The Washington Post has reported that there are plans during the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), which is scheduled to be held in Dubai in December, to significantly alter the UN telecommunications treaty to allow countries to clamp down on the free flow of information via the Internet. Russia has proposed language requiring member states to ensure unrestricted public access and use of international telecommunication services, “except in cases where international telecommunication services are used for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other states, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature.” The United States delegation to the WCIT has vowed to block any changes to the treaty that would curtail Internet freedom. The story can be read at http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-vows-to-block-any-changes-to-global-telecommunications-treaty-that-curtail-internet-freedom/2012/06/22/gJQA19sXuV_story.html. What are your thoughts from a legal perspective?

New Internet Domain Names

A topic which probably straddles a few modules - and I'll try to cross post.

You have probably seen reports of the ICANN initiative to allow (for a very significant price) organisations to bid for their own top level domain name. The link below

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en

should take you to the current state of affairs. What do you think? My own feeling is that many of the names applied for will never be commercially successful. In itself perhaps not new with ICANN. There have been a number of top level domain names - such as .biz - which have been established and failed miserably in the market place.

Communications Data Bill

The government has announced the Communications Data Bill, which should be available here soon. The bill replaces Chapter I, Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which deals with access to communications data by law enforcement. Of particular note:

1.) The Secretary of State may require communications providers to collect data, rather than simply retain data generated in the course of business — it goes further that the data retention rules;

2.) In addition to retaining data, the bill purports to permit the Secretary of State to order communications providers to "generate" data — a particularly scary proposition, since it potentially means an order to change a business model or service structure, to gather more data;

3.) It provides for a filtering mechanism, whereby communications data from multiple providers will be shared with a central body (my money is on Detica), before extracts are passed to the requesting agency. Notionally, this is to protect privacy, but the rules-based filtering tool may cause concerns from a evidential point of view, and requires greater training of law enforcement officers. (Of course, if used as an investigative, rather than evidential, tool, that issue falls away somewhat.)

The bill removes access to data from local councils, which, frankly, should never have had access in the first place.

A "particularly deep intrusion into telecommunications privacy"

The EU executive is planning to refer Germany to the European Union's highest court over its failure to introduce a law obliging phone and internet companies to store records for at least six months:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/eu-dataprivacy-idUSL5E8GTE4C20120529

Having lived in Germany for 5+ years, I'm not surprised by this activity.