Crown Prosecution Service offers clear guidance for prosecutors on 'revenge pornography'

Crown Prosecution Service offers clear guidance for prosecutors on 'revenge pornography':

"Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 deals with the sending of electronic communications which are indecent, grossly offensive, threatening or false, provided there is an intention to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient.

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send or cause to be sent through a 'public electronic communications network' a message that is 'grossly offensive' or of an 'indecent, obscene or menacing character'.

Where there is more than one incident, or the incident forms part of a course of conduct directed towards an individual, a charge of harassment should be considered.

Where the images may have been taken when the victim was under 18, prosecutors will consider offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978.

In the most serious cases, where intimate images are used to coerce victims into further sexual activity, other offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will be considered." 'via Blog this'

Whether Or Not Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Is In Hollywood's Pocket, He Sure Doesn't Understand Free Speech Or The Internet

Whether Or Not Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Is In Hollywood's Pocket, He Sure Doesn't Understand Free Speech Or The Internet | Techdirt: "the idea that accurately reporting on leaked documents showing that the MPAA was funding the investigation and writing the key documents of a state Attorney General is not actionable in any way shape or form. And it's doubly ridiculous given that in this very same conference, Hood himself made a variety of speculative statements claiming that Google was the one who went through the emails and "spun" the story to the press.

But is it really any surprise that an Attorney General who is relying on a massively funded MPAA investigation to try to stifle free speech online is now implicitly threatening those who report on it with defamation lawsuits? So not only is he trying to censor the internet, he's trying to intimidate reporters into shutting up as well. Free speech be damned." 'via Blog this'

Cracking intercepts: the war on terror and difficulties with Human Rights

Cracking intercepts: the war on terror and difficulties with Human Rights | UK Human Rights Blog: "The Tribunal ruled that the current regime, both in relation to Prism and Upstream and to s.8(4), when conducted in accordance with the requirements both written into the legislation, the code and Parliamentary supervision, was both lawful and human rights compliant.

"Technology in the surveillance field appears to be advancing at break-neck speed. This has given rise to submissions that the UK legislation has failed to keep abreast of the consequences of these advances, and is ill fitted to do so; and that in any event Parliament has failed to provide safeguards adequate to meet these developments. All this inevitably creates considerable tension between the competing interests, and the ‘Snowden revelations’ in particular have led to the impression voiced in some quarters that the law in some way permits the Intelligence Services carte blanche to do what they will. We are satisfied that this is not the case.

We can be satisfied that, as addressed and disclosed in this judgment, in this sensitive field of national security, in relation to the areas addressed in this case, the law gives individuals an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions upon which the Intelligence Services are entitled to resort to interception, or to make use of intercept. [paras 158 – 159]" 'via Blog this'

Statement by Commissioner Vestager on Google

European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Statement by Commissioner Vestager on Google antitrust investigations at the European Parliament (ECON committee meeting): ""Our current investigations involving Google are among the most discussed in the media. The sheer amount of data controlled by Google gives rise to a series of societal challenges.  Privacy is one of the most pressing concerns. Media pluralism is another. Not all of these challenges are primarily economic in nature and not all of them are competition related. So many of the Google related concerns voiced in the public debate cannot be addressed in our investigations into the company’s alleged anti-competitive practices. We will have to limit ourselves to what we identify as competition problems. " 'via Blog this'

Crown Prosecution Service offers clear guidance for prosecutors on ‘revenge pornography’ - CPS News Brief

Crown Prosecution Service offers clear guidance for prosecutors on ‘revenge pornography’ - CPS News Brief: "Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 deals with the sending of electronic communications which are indecent, grossly offensive, threatening or false, provided there is an intention to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient.
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send or cause to be sent through a ‘public electronic communications network’ a message that is ‘grossly offensive’ or of an ‘indecent, obscene or menacing character’." 'via Blog this'

German constitutional judge expresses concerns about the “right to be forgotten”

German constitutional judge expresses concerns about the “right to be forgotten” decision | Internet Policy Review: "German judge concludes, that there are gaps in EU data protection legislation, especially when it comes to acknowledge and put into law the differences between public law and private law actors. The proposed EU data protection regulation which is still on the agenda of the EU bodies might be the right place to find better and more targeted provisions for the different spheres, Masing hopes. But so far the proposals did not go far enough in that direction." 'via Blog this'

WILMap: United Kingdom - Center for Internet and Societ-

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'