Internet liberties: are they safe under new UK coalition?
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 14 May 2010
The new UK coalition government between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has set out its policy priorities on civil liberties. Included within the agreement between the two coalition partners, drawn up last week-end, are two important pledges which will affect the rights and freedoms of Internet users.
THe UK coalition government agreement has specific implications for the Digital Economy Act which could mean that implementation of the DE Act is contrary to their stated policy.
These pledges are to end the storage of internet and email records without good reason and to protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
The first pledge regarding storage of Internet and email records refers to the EU Data Retention Directive and its UK implementation. It's worth reminding ourselves that the
EU Data Retention directive was rammed the European Parliament by the UK Presidency under the Tony Blair Labour governement, against the judgement of the ALDE (Liberal) rapporteur and the civil liberties committee.
It does imply a review of policy on data retention and as such, this statement within the policy priorities of the new UK coalition government is likely to be seen as a positive move.
The pledge on storage of Internet data could have implications for the Digital Economy Act and its 3-strikes/graduated response copyright enforcement policy. Why? Because the storage of users' web activity records is in fact not mandated under the Data Retention Directive but will be necessary in order for the broadband providers to fulfil their role in the enforcement of copyright.
The second pledge - protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury - is relevant to the 3-strikes/graduated response measures in the Digital Economy Act. I think it has been put there for a different reason, because there is a lot of debate within the UK judicial community about trial by jury and whether a jury can ever be dispensed with in for example, technically complex trials.
However, the whole concept of 3-strikes/graduated response is intended to dispense with the need for a court process in the application of a sanction against an Internet user. 3-strikes is a system of private justice, applied by industry, with no court involved at all. This was the core of the Amendment 138 conflict in the EU Telecoms Package ( please see my extensive coverage of the EU Telecoms Package if you are unfamiliar with it.)
Yet, the freedom that the court process should protect here is freedom of speech on the Internet. Punishing people by suspending their Internet access for a period of time, as proposed under the DE Act, would prevent people from accessing their rights to free speech in the digital environment. Similarly, ordering the blocking of websites, which is also a provision in the DE Act, could have serious implications for free speech.
It is arguable that the protection of this historic freedom through the defence of trial by jury should be maintained.
The pledge of the new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government to protect trial by jury is an important one for Internet users.
---
Text of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat deal on LibDem Voice
A printable version of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat deal supplied by the BBC
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 (2010) Internet liberties: are they safe under new UK coalition? http://www.iptegrity.com 14 May 2010
- Article Views: 7928
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