WILMap: United Kingdom | Center for Internet and Society: "Regulations 2013/3028, Defamation (Operators of Websites)
[These regulations are supplementary to section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 (see below). Among others, they specify the characteristics of a valid notice of infringement, as well as require the website operators wishing to rely on the section 5 defence to respond to such a notice (by eg. removing the content complained of or by contacting its poster) within 48 hours (see Schedule 1 of the Regulations). That said, reg. 5 provides that the courts have the discretion to extend this period.]" 'via Blog this'
Sunday, 27 July 2014
Tuesday, 15 July 2014
UK Emergency Surveillance Law Criticized For Being Overly Broad, Draconian
UK Emergency Surveillance Law Criticized For Being Overly Broad, Vague And Draconian | TechCrunch: "“The obvious practical significance of this is it certainly clarifies beyond any doubt that companies like Microsoft, that operate Skype, or Google and Twitter or Facebook and all these other big companies, that are not UK companies, don’t have servers in the UK for actually storing data, but obviously have office in the UK, are obliged to comply with a RIPA [Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act] notice,” he said. “I don’t know, as a matter of course whether Google and Facebook were already complying or not.
“Now obviously the question is if a company doesn’t have a presence in the UK… what are they going to do about it? And in the same way that if we get a notice.. obliging us to hand over documents to let’s say the Chinese or frankly any foreign country we tell them to get stuffed. Because we’re not subject to their laws. So extraterritoriality is, in theory, a very nice thing to have but it’s of little power if you don’t have the policemen who can go and enforce it.”" 'via Blog this'
“Now obviously the question is if a company doesn’t have a presence in the UK… what are they going to do about it? And in the same way that if we get a notice.. obliging us to hand over documents to let’s say the Chinese or frankly any foreign country we tell them to get stuffed. Because we’re not subject to their laws. So extraterritoriality is, in theory, a very nice thing to have but it’s of little power if you don’t have the policemen who can go and enforce it.”" 'via Blog this'
Monday, 14 July 2014
Oxbridge and Russell Group graduates dominate latest City trainee intake
Legal Cheek » Oxbridge and Russell Group graduates dominate latest trainee intake of top law firms:
"Out of 1,049 trainees taken on by 24 leading UK law firms in 2013, 219 (21%) were Oxbridge graduates and 613 were Russell Group graduates (58%). Just 156 (15%) of the trainees came from other UK universities, with the remaining 61 (6%) from foreign universities. The survey was targeted at top 30 UK law firms by revenue."
Six of top 30 firms (half of magic circle) refused to take part: Clifford Chance, Slaughter and May, Freshfields, DLA Piper, Holman Fenwick Willan and Simmons & Simmons. 'via Blog this'
"Out of 1,049 trainees taken on by 24 leading UK law firms in 2013, 219 (21%) were Oxbridge graduates and 613 were Russell Group graduates (58%). Just 156 (15%) of the trainees came from other UK universities, with the remaining 61 (6%) from foreign universities. The survey was targeted at top 30 UK law firms by revenue."
Six of top 30 firms (half of magic circle) refused to take part: Clifford Chance, Slaughter and May, Freshfields, DLA Piper, Holman Fenwick Willan and Simmons & Simmons. 'via Blog this'
A snoopers' charter by the backdoor: One day until Drip is forced through
A snoopers' charter by the backdoor: One day until Drip is forced through: "As the explanatory notes for the legislation - released very quietly on Friday night – make clear, overseas telecommunications companies did not believe they were necessarily under Ripa's jurisdiction.
"Regarding the amendments to Ripa, in view of the suggestion by overseas telecommunications service providers that the extra-territorial effect of Ripa is unclear, it is considered necessary to amend the legislation to put the issue beyond doubt," it reads.
"This includes clarifying the definition of a 'telecommunications service' to ensure the full range of telecommunications services available to customers in the United Kingdom are included in the definition."" 'via Blog this'
"Regarding the amendments to Ripa, in view of the suggestion by overseas telecommunications service providers that the extra-territorial effect of Ripa is unclear, it is considered necessary to amend the legislation to put the issue beyond doubt," it reads.
"This includes clarifying the definition of a 'telecommunications service' to ensure the full range of telecommunications services available to customers in the United Kingdom are included in the definition."" 'via Blog this'
Saturday, 12 July 2014
Academic publishers draft and release their own Open Access licences
Academic publishers draft and release their own Open Access licences | TechnoLlama:
"In my opinion, all of the STM licences fail the Open Definition as they are non-commercial. Even the one that allows commercial uses (STM COM/NONCOM SL) does so by leaving a number of reserved commercial uses that are not included in the licence, which means that it ends up being an incredibly diluted version of the CC non-commercial licences, and does not appear to fall within the wide boundaries of the OD.
Even using my much broader definition, the STM licences are very suspect from an openness perspective. On first reading, they appear to be open, but looking at the details they contain a couple of eye-watering clauses that for me make it incredibly narrow, and very difficult to comply with." 'via Blog this'
"In my opinion, all of the STM licences fail the Open Definition as they are non-commercial. Even the one that allows commercial uses (STM COM/NONCOM SL) does so by leaving a number of reserved commercial uses that are not included in the licence, which means that it ends up being an incredibly diluted version of the CC non-commercial licences, and does not appear to fall within the wide boundaries of the OD.
Even using my much broader definition, the STM licences are very suspect from an openness perspective. On first reading, they appear to be open, but looking at the details they contain a couple of eye-watering clauses that for me make it incredibly narrow, and very difficult to comply with." 'via Blog this'
Does #DRIP Bill violate the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
EU Law Analysis: Does the UK’s new data retention bill violate the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?:
"But even if all such safeguards are indeed provided for, I have argued previously that the broader interpretation of the Court’s judgment is correct: no mass surveillance is possible. If that is correct, then the provision in the draft Bill to permit a requirement to collect ‘all’ data is inherently suspect, and it would certainly be a breach of EU law to require telecom providers to retain all traffic data within the scope of the e-privacy Directive without some form of further targeting.
In conclusion, much of the UK’s draft Bill would, if adopted, fall within the scope of EU law, and therefore the Charter of Rights. It is possible, depending on the future statutory instrument, that the rules, when applied, will comply with the data retention safeguards demanded by the CJEU.
But the government’s intention, as manifested by the Bill, to reinstitute mass surveillance of telecoms traffic data is a clear breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights." 'via Blog this'
"But even if all such safeguards are indeed provided for, I have argued previously that the broader interpretation of the Court’s judgment is correct: no mass surveillance is possible. If that is correct, then the provision in the draft Bill to permit a requirement to collect ‘all’ data is inherently suspect, and it would certainly be a breach of EU law to require telecom providers to retain all traffic data within the scope of the e-privacy Directive without some form of further targeting.
In conclusion, much of the UK’s draft Bill would, if adopted, fall within the scope of EU law, and therefore the Charter of Rights. It is possible, depending on the future statutory instrument, that the rules, when applied, will comply with the data retention safeguards demanded by the CJEU.
But the government’s intention, as manifested by the Bill, to reinstitute mass surveillance of telecoms traffic data is a clear breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights." 'via Blog this'
Extraterritoriality in S.5 Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
Cyberleagle: Dissecting the emergency Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill:
"DRIP states explicitly that a warrant, a capability maintenance notice and a communications data acquisition notice may each relate to conduct outside the UK.
It then provides that the duties to comply with such warrants and notices apply whether or not the person is within the United Kingdom. In the case of interception warrants knowing failure to comply with the duty can give rise to criminal liability under RIPA S11(7).
DRIP then goes to great lengths to devise ways of serving warrants and notices within the UK on non-UK entities. For communications data acquisition notices this can even include oral notification. Whether this elaboration is simply a question of practicality or perhaps reflects a deeper concern that serving government warrants and notices outside the UK might be regarded as executive acts violating the territorial sovereignty of another State is a matter for speculation. " 'via Blog this'
"DRIP states explicitly that a warrant, a capability maintenance notice and a communications data acquisition notice may each relate to conduct outside the UK.
It then provides that the duties to comply with such warrants and notices apply whether or not the person is within the United Kingdom. In the case of interception warrants knowing failure to comply with the duty can give rise to criminal liability under RIPA S11(7).
DRIP then goes to great lengths to devise ways of serving warrants and notices within the UK on non-UK entities. For communications data acquisition notices this can even include oral notification. Whether this elaboration is simply a question of practicality or perhaps reflects a deeper concern that serving government warrants and notices outside the UK might be regarded as executive acts violating the territorial sovereignty of another State is a matter for speculation. " 'via Blog this'
Dissecting the emergency Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
Cyberleagle: Dissecting the emergency Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill:
"DRIP, now with its accompanying provisional draft regulations which appeared on the Home Office website yesterday afternoon, has to square a circle. Ideally it should make a plausible attempt to address the 15 or so fundamental rights grounds on which the ECJ held that the Data Retention Directive was invalid. But at the same time DRIP has to deliver on Theresa May’s 10 July statement to the House of Commons that it maintains the status quo until 31 December 2016, when the sunset clause kicks in.
In reality DRIP cannot square the circle. Indeed the newly published Impact Assessment recognises that the legislation does not overcome all the ECJ stumbling blocks, claiming only to address the ECJ judgment “where possible” and “to the extent practicable”. It also acknowledges the “Risk of being perceived as ignoring the ECJ judgment”." 'via Blog this'
"DRIP, now with its accompanying provisional draft regulations which appeared on the Home Office website yesterday afternoon, has to square a circle. Ideally it should make a plausible attempt to address the 15 or so fundamental rights grounds on which the ECJ held that the Data Retention Directive was invalid. But at the same time DRIP has to deliver on Theresa May’s 10 July statement to the House of Commons that it maintains the status quo until 31 December 2016, when the sunset clause kicks in.
In reality DRIP cannot square the circle. Indeed the newly published Impact Assessment recognises that the legislation does not overcome all the ECJ stumbling blocks, claiming only to address the ECJ judgment “where possible” and “to the extent practicable”. It also acknowledges the “Risk of being perceived as ignoring the ECJ judgment”." 'via Blog this'
Wednesday, 9 July 2014
Too Much Private ISP Censorship is Bad
UK Government Agrees - Too Much Internet Content Regulation is Bad - ISPreview UK: "Over the past few months the news has been full of over-blocking and filtering errors, which has resulted in masses of perfectly legal and often child-friendly websites being caught up in such censorship systems. At one point or another websites from WordPress to Facebook, Imgur and even those setup to help victims of self-harm and sexual abuse have found themselves at the wrong end of a block.
In that sense it’s good to see the Government this week acknowledge that “content regulation of the internet could give rise to unintended consequences such as stifling the free flow of ideas and expression that lies at the heart of the development of the internet” and reaffirm their commitment to working alongside ISPs, as opposed to forcing through new legislation." 'via Blog this'
In that sense it’s good to see the Government this week acknowledge that “content regulation of the internet could give rise to unintended consequences such as stifling the free flow of ideas and expression that lies at the heart of the development of the internet” and reaffirm their commitment to working alongside ISPs, as opposed to forcing through new legislation." 'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)