U.K. Internet laws

[hoggy]

Britain's new Internet law -- as bad as everyone's been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.
The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).

So it's bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).

But that's just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the next government would also have this power.

What isn't in there? Anything about stimulating the actual digital economy. Nothing about ensuring that broadband is cheap, fast and neutral. Nothing about getting Britain's poorest connected to the net. Nothing about ensuring that copyright rules get out of the way of entrepreneurship and the freedom to create new things. Nothing to ensure that schoolkids get the best tools in the world to create with, and can freely use the publicly funded media -- BBC, Channel 4, BFI, Arts Council grantees -- to make new media and so grow up to turn Britain into a powerhouse of tech-savvy creators.

 

[Topper]

Nothing in there about ensuring that ISP's who break the trade descriptions act by not supplying the speed of internet being paid for by the consumer are taken to task, oh no sod the consumer's rights

 

[hoggy]

I dont think The Bill will go through because Parliament time will run out before the Election,which will be in May or June.
Then which ever party is in power., Lets hope its a Hung Parliment No Goverment will want to put through this Bill.

 

[deleted]

nothing whatsoever to stop any radical groups indoctrenatiing and preaching to people to cause harm to peace loving societies

nothing to stop mature content and chat groups being infiltrated by perverts allowing them to abuse children.

nothing to update gov.org because you cant find the information you are looking for when you want to complain etc. only what they want you to know ?

This government is turning this country into a police state. only against the decent hard working public.

watch in the coming months the greedy b******* will licence every premisses that own a PC

 

[Channel Hopper]

Hoggy - can you provide a link confirming what is within your original post ?

 

[hoggy]

Hoggy - can you provide a link confirming what is within your original post ?

-h**p://boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html

 

[Channel Hopper]

Thanks, please give credit where credit is due in future.

 

[zoro25]

My advice to users is to get yourselves a decent VPN provider. Then all your ISP and every other external source sees is your VPN address.

I connect to my ISP and then sign into my VPN
VPN company change my IP address
All sites visited only see my VPN address which is shared among about 5 other machines and also changes every connect (a lot of VPN providers do not keep logs)
The ISP only see one connection from you to the VPN. They never see where you have visited and what you have done and the sites you visit never see your real IP.

 

[hoggy]

where do you get 1 of these to you have to buy them and will all the internet sites acept them when you log in and do they work through your router ,also sat boxes connected to internet do they still work.

 

[portly]

Whats going to happen to virginmedia as they have there own file sharing platform, i know they tranfered it to a private company, but arnt they breaking the law as it stands, i bet they dont get nicked, nor google for allowing torrents on there searches.Here comes the police state, penalize ,penalize ,penalize, for once i back the hackers, go for it ?

 

[zoro25]

I use GoTrusted but there are many others.
GoTrusted was created by one of the main funders of the PirateBay.
There is also another new player entering the market which is the provider of NewGroup Binaries vyprvpn which is from GigaNews

and by the way there are not free. About £5.00per month, but then no one will every what you have done or be able to trace you online.
And everywhere will accept it. (You may have an issue if you visit a site that requires a UK only IP - "Iplayer" but just disconnect from VPN when using Iplayer.)

GoTrusted have a rule that no logs are kept and also that they will only give the connecting IP (your real one) to authorities if it is relating to either a murder enquiry or terrorism.
In the country they are based - The above is the law regarding divulging customers details.

 

[jamesb4]

How are ISP's going to monitor this? Can they initiate a global filter for certain commands or will they just monitor those connections that have exessive downloads.

For parents it is difficult to determine what their children are downloading, as most of the time they are far more computer literate than their parents. Its not practical to sit over them whilst they use their computers and even if you do, it not easy to see what is downloading in the background. Young kids just do not realise that they are doing anything exceptionally wrong.

I guess some parents are in for a big shock when a solicitors letter flies through the door demanding reimbursment for illegal downloads that they have no knowledge of, but someone in their household may!! I have heard of settlements of in excess of £10,000 in the States.

Personally, I only download a few TV programs that I have either missed or are from previous seasons. I would consider this CatchupTV, but I guess if you are using torrents for the download, then this would then be illegal.

James

 

[hoggy]

[from bbc yesterday]

Quote:
Ministers in copyright concession
Ministers have given a concession over what critics claimed were "draconian" powers which would enable them to crack down on online copyright infringement.

A clause in the Digital Economy Bill would have allowed ministers to amend existing laws on online piracy without the need for further legislation.

Google and Facebook were among firms to complain about the measure, saying it would hamper digital innovation.

Officials said they were "refining" the proposals after heeding concerns.

'Reserve powers'

Critics said the proposed powers were disproportionate and would damage one of the UK's fast-growing industries.

Section 17 of the bill, which has attracted the most anger, would give ministers "reserve powers" to draft fresh laws to tackle net-based copyright infringement without needing parliamentary approval.

Ministers argued that such powers were needed to support copyright laws against future, more technically advanced forms of piracy.

But Conservative and Lib Dem peers had both threatened to vote against the measure when it is considered next in the House of Lords.

In response, the government has tabled several amendments.

These would mean existing copyright laws could only be amended by statute if they was a "significant" new threat of infringement and would provide for more parliamentary scrutiny before this happened.

'Clarity'

The Department for Business said it was not "backing away" from the controversial clause and its core objectives but had listened to concerns about how it was being targeted.

"The Government remains squarely behind the aims of clause 17," a spokesman said.

"We have tabled a series of amendments which aim to clarify the breadth and scope of the clause and further reinforce the transparency of the process and the scrutiny of Parliament."

Separate proposals in the bill to disconnect so-called peer to peer file-sharers continue to cause concern among internet campaigners.

More than 30,000 people have signed a petition on the No 10 website saying the measure would penalise innocent people, arguing that persistent pirates would simply hack into other people's accounts.

Ministers insist people would only have their net connections slowed down or suspended as a last result and not before their cases were first considered by a tribunal.

The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) has accused the government of focusing unduly on enforcement rather than making it easier for people to download content legally.