openrightsgroup.org/app/upload…
Download

To Sir Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

To Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Deputy Prime Minister

As organisations and individuals concerned with health functioning of democracy, we welcomed the commitment in the Kings Speech to “strengthen the integrity of elections”. We are therefore writing to alert you to the potential for abuse of new powers in the Data Use and Access Bill to remove constraints on the way that political parties use data, and urge you to ensure amendments to prevent such abuse.

Clauses 70(4) and 71(5)¹ give the Secretary of State discretion to determine and vary the conditions under which personal data can be processed. We note the 3rd Report of the House of Lords Constitution Committee stated that they “are not satisfied that the case has been sufficiently made to entrust the powers in these clauses to secondary legislation.”²

The new Henry VIII powers would allow any future government to change the rules with minimal parliamentary oversight. Such changes could be timed to advantage the governing party of the day, for example by allowing practices it was ready to deploy, while other parties were not.

They could also be passed in such a manner that there was little or no time for the ICO or Electoral Commission to issue guidance to Political Parties on any new ‘legitimate interest’ basis for a political party to process voter data for election purposes. This would undermine the integrity of elections.

The use of data by parties is very difficult to enforce. The ICO has struggled to be critical or enforce against practices except in extreme circumstances, precisely because it needs a close relationship with political parties³. Moreover, political parties have limited resources, but live in a high stakes environment; they are under pressure do whatever they can do win elections. This can lead, as Open Rights Group recently found, to poor security and to unethical profiling and data mining of voters, unethical attempts to obtain commercial data sets, as well as questionable use of online advertising techniques.⁴

Any future government will be under internal party pressure to loosen the rules on use of personal data, in order to further any advantage they may have. The powers in the bill give those future governments the means to do so, and to time these changes in such a way that other parties cannot respond. The Bill increases the likelihood of looser rules, undermining democratic trust, by making trivially easy for a government to rewrite them to their short term advantage.

We hope we can work with you to amend the law to ensure how parties process political data can’t be changed with a statutory instrument.

Signed by

Unlock Democracy
Fair Vote UK
Big Brother Watch
Keep Our NHS Public
Open Rights Group
Privacy International
Good Law Project

Prof Vian Bakir, 
Professor of Journalism & Political Communication, Bangor University
Prof Angela Daly, Professor of Law and Technology, University of Dundee
Prof Charlotte Heath-Kelly, Professor of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick

¹ https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0179/240179.pdf

²publications.parliament.uk/pa/…publications.parliament.uk/pa/… paragraph 13

³ https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/2259371/investigation-into-data-analytics-for-political-purposes-update.pdf

⁴ Moral Hazard: Voter Data Privacy and Politics in Election Canvassing Apps, (January 2025) Open Rights Group openrightsgroup.org/publicatio…

Briefing: Henry VIII powers threaten democracy and UK adequacy

Read ORG’s briefing on executive powers in the Data Use and Access Bill.
Find out more

Data and Democracy

Data and Democracy

Find Out More

Become a member
Join the movement

openrightsgroup.org/publicatio…

Democracy organisations, privacy groups and academics have written to government ministers to warn that powers in the Data Use and Access (DUA) Bill could threaten the integrity of future elections.

0

The draft Bill includes ‘Henry VIII’ powers that could allow a government to make changes to how political parties use the public’s data without having to pass a new law. Clauses 70(4) and 71(5) give the Secretary of State discretion to determine and vary the conditions under which personal data can be processed.

JOint Letter

HENRY VIII powers in Data Use and Access Bill could undermine election integrity
Read now

Executive powers and electoral integrity

These changes could be timed to the advantage of the governing party over its opponents – for example to allow practices that the ruling political party was ready to deploy. The signatories have pointed out that if such changes were made prior to an election, there may be insufficient time for the ICO or Electoral Commission to issue guidance to Political Parties on any new ‘recognized legitimate interest’ basis for a political party to process voter data for election purposes. This could undermine the integrity of a General Election.

A House of Lords Select Committee has shared similar concerns. The 3rd Report of the House of Lords Constitution Committee stated that they “are not satisfied that the case has been sufficiently made to entrust the powers in these clauses to secondary legislation.”

James Baker, Programme Manager at Open Right Group said:

“Political parties are stuck in an arms race as to how they can use data to reach and influence potential voters in order to win elections.

“It’s therefore vital that there are clear and fair rules for how political parties are allowed to use our data. Any changes to these rules must be properly scrutinized by parliament.

“This not just about how our data is being used, it’s about the future of our democracy. At a time when public trust in politicians is low, the Government must act to prevent the Data Bill enabling future abuses of power.”

Tom Brake, Director of Unlock Democracy said:

“A few months before the General Election, Lucy Powell MP, now the Leader of the House, talked of Labour’s commitment to “doing legislation better”, with “better planning, better drafting and better scrutiny”. The Henry VIII powers contained in the Bill mean the DUA Bill fails to deliver on those commitments. It must be amended so that it does.”

The letter’s signatories are calling on ministers to amend the Bill to ensure powers to create a statutory instrument to create a recognized legitimate interest basis for sharing personal data can’t be applied to political parties.

Notes to Editor

Henry VIII power are delegated legislative powers that allow the government to override or amend legislation through statutory instruments (SIs). These are passed without meaningful parliamentary scrutiny and no SI has been rejected by the House of Commons since 1979”.

The DUA Bill contains 87 examples of such powers. Read ORG’s briefing on this here.

Last year, an Open Right Group report highlighted the challenges in enforcing how political parties use our data. Moral Hazard: Voter Data Privacy and Politics in Election Canvassing Apps raised concerns about the privacy and security of canvassing apps used by political parties, and raised the question of whether voters’ data is being used unlawfully.

Briefing: Henry VIII powers threaten democracy and UK adequacy

Read ORG’s briefing on executive powers in the Data Use and Access Bill.
Find out more

Data and Democracy

Data and Democracy

Find Out More

Digital Privacy

Hands Off Our Data

Find Out More

Become a member
Join the movement

openrightsgroup.org/press-rele…

We’re not your lawyers and this article isn’t legal advice. Talk to your attorney before taking any legal action.

Paramount executives are currently grappling with the decision of whether to settle President Donald Trump’s $20 billion lawsuit against the media conglomerate’s CBS News unit for allegedly editing an interview in favor of Kamala Harris. Companies including ABC’s parent, Disney, and Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta have already settled Trump’s legally dubious claims.

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr has opened an investigation into CBS’ alleged “distortion” in conjunction with Trump’s lawsuit against Paramount, and has even threatened media outlets’ license renewals pending compliance with the administration’s policies. Paramount executives reportedly fear that Trump’s FCC will block its proposed merger with movie studio Skydance if it doesn’t settle Trump’s lawsuit.

Yet, The Wall Street Journal has reported that at least some Paramount executives are hesitant to write a check. Not because they care about the First Amendment or the precedent that settling would set for journalists. It’s because they’re scared of getting sued. As they should be — here’s why.

A settlement of a frivolous lawsuit by Trump to secure approval of a merger could amount to bribery. The case would be especially strong if Trump’s team has made clear to CBS, as it reportedly did to Meta before the social media platform settled its own litigation with Trump, that it needs to pay to play. Penalties can be imposed under both U.S. criminal law and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

But the Trump administration is unlikely to prosecute bribes it solicits. So the burning question (and the one that’s likely giving those executives cold feet) is: Can shareholders of Paramount, or other news publishers the administration extorts, do anything about it? After all, this is up to $20 billion of company funds we’re talking about.

The short answer is yes.

Shareholders can file what are known as derivative lawsuits when the company and therefore the values of their shares are harmed, even if the shareholders are not directly harmed. Any shareholder has the option to step into the shoes of Paramount and sue the board or officers on behalf of the company. The court docket would read Paramount v. Paramount.

That means shareholders who care about press freedom and want the press to thrive don’t need to worry about the economic implications of “suing the press” the way they might in other kinds of litigation. If the shareholder wins, the news outlet wins and recovers the monetary damages, not the shareholders.

Yes, the company might need to incur legal fees (although it can later sue to recover those from the executives), but in many cases that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the value recovered by holding executives accountable for waste and illegality.

A settlement of a frivolous lawsuit by Trump to secure approval of a merger could amount to bribery.

There are a few important legal requirements to be able to file a derivative suit. For example, one must be a shareholder at the time of the settlement and throughout the entire lawsuit. Selling all of one’s shares at any point in the process would invalidate the suit.

Technically, shareholders must also file a presuit demand letter on the company. This is a letter demanding that the board of directors bring the suit themselves instead of the shareholders. We say “technically” because filing this letter can be a strategic mistake that can cost the lawsuit, and there are exceptions to the requirement that can help avoid the land mines. It’s important to consult your lawyer about this requirement.

Importantly, if a court agrees that the settlement payment constitutes an illegal bribe, company officials cannot claim that paying was in the company’s best interests. An illegal act like bribery negates such defenses. The “business judgment rule,” which generally requires courts to refrain from second-guessing corporate officers’ good faith decisions, does not apply to bribery.

Derivative suits — and board elections — are the only real tools available to shareholders to keep their company executives in check. On their face, derivative suits seem complex and difficult to maintain, but in practice they’re an effective tool for regulating the behaviors of company officials.

For example, Trump ally and former casino boss Steve Wynn — another fan of frivolous defamation lawsuits against the press — knows a thing or two about shareholder’s derivative suits. Wynn Resorts’ officers and directors, including Wynn, agreed to pay $41 million in 2019 following a derivative shareholder suit for their failure to stop Wynn’s alleged sexual misconduct. It meant that the officers and directors, and not the shareholders, incurred the losses the company faced due to their wrongdoing.

At the end of the day, Paramount and its shareholders will be severely affected by a bribe costing even a fraction of the $20 billion Trump’s lawsuit demands, especially if paying off the government undermines CBS’ ability to report on it effectively or otherwise harms its reputation and reduces its viewership.

If those costs are borne by the company itself and not its directors, they could even lead to budget and job cuts, harming CBS journalists and journalism. It would also establish a dangerous precedent: that this administration can abuse its power to pressure media companies into doing its bidding.

Filing a derivative claim immediately after any settlement takes place could not only help shareholders minimize damages to media companies but also could help put a stop to these arguably illegal and definitely unethical settlement agreements. Corporate executives know that — they’re hoping you don’t.

freedom.press/issues/how-share…

Henry VIII clauses are delegated legislative powers that allow the government to override or amend primary legislation as it was enacted by Parliament.

The Data Use and Access Bill makes extensive use of delegated legislative powers and Henry VIII powers: if the Data Bill were to be approved as it is, it would provide 87 quasi-arbitrary powers that the government and its Ministers could use to modify key aspects of UK data protection law via Statutory Instrument.

Briefing

Read ORG’s briefing on executive powers in the Data Use and Access Bill.
Download Now

The Data Bill’s delegated legislative powers are ripe for abuse:

• They lack meaningful parliamentary scrutiny: “no SI has been rejected by the House of Commons since 1979”.¹

• The 3rd Report of the House of Lords Constitution Committee stated that they “are not satisfied that the case has been sufficiently made to entrust the powers in these clauses to secondary legislation.”²

• In general, Henry VIII powers do, in the words of the House of Lords, “make it harder for Parliament to scrutinise the policy aims of the bill and can raise concerns about legal certainty”.³ The same report also states that these powers should, “be recognised as constitutionally anomalous”, and their use acceptable “only where there is an exceptional justification and no other realistic way of ensuring effective governance”.

This would allow governments to change primary legislation according to the politics of the day, undermining trust in digital verification services and endangering democratic safeguards. It would also introduce significant risks for the retaining of the UK adequacy status: either these powers would never be used, and thus they don’t need be provided, or they would be used in ways that would guarantee the invalidation of the UK adequacy decision.

Digital Verification Services: mission creep and enforced state monopoly

Clauses 28 and 29 give the government the power to prepare and publish “the DVS trust framework” and “supplementary codes”, which sets out rules concerning the provision of digital verification services, Further, Clause 34 provides the power to refuse registration in the DVS register, and Clause 45 allows to mandate data sharing from public bodies to registered DVS providers.

In a previous iteration of the Bill, Clause 45 would have required Ministers to use their powers to force public bodies to disclose to a DVS provider whether a person had changed their sex. This provision has been removed from the Bill, but the arbitrary nature of this power means that Ministers couldrequire at their sole discretion disclosure of sensitive characteristics such as gender, ethnicity or health conditions. This includes data sharing mandates with the Department of Work and Pension, the Home Office or HM Revenue Service to run background checks on any kind of information or attribute held by public bodies or DVS providers.

Likewise, there is nothing in the Data Bill that would prevent Ministers from imposing burdensome, unreasonable or otherwise arbitrary requirements on DVS providers. This, for instance, could happen if the government was interested in favouring the adoption of its public digital identity system, such as One Login or GOV.UK Wallet, over private providers of DVS services.

Erosion of democratic safeguards and integrity of elections

Clause 70 introduce new legal bases for processing, known as “recognised legitimate interests”, while Clause 71 would introduce exemptions to the purpose limitation principle, known as “list of compatible purposes”.

These powers could be used to undermine the integrity of our elections. Any party in power could change the rules around how electoral data is used just months before an election takes place. Opposition parties might worry Labour (whose election database runs on Experian, the credit agency servers) might use these powers to self-preference themselves and obtain even more access to commercial data.

These powers could also be used to enable and legalise a US-style mass seizure of government data by an unconstitutional agency like DOGE. Whereas DOGE’s misappropriation of government datasets is being successfully challenged on privacy law grounds in the US, a future, “rogue” UK government would only need to lay Statutory Instruments that authorise the illegal appropriation of government data to make their misuse legal. This weakens UK data protection law’s ability to protect the public during the event of a constitutional crisis, and make it easier to by-pass Whitehall departmental decision-making processes that operate under a cabinet style of Government.

Endangering UK adequacy and relationships with the EU

Clause 74 would empower the government to designate categories of data which are not to be considered as “special categories data”, also known as sensitive data. Further, schedule 7 would empower the government to authorise transfers of personal data to third countries on a purely discretionary basis.

If these powers were to be used, at any time, to authorise personal data transfers to a country that does not enjoy adequacy status from the EU, or to restrict the definition of special category data, this would guarantee the revocation or annulment of the UK adequacy status.

These powers were also identified by the EU stakeholders as a main source of concern regarding the continuation of the UK adequacy decision, whose review is due in December 2025. The House of Lords inquiry into UK adequacy concluded that “lawful bases for data processing and the ability to designate legitimate interests by secondary legislation made by Ministers” constituted a significant concern for EU stakeholders and the continuation of the UK adequacy decision.⁴ Henry VIII powers were also identified by the European Parliament review of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement as a potential barrier to the functioning of such agreement.⁵

Conclusion and recommendations

Henry VIII clauses introduce unacceptable risks, and are being introduced in the absence of a meaningful justification.

The government has generally argued that these powers would allow ministers to update the law and to adapt it to technological progress. This statement does not hold to scrutiny: the UK GDPR is already principle based and allows both the ICO and the Court System to adapt the interpretation of UK data protection law to a changing reality. Independent regulators and Courts are better suited than the government at doing that, since they are independent and non-partisan. Further, Henry VIII clauses allow Ministers to override Primary legislation: the stated intent of using such a wide-ranging power to merely update legal provisions is suspicious and should be rejected as an unacceptable attempt to interfere with the role of Parliament.

We recommend MPs to reject Clauses 70, 71, 74, 80, 85 and Schedule 7. Further, we recommend MPs to bring Clauses 28, 29, 34 and 45 back to the drawing board in order to introduce meaningful limits to the government discretion when regulating DVS providers.

¹ The Hansard Society, Delegated legislation: the problems with the process, p.16, at: hansardsociety.org.uk/publicat…

² House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, 3rd Report of Session 2024–25, Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL], p.4 paragraph 13, at: publications.parliament.uk/pa/…

³ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Democracy Denied? The urgent need to rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive, at: publications.parliament.uk/pa/…

⁴ Lord Ricketts, Letter to Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP re: UK-EU data adequacy, at: committees.parliament.uk/publi…

⁵ Opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (10.10.2023) within REPORT on the implementation of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, at: europarl.europa.eu/doceo/docum…

Joint letter

Henry VIII powers in Data Use and Access Bill could undermine election integrity
Find out more

Data and Democracy

Data and Democracy

Find Out More

Become a member
Join the movement

openrightsgroup.org/publicatio…

Digital rights campaigners, Open Rights Group (ORG) have responded to the publication of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill.

ORG’s Platform Power Programme Manager James Baker said:

“ORG welcomes legislation to protect and improve the UK’s cyber security. But a key component of any cyber security strategy has to be the promotion of strong encryption for both the state and the public.

“The UK cannot claim to be strengthening the country’s cyber defences while at the same time issuing notices to companies like Apple and demanding that they reduce the security of the services they offer.

“This Bill is also an opportunity to assess and reduce the UK’s dependence on large US corporations for vital government infrastructure. Other countries – such as France and the Netherlands – are already debating how to do this, through open source software for example. The UK is subject to the same risks so needs to assess our dependence in the same way.”

Petition: keep our apple data encrypted

Stop the Home Office from putting our security at risk by demanding a backdoor into Apple’s encrypted services
Sign the petition

Mass Surveillance

Save Encryption

Find Out More

Become a member
Join the movement

openrightsgroup.org/press-rele…

Joe and James discuss ICE’s seizure of Fulbright scholar Rümeysa Öztürk on the streets of Somerville for co-writing an oped and the Trump administration’s endorsement of Signal, why you should use it and why they shouldn’t. To help Rümeysa Öztürk, check the links at the bottom.

youtube.com/embed/i3Y9ajg_rSM?…

Sign up to our newsletter to get notified of new events or volunteer. Join us on:

• Mastodon;
• Facebook;
• Blue Sky;
• Twitter.

Some links we mentioned:

• Justice for Rümeysa Öztürk;
• Op-ed: Try again, President Kumar: Renewing calls for Tufts to adopt March 4 TCU Senate resolutions;
• Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal;
• What is Signal, the messaging app at the heart of a US security leak?
• Signal App.

Image Credit: James O’Keefe, CC-By-SA-4.0

masspirates.org/blog/2025/03/3…

In his short time as chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr has made so many MAGA moves contradicting what he’s previously claimed to believe in that it’s hard to pick the most hypocritical one. But high on the list is his decision to reopen the “news distortion” investigation into CBS over the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, based on a complaint by the right-wing Center for American Rights.

The sham investigation is one of the many ways that Carr has used the FCC “to intimidate media organizations, influence editorial decisions, and suppress speech that’s critical of the administration,” as explained by a recent letter led by Public Knowledge and joined by Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and other rights groups.

We’re not the only ones who think so. In an unprecedented move, Carr invited the public to weigh in on the CBS investigation, and they did. In addition to thousands of individual comments, groups on the right and the left, as well as nonpartisan organizations, expressed their views.

Many comments, including some from current and former journalists, highlighted how Carr is abusing FCC’s authority, chilling press freedom, and setting up conservative media for future regulatory retaliation. Here are excerpts from some of the best comments on those themes.

Current and former journalists tell Carr why he’s wrong:

• Christopher Terry and J. Israel Balderas, former broadcast journalists (reply comments): “The spectacle of government officials — many of whom couldn’t edit a 30-second news package if their careers depended on it — presuming to second-guess professional journalists’ editorial judgments would be laughable if it weren’t so constitutionally abhorrent. This proceeding isn’t about protecting the public from ‘distortion.’ It’s about intimidating journalists who don’t toe the preferred political line.”
• Javier Manjarres, publisher of The Floridian: “I’ve had the privilege of covering policy and politics for over a decade, interviewing dozens of conservative leaders and publishing countless articles. I firmly believe that conservatives win by countering bad ideas with better ones — not by inviting government bureaucrats to referee political media battles.”
• Christopher Arps, NewsTalkSTL host and NewsMax contributor: “If the FCC starts injecting itself as an arbiter of what is considered fair or biased and begins using that judgment as an impetus to regulate major news networks based on their editorial choices, we are no better than the ‘big brother’ government oppressors we have proudly stood up against under Democrat administrations.”

Carr’s abuse of the FCC’s authority:

• American Civil Liberties Union: “Baseless investigations are intended to scare those entities being investigated. And this investigation is just one of many that Chairman Carr has threatened since taking the Chairmanship. He has also threatened investigations against PBS/NPR, Comcast/NBC, and KCBS. Together, these investigations into disfavored media outlets send a message: say what we want you to say, or you will have to spend your resources defending yourself instead of reporting.”
• Center for Democracy and Technology: “This proceeding is not about news distortion. The publication of the full transcript and unedited video of the interview at issue lays that fact bare. CDT is concerned that the FCC’s reinstatement of this complaint is part of a systematic effort to extract favorable news coverage of the current Administration and negative coverage of its political opponents from broadcast journalists, contravening the First Amendment and exceeding the FCC’s authority over broadcast licensees.”
• Public Knowledge: “The timing and nature of these actions suggest that the technical machinery of media regulation might be transforming into something more problematic: a powerful lever that administrations can pull to intimidate media organizations they view as unfavorable — and thus undermine the very same democratic principles these independent agencies were designed to uphold.”
• The Media Institute: “The FCC simply cannot, and should not, set itself up to be an overseer of countless editorial decisions by news organizations. … Such a sweeping and constitutionally impaired role for the FCC was never the rationale for the policy, and it should not be routinely invoked at this time as a means of chilling or even outright censoring news coverage the government finds objectionable.”
• Former FCC Commissioners: “By reopening this complaint, the Commission is signaling to broadcasters that it intends to act at the behest of the White House by closely scrutinizing the content of news coverage and threatening the regulatory licenses of broadcasters whose news outlets produce coverage that does not pass muster in the President’s view.”

The investigation’s chilling impact on journalism and free speech:

• Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression: “There is a name for this kind of thing — it is called a show trial. When proceedings become a performative exercise conducted to further a political purpose, they forfeit any claim to legitimacy. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than corrective and are designed to send a message, not just to their unfortunate victims, but as a warning to other would-be transgressors.”
• Free Press (Reply Comment): “The very material burden this spectacle imposes on journalists cannot be overstated. As Commissioner Gomez has noted, the Commission’s speech-restrictive actions have already prompted broadcasters to tell ‘their reporters to be careful about how they cover stories because they fear government retribution.’ This is precisely the chilling effect … that the First Amendment guards against.”
• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: “Interference by any regulatory body into the editorial judgments of journalists and news organizations threatens to both suppress news in the public interest and to interfere with the flow of information that the electorate needs to oversee the government.”
• Center for Democracy and Technology: “It does not matter if the FCC closes this proceeding without a finding that CBS violated FCC law or policy: the damage has been done. The reinstatement of the complaint and opening of this proceeding are intimidation tactics intended to pressure a news organization into providing the type and style of coverage that those currently holding political power would prefer.”

The impact on other news outlets, including conservative ones:

• Fair Media Council: “Ultimately, it must be noted that to curtail, chill, pressure or outlaw freedom of speech or of the press at any one particular network or outlet, or simply attempt to, will result in a trickle-down effect throughout all American media outlets, regardless of platform or channel: CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, PBS, CW, NewsMax, NewsNation, One America News Network and the Christian Broadcasting Network, to name but a few, will be directly and irrevocably impacted.”
• Radio Television Digital News Association: “Make no mistake — once journalistic independence is eroded, the media will be ripe for abuse without regard for party or politics.”
• TechFreedom: “Finally, if the new standard for triggering a news distortion analysis is that any edits of raw interview video can be subject to challenge, then the FCC will spend the next four years, at least, fielding dozens, hundreds, thousands of news distortion complaints. … The news distortion complaint process will be weaponized by both political parties, and the business of the FCC will grind to a halt as it will have to assign more and more FTEs to processing these complaints.”
• Javier Manjarres, publisher of The Floridian: “The pendulum of political power shifts over time, and this action would set a dangerous precedent, allowing future Democratic administrations to target conservative media. If the FCC intervenes now, it is only a matter of time before media publishers like me find ourselves in the crosshairs.”

freedom.press/issues/fccs-inve…

Недавно Сеть цифровых технологий (DTN) Совета директоров ООН приняла 8 Принципов открытого исходного кода. Пиратская партия России с самого начала своего существования выступает за открытость, включая открытость исходного кода, и международную интеграцию, в связи с чем мы решили присоединиться к этой важной инициативе, положительно влияющей на развитие всего человечества в широком смысле.

При принятии решений мы руководствуемся принципами прямой электронной демократии и метаполитичности. На Съезде, органе прямого управления, состоящем из всех членов партии, 81% голосов был отдан за присоединение.

Принципы открытого исходного кода ООН состоят из восьми руководящих принципов, которые предлагают основу для использования, разработки и распространения программного обеспечения с открытым исходным кодом в рамках всей организации:

1. Открытость по умолчанию: превращение открытого исходного кода в стандартный подход к проектам.
2. Внесение вклада: поощрение активного участия в экосистеме открытого исходного кода.
3. Безопасность по умолчанию: обеспечение безопасности как приоритета во всех программных проектах.
4. Содействие инклюзивному участию и построению сообщества: обеспечение и содействие разнообразному и инклюзивному вкладу.
5. Проектирование с учётом возможности повторного использования: разработка проектов, совместимых с различными платформами и экосистемами.
6. Предоставление документации: предоставление подробной документации для конечных пользователей, интеграторов и разработчиков.
7. RISE (признавать, стимулировать, поддерживать и расширять возможности): расширение прав и возможностей отдельных лиц и сообществ для активного участия.
8. Устойчивость и масштабирование: поддержка разработки решений, отвечающих меняющимся потребностям системы ООН и за ее пределами.

Мы будем руководствоваться этими принципами в своей деятельности и всемерно пропагандировать их наравне с Целями устойчивого развития и другими инициативами ООН. Мы призываем всех активно участвовать в стирании границ, стремиться к созданию и развитию инструментов и ресурсов для построения более справедливого мира, сохранения существующих и создания новых возможностей, и помнить, что изменения в цифровой эре начинаются с нажатия одной кнопки. Например, кнопки «Вступить в ППР».

Сообщение Пиратская партия России присоединилась к поддержке Принципов открытого исходного кода ООН появились сначала на Пиратская партия России | PPRU.