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.

[g1smd]

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.

Today, downloading some music. Tomorrow reading some political group's website, or reading a site showing some failings of people in government.

[sullen]

It's not a "draconian internet censorship bill".

Blocking websites which give away copyright content for free is not the same as blocking that content all together - the books, films etc will still be available from the copyright holders.

While I think it is not terribly well thought-through, it will not change much.

JS_Harris: I've always assumed email is not private, and that's nothing to do with government legislation. The stuff in the article about tracking internet users is all just speculation, based on some previous ill-thought-through announcements. Such a project would easily be over-ruled in the British courts if it were challenged (and it would be)

[mack]

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

And your ISP doesnt already do this?

Mack.

[g1smd]

Blocking websites

No. This isn't about 'blocking websites'.

If it is deemed that your household is a consumer of internet services on the 'not allowed' list, your internet connection will be terminated.

That is, your household will no longer have any access to the internet. All of it will be blocked. You will no longer be a Netizen.

[AlexK]

My mother was born in the 1920s in Germany. The common feature of the Nazi & Soviet regimes was of centralised control, leading inevitably to suppression of freedoms & oppression of the people. One key feature of the internet is of decentralised control, tending inevitably to anarchy.

The trace of the last 10 years in Britain has been of increasing control from centres of government. Such control always has a `sensible' reason attached.

[IanKelley]

The UK is starting to look a lot like science fiction.

It will start small with topics that can be easily sold to the public

Indeed. People see extreme examples like copyright abuse and child #*$!, it gets their emotions involved, and they blind themselves to the implications of what they're really supporting.

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.

Will we never learn? Every power given to a government, throughout history, is eventually abused. And over a long enough period of time, abuse becomes the rule rather than the exception.

I've always been under the impression that this was common knowledge?

Isn't that why our well intentioned, if perhaps naively idealistic, forefathers here in the US took such pains to define what the government was allowed to stick it's fingers into?

And your ISP doesnt already do this?

Nope, too expensive and time consuming to implement. Processor cycles and storage space need to get a little bit cheaper before ISPs will setup this kind of thing without incentive.

[engine]

It is a rushed, flawed Bill which will waste a great deal of time and energy by many as a result of the the most appauling handling by the UK's lawmakers. They ought to ashamed, imho. I listened the whole debate in the House and clearly, many of them knew very little about the technical aspects of the topic. It's made worse by the fact that very few MPs were there to debate it.

[wildbest]

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

Mr Schmidt, why Google doesn't want anyone to know what is AdWords quality score algo?! How Google measures a website quality from 1 to 10? And so on. Are you hiding something which should not be hidden in the first place, Mr Schmidt?

[Demaestro]

if they download copyrighted music and films

I wonder how they plan on doing this, is the act of downloading copyright music or films all that is needed to be fined and lose your connection?

What if the source is a legitimate one? Is 1 not allowed to download music from iTunes anymore? What about movies from Netflix?

How are they to know if the copyright is being breached?

The music/movie could be from an authorized vendor, do they have a list of every authorized vendor and which copyrighted material they are authorized to distribute?

The person downloading could be acting in an investigation and is authorized to download content from a company to report to them. Is that person going to have his connection cut and be fined?

I really would like to see the proposed plan for determining:

1)If someone download copyrighted music and films

2)If either person, the uploader or the downloader isn't authorized to receive or send the content.

3)What content has a copyright on it.

4)What content providers are authorized dealers


There are a ton of legal vendors, how are they going to sort the bad downloads from the good?

This is why I hate the notion of someone other than the copyright holder acting as copyright police. Too many variables to create a solid system that can work and allows the little guy to play on the same level.

[Demaestro]

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.

You assume 2 things with that statement.

1) That only the worst, most horrible, crime ridden sites will ever be censored.

2) That the only reason to visit a censored site would be to commit a criminal act.

To assume that only criminal sites would be censored and that the only reason to visit would be to commit a criminal act is so big brother/1984 it is scary.

It is a great idea until someone in power decides that a website criticizing the government needs to be censored and anyone reading their publication needs to be stopped.

[mack]

It is a great idea until someone in power decides that a website criticizing the government needs to be censored and anyone reading their publication needs to be stopped.

And you say I assume :)

Mack.

[Demaestro]

Well I am not saying that will happen, but I am saying it is an ok enough of an idea until it does.

But you are right, it is an assumption that humans can't be trusted over time.

[kapow]

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.

That would be assuming authorities don't abuse, neglect or extend their power; naive in the extreme. I would vote for such a bill if I really thought they would only use it for the stated purposes.

[g1smd]

How are they to know if the copyright is being breached?

It's all fine, they have your Intellectual Property address(sic) on record and they'll track transgressions with that.

[boingboing.net...]

[AlexK]

So that folks can know what they are arguing about:

Digital Economy Bill, 2nd reading Tue, 6 Apr 2010, House of Commons [news.bbc.co.uk]
Digital Economy Bill, 1st reading Tue, 6 Apr 2010, House of Commons [news.bbc.co.uk]
Digital Economy Bill, 1st reading Wed, 2 Dec 2009, House of Lords [news.bbc.co.uk]

The measure began in the Upper House (3rd link). There were then 7 stages at `Committee' & `Report' before it passed to the Lower House. As you see, the Lower House (`House of Commons') stages were both passed on the same day.

[johnhh]

Sulle said:

JS_Harris: I've always assumed email is not private, and that's nothing to do with government legislation. The stuff in the article about tracking internet users is all just speculation, based on some previous ill-thought-through announcements.

In actual fact, as far as MP's are concerned the original project to record all UK electronic communications, separate from the Digital Economy Act, was shelved, for the moment.

The information I have indictates that, in practice, they are still getting on with it.

Its not just emails and internet usage it's every type of electronic communication. Probably use Google's experience on large databases !

[claus]

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?

The notion of "their respective countries" is quickly fading for Europe these days, after the adoption of the EU treaty.

The problem with EU laws is ... that they're EU laws. Increasingly they're being made by the EU and not the national governments. Then, being members of the EU, the national parlaments have only one option which is to implement the EU laws.

IMHO, the EU is just as draconian when it comes to privacy and civilian rights as the UK, NZ, AUS... Iran and China.

--
Added: As for Denmark, we have new laws in place that requires all ISPs to store every internet session for 2 years. They do not store the information received, "only" information about which sites you visited. They also store endpoints for email communication (not the email contents)

[claus]

the only people who have anything to worry about are the people ...

That argument is often heard. It is a false argument, and it should never be taken seriously.

The problem with this argument is that it negates the fact that privacy is a basic human right. IOW the argument itself is a violation of basic human rights.

One should never, ever have to worry about keeping any kind of information private, and one should never have to explain any part of one's personal and private endeavours. The words "private" and "personal" mean exactly what they say, and nothing else.

[mack]

claus, what privacy do you experience off line that you expect to experience on line. TBO I agree with what you are saying but don't entirely agree with the sentiments about privacy being a basic human right. There are people who use the net who deserve no privacy at all, and its these people who stand to loose the most if and when governments decide to tighten controls.

Mack.

[AlexK]

An extremely good report on Panorama [bbc.co.uk] (iPlayer, UK only, available until 8:59pm Tuesday 15th March 2011) following the original House of Lords decision, and before the House of Commons final votes.

[IanKelley]

There are people who use the net who deserve no privacy at all, and its these people who stand to loose the most if and when governments decide to tighten controls.

By this logic as long as crime exists in any form there will always be justification to remove the rights of the innocent.

[geekay]

IMHO, the EU is just as draconian when it comes to privacy and civilian rights as the UK, NZ, AUS... Iran and China.

The EU includes your own native country of Denmark. When Claus equalizes Denmark and Iran/China here you are exaggerating – if you are not simply kidding. True, you claimed it was just your own IMHO, but I doubt that kind of personal IMHOs are at all helpful in determing the real consequences of that UK bill. IMHO voicing obviously ridiculous "opinions" is detrimental to an objective and rewarding discussion. Many people's immense fear of government influence has already been more than sufficiently demonstrated to us here. Everybody is now well aware of the existence of such fears.

The problem with EU laws is ... that they're EU laws. Increasingly they're being made by the EU and not the national governments. Then, being members of the EU, the national parlaments have only one option which is to implement the EU laws.

Not true. The EU Directives set the minimum requirements to be implemented by all member countries. They may go further in their national legislation. Judging from many posts here, at least, that is exactly what is happening in the UK, so that's a major problem with that UK bill. Sofar this long thread has not been very helpful for analyzing the contents of this important UK bill. But we now know everything about how ruthlessly it was passed in Parliament.

[graeme_p]

Not true. The EU Directives set the minimum requirements to be implemented by all member countries. They may go further in their national legislation

True with two caveats.

1)EU regulations do not need to be implemented by national governments.
2) Directives, which is what we are discussing here, sill have to become law in all Eu countries, it is just that the directives grant national governments some controll over implementation.

[tenerifejim]

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

The House of Lords was, in effect, the "Supreme Court" until recently when it was replaced by an actual Supreme Court.

I'm pretty sure the EU Court of Justice will be involved at some point as the Court has jurisdiction over data privacy - specifically relating to proportionality:

Personal data may be processed only insofar as it is adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed

Requiring a full monitoring of all internet traffic to catch a few file sharers doesn't sound very proportional to me.

This directive has been implemented since 1995 and as such there is no reason that it is not fully adopted and enshrined in UK law.

Leaving aside the reason for wanting the law (digital and media rights) I find the way it is being rushed through this Parliament without full review or assessment disgraceful.

[ppc_newbie]

The one section that they took out about censoring websites was reincluded as part of another section.

So some bureaucrat can still block any website, for any reason, without any public input or control, or knowledge, for anybody or everybody they feel like.

Just take a look at the Aussie list on WikiLeaks for some of the strange sites(dentist,etc.) that should never have been blocked. And now the Aussies have blocked WikiLeaks because they mad at them. Who gets blocked next on a secret blacklist.

[claus]

@geekay:
"The EU includes your own native country of Denmark. When Claus equalizes Denmark and Iran/China"

I wasn't specific enough in my wording. What I ment by "EU" in my original statement

"MHO, the EU is just as draconian"

.. was specifically the EU Government / EU Parliament, not the association of EU states. So, Denmark as such was not included in the "EU" of my statement, even though Denmark is a member state of the European Union.

There's a distinction here that I think is important. The national government of Denmark is composed according to the votes of the Danish population; this is not the case with the EU government. For that reason (and probably many others) the EU government will in many cases act differently than the Danish government.

However, after the Lisboa Treaty, the Danish government (as well as all the other "national" governments) has little say over the decisions by the EU government, as it's limited to implementing directives that are already decided.

Enought about that. Just wanted to explain what I didn't express clearly the first time around.

[geekay]

Thank you for that releaving clarification. I have always held Denmark in high esteem as a democracy, where the voters truly can designate their own political leaders. They in turn are responsible for approving competent leaders for the EU. And, actually, I haven't given up my hopes on the UK either. So, eventually the application of that Bill will not turn out to be this destructive to the internet. IMHO.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

The message in this thread is getting lost.

Did the people ask to have their emails, browsing habits, credit card purchases, banking information and all "electronic exchanges" recorded?

No, they didn't, this shouldn't be happening but it has been for some time.

[tangor]

While not quite the same topic, it is in the same vein as in gubermint getting involved in people's web activities and is USA based: [theregister.co.uk...]