Digital Economy Bill

[esme]

and I got a reply to my letter too

 

Dear XXXXXXX,

 

I do understand your concerns with regard to the bill and I can see that it is of importance to you.

 

I can understand that why you and many others feel that copyright holders are already protected, but the basis of copyright law is over 200 years old and is need of reforming. I am not saying that the proposals in the bill are necessarily the best way to proceed, but I am sure that you will agree that in today's digitally orientated world that laws that are based on laws that are hundreds of years old need updating to deal with technology.

 

In my previous email when I outlined that there would be a full Parliamentary Debate I was referring to today's debate in the chamber and I do understand that you feel that this may not be enough. If the Bill passes tonight, all three party leaders will discuss this bill and others in the 'wash up' and if there is full consensus between them, then the bill will proceed into law. However as I have previously mentioned Clause's 10, 11 and 18 would be subject further full Parliamentary Scrutiny through a draft affirmative procedure, which will be in the next Parliamentary Session. I must also say that the majority of the bill has not courted an controversy it is only these small (but important) sections.

 

Also I do understand your concerns with regard to potential hacking of Wifi routers to allow a third party to download copyrighted material, but as I said previously the subscriber would be able to prove that it was not them, as surely there computer hard drive would not contain the information either visibly or invisibly, however I do concede that it should never have to get to that point to prove their innocence. I do agree with you that subscribers may not know how to change their security settings/password making it very easy for a hacker, but surely this is something for ISP's/retailers/manufactures to promote as good standard practise, even without the bill, and make provision for those who are not technically savvy in such matters.

 

I know again that this response will not address your concerns but after tonight's vote and the 'wash up' if the bill does proceed, there will be further Parliamentary Debate on the Bill and so this is not the end.

 

Regards

 

anyone care to point out the gaping holes in this argument

 

first off, proving innocence, "the subscriber would be able to prove that it was not them, as surely there computer hard drive would not contain the information either visibly or invisibly"

 

hmmm "surely", you don't actually know do you, and you are still going to support this, without finding out ?

 

I'm telling him how technically competent criminals can hijack a WiFi signal and he's giving me a measure of proof that wouldn't stand up in a playground never mind a court

 

according to this if I kill someone and leave the body in someone else's house then I am innocent, because the evidence i.e. the dead body. is not in the obvious places you look for it and even if someone finds it it's in someone else's house and nothing to do with me

 

I could download something, remove the PC I performed the download on from my premises and give that to a friend, I could swap out the hard drive and give it to a friend, I could bury it in the back garden there are any number of measures I could take that would mean a computer forensics experts would not find any evidence

 

and that's assuming I as the subscriber committed the offence

 

if as I keep telling him a hacker breaks into my network, they can download what they want and the subscriber gets punished, well they've already committed two offences why not go for a third and hack one of the PC's on the network and dump a copy of the download there just to stop the police looking any further, bit vindictive but perfectly possible

 

and one of these days I really must tell him the difference between "there" = "in that place" and "their" = "belonging to them" as it is really starting to grate on my nerves that an MP who is to used debating and passing laws requiring precise language and phrasing apparently does not know the difference

 

the bill still makes no distinction between the party committing the criminal act and the subscriber, debating clause 10, 11 and 18 won't change that as these clauses already contain the assumption that the subscriber is the guilty party from clause 4

 

"however I do concede that it should never have to get to that point to prove their innocence" - good, because it isn't possible to do this, the best that a person can do is prove the evidence intended to demonstrate their guilt does not actually do so

 

"the basis of copyright law is over 200 years old and is need of reforming", which is why I stated to him that the legislation already exists and if it is insufficient then that legislation should be modified rather than new legislation passed, which thanks to the election will not be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny

 

"I do agree with you that subscribers may not know how to change their security settings/password" - not quite what I said, in addition to this I said that some ISP's deny the subscriber access to these settings

 

"but surely this is something for ISP's/retailers/manufactures to promote as good standard practise"

 

there's "surely" again, as in "in any reasonable world this would be the case" only this isn't a reasonable world is it, ISP's are out to make a profit from providing a service they don't want a bunch of amateurs messing with complex settings in equipment, breaking it and possibly asking for a refund

 

changing a net access key for a single PC is not a trivial exercise for someone who doesn't know what they are doing, I seriously doubt my MP would be capable without assistance

 

people want computers and wifi connections to be like toasters

 

turn toaster on, make toast, turn toaster off

turn PC on, do computer stuff, turn computer off

 

this is the level of knowledge the majority of people want to to have when dealing with computers, they sure as hell don't want to have to start messing with TKIP/AES, WEP/WPA/WPA2, randomly generated passkeys which either have to be cut and pasted or typed in laboriously into a hidden password field just to get one machine to talk to a router and then have to do the same for every other machine they have, next door has three at last count plus a WiFi printer, one wrong keypress or selection means it doesn't work, for the tech savvy this is easy, a large number of people are not tech savvy and cannot follow instructions though, I deal with these people a lot

 

I feel another letter coming on

[esme]

Sounds like a load of fuss about nothing. People have been illegally downloading stuff off the internet ever since it was invented and hardly anyone ever gets caught.

 

Have people become so amoral that they now feel they have a right to steal music and films for free? If you want it pay for it!

 

strangely I find myself agreeing with you once more, please stop it I'm beginning to worry

 

however "hardly anyone ever gets caught" is about to change thanks mainly to this bill

 

which is fine, except for one, minor, teensy little point

 

the bill assumes that the subscriber is the one downloading the copyright material and treats the subscriber as a criminal, it makes no provision for people breaking into home WiFi and downloading copyright material

 

it's equivalent to if someone breaks into your home, you get arrested and sent to jail because the police can't find the burglar

 

can't find the criminal ? well you'll do !

 

that's what I disagree with

[anywebsite]

Well, the MP letter writing campaign seems to have been ineffective. Is there another plan?

 

I wish there was somebody better than the Open Rights Group or Pirate Party organising things.

 

There isn't even anybody to vote for in the election, all parties are supporting it & it will be passed into law without proper debate later today.

[anywebsite]

the bill assumes that the subscriber is the one downloading the copyright material and treats the subscriber as a criminal, it makes no provision for people breaking into home WiFi and downloading copyright material

 

it's equivalent to if someone breaks into your home, you get arrested and sent to jail because the police can't find the burglar

 

can't find the criminal ? well you'll do !

 

that's what I disagree with

 

The other problem is that you don't even get your day in court before being assumed to be guilty & punished.

 

There doesn't even need to be any hacking involved, it's going to prevent most Wifi hotspots.

 

Running an internet business from home? Not if your 12 year old downloads the latest lady gaga album without paying.

 

The person that owns an internet connection doesn't always have complete control over what happens on that connection, but they're assumed to be guilty & punished without trial.

[NightFlight]

Pinged off a quick reply to Angela Smith

 

Dear Angela,

 

As far as I understand it, the Digital Economy Bill still includes provision to punish citizens of the United Kingdom, in the form of a suspension of Internet Access without trial based solely on the assertions of a third party (namely a copyright holder or a body acting on behalf of the copyright holder).

 

As you will know, the United Nations is of the general consensus that Internet Access is a fundamental human right, Finland and Estonia have already included the right of Internet Access into their respective consitutions.

 

Are you seriously considering voting FOR a bill which would curtail internet access for people, without fair trial, effectively labelling citizens and potentially your constituents criminals. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

 

The right of appeal is too little too late if someone running a small business from home has their business critical internet access terminated or suspended because a third party hacked their wifi connection and commited copyright theft whilst they slept.

 

Yes, their are many good provisions within this Bill, however, there are also potentially damaging and abuseable powers contained within as well.

Until these provisions have been properly debated and ironed out the DEB should not be passed, is the increased number of films on Channel 4 really worth damaging small businesses, and labelling innocent people criminals over?

 

Legislating will not cut own on under 18s accessing innappropriate material online without making it harder for over 18's to access material online, ar eyou really suggesting that legislation should be brought in which effectively treats the whole country as children?

 

Yours Sincerely

[esme]

The other problem is that you don't even get your day in court before being assumed to be guilty & punished.

 

There doesn't even need to be any hacking involved, it's going to prevent most Wifi hotspots.

 

Running an internet business from home? Not if your 12 year old downloads the latest lady gaga album without paying.

 

The person that owns an internet connection doesn't always have complete control over what happens on that connection, but they're assumed to be guilty & punished without trial.

 

apparently cutting off the connection requires a court proceeding, however my MP seems not to have answered my question regarding the accused having a right to be there to defend themselves nor has he answered the question I asked of whether the other technical measures would also require a similar court proceeding

[NightFlight]

Call your MP?

http://confirm.38degrees.org.uk/DEB/

[esme]

latest letter

 

Dear XXXXXXX,

 

I rather feel that I am too late in informing you of these issues, mainly thanks to the wash up process caused by the announcement of the general election, all I can do now is urge you in the strongest possible manner to oppose the passing of this bill.

 

I have already given adequate reasons why this bill should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny but I will attempt to restate them and answer the points you raise in your reply.

 

I fully support the rights of a copyright holder not to have their copyright infringed, but this bill is criminalising the wrong people.

 

This bill makes the assumption that the subscriber and the subscriber alone is responsible for how their connection is used, it makes the assumption that the subscriber is responsible for any copyright infringement or theft that occurs over their connection and makes no provision for the cases when this is not so, the bill makes no provision for home WiFi users or for anyone hacking into a subscribers router and using their connection illegally.

 

We are after all discussing criminals who are committing copyright theft, the use of another persons WiFi without their consent or knowledge is a very small step for them to take.

 

This bill criminalises the subscriber rather than the person committing the crime and for that reason alone it should be held over for debate in parliament after the election is over.

 

It is, as I previously stated, as if a burglar were to break into my home and because the authorities could not locate them I was arrested and imprisoned instead.

 

I do agree with you that the copyright act needs updating to deal with current technology, but this is not an amendment to the copyright act, it is an entirely new bill with many consequences, not all of which have been foreseen and which have not been subject to full parliamentary scrutiny due to the announcement of an election.

 

You state that there will be a full parliamentary debate tonight and accept that I may not think this is sufficient, you are quite right I do not think this is sufficient, the committee stage, report stage and third reading have been dispensed with and a severely time limited debate substituted in their place.

 

If this were sufficient then it would be a standard parliamentary practice and the committee stage, report stage and third reading would not be required for any bills progressing through parliament.

 

Simply dispensing with vital parliamentary procedure because an election has been called and time is therefore limited, is not good enough, and due to the complexity and far reaching consequences of this bill dispensing with these procedures is very definitely not good enough in this specific case.

 

I hate to think what other bills are progressing through parliament that will now be subject to "wash up" rather than given full parliamentary scrutiny, perhaps at some convenient time you could furnish me with a list ?

 

There are more issues with this bill than those I have raised with you and this bill must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and debate, not simply "washed up" for assent, even with the promise of some future debate over a clause here and there at some later, unspecified date.

 

You state clauses 10, 11 and 18 are to be debated eventually, even if the bill passes tonight, however these clauses contain the assumption that the subscriber must be the guilty party, this is established in clause 4, why won't clause 4 be debated also ? Along with all the other clauses that assume that the subscriber is the guilty party.

 

You state that a subscriber can prove their innocence "as surely there computer hard drive would not contain the information either visibly or invisibly"

 

An innocent party can only demonstrate innocence by showing the accusers evidence is either incorrect or incomplete, demonstrating that you do not have stolen goods in your possession is not a defence that would stand up in a court as you could simply have hidden them.

 

Further in the case of copyright theft by downloading, your computer equipment would be seized for an indefinite time until a forensics expert eventually gets around to examining your system, or systems, for this evidence you say will or will not be there. So you are effectively punished by having your computer equipment confiscated while this happens. Your child's schoolwork, your tax returns all locked away in a police evidence locker indefinitely, along with any and all backups, external drives and any and all copies of this information you may have that the police managed to find. All because you were accused of copyright theft, even if you are subsequently proven innocent you have still been punished, your tax return did not get filed on time and you were fined, your child failed their examination because they could not access their schoolwork.

 

Assuming a subscriber did actually commit copyright theft, then they could simply swap their hard drive or even remove the computer from their premises, leaving these with an associate and thereby demonstrate their innocence because the copyright material is not where a forensics expert expects it to be.

 

Conversely a criminal breaking into a WiFi signal has access to any PC's on that network and the requisite skill to access their disks, it would be somewhat vindictive but entirely possible to put copies of the copyright material on the subscribers hard drive to prevent further investigation, we are talking about a criminal after all.

 

The burden of proof resides with the accuser not the accused, this bill turns that on it's head.

 

You agree that subscribers may not have the knowledge to change their security settings and suggest that ISP's should educate them in best practice for WiFi security. However as I have stated, most ISP's do not allow their subscribers access to security settings, there is little point in educating a subscriber who has no access.

 

Perhaps the ISP's should share some of the guilt that this bill assigns solely to the subscriber.

 

I still note you did not respond to my points regarding the subscribers right to representation in the court proceedings prior to a disconnection nor did you respond to my enquiry regarding the necessity of similar court proceeding prior to other technical measures being applied.

 

I have to say I am disappointed in the progress of this bill, the lack of proper parliamentary procedure, the scope and complexity of the bill and the lack of debate on the issues it raises, the implicit assumption of the guilt of the subscriber, the failure to account for third party access, the failure to account for home WIFI all these things tell me this bill is not fit for purpose in it's present form.

 

I urge you in the strongest possible manner to vote against this bill's passage in it's present form, please do whatever you can to delay it until parliament is reformed and it can be subject to proper scrutiny, a delay of a few months will not harm the bill in any way, however rushing the bill through parliament without due process will harm the people of this country and some of those people will be your constituents.

 

Yours Sincerely,

[Wildcat]

There is an interesting article here that takes a slightly different approach highlighting the powers given to Ministers under the Bill to add stuff without it going through Parliament. The Business Secretary to be a "Pirate finder General"

 

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.

 

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html

[esme]

interesting article here http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2010/04/07/digital-economy-bill-heads-for-final-reading-40088544/

 

there are rumours of a fee being required before you can appeal a decision apparently according to the open letter at http://nevali.net/post/501647501/an-open-letter-to-sion-simon-pete-wishart-david, I hadn't heard about that

 

I think the words I'm looking for are "fork" and "that", something similar anyway

 

shame only a few of us wrote to our MP's eh