Apr 4
'sniffed' by our internet providers for potential copyright
infringement, and against the government having any ability to
disconnect people or to block websites. The sudden arrival of Clause 18 without discussion in the Lords is the
main problem. It allows web censorship at a government level by
enabling them to force ISPs to block certain 'locations' (too many
questions on what a 'location' might be). This is censorship of the internet and is not a power that a UK
government should wield in my opinion. Why is it okay to disconnect
someone on suspicion of 'copyright theft' but not being discussed for
far more serious crimes, for instance? What will happen when our local
cafes can no longer offer free wifi, or a family member breaks the
rules and shuts the internet account for the whole family? And why is
okay for 'rights holders' to force expensive court costs onto people
who are accused of filesharing without proof. Faced with thousands in
costs many people will just roll over. The result - corporate
censorship of dissenting voices. Wikileaks.org will be its first
casualty. I'm encouraging everyone I know to write to their MPs to ask for a
proper debate on this important issue - so far it's only been through
the Lords (the non elected bit), and is currently going to be pushed
through under 'wash up' on Tuesday without _any_ debate by our elected
representatives. So yes - I'm against the entire bill being put through in its current
state because it is flawed and an irresponsible abuse of process to
push it through in the least democratic way possible by a government
in its final throes. Shame on them for treating all of us who understand how the internet
works with such distain.
Why I'm against the Digital Economy Bill
I was asked directly on Facebook why I'm against the bill. Here's my rant: I'm fundamentally against all of our internet connections being'sniffed' by our internet providers for potential copyright
infringement, and against the government having any ability to
disconnect people or to block websites. The sudden arrival of Clause 18 without discussion in the Lords is the
main problem. It allows web censorship at a government level by
enabling them to force ISPs to block certain 'locations' (too many
questions on what a 'location' might be). This is censorship of the internet and is not a power that a UK
government should wield in my opinion. Why is it okay to disconnect
someone on suspicion of 'copyright theft' but not being discussed for
far more serious crimes, for instance? What will happen when our local
cafes can no longer offer free wifi, or a family member breaks the
rules and shuts the internet account for the whole family? And why is
okay for 'rights holders' to force expensive court costs onto people
who are accused of filesharing without proof. Faced with thousands in
costs many people will just roll over. The result - corporate
censorship of dissenting voices. Wikileaks.org will be its first
casualty. I'm encouraging everyone I know to write to their MPs to ask for a
proper debate on this important issue - so far it's only been through
the Lords (the non elected bit), and is currently going to be pushed
through under 'wash up' on Tuesday without _any_ debate by our elected
representatives. So yes - I'm against the entire bill being put through in its current
state because it is flawed and an irresponsible abuse of process to
push it through in the least democratic way possible by a government
in its final throes. Shame on them for treating all of us who understand how the internet
works with such distain.
