Digital Economy Bill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/apr/08/digital-economy-bill-quick-guide-45-measures

Among other things,

However, the government replaced it with a similar amendment, which will allow the Secretary of State for Business to block any site which "the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright".

Click to expand...

dismays me the most. The government is given the potential to block any website they want. It has to be supported by a court ruling but the potential is there.

This bill also means the probable end of open wifi networks because the providers would be held accountable for any illegal downloading done by people using it.

I don't know what's worse, the bill itself or the way it was rushed. Two hours of debate by people who haven't got the first clue about the internet and it's been passed, thanks to the wash-up process before the dissolution of Parliament.

I am not kidding when I say that this is an issue I would be out on the streets protesting the hell out of if it happened in my country. I'm with you on how terrible it is that it's always debated - and reported - by people who haven't the faintest clue how the internet works.

First Australia, now Britain. Both first world democracies. Ugh.

I haven't read the actual bill that got passed.

About the WiFi business - does it only apply to WiFi advertised as open, or could someone whose (poorly) secured WiFi was used without their authorisation be held responsible?

In any case, killing a whole industry is a bit ridiculous, especially in today's economic climate.

I'm surprised myself that there isn't a bigger backlash.

But I'm more worried about the contagion of the rest of Europe by simillar bills. We're talking about the UK here, the risk of that happening is pretty high.

There isn't a bigger backlash because people don't yet understand what it means. When people go into Starbucks and get out their laptop, only be told by staff "Sorry we don't do WiFi any more, because we'd be liable if someone sat outside and pirated stuff", when teachers at schools find they can't do their lessons because a kid downloaded a movie so the school got cut off, that's when people will understand. By which time it's too late.

Also, I have a simple test, to apply when considering a bill that gives the government powers. Call it the "Fascist Test" or even "Hitler Test". Basically, think twice before you give any government powers you wouldn't want an oppressive government having. Because an oppressive government is only ever an election or revolution away.

The ability for government to block websites they deem "likely" to be used to infringe copyright most certainly falls foul of that test.

Presumably it's meant to try and combat torrent search and distribution websites, which have been legal because they don't actually host copyrighted material. But the chilling effects could go way beyond that. Wikileaks could be blocked immediately, and it's only a matter of time before it is blocked. They might be able to blanket block all discussion forums, since its "likely" users will post copyrighted material. Microsoft accuse the Linux kernel of containing copyrighted MS code, and the Ubuntu update servers get blocked. And if you block access to a website, you may well block even the webmaster from addressing the issue.

It's terrible, but it's not incredibly significant in terms of what they can or will actually do with it. Internet filtering is incredibly easy to circumvent. Anybody who doesn't know how can easily learn, and anybody who doesn't care enough to learn obviously isn't visiting anything that they need to or want to visit regularly.

Of course, the burden should not be on the people to circumvent censorship.

b0b3rt said:

It's terrible, but it's not incredibly significant in terms of what they can or will actually do with it. Internet filtering is incredibly easy to circumvent. Anybody who doesn't know how can easily learn, and anybody who doesn't care enough to learn obviously isn't visiting anything that they need to or want to visit regularly.

Of course, the burden should not be on the people to circumvent censorship.

Click to expand...

This is actually why it's such a bad thing that they're doing it. As with the Australian net filter, people will still pirate and distribute child pornography through the filter. Meanwhile, everybody else, the ignorant masses, are subject to the dangerous censorship controls the government now has, and presumably significantly diminished internet speed capability.

MrIndigo said:

This is actually why it's such a bad thing that they're doing it. As with the Australian net filter, people will still pirate and distribute child pornography through the filter. Meanwhile, everybody else, the ignorant masses, are subject to the dangerous censorship controls the government now has, and presumably significantly diminished internet speed capability.

Click to expand...

This is very true of most everything the government tries to control. Government's solution to firearms generally punishes the citizens who abide by the law and not the ones who will break it anyway.