Res Communis Blog RSS

FAA Statement–Notice to Airmen Issued for Ben Gurion International Airport

at 08:13 | Posted in: Aviation Law | Comments Off on FAA Statement–Notice to Airmen Issued for Ben Gurion International Airport

by

Source – FAA:

Press Release – FAA Statement–Notice to Airmen Issued for Ben Gurion International Airport

For Immediate Release
July 22, 2014
Contact: Kristie M. Greco
Phone: (202) 267-3883
At 12:15 EDT on July 22, 2014, the FAA issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) informing U.S. airlines that they are prohibited from flying to or from Israel’s Ben Gurion International Airport for a period of up to 24 hours. The notice was issued in response to a rocket strike which landed approximately one mile from Ben Gurion International Airport on the morning of July 22, 2014. The NOTAM applies only to U.S. operators, and has no authority over foreign airlines operating to or from the airport.
The FAA immediately notified U.S. carriers when the agency learned of the rocket strike and informed them that the agency was finalizing a NOTAM.
The FAA will continue to monitor and evaluate the situation. Updated instructions will be provided to U.S. airlines as soon as conditions permit, but no later than 24 hours from the time the NOTAM went into force.
The text of the NOTAM reads:
!FDC 4/3630 ZZZ PART 1 OF 2 SECURITY ISRAEL POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS SITUATION—ISRAEL AIRSPACE DUE TO THE POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS SITUATION CREATED BY THE ARMED CONFLICT IN ISRAEL AND GAZA, ALL FLIGHT OPERATIONS TO/FROM BEN GURION INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (LLBG) BY U.S. OPERATORS ARE PROHIBITED UNTIL FURTHER ADVISED. A. APPLICABILITY. THIS NOTAM APPLIES TO ALL U.S. AIR CARRIERS OR COMMERCIAL OPERATORS, ALL PERSONS EXERCISING THE PRIVILEGES OF AN AIRMAN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FAA EXCEPT SUCH PERSONS OPERATING U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FOR A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER, AND ALL OPERATORS OF AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT WHERE THE OPERATOR OF SUCH AIRCRAFT IS A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER. B. PERMITTED OPERATIONS. THIS NOTAM DOES NOT PROHIBIT PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A FROM CONDUCTING FLIGHT OPERATIONS WITHIN THE TERRITORY AND AIRSPACE OF ISRAEL WHEN SUCH OPERATIONS ARE AUTHORIZED EITHER BY ANOTHER AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE FAA OR BY AN EXEMPTION ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. 1407221615-1407231615EST END PART 1 OF 2
!FDC 4/3630 ZZZ PART 2 OF 2 SECURITY OPERATORS SHOULD CALL THE DOMESTIC EVENTS NETWORK (DEN) AT 202-493-5107 FOR AUTHORIZATION. C. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. IN AN EMERGENCY THAT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE DECISION AND ACTION FOR THE SAFETY OF THE FLIGHT, THE PILOT IN COMMAND OF AN AIRCRAFT MAY DEVIATE FROM THIS NOTAM TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY THAT EMERGENCY. THIS NOTAM WILL BE UPDATED WITHIN 24 HOURS, OPERATORS SHOULD CONTINUE TO MONITOR U.S. NOTAMS FOR CHANGES OR UPDATES. 1407221615-1407231615EST END PART 2 OF 2
###

EVENT: United Nations/China/APSCO Workshop on Space Law The Role of National Space Legislation in Strengthening the Rule of Law 17 to 21 November 2014, Beijing, China

at 08:54 | Posted in: Space Law Current Events | Comments Off on EVENT: United Nations/China/APSCO Workshop on Space Law The Role of National Space Legislation in Strengthening the Rule of Law 17 to 21 November 2014, Beijing, China

by

The United Nations/China/APSCO Workshop on Space Law: The Role of National Space Legislation in Strengthening the Rule of Law will be held on 17 to 21 November 2014 in Beijing, China. The application form is due on August 15, and there is more information in the Information Note.

H.R.5063: ASTEROIDS Act

at 08:41 | Posted in: Space Law | Comments Off on H.R.5063: ASTEROIDS Act

by

H.R.5063: ASTEROIDS Act was introduced on July 10, 2014 by Rep. Bill Posey:

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 5063 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5063

To promote the development of a commercial asteroid resources industry
for outer space in the United States and to increase the exploration
and utilization of asteroid resources in outer space.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 10, 2014

Mr. Posey (for himself and Mr. Kilmer) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To promote the development of a commercial asteroid resources industry
for outer space in the United States and to increase the exploration
and utilization of asteroid resources in outer space.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “American Space Technology for
Exploring Resource Opportunities In Deep Space Act” or the “ASTEROIDS
Act”.

SEC. 2. TITLE 51 AMENDMENT.

(a) In General.–Subtitle V of title 51, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:

“CHAPTER 513–ASTEROID RESOURCE EXPLORATION AND UTILIZATION

“Sec.
“51301. Commercialization of asteroid resource exploration and
utilization in outer space.
“51302. Legal framework.
“51303. Definitions.
“Sec. 51301. Commercialization of asteroid resource exploration and
utilization in outer space
“The President, through the Administration, the Federal Aviation
Administration, and other appropriate Federal agencies, shall–
“(1) facilitate the commercial exploration and utilization
of asteroid resources to meet national needs;
“(2) discourage government barriers to the development of
economically viable, safe, and stable industries for the
exploration and utilization of asteroid resources in outer
space in manners consistent with the existing international
obligations of the United States;
“(3) promote the right of United States commercial
entities to explore and utilize resources from asteroids in
outer space, in accordance with the existing international
obligations of the United States, free from harmful
interference, and to transfer or sell such resources; and
“(4) develop the frameworks necessary to meet the
international obligations of the United States.
“Sec. 51302. Legal framework
“(a) Property Rights.–Any resources obtained in outer space from
an asteroid are the property of the entity that obtained such
resources, which shall be entitled to all property rights thereto,
consistent with applicable provisions of Federal law.
“(b) Freedom From Harmful Interference.–As between any entities
over which the United States can exercise jurisdiction, any assertion
of superior right to execute specific commercial asteroid resource
utilization activities in outer space shall prevail if it is found to
be first in time, derived upon a reasonable basis, and in accordance
with all existing international obligations of the United States.
“(c) Safety of Operations.–A United States commercial asteroid
resource utilization entity shall avoid harmful interference to other
spacecraft.
“(d) Relief From Harmful Interference.–A United States commercial
asteroid resource utilization entity may bring an action for
appropriate legal or equitable relief, or both, under this chapter for
any action, by another private entity, compromising the right to
conduct its operations free of harmful interference.
“(e) Exclusive Jurisdiction.–The district courts of the United
States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an action under this
chapter without regard to the amount in controversy.
“Sec. 51303. Definitions
“For the purposes of this chapter:
“(1) State.–The term `State’ means any of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
“(2) United states commercial asteroid resource
utilization entity.–The term `United States commercial
asteroid resource utilization entity’ means a person or company
providing asteroid exploration or utilization services, the
control of which is held by persons other than a Federal,
State, local, or foreign government, that is–
“(A) duly organized under the laws of a State;
“(B) subject to the subject matter and personal
jurisdiction of the courts of the United States; or
“(C) a foreign entity that has voluntarily
submitted to the subject matter and personal
jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.”.
(b) Clerical Amendment.–The table of chapters for title 51, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the items for subtitle
V the following:

“513. Asteroid resource exploration and utilization…….. 51301”.

In Memoriam: Prof. Dr. Gennady P. Zhukov

at 08:38 | Posted in: Space Law | Comments Off on In Memoriam: Prof. Dr. Gennady P. Zhukov

by

Prof. Dr. Gennady P. Zhukov has passed away. The IISL website has a full obituary.

Prof. Dr Gennady P. Zhukov (1924-2014)
23 July 2014

The International Institute of Space Law is sad to note the passing of Prof. Dr Gennady P. Zhukov.

Prof. Zhukov served as a Vice President of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) for 15 years, finally becoming an Honorary Director of the Institute. He was awarded with a gold medal and a diploma from the International Astronautical Federation and the IISL respectively for his contributions to the scientific development of International space law issues.

In April 2014 his 90th birthday was celebrated in Moscow with a conference organised by the People’s Friendship University.

Library: A Round-up of Reading

at 08:59 | Posted in: Library | Comments Off on Library: A Round-up of Reading

by

Space Law
European Missile Defense and Russia – SSI

MISSILE DEFENSE: DOD's Report Provides Limited Insight on Improvements to Homeland Missile Defense and Acquisition Plans. GAO-14-626R

SpaceX’s lawsuit against the Air Force is gaining steam – Washington Post

Should Obama Take Executive Action on Drone Privacy? – US News & World Report

New Obama Sanctions Seem to Skirt Space Activities, But Future is Unknowable – Space Policy Online

Aviation Law
The Crashed Malaysia Airlines Plane Wasn’t the Only Jet in Ukraine’s Airspace – Wired

The Loss of MH17 Over Ukraine – Lawfare

Passenger rights rules lead to jump in U.S. airline citations – LA Times

Professors Oppose U.S. Curb on Commercial Drone Use – Wall Street Journal

Expert says launch business overblown – Orlando Sentinel

What the Weapon That May Have Downed Flight MH17 Looks Like In Action – Motherboard

Press Release – FAA Statement–Expanded Notice to Airmen Released – FAA

President Obama Responds to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 – The White House Blog

Malaysia Airlines 777 Shot Down Over Ukraine – Ask the Pilot

Statement by the Press Secretary on Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 – The White House

Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine – Dipnote

Liability for MH17 – Aviation Law Prof Blog

High-tech spycraft tracked missile’s path to Malaysia Airlines jet – Missile Threat

Geospatial Law
Harnessing Observations and Data about our Earth – OSTP

Cyberlaw
Guest Post: Would the USA Freedom Act End All Authorities for Bulk Collection? – Just Security

Germany Is Threatening the New Geocities over a Secret Censorship List – Motherboard

US National Guard is Getting Into Cyberwar – Schneier on Security

DHS 'Dos and Don'ts' on Cybersecurity – Wilson Center

Orla Lynskey, Deconstructing Data Protection: The ‘Added-Value’ of a Right to Data Protection in the EU Legal Order, International & Comparative Law Quarterly (Vol. 63, no. 3, July 2014)

FAA Statement on Malaysian Air Flight 17

at 08:58 | Posted in: Aviation Law | Comments Off on FAA Statement on Malaysian Air Flight 17

by

Source – FAA:

Press Release – FAA Statement on Malaysian Air Flight 17
Print
Share
For Immediate Release
July 17, 2014
Contact: Kristie M. Greco
Phone: (202) 267-3883
The FAA was in contact with US carriers following the crash of Malaysian Air Flight 17. The agency confirms that carriers have voluntarily agreed not to operate in the airspace near the Russian-Ukraine border. The FAA is monitoring the situation to determine whether further guidance is necessary.
Background
On April 3, the FAA issued a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) prohibiting U.S. flight operations until further notice in the airspace over the Crimean region of Ukraine, and portions adjacent to the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.
The NOTAM does not currently cover the airspace where Malaysian Air flight 17 crashed.
This action was taken due to the unilateral and illegal action by Russia to assert control over Crimean airspace, including international airspace administered by Ukraine without agreement by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
This creates the potential for conflicting air traffic control instructions from Ukrainian and Russian authorities and for the related potential misidentification of civil aircraft in this airspace. This prompted the FAA NOTAM for U.S. flights.
###

Event: Strategic Space Law Intensive Program

Source – McGill IASL:

Strategic Space Law Intensive Program
Event Share to:FacebookTwitterGoogle PlusEmail
27 Oct 2014 to31 Oct 2014
Chancellor Day Hall : 3644 rue Peel Montreal Quebec Canada , H3A 1W9
Price: $500
An intensive, interdisciplinary and interactive program designed for lawyers and other professionals in the defence services, international relations, government, international organizations, law firms, consulting firms and industry interested in studying space law from a strategic perspective.

Deadline to apply: 15 September 2014. Fee: 500$.

Download the program brochure and registration info. [.docx]

What is it?
The McGill University Institute of, and Centre for Research in, Air and Space Law, in partnership with the University of Adelaide Law School, is pleased to present the first ever Strategic Space Law Program. The aim of the program is to provide a unique opportunity for lawyers and other professionals in the defence services, international relations, government, international organisations, law firms, consulting firms and industry around the world to study space law in a strategic context. The Montreal program will be run as a one-week intensive, interdisciplinary, interactive workshop (non-assessable) at the Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University in October 2014. Thereafter, the program will be repeated in the form of a graduate course (assessable for academic credit) at the University of Adelaide Law School during the first semester of 2015. On both occasions, the substantive content of the program will be the same and will be delivered by world-class academics, legal and policy advisors and subject-matter experts drawn from government, civil society (including academia) and commerce.

Highlights
23 core lectures from experts on the principles and concepts involved in the various disciplines that touch on Strategic Space Law.
Hands-on workshops and practical exercises linked to lectures, on topics such as space traffic management, military use of spectrum, space debris and simulated legal, policy and commercial problem-solving and debate.
Social and other networking activities.
Professional visits to relevant sites (may include the Canadian Space Agency and Woomera launch site in South Australia).
Why study Strategic Space Law?
Today there are approximately 1,100 active satellites in orbit and the number of States directly involved in launching or operating satellites has grown substantially since the dawn of the space age. Even States that have no direct involvement in launching or operating satellites rely heavily on space infrastructure: for television, radio, banking, communications, transport, agriculture, mining, and especially for modern military services. Yet, those satellites are under increasing threat from 100,000s of pieces of space debris and increasing harmful radio interference. Furthermore, some States already possess counter-space weapons and other means capable of destroying or disrupting satellites and other States have plans to develop those capabilities. There is also greater competition for use of the limited radio frequency spectrum and prime orbital slots that are indispensable for the operation of all satellites.

Outer space is becoming more contested, congested and competitive. Concurrently, the global security situation generally is less certain. Financial and other constraints have made global powers more inward-looking and less likely to deploy forces globally – except through the sort of ‘remote reach’ capabilities that rely on space infrastructure (such as uninhabited aerial vehicles and cyber warfare). Secure, ongoing access to fossil fuels is a growing concern, yet all States are wary of the nuclear energy option and its relationship to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Ballistic missiles, as the means of delivery of nuclear weapons, involve space flight and ballistic missile defence also relies on space-based infrastructure. Thus, space is a key element in global security, yet it is also increasingly vulnerable.

Contact Information
Contact: Ms Maria D’Amico
Organization: Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University
Email: maria.damico@mcgill.ca
Office Phone: 1-514-398-5095

UK: Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014

at 08:05 | Posted in: Cyber Law | Comments Off on UK: Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014

by

Source – UK Parliament:

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014

2014 CHAPTER 27

An Act to make provision, in consequence of a declaration of invalidity made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to Directive 2006/24/EC, about the retention of certain communications data; to amend the grounds for issuing interception warrants, or granting or giving certain authorisations or notices, under Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; to make provision about the extra-territorial application of that Part and about the meaning of “telecommunications service” for the purposes of that Act; to make provision about additional reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner; to make provision about a review of the operation and regulation of investigatory powers; and for connected purposes.
[17th July 2014]

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Retention of relevant communications data

1Powers for retention of relevant communications data subject to safeguards

(1)The Secretary of State may by notice (a “retention notice”) require a public telecommunications operator to retain relevant communications data if the Secretary of State considers that the requirement is necessary and proportionate for one or more of the purposes falling within paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 22(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (purposes for which communications data may be obtained).

(2)A retention notice may—

(a)relate to a particular operator or any description of operators,

(b)require the retention of all data or any description of data,

(c)specify the period or periods for which data is to be retained,

(d)contain other requirements, or restrictions, in relation to the retention of data,

(e)make different provision for different purposes,

(f)relate to data whether or not in existence at the time of the giving, or coming into force, of the notice.

(3)The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the retention of relevant communications data.

(4)Such provision may, in particular, include provision about—

(a)requirements before giving a retention notice,

(b)the maximum period for which data is to be retained under a retention notice,

(c)the content, giving, coming into force, review, variation or revocation of a retention notice,

(d)the integrity, security or protection of, access to, or the disclosure or destruction of, data retained by virtue of this section,

(e)the enforcement of, or auditing compliance with, relevant requirements or restrictions,

(f)a code of practice in relation to relevant requirements or restrictions or relevant powers,

(g)the reimbursement by the Secretary of State (with or without conditions) of expenses incurred by public telecommunications operators in complying with relevant requirements or restrictions,

(h)the 2009 Regulations ceasing to have effect and the transition to the retention of data by virtue of this section.

(5)The maximum period provided for by virtue of subsection (4)(b) must not exceed 12 months beginning with such day as is specified in relation to the data concerned by regulations under subsection (3).

(6)A public telecommunications operator who retains relevant communications data by virtue of this section must not disclose the data except—

(a)in accordance with—

(i)Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (acquisition and disclosure of communications data), or

(ii)a court order or other judicial authorisation or warrant, or

(b)as provided by regulations under subsection (3).

(7)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision, which corresponds to any provision made (or capable of being made) by virtue of subsection (4)(d) to (g) or (6), in relation to communications data which is retained by telecommunications service providers by virtue of a code of practice under section 102 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

2Section 1: supplementary

(1)In this section and section 1—

“communications data” has the meaning given by section 21(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 so far as that meaning applies in relation to telecommunications services and telecommunication systems;
“functions” includes powers and duties;
“notice” means notice in writing;
“public telecommunications operator” means a person who—
(a)controls or provides a public telecommunication system, or
(b)provides a public telecommunications service;
“public telecommunications service” and “public telecommunication system” have the meanings given by section 2(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;
“relevant communications data” means communications data of the kind mentioned in the Schedule to the 2009 Regulations so far as such data is generated or processed in the United Kingdom by public telecommunications operators in the process of supplying the telecommunications services concerned;
“relevant powers” means any powers conferred by virtue of section 1(1) to (6);
“relevant requirements or restrictions” means any requirements or restrictions imposed by virtue of section 1(1) to (6);
“retention notice” has the meaning given by section 1(1);
“specify” means specify or describe (and “specified” is to be read accordingly);
“telecommunications service” and “telecommunication system” have the meanings given by section 2(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;
“telecommunications service provider” means a person who provides a telecommunications service;
“unsuccessful call attempt” means a communication where a telephone call has been successfully connected but not answered or there has been a network management intervention;
“the 2009 Regulations” means the provisions known as the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/859).
(2)“Relevant communications data” includes (so far as it otherwise falls within the definition) communications data relating to unsuccessful call attempts that—

(a)in the case of telephony data, is stored in the United Kingdom, or

(b)in the case of internet data, is logged in the United Kingdom,

but does not include data relating to unconnected calls or data revealing the content of a communication.
(3)Regulations under section 1(3) may specify the communications data that is of the kind mentioned in the Schedule to the 2009 Regulations and, where they do so, the reference in the definition of “relevant communications data” to communications data of that kind is to be read as a reference to communications data so specified.

(4)Any power to make regulations under section 1—

(a)is exercisable by statutory instrument,

(b)includes power to—

(i)confer or impose functions (including those involving the exercise of a discretion) on any person (including the Secretary of State),

(ii)make supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision,

(iii)make different provision for different purposes,

(c)may, so far as relating to provision about codes of practice, be exercised in particular by modifying the effect of sections 71 and 72 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (codes of practice in relation to certain powers and duties).

(5)A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 1 is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

Investigatory powers

3Grounds for issuing warrants and obtaining data

(1)Section 5 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (power to issue necessary and proportionate interception warrants in interests of national security, to prevent or detect serious crime or to safeguard the UK’s economic well-being) is amended as set out in subsection (2).

(2)In subsection (3)(c) (economic well-being of the UK), after “purpose” insert “, in circumstances appearing to the Secretary of State to be relevant to the interests of national security,”.

(3)Section 22 of that Act (power to obtain communications data in interests of national security, to prevent or detect serious crime, in interests of the UK’s economic well-being and for other specified purposes) is amended as set out in subsection (4).

(4)In subsection (2)(c) (economic well-being of the UK), after “United Kingdom” insert “so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”.

4Extra-territoriality in Part 1 of RIPA

(1)Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (communications) is amended as follows.

(2)In section 11 (implementation of interception warrants), after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A)A copy of a warrant may be served under subsection (2) on a person outside the United Kingdom (and may relate to conduct outside the United Kingdom).

(2B)Service under subsection (2) of a copy of a warrant on a person outside the United Kingdom may (in addition to electronic or other means of service) be effected in any of the following ways—

(a)by serving it at the person’s principal office within the United Kingdom or, if the person has no such office in the United Kingdom, at any place in the United Kingdom where the person carries on business or conducts activities;

(b)if the person has specified an address in the United Kingdom as one at which the person, or someone on the person’s behalf, will accept service of documents of the same description as a copy of a warrant, by serving it at that address;

(c)by making it available for inspection (whether to the person or to someone acting on the person’s behalf) at a place in the United Kingdom (but this is subject to subsection (2C)).

(2C)Service under subsection (2) of a copy of a warrant on a person outside the United Kingdom may be effected in the way mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2B) only if—

(a)it is not reasonably practicable for service to be effected by any other means (whether as mentioned in subsection (2B)(a) or (b) or otherwise), and

(b)the person to whom the warrant is addressed takes such steps as the person thinks appropriate for the purpose of bringing the contents of the warrant, and the availability of a copy for inspection, to the attention of the person outside the United Kingdom.

The steps mentioned in paragraph (b) must be taken as soon as reasonably practicable after the copy of the warrant is made available for inspection.”
(3)In subsection (4) of that section, after “that person” insert “(whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom)”.

(4)After subsection (5) of that section insert—

“(5A)Where a person outside the United Kingdom is under a duty by virtue of subsection (4) to take any steps in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom for giving effect to a warrant, in determining for the purposes of subsection (5) whether the steps are reasonably practicable for the person to take, regard is to be had (amongst other matters) to—

(a)any requirements or restrictions under the law of that country or territory relevant to the taking of those steps, and

(b)the extent to which it is reasonably practicable to give effect to the warrant in a way that does not breach any such requirements or restrictions.”

(5)In subsection (8) of that section, after “enforceable” insert “(including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom)”.

(6)In section 12 (maintenance of interception capability), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A)An obligation may be imposed in accordance with an order under this section on, and a notice under subsection (2) given to, persons outside the United Kingdom (and may be so imposed or given in relation to conduct outside the United Kingdom).

(3B)Where a notice under subsection (2) is to be given to a person outside the United Kingdom, the notice may (in addition to electronic or other means of giving a notice) be given to the person—

(a)by delivering it to the person’s principal office within the United Kingdom or, if the person has no such office in the United Kingdom, to any place in the United Kingdom where the person carries on business or conducts activities, or

(b)if the person has specified an address in the United Kingdom as one at which the person, or someone on the person’s behalf, will accept documents of the same description as a notice, by delivering it to that address.”

(7)In subsection (7) of that section—

(a)after “person” insert “(whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom)”, and

(b)after “enforceable” insert “(including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom)”.

(8)In section 22 (obtaining and disclosing communications data), after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A)An authorisation under subsection (3) or (3B), or a requirement imposed in accordance with a notice under subsection (4), may relate to conduct outside the United Kingdom (and any such notice may be given to a person outside the United Kingdom).

(5B)Where a notice under subsection (4) is to be given to a person outside the United Kingdom, the notice may (in addition to electronic or other means of giving a notice) be given to the person in any of the following ways—

(a)by delivering it to the person’s principal office within the United Kingdom or, if the person has no such office in the United Kingdom, to any place in the United Kingdom where the person carries on business or conducts activities;

(b)if the person has specified an address in the United Kingdom as one at which the person, or someone on the person’s behalf, will accept documents of the same description as a notice, by delivering it to that address;

(c)by notifying the person of the requirements imposed by the notice by such other means as the person giving the notice thinks appropriate (which may include notifying the person orally, except where the notice is one to which section 23A applies).”

(9)In subsection (6) of that section, after “operator” insert “(whether or not the operator is in the United Kingdom)”.

(10)In subsection (8) of that section, after “enforceable” insert “(including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom)”.

5Meaning of “telecommunications service”

In section 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (meaning of “interception” etc), after subsection (8) insert—
“(8A)For the purposes of the definition of “telecommunications service” in subsection (1), the cases in which a service is to be taken to consist in the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, a telecommunication system include any case where a service consists in or includes facilitating the creation, management or storage of communications transmitted, or that may be transmitted, by means of such a system.”

6Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner

(1)Section 58 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner) is amended as follows.

(2)In subsection (4) (annual reports), after “calendar year” insert “and after the end of the period of six months beginning with the end of each calendar year”.

(3)In subsection (6) (duty to lay annual reports before Parliament), after “annual report” insert “, and every half-yearly report,”.

(4)In subsection (6A) (duty to send annual reports to the First Minister), after “annual report” insert “, and every half-yearly report,”.

(5)In subsection (7) (power to exclude matter from annual reports), after “annual report” insert “, or half-yearly report,”.

7Review of investigatory powers and their regulation

(1)The Secretary of State must appoint the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to review the operation and regulation of investigatory powers.

(2)The independent reviewer must, in particular, consider—

(a)current and future threats to the United Kingdom,

(b)the capabilities needed to combat those threats,

(c)safeguards to protect privacy,

(d)the challenges of changing technologies,

(e)issues relating to transparency and oversight,

(f)the effectiveness of existing legislation (including its proportionality) and the case for new or amending legislation.

(3)The independent reviewer must, so far as reasonably practicable, complete the review before 1 May 2015.

(4)The independent reviewer must send to the Prime Minister a report on the outcome of the review as soon as reasonably practicable after completing the review.

(5)On receiving a report under subsection (4), the Prime Minister must lay a copy of it before Parliament together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy under subsection (6).

(6)If it appears to the Prime Minister that the publication of any matter in a report under subsection (4) would be contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to national security, the Prime Minister may exclude the matter from the copy of the report laid before Parliament.

(7)The Secretary of State may pay to the independent reviewer—

(a)expenses incurred in carrying out the functions of the independent reviewer under this section, and

(b)such allowances as the Secretary of State determines.

(8)In this section “the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation” means the person appointed under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 (and “independent reviewer” is to be read accordingly).

Final provisions

8Commencement, duration, extent and short title

(1)Subject to subsection (2), this Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed.

(2)Section 1(6) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes.

(3)Sections 1 to 7 (and the provisions inserted into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by sections 3 to 6) are repealed on 31 December 2016.

(4)This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(5)This Act may be cited as the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014.