CyberLaw Blog

Archive for April, 2008

Unlawfully obtaining etc. personal data
75 Power to alter penalty for unlawfully obtaining etc. personal data
(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for a person who is guilty of an offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29) (unlawful obtaining etc. of personal data) to be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the specified period or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both,
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the specified period or to a fine or to both.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) and (b) “specified period” means a period provided for by the order but the period must not exceed—
(a) in the case of summary conviction, 12 months (or, in Northern Ireland, 6 months), and
(b) in the case of conviction on indictment, two years.
(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that any specified period for England and Wales which, in the case of summary conviction, exceeds 6 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months so far as it relates to an offence committed before the commencement of section 282(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (increase in sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts from 6 to 12 months for certain offences triable either way).
(4) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Information Commissioner,
(b) such media organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) An order under this section may, in particular, amend the Data Protection Act 1998.

76 New defence for purposes of journalism and other special purposes
In section 55(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29) (defences against offence of unlawfully obtaining etc. personal data) after “it,” at the end of paragraph
(c) insert—
“(ca) that he acted—
(i) for the special purposes,
(ii) with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material, and
(iii) in the reasonable belief that in the particular circumstances the obtaining, disclosing or procuring was justified as being in the public interest,”.

77 Data protection: additional offences
(1) After section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29) insert—
“55A Data protection: additional offences
(1) A data controller must not—
(a) intentionally or recklessly disclose information contained in personal data to another person,
(b) repeatedly and negligently allow information to be contained in personal data to be disclosed, or
(c) intentionally or recklessly fail to comply with duties under section 4(4).
(2) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply if the data controller can show that the disclosure—
(a) was necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) was required or authorised by or under any enactment, by any rule of law, or by the order of a court, or
(c) was justified in the particular circumstances as being in the public interest.
(3) This section shall apply whether or not the data controller is—
(a) a relevant authority under section 29, or 30
(b) exercising a relevant function under section 31.
(4) A data controller who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.”
(2) In section 63 of the Data Protection Act 1998, omit subsection (5).

BBC NEWS: Saudi blogger released from jail: “”

A popular Saudi blogger who was detained by the authorities in December has been set free. Fouad al-Farhan had used his website to criticise alleged corruption and call for democratic reforms in his country. No official explanation was given for either the detention or the decision to free him.

Blogger fined for ‘menacing’ rant: “A man who ‘let off steam’ on his blog about police is convicted of posting a grossly offensive and menacing message.” The offender was fined £150 with £364 costs by magistrates at Mold.

Although it is not mentioned in the BBC article the offender must have been found guilty of section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

(more…)

Kinky or worse?: “Users of ‘extreme porn’ say new law will criminalise them”

A bill outlawing the possession of “extreme pornography” is set to become law next week. But many fear it has been rushed through and will criminalise innocent people with a harmless taste for unconventional sex.

Definitely worth reading.

(Via BBC News.)

Financial Service Authority warned firms to improve data security: “Banks, building societies, insurance companies and financial advisers need to do more to prevent their customers falling victim to identity fraud, the Financial Services Authority has warned in a new report.”

See: The FSA’s report, Data security in financial services: firms’ controls to prevent data loss by their employees and third-party suppliers (104-page / 590KB PDF)

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Book Authors See BitTorrent As a Promotional Tool: More and more authors seem to recognize the power of BitTorrent as a means to generate more sales, and actually upload free copies onto BitTorrent themselves.

Best selling author Paulo Coelho posted several of his books on BitTorrent, which boosted his sales significantly. The success of Coelho later inspired Leander Kahney, the author of ‘The Cult of Mac’ and ‘The Cult of iPod’, to do the same.

A recent discussion on the positives and negatives of piracy confirms changing attitudes towards it. The ‘behind the scenes’ thread on O’Reilly Radar was started by Eric Freeman, who wrote:

‘Any thoughts on the rise of Head First titles (mostly HFDP and HTML) on Pirate Bay? I’m trying to just take it as a sign there is strong interest in the books still.’

The consensus among the authors who replied seems to be that having one’s book listed on BitTorrent sites is a good thing, and might actually generate more sales.

Nat Torkington wrote in a reply:

‘So long as the royalty checks are strong, take BitTorrent as a sign of success rather than a problem. A wise dog doesn’t let his fleas bother him.’

Phil Torrone of Make magazine added:

‘Yup - seeing your books / magazines on Pirate Bay is always a good thing.’

Piracy is less of a threat to book publishers than it is to the music industry though. As Nat Torkington notes, most people still prefer printed copies: ‘The HF books work really well as books, so at best the torrents act as advertisements for the superior print product.’

For music it’s different, as most people now prefer MP3s. The music that is offered on filesharing networks is superior to the DRMed alternatives that are available through music stores such as iTunes. The only option for the music industry is to adapt to the needs of their customers and start competing with pirates.

In related news, our very own Matt Mason just got his book ‘The Pirate’s Dilemma’ leaked on BitTorrent. Matt announced that an official ‘free’ version will be available for download later, but I’m sure that he doesn’t mind people sharing this pirated copy.

(Via O’Reilly TOC)

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

Book Authors See BitTorrent As a Promotional Tool

(Via TorrentFreak.)

Record Companies Sue Project Playlist on Copyright: “Nine major record labels filed suit against an online music provider, accusing Project Playlist of a ‘massive infringement’ of their copyrights to the songs of artists such as U2 and Gwen Stefani.”

(Via NYT > Technology.)

Bits: Should Anti-Spyware Programs Fight Snooping I.S.P.’s?: “An industry group is going to help figure out whether anti-spyware software should try to block Internet service providers from monitoring where their customers surf in order to show them ads.”

(Via NYT > Technology.)

Cartoons of a Racist Past Lurk on YouTube - New York Times: “”

Published: April 28, 2008

Among the millions of clips on the video-sharing Web site YouTube are 11 racially offensive Warner Brothers cartoons that have not been shown in an authorized release since 1968. Some of the cartoons were removed on April 16. A message saying the cartoons were no longer available because of a copyright claim by Warner appeared in their place. By evening the messages disappeared, and some of the cartoons were back. Representatives for YouTube and Warner would not confirm whether the companies had tried to remove the cartoons.

Cracking the ‘Great Firewall’ of China’s Web censorship - USATODAY.com: “”

Worth reading this detailed article on Internet censorship in China.