The number of communication technologies in the firing line is far short of the number involved in the events. Rolling TV coverage gave the events wall-to-wall coverage. National newspapers took the story to mass audiences well beyond the reach of a news channel. Numerous rioters were spotted talking into their mobile phones.

Calls in response the riots to change the rules over newspapers, TV or voice phone calls have not been made. It is only the new technologies that face those demands.

Or is it simply a question of politicians and pundits always trying to ban technologies they don’t use?

So great to see the Open Rights Group campaigning on the topic with a petition:

The Government is focusing on entirely the wrong problem in trying to increase their powers to ban, block or monitor people’s communications. Social networks like Twitter are used for a huge array of positive purposes such as warnings of danger and organising clean up projects. Blanket surveillance measures of private communications or increased powers to mine users data would undermine people’s freedom to communicate in very damaging ways, and would in no way address the problems at hand. Making laws in haste, with limited analysis and information, to deal with an exceptional problem is likely to create unbalanced laws and abuses of our rights.

You can back the campaign by signing here.

Two issues are likely to meet widespread support, namely the problems of voters being intimidated and people being left still queuing when polls closed at 10pm. Both issues were significant problems in specific parts of London last year.

The report says:

The difficulties identified include most significantly a number of instances where there were queues at polling stations and people were unable to vote. Our report highlights the confusion in applying the electoral law to enfranchise the voter that led in some instances to a breach of election rules. We therefore recommend a change in electoral law to prevent a repeat of the disenfranchisement of so many people in London and across England. Without a change in the law there will need to be new guidance to Returning Officers as to how they can better prepare to deal with any late surge of voters.

A further significant issue addressed in this report is how to stop the intimidation of voters that is taking place at some polling stations. Clear advice to polling staff and consistency in how that advice is acted upon is necessary to tackle this unacceptable behaviour.

More controversial is likely to be the report’s call for a repeal of the legislation introduced last year to ensure overnight counting of votes for the general election.

The bigger issue that was not covered by this review, by virtue of its rermit, is the mistakes that were made in counting votes at the last London elections. As I wrote at the time:

In the immediate aftermath of this May’s London Mayor and Assembly elections, it became clear that some mistakes had been made during the count. Some Mayor votes in Merton and Wandsworth were omitted from the count, and in addition the checking process was flawed as votes were reported from more wards than exist in London.

Both the Open Rights Group and the Electoral Commission identified further problems, with my summary of the Electoral Commission’s verdict still valid:

In other words, “the numbers don’t add up; we don’t know why; it might be bad, it might not be; but there wasn’t a proper audit trail so we’re all left clueless.”

Counting the votes correctly and having a proper system for checking that the results are right is by far the most important change that needs to happen for the 2012 elections.

Vote of confidence? Lessons Learned from the 2010 General and Local Elections

The digital age is transforming society: bringing us greater democracy, transparency and new creative possibilities. When these freedoms are under attack, the Open Rights Group is there to defend them. Founded in 2005 by 1,000 digital activists, ORG has become the UK’s leading voice defending freedom of expression, privacy, innovation, consumer rights and creativity on the net.

Getting into the political trenches in the UK and EU, we mobilise our supporters to stop bad laws. Working closely with other campaign groups, we lobby government and talk to the media whenever our rights are threatened.

Happy birthday to the staff and volunteers working for the ORG and if you want to help their work join the ORG here today.

You can follow news from the Open Rights Group on Twitter at @orgnewsupdates and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/openrightsgroup.

As Rory Cellan-Jones points out, some aspects of the draft code deal with concerns raised during the passage of the Act. In particular, the code only applies to ISPs with over 400,000 customers, thereby excluding operators of Wi-Fi networks such as cafes and universities who had been worried they would be forced to incur significant costs tightly policing their networks.

The code also confirms one of the concessions won by the Liberal Democrats in Parliament, namely that the power to cut off people’s internet connections will be held in reserve and not initially used. Instead, the code lays out a process of three warning letters followed by legal action by a copyright holder if they believe someone has been breaking their copyright, such as by downloading music files. The end result of the process would be prosecution of the person, but not the cutting off of their internet connection.

However, the Open Rights Group has been very critical of the proposed process, saying

There are huge unanswered questions, not least whether innocent people will have to pay to appeal. Government needs to draw a clear line between the notifications and potential disconnection regimes. Otherwise, Ofcom can’t tell people what these accusations mean, which is absurd.

You can read the draft code and find out how to respond (by 30 July) here.

But in agreeing to call the proposals “three strikes and you’re out”, I think the campaign has ceded an important advantage to Peter Mandelson & co. That is because, taken on its own, that phrase actually sounds pretty reasonable.

Imagine someone hearing of the proposals in a mainstream media story where the limitations of time and space often mean little is said about the detailed pros and cons of a policy. The very name itself – “three strikes and you are out” – makes it sound reasonable: You have to do something wrong three times before you get punished? What could be wrong with that – except perhaps why be so generous as to wait until the third time?

For policy and political wonks “three strikes and you are out” may bring up negative thoughts of draconian sentencing laws tried out in the US – third offence equals heavy jail sentence – which have resulted in lengthy jail sentences for minor (third) crimes. But for most people, using this description makes the policy sound decent.

That is particularly ironic given the practical details with Mandelson’s plan means that in practice it would be anything but three strikes and you’re out.

People knowingly share internet connections (e.g. within a household). People unknowingly share their internet connection with others (e.g. when a computer is infected with malware). ISPs are not exactly strangers to making a mess of customer records, such as about who has got which internet connection. And so on – including, most perniciously, an assumption of guilty until proven innocent.

In other words, far from “three strikes and you’re out”, it’s far more a case of legal roulette. Just because you’re innocent won’t stop you from being treated as guilty and having to acquit yourself from someone else’s actions.

What to call it instead? Ah, um… I’ll admit to having not come up with a good alternative so far. But I’m sure the campaign will do better if someone does.

Last Thursday the Open Rights Group along with many others made a submission in response to the Digital Britain Report. In that submission, we said:

This action has the potential for much harm. We call on the ?nal Digital Britain report to
reject the idea of a ?rights agency?.

Less than 12 hours later, we found David Lammy and Stephen Carter launching a discussion paper into the shape of the ‘Digital Rights Agency’.

It is hard to believe that either minister had processed the responses on exactly this question in the space of twelve hours.

You can read the full story here.