All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
18 Mar 2010
The Digital Economy Bill has been causing controversy for some time now because of its proposals to change online copyright legislation, but now lawyers and human rights groups are warning that it signals an even greater problem - a serious weakness in the way government policy is formulated.
Critics say the government is ignoring input from both the public and parliament in its eagerness to pass the Bill, and that once it is passed the country will be left to deal with a number of undemocratic laws.
Many members of the House of Lords wanted to make changes to the Bill in the final reading last week. Their main focus was on Clause 18, which was put forward by Liberal Democrat members but then subsequently rejected by their own party after it came out that the changes were authored by powerful lobbyists.
The Bill, which was finally passed by the Lords unchanged on Monday, is now back with the House of Commons, which is unlikely to give the Bill further scrutiny as it is now under pressure to pass legislation.
"The real problem is that the other House also will not be able to come to any conclusion about this issue; its members will get only a Second Reading. They will not have a chance to put amendments forward on behalf of their constituents to make the Bill better balanced,” said Liberal Democrat Baroness Sue Miller.
The controversial clause the Lords tried to change was Clause 18, which they inserted in a previous sitting to give copyright holders the right to demand ISPs restrict certain web sites from their users. But during Monday's debate, their amendments were shot down by Lord Anthony Young, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).
The House of Lords may have had more luck changing the clause in an earlier debate but public outrage over the restriction of web sites only peaked after the Open Rights Group revealed Clause 18 came directly from the music industry association, BPI, which holds considerable lobbying power in the copyright debate.
Latest stories from Law
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
Orange and Intel talk us through the ins and outs of their San Diego smartphone
Connect with V3.co.uk
The wrong printers, for the wrong tasks on the wrong contracts
Who leads the BI pack and who should we be watching out for?
Systems Analyst/Architect £30,000 - £40,000 + excellent...
Software Developer Up to £27,000 + excellent...
Software Engineer/Developer (C++) £25,000 - £40...
Web Developer £25,000 - £40,000 (DOE)+ excellent...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
If this is the case...
If, as Lord Anthony Young claims, the Bill has been scrutinized thoroughly, then he is admitting there are flaws in the parliamentary process. This is a very important decision that will impact much more than copyright infringement. As such, the "scrutiny" it receives should come from experts in the field, not those who listen to the propaganda of the recording/entertainment industry. Further to your article (and I believe I have a right to voice my concerns as I have a Ph.D in Computer Science): 1. There will be (already has been) a huge migration to services and software that employ cryptography (encryption) to hide what traffic users send and receive over the Internet. All but the simplest encryption protocols will render Deep Packet Inspection (DPI - the proposed mechanism to monitor what people are downloading/uploading) useless. 2. Because encryption will become mainstream (one could argue that it already has), it will be much more difficult to fight organised crime and terrorism. 3. The record industry and blaming piracy for huge drop in profits, totally ignoring the fact that millions are unemployed and are struggling to buy the basics (food, clothing, electricity). Trust me, I know - when you're hungry and borderline homeless, the last thing you think of doing is purchasing music/films. Also, let's be honest here - is there anything out there today that doesn't sound the same us the music that was shovelled down our throats last year, or the year before, and the year before that (ad infinitum)? Personally, most of what I've heard in the last 10 years has made my ears feel like their bleeding. Market forces dictate profits - just because an "artist" (and I use that term loosely) creates a track or album, it doesn't necessarily mean they should automatically be rewarded with a truck load of cash. 4. One downloaded track does not equate to one lost sale. People download for numerous reasons, and millions can either take it or leave it (music that is). There are other mediums with which to listen to music - like Internet radio, Spotify etc... 5. DPI breaches basic Human Rights clauses, such as those that guarantee everyone the right to a private a personal life (i.e. the Government is not permitted to open your mail and read the contents). Yet DPI will enable ISPs to read your emails and everything else you do on the Internet (you or your flatmates). It will enable someone, somewhere, to be able to build a digital profile of you. Tim Berners-Lee himself described DPI as "...the digital equivalent of opening people's mail...". 6. DPI is expensive to implement and maintain, and the innocent majority (along with the guilty minority) will be footing the bill for this. This entire affair is so undemocratic that if it wasn't such a serious issue it would be laughable. It opens the doors to Internet censorship and control - something that we in the West have frequently criticized China for doing. How/why should the owner of the connection be liable for what his/her flatmates do online? This is not something that can be policed by the connection owner. The only option is to prevent people from sharing connections. Also, how can a Minister implement new laws/amendments to the Act without parliamentary process? How long do you think it will be before cryptography (encryption) is regulated and normal citizens will require a license to use it? How many letters do you think the BPI will send out to simply "try their luck"? After all, they just have to accuse someone, and the onus is then on the accused to prove his/her innocence. There's no come back for false accusations! This isn't a case of those wanting free music making a noise, this is a case of normal everyday net-citizens being slapped in the face by a government that is undemocratic and all too willing to appease powerful lobbyists at the expense of democracy.
Posted by: Scott Deagan 18 Mar 2010