DE Act: is Jeremy Hunt extending it by the back-door?
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 02 February 2011
UK Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has ordered the telecoms regulator, Ofcom, to review of the web blocking clauses in the Digital Economy Act. These clauses - - 17 and 18 - rely on secondary legislation to come into effect, and would give British courts the power to order the blocking of websites on application by rights-holders.
Mr Hunt is claiming to be conducting the review in response to citizen opposition expressed on a government webiste - entitled Your Freedom - which sought to understand laws which people wanted repealed. On that basis, he has enlisted the support of the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg.
However, the tone of the review announced by Mr Hunt yesterday, is quite the opposite. The aim of the review is not to understand the democratic
issues of blocking, and therefore why it might not be appropriate. Instead Mr Hunt wants to know if blocking is workable and how widely and deeply he can block.
Ofcom has been ordered to conduct the review. Given that the intent is evidently to support a law which protects the interests of another industry, this order seems at odds with Ofcom's duty to protect the interests of UK citizens.
It is clear from the way Jeremy Hunt speaks that his intention is to impose blocking as a punishment for copyright infringement. He said in a press statement.
"I have no problem with the principle of blocking access to websites used exclusively for facilitating illegal downloading of content. But it is not clear whether the site blocking provisions in the Act could work in practice so I have asked Ofcom to address this question."
In my opinion, his statement is problematic. The blocking of a website in this instance would be a punishment. Now if a Minister said in the same fashion ‘ I have no problem with blocking access to bookshops or cinemas which are used exclusively for facilitating illegal content ...' I feel the reaction would be different. In a democratic country, we don't do things that way.
According to the Mr Hunt's statement, the review will not look at fundamental rights issues. The reason given is that they are subject to the judicial review. In my opinion, this shows a lack of understanding on the part of his department (Culture, Media and Sport or DCMS).
The judicial review does cover the web blocking clauses, however, there are fundamental rights issues which relate to these two clauses, and which a responsible regulator should investigate.
What is very concerning is how Jeremy Hunt's review is extending the remit of the DE Act. Looking at the terms of reference - which DCMS cites as a mere ‘editors note' and does not address in the main statement - Ofcom is being asked about the creation of blacklists for ISPs to block. And the costs for ISPs to do so.
DCMS has asked Ofcom :
"How effective are sections 17 and 18 of the Act in providing for an appropriate method of generating lists of sites to be blocked?"
And
"If possible, identify either a potential range of costs for ISP blocking solutions or the main drivers of those costs? "
Now Clauses 17 and 18 are not about the creation of blacklists. They are about granting courts the ability to order blocking injunctions on an individual basis. There is surely no expectation of such a large number of injunctions that the ISPs need to create common blacklists? Or are the rights-holders gathering their ammunition to fill the courts with applications as soon as this revision gets onto the Statute?
This review is totally out of context with the legislation. It is surprising that Ofcom has not pointed this out.
Has DCMS just got it plain wrong? Or is Mr Hunt trying to extend the Digital Economy Act by the backdoor?
---
The full terms of reference for the the Ofcom review of Clauses 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act, as ordered by Jeremy Hunt (DCMS) are:
Is it possible for access to the site to be blocked by internet service providers?
How robust would such a block be - in other words would it have the intended effect, and how easy would it be to circumvent for most site operators?
What measures might be adopted by internet service providers to prevent such circumvention?
How granular can blocking be - i.e. can specific parts of the site be blocked, how precise can this be, and how effective?
How effective are sections 17 and 18 of the Act in providing for an appropriate method of generating lists of sites to be blocked?
If possible, identify either a potential range of costs for ISP blocking solutions or the main drivers of those costs?
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed. The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2011) De Act: is Jeremy Hunt extending it by the back-door?http://www.iptegrity.com 2 February 2011
- Article Views: 8730
IPtegrity politics
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Not a blank cheque: European Parliament consents to EU-UK Agreement
- UK border safety alert - mind the capability gap
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?
- Copyright-style website blocking orders slipped into Online Safety Bill
- 2 billion cost to British businesses for Online Safety Bill