Fourteen alleged operators of technical support scams were ordered to pay more than $5.1 million in default judgments, in multiple judgments filed by the U.S. District Court in New York City, said an FTC news release Thursday (http://1.usa.gov/1x7aOKi). According to each of the six judgments, defendants failed to respond to the FTC’s complaints, causing the court to enter the default judgments against them. The defendants were charged with posing as major computer companies and obtaining fees from consumers to fix false malware problems on their computers, the FTC said. “The default judgments permanently ban the defendants from marketing any computer security-related technical support service,” the FTC said. “The judgments also ban them from continuing their deceptive tactics and from disclosing, selling or failing to dispose of information they obtained from victims."

British consumers believe they can’t do without the Internet or their mobile phones, says a study released Tuesday by the U.K. regulator Ofcom (http://bit.ly/1rxPaB4). The study examined which communications services U.K. consumers consider “essential” in their day-to-day lives and whether they're affordable, particularly for low-income homes. For the purposes of the research, Ofcom defined “essential” as having four main “functions": (1) Safety and access to emergency services; (2) Communication and social inclusion; (3) Access to information, education and entertainment; and (4) Importance to economic livelihood, such as through gaining access to job opportunities and meeting the expectations set by employers. “There was broad consensus among consumers on what ‘essential’ means in relation to communications services,” Ofcom said. Overall, the study said telephone voice services and Internet access were most essential to U.K. consumers. More than six in 10 consumers rated voice services, mobile or landline, as essential, while 59 percent considered mobile voice or text services as essential, and 57 percent regarded personal Internet access as essential. The study also said certain services “are considered essential by some, but less important by others, with age being a key factor,” it said. For example, landline telephone services are considered essential by 61 percent of people aged 75 and older compared with just 12 percent of 16- to 24-year-olds, it said. However, accessing the Internet via a smartphone was considered essential to 53 percent of 16- to 24-year-olds, but to no one 75 and older, it said. As for the affordability of essential communications services, among those consumers who said they were responsible for paying the bills, 86 percent reported never having had problems meeting the costs, it said. “This is consistent with previous Ofcom research showing that consumers had benefitted from falling prices and an increase in choice and quality over the last 10 years.” Of the 14 percent who reported having problems paying for communications services, a “small minority” (2 percent) said they have been in debt or fallen behind on payments while trying to manage their telecom costs, Ofcom said. “The high take-up of essential communication services shows that, in most cases, cost is not a barrier to use.” The survey found that 95 percent of British homes own at least one mobile phone, 84 percent have a landline and 82 percent an Internet connection, it said. “But for some consumers, particularly those in low-income households, cost is a reason for not having a desired service.” Ofcom cited the particular example of broadband, with 7 percent of consumers saying they would like to have broadband but don’t because of the cost. For the study, Ofcom canvassed about 2,000 British adults in March and April.

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 U.K.’s four largest fixed-line ISPs have implemented measures allowing users to block Web-based content at a network level, said an Ofcom report released Tuesday (http://bit.ly/UlH1RC). The move came after the four ISPs -- BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media -- made an agreement with the British government to provide such filtering services, said Ofcom, an independent regulator and competition authority for the U.K. communications industries.

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.

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."