Leaders of the Online Revolution: Meet the Political Party Taking on UK Digital Rights

The online rights of citizens – their ability to be web freedom as well as privacy – are an area of growing concern. We speak to the UK’s Pirate Party leader Cris Chesha about the changing tide

In Iceland a revolution is underway. There are no guns, no dictators, and certainly no blood is being shed. This is a democratic revolution.

The Pirate Party, standing for Internet and data freedom, has seen a meteoric growth since it was formed in 2012. A year after its launch in the country it won three seats on the Icelandic parliament and now opinion polls have given the party the biggest percentage share of the vote – almost 24% of the total vote, more than double what it was at the start of the year).

“They achieved explosive growth on the back of widespread unrest; the country had had enough of being pushed around by corruption and bankers, and they got together and did something about it,” says Cris Chesha. “They’ve really inspired a lot of people to look to Pirates as a way to be heard above the drone of mainstream politics.”

Chesha hopes to dispel the belief that the party is just about fighting for Internet rights

Chesha is the newly elected leader of the UK branch of the Pirate Party – which has just celebrated its sixth birthday as an official political party– and he, naturally, wants to mimic the Icelandic success with the growth of his party.

But the challenge ahead is a colossal one.

In the UK’s general election in May the party put up six candidates for election who received a total of 1,130 votes between them – Chesha himself received 181 votes in the Northern seat he stood in. You might think that with more awareness of digital rights and mass surveillance, post Snowden and WikiLeaks, the party would have had more candidates representing it than ever before, but the number dropped compared to the previous general election.

In 2010, nine candidates stood for Parliament, getting just over 1,300 votes between them. The party fared better in the European elections in 2014 where it polled 8,500 votes in the North West of the UK.

There is a long way to go to reach Icelandic levels of notoriety; however, Chesha says he hopes to dispel the belief that the party is just about fighting for Internet rights. “Just like, for example, the Green movement are about more than just ‘the environment’, the Pirate movement is so much more than just an Internet lobby group,” he says.

“Obviously we have our core things that people know we will always campaign on – free Internet, freedom of communication, and so on, but given the current political climate, I think it’s time to get our messages of government transparency and participatory democracy out there.”

Achieving growth

The general principles that political parties under the Pirate label stand for can vary but core values include the support of civil rights movements, open information, privacy, and increasing the number of people involved in the democratic process.

Chesha says that the movement at its core wants to “drive democratic reform across the board” and to do this in the UK the party has to try to get its broader message to the public.  “We’re leading the charge, for example, on demanding that governments start using block chain technology to publish big, high-grade “6 Star” open transparency data,” he says. “A cryptographically verified and absolutely indelible, point-of-truth ledger of linked government data? Now that’s the kind of transparency Pirate Party UK can get behind.”

He and his party members believe that democratic control needs to be returned to the people. This means writing copyright laws that represent the people, having an Internet that is a common good and tackling surveillance issues.

A post-Snowden world?

Before Edward Snowden was granted permission to stay in Russia the elected Pirate Party members of the Icelandic parliament introduced a bill that would have given him Icelandic citizenship and protection from extradition if he made it to the country. It failed to get enough support but was an important gesture that recognised the importance of the leaks made by the former CIA employee.

Image courtesy of the Freedom of the Press Foundation

Image courtesy of the Freedom of the Press Foundation

Since then the discussion around surveillance and Internet privacy has slowly moved on – more so in the US than the UK. Scrutiny of the NSA has been higher than ever before and the leaks promoted the passing of the USA Freedom Act that was heralded as “the most important surveillance reform bill since 1978” by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Meanwhile in the UK the debate hasn’t achieved anywhere near the same level of prominence. The country’s biggest police force has only recently confirmed – after a seven-month battle with intervention from the information regulator –that it is running a criminal investigation looking at the journalists who handled the material provided by Snowden. Chesha believes that the “underwhelming reaction” of the UK public has “galvanised the authorities to do more”.

In reality the outcome of the UK’s general election – which surprised pollsters and led to a majority Conservative government – has resulted in an attack on civil liberties, rather than the strengthening of them. Lawyers have been on strike and the Human Rights Act could be changed, among other worrying developments. “The UK has managed to mandate a Tory government to throw out the rule book and declare all-out war on everything from online privacy, to civil liberties, to freedom of information, to every-day cryptography in the space of just two months,” Chesha says.

In making these announcements the government has faced a backlash from campaigners and civil liberties groups; it has also been defeated in the courts over surveillance issues. Two Members of Parliament, from opposing parties, defeated a controversial government snooping bill in court.

David Davis and Tom Watson took the government to court over the unlawful creation of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) which exists to allow security services, such as GCHQ, to have access to phone and internet records of individuals, after the European courts revoked the previous legislation that allowed access. The British courts ruled that DRIPA was unlawful as it didn’t comply with European law.

You and I are living in a Post-Snowden world, but, sadly, I don’t think the UK authorities are

The Open Rights Group said that it hoped the government, after the court’s decision, would listen to the legitimate concerns about blanket data retention. “When the government forced DRIPA through Parliament a year ago, they denied our parliamentarians and the British public a proper debate about how our personal data is being kept by telecoms companies and accessed by the state,” said ORG’s Executive Director Jim Killock.

Chesha said he isn’t sure whether any government should be trusted with surveillance, and that if they’re not open to scrutiny “then they will fail you”.

“That’s what we have here, and how we got into this mess,” he said. “We have secret projects that have been conceived, built and left to run wild with absolutely no oversight – either internally or publicly. You and I are living in a post-Snowden world, but, sadly, I don’t think the UK authorities are.”

The digital tide is turning

It’s the increased awareness of data collection and surveillance that has the biggest chance to change how systems work in the UK. There is an increasing desire, supported by leading figures, that the judicial system should be put to work when the comes to overseeing surveillance.

Image and featured image courtesy of Rena Schild / Shutterstock.com

Image courtesy of Rena Schild / Shutterstock.com

David Anderson Q.C., the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said that the use of intrusive powers has to be shown to be necessary by officials and spelled out by the law. “The current law is fragmented, obscure, under constant challenge and variable in the protections that it affords the innocent.  It is time for a clean slate,” Anderson said in his 370-page review of snooping legislation.

A separate independent surveillance review conducted by the Royal Services Institute, recommended that requests for interception of communications should be authorised by a senior judge and warrants that are signed by a Secretary of State should be subject to judicial scrutiny. The report’s chairperson Michael Clarke said the current system is “complicated, overlapping and in some cases, creaky”.

And a third review, conducted by the Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on intelligence and law enforcement data sharing, said that the UK government needs to be more transparent in the “number and nature” of requests to overseas communications agencies. His report, however, wasn’t published in its entirety, just a summary of his findings.

These reports indicate that the tide is slowly turning and that people in the UK recognise that surveillance can’t continue in the way that it has been happening.

The only way that such surveillance activities can be enacted with any hint of democracy is if the programs are public knowledge to begin with

“The only way that such surveillance activities can be enacted with any hint of democracy is if the programs are public knowledge to begin with. The programs must be selective (no more blanket data collection), fully regulated, and transparent in how they operate,” says Chesha.

“Targets for data collection must be rare, justified and approved by a fair judicial process. The judicial process itself should be as transparent as possible, with public oversight. Is it really asking that much?”

While the UK public might not be at a place where it will be electing Pirate Party members into positions of power just yet, the party does have answers to the technological challenges that impact upon everyone living in the UK and further afield.


With new generations of voters who have grown up with technology, care about their privacy, and want to know what is happening with their data, it is only a matter of time until this growth is kick-started.

XPRIZE launches contest to build remote-controlled robot avatars

Prize fund XPRIZE and All Nippon Airways are offering $10 million reward to research teas who develop tech that eliminates the need to physically travel. The initial idea is that instead of plane travel, people could use goggles, ear phones and haptic tech to control a humanoid robot and experience different locations.

Source: Tech Crunch

NASA reveals plans for huge spacecraft to blow up asteroids

NASA has revealed plans for a huge nuclear spacecraft capable of shunting or blowing up an asteroid if it was on course to wipe out life on Earth. The agency published details of its Hammer deterrent, which is an eight tonne spaceship capable of deflecting a giant space rock.

Source: The Telegraph

Sierra Leone hosts the world’s first blockchain-powered elections

Sierra Leone recorded votes in its recent election to a blockchain. The tech, anonymously stored votes in an immutable ledger, thereby offering instant access to the election results. “This is the first time a government election is using blockchain technology,” said Leonardo Gammar of Agora, the company behind the technology.

Source: Quartz

AI-powered robot shoots perfect free throws

Japanese news agency Asahi Shimbun has reported on a AI-powered robot that shoots perfect free throws in a game of basketball. The robot was training by repeating shots, up to 12 feet from the hoop, 200,000 times, and its developers said it can hit these close shots with almost perfect accuracy.

Source: Motherboard

Russia accused of engineering cyberattacks by the US

Russia has been accused of engineering a series of cyberattacks that targeted critical infrastructure in America and Europe, which could have sabotaged or shut down power plants. US officials and private security firms claim the attacks are a signal by Russia that it could disrupt the West’s critical facilities.

Google founder Larry Page unveils self-flying air taxi

A firm funded by Google founder Larry Page has unveiled an electric, self-flying air taxi that can travel at up to 180 km/h (110mph). The taxi takes off and lands vertically, and can do 100 km on a single charge. It will eventually be available to customers as a service "similar to an airline or a rideshare".

Source: BBC

World-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76. When Hawking was diagnosed with motor neurone disease aged 22, doctors predicted he would live just a few more years. But in the ensuing 54 years he married, kept working and inspired millions of people around the world. In his last few years, Hawking was outspoken of the subject of AI, and Factor got the chance to hear him speak on the subject at Web Summit 2017…

Stephen Hawking was often described as being a vocal critic of AI. Headlines were filled with predictions of doom by from scientist, but the reality was more complex.

Hawking was not convinced that AI was to become the harbinger of the end of humanity, but instead was balanced about its risks and rewards, and at a compelling talk broadcast at Web Summit, he outlined his perspectives and what the tech world can do to ensure the end results are positive.

Stephen Hawking on the potential challenges and opportunities of AI

Beginning with the potential of artificial intelligence, Hawking highlighted the potential level of sophistication that the technology could reach.

“There are many challenges and opportunities facing us at this moment, and I believe that one of the biggest of these is the advent and impact of AI for humanity,” said Hawking in the talk. “As most of you may know, I am on record as saying that I believe there is no real difference between what can be achieved by a biological brain and what can be achieved by a computer.

“Of course, there is unlimited potential for what the human mind can learn and develop. So if my reasoning is correct, it also follows that computers can, in theory, emulate human intelligence and exceed it.”

Moving onto the potential impact, he began with an optimistic tone, identifying the technology as a possible tool for health, the environment and beyond.

“We cannot predict what we might achieve when our own minds are amplified by AI. Perhaps with the tools of this new technological revolution, we will be able to undo some of the damage done to the natural world by the last one: industrialisation,” he said.

“We will aim to finally eradicate disease and poverty; every aspect of our lives will be transformed.”

However, he also acknowledged the negatives of the technology, from warfare to economic destruction.

“In short, success in creating effective AI could be the biggest event in the history of our civilisation, or the worst. We just don’t know. So we cannot know if we will be infinitely helped by AI, or ignored by it and sidelined or conceivably destroyed by it,” he said.

“Unless we learn how to prepare for – and avoid – the potential risks, AI could be the worst event in the history of our civilisation. It brings dangers like powerful autonomous weapons or new ways for the few to oppress the many. It could bring great disruption to our economy.

“Already we have concerns that clever machines will be increasingly capable of undertaking work currently done by humans, and swiftly destroy millions of jobs. AI could develop a will of its own, a will that is in conflict with ours and which could destroy us.

“In short, the rise of powerful AI will be either the best or the worst thing ever to happen to humanity.”

In the vanguard of AI development

In 2014, Hawking and several other scientists and experts called for increased levels of research to be undertaken in the field of AI, which he acknowledged has begun to happen.

“I am very glad that someone was listening to me,” he said.

However, he argued that there is there is much to be done if we are to ensure the technology doesn’t pose a significant threat.

“To control AI and make it work for us and eliminate – as far as possible – its very real dangers, we need to employ best practice and effective management in all areas of its development,” he said. “That goes without saying, of course, that this is what every sector of the economy should incorporate into its ethos and vision, but with artificial intelligence this is vital.”

Addressing a thousands-strong crowd of tech-savvy attendees at the event, he urged them to think beyond the immediate business potential of the technology.

“Perhaps we should all stop for a moment and focus our thinking not only on making AI more capable and successful, but on maximising its societal benefit”

“Everyone here today is in the vanguard of AI development. We are the scientists. We develop an idea. But you are also the influencers: you need to make it work. Perhaps we should all stop for a moment and focus our thinking not only on making AI more capable and successful, but on maximising its societal benefit,” he said. “Our AI systems must do what we want them to do, for the benefit of humanity.”

In particular he raised the importance of working across different fields.

“Interdisciplinary research can be a way forward, ranging from economics and law to computer security, formal methods and, of course, various branches of AI itself,” he said.

“Such considerations motivated the American Association for Artificial Intelligence Presidential Panel on Long-Term AI Futures, which up until recently had focused largely on techniques that are neutral with respect to purpose.”

He also gave the example of calls at the start of 2017 by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) the introduction of liability rules around AI and robotics.

“MEPs called for more comprehensive robot rules in a new draft report concerning the rules on robotics, and citing the development of AI as one of the most prominent technological trends of our century,” he summarised.

“The report calls for a set of core fundamental values, an urgent regulation on the recent developments to govern the use and creation of robots and AI. [It] acknowledges the possibility that within the space of a few decades, AI could surpass human intellectual capacity and challenge the human-robot relationship.

“Finally, the report calls for the creation of a European agency for robotics and AI that can provide technical, ethical and regulatory expertise. If MEPs vote in favour of legislation, the report will go to the European Commission, which will decide what legislative steps it will take.”

Creating artificial intelligence for the world

No one can say for certain whether AI will truly be a force for positive or negative change, but – despite the headlines – Hawking was positive about the future.

“I am an optimist and I believe that we can create AI for the world that can work in harmony with us. We simply need to be aware of the dangers, identify them, employ the best possible practice and management and prepare for its consequences well in advance,” he said. “Perhaps some of you listening today will already have solutions or answers to the many questions AI poses.”

You all have the potential to push the boundaries of what is accepted or expected, and to think big

However, he stressed that everyone has a part to play in ensuring AI is ultimately a benefit to humanity.

“We all have a role to play in making sure that we, and the next generation, have not just the opportunity but the determination to engage fully with the study of science at an early level, so that we can go on to fulfill our potential and create a better world for the whole human race,” he said.

“We need to take learning beyond a theoretical discussion of how AI should be, and take action to make sure we plan for how it can be. You all have the potential to push the boundaries of what is accepted or expected, and to think big.

“We stand on the threshold of a brave new world. It is an exciting – if precarious – place to be and you are the pioneers. I wish you well.”