdirt.com

villain The villains of ISPA have withdrawn their nomination of the heroic Mozilla as an internet villain. ISPA writes:

Last week ISPA included Mozilla in our list of Internet Villain nominees for our upcoming annual awards.

In the 21 years the event has been running it is probably fair to say that no other nomination has generated such strong opinion. We have previously given the award to the Home Secretary for pushing surveillance legislation, leaders of regimes limiting freedom of speech and ambulance-chasing copyright lawyers. The villain category is intended to draw attention to an important issue in a light-hearted manner, but this year has clearly sent the wrong message, one that doesn’t reflect ISPA’s genuine desire to engage in a constructive dialogue. ISPA is therefore withdrawing the Mozilla nomination and Internet Villain category this year.

TechDirt noted that the ISPA nomination was kindly advertising Mozilla’s Firefox option for DNS over HTTPS:

ISPA nominated Mozilla for the organization’s meaningless internet villain awards for, at least according to ISPA, undermining internet safety standards in the UK:

Of course Mozilla is doing nothing of the sort. DNS over HTTPS not only creates a more secure internet that’s harder to filter and spy on, it actually improves overall DNS performance, making everything a bit faster. Just because this doesn’t coalesce with the UK’s routinely idiotic and clumsy efforts to censor the internet, that doesn’t somehow magically make it a bad idea.

Of course, many were quick to note that ISPA’s silly little PR stunt had the opposite effect than intended. It not only advertised that Mozilla was doing a good thing, it advertised DNS over HTTPS to folks who hadn’t heard of it previously. Matthew Prince P (@eastdakota) tweeted:

Given the number of people who’ve enabled DNS-over-HTTPS in the last 48 hours, it’s clear @ISPAUK doesn’t understand or appreciate @mmasnick’s so-called “Streisand Effect.”

Read more me_books.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

die kasseler liste logo A list of banned books is over 118,000 titles long and it’s constantly growing, according to a professor from the University of British Collumbia.Professor Florian Gassner is the co-leader of a project to compile a digital list of censored books that is publicly available and searchable.

The project is called Die Kasseler Liste and it was inspired by an art installation in Germany that recreated the Parthenon using banned books.

Gassner says the first hurdle he and his team of students team had to overcome was deciding what constitutes censorship. They decided to include titles banned by governments as well as books that were taken off the shelves of public institutions — like schools and libraries — after public pressure.

Gassner says government censorship is still a reality in countries like China, Russia, and Nigeria. He doesn’t mention the current trend for banning books in the west on grounds of political correctness.

Gassner also wants people to understand that censorship goes beyond book-banning; it limits what can be written in the first place.

Read more me_internet.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

ispa logo The Internet Services Providers’ Association has announced the finalists for what its members consider as the 2019 Internet Hero and Villain.The Internet Hero nominations this year include those campaigning to improve trust and confidence online; mapping out the UK’s evolving broadband landscape; and working on global internet governance issues. While, the Villain nominees take in the impact of new technical standards on existing online protections, the balance between freedom of expression and copyright online and the global telecoms supply chain.

This year’s nominations for the 2019 Internet Heroes and Villains in full are:

ISPA Internet Hero

  • Sir Tim Berners-Lee — for spearheading the Contract for the Web campaign to rebuild trust and protect the open and free nature of the Internet in the 30 th anniversary of the World Wide Web
  • Andrew Ferguson OBE, Editor, Thinkbroadband – for providing independent analysis and valuable data on the UK broadband market since the year 2000
  • Oscar Tapp-Scotting & Paul Blaker, Global Internet Governance Team, DCMS — for leading the UK Government’s efforts to ensure a balanced and proportionate agenda at the International Telecommunications Union Conference

ISPA Internet Villain

  • Mozilla — for their proposed approach to introduce DNS-over-HTTPS in such a way as to bypass UK filtering obligations and parental controls, undermining internet safety standards in the UK
  • Article 13 Copyright Directive — for threatening freedom of expression online by requiring content recognition technologies across platforms
  • President Donald Trump — for causing a huge amount of uncertainty across the complex, global telecommunications supply chain in the course of trying to protect national security

The winners of this year’s Heroes and Villains will be chosen by the ISPA Council, and will be announced at the ISPA Awards Ceremony on 11th July in London