Unprecedented Internet Censorship Bill Passes UK House of Commons

[tedster]

A draconian Internet censorship bill that has been long looming on the horizon finally passed the house of commons in the UK yesterday, legislating for government powers to restrict and filter any website that is deemed to be undesirable for public consumption...

The Digital Economy Bill will also see users' broadband access cut off indefinitely, in addition to a fine of up to £50,000 without evidence or trial, if they download copyrighted music and films...

The legislation would impose a duty on ISPs to effectively spy on all their customers by keeping records of the websites they have visited and the material they have downloaded. ISPs who refuse to cooperate could be fined £250,000.

[globalresearch.ca...]
Currently in Britain, any interception of a communication requires a warrant. This bill now returns to the House of Lords where it originated, and if it passes, those warrants will just be a faint memory.

And it's not just the UK that is working to stomp out free use of the Internet. Finland, Denmark, Germany and other countries in Europe have all proposed repressive actions such as those used in Iran, Syria and China. And the US has similar machinations in the works as well - all detailed in the article.

[grelmar]

I miss the Wild Wild Web.

Sooner or later, the regulators were bound to step in. We all knew it was bound to happen.

But...

[caribguy]

It was good to know y'all. Soon there'll be better money to be made in B/M again. Death of the interwebs at 11...

But, realistically... Enforcing this is a no-go. The regulators will always be a few steps behind.

[walkman]

"But, realistically... Enforcing this is a no-go. The regulators will always be a few steps behind. "

Like Napster? Try having your internet cut and a $75,000 fine and you will see how fast word spreads.

Doesn't UK have the equivalent of the US Bill of Rights / Supreme Court (or Lords) that can suspend this?

[tedster]

The article continues:

A group of over 300 internet service providers and telecommunications firms [thisisgloucestershire.co.uk] has attempted to fight back over the radical plans, describing the proposals as an unwarranted invasion of people's privacy.

It sounds like there's an international juggernaut rolling here. I'm happy to hear about the 300 ISPs - in my opinion it ought to be EVERY ISP.

[geekay]

"without evidence". How could those "government powers" possibly even know someone has downloaded copyrighted music and films, if they have no evidence?

That Canadian organisation alleges: "Germany and other countries in Europe have all proposed repressive actions such as those used in Iran, Syria and China." Really? Does any of WebmasterWorld's European members have first hand news of "actions such as those used in Iran" being proposed in their respective countries?

Sorry, Tedster, but I don't believe the original article was worthy of being referred to front page in this venerable forum, and maybe cause unwarranted panic. A look at the original site made me understand what kind of organisation that Global Research is.

[grelmar]

Really? Has any of WebmasterWorld's European members first hand news of "actions such as those used in Iran" being proposed in their respective countries?

Germany [en.wikipedia.org]

France: HADOPI Law [en.wikipedia.org]

That took all of 10 seconds to find on Wikipedia. If you really want to dig into it, and spend, oh, a half hour or so, you'll find all kinds of examples of laws being enacted across the EU, Australia, and other places that, while well meaning in their intent to protect copyright holders, are chilling in their scope and reach.

[caribguy]

Two things stand out:

if they download copyrighted music and films

and

duty on ISPs to effectively spy on all their customers

None of this is new. Let me just remind everyone about some current torrent sources being agents for the copyright owners, and of course Carnivore is still in effect in the good ole' USA...

The "wild wild web" has not existed for quite some time. Building a legal framework to criminalize certain activities that used to be considered private... Ah, ok... Enforcement will be extremely specific - i.e. think of sodomy laws in certain states in the US.

[geekay]

I said: "first hand news".

But grelmar is allowed to have a high confidence in Wikipedia.

[caribguy]

@geekay, if you don't want to read GR.ca, the Boing Boing comments from November 2009 are a blast... Also, The Register [theregister.co.uk] just published some insights on the implementation timetable...

[geekay]

I don't understand. I already explicitly said that I did acquaint myself with gr.ca.

Nobody has denied the fact that acts are being prepared. That's happening everywhere all the time. The pertinent question is: will it be like in Iran, Syria and China? And should WebmasterWorld spread such fears.

I wanted comments specifically from European members. Let's wait until more of them have woken up.

[idolw]

In Poland they wanted to create a list of website to be blocked. No court ruling would be needed to prohibit a site from displaying to Polish users.
Poilsh internet boiled, there was even a meeting with the Prime Minister and the government eventually resigned from that idea.

[geekay]

There you have a very good example. In a democratic country the government does listen to public opinion, and if justified renounce its plans. Not so in Iran. On the other hand, if it was a list of child pron web sites that were to be block-listed I wouldn't have minded.

[zett]

The pertinent question is: will it be like in Iran, Syria and China?

No, they will filter different pages and keywords (but, for example, will allow access to stuff related to, say, Tiananmen Square). :-)

It is obvious that governments around the world would like to shut down or limit access to topics they don't want to see widely discussed. It will start small with topics that can be easily sold to the public, but the immanant risk is that once the technology is there, you can extend the filters.

Some folks in the U.S., for example, have already proposed a fine for "climate sceptics" (those people who do not buy to the story of "manmade CO2 emissions lead to severe global warming and climate change"). It's not a big step from requesting a fine to requesting to block access to pages that promote unwanted opinion. Or take the independent 9/11 research. That's certainly something worth to be blocked (in the eyes of the U.S. government).

I do have hope, though, that in Europe those laws will be put under massive scrutiny by the various high courts. For example, here in Germany, politicians have over the past couple of years grossly over-estimated their powers, and independent courts have stopped them. However, it is sad that it takes so long to get decisions from such courts.

[graeme_p]

"without evidence". How could those "government powers" possibly even know someone has downloaded copyrighted music and films, if they have no evidence?

They will act on accusations. The aim is that if a big media company accuses a website of copyright violation, it will be blocked fast, and will have to then clear itself of the accusation, rather than requiring the accusation to be proved before it is blocked.

Also, as happened with Australian blocking to "prevent child #*$!", it is likely that the powers will be used to block websites the government dislikes for other reasons: the two Australian examples I know are, ironically, a pro-life website and a euthanasia website.

[geekay]

There are no doubt folks (pressure groups) that want anything imaginable. But are they really relevant to this discussion here?

I regret that Australia made mistakes in their block list. "They will act on accusations." That's important new information indeed. Where did you get that fact?

[caribguy]

Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "what kind of organization" - but in fact, the implied partiality of the link source is not at all pertinent to the discussion.

I just finished reading a bunch of comments on Orlowski's article. He got his backside chewed off, and rightfully so. Under the guise of copytight (R) protection, the laws create a framework for control of individuals - there's your similarity with Iran, China and other totalitarian governments.

Since we're not supposed to discuss politics here, maybe we can share ideas on how -theoretically- a person, or ISP, or content provider could avoid liability when such laws become implemented and enforced. The writing is on the wall: our collective policy makers intend to restrict the free flow of information, thereby fully disregarding the wishes of their electorate. So, what's next: encrypted traffic, alternative distribution methods like private networks, offshoring, plausible deniability?

The technology is there, and I've got a hunch that most resourceful individuals would adapt to a changing legal environment...

[SEOPTI]

Bill, do you mean Bill Gates? LoL.. sorry not native English. I always thought Bill=William.

[JS_Harris]

In one simple word - no.

Government is trying both ends on this too.

END #1 - The internet isn't safe so we need new rules for it.
END #2 - We'll just place a "live tap" on everyone but guarantee your information to be safe.

Both can't be right.

[edited by: JS_Harris at 6:50 am (utc) on Apr 12, 2010]

[JS_Harris]

just another observation

The Digital Economy Bill is intrinsically linked to long term plans by the UK government to carry out an unprecedented extension of state powers by claiming the authority to monitor all emails, phone calls and internet activity nationwide.

The people did NOT ask for this, the state is becoming a dictatorship with these "long term plans". Or people are becoming cattle...

GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre, is developing classified technology to intercept and monitor all e-mails, website visits and social networking sessions in Britain. The agency will also be able to track telephone calls made over the internet, as well as all phone calls to land lines and mobiles.

The £1 billion snooping project — called Mastering the Internet (MTI) — will rely on thousands of “black box” probes being covertly inserted across online infrastructure.

Now you know why the budget is never balanced and why there is always fighting, it's required to be able to justify this type of thing.

[geekay]

I'm very sorry to learn all that. I admit that it's new to me. I'm happy that I don't live in the UK "dictatorship", but in a more democratic European country.

[JS_Harris]

Being sorry to learn it isn't enough unfortunately. Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This type of big brother spy program obliterates that right (and raises your taxes and creates more fighting).

[geekay]

I said *very* sorry, and I mean it. I didn't know Human Rights were so depressed in the UK. Magna Charta. I sincerely hope HM Government will be summoned to appear before the European Court of Justice and explain what's going on.

[g1smd]

What riles a lot of people in the UK is that the debate in chambers was attended by less than 30 of the 650 MPs, while more than 100 others turned up just for the vote. The rest didn't bother to vote.

Most of the people who spoke about the new law were opposed - but voted for it anyway as this motion was under 'three line whip'.

The internet cut off is just one small part of this law. The new law contains lots of disparate things, the major part being the reform of Channel 4 TV (commercial service) which has had a very large amount of work on it.

With parliament about to be dissolved for the impending elections, it was either rush the whole lot though now, or start again when the new Government is formed on May 6th. They chose to rush it through with less than two hours of debate.

Finally, the Minister for Technology thinks that an IP address is an Intellectual Property address that can be tracked to see who has downloaded material. By demonstrating that level of knowledge, is it any wonder that UK citizens have zero confidence in their glorious leaders?

[wildbest]

The pertinent question is: will it be like in Iran, Syria and China?

No, it'll be worse! You may never know you're censored.

[Rosalind]

What riles a lot of people in the UK is that the debate in chambers was attended by less than 30 of the 650 MPs, while more than 100 others turned up just for the vote. The rest didn't bother to vote.

Mine didn't, which annoyed me. I don't like the way this bill had so little time for debate, yet it covered so many issues. I haven't heard much about it in the mainstream press, which means that most of the country hasn't had the opportunity to decide what it means for them or to contact their MPs to make their thoughts known. Meanwhile the UK media is busy talking about the election, or Wayne Rooney's ankle.

[mack]

Lets be honest. At the end of the day the only people who have anything to worry about are the people who should have something to worry about. If you worry about not being able to access a censored website, then you shouldn't be trying to access it in the first place.

Mack.

[geekay]

Those who know best, the British, have made it quite clear to us here that the very way this important bill was made is really unbearable, and they deserve our symphaty.

But I think the substantial question for us is: how will the bill actually affect the internet, and will there be essential, and genuinly new, negative effects that could harm other countries too? I feel Global Research did not give the true answer here.

[JS_Harris]

Lets be honest. At the end of the day the only people who have anything to worry about are the people who should have something to worry about. If you worry about not being able to access a censored website, then you shouldn't be trying to access it in the first place.

Yes, lets be honest here, do you like to bank online? Will you like to bank online when a copy of the pages you looked at is saved without your permission? Or maybe you like to email friends and family? Will you like to email friends and family knowing all of your emails will NOT be private? Do you like to make cell phone calls? Will you like to make calls knowing your every word is recorded?

There is more to this bill than "censored websites", it abolishes privacy systematicaly by "tagging and recording all individuals every electronic action WITH identifiable information intact". Read the thing, pls.

[pageoneresults]

Lets be honest. At the end of the day the only people who have anything to worry about are the people who should have something to worry about. If you worry about not being able to access a censored website, then you shouldn't be trying to access it in the first place.

Where have I heard something similar to that before? :)

Eric Schmidt - If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.