20 Dec 12 | Leveson Inquiry
In my months covering the Leveson Inquiry, a clear and startling picture was painted of closed, secretive police forces, tense in their relationship with reporters on local and national papers and fiercely protective over the flow of information.
Justin Penrose of the Sunday Mirror described a “state of paralysis” in police-press relations. The Times’ crime editor Sean O’Neill said that “in the current climate, if you arranged to meet an officer you’d be looking over your shoulder the whole time.” The Guardian’s Sandra Laville cited an “over-reaction” by the Metropolitan police in response to the Inquiry, adding that “open lines of communication, which have been there for many years, are being closed down.”
So it is worrying that some of the more terrifying passages of the Leveson report that could perpetuate this closed culture, chill investigative journalism and also have grave implications for whistleblowers have gone almost unnoticed.
First, Leveson recommends increasing sentencing powers for breaches of section 55 of the Data Protection Act and also suggests that paragraph 2 (b) of schedule 1 the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) be repealed. The latter means that police should only request journalistic material as a last resort; repealing it would make it far easier for them to do so. As Index wrote in a policy note published today, the work of journalists who cover crime or terror stories could be compromised if this proposal is followed through, and sources that require protection might feel less confident in dealing with the press as a result.
O’Neill told me he finds the proposed change to PACE “terrifying”, calling it a “landgrab of massive new powers” that could force journalists to disclose their sources.
Add to this Leveson’s suggestion for an internal whistleblowing hotline, which would, in his view, get rid of the need for confidential briefings to journalists on internal police issues. The judge also recommends that “it should be mandatory for ACPO [Association of Chief Police Officers] rank officers to record all of their contact with the media”, and proposes an end to off-the-record briefings.
“This is music to the ears of people in the Met,” O’Neill said. “They think they should be the guardians of what transparency is.”
“Leveson has effectively just endorsed the approach the Met adopted post-phone hacking, when it went into complete lockdown,” he added.
Leveson might well strive for a more transparent environment — after all, it was the shady culture of collusion between editors, police officers and politicians that allowed reprehensible newsroom practices to fester and helped to severely dent public trust. This is rightly being investigated. But there is nothing wrong with an officer talking to a journalist: contact between them is just one of the ways reporters can scrutinise those in power, and the informal kind might provide more “texture” and “colour” that official sources might not give, as Laville told the Inquiry last March. Both parties are humans, and need to be able to discuss matters openly and without fear if information is to flow freely.
For their part, both David Cameron and Nick Clegg expressed strong concern over the data protection recommendations when they responded to the report last month. Yet amid the recent arrest of an officer in connection with a leak that spurred the “plebgate” row and resignation of Tory chief whip Andrew Mitchell, there is greater concern over how police officers and journalists navigate the murky post-Leveson world, as Vikram Dodd alluded to this week.
The reality is that this unsavoury mix of uncertainty and landgrabs fits a wider pattern of a culture yearning for a firmer grip on information: from disciplining a police officer for tweeting to plans for secret courts in the Justice and Security Bill currently under consideration in the House of Lords, there seems to be an appetite for perpetuating secrecy.
It’s hard to know what’s more worrying: that Leveson — so adamant was he about protecting freedom of speech — suggested these alarming proposals, or that so few seem bothered by the prospect of information becoming such a shackled commodity.
Marta Cooper is an editorial researcher at Index. Follow her on Twitter: @martaruco
More on this story:
Read our latest policy note in response to the Leveson Report
28 Nov 12 | Americas, Brazil, Digital Freedom
The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of Rights.” Feted by free-speech activists and negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to guarantee basic rights for internet users, content creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not responsible for user content.
Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA
The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet, also guaranteed net neutrality — a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of internet traffic, such as movies.
A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it will not be bought back to the floor.
The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro Molon, who sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication companies lobbied hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the free market.
Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech.
The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although industry lobbies were successful in watering down key user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even greater changes on the text.
After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco Civil.
Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — took issue with key elements.
The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide influence on free speech issues.
“[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said Falkvinge on his website.
“Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its consequences”, said André Pase, Digital Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre.
“A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the time.”
Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo
11 Oct 12 | Asia and Pacific, Index Index, minipost, News and features, United Kingdom
A man has been sentenced to a total of eight months in prison by a Manchester court for wearing a T-shirt daubed with offensive comments referring the murders of PC Fiona Bone and PC Nicola Hughes.
Barry Thew, of Radcliffe, Greater Manchester admitted to a Section 4A Public Order Offence today (11 October) for wearing the T-shirt, on which he had written the messages ”One less pig; perfect justice” and “killacopforfun.com haha”.
Inspector Bryn Williams, of the Radcliffe Neighbourhood Policing Team, said: “To mock or joke about the tragic events of that morning is morally reprehensible and Thew has rightly been convicted and sentenced for his actions.”
Thew had been reported to police after wearing the article around three-and-a-half hours after the officers were shot dead in Greater Manchester on 2 October.
UPDATE: According to the Manchester Evening News, four months of Thew’s sentence was handed down for breach of a previous suspended sentence
Also this week
08 October 2012 | Man jailed for offensive Facebook comments about missing schoolgirl
09 October 2012 | Yorkshire man sentenced over offensive Twitter comments directed at soldiers
15 Sep 12 | Americas, Middle East and North Africa, News and features
The protests against controversial film “Innocence of the Muslims” follow a pattern familiar since the days of the Satanic Verses fatwa, says James Kirchick. And so do the reactions of many western liberals
(more…)
