News - Digital Economy Bill pushed through with ISP blocking injunction intact

Quote:

---

Another bill is rushed-through during wash-up, meaning ISPs can now be forced to block access to websites.

---

Read more.

This just shows politics and government has gone to the dogs. No party change will make the least bit of difference.

Another proud day for both democracy and the UK government :rolleyes:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1429423/commons_floor-460.png

I point the Honourable(sic) Members to the following

http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessi...reativity.html

Time to change the status quo I think

is it me or is there no one in that pick?

also what is considered as piracy infringing websites? we turning in to china now?

All I can say is it is a sad day.

Asking these out of touch fuddy-duddies to make up rules and regulations for the internet is like asking a dumb blonde to make equations up for quantum physics.

What they should have done is setup a think-tank of leaders and experts from the field of the internet and asked them to glaze over the bill to see where any issues would arise. Oh wait, I forgot, the government doesn't listen to their advisors :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee @ SCAN

Oh wait, I forgot, the government doesn't listen to their advisors :rolleyes:

---

..or the voters.

OTOH they do listen to the music industry, or anyone else with a lot of money and/or who knows Darth Mandelson..

yeah but thing is, this is just being annoying, piracy will just change form slightly and wouldnt dissapiar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Georgy291

yeah but thing is, this is just being annoying, piracy will just change form slightly and wouldnt dissapiar

---

Of course not, but you have to be SEEN to do SOMETHING for that campaign contribution :D

I'm not a laywer, but it seems that the SoS can decide what sirtes should be blocked - presumably after a request from the various music/video lobbies. At some point this could be challenged in the courts, and if it loses, then aspect is effectively overturned. The problem is that it would need a site (or ISP) with a lot of clout and resources to mount such a challenge, and it would have to be one that is legally providing non-copyright material that was blocked.

The whole thing is a mess - the consequence (as the original article said) of hurried law making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

The problem is that it would need a site (or ISP) with a lot of clout and resources to mount such a challenge, and it would have to be one that is legally providing non-copyright material that was blocked.

---

Like TalkTalk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

The whole thing is a mess - the consequence (as the original article said) of hurried law making.

---

And what is meant by blocking? Do specific URLS have to be stopped? Which means all http traffic have to go through an ISP proxy.Do they mean specific IPs, what happens if the site homes multiple services, do they all have to be take down? What of SSL that uses end to end encryption, you cannot tell what site or url is being requested, just the tunnel destination server. Unless of course we have to all trust ISPs to be the end point for all SSL tunnels, and have certificate faking from the ISP. Looks like a GREAT cracking target, for peoples bank details. And then of course there is TOR, if it can work for people in IRAN is can work for people in the UK.

The internet see censorship as damage and routes around it. If it designed to work after a nuclear attack, I think they are going to have problems blocking all the holes.

All valid points, oolon. I think the parliamentary discussion covered the situation that any "blocking" could not be entirely effective, for largely those reasons, but that any injunction would be for all ISPs, and that it would be for sites where the content was "substantially" infringing material. It would also be likely to be the case that while there might be ways round it for those more technically alert, it would have the effect of blocking many and therefore substantially reducing the impact of illegal sharing, even while almost certainly not eliminating it.

The philosophy seems to be, as with speeding, just because you can't eliminate it doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can to minimise it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

The philosophy seems to be, as with speeding, just because you can't eliminate it doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can to minimise it.

---

I just don't think it can be minimised, not without some very draconian systems. Such as installation on all machines of the government monitoring program. Or infact making some software illegal perhaps by proving a list of approved protocols? That would be a problem for many custom apps, would VPN be allowed etc?

If DNS is broken people will use a different lookup system, if http is broken people will make a new transport that isn't people will make the next versions alot harder to interfere with. Torrent does not have to work on the standard port, HTML does not have to be transmitted over HTTP.

This is infact the problem with file sharing, you only need one person who knows how to rip it and put it online for everyone less clueful to get, likewise you only need one person to write a program. I challege people to suggest any method that cannot be bypassed save the two routes i suggest.

Don't get me wrong I am currently working at an independent record distributor, I do want people to pay for music (they pay my salary indirectly). I don't think trying to blocking the internet is the way to do it, its the way to make the ISPs spend alot or time and money chasing shadows.

I think the requirement to produce who computer was on a specific IP after the production of a court order is right. Proper legal course should and could then occur, perhaps a court order to seize and examine equipement? People committing a crime should then go to court. Blocking peoples broadband is like adding a new class of punishment, with a lower burden of proof on it. Ok perhaps we could have a system as with speeding tickets, where people could take a different punishment, however at the end of the day they should have to be proved guilty in court if they do not wish to admit to the offense.

Edit:
yes I know people might say but Blah monitor program does not work on say openbsd, the answer would be it would be illegal to hook that up to the network as it was not "approved" software... this is starting to sound like a story on the gnu site.

so im guessing, bye bye google?