Two British members of Parliament (MPs) are challenging the legality of the government’s Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIP), said a new release from civil liberties advocate Liberty (http://bit.ly/1mAq900). The organization will seek the judicial review on behalf of the MPs, David Davis and Tom Watson, it said. The group said it will argue the law violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. DRIP was unanimously approved last week by the House of Lords after passing the House of Commons with some opposition (CD July 18 p16). The bill requires Internet and phone companies to retain customer data for 12 months and starts a government review of its surveillance programs, but privacy advocates have argued other elements of the bill expand the government’s surveillance power (CD July 16 p15).

The House of Lords unanimously passed the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers (DRIP) bill Thursday, after a day of debate Wednesday (http://bit.ly/1nB8XI4). The administration backed the legislation and the bill has already passed the House of Commons (CD July 16 p14), meaning Thursday’s vote clears the bill to become law. DRIP would require Internet and phone companies to retain customer data for 12 months, replacing the EU data retention directive, recently felled by the European Court of Justice (CD July 14 p15). The bill, which has moved forward on an accelerated timeline, would also limit access to communications data, begin talks with the U.S. about cross-border data exchanges and launch a years-long review of British surveillance programs. The British government has argued the bill is necessary to effectively curtail crime, both foreign and domestic, while privacy advocates have countered the bill is a way to expand the government’s surveillance authority. “Instead of carefully reforming its surveillance powers, the U.K. government concocted an emergency to give it even wider access to the communications of millions of people at home and abroad,” said Izza Leghtas, Western Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch, after Thursday’s vote. “The British Parliament and public were denied the time to properly scrutinize this law, and there is no chance to overturn this appalling invasion of our privacy until 2016 at the earliest, if at all."

The financial sector must improve its cybersecurity to protect both the U.S. and consumers, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said at an Institutional Investor conference (http://1.usa.gov/1qfCjn9). “When credit card data is stolen, it disturbs lives and damages consumer confidence,” Lew said. “When trade secrets are robbed, it undercuts America’s businesses and undermines U.S. competitiveness. And successful attacks on our financial system would compromise market confidence, jeopardize the integrity of data, and pose a threat to financial stability.” Lew highlighted the Treasury Department’s work on executive order 13636 (http://1.usa.gov/1gcpbWo), and the resulting cybersecurity framework, developed in coordination with the Commerce Department and the private sector. But Congress must also do its part, Lew said. “Our laws do not do enough to foster information sharing and defend the public from digital threats,” Lew said. “We need legislation with clear rules to encourage collaboration and provide important liability protection.” The House recently passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (HR-624), and the Senate is now considering an analogous bill, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (S-2588) (CD July 9 p14). Verizon agrees with Lew on the importance of cybersecurity, said the telco on its blog (http://vz.to/1mkJQZD) after he visited its security operations center Tuesday in Ashburn, Va. (http://vz.to/1qKyJ0p).

Intelligence agencies’ surveillance programs are increasingly reliant on companies, lack proper transparency and are perhaps illegal under international law, said U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay in a report released Wednesday (http://bit.ly/1yqH5yH). “The very existence of a mass surveillance programme ... creates an interference with privacy,” the report said. “The onus would be on the State to demonstrate that such interference is neither arbitrary nor unlawful.” Practices in many nations show “a lack of adequate national legislation and/or enforcement, weak procedural safeguards, and ineffective oversight, all of which have contributed to a lack of accountability for arbitrary or unlawful interference in the right to privacy,” the report said. “There is a clear and pressing need for vigilance in ensuring the compliance of any surveillance policy or practice with international human rights law, including the right to privacy.” The report said countries should immediately review their own national laws for compliance with international human rights law. It also called for a multistakeholder process to codify more international norms for surveillance. Privacy advocates applauded the report. Human Rights Watch Senior Internet and Human Rights Researcher Cynthia Wong called it “a critical step to put the right to privacy on firm legal foundation for the digital age.” The U.K. should heed the report in light of its efforts this week (CD July 16 p20) to push through legislation requiring telecom companies to retain customer data for 12 months, Wong said.

The British House of Commons approved a fast-track timetable for data retention legislation by a 436-49 vote Tuesday, according to the Parliament’s website (http://bit.ly/1sV2ZqO). A vote is expected later this week on the measure, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill, said Privacy International in a Tuesday release (http://bit.ly/1jMAATG). DRIP (http://bit.ly/1qDNt0Z) would require British telecom companies to retain customer data for 12 months and codify who can access the data under what circumstances. The bill would replace the data retention directive recently struck down by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Privacy advocates have maintained the bill does not address the civil rights implications the ECJ cited in abolishing the European Union’s directive, and called on Parliament to have a more extensive discussion before passing any legislation (CD July 14 p15).

Tuesday, the British Parliament’s House of Commons will debate the controversial surveillance legislation the British government revealed last week, said a Parliament news release Monday (http://bit.ly/1sV2ZqO). The bill would require British telecom companies to retain user data for 12 months, down from the previous 24-month requirement (CD July 14 p15). But civil liberties advocates said the government is rushing through the provision in response to recent European Court of Justice decision to eliminate the European Data Retention Directive. “It is outrageous that instead of reforming its laws to address concerns about its involvement in mass surveillance, the UK government is renewing its powers to monitor the communications of people who aren’t suspected of breaking any laws,” said Izza Leghtas, Western Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch, in a Monday release (http://bit.ly/1maa5Sw). The House of Commons is expected to debate the measure, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, starting between 7:40 and 7:50 a.m. EDT, according to Parliament.

At least two of the big three broadcasters in South Korea, one of the few major markets outside North America to use the ATSC DTV broadcasting standard, “expressed their willingness to consider deploying ATSC 3.0 commercially” if the next-generation system is ready in time for the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang. That’s according to ATSC board member John Godfrey, Samsung Electronics America vice president-communications policy and regulatory affairs, who was part of an ATSC delegation that recently toured the facilities of the Seoul Broadcasting System and the Munhwa Broadcasting Corp. Representatives of SBS and MBC “told us that they are pushing ahead with Ultra HD terrestrial broadcast experiments using DVB-T2, but that’s only because it’s what’s available today,” ATSC’s monthly newsletter quoted Godfrey as saying in reference to Europe’s terrestrial DTV transmission system. SBS and MBC representatives “didn’t say they would definitely deploy ATSC 3.0, only that they would consider it,” Godfrey emphasized to us in an email. SBS and MBC representatives didn’t immediately comment. The ATSC delegation, Godfrey said, did not tour the facilities of the Korean Broadcasting System, which in presentations last fall described DVB-T2 as the best transmission system available today for 4K (CD Oct 2 p10). KBS has said it plans live 4K coverage of the 2014 Asian Games in Incheon, which open Sept. 19 for a 16-day run. In four years, KBS, like SBS and MBC, plan live 4K coverage of the Pyeongchang winter games, KBS has said. KBS and its terrestrial broadcast partners are targeting year-end 2015 for the official launch of commercial 4K broadcasts because “we have a sense of urgency about this,” it has said. Year-end 2015 also happens to be the time frame the ATSC has quoted for completing ATSC 3.0 as a “candidate standard” that then goes out for balloting among the ATSC membership. But ATSC has been vague in predicting the commercial or regulatory course that ATSC 3.0 will take after that. It has said it hopes ATSC 3.0 ultimately will be the basis of a single unified global DTV standard.

The British government will propose emergency legislation Monday to alter its data retention and communications intercept programs, according to a Thursday news release (http://bit.ly/1mSvsO8). The move is in response to a recent European Court of Justice ruling to eliminate the European Data Retention Directive, citing privacy and human rights issues, said Covington and Burling data protection lawyer Daniel Cooper. The ruling “left many unsure about the status of member state data retention rules,” he said by email Thursday night. Previously, the U.K. government had required telecom providers to retain data for 24 months. Its proposal Monday would implement a 12-month retention period, said Cooper. “Clearly, the government intends to plug that gap by passing similar provisions as a primary act of law.” Human Rights Watch (HRW) was angered by the tactic. “Given what we know about the UK’s involvement in mass surveillance, it is outrageous that the government wants to rush through emergency legislation that allows the government to monitor people not suspected of any wrongdoing,” said Izza Leghtas, Western Europe researcher with HRW. The civil rights advocate said the proposed legislation will expire in 2016. “A proper debate about how to reform surveillance powers is long overdue and it has to happen now, not in 2016,” Leghtas said. As part of its surveillance reforms, Cooper said the British government will propose to further restrict access to collected communications data, establish a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) similar to the American’s PCLOB and launch discussions with the U.S. government and Internet companies on cross-border data sharing. The British government also plans to start a review, to be completed by 2016, of its communications intercept law, he said. “Now, we will have to wait and see whether this legislation, when adopted, will be challenged as being incompatible with European privacy and human rights law."

China ratified the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (http://bit.ly/1nb3EyI) to strengthen the rights of performers in movie, TV and other audiovisual works, said a World Intellectual Property Organization news release (http://bit.ly/W0Hni0). WIPO said the treaty “will enter into force after 30 ratifications or accessions are presented to WIPO.” China was one of the first countries to ratify the treaty, said WIPO Director General Francis Gurry.

Representatives of British intelligence agencies will appear in public hearings next week to respond to a case brought by civil liberties advocates about the legality of British surveillance programs, said a Wednesday news release from Privacy International (http://bit.ly/1neJo3Y). Several groups, including Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union, collectively brought a case against British intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) “to challenge the UK government’s insistence that alleged operations involving bulk interception, collection, analysis and use of people’s communications, and related intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US, are lawful,” said Privacy International. Hearings will be Monday to Friday. IPT is a court created to hear cases regarding allegations of legal violations by British intelligence agencies. It will be the first time GCHQ officials have appeared in public to discuss their surveillance programs, Privacy International said.