Censor Watch

A TV ad, a VOD ad and a video seen on the Toyota UK YouTube channel promoted the Toyota Yaris Hybrid.

The ad showed a number of different drivers and passengers singing and dancing along to Locked Out of Heaven by Bruno Mars whilst driving around urban, and often narrow, roads. The ad included shots of the drivers gesturing with their arms, and at one point a female driver appeared to have her eyes closed as she sang along. Half way through the ad on-screen text stated THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DRIVING AND DRIVING HAPPY and near the end a voice-over stated, Fall in love with driving again with the New Yaris Hybrid ... .

75 viewers challenged whether ad was irresponsible as it encouraged dangerous driving.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The ASA considered that while other road users and pedestrians were at a minimum, viewers would believe that the ad was set on real urban roads and reflected real-life driving conditions. We noted that a number of the scenes showed both drivers and passengers listening and singing along to music, while moving and dancing in their seats, and that in a few scenes the driver was shown gesticulating with one arm off the wheel or briefly looking away from the road to interact with a passenger. While we did not consider that to show drivers and passengers enjoying and moving around to music in a car was necessarily irresponsible, we had concerns that some of the drivers were not shown paying due attention to the road, and instead appeared to be easily distracted by their passengers and the music. In particular, we were concerned that most viewers would believe that the woman in the final scene of the ad had her eyes briefly closed while singing along, and therefore was not concentrating on the road, or any obstacles that could appear at a moment's notice.

Because we considered that some of the featured drivers were not shown paying due attention to the road, we concluded that the ad condoned and encouraged dangerous driving and was therefore irresponsible.

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Toyota (GB) plc to ensure their ads did not depict dangerous driving in future.

Australia's law-enforcement agency has defended its use of a law that requires ISPs to block websites government agencies deem illegal, without judicial oversight.

Australian Federal Police (AFP) claimed they need section 313 of the Telecommunications Act, which requires telcos to enforce criminal laws, protect public revenue and anything deemed to be a matter of national security.

The AFP, financial regulator ASIC and an unidentified national security agency have interpreted the law to mean they have the power to order telcos to block websites hosting illegal material.

But ISPs have called for restrictions. They argue there is not enough oversight and that some providers had even received blocking requests from animal protection agency the RSPCA.

Between 2011 and 2013 the Department of Communications estimated 32 requests to block websites had been made. As far as it was aware, only three government agencies had used the power.

Porn websites will be forced to check users are over 18 under a new crackdown to stop children accessing explicit material.

Mobile phone companies and credit card firms will have to ensure that someone proves they are aged 18 or over before being given access to adult websites.

Now it has emerged that plans are being drawn up to force adult websites to carry out checks on the age of users. It would cover pornography sites, as well as those selling guns and other age-restricted material, the Sunday Times reported.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working on the plans with Treasury minister Andrea Leadsom, who oversees regulation of the banking system.

However, the new rules would only cover UK-based websites to begin with. It is already nearly impossible to run a British adult website due to onerous age verification rules and critics have noted that only one of the 1,266 adult websites visited from the UK in December 2013 was a service that is regulated in this country.

It seems very unlikely that these new rules will have any impact on the availability of porn to children. Even if new downloads were stopped tomorrow there's probably already enough knocking around and hard drives and memory sticks to last several lifetimes of playground swopsies. The only effect it will have is to add to the mountain of red tape, administrative costs and restrictive regulations that is impoverishing the west.

Offsite Comment: Why age checks on porn sites will do more harm than good

28th October 2014. See article from telegraph.co.uk by Martin Daubney

The Government's plan to introduce age verification checks only shows that politicians remain too scared to approach the porn problem in a meaningful manner.

...Read the full article

Update: Will the payment providers provide age verification?

31st October 2014. See article from business.avn.com

That tidbit of information, along with other reports indicating that PayPal and Visa will be taking part in the new scheme in addition to other approved methods of verification, suggests that one way the government ostensibly means to gain control of the internet is by pressuring processors to age-verify while simultaneously holding out the (dubious) promise of increased and officially sanctioned business.

The Naked Rambler, Stephen Gough, has lost his case at the European Court of Human Rights where he claimed he had a right to be naked in public. He had argued that his repeated arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for being naked in public and his treatment in detention violated his rights.

The court unanimously found there had been no violation of Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. Naked Rambler Stephen Gough has lost his challenge in the European Court of Human Rights of the sentence was one year, nine months and 18 days. The ECHR ruled:

The applicant's imprisonment is the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law in full knowledge of the consequences, through conduct which he knew full well not only goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society but also is liable to be alarming and morally and otherwise offensive to other, unwarned members of the public going about their ordinary business.

The court described Gough's case as troubling but ruled that relevant and sufficient measures had been taken against him by the police and legal authorities which saw him arrested in 2011. They were meeting a pressing social need in response to repeated anti-social conduct by Gough. The ECHR stated:

Even though, cumulatively, the penalties imposed on the applicant undoubtedly did entail serious consequences for him, the court cannot find in the circumstances of his case, having regard in particular to his own responsibility for his plight, that the public authorities in Scotland unjustifiably interfered with his exercise of freedom of expression. Accordingly, no violation of Article 10 of the Convention has been established.

Offsite Comment: Stephen Gough and the European Court

30th October 2014. From bn.org.uk

British Naturism very much welcomes the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that nudity is a means of expression and that Article 10 of the European Convention of Human rights applies to nudity. This is a preliminary analysis of the court's ruling regarding Stephen Gough. The judgement only considers some aspects of the case, and there are no surprises, but it does establish some points of law that are important for Naturism and the fight against prudery and body-shame.

The BBC described its programme, This World: Rwanda's Untold Story:

Twenty years on from the Rwandan genocide, This World reveals evidence that challenges the accepted story of one of the most horrifying events of the late 20th century. The current president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, has long been portrayed as the man who brought an end to the killing and rescued his country from oblivion. Now there are increasing questions about the role of Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front forces in the dark days of 1994 and in the 20 years since.

The film investigates evidence of Kagame's role in the shooting down of the presidential plane that sparked the killings in 1994 and questions his claims to have ended the genocide. It also examines claims of war crimes committed by Kagame's forces and their allies in the wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo and allegations of human rights abuses in today's Rwanda.

Former close associates from within Kagame's inner circle and government speak out from hiding abroad. They present a very different portrait of a man who is often hailed as presiding over a model African state. Rwanda's economic miracle and apparent ethnic harmony has led to the country being one of the biggest recipients of aid from the UK. Former prime minister Tony Blair is an unpaid adviser to Kagame, but some now question the closeness of Mr Blair and other western leaders to Rwanda's president.

But it was all a bit too much for Rwanda. The government has suspended all BBC radio broadcasts in Rwanda's most common language to protest against the news organisation's recent documentary about the 1994 genocide in the country.

The Rwandan TV censor announced the suspension of the BBC's broadcasts in the local language, Kinyarwanda. The board said it took the action because it has received complaints of incitement, hatred, divisionism, genocide denial and revision from the public.

President Paul Kagame's government, members of parliament and genocide survivors have expressed their anger at the BBC over the recent documentary that suggested the country's president may have had a hand shooting down his predecessor's plane, a crash that triggered the mass killings.

Its hour-long documentary, Rwanda, The Untold Story, also quoted US researchers who suggested that many of the more than 800,000 Rwandans who died in the 1994 genocide may have been ethnic Hutus, and not ethnic Tutsis as the Rwandan government maintains.

British intelligence services can access raw material collected in bulk by the NSA and other foreign spy agencies without a warrant, the government has confirmed for the first time.

GCHQ's secret arrangements for accessing bulk material are revealed in documents submitted to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the UK surveillance watchdog, in response to a joint legal challenge by Privacy International, Liberty and Amnesty International. The legal action was launched in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations published by the Guardian and other news organisations last year.

The government's submission discloses that the UK can obtain unselected -- meaning unanalysed, or raw intelligence -- information from overseas partners without a warrant if it was not technically feasible to obtain the communications under a warrant and if it is necessary and proportionate for the intelligence agencies to obtain that information.

The rules essentially permit bulk collection of material, which can include communications of UK citizens, provided the request does not amount to deliberate circumvention of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), which governs much of the UK's surveillance activities.

And the Police...

From bigbrotherwatch.org.uk
See Spying on phone calls and emails has doubled under the coalition from telegraph.co.uk

Big Brother Watch has published a report highlighting the true scale of police forces' use of surveillance powers.

The report comes at a time when the powers have faced serious criticism, following revelations that police have used them to access journalists' phone records.

The research focuses on the use of 'directed surveillance' contained in the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) by police forces; a form of covert surveillance conducted in places other than residential premises or private vehicles which is deemed to be non-intrusive, but is still likely to result in personal information about the individual being obtained.

Although the report details how directed surveillance powers were authorised more than 27,000 times over a three year period, police forces are not compelled to record any other statistics; therefore we cannot know the exact number of individuals that these authorisations relate to.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has handed down a landmark verdict. The Court ruled that embedding copyrighted videos is not copyright infringement, even if the source video was uploaded without permission.

The case in question was referred to EU's Court of Justice by a German court. It deals with a dispute between the water filtering company BestWater International and two men who work as independent commercial agents for a competitor. Bestwater accused the men of embedding one of their promotional videos, which was available on YouTube without the company's permission. The video was embedded on the personal website of the two through a frame, as is usual with YouTube videos.

While EU law is clear on most piracy issues, the copyright directive says very little about embedding copyrighted works. The Court of Justice, however, now argues that embedding is not copyright infringement.

The Court argues that embedding a file or video is not a breach of creator's copyrights under European law, as long as it's not altered or communicated to a new public. In the current case, the video was already available on YouTube so embedding it is not seen as a new communication. T he Court's verdict reads:

The embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website by means of a link using the framing technology ... does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [the EU Copyright directive] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication.

The Court based its verdict on an earlier decision in the Svensson case , where it found that hyperlinking to a previously published work is not copyright infringement. Together, both cases will have a major impact on future copyright cases in the EU. For Internet users it means that they are protected from liability if they embed copyrighted videos or images from other websites, for example.