back to article MPs, Lords ask if Mandybill is human rights friendly

The Government must provide more detail on exactly how alleged copyright infringers will be cut off from the internet before a file-sharing disconnection law is passed, according to a parliamentary committee. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has said that the Government must make the Digital Economy Bill more detailed to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

FAIL

@Punishment by allegation

"At the very least, this bill should require copyright holders to present evidence to some sort of independent tribunal before action is taken against a person. It doesn't need to be a court. It shouldn't be done privately"

We already have excellent "independent tribunals". They actually ARE called "courts". The entire reason for all this Stalinist shenanigans is that the courts actually protect individuals against corporations making land-grabs for citizens' rights - and that will never do.

1
0
Stop

Mandelson

That unelected and probably unelectable known [ fill in the blanks ] should never have been allowed near a Government position. The man is a [ .... ]

7
0
Flame

Just a couple of things

1) Alleging an offence three times does not mean somebody is guilty of an offence. If I allege three times that Mandy is an armed robber, does that mean we can send him down for 10 years, or do you think he'd expect it to be proved in a court of law? Due process my arse.

2) There is already a legal remedy for copyright holders. If they choose not to exercise it, that's their tough fucking shit.

16
0

Same old song. Ding-a-ling-ding.

"Articles 8 and 10 are qualified rights and it is acceptable under the Convention to interfere with these rights if it is in accordance with the law and it is necessary in a democratic society for the protections of the rights of others,....."

Articles 8 and 10 refer to the democratic rights of citizens; corporate entities do not have democratic rights. Although if the unelected Lord Mandelshite had his way you might find yourself in line at the polling station next to a guy from Virgin Media waving his government sponsored 10,000 votes in your face.

Just kidding, guys. After all why would they need to do that when they already have their biddable placemen installed in our legislature.

4
0
Big Brother

"As we have explained in the past..."

"...flexibility is not an appropriate reason for defining a power which engages individual rights without adequate precision to allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny of its proportionality."

And the Government have replied "f**k you, we're going to do this anyway because we can!"

And so we get another piece of ill-thought out, ill-defined and completely vague legislation which lets the Government retroactively decide what they actually meant *after* the law has gone through Parliament, always presuming our elected representatives actually get to discuss all of it, which is unlikely because the Government is probably going to guillotine the debate to force it through before they are voted out of office...

Sorry, but we're not going to vote fascist for a third glorious decade of total law enforcement.

5
0

Missing the Point

Considering whether withdrawal of the internet invades one's privacy, or curtails free expression, or might (in some circumstances) be a form of collective punishment misses the point.

The big ECHR barrier to this bill is Article 6 - the right to a fair trial. Lord Vaderson is proposing a system in which people are punished on the basis of an accusation alone, without any need to make and prove a case in a court of law. That's the worst problem with this bill (though certainly not the only one).

If it gets passed, I'm going to accuse his Lordship of downloading my copyrighted content three times. It won't be provable (or even true), but it doesn't need to be!

4
0
Anonymous Coward

What about...

What about parking or speeding tickets? They are issued without going to court, although you have an option to contest in court.

0
0
FAIL

Like a car? Still full of fail.

This situation is a bit like the one with car owners not necessarily being the driver of the car when an offence is committed.

So the ISP sends a letter to the payer of the internet connection which says "Who visited site X on day X using your internet connection? Unless you fess up someone else, we will assume it was you"

Might be interesting when the internet belongs to a company who may or may not have sufficient logging in place to work out who it was. Hospital porter on nightshift downloads some tracks....using a PC which the night shift nursing staff left logged on. ISP says no internet for your hospital unless you give us a name to prosecute. Doesnt really work does it?

Illegal activity moves onto encrypted connections. Skype have demonstrated an encrypted peer to peer global network already. A hybrid of Skype and TOR would be the next step. A Darknet client, if you like.....

If you are the security team for a company, you might be able to retain control by only allowing whitelisted programs onto company PCs.

If you work for the surveillance state, then your options are more limited. If you let people run PCs they built themselves (Linux, etc) then there's little you can do to control how they access the darknet. Conclusion: governments will make private ownership of PCs illegal - you will only be able to rent a government approved internet access device. See 1984.

Tell me why this isnt where we will end up.....

0
0
Anonymous Coward

clearly

Business accounts will be exempt! The NHS, for example, will have a multiple corporate leased lines, not home ISP connections!

meaning, steal your music at work! Although, as a data owner, enough of it happens already, it's always fun to mail someone asking them why they have x file on their home drive, and would they mind deleting it. When x file is porn/music/film/etc.

0
0

Any hints of Phorm here?

When Phorm was cosying up to the Home Office, was something along these lines maybe part of a deal? For example, perhaps Phorm was to have provided the DP! analysis and traces in return for being allowed to do the profiling?

3
0
MJI
Silver badge
Big Brother

Not long now

To the general election. Delay it enough and it will get forgotten.

As to Darth Meddlesom - why is he still annoying us?

Why hasn't someone put it out of our misery?

2
0
FAIL

Fail!

This country has approx 2 million criminal cases per year, and the legal system is near collapse under this weight. How the hell is it going to handle another 7.5 million - regardless of the other arguements against Mandy's Law? The only way, is for every working person in the UK (not guilty of downloading) to become lawyers! Then nothing will get done!

0
0
Silver badge

#Why cut access?

because big business wants the internet for its use not yours. Now they can get you to pay for it even if they cut you off.

File sharing or freedom sharing - just dont think about either.

0
0
Pirate

This IS collective punishment

An IP address is not a person. Even if someone using an IP address can be proven to be guilty of an offence, that only narrows the suspects down to a group in most households.

If it is established that an unidentified member of a group has committed an offence, English Law does not normally permit the courts to punish all members of that group.

Also, the suggestion that it is up to parents to monitor the activities of their children is somewhat disingenuous. I would hazard a guess that most 16 year olds are much more tech savvy than their parents. We (ie Reg readers) may know how to monitor our children's internet usage, but most people do not and it is not reasonable to expect parents (or indeed ISPs) to do the rights holders' dirty work for them.

Simon says "Fuck 'em", they are wasting their time anyway. This will make no difference whatever apart from a tiny number of people having to change ISP.

1
0
Joke

re : "The Government believes"

The government also believes it will be re-elected.

....LOLZ!

1
0
Jobs Horns

Will people like Google be cut for copyright breaches

Google are continually under attack for copyright breaches. Will the government really give them the count of three and then out? I don't think most people will see that happening

It will be one rule for big business. and one rule for the small guy who has little recourse to challenge the government.

It won't be long before the Internet suspension is replaced by another on the spot fine for reconnection. In other words the government have another fund raising arm whilst at the same time justify having access to all those juicy ISP log files they so cherish

0
0
Flame

# 456345211

>and those are the rights of the copyright holder not to have their work blatantly copied around the internet with no consideration of their wishes.<

Yea, well tell em to stop creating original work (ie copied from things they've grown up listening to, reading and or watching), get off the internet and get a real bloody job, humping bricks about, or teaching or something where they can be paid by the hour.

Problem solved, nothing to 'copyright theft'.

Copyright Me!

1
1

Why not "restrict" instead of "cut off"?

Would it be possible to have ISP's restrict Internet access, instead of cut it off? The problem with cutting off Internet access is that more and more people are banking online, receiving bills on line and doing the communication online. So, would it be possible for an ISP to set up a really restrictive set of routing rules to only allow IP routing to banks, utilities and online E-mail services?

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018