I'm not sure we know. I think there was speculation but September would be more likely if I was to guess.
https://www.openrightsgroup.org Sent on the move > On 15 Jul 2016, at 16:53, Phil Bradley-Schmieg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you very much for this. But is it correct when it says that the DRIPA > CJEU ruling is expected just 3 days after the Advocate General's opinion? > That's not on the CJEU's public calendar, which covers the next 5 weeks. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "ORG Policy Monitoring" <[email protected]> > Date: 15 Jul 2016 4:03 p.m. > Subject: [ORG PM] ORG policy update 15 July 2016 > To: "ORG policy update" <[email protected]> > Cc: > > >> https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/ORG_policy_update/2016-w28 >> >> ORG policy update/2016-w28 >> >> This is ORG's Policy Update for the week beginning 11/07/2016. >> >> If you are reading this online, you can also subscribe to the email version. >> >> ORG's work >> >> ORG, as a member of Don’t Spy On Us, issued a public statement for the Lords >> this week asking people to sign up. Over 3000 people have signed up to the >> statement. You can see the statement here. >> We have been working with our partners at EDRi on a net neutrality campaign >> and contacting our supporters. The public consultation on new net neutrality >> rules is closing soon. You can take action on the Save the Internet page! >> Last week we organised a talk with Naomi Colvin from Courage Foundation on >> Lauri Love extradition case. The video from the event can be accessed here. >> ORG is organising the second workshop in our Cybersecurity Risks series. The >> workshop will take place on 20 July at London Southbank University. You can >> sign up on our London Meetup page! >> Official meetings >> >> ORG held its advisory council meeting this week to discuss the current >> political climate, Brexit, IPBill and our future steps. >> Javier Ruiz met with researchers from the University of Johannesburg working >> on communications surveillance in South Africa. >> Parliament >> >> IPBill >> >> The IPBill was debated in Committee in the House of Lords on 11 and 13 July. >> Generally, the Government showed little flexibility in the debate on >> submitted amendments and the live broadcast revealed very poor attendance by >> the Lords. It is still not clear who is leading on the IPBill from the >> Labour Party. >> >> First sitting – 11 July >> These are some of the points and amendments discussed during the first day >> of the Committee stage: >> >> -little scrutiny of the draft Codes of Practice >> -overarching privacy clause >> It has been stressed by Lord Paddick and Baroness Hamwee, as well as other >> Lib Dem and Labour Lords, that the current overarching privacy clause is not >> satisfactory. The two peers proposed to include the 10 tests suggested by >> the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in the IPBill to ensure the >> privacy clause goes beyond proportionality and transparency. They withdrew >> their amendment. >> >> Lord Keen of Elie published a letter to Lord Rooker, where he explained how >> the Bill meets the ten test criteria already and has been approved by RUSI. >> >> -offences >> A point has been raised that various offences are scattered throughout the >> Bill causing lack of clarity and transparency. Instead, it was suggested >> there should be one section grouping all offense from different parts >> together. >> >> -justice for victims of phone hacking >> Lady Hollins, using her own experience of a hacking victim, brought forward >> several amendments that were renamed ‘Leveson amendments’. These amendments >> outline how victims of hacking can claim justice. However, the discussion >> only tackled hacking by press and media, not by authorities. Even though >> these amendments were widely supported by the peers, it was pointed out by >> Earl Howe that the purpose of this legislation is not to regulate the press. >> >> -the offence of unlawful interception should also cover private postal >> services >> In the Bill, the offence of unlawful interception covers only public >> telecommunications systems, private telecommunications systems and public >> postal services. Lord Paddick demanded the private postal services to be >> included in the offence too. >> >> -missing statutory public interest defence for voicemail interception >> Lord Strasburger introduced amendments that would allow journalists and NGOs >> to use public interest defence in case of voicemail interception while >> uncovering information important to the public. His amendments were met with >> a wave of criticism for providing a blank card to journalists and NGOs due >> to the lack of existing definition of public interest. >> >> >> Second sitting – 13 July >> These are some of the points and amendments discussed during the first day >> of the Committee stage: >> >> -removal of judicial review >> Baroness Hamwee proposed to remove the requirement to conduct the judicial >> review on the grounds of confusion. The Bill does not make it clear whether >> it merely refers to a process or it is >> >> -weight of the double lock authorisation >> Lord Rooker pointed out, in terms of the double lock authorisation, the >> legal contribution should not be equal to the ministerial contribution. It >> is the minister who takes final decision. >> >> -applications to intercept and parliamentary privilege >> Baroness Jones of Mouselcoomb proposed an amendment to applications to >> intercept to be made by a judicial commissioner instead of the Secretary of >> State via the Prime Minister. She specifically highlighted an issue with the >> Wilson doctrine and parliamentary privilege. The Wilson doctrine only covers >> targeted interceptions and leaves out incidental interceptions. >> >> This amendment did not receive much support and was withdrawn. >> >> -legal professional privilege >> Lord Pannick submitted several probing amendments relating to the legal >> professional privilege. Their intention was to question whether the >> authorities should be allowed to listen into proper legal confidential >> discussions where there is no reason to suspect iniquity. >> >> -encryption >> Baroness Hayter submitted an amendment that would make it explicit that a >> company would be required to remove the electronic protection only where it >> had the current capacity to do so and that it should not have to engineer it. >> >> This amendment was countered by the amendments submitted by the Earl Howe >> that would maintain the current legal position in relation to encryption and >> go no further. >> >> The Committee in the House of Lords will resume on 19 July. Following >> sittings will take place on 5 and 7 September. The IPBill is expected to >> reach the Report stage in October. >> >> The Court of Justice of the European Union is supposed to issue its opinion >> about the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) case brought >> by Tom Watson MP and David Davis MP next week on 19 July. The judgement >> should follow three days later. The ruling will likely have impact on the >> IPBill. >> >> Written question on passport photos >> >> Keith Vaz asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is >> being done to improve cybersecurity and prevent hacking of identification >> photographs for official documents submitted to HM Passport Office by the >> public using their own digital devices. >> >> James Brokenshire MP, Minister of State for Security and Immigration, >> responded clarifying that digital photographs are required to meet the >> standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. They are >> checked for compliance through the system and through the manual examination >> process. >> >> Other national developments >> >> Blockchain welfare trial >> >> The UK Department for Work and Pensions has been testing a trial for welfare >> payments. The fintech startup GovCoin Systems Ltd. has been providing a more >> effective and tamper-proof technology for the trial which started in June. >> >> The trial has been supported by Barclays, RWE npower and University College >> London. This is one of the first instances of using blockchain technology in >> the public sector. >> >> David Freud (Lord Freud), the Minister for Welfare Reform at the Department >> for Work and Pensions said: >> “Claimants are using an app on their phones through which they are receiving >> and spending their benefit payments. With their consent, their transactions >> are being recorded on a distributed ledger to support their financial >> management.” >> There are several concerns about the privacy implications of "putting highly >> sensitive personal data on a shared ledger "which, by technical design, can >> never be changed or deleted even if it's inaccurate"." >> >> Europe >> >> Privacy Shield >> >> The Privacy Shield agreement was finalised and has formally been adopted by >> the European Commission this week. This is not a drill. The data transfer >> regulation went into effect on 12 July and the US companies can certify >> their compliance from 1 August. >> >> The US Department of Commerce is supposed to be conducting regular reviews >> ensuring compliance of US companies. The companies are required to >> self-certify that they meet higher data protection standards. The US intends >> to set clear limitations, safeguards and oversights mechanisms to regulate >> how law enforcement and federal agencies access the data of EU citizens. The >> US representatives also clarified that bulk data collection will be only >> carried out under specific preconditions and will be as targeted and focused >> as possible. >> >> The deal requires setting up an ombudsperson who would be dealing with >> disputes concerning national security independently from federal security >> agencies. Individual complaints coming from EU citizens will be first dealt >> with on a national level through national data protection agencies and then >> forwarded to the US Department of Commerce or the Federal Trade Commission. >> >> The Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova said that Privacy Shield would be >> tested and promised they would use the suspension clause if failings are >> found on the part of the US government or companies. Nonetheless, the >> updated data transfer regulation has been criticised on the grounds of not >> being good enough and containing only marginal changes. Green MEP Jan >> Phillip Albrecht said >> “Testing doesn’t mean putting it into force indefinitely, there should be a >> time limit.” >> Tech companies are generally satisfied with Privacy Shield. Some of the >> biggest tech companies such as Apple, Google and IBM are ready to implement >> the new framework and meet the compliance challenge. >> >> Net neutrality and 5G >> >> Major telecom companies called on EU net neutrality rules to be loosened in >> exchange for launching 5G networks in EU countries by 2020. >> >> Telcos, including Nokia, BT and Vodafone, released the coalition's plans in >> a manifesto detailing how the companies will go about spreading 5G networks >> and warning against regulation keeping internet open. They intend to create >> a 5G Action Plan that would demonstrate benefits of using 5G networks in >> cars, health, public safety and entertainment. The companies are also asking >> for investment from countries to allow for the infrastructure needed to >> launch 5G in all EU Member States by 2020. >> >> The manifesto labels open internet as not pragmatic enough to foster >> innovation. >> “The telecom industry warns that current net neutrality guidelines, as put >> forward by BEREC [the Body of European Regulators], create significant >> uncertainties around 5G return on investment. Investments are therefore >> likely to be delayed unless regulators take a positive stance on innovation >> and stick to it." >> Gunther Oettinger, Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society, welcomed >> the 5G Manifesto from the telcos and will include their input in the 5G >> Action Plan due to be presented by the European Commission in September. >> >> Oettinger's endorsement of the manifesto has been criticised by digital >> rights groups. EDRi has criticised the actions of the European Commission >> saying they have been promoting the anti-net neutrality declaration at least >> three times on the European Commission's website. The digital rights group >> considers actions of the European Commission undermining the independence of >> the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) who >> interpret the EU regulation in places where the law is unclear. >> >> The EU rejected amendments to legislation protecting net neutrality last >> October. The EU laws specify that telecoms are supposed to treat the >> internet traffic equally; however there are filled with loopholes. The laws >> on net neutrality, as they stand at the moment, allow for specialised >> services (self-driving cars, medical operation, etc.) to use the “fast >> lanes”. >> >> Following the rejection in the European Parliament, the EU telecoms >> watchdog, BEREC has been holding a public consultation. The consultation on >> EU net neutrality rules is closing next week, 18 July. Public supporting the >> real net neutrality principles can make their voice heard through the Save >> the Internet campaign. >> >> International developments >> >> Microsoft wins against the US government >> >> Microsoft won a case against the US government trying to compel them to hand >> over data held on a server in Ireland from an email account in a drug case. >> >> In 2013, authorities obtained a Stored Communications Act (SCA) warrant >> signed by a judge as a part of a drug investigation and served it upon >> Microsoft. Microsoft refused to comply and they were charged with contempt, >> which they consequently challenged. >> >> The US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the lower court's >> ruling does not apply outside the United States. The Stored Communications >> Act allows domestically-held data to be handed over to the US government. >> However, the data in this case has been held on servers in Ireland and the >> US government does not have jurisdiction. >> >> The government can appeal the ruling or use the Mutual Legal Assistance >> Treaty process to contact Irish authorities to serve the warrant locally. >> >> ORG backed the Microsoft’s side from the beginning of the case and signed up >> to an amicus curiae brief. Myles Jackman, ORG legal director, said >> “We urge the UK Government to take note as the Investigatory Powers Bill >> will also attempt to create powers compelling overseas companies to do the >> UK's bidding. We need to establish a firm principle that companies abide by >> domestic law where they operate, rather than being answerable to every >> government across the globe that makes demands of them. The established >> route for requests for data by law enforcement agencies should be through >> treaties.” >> ORG media coverage >> >> See ORG Press Coverage for full details. >> >> 2016-07-08-Business Insider-Google DeepMind has a new head of security >> Author: Sam Shead >> Summary: ORG mentioned in relation to Ben Laurie, one of ORG’s directors, >> who became the new head of security for Google DeepMind. >> 2016-07-10-Herald Scotland-Agenda: Nik Williams of Scottish PEN calls for >> delay to IP Bill >> Author: Nik Williams >> Summary: ORG mentioned in relation to the call to pause the IPBill >> proceedings to give the Bill enough attention. >> 2016-07-10-Telecom Paper-ORG responds to UK Digital Economy Bill >> Summary: ORG mentioned in relation to the response to the Digital Economy >> Bill. >> 2016-07-11-BBC News-Telecoms companies unite to sign 5G manifesto >> Summary: Jim Killock quoted on blackmail practices of telecoms to weaken net >> neutrality. >> 2016-07-11-Tech Dirt-As UK Piracy Falls To Record Lows, Government Still >> Wants To Put Pirates In Jail For 10 Years >> Author: Mike Masnick >> Summary: ORG quoted on being promised by the IPO that 10-year jail sentences >> will not be targeting ordinary users. >> 2016-07-12-Th Inquirer-Theresa May becoming PM is a major blow for privacy >> Author: Dave Neal >> Summary: Jim Killock quoted on Theresa May having no positive impact on >> digital rights as Home Secretary. >> 2016-07-12-Business Insider-Theresa May becoming Prime Minister is bad news >> for privacy campaigners >> Author: Sam Shead >> Summary: Jim Killock quoted on Theresa May being the author of the most >> extreme surveillance laws in a modern democracy. >> 2016-07-12-The Independent-Theresa May could launch huge attack on privacy >> and internet surveillance protections as prime minister, campaigners warn >> Author: Andrew Griffin >> Summary: Jim Killock quoted on the implications of Brexit for data >> protection law. >> 2016-07-12-Express-You could get 10 YEARS in prison for pirating illegal >> songs, movies - Bill to beef-up law >> Author: Aaron Brown >> Summary: ORG quoted on age verification for porn sites bringing difficulties >> for privacy and free expression. >> 2016-07-12-Gizmodo-All Your Internet Are Belong to Theresa May and the IP >> Bill >> Author: James O Malley >> Summary: ORG mentioned in relation to working with Tom Watson. >> 2016-07-13-Computer Weekly-Investigatory Powers Bill: rushed through under >> cover of Brexit >> Author: Tirath Bansal >> Summary: ORG mentioned in relation to the call to pause the IPBill >> proceedings to give the Bill enough attention. >> 2016-07-13-Buzzfeed-Civil Liberties Groups Are Anxious About Theresa May >> Author:James Ball >> Summary: Jim Killock quoted on Theresa May potentially pushing for moving >> away from EU legal standards and ignoring EU data protection laws. >> 2016-07-14-Ars Technica-PM’s new Brexit chief is currently suing government >> over spying tactics >> Author: Glyn Moody >> Summary: Jim Killock quoted on the appointment of David Davis as a secretary >> for Brexit will not have impact on the DRIPA case at the European Court of >> Justice. >> 2016-07-14-BBC News-Major win for Microsoft in 'free for all' data case >> Author: Dave Lee >> Summary: Myles Jackman quoted on the US Court’s decision upholding the right >> to individual privacy. >> ORG Contact Details >> >> Staff page >> >> Jim Killock, Executive Director >> Javier Ruiz, Policy >> Ed Johnson-Williams, Campaigns >> Pam Cowburn, Communications >> Lee Maguire, Tech >> Myles Jackman, Legal Director >> Margarida Silva, Supporter Officer > > _______________________________________________ > Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: > https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join > > Parliamentary.monitor mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/parliamentary.monitor > > > -- > Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: > https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join > > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to > [email protected] > or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
-- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [email protected] or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
