Long title | An Act to make provision about electronic communications infrastructure and services; to provide for restricting access to online pornography; to make provision about protection of intellectual property in connection with electronic communications; to make provision about
data sharing; to make provision in connection with section 68 of the Telecommunications Act 1984; to make provision about functions of OFCOM in relation to the BBC; to provide for determination by the BBC of age-related TV licence fee concessions; to make provision about the regulation of direct marketing; to make other provision about OFCOM and its functions; to make provision about internet filters; to make provision about preventing or restricting the use of communication devices in connection with drug dealing offences; to confer power to create an offence of breaching limits on ticket sales; to make provision about the payment of charges to the Information Commissioner; to make provision about payment systems and securities settlement systems; to make provision about qualifications in information technology; and for connected purposes. |
---|---|
Citation | 2017 c. 30 |
Introduced by |
John Whittingdale (Commons) Henry Ashton, 4th Baron Ashton of Hyde (Lords) |
Territorial extent | England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland |
Dates | |
Royal assent | 27 April 2017 |
Other legislation | |
Relates to | Digital Economy Act 2010 |
Status: Current legislation | |
History of passage through Parliament | |
Text of statute as originally enacted | |
Revised text of statute as amended |
The Digital Economy Act 2017 (c. 30) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is substantially different from, and shorter than, the Digital Economy Act 2010, whose provisions largely ended up not being passed into law. The act addresses policy issues related to electronic communications infrastructure and services, and updates the conditions for and sentencing of criminal copyright infringement. It was introduced to Parliament by culture secretary John Whittingdale on 5 July 2016. Whittingdale was replaced as culture secretary by Karen Bradley on 14 July 2016. The act received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017. [1]
The provisions of the act include:
The bill completed its passage through the House of Commons during the Autumn of 2016. It then moved to the House of Lords. Royal Assent was achieved by the end of Spring 2017. [16] The final stages of the legislative process occurred during the wash-up period before the 2017 general election, as was the case with the Digital Economy Act 2010 which completed its course through parliament during the wash-up before the 2010 general election. [17]
Although privacy and technical safeguards for the sharing of citizens' data are not included in the act, the government stated that it intended to publish codes of practice following a public consultation. [17] The consultation took place in the Autumn of 2017. [33]
The Open Rights Group (ORG), a digital rights campaigning organisation, raised concerns over aspects of the Bill. The provisions for the age verification of pornographic website users raised concerns about the privacy implications of collecting user data, and the possible ineffectiveness of a method focused on restricting payments to pornographic websites. [34] Myles Jackman, ORG's legal director, highlighted the potential vulnerability of age verification systems to hacking, and suggested that it would result in more people using virtual private networks, or anonymous web browsers such as Tor. [5] A public consultation on the BBFC's draft guidance to age verification service providers began in March 2018. [6] The age verification provisions were due to come into effect in April 2018, were delayed until the end of 2018 [3] and then further delayed until spring 2019. [7] In March 2019 the BBFC published its guidance, and draft regulations – the Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2019 – were produced for approval by Parliament. [35] The UK government stated in April 2019 that it planned to introduce mandatory age verification on 15 July 2019. [8] In June 2019 the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Wright, announced that the implementation of the law had again been postponed for a period in the region of six months. [9]
The ORG also raised concerns over the risk of misuse of bulk data sharing. [34] The provisions regarding copyright infringements were criticised for the vagueness of the definition and the severity of the maximum sentence (10 years in prison). BILETA, the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association, also criticised the proposal to increase maximum jail term in its submission to the Government's consultation. The proposal was described as 'unacceptable', 'unaffordable', and 'infeasible'. [36] [37] [38] [39] It has been suggested that this provision may be intended to dissuade users of technology such as Kodi software from downloading content that breaches copyright regulations. [40]
A number of expert witnesses to the Digital Economy Bill Committee expressed concerns about the bill. Jerry Fishenden, co-chair of the Cabinet Office’s Privacy and Consumer Advisory Group until he resigned in protest on 2 May 2017, [41] expressed the opinion that the bill was based on an "obsolete" model of data sharing. He commented: "I find it surprising the bill doesn’t have definition of what data sharing is, both practically and legally… I’d like to see some precision around what’s meant by data sharing. The lack of detail is concerning." He also said that the bill "appears to weaken citizens’ control over their personal data", something that is "likely to undermine trust in government and make citizens less willing to share their personal data". [42]
David Kaye, a special rapporteur for the United Nations, wrote an open letter to the UK government in 2017, raising concerns about the bill. Kaye questioned the legality of the proposed framework in relation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [43]
Jeni Tennison, CEO of the Open Data Institute, commented on the lack of transparency regarding existing public sector data sharing agreements and how the bill's measures fit with them. She spoke of her belief that the bill lacks the transparency needed to avoid the kind of problems that arose with NHS Digital's abandoned Care.data programme. Mike Bracken, chief digital officer at the Co-operative Group and former head of the Government Digital Service, expressed the opinion that "the government relies on bulk data sets too often, instead of simply asking for the individual data set pertaining to the information needed". The civil liberties and privacy advocacy group Big Brother Watch told the committee said that bill overlooked the work of the Government Digital Service in setting up the GOV.UK Verify scheme, a model based on the government not centrally storing data. [44]
The Conservative Party manifesto commitment to introduce age verification followed the publication of research into children viewing pornography online that was commissioned by the NSPCC. The polling agency that carried out the research, OnePoll, has been criticised for the techniques it used, raising questions about the quality of the resulting data. For instance, the company offered a questionnaire to children aged 11–16 despite its own terms and conditions [45] of use stating that users must be at least 16 years old. [46]
In October 2019, Nicky Morgan MP said that the government had shelved plans to introduce age verification checks for Internet pornography. [47] Four age verification providers subsequently launched legal action to force the government to bring in the porn age ban in January 2020, a move that was supported by children's charities. [48] Their argument that there is accepted legal precedent that a Government cannot pass a law, secure Royal Assent for it and then frustrate the will of Parliament by deciding not to introduce it [49] saw them win permission in July 2020 for a judicial review. [50]
The government announced in October 2020 its intention to repeal part 3 of the Act, which contains the age verification mandate. [51] Clause 131 of the government's draft Online Safety Bill, published in May 2021, gives effect to this intention. [52] Addressing the House of Commons DCMS Select Committee, the Secretary of State, Rt. Hon. Oliver Dowden MP confirmed he would be happy to consider a proposal during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Online Safety Bill by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament to extend the scope of the Bill to all commercial pornographic websites.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
There is no doubt that the protection of children is a legitimate objective under international human rights law, including under article 19(3) of the ICCPR which establishes criteria for permissible restrictions to freedom of expression. The question that arises relates to the way in which the bill seeks to achieve to protect children. Does the proposed way achieve this legitimate objective and it is lawful under international human rights law, in particular with respect to the UK's obligations under articles 17 and 19 of the ICCPR?
Long title | An Act to make provision about electronic communications infrastructure and services; to provide for restricting access to online pornography; to make provision about protection of intellectual property in connection with electronic communications; to make provision about
data sharing; to make provision in connection with section 68 of the Telecommunications Act 1984; to make provision about functions of OFCOM in relation to the BBC; to provide for determination by the BBC of age-related TV licence fee concessions; to make provision about the regulation of direct marketing; to make other provision about OFCOM and its functions; to make provision about internet filters; to make provision about preventing or restricting the use of communication devices in connection with drug dealing offences; to confer power to create an offence of breaching limits on ticket sales; to make provision about the payment of charges to the Information Commissioner; to make provision about payment systems and securities settlement systems; to make provision about qualifications in information technology; and for connected purposes. |
---|---|
Citation | 2017 c. 30 |
Introduced by |
John Whittingdale (Commons) Henry Ashton, 4th Baron Ashton of Hyde (Lords) |
Territorial extent | England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland |
Dates | |
Royal assent | 27 April 2017 |
Other legislation | |
Relates to | Digital Economy Act 2010 |
Status: Current legislation | |
History of passage through Parliament | |
Text of statute as originally enacted | |
Revised text of statute as amended |
The Digital Economy Act 2017 (c. 30) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is substantially different from, and shorter than, the Digital Economy Act 2010, whose provisions largely ended up not being passed into law. The act addresses policy issues related to electronic communications infrastructure and services, and updates the conditions for and sentencing of criminal copyright infringement. It was introduced to Parliament by culture secretary John Whittingdale on 5 July 2016. Whittingdale was replaced as culture secretary by Karen Bradley on 14 July 2016. The act received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017. [1]
The provisions of the act include:
The bill completed its passage through the House of Commons during the Autumn of 2016. It then moved to the House of Lords. Royal Assent was achieved by the end of Spring 2017. [16] The final stages of the legislative process occurred during the wash-up period before the 2017 general election, as was the case with the Digital Economy Act 2010 which completed its course through parliament during the wash-up before the 2010 general election. [17]
Although privacy and technical safeguards for the sharing of citizens' data are not included in the act, the government stated that it intended to publish codes of practice following a public consultation. [17] The consultation took place in the Autumn of 2017. [33]
The Open Rights Group (ORG), a digital rights campaigning organisation, raised concerns over aspects of the Bill. The provisions for the age verification of pornographic website users raised concerns about the privacy implications of collecting user data, and the possible ineffectiveness of a method focused on restricting payments to pornographic websites. [34] Myles Jackman, ORG's legal director, highlighted the potential vulnerability of age verification systems to hacking, and suggested that it would result in more people using virtual private networks, or anonymous web browsers such as Tor. [5] A public consultation on the BBFC's draft guidance to age verification service providers began in March 2018. [6] The age verification provisions were due to come into effect in April 2018, were delayed until the end of 2018 [3] and then further delayed until spring 2019. [7] In March 2019 the BBFC published its guidance, and draft regulations – the Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2019 – were produced for approval by Parliament. [35] The UK government stated in April 2019 that it planned to introduce mandatory age verification on 15 July 2019. [8] In June 2019 the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Wright, announced that the implementation of the law had again been postponed for a period in the region of six months. [9]
The ORG also raised concerns over the risk of misuse of bulk data sharing. [34] The provisions regarding copyright infringements were criticised for the vagueness of the definition and the severity of the maximum sentence (10 years in prison). BILETA, the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association, also criticised the proposal to increase maximum jail term in its submission to the Government's consultation. The proposal was described as 'unacceptable', 'unaffordable', and 'infeasible'. [36] [37] [38] [39] It has been suggested that this provision may be intended to dissuade users of technology such as Kodi software from downloading content that breaches copyright regulations. [40]
A number of expert witnesses to the Digital Economy Bill Committee expressed concerns about the bill. Jerry Fishenden, co-chair of the Cabinet Office’s Privacy and Consumer Advisory Group until he resigned in protest on 2 May 2017, [41] expressed the opinion that the bill was based on an "obsolete" model of data sharing. He commented: "I find it surprising the bill doesn’t have definition of what data sharing is, both practically and legally… I’d like to see some precision around what’s meant by data sharing. The lack of detail is concerning." He also said that the bill "appears to weaken citizens’ control over their personal data", something that is "likely to undermine trust in government and make citizens less willing to share their personal data". [42]
David Kaye, a special rapporteur for the United Nations, wrote an open letter to the UK government in 2017, raising concerns about the bill. Kaye questioned the legality of the proposed framework in relation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [43]
Jeni Tennison, CEO of the Open Data Institute, commented on the lack of transparency regarding existing public sector data sharing agreements and how the bill's measures fit with them. She spoke of her belief that the bill lacks the transparency needed to avoid the kind of problems that arose with NHS Digital's abandoned Care.data programme. Mike Bracken, chief digital officer at the Co-operative Group and former head of the Government Digital Service, expressed the opinion that "the government relies on bulk data sets too often, instead of simply asking for the individual data set pertaining to the information needed". The civil liberties and privacy advocacy group Big Brother Watch told the committee said that bill overlooked the work of the Government Digital Service in setting up the GOV.UK Verify scheme, a model based on the government not centrally storing data. [44]
The Conservative Party manifesto commitment to introduce age verification followed the publication of research into children viewing pornography online that was commissioned by the NSPCC. The polling agency that carried out the research, OnePoll, has been criticised for the techniques it used, raising questions about the quality of the resulting data. For instance, the company offered a questionnaire to children aged 11–16 despite its own terms and conditions [45] of use stating that users must be at least 16 years old. [46]
In October 2019, Nicky Morgan MP said that the government had shelved plans to introduce age verification checks for Internet pornography. [47] Four age verification providers subsequently launched legal action to force the government to bring in the porn age ban in January 2020, a move that was supported by children's charities. [48] Their argument that there is accepted legal precedent that a Government cannot pass a law, secure Royal Assent for it and then frustrate the will of Parliament by deciding not to introduce it [49] saw them win permission in July 2020 for a judicial review. [50]
The government announced in October 2020 its intention to repeal part 3 of the Act, which contains the age verification mandate. [51] Clause 131 of the government's draft Online Safety Bill, published in May 2021, gives effect to this intention. [52] Addressing the House of Commons DCMS Select Committee, the Secretary of State, Rt. Hon. Oliver Dowden MP confirmed he would be happy to consider a proposal during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Online Safety Bill by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament to extend the scope of the Bill to all commercial pornographic websites.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
There is no doubt that the protection of children is a legitimate objective under international human rights law, including under article 19(3) of the ICCPR which establishes criteria for permissible restrictions to freedom of expression. The question that arises relates to the way in which the bill seeks to achieve to protect children. Does the proposed way achieve this legitimate objective and it is lawful under international human rights law, in particular with respect to the UK's obligations under articles 17 and 19 of the ICCPR?