Over the past few days the UK government has inserted a series of proposed amendments to the draft Digital Economy Bill ahead of a line-by-line examination of the planned law in the House of Lords next week—the most headline-grabbing of which relates to porn-blocking filters that seek to bypass EU net neutrality rules.

Readers of these pages will recall that the Tory government has in fact been seeking to place those filters on a legal footing to—as Whitehall would prefer to characterise it—"opt out" of the bloc's net neutrality directive, ever since then-prime minister David Cameron told MPs in November 2015 that the filtering arrangement with ISPs would be brought "into the law of the land."

Nonetheless, from the moment the Digital Economy Bill landed in the Palace of Westminster there has been uncertainty about the government's plans for a workaround to that directive. In November, digital minister Matt Hancock told MPs—who went on to pass the proposed law largely unchallenged—that an amendment would be added "in the other place to the effect that providers may offer these filters to put the issue beyond doubt."

This week, that desired amendment was finally tabled by the government.

Department of media, culture, and sport parliamentary under-secretary of state Lord Ashton, in a letter to peers on Monday, briefly explained the rationale behind the various amendments the government had applied to the bill. On online pornography, he said:

Part 3 of the bill implements the manifesto commitment to protect children from online pornography. The new legislation aims to prevent persons under the age of 18 from accessing online pornographic material through age verification. The British Board of Film Classification will be able to require Internet service providers to block non-compliant websites. We have previously said that we may need to make some further technical changes to this measure which was introduced at report stage in the House of Commons. The amendment tabled today ensures that this blocking cannot conflict with the work of the law enforcement agencies in respect of national security or preventing serious crime [Ars note: a clause that relates directly to section 263(1) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016]. Conflicts are unlikely, but this precautionary amendment will mean that should they arise they will be dealt with appropriately. We previously promised to table an amendment relating to filters. Family friendly filters protect from a range of potential harms including pornography. Today, I am tabling a new clause on filters. It clarifies that such filters can be offered.

Really, then, it's business as usual from the government on where it stands with porn filters—a policy that remains little unchanged since Cameron occupied Number 10. But that's not to say that opposition to the plan among privacy and anti-censorship campaigners and ISPs isn't still on the agenda. Indeed, the UK's telcos have raised concern about "scope creep and over-blocking" that could result from any robust implementation of the government's proposed law. They have also been alarmed by what ISPs see as a "sudden significant policy shift," on plans to force broadband providers and mobile operators to block porn sites that fail to use age checking mechanisms.

It's long been clear, though, that the introduction of ISP network-level filters, on an opt-in basis, offered a handy fail-safe for the government in its war on sites that fail to think of the children when serving up porn. It closes the circle for Whitehall, at least.

Will peers claw at controversial clauses?

Peers have already mauled the government for failing to provide enough detail on its plans to force UK ISPs to block online smut peddlers that fail to verify that their users are aged 18 or over, and the latest amendments do nothing to address those concerns.

Four other proposed amendments were tabled by the government over the past week, or so. Among them, a new clause has been inserted to create a "regulation-making power" to allow police and the National Crime Agency to "compel communication providers"—via a court order—"to disconnect mobile phones (handsets, SIMs, and phone numbers)" that are used by alleged drug dealers.

"This clause broadly mirrors section 80 of the Serious Crime Act 2015," said Ashton, "which provides for similar powers to block the use of mobile phones in prisons."

Another planned amendment to the Digital Economy Bill relates to Part 5 on digital government, which—among other things—seeks "to clarify drafting in the research chapter and to ensure that the criminal offence in this chapter provides clear and adequate protection for personal information," according to Ashton. Many privacy campaigners have repeatedly expressed fears about Part 5 of this draft legislation. They worry about sweeping data-sharing powers demanded within the bill, which contain broad definitions and lack appropriate safeguards.

This week, in separate but identical letters to Labour MP Helen Goodman and Tory backbencher Peter Bottomley, digital minister Hancock attempted to dampen such concerns. Specifically on the question of Snowden-esque whistleblowers, who disclose information in the public interest, Hancock said that provisions within the bill "on criminal sanctions for unlawful disclosure of personal information are the result of two years of open policy-making," adding that the government had "consulted widely" during that time. He told the MPs:

The intention is to provide a strong safeguard to prevent the further disclosure and use of personal information shared under these new data sharing powers. These reinforce and build upon the existing protections set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. The definition of personal information and the nature of the sanctions are similar to those to be found in the Statistics and Registration Services Act 2007. Information may only be shared by persons, and for purposes, specified in the legislation and accompanying regulations. In the event that an offence is committed under the provisions, a decision on whether to prosecute would be subject to a public interest test. The government does not want to curtail freedom of speech or the legal rights of whistleblowers to make protected disclosures. To put this matter beyond doubt we will table amendments at Lords Committee stage in order to ensure that our policy is fully reflected.

Peers will begin committee stage scrutiny of the draft bill next Tuesday and Ars will bring you full coverage.