back to article Carter pledges file sharing snoop laws

Lord Carter's interim report Digital Britain promises legislation to force ISPs to identify people using file sharing software, more promotion for DAB radio and a weakening of BT's universal service obligations. Instead of BT having a legal duty to universal access to phone lines, there will be a shared obligation to provide …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Flame

No wonder...

Hands up if you're no longer surprised that the government weren't too hard on Phorm. Looks like that internet traffic inspection technology might come in handy after all. Time to start piping all my traffic through that encrypted tunnel to my out of UK server...

As for the "if it won't be done voluntarily, we'll make legislation to force you to do it", ah, the New Labour way. Doesn't it just make you spit feathers? Time to do an Iceland* anyone?

*that would be the riots outside parliament to force the PM to step down, rather than hire Kerry Katona. ;-P

0
0
Anonymous Coward

What a looney

'nuff said, methinks!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

These..

Sound awfully like the recommendations of someone with a vested interest in BT.

0
0
b
Flame

Fire

Cleansing fire.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

nobody

nobody wants or needs dab, and even fewer people want interferance in file sharing, government should get back to the business of trying to save the economy and a few real industries and let the music industry sink like the worthless stone it is.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Oh joy !

"A quango will be established to "increase the attractiveness, availability and affordability of DAB"."

The British Turd Polishing Committee ?

0
0
Flame

On slashdot

We have a tag for articles like this: goodluckwiththat

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I read it...

Well, I read the section on IP, Copyrights and so on and wow, I just can't believe it.

They mention early on that in a situation where such things as P2P file sharing are widespread, it's perhaps the business models due to them being dated and failing that need to change but then later they go on to protect these dated and failing models with talk of legislation.

Furthermore, Carter misses one extremely important point- he mentions "subject to acceptable levels of proof" or similar regarding the evidence required to catch infringers. The fundamnetal issue here is that the only possible way to prove a particular individual is guilty of copyright infringement is to actually watch them physically sat at the computer downloading the file. Apart from this there is no way to tell if an IP address downloading the file is someone on a machine behind that IP with a trojan using it to download, someone hijacking wireless behind that IP, someone who has broken into the house physically, a friend of the house, a lodger of the house, the kids of the house, the owner of the house or the owner of the internet connection. It is clear therefore that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of evidence.

The best you can do is hold the owner of the internet connection responsible but this means effectively making people legally responsible if someone hacks their machine, hacks their wireless, breaks into their house. It is akin to charging someone with manslaughter should their car be stolen and used to run someone other. This is clear wrong, and not an acceptable path in a free society.

I don't necessarily support illegal file sharing per-se where legal alternatives exist and where the legal product is of equivalent quality of the illegal product (i.e. no DRM- see Spore as an example of where the illegal version was superior to the legal version) but what I do feel is that the law shouldn't be subverted, standards of evidence for illegal activity shouldn't be decreased and innocent people's lives and privacy shouldn't be breached just to pander to a dying business model.

The only upside is in the US, the RIAA is giving up on legal action because every time it's gotten to court it's failed, apart from the one time it succeeded where it later got overturned. This is because of the afformentioned lack of evidence. If our courts are as intelligent and good at defending the laws and required levels of proof then there is some hope this will be stamped out pretty quickly at least.

0
0
Ash
Thumb Down

@hikaricore

It'll happen, and the great unwashed won't know what it is, the middle class fools won't care, and the upper echelons will profit.

Haven't you heard of the English Way, before?

Me? I'll use the WWW for iPlayer and windows updates. The rest will be Darknet or through a secure VPN out of the country.

0
0
Paris Hilton

Oxymoron?

"collect anonymised information [...] together with personal details"

How anonymous can personal details be?

0
0
Linux

The only defense, if at all

"The best you can do is hold the owner of the internet connection responsible but this means effectively making people legally responsible if someone hacks their machine, hacks their wireless, breaks into their house. It is akin to charging someone with manslaughter should their car be stolen and used to run someone other. This is clear wrong, and not an acceptable path in a free society."

The owner of the internet connection is legally responsible -- Unless you are claiming that someone used your open wireless connection -- Which means that someone has trespassed on your network and is legally responsible for their actions -- whoever they might be.

0
0

mmmm

sounds like the only pipe we're talking about here is a big fat sewage pipe, straight out of government

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums