More Related Content Similar to Future-proofing the IPBill Similar to Future-proofing the IPBill (20) More from Graham Smith (16) 5. draft Communications Data Bill
Page 5
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
“the wide anxiety raised by the
breadth of clause 1”
“Future-proofing and flexibility are at the heart of
the language we have used in clause 1” Charles Farr
“We do not think that Parliament should
grant powers that are required only on
the precautionary principle. There should
be a current and pressing need for them.”
6. Page 6
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
#IPBill
Technical capability notices
Data retention power
DRIPA + IP address resolution + ICRs + …..
11. Page 11
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
RIPA – comprehensible?
2003 "We have found RIPA to be a particularly puzzling
statute" R v W (Court of Appeal)
2004 "longer and even more perplexing" than the "short but
difficult" IOCA 1985. Lord Bingham, A-G’s Ref (No 5 of 2002)
2005 "this impenetrable statute … one of the most complex
and unsatisfactory statutes currently in force." Prof. David
Ormerod
2006 "a complex and difficult piece of legislation" Mummery
LJ (President of the IPT)
2014 "RIPA 2000 is a difficult statute to understand" Sir
Anthony May, IOCC Report 2013
2015 "RIPA, obscure since its inception, has been patched up
so many times as to make it incomprehensible to all but a tiny
band of initiates" A Question of Trust
12. Page 12
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
#IPBill objective
"comprehensive and
comprehensible"
A Question of Trust
14. The Home Secretary told us
subsequently that the definitions …
were intended to be
Commons Science & Technology Committee
Page 14
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
“technology neutral and flexible in order
that, should user behaviour and
technology change, they will still apply”…
15. …as a result,
“the definitions as they are formulated
are necessarily abstract”
Commons Science & Technology Committee
Page 15
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
16. The government, in seeking to future-
proof the proposed legislation, has
produced definitions of internet
connection records and other terms
which have led to significant confusion
on the part of communications service
providers and others.
Commons Science & Technology Committee
Page 16
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
20. What are we trying
to future-proof?
Page 20
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
23. How to future-proof the privacy balance?
● Concrete, technology-specific drafting
● Sunsetted powers
● Frequent Parliamentary review
● Continued openness
Data Protection Seminar 26 June 2014
Page 23
© Bird & Bird LLP 2016
Are Techlaw principles in the Ascendency? (Graham Smith)
Intellectual Property Forum: journal of the Intellectual and Industrial Property
Society of Australia and New Zealand - Issue 96 (Mar 2014)
24. Graham Smith
graham.smith@twobirds.com
@cyberleagle
Bird & Bird is an international legal practice comprising Bird & Bird LLP and its affiliated and associated businesses.
Bird & Bird LLP is a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales with registered number OC340318 and is authorised and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority. Its registered office and principal place of business is at 15 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP. A list of members of Bird & Bird LLP and
of any non-members who are designated as partners, and of their respective professional qualifications, is open to inspection at that address.
twobirds.com
Thank you
