Melon Farmers Original Version

UK Parliament Watch


2019: Oct-Dec

 1996   1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017   2018   2019   2020   2021   Latest 
Jan-March   April-June   July-Sept   Oct-Dec    

 

Unelected, censorial lords want to rush through their own 'duty of care' internet censorship law...

Having learnt nothing from legislating for age verification without thinking, a few lords want to rush through internet censorship because it will take the government a year to work through the difficult issues


Link Here27th December 2019
A few unelected members of the House of Lords are introducing their own internet censorship law because they think it is unreasonable to wait a year for the government to work through the issues.

Tom McNally, previously involved in TV censorship law has challenged the Government to back his proposed new law. This is set to be introduced in the House or Lord on January 14.

The bill gives Ofcom censorship powers requiring that internet companies accept a duty of care with provisions to be enforced by Ofcom.

McNally told The Daily Telegraph:

We are in danger of losing a whole year on this. The Government's commitment to develop safer internet legislation in the Queen's Speech, though welcome, did not go far enough.

The Government has yet to reveal the findings from its consultation on its White Paper which was published in the Summer. The results had been expected before the end of this year but have been delayed by the general election.

McNally is drafting the bill with the Carnegie Trust who campaign for internet censorship in the name of thinking of the children. Lord Puttnam and Baroness Kidron, the film director and children's internet rights campaigner are being canvassed as sponsors of the bill.

 

 

Parliamentary committee criticises the GDPR/ICO consent model of data protection...

'When we enter a building we expect it to be safe. We are not expected to examine and understand all the paperwork and then tick a box that lets the companies involved off the hook'


Link Here4th November 2019
The UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported on serious grounds for concern about the nature of the "consent" people provide when giving over an extraordinary range of information about themselves, to be used for commercial gain by private companies:
  • Privacy policies are too complicated for the vast majority of people to understand: while individuals may understand they are consenting to data collection from a given site in exchange for "free" access to content, they may not understand that information is being compiled, without their knowledge, across sites to create a profile. The Committee heard alarming evidence about eye tracking software being used to make assumptions about people's sexual orientation, whether they have a mental illness, are drunk or have taken drugs: all then added to their profile.
  • Too often the use of a service or website is conditional on consent being given -- raising questions about whether it is freely given
  • People cannot find out what they have consented to: it is difficult, if not nearly impossible, for people - even tech experts - to find out who their data has been shared with, to stop it being shared or to delete inaccurate information about themselves.
  • The consent model relies on individuals knowing about the risks associated with using web based services when the system should provide adequate protection from the risks as a default..
  • It is completely inappropriate to use consent when processing children's data: children aged 13 and older are, under the current legal framework, considered old enough to consent to their data being used, even though many adults struggle to understand what they are consenting to.
Key conclusions and recommendations

The Committee points out that there is a real risk of discrimination against some groups and individuals through the way this data is used: it heard deeply troubling evidence about some companies using personal data to ensure that only people of a certain age or race, for example, see a particular job opportunity or housing advertisement.

There are also long-established concerns about the use of such data to discriminate in provision of insurance or credit products.

Unlike traditional print advertising where such blatant discrimination would be obvious and potentially illegal personalisation of content means people have no way of knowing how what they see online compares to anyone else.

Short of whistleblowers or work by investigative journalists, there currently appears to be no mechanism for protecting against such privacy breaches or discrimination being in the online "Wild West".

The Committee calls on the Government to ensure there is robust regulation over how our data can be collected and used and it calls for better enforcement of that regulation.

The Committee says:
  • The "consent model is broken" and should not be used as a blanket basis for processing. It is impossible for people to know what they are consenting to when making a non-negotiable, take it-or-leave-it "choice" about joining services like Facebook, Snapchat and YouTube based on lengthy, complex T&Cs, subject to future changes to terms.
  • This model puts too much onus on the individual, but the responsibility of knowing about the risks with using web based services cannot be on the individual. The Government should strengthen regulation to ensure there is safe passage on the internet guaranteed
  • Its completely inadequate to use consent when it comes to processing children's data,. If adults struggle to understand complex consent agreements, how do we expect our children to give informed consent? The Committee says setting the digital age of consent at 13 years old should be revisited.
  • The Government should be regulating to keep us safe online in the same way as they do in the real world - not by expecting us to become technical experts who can judge whether our data is being used appropriately but by having strictly enforced standards that protect our right to privacy and freedom from discrimination.
  • It should be made much simpler for individuals to see what data has been shared about them, and with whom, and to prevent some or all of their data being shared.
  • The Government should look at creating a single online registry that would allow people to see, in real time, all the companies that hold personal data on them, and what data they hold.

The report is worth a read and contains many important points criticising the consent model as dictated by GDPR and enfoced by ICO. Here are a few passages from the report's summary:

The evidence we heard during this inquiry, however, has convinced us that the consent model is broken. The information providing the details of what we are consenting to is too complicated for the vast majority of people to understand. Far too often, the use of a service or website is conditional on consent being given: the choice is between full consent or not being able to use the website or service. This raises questions over how meaningful this consent can ever really be.

Whilst most of us are probably unaware of who we have consented to share our information with and what we have agreed that they can do with it, this is undoubtedly doubly true for children. The law allows children aged 13 and over to give their own consent. If adults struggle to understand complex consent agreements, how do we expect our children to give informed consent. Parents have no say over or knowledge of the data their children are sharing with whom. There is no effective mechanism for a company to determine the age of a person providing consent. In reality a child of any age can click a consent button.

The bogus reliance on consent is in clear conflict with our right to privacy. The consent model relies on us, as individuals, to understand, take decisions, and be responsible for how our data is used. But we heard that it is difficult, if not nearly impossible, for people to find out whom their data has been shared with, to stop it being shared or to delete inaccurate information about themselves. Even when consent is given, all too often the limit of that consent is not respected. We believe companies must make it much easier for us to understand how our data is used and shared. They must make it easier for us to opt out of some or all of our data being used. More fundamentally, however, the onus should not be on us to ensure our data is used appropriately - the system should be designed so that we are protected without requiring us to understand and to police whether our freedoms are being protected.

As one witness to our inquiry said, when we enter a building we expect it to be safe. We are not expected to examine and understand all the paperwork and then tick a box that lets the companies involved off the hook. It is the job of the law, the regulatory system and of regulators to ensure that the appropriate standards have been met to keep us from harm and ensure our safe passage. We do not believe the internet should be any different. The Government must ensure that there is robust regulation over how our data can be collected and used, and that regulation must be stringently enforced.

Internet companies argue that we benefit from our data being collected and shared. It means the content we see online - from recommended TV shows to product advertisements - is more likely to be relevant to us. But there is a darker side to personalisation. The ability to target advertisements and other content at specific groups of people makes it possible to ensure that only people of a certain age or race, for example, see a particular job opportunity or housing advertisement. Unlike traditional print advertising, where such blatant discrimination would be obvious, personalisation of content means people have no way of knowing how what they see online compares to anyone else. Short of a whistle-blower within the company or work by an investigative journalist, there does not currently seem to be a mechanism for uncovering these cases and protecting people from discrimination.

We also heard how the data being used (often by computer programmes rather than people) to make potentially life-changing decisions about the services and information available to us is not even necessarily accurate, but based on inferences made from the data they do hold. We were told of one case, for example, where eye-tracking software was being used to make assumptions about people's sexual orientation, whether they have a mental illness, are drunk or have taken drugs. These inferences may be entirely untrue, but the individual has no way of finding out what judgements have been made about them.

We were left with the impression that the internet, at times, is like the Wild West, when it comes to the lack of effective regulation and enforcement.

That is why we are deeply frustrated that the Government's recently published Online Harms White Paper explicitly excludes the protection of people's personal data. The Government is intending to create a new statutory duty of care to make internet companies take more responsibility for the safety of their users, and an independent regulator to enforce it. This could be an ideal vehicle for requiring companies to take people's right to privacy, and freedom from discrimination, more seriously and we would strongly urge the Government to reconsider its decision to exclude data protection from the scope of their new regulatory framework. In particular, we consider that the enforcement of data protection rules - including the risks of discrimination through the use of algorithms - should be within scope of this work.

 

 

Government credited with forcing women into prostitution...

House of Commons hears how Universal Credit and restricting benefits does indeed force women into sex work


Link Here 27th October 2019
The English Collective of Prostitutes has been giving evidence to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee Inquiry into Universal Credit and survival sex

Laura Watson from the English Collective of Prostitutes, which gave evidence to the Committee says:

The fury against Universal Credit (UC) is growing. Women and children are its first targets and single mothers have been hit particularly hard losing on average 2380 per year -- that's 40-50 a week.

The committee, by listening to sex workers and the organisations that support us, has recommended action against some of the worst aspects of universal credit, for example, abolishing the five week delay that has massively increased destitution and homelessness and pushed many more women into survival sex As a result, the report strengthens demands for universal credit to be scrapped.

Along with other organisations, the ECP gave evidence about an increase in women going into prostitution because of UC and in some cases going back into prostitution having left. The report quotes a woman in our group who spoke about being terrified of what will happen because she will lose money when she is transferred over to UC and she is already living on the breadline struggling to support her children. The report specifically mentions evidence we gave that many of those who turned to survival sex were single mothers, who may also fear losing custody of their children.

We are particularly glad for the emphasis in the report on the five week wait before any money is paid. The Committee acknowledged that this alongside sanctions and the debt that resulted from being made deliberately destitute drives women to engage in survival sex. The five week wait is called a fundamental design flaw and the Committee reiterated its recommendation that it must be eliminated.

In addition, the Committee recommends that benefits be raised in line with the cost of living saying that even when people get their money the amount they receive is simply not enough to live on. People will continue to be driven to survival sex for as long as benefit rates fail to match the amount of money that they actually need to live on .

The report recommends that alternatives to the digital application system, that appears to be designed to put obstacles in the way of people making an application, are put in place -- shockingly it reports that this results in one in five applications are closed without payment because people don't comply with the universal credit process.

 

 

UK parliament can't understand why Facebook will be exempting politicians from fact checking...

Fact Check this Mr Collins: 'What people voted for last year was for us to leave the European Union and we will leave the EU on 29 March 2019'


Link Here23rd October 2019
Damian Collins, the chair of the House of Commons' digital, culture, media and sport select committee has written to Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice-president for global affairs and communications,  querying Facebook decision to exempt political adverts from fact-checking

Collins, presumably speaking from planet Uranus where all politicians always tell the truth, demanded to know why Facebook has decided to exempt political statements from its fact-checking programme -- removing all bars on political candidates lying in paid adverts.

Collins wrote to Clegg with five questions for Facebook to answer , three of which covered the rule change. Why was the decision taken to change Facebook's policy, the MP asked, given the heavy constraint this will place on Facebook's ability to combat online disinformation in the run-up to elections around the world, and a possible UK general election in particular?


 1996   1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017   2018   2019   2020   2021   Latest 
Jan-March   April-June   July-Sept   Oct-Dec    

melonfarmers icon

Home

Top

Index

Links

Search
 

UK

World

Media

Liberty

Info
 

Film Index

Film Cuts

Film Shop

Sex News

Sex Sells
 
 

 
UK News

UK Internet

UK TV

UK Campaigns

UK Censor List
ASA

BBC

BBFC

ICO

Ofcom
Government

Parliament

UK Press

UK Games

UK Customs


Adult Store Reviews

Adult DVD & VoD

Adult Online Stores

New Releases/Offers

Latest Reviews

FAQ: Porn Legality
 

Sex Shops List

Lap Dancing List

Satellite X List

Sex Machines List

John Thomas Toys