|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2017}}
| + | The act addresses policy issues related to electronic communications infrastructure and services, and updates the conditions for and sentencing of criminal copyright infringement. |
| − | {{About|the 2017 act|the 2010 act|Digital Economy Act 2010}}{{Short description|United Kingdom law}}{{Infobox UK legislation
| |
| − | |short_title = Digital Economy Act 2017
| |
| − | |parliament = Parliament of the United Kingdom
| |
| − | |long_title = <sup>A bill 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 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; and for connected purposes.</sup>
| |
| − | |statute_book_chapter =
| |
| − | |introduced_by = [[John Whittingdale]]
| |
| − | |territorial_extent = England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
| |
| − | |royal_assent = 27 April 2017
| |
| − | |commencement =
| |
| − | |repeal_date =
| |
| − | |amendments =
| |
| − | |related_legislation = [[Digital Economy Act 2010]]
| |
| − | |repealing_legislation=
| |
| − | |status = Current
| |
| − | |original_text = https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0045/17045.pdf
| |
| − | |use_new_UK-LEG =
| |
| − | |legislation_history =
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | The '''Digital Economy Act 2017''' 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 [[Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport|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.<ref>{{cite web|title=Digital Economy Act 2017|url=http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/digitaleconomy.html|publisher=UK Parliament|accessdate=28 April 2017}}</ref>
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Provisions== | | ==Provisions== |
| | The provisions of the act include: | | The provisions of the act include: |
| − | * Allowing data sharing between government departments in order to provide [[Digital Government]].<ref name=Rigg/>
| |
| − | * Creating an age-verification regulator to publish guidelines about how [[pornography|pornographic]] websites which operate "on a commercial basis" should ensure their users are aged 18 or older.<ref name=Perrigo>{{cite magazine|magazine=Time|title=The U.K. Is About To Regulate Online Porn, and Free Speech Advocates Are Terrified|url=http://time.com/5352875/uk-porn-block-age-verification/|author=Billy Perrigo|date=20 August 2018|access-date=17 September 2018}}</ref> The regulator is empowered to fine those who fail to comply up to £250,000 (or up to 5% of their turnover), to order the blocking of non-compliant websites, and to require those providing financial or advertising services to non-compliant websites to cease doing so.<ref name=Rigg/> The regulator's proposals have to be approved three months before coming into effect.<ref name=Perrigo/> The [[BBFC]] has been commissioned to fulfil the regulatory role.<ref name=Burton>{{cite news|title=MPs to force Google to tackle piracy in Digital Economy Bill|url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2475509/mps-to-force-google-to-tackle-piracy-in-digital-economy-bill|author=Graeme Burton|date=27 October 2016|work=The Inquirer|accessdate=15 November 2016}}</ref> Age-verification was expected to begin in 2018<ref name=Kleinmann>{{cite news|title=Porn check critics fear data breach|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43292457|work=BBC News|date=6 March 2018|author=Zoe Kleinman|access-date=7 March 2018}}</ref><ref name=delay>{{cite news|title=Porn site age checks are delayed to make sure officials 'get it right'|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/12/porn-site-age-checks-delayed-government-gets-process-right|date=12 Mar 2018|author=Damien Gayle|work=BBC News|access-date=13 March 2018}}</ref> but has been delayed until spring 2019.<ref name=Matthews-King>{{cite newspaper|title=Porn site age verification to be in force by spring next year after delays, minister says|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/porn-site-age-verification-uk-pornhub-sex-online-adult-video-government-id-a8631886.html|author=Alex Matthews-King|date=13 November 2018|newspaper=The Independent}}</ref>
| |
| − | * Requiring [[Internet service provider]]s to use Internet filters to block all websites that have adult content, unless customers have opted out.<ref name=Rigg/>
| |
| − | * Introducing a [[Universal Service]] Obligation which allows users to request broadband speeds of at least 10 Mbps. The obligation is to be introduced by 2020, and Ofcom are empowered to subsequently increase the minimum broadband speed requirement.<ref name=Rigg>{{cite news|title=How the Digital Economy Act will come between you and porn|url=https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/03/digital-economy-act-explainer/|work=engadget|author=Jamie Rigg|date=3 May 2017|access-date=20 December 2017}}</ref>
| |
| − | * Requiring Internet service providers to provide compensation to customers if service requirements are not met.<ref name=Beeb1/>
| |
| − | * Allowing [[Ofcom]], the communications sector's regulator, to financially penalise communications providers for failing to comply with licence commitments.<ref name=Beeb1>{{cite news|title=Digital Economy Bill: Networks and porn sites face fines|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36725774|website=BBC News|date=6 July 2016|accessdate=7 July 2016}}</ref>
| |
| − | * Requiring [[mobile telephony]] providers to offer a contract cap to customers limiting monthly spending to an agreed figure.<ref name=Rigg/>
| |
| − | * Providing for increased penalties for [[nuisance call]]s.<ref name=Beeb1/>
| |
| − | * Updating the [[Ofcom Electronic Communications Code]] to make it easier for [[telecommunications companies]] to erect and extend mobile masts.<ref>{{cite news|title=Small cells and 5G: What the Digital Economy Bill changes mean for operators|url=http://www.telecomstechnews.com/news/2016/oct/18/small-cells-and-5g-what-digital-economy-bill-changes-mean/|date=18 October 2016|author=Paul Carter|work=Telecoms Tech|accessdate=15 November 2016}}</ref>
| |
| − | * Extending [[Public Lending Right]] to remotely lent e-books<ref>{{cite news|title=Government passes legislation to extend PLR to ebooks|url=http://www.societyofauthors.org/News/News/2017/April/Digital-Economy-Bill-passes-into-law|date=28 April 2017|publisher=The Society of Authors}}</ref> (section 31 of the Act).
| |
| − | * Modifying the [[Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988]] to raise the maximum sentence for Internet [[copyright infringement]] to 10 years in prison,<ref name=Rigg/> and allowing English and Welsh courts a greater range of sentencing options in such cases.<ref name=Beeb1/>
| |
| − | * Modifying the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to allow public service broadcasters to charge retransmission fees.<ref name=Rigg/>
| |
| − | * Giving Ofcom oversight of the [[BBC]]<ref name=Beeb1/> as its external regulator.<ref name=Rigg/>
| |
| − | * Empowering Ofcom to require [[public service broadcaster]]s to include a minimum quantity of children's programming made in the United Kingdom.<ref name=Rigg/>
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Timetable==
| + | *Allowing data sharing between government departments in order to provide Digital Government. |
| − | The bill completed its passage through the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|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.<ref>{{cite web|title=Bill stages — Digital Economy Act 2017|url=http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/digitaleconomy/stages.html|publisher=UK Parliament|accessdate=28 April 2017}}</ref> The final stages of the legislative process occurred during the [[wash-up period]] before the [[United Kingdom general election, 2017|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 [[United Kingdom general election, 2010|2010 general election]].<ref name=Fiveash>{{cite news|title=Digital Economy Act 2017 gets royal assent and is now law|url=https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/04/digital-economy-act-2017-gets-royal-assent-and-is-now-law/|author=Kelly Fiveash|date=28 April 2017|work=Ars Technica UK}}</ref> | + | *Creating an age-verification regulator to publish guidelines about how pornographic websites which operate "on a commercial basis" should ensure their users are aged 18 or older. The regulator is empowered to fine those who fail to comply up to £250,000 (or up to 5% of their turnover), to order the blocking of non-compliant websites, and to require those providing financial or advertising services to non-compliant websites to cease doing so. The regulator's proposals have to be approved three months before coming into effect. The BBFC has been commissioned to fulfil the regulatory role. Age-verification was expected to begin in 2018 but has been delayed until spring 2019. |
| | + | *Requiring Internet service providers to use Internet filters to block all websites that have adult content, unless customers have opted out. |
| | + | *Introducing a Universal Service Obligation which allows users to request broadband speeds of at least 10 Mbps. The obligation is to be introduced by 2020, and Ofcom are empowered to subsequently increase the minimum broadband speed requirement. |
| | + | *Requiring Internet service providers to provide compensation to customers if service requirements are not met. |
| | + | *Allowing Ofcom, the communications sector's regulator, to financially penalise communications providers for failing to comply with licence commitments. |
| | + | *Requiring mobile telephony providers to offer a contract cap to customers limiting monthly spending to an agreed figure. |
| | + | *Providing for increased penalties for nuisance calls. |
| | + | *Updating the Ofcom Electronic Communications Code to make it easier for telecommunications companies to erect and extend mobile masts. |
| | + | *Extending Public Lending Right to remotely lent e-books (section 31 of the Act). |
| | + | *Modifying the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to raise the maximum sentence for Internet copyright infringement to 10 years in prison, and allowing English and Welsh courts a greater range of sentencing options in such cases. |
| | + | *Modifying the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to allow public service broadcasters to charge retransmission fees. |
| | + | *Giving Ofcom oversight of the BBC as its external regulator. |
| | + | *Empowering Ofcom to require public service broadcasters to include a minimum quantity of children's programming made in the United Kingdom. |
| | | | |
| − | ==Amendments== | + | ==Reaction== |
| − | * An amendment to the bill making it an offence to use "digital purchasing software" to purchase an excessive number of event tickets for [[ticket resale]]<ref>{{cite news |title=Touts using bots to buy tickets could face jail |url=https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/oct/19/touts-using-bots-buy-tickets-face-jail |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |author=Rob Davies |date=19 October 2016 |accessdate=15 November 2016 }}</ref> was withdrawn at the committee stage.<ref>{{cite news |title=You Me At Six To Give Evidence Against Secondary Ticketing |url=http://www.m-magazine.co.uk/news/six-give-evidence-secondary-ticketing/ |date=14 November 2016 |work=M Magazine |accessdate=15 November 2016 }}</ref> However, a subsequent amendment giving the government the power to create a new criminal offence of using [[Internet bot]]s to bypass limits on maximum ticket purchases set by event organisers was included in the final bill, with offenders potentially subject to unlimited fines,<ref>{{cite news|title=Digital Economy Bill becomes law|url=http://www.musicweek.com/live/read/digital-economy-bill-becomes-law/068292|date=27 April 2017|author=James Hanley|work=Music Week}}</ref> and this came into force in July 2018.<ref>{{cite newspaper|title=Ticket touts face unlimited fines for using bots|url=https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/05/ticket-touts-face-unlimited-fines-for-using-bots|author=Rob Davies|date=5 July 2018|newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref>
| + | 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. |
| − | * An amendment to the bill was put forward making it an offence to publish or host on-line footage or photographs in cases where the distributors "knew or ought to have known" that it "involved exploited persons". The amendment was subsequently withdrawn.<ref>{{cite news |title=Put online porn barons in prison for showing 'forced' sex acts, says Bristol MP |url=http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/put-porn-barons-in-prison-for-showing-women-forced-into-sex-acts-says-bristol-mp/story-29857756-detail/story.html |date=1 November 2016 |author=Patrick Daly |newspaper=[[Bristol Post]] |accessdate=15 November 2016 }}</ref>
| |
| − | * An amendment to the bill was tabled clarifying the employment rights of workers employed via a digital service such as [[Uber (company)|Uber]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Labour pushes Tories to enshrine workers' rights for Uber drivers into law |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uber-judgment-workers-rights-minimum-wage-holiday-pay-london-uk-a7385591.html |date=28 October 2016 |author=Jon Stone |newspaper=[[The Independent]] |accessdate=15 November 2016 }}</ref>
| |
| − | * An amendment to the bill was tabled by the shadow minister for digital economy [[Louise Haigh]], extending the legal obligation on television broadcasters to include [[subtitle (captioning)|subtitle]]s, [[sign language]] and [[audio description]] when providing [[video on demand]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Government has chance to bring subtitling provision 'into 21st century' |url=https://www.cable.co.uk/news/government-has-chance-to-bring-subtitling-provision-into-21st-century-700001648/ |work=www.cable.co.uk |date=20 October 2016 |author=Phil Wilkinson-Jones |accessdate=15 November 2016 }}</ref> A government amendment to the same effect was subsequently published by the minister responsible for digital policy [[Matthew Hancock]]<ref>{{cite news|title=Digital Economy Bill will require on-demand programmes to include subtitles|url=https://www.cable.co.uk/news/digital-economy-bill-will-require-on-demand-programmes-to-include-subtitles-700001735/|author=Phil Wilkinson-Jones|date=9 February 2017|work=cable.co.uk}}</ref> and became part of the act.<ref>{{cite web|title=Audio description on Catch-up TV becomes law|url=https://www.rnib.org.uk/audio-desciption-catch-tv-becomes-law|publisher=RNIB|date=28 April 2017}}</ref>
| |
| − | * An amendment requiring the universal prominence of public service broadcasters in digital television [[electronic program guides]] was modified so that the act as passed requires Ofcom to report in 2020 on how such prominence can be ensured in the context of greater on-demand viewing.<ref name=Rigg/>
| |
| − | * In October 2016 a clause entitled: "Power to provide for a code of practice related to copyright infringement" was proposed after a lobbying campaign led by copyright holders.<ref>{{cite news |title=MPs amend Digital Economy Bill to force search engines to deal with piracy |url=http://www.itproportal.com/news/mps-amend-digital-economy-bill-to-force-search-engines-to-deal-with-piracy/ |work=IT Pro Portal |author=Anthony Spadafora |date=28 October 2016 |accessdate=15 November 2016 }}</ref> The amendment would have required search engines to de-list sites linked to piracy from their search results. It would also have granted the government powers to investigate and sanction search engine operators for failure to comply.<ref name="Burton"/> The clause was not included in the final act.<ref name=Rigg/>
| |
| − | * In November 2016, following pressure from MPs, the government proposed<ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0087/amend/digital_rm_rep_1124.1-6.html |title=Notices of amendments given up to and including Thursday 24 November 2016 |publisher=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] |date=24 November 2016 |accessdate=24 November 2016 }}</ref> an amendment to the bill<ref>{{cite news |title=Digital Economy Bill could block porn sites that fail to age check |url=http://www.alphr.com/politics/1004695/digital-economy-bill-could-block-porn-sites-that-fail-to-age-check |author=Dale Walker |date=4 November 2016 |work=alphr |accessdate=15 November 2016 }}</ref> to allow the age verification regulator to require internet service providers to block pornographic websites that do not offer age verification.<ref>{{cite news |title=MPs table another porn site-blocking amendment to the Digital Economy Bill |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2476296/mps-table-another-porn-site-blocking-amendment-to-the-digital-economy-bill |work=[[The Inquirer]] |date=3 November 2016 |author=Dave Neal |accessdate=15 November 2016 }}</ref> As the [[BBFC]] were expected to become the regulator, this caused discussion about ISPs being required to block content that is prohibited even under an [[R18 (British Board of Film Classification)|R18 certificate]],<ref name="Ars 2016-11-24">{{cite news |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/isps-block-porn-sites-age-verification-digital-economy-bill/ |title=UK ISPs may be forced to block porn sites that snub age checks, sex acts face ban |author=Kelly Fiveash |work=[[Ars Technica]] |date=24 November 2016 |accessdate=24 November 2016 }}</ref><ref name="Guardian 2016-11-23">{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/23/censor-non-conventional-sex-acts-online-internet-pornography |title=UK to censor online videos of 'non-conventional' sex acts |author=Damien Gayle |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=23 November 2016 |accessdate=24 November 2016 }}</ref> the prohibition of some of which is itself controversial.<ref name="Guardian 2016-11-23"/>
| |
| − | *An amendment in the House of Lords raising the Universal Service Obligation for broadband to 30 Mbps was abandoned as being too ambitious.<ref name=Rigg/>
| |
| | | | |
| − | 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.<ref name=Fiveash/> The consultation took place in the Autumn of 2017.<ref>{{cite web|title=Open Consultation on the Digital Economy Act, Part 5: Data Sharing Codes and Regulations|url=https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6b79d8e1-21ce-4445-919b-de7c4625db14|publisher=Squire Patton Boggs|website=Lexology|date=16 October 2017|author=Stéphanie Faber}}</ref>
| + | They highlighted the potential vulnerability of age verification systems to Security hacking, and suggested that it would result in more people using virtual private networks (VPN), or anonymous web browsers such as Tor (anonymity network) |
| − | | |
| − | ==Reaction==
| |
| − | 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.<ref name=ORG2016>{{cite web|url=https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/digital-economy-bill-briefing-to-the-house-of-commons-on-second-reading|title=Digital Economy Bill: Briefing To The House Of Commons On Second Reading|date=12 September 2016|publisher=Open Rights Group|accessdate=27 September 2016}}</ref> [[Myles Jackman]], ORG's legal director, highlighted the potential vulnerability of [[age verification system]]s to [[Security hacker|hacking]], and suggested that it would result in more people using [[virtual private networks]], or anonymous web browsers such as [[Tor (anonymity network)|Tor]].<ref name=Kleinmann/> A public consultation on the BBFC's draft guidance to age verification service providers began in March 2018.<ref name=delay/> The age verification provisions were due to come into effect in April 2018, were delayed until the end of 2018<ref name=Perrigo/> and then further delayed until spring 2019.<ref name=Matthews-King/>
| |
| | | | |
| − | The ORG also raised concerns over the risk of misuse of bulk data sharing.<ref name=ORG2016/> 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'.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://torrentfreak.com/legal-scholars-warn-against-10-year-prison-for-online-pirates-150815|title=Legal scholars warn against 10 year prison for online pirates|date=15 August 2015|publisher=TorrentFreak|accessdate=3 October 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/08/10-year-jail-sentence-for-online-piracy-infeasible-unaffordable-say-academics|title=10-year jail sentence for online piracy 'infeasible, unaffordable' say academics|date=17 August 2015|publisher=Arstechnica|accessdate=3 October 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/18/you_simply_cant_jail_online_pirates_for_10_years_legal_eagles_warn_governement|title=You CAN'T jail online pirates for 10 years, legal eagles tell UK govt|date=18 August 2015|publisher=The Register|accessdate=3 October 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/04/uk-file-sharing-10-years-jail-time|title= UK ploughs ahead with plan for 10-year jail term for online file sharing|date=22 April 2016|publisher=Arstechnica|accessdate=3 October 2016}}</ref> It has been suggested that this provision may be intended to dissuade users of technology such as [[Kodi (software)|Kodi software]] from downloading content that breaches copyright regulations.<ref>{{cite news|title=Kodi: the good, the bad, and the illegal|url=http://www.techradar.com/news/kodi-the-good-the-bad-and-the-illegal|date=14 May 2017|author=Luke Johnson|work=Tech Radar}}</ref> | + | The ORG also raised concerns over the risk of misuse of bulk data sharing. 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'. 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. |
| | | | |
| − | 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,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ntouk.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/the-canary-that-ceased-to-be|author= Jerry Fishenden|work=new tech observations from the UK – Jerry Fishenden's blog|title=The canary that ceased to be|date=3 May 2017}}</ref> 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". [[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.<ref>{{cite news|title=Digital Economy Bill lacks clarity on data sharing, experts say|url=http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450401071/Economy-Bill-lacks-clarity-on-data-sharing|date=14 October 2016|author=Lis Evenstad|magazine=Computer Weekly|accessdate=24 October 2016}}</ref> | + | A number of expert witnesses to the Digital Economy Bill Committee expressed concerns about the bill. Some expressed the opinion that the bill was based on an "obsolete" model of data sharing. They 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". |
The act addresses policy issues related to electronic communications infrastructure and services, and updates the conditions for and sentencing of criminal copyright infringement.
Provisions
The provisions of the act include:
- Allowing data sharing between government departments in order to provide Digital Government.
- Creating an age-verification regulator to publish guidelines about how pornographic websites which operate "on a commercial basis" should ensure their users are aged 18 or older. The regulator is empowered to fine those who fail to comply up to £250,000 (or up to 5% of their turnover), to order the blocking of non-compliant websites, and to require those providing financial or advertising services to non-compliant websites to cease doing so. The regulator's proposals have to be approved three months before coming into effect. The BBFC has been commissioned to fulfil the regulatory role. Age-verification was expected to begin in 2018 but has been delayed until spring 2019.
- Requiring Internet service providers to use Internet filters to block all websites that have adult content, unless customers have opted out.
- Introducing a Universal Service Obligation which allows users to request broadband speeds of at least 10 Mbps. The obligation is to be introduced by 2020, and Ofcom are empowered to subsequently increase the minimum broadband speed requirement.
- Requiring Internet service providers to provide compensation to customers if service requirements are not met.
- Allowing Ofcom, the communications sector's regulator, to financially penalise communications providers for failing to comply with licence commitments.
- Requiring mobile telephony providers to offer a contract cap to customers limiting monthly spending to an agreed figure.
- Providing for increased penalties for nuisance calls.
- Updating the Ofcom Electronic Communications Code to make it easier for telecommunications companies to erect and extend mobile masts.
- Extending Public Lending Right to remotely lent e-books (section 31 of the Act).
- Modifying the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to raise the maximum sentence for Internet copyright infringement to 10 years in prison, and allowing English and Welsh courts a greater range of sentencing options in such cases.
- Modifying the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to allow public service broadcasters to charge retransmission fees.
- Giving Ofcom oversight of the BBC as its external regulator.
- Empowering Ofcom to require public service broadcasters to include a minimum quantity of children's programming made in the United Kingdom.
Reaction
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.
They highlighted the potential vulnerability of age verification systems to Security hacking, and suggested that it would result in more people using virtual private networks (VPN), or anonymous web browsers such as Tor (anonymity network)
The ORG also raised concerns over the risk of misuse of bulk data sharing. 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'. 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.
A number of expert witnesses to the Digital Economy Bill Committee expressed concerns about the bill. Some expressed the opinion that the bill was based on an "obsolete" model of data sharing. They 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".
