The Digital Economy Act, which comes into force in nine months, will mean that those trying to view pornography on any commercial website or online platform available people in the UK could face a compulsory age check.

What Is The Digital Economy Act?

The Digital Economy Act 2017 is an act of Parliament that was introduced by culture secretary John Whittingdale on 5 July 2016. It addresses policy issues concerning electronic communications infrastructure and services, and updates the conditions for and sentencing of criminal copyright infringement.

Other matters that the act covers includes giving powers to Ofcom to fine communications companies for non compliance with licence commitments and providing increased penalties for nuisance calls, as well as seeking to create an age-verification regulator. This regulator will publish guidelines about how pornographic websites should ensure their users are aged 18 or older, fine sites that don’t comply and ask third-party payment services to withdraw support, and give the regulator the powers to force internet providers to block access to non-compliant services.

How Will It Work?

The full details of how it will work are not yet known, although it is believed that the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) will take on the role of regulator / watchdog, and that because credit cards are only issued to those over 18, pornographic websites will have to demand credit card details before providing any access.

Criticism

Although there is broad support for the idea that access to adult online content should be restricted, critics have pointed out that 9 months may be too little time to set up an effective regulatory body. There has also been criticism of the idea that compulsory age checks will be any kind of real solution to the problem of children being able to see pornographic content (even by accident) online. Under the new system, for example, other platforms such as Twitter and Tumblr won’t be required to check the age of users, and there is also the probability that children will share content with each other.

Privacy and Security

Some commentators have also pointed out that as well as the sheer number of sites with pornographic material making regulation a real challenge, asking for credit card details will pose extra security and privacy challenges.

Other Requirements

Other requirements of the Digital Economy Act include making it a criminal offence to use bots to bulk-buy event tickets, requiring video-on-demand programmes to have subtitles, and raising the maximum penalty for online piracy to 10 years.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Although there is broad agreement that the full introduction of the act is not going to solve all the problems associated with access to pornography, it does look likely to at least provide some more support for consumers in many different areas, and also some more protection for children on the internet.

The Act covers many different aspects of service provision e.g. broadband services, and not just pornography, so it is therefore important that businesses at least make themselves aware of the contents of the Act to ensure that they are compliant, and therefore, aren’t hit by penalties when it comes into force at the beginning of next year.

An announcement on the Korean website of Samsung indicates that it plans to recover and re-use components, and recycle precious materials from its stock of Galaxy Note 7 smartphones, the production of which was stopped last October after incidents of some phones catching fire.

What Happened?

When Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 was introduced in August last year, it was intended to a serious challenger to the Apple’s iPhone 7, but, after a series of reports of Note 7 phones smouldering, catching fire, and exploding (blamed on the battery at the time), the company announced on September 2nd that production was being suspended. In early October 2016, Samsung officially confirmed that it was permanently stopping production of its Galaxy Note 7 smartphone. At the time, Samsung offered a voluntary replacement programme for users with affected Note 7s.

Recovering Rare Metals

In the latest announcement about the ill-fated phone model, Samsung is reported as saying that it plans to recover 157 tonnes of rare metals, such as cobalt, copper, and gold from the remaining stock of devices.

Re-Using or Recycling Components

In another part of the same announcement, Samsung has indicated that it plans recover components such as OLED display modules, memory chips, and camera modules from the remaining Galaxy Note 7 smartphones, and reuse them for repairs, or recycle them.

Following Apple?

Some commentators have suggested that Samsung may, as well as trying to salvage some good PR from what has been a damaging episode, be following the environmental lead set by Apple. Back in April, Apple announced that it planned to only use renewable materials in its products to protect the environment and avoid “blood minerals” i.e. those obtained through human rights abuses, such as using child labour to mine cobalt.

At the time, Apple (in its ‘Environmental Responsibility Report’) talked about its new recycling techniques, and encouraged customers to recycle their old devices through ‘Apple Renew’.

Criticism

Critics of the focus on recycling of phones and their components have argued that mobile phone manufacturers could help more by ensuring that their products are built to last longer in the first place.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This story is an example of how companies have realised that well-informed, social-media savvy customers are interested in and value environmental and human rights issues, and how they relate to products that they use. Companies that can promote an ethical stance in the delivery sources, manufacturing, and responsible disposing of their products can gain an advantage over competitors and in the marketplace. This can be another important differentiator in a crowded market, as well as potentially making genuine and beneficial difference to the environment and to human rights, particularly if it is on a large scale and if enough pressure is applied.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is reportedly seeking to introduce a law that will force technology companies to give law enforcement agencies access to encrypted messages.

Like the UK Investigatory Powers Act

The proposed law is to be introduced with the stated intention of reducing online criminal activity e.g. terrorism, and looks set to be a beefed-up version of the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act (also known as the ‘Snooper’s Charter’).

Give Access To Encrypted Messages

As with the UK’s Act, one of the main aims of Australia’s new law will be to give their government the power to force technology companies to give law enforcement agencies access to encrypted messages / seek an end to the end-to-end encryption model, and oblige them to assist security forces in their investigations in other ways.

Companies that are likely to be targeted by the laws include Facebook and Google, as well as device manufacturers like Apple and Samsung. In the UK for example, the Investigatory Powers Act has also reportedly been used to seek access to encrypted app services such as WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage.

It is believed that although the Australian law will be hard-hitting, it will still require the security forces to produce warrants to access communications.

Same Criticism As In The UK

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s announcement that he is seeking to introduce such a law has drawn much the same criticism as the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act attracted. For example:

• Facebook has said that it already has a system in place for helping with investigations (making a new law unnecessary), and that it will be virtually impossible to impose on individual users.
• New powers could encroach upon freedom and human rights, and could potentially be abused.
• If encryption was banned or weaknesses / backdoors were built-in to popular platforms, determined criminals would simply obtain encryption products from other sources, and the backdoors would pose an extra security and privacy risk for the vast majority (of law-abiding citizens).

Support For Encryption

Just as the Australian government, like France and the UK, is proposing a law to essentially stop the end-to-end encryption model, new proposed (draft) legislation from the EU’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs is seeking to make end-to-end encryption compulsory for all forms of digital communication.

Also, IBM has recently been in the news for wanting businesses to use its new z14 mainframe to encrypt pretty much everything, and restrict access to the encryption keys as a way to reduce the risk and impact of data breaches.

Challenged in the UK

It is also worth noting that, here in the UK, human rights charity Liberty has recently been given the go-ahead by the High Court to make a legal challenge against the ‘Snooper’s Charter, using £50,000 of crowdfunding via CrowdJustice. The same thing, in theory, could also happen in Australia when a similar law is introduced there.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Australian businesses, and international businesses e.g. tech companies with a base / operations in Australia may soon be facing many of the challenges that tech companies in the UK have faced with since the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act. Security and privacy are of course important in business communications, whether by phone app, social platform, or by email system. Businesses could argue that the immediate and more likely risk (than terrorism, for example) comes from a variety of cyber criminals, many of whom have already shown themselves to be capable of exploiting situations where there are back-doors in software / platforms / systems, or where there is a lack of adequate encryption. Relaxing security protection for all for the sake of a few may, therefore, may not be a response that will benefit businesses right now. In Australia, as in the UK, many tech businesses are uneasy with the extent of ‘snooping’ legislation and what it forces companies to do, how necessary it is, and what effect it will have on businesses publicly known to be snooping on their customers on behalf of whatever state. The debate worldwide looks likely to continue.

The possible scrapping of a 2015 net neutrality order in the US has led to a group of major technology firms, including Alphabet Inc and Facebook, challenging the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on the grounds that it could lead to paid “fast lanes” for web content.

What Order?

The net neutrality order, put in place by the Obama administration, re-classified high-speed internet service providers as if they were utilities i.e. a telecommunications services rather than information ones. This meant that they were then subject to regulation under Title II of the Communications Act which was has been used to preserve an open Internet by stopping broadband providers from elevating one kind of content over another i.e. making sure that all Internet traffic is treated equally.

Now What’s Happening?

Back in May this year, the FCC voted overwhelmingly in favour of a plan by their Republican Chairman Ajit Pai to withdraw the net neutrality order, thereby releasing ISPs from the regulations that it imposed. The argument from the some parts of the FCC and from ISPs is that imposing regulations was unnecessary and costly.

What’s The Problem?

The fear is that, once the regulations are removed / reversed, ISPs will be able to block, throttle or offer paid prioritization (fast lanes) to some websites. Blocking and throttling happens when ISPs block or slow down the services or applications you use over the Web. Paid prioritisation could happen if an ISP decides to accept fees from companies for favoured treatment of their content e.g. Netflix paying an additional fee to deliver their content to customers faster.

Big ISPs Want Removal

It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that some major ISPs such as AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp, and Charter Communications Inc have reportedly supported the removal of the order, while stating that they will not hinder internet access as a result.
Some providers have, however, reportedly said that there may be times when paid prioritization (paid fast lanes) could make sense.

Objections

As well as objections to the removal of the order from tech giants Alphabet Inc (Google) and Facebook, there has reportedly been 8.4 million public comments filed on the proposal.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The removal of these regulations with no effective alternative in place could mean that businesses offering content, for example, find themselves on an unfair playing field, where larger companies are able to pay for their content to be delivered more quickly to customers. Business supporters of the removal of the order, however, argue that it could lead to more innovation and investment due to less business uncertainty.

Where consumers are concerned, many tech commentators have pointed out that the removal of the order could mean that they have a greater risk of their internet access being interfered with and disrupted, and this could in turn impact on advertisers and businesses offering services to them via that connection.

In a recent meeting with the National Governors Association, the US bi-partisan body dealing with state and national public policy and governance, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk reportedly described ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) as a “fundamental risk to the existence of civilisation.”

Sci-Fi Fears Coming True?

Although we have always wanted to benefit from the strengths of artificially intelligent machines / bots, one of the most popular sci-fi fears is that we create a race that is capable of destroying us. The recent comments from Elon Musk, therefore, appear to have grabbed the headlines by connecting with these fears.

Proactive Regulation Needed Now

Mr Musk is reported as saying that a major concern should be the need for proactive rather than reactive regulation of the growth and development of AI in order to e.g. prevent self-driving car crashes, and to guard against serious job and employment disruption, and the knock-on effects of that as AI robots quickly learn to do things better than humans.

Automation Job Risk

The automation of jobs risk is widely believed to be a very real one. For example, University of Oxford researchers found that 35% of UK jobs will be at risk of automation over the next two decades, and PwC research in March this year put the likely figure in a similar ball-park at just over 30%. The PwC research also identified jobs in manufacturing, manual work, and to an extent, transportation as areas most at risk to job replacement by automation e.g. AI robots.

Governments as Mediators

Some technical commentators have responded to Mr Musk’s less optimistic vision of unregulated AI by suggesting that governments could help guard against the risk by acting as mediators to ensure the best use of the technology (for the public). Others have added to Mr Musk’s concerns by suggesting that a worrying situation, such as using AI to mask unethical human activities e.g. mass population control through the use of so-called ‘propaganda bots’ is a real possibility in an unregulated a environment.

Nothing To Worry About … Just Yet …

Those people who are already worried about the speed of AI development, and potential dangers of intelligent rogue AI robots may have been heartened to read recently about the impressive-looking security robot tasked with patrolling an office building in Washington DC that ended up driving itself into a water feature because it couldn’t recognise stairs or water.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Although Mr Musk’s comments have gained headlines by tapping into the more sensational fears about dangerous, intelligent robots attacking humans, the underlying story has highlighted important and real-world concerns about the growth of automation and the changes it will bring to the labour market.

Most businesses are likely to be affected by some aspect of automation e.g. software or mechanical, in the near future, either themselves of through suppliers and stakeholders. There is an inevitability that AI and robotics will alter what jobs look like in the future, but it is also important to remember that they could provide huge advantages and opportunities for businesses.
Regulation of the growth of AI is a sensible measure, and workers can try to insulate themselves from the worst effects of automation by seeking more education / lifelong learning, and by trying to remain positive towards and adapting to changes.

How much automation and what kind of automation individual businesses adopt will, of course, depend upon a cost / benefit analysis compared to human workers, and whether automation is appropriate and is acceptable to their customers.