CyberLaw Blog

Archive for December, 2008

Uproar in Australia Over Plan to Block Web Sites: “A proposed Internet filter dubbed the ‘Great Aussie Firewall’ is promising to make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries. Consumers, civil-rights activists, engineers, Internet providers and politicians from opposition parties are among the critics of a mandatory Internet filter that would block at least 1,300 Web sites prohibited by the government — mostly child pornography, excessive violence, instructions in crime or drug use and advocacy of terrorism.

(Via Wired News.)

Battle lines drawn over Bill to ban ‘extreme’ porn – UK Politics, UK – The Independent: “Battle lines drawn over Bill to ban ‘extreme’ porn

State seeks ‘unique powers to police bedrooms’, claim critics, including two lords

By Jerome Taylor, Tuesday, 30 December 2008

To some people it is exactly the kind of protective legislation that Britain needs in a world where access to a vast array of pornography is available at the click of a mouse. To others, a new law banning “extreme” pornography gives the Government unprecedented powers to police bedrooms (and basements).

Critics, including at least two lords, say that legislation coming into force next month forbidding the possession of “an extreme pornographic image” will criminalise thousands of previously law-abiding people who have a harmless taste for unconventional sex.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 comes into force on 26 January and makes owning offending pictures a criminal offence punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. An image is deemed to be extreme if it “is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character” and portrays in any way an act which threatens a person’s life, or which results or appears likely to result in serious injury to someone’s genitals or breasts.

The law was passed earlier this year following a mother’s emotive campaign after her daughter was killed by a man who claimed he was addicted to violent porn.
(more…)

Great Moments in P2P History – 2008: “So what can be said about the year 2008 in file-sharing? It’s been a long year for the P2P community. While there was no earth shattering events on the scale of 2006’s raid on The Pirate Bay, there were enough developments that kept things interesting.”

(Via Slyck.com File-Sharing News And Information.)

Government pipedreams on internet ratings doomed to fail: “

Secrecy, police censorship and no appeal are the norm

Proposals by UK Culture Secretary, Andy Burnham, to introduce cinema-style ratings for websites across the globe might benefit from a little more fact-finding and a little less rhetoric. On the other hand, the danger of open-minded research, is that it might just expose New Labour waffle to the harsh realities of how things actually work.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Private firm may track all email and calls

The private sector will be asked to manage and run a communications database that will keep track of everyone’s calls, emails, texts and internet use under a key option contained in a consultation paper to be published next month by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary.

A cabinet decision to put the management of the multibillion pound database of all UK communications traffic into private hands would be accompanied by tougher legal safeguards to guarantee against leaks and accidental data losses.

But in his strongest criticism yet of the superdatabase, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, who has firsthand experience of working with intelligence and law enforcement agencies, told the Guardian such assurances would prove worthless in the long run and warned it would prove a ‘hellhouse’ of personal private information.

‘Authorisations for access might be written into statute. The most senior ministers and officials might be designated as scrutineers. But none of this means anything,’ said Macdonald. ‘All history tells us that reassurances like these are worthless in the long run. In the first security crisis the locks would loosen.’

The home secretary postponed the introduction of legislation to set up the superdatabase in October and instead said she would publish a consultation paper in the new year setting out the proposal and the safeguards needed to protect civil liberties. She has emphasised that communications data, which gives the police the identity and location of the caller, texter or web surfer but not the content, has been used as important evidence in 95% of serious crime cases and almost all security service operations since 2004 including the Soham and 21/7 bombing cases.

Until now most communications traffic data has been held by phone companies and internet service providers for billing purposes but the growth of broadband phone services, chatrooms and anonymous online identities mean that is no longer the case.

The Home Office’s interception modernisation programme, which is working on the superdatabase proposal, argues that it is no longer good enough for communications companies to be left to retrieve such data when requested by the police and intelligence services. A Home Office spokeswoman said last night the changes were needed so law enforcement agencies could maintain their ability to tackle serious crime and terrorism.

Senior Whitehall officials responsible for planning for a new database say there is a significant difference between having access to ‘communications data’ – names and addresses of emails or telephone numbers, for example – and the actual contents of the communications. ‘We have been very clear that there are no plans for a database containing any content of emails, texts or conversations,’ the spokeswoman said.

External estimates of the cost of the superdatabase have been put as high as £12bn, twice the cost of the ID cards scheme, and the consultation paper, to be published towards the end of next month, will include an option of putting it into the hands of the private sector in an effort to cut costs. But such a decision is likely to fuel civil liberties concerns over data losses and leaks. Macdonald, who left his post as DPP in October, told the Guardian: ‘The tendency of the state to seek ever more powers of surveillance over its citizens may be driven by protective zeal. But the notion of total security is a paranoid fantasy which would destroy everything that makes living worthwhile. We must avoid surrendering our freedom as autonomous human beings to such an ugly future. We should make judgments that are compatible with our status as free people.’

Maintaining the capacity to intercept suspicious communications was critical in an increasingly complex world, he said. ‘It is a process which can save lives and bring criminals to justice. But no other country is considering such a drastic step. This database would be an unimaginable hell-house of personal private information,’ he said. ‘It would be a complete readout of every citizen’s life in the most intimate and demeaning detail. No government of any colour is to be trusted with such a roadmap to our souls.’

The moment there was a security crisis the temptation for more commonplace access would be irresistible, he said.

Other critics of the plan point to the problems of keeping the database secure, both from the point of view of the technology and of deliberate leaks. The problem would be compounded if private companies manage the system. ‘If there is a breach of security in that database it would be utterly devastating,’ one said

(Via Latest news, sport, business, comment and reviews from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk.)

Frank Fisher: Freedom of speech on the internet should be protected

Out of context, it would be easy to dismiss culture secretary Andy Burnham’s attack on the ‘dangerous’ internet as just another junior minister grabbing at headlines in a traditionally dead news period. However, set alongside Labour’s existing and proposed limits on free speech online, it signals potentially worrying extensions to these restrictions and, perhaps more significantly, a disturbing attitude that sees censorship as entirely natural and necessary. Burnham talks of ‘harmful’ content – content, harmful? How? Amid all his talk of websites imposing age ratings he also plainly states that ‘There is content that should just not be available to be viewed’.

Not by kids you’ll note, just a big flat no! This isn’t a guy in the pub talking, this is a government minister who says he knows what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to read and see. Well sorry, Andy, while we might discuss the possibility of you deciding that for children, you certainly don’t get to decide that for me. The temptation is simply to brush the arrogance away with an angry wave, and figure nothing will come of it. That would be dangerous.

As we see in Australia, just because a policy is insane, futile, counter-productive and hugely unpopular doesn’t mean it won’t end up being implemented. When Burnham talked of cooperation across the English-speaking world, the Telegraph was a bit lax in failing to raise Australia’s current filtering madness as a discussion point. Nor was Burnham tackled on Labour’s highly controversial criminalisation of ‘extreme pornography’. The anger here and in Australia really should prime the media to question politicians when they suggest censorship is uncontroversial, or that simply passing a law stops it from being ‘censorship’ and turns the gag into something more tolerable. Likewise, when Burnham whines that he can’t let his children access the internet unsupervised, the proper response should be ’so what?’ Either supervise them, install your own filtering software, or let them do as they wish. I limit my children’s access to a white-list I drew up and maintain myself, and it costs nowt. Your own parental failings are not a justification for censoring us, Andy.

Beyond the issue of censorship, the practical problems for an effective system are immense. As an example, is it feasible that every website in the world will adopt a compatible age rating system? Of course not – so any possible filter would work on a white-list basis: approved sites would be passed back to surfers, unrated sites would simply be blocked. Blam, there goes 99% of the web. But let’s assume a slightly brighter system; that in addition to a white-list, internet service providers use smart filtering for unrated sites – as some organisations do today – doing a quick text search to see if banned topics or terms pop up.

Well, how smart is smart? When I first wrote about filtering software more than a decade ago one amusing hiccup present in a couple of commercial programs was a block imposed on scientific sites offering tips on ‘naked eye’ astronomical observations. I talked to a secondary school science teacher earlier this year and his filtered network still blocks him from picking up sites like that. Some progress, eh? In fact, the county-wide filtering his school works through gives access to just 11 white-listed domains. Eleven from a hundred million. I’m sure a national system might push that total. Who knows, the ‘good’ internet might total maybe 3 or 4% of the whole?

Burnham’s supporters will say that compulsion for adults is not an issue – that simply isn’t true. I refer them back to his ‘There is content that should just not be available’ comment. The only solution that will deliver the ’safe’ web for kids is a national white-list adopted by all ISPs. Even a looser system relying on a white-list for under-18s plus the current Cleanfeed model for over-18s will require some kind of authenticated adult login – finally a use for Burnham’s beloved ID cards, eh?

Don’t think that’s far-fetched either – an authenticated login for all internet users was mooted in the European Parliament 10 years ago, and keeps popping back. Similarly in the US influential thinktanks are pushing the idea of a ‘hardened’ internet, secured by, among other things, ‘in-person’ identification at login. When Obama takes office he’ll find this report on his desk. Fancy swiping your ID card past a government-mandated RFID reader to get online?

I’m hoping not, although it’s astonishing how many people seem to want these kinds of controls. The usual cries of ‘paranoia’ will greet this – they’re dwindling though. We now know our internet access is censored using the IWF/Cleanfeed solution – however ineffectual that may be. We also know our government sees free speech online as dangerous – it’s told us so, and promises a new ‘anti-defamation’ consultation paper in the new year to deal with unruly blogs. And we know that certain politically difficult content – and that what’s the beheadings are, Andy, like it or not – is destined for blocking. Finally, we know the supine mainstream media will accept the government line unless forced to challenge it by weight of numbers. And we can also guess that they see the continuing rise of user-generated content as a threat to their own position – and they’re right to think that.

Burnham is no fool – some say Labour simply doesn’t understand the internet, but no, it understand aspects of it only too well. As he says, ‘If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that governments couldn’t reach’. Well maybe not those who created it, but certainly those who came soon after. And that really bothers you, doesn’t it, Andy? Tough.

2009 will be the year of the War on t’Internet, folks. Pick a side, and stand by your mouse.

(Via guardian.co.uk Comment is free.)

They must be joking but it is not even April yet! Rating is unworkable and and is an impossible task, the Culture Secretary is almost 10 years behind the “Internet content regulation debate”….

Website age ratings ‘an option’: “Websites could be given film-style age ratings under government plans to protect children from harmful content.”

Film-style age ratings could be applied to websites to protect children from harmful and offensive material, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham has said.

Mr Burnham told the Daily Telegraph the government was looking at a number of possible new internet safeguards.

He said some content, such as clips of beheadings, was unacceptable and new standards of decency were needed.

He also plans to negotiate with the US on drawing up international rules for English language websites.

Mr Burnham, a father of three young children, believes internet-service providers should offer child-friendly web access.

‘Public interest’

“Leaving your child for two hours completely unregulated on the internet is not something you can do,” he told the Telegraph.

“This isn’t about turning back the clock. The internet has been empowering and democratising in many ways, but we haven’t yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around it.”

He went on to say it was time to review the accessibility of certain content on the internet and insisted he was not trying to curb free speech.

His plans are likely to anger those who advocate the freedom of the worldwide web.

“You can still view content on the internet which I would say is unacceptable. You can view a beheading,” he said.

“This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it, it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people.”

On the issue of giving individual websites film-style classifications, Mr Burnham said: “That would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

Concerns over children’s safety on the internet have already led to calls from the NSPCC for computer manufacturers and retailers to install security to stop children finding violent or sexual content.

A poll carried out by the children’s charity in October suggested three out of four children had been disturbed by images they had seen on the internet.

In July this year, the Commons culture, media and sport select committee criticised video-sharing website YouTube, saying it needed to do more to vet its content.

At the time, Google, the firm which owns YouTube, stressed the site had strict rules and a system that allowed users to report inappropriate content.

(Via BBC News.)

See further The Daily Telegraph, Internet sites could be given ‘cinema-style age ratings’, Culture Secretary says, 27 December, 2008. See further The Guardian coverage: Culture secretary Andy Burnham wants cinema-style age ratings for websites, 27 December, 2008.

Uproar in Australia Over Plan to Block Web SitesA proposed Internet filter dubbed the ‘‘Great Aussie Firewall’’ is promising to make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries.

(Via NYT > Technology.)

Which? magazine files complaint against bullying Davenport Lyons

Consumer magazine Which? has complained to the solicitors’ watchdog about a London law firm that sent bullying letters to hundreds of innocent consumers.

Read the full story through MelonFarmers.co.uk.

Editorial: China and the internet – the great firewall: “Editorial: After a thaw during the Olympics, China’s reimposition of censorship on websites run is a matter of international concern”.

(Via guardian.co.uk Comment is free.)