Slashdot Mirror

Ok, so David was detained and his goods seized under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which states :-

Detention of property
11 (2) An examining officer may detain the thing—

(a) for the purpose of examination, for a period not exceeding seven days beginning with the day on which the detention commences,
(b) while he believes that it may be needed for use as evidence in criminal proceedings, or
(c) while he believes that it may be needed in connection with a decision by the Secretary of State whether to make a deportation order under the Immigration Act 1971.

In the first place, they had no right to detain the personal property. I wish the officers joy in explaining why he thought these items were "evidence in criminal proceedings" or were relevant to a "deportation order".

In the second place, nothing I can see therein allows them to destroy detained property, which is a very extreme response under any cricumstances. It also contradicts the intent of the section, which was to allow collection of property to be used as evidence.

Pretty ironic since the preamble states that the Act was "An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.". The only terrorism here I see is committed by the government.

terrorism
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

The law is ripe for abuse as written:
Miranda was stopped at the airport, presumably under the terms of Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 7: "Ports and Border Controls"(on page 108)

"Power to stop, question and detain
2.—(1) An examining ocer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).

(2) This paragraph applies to a person if—

(a) he is at a port or in the border area, and

(b) the examining ocer believes that the person’s presence at the port or
in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or
Northern Ireland.

(3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.

(4) An examining ocer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b)." The law actually says, explicitly, that the powers of border detention can be exercised without meeting any standard of suspicion, 'reasonable' or otherwise. If that wasn't designed to be abused, I'm not sure what would qualify, it overtly allows up to 9 hours detention on any grounds whatsoever, or none. ('section 40(1)(b)' defines a 'terrorist')

Query: ocer?

The law is ripe for abuse as written:

Miranda was stopped at the airport, presumably under the terms of Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 7: "Ports and Border Controls"(on page 108)

"Power to stop, question and detain

2.—(1) An examining ocer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).

(2) This paragraph applies to a person if—
(a) he is at a port or in the border area, and
(b) the examining ocer believes that the person’s presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
(3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
(4) An examining ocer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b)."(emphasis mine)

The law actually says, explicitly, that the powers of border detention can be exercised without meeting any standard of suspicion, 'reasonable' or otherwise. If that wasn't designed to be abused, I'm not sure what would qualify, it overtly allows up to 9 hours detention on any grounds whatsoever, or none. ('section 40(1)(b)' defines a 'terrorist')

There is; under this law they have to return the stuff within 7 days unless they're actually pressing charges/bringing criminal proceedings. See paragraph 11(2).

I think you'll find that obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception is illegal.

Fraud Act 2006, chapter 35 section 2:

Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
  (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
  (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

Is there a statute of limitation for whatever the UK wants to seize Assange for?

I don't know about the rules for the alledged underlying crimes in Sweden, but from a UK perspective Assange has fairly clearly been committing a criminal offence continuously since he failed to comply with bail conditions relating to the European Arrest Warrant. Not complying with bail is a criminal offence regardless of the outcome of the underlying reason for bail. Even if Sweden completely withdrew the EAW, the UK would still want to put him on trial for that given the amount of fuss he has caused.

I suspect that as a result, the rest of the world is going to be deeply suspicious of the US in the future, and it is going to be much more difficult to maintain control of the Internet's key systems and keep them inside US borders as much as is possible. I

That's definitely true. A UK political programme on TV last night that was focussed on the thorny issue of Scottish independence ended up talking about the US and their spying intentions. Even the politically mixed audience, who had been arguing from different positions all through the programme, joined in condemnation of the US for unwarranted spying on personal communications.

Which is ironic, because UK law explicitly allows the sort of interception programme that is so 'shocking' when the US does it. See RIPA section 8 ss 4-6 - the Secretary of State (not a judge) can issue a blanket warrant for all 'external communications' (eg those with locations outside the British Isles), without specifying a particular target person or location, on the grounds of National Security (section 5 ss 3(a)). Communications data can be obtained on similar grounds under section 22, except that here it only has to be authorised by a Chief Constable.

actually, I didn't need to, I've dealt with several cases involving computer crime. Such activity as the OP describes *may* fall under Section 3.

Copyright infringement is only criminal if done on a commercial scale. In other words you have to be making a significant profit from it.

It is also criminal if done non-commercially on such a large scale that it affects the owner of the copyright. You do not have to be making, or attempting to make, any profit at all.

Are they really endangered?

No. However they are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. It's more to do with trying to prevent badger baiting than rarity.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1 defines terrorism

It must (a) involve and action which falls under subsection 2 of the act [violence against the person, damage to property etc, it does no dispute about that]
(b) the threat is designed to influence the government or international governmental organisation or intimidate the public etc
and (c) be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, radical or ideological cause

Did Raul Moat intend to influence the government or intimidate the public? Maybe but it is a difficult one to prove
Was he trying to advance a political religious etc cause? Not really
That just leaves (a), violence against the person, and there are other laws dealing with people who do that for non-terrorist reasons.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/66/contents

That's pretty limited, and government specifically reserves the ability to jump in and nerf it when it sees fit, as far as re-use of seeds is concerned.

http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/get-the-right-ip/plant-breeders-rights/

Same, except the same condition is reversed compared to UK -- unless otherwise defined, saved seeds of everything can be re-used. It also specifically limits the time for protection of any dependent variety, to the time initial variety is protected, thus preventing endless extensions.

Plus compulsory licensing.

Really worthless for building a monopoly.

It's a bit more complex than all that. All law in the UK is under the umbrella of "common law", Under that are "UK Laws", which break down even further, but mostly by region, yes. Sort of.

I'm pretty late to this story, but let me clear up some misunderstandings for posterity's sake:

Disclosure: I've been involved in this effort for at least ten years, I'm head of ICT for one of the UK Copyright Libraries (National Library of Wales), and this story goes way back to the Primary Legislation passed by the UK in 2003, and we've been working on the practicalities of this since before that legislation was passed.

* Yes, Internet Archive and others have been archiving web sites for many years. We're using their software for capturing.

* We've been collecting and archiving web sites by agreement with the web publishers for years via the UK Web archive project.

* What's different here is that the secondary legislation has been passed (in March) that has given the UK copyright libraries the mechanism (agreed with publishers) to extend legal deposit to digital publications, which includes websites.

* This gives the legal deposit libraries the right to add to the national legal deposit collections (the collection of all published material for the UK) digital publications, including ebooks, ejournals and websites.

* Until the 6th of April 2013, we did not have the right (under normal copyright law) to take a copy of websites without permission. Previously we had to request a written agreement from each website we archived to take a copy - obviously this does not scale very far.

* Under the new legislation, we will be taking periodic copies of the entire .uk domain and other websites in other domains which fall under the regulation (territoriality has been difficult to define, as you may imagine).

* The difference between us and the Internet Archive is intended to be that given the status as a national collection, the material that we collect is intended to be available in perpetuity. Our print collections go back centuries, and the intention is that the digital material we collect now will also be available in centuries to come. You can read about the distributed redundant storage here.

TL;DR : this is a legal thing, not a technical thing, and it's about a lot more than websites.

I'm pretty late to this story, but let me clear up some misunderstandings for posterity's sake:

Disclosure: I've been involved in this effort for at least ten years, I'm head of ICT for one of the UK Copyright Libraries (National Library of Wales), and this story goes way back to the Primary Legislation passed by the UK in 2003, and we've been working on the practicalities of this since before that legislation was passed.

* Yes, Internet Archive and others have been archiving web sites for many years. We're using their software for capturing.

* We've been collecting and archiving web sites by agreement with the web publishers for years via the UK Web archive project.

* What's different here is that the secondary legislation has been passed (in March) that has given the UK copyright libraries the mechanism (agreed with publishers) to extend legal deposit to digital publications, which includes websites.

* This gives the legal deposit libraries the right to add to the national legal deposit collections (the collection of all published material for the UK) digital publications, including ebooks, ejournals and websites.

* Until the 6th of April 2013, we did not have the right (under normal copyright law) to take a copy of websites without permission. Previously we had to request a written agreement from each website we archived to take a copy - obviously this does not scale very far.

* Under the new legislation, we will be taking periodic copies of the entire .uk domain and other websites in other domains which fall under the regulation (territoriality has been difficult to define, as you may imagine).

* The difference between us and the Internet Archive is intended to be that given the status as a national collection, the material that we collect is intended to be available in perpetuity. Our print collections go back centuries, and the intention is that the digital material we collect now will also be available in centuries to come. You can read about the distributed redundant storage here.

TL;DR : this is a legal thing, not a technical thing, and it's about a lot more than websites.

Why not work with the good folks at archive.org and their Internet wayback machine?

The actual reason is legal. The British Library is a specially designated deposit library, and so under Section 44A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 it is allowed to make an archival copy of anything from the internet without the copyright holder's permission. It's doubtful whether what archive.org is doing is legal under UK law, not that it cares because archive.org is based in the US.

There is also the small issue that if he gets elected, he is under the Queen's protection as an elected representative of a Commonwealth country. That means her office must sign off on the extradition to Sweden and tradition says she will simply ignore the request. Of course that means he fly home but the stops had better be in Commonwealth counties or else he could end up elsewhere.

I can't find this anywhere in the Extradition Act 2003 in the UK. Are you sure this provision exists in UK law? There are other issues - the extradition is already finalised, just not executed, and there is also the small matter of the bail-jumping which is a separate criminal offence regardless of the outcome of the matter for which he was on bail.

People had been getting married long before the state stuck its oar in to those muddy waters.

In fact, it took until 2006 for Scotland's State to stop recognising new "marriages by cohabitation with habit and repute". Any pre-existing arrangements still have the force of law behind them.

This is a non-story. In the UK, unauthorized lending to the public is a breach of copyright. Non-commercial private lending is OK. The band is British. The album says "no unauthorized lending". Fair enough. It would be absurd for the album to include a lengthy treatise on the sorts of lending that are permissible under law in various jurisdictions.

Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) 1986, Schedule 3, chapter 18:

"(c) in either case, its braking force, when the vehicle is not being driven or is left unattended (and in the case of a trailer, whether the braking force is applied by the driver using the service brakes of the drawing vehicle or by a person standing on the ground in the manner indicated in sub-paragraph (b)) can at all times be maintained in operation by direct mechanical action without the intervention of any hydraulic, electric or pneumatic device and, when so maintained, can hold the vehicle stationary on a gradient of at least 16% without the assistance of stored energy."

There's your citation.

The license agreement say that Steam can change it whenever they want for whatever they want and if we refuse the new license agreement, then the only option is to close the account and lose all the games we "bought". No refund.

Check your local consumer protection legislation. Here in the UK, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations apply (which is an implementation of an EU directive, so other EU countries should have very similar regulations), and state that the following categories of contract term are unfair and therefore cannot be enforced:

* Terms which have the object or effect of [...] making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone
* Terms which have the object or effect of [...] permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract
* Terms which have the object or effect of [...] enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

AFAICT, any one of these would prevent Valve from behaving as you fear.

Complying with the law is Google's job, and if the law says it should respect browser settings then it should respect them or pay the penalty.

And actually, the law itself defines what constitutes "personal data". There's no need for either Google or the individual to devote so much brainpower to the question.

"You're an idiot. You signed something under threat of prison / arrest without bothering to consult a lawyer. No amount of mention of poverty, trust, or even just plain intimidation should have made you do such a thing without first consulting a lawyer." Hmmm, threatening to go to the police if someone doesn't sign a contract. I'm pretty sure that would constitute blackmail in the UK under the Theft Act (making aan unwarranted demand with menaces), which is a serious offence with a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment; see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21. Anyone know what the law on blackmail is in his jurisdiction?

True, but misses the point. The point is that the word "weight" refers to a type of force in physics and to mass in trade and law.

No, actually that is not the case see this. UK law clearly differentiates between mass and weight but gives incorrect usage legal protection:

"the weight of any thing may be expressed, by reference to the units of measurement set out in Part V of that Schedule, in the same terms as its mass."

otherwise you could end up with lots of stupid law suits simply because people were not careful about mass vs. weight. So sorry but, at least in the UK, you are completely wrong. The law does recognize and understand the difference between mass and weight but, very sensibly, also realizes that many people remain ignorant of this and so gives them legal protection when they get it wrong.

"Stealing" has both a legal meaning, and a layman meaning. For the latter, you can argue semantics all night. For the former, it will depend on jurisdictions, but as far as English law (which is relevant here), it is definitely not theft. You can have a look at the relevant statute law, or case law such as Boardman v Phipps, Oxford v Moss or Phillips v Mulcaire (although more obiter stuff, more in the Court of Appeal case).

Legally, in England, you cannot steal information or data. It is that simple.

s97A Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows anyone, including the BPI (or their minions) to apply to the court to get an order requiring any "service provider" to block access to any website or similar service. This is how they got their blocking order against both ThePirateBay and Newzbin2. BT tried to fight the Newzbin2 ruling and got hit by a massive costs order. There's a reason no ISP has dared to fight any such order since (including the TPB orders).

While a big ISP like BT can afford a few hundred thousand in legal costs, the Party can't. That that is what we (or rather, the officers personally) are facing if they don't take and keep the proxy down. This isn't theoretical, this is after 3 weeks of back-and-forth between lawyers.

What makes the Pirate Party so special? You'd have to ask the BPI about that, but I imagine it is due to us actually standing up to them (or trying to) and causing problems for them politically. Plus there's a scale thing; other ISPs only cover the odd percentage of the population, whereas the Party's proxy is high-profile and being used by a large number of people. Apparently.

In the UK, people have been convicted and/or found liable on the basis of conspiracy to defraud and/or encouraging or facilitating criminal copyright infringement.

At trial, one person has been convicted on the basis of conspiracy to defraud. There is no "facilitating copyright infringement" law per se. That case was a private prosecution and is pending appeal (something like 20-30 different grounds), which will hopefully be heard before FACT Ltd can do too much bullying on the basis of it (it was a very dodgy conviction; the judge instructed the jury that what he was doing was illegal because what he was doing was illegal, basically). The only other criminal cases that have gone to trial resulted in acquittals or dismissal of charges.

As for civil cases, there's really only the Newzbin 1 case, which found a company running a website was liable for copyright infringement mainly due to the extra steps they took to help their premium members. In any case, "contributory copyright infringement" isn't the right term; you're looking at either direct (or secondary, but that usually involves businesses) copyright infringement, or joint liability for someone else's infringement. There is no blanket "you were somehow involved in someone else's infringement therefore you must be liable!!" thing.

The s107(2A) offence is an interesting one - to my knowledge it has never gone to trial. While there have been a couple of summary convictions under it, they don't really count (and, to be blunt, neither do un-appealed cases at trial). It's only been in the last couple of years that the police (or rather, FACT Ltd / the BPI) have realised this is the correct offence, and before that managed to get some summary convictions under s107(1)(e) - despite it not applying.

However that is not their main purpose, and there is no reason why the courts have to treat them the same way, any more then convicting a rioter for handing out bricks at a riot means they have to convict every building site foreman in the country.

But that's not quite the way the law works; the key thing here is the "mere conduit" (and similar) principles found in the e-commerce regulations (regs 17-19). This one provides an absolute defence to a damages claim for anything done through a mere service provider - such as someone hosting a proxy.

What matters is not whether they transmit copyright information, but whether that transmittion is authorised. If my ISP helps me view the NYTimes website, I am view copyright material with authorisation.

As an aside, this isn't how the law works either. Currently you would need a licence to view the content on the NYTimes website. If you didn't have a licence, you would be liable for copyright infringement (as would oyur ISP, but for the above limitation). Fortunately, the NYTimes website includes a term saying that "You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on the Services for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein." However, go beyond that - such as by viewing it at work - (and not within the scope of a statutory limitation to copyright) and you're breaking the law. There's case law on that (which, hopefully, the Supreme Court will be overturning in the next couple of months). Interestingly, this also means that were I (or someone else) to email you some content from the NYTimes website while at work, *you* would be liable for copyright infringement as soon as you download the email to read it.

Of course, if the website doesn't have an explicit licence, you have to rely on implied licences. But that can be overridden by an express one -so if you're in the UK (or England or Wales, at least) and see the phrase "All Rights Reserved"

What is this "contributory copyright infringement" concept you just made up? (Protip: US laws don't apply elsewhere. Kthnxbai.) Also, even the US, there is nothing codified in LAW regarding "contributory copyright infringement" (Protip: jurisprudence is not law). ALSO, you have yet to demonstrate that the people (not the legal entity, but the people) that are being threatened with a lawsuit have, in any way, knowingly contributed to copyright infringement.

In the UK, people have been convicted and/or found liable on the basis of conspiracy to defraud and/or encouraging or facilitating criminal copyright infringement. For what its worth, the PPUk is not a legal entity - it is an unincorporated association that can't be named as a party to a lawsuit.

Selling knifes isn't a crime, killing people is. And the Pirate Party is not even selling knifes: they're just acting like UPS, transporting knifes from the knife shop (TPB) to the customer's home. If you want to prevent this all from happening, maybe you should either go to the knife shop itself (TPB) and close it, or go to the people actually doing the crimes (not TPB nor the UK Pirate Party). Because, otherwise, people just use something other than UPS to get their knifes (e.g. FedEx).

Actually couriers get convicted all the time for helping with crimes if they know, or could reasonably be expected to know, that they are involved in and assisting crime rather than legitimate business. Sometimes they try to claim they weren't told, didn't ask and had no idea why they had to carry a heavy locked suitcase through Customs in order to collect thousands of pounds. This has never actually worked in court.

You should probably look up "non-commercial copyright infringement" in UK laws and then try to figure out if it's actually "criminal activity" or simply some civil issue. It might help.

Why don't you look it up here. You might find that actually, non-commercial copyright infringement can be a crime if you "distributes [the work] otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright"

Either murder is wrong, or it isn't. The pirates in this article have called themselves "Google" while engaging in contributory and vicarious copyright infringement to take the rights of creators away from them.

As you know, Google knowingly links to copyrighted information every single day. In fact, Google (like TPB) links to overwhelmingly more copyrighted information than non-copyrighted information (for the single fact that most information on the Internet is copyrighted by default). In either case, no copyrighted information is actually being transmitted to you through Google (or TPB), but actually through your ISP, which brings the next example:

This is even clearer... I mean... ISPs BOTH transmit copyrighted information for you AND do it knowingly (you can thank data-retention laws for that). I guess you are trying to tell me that all the ISPs in the world are engaging in "contributory copyright infringement". Cool.

What matters is not whether they transmit copyright information, but whether that transmittion is authorised. If my ISP helps me view the NYTimes website, I am view copyright material with authorisation. Of course, it is also possible that Google or my ISP could help me find resources to make unauthorised copies in violation of copyright. However that is not their main purpose, and there is no reason why the courts have to treat them the same way, any more then convicting a rioter for handing out bricks at a riot means they have to convict every building site foreman in the country.

But I'll bet breaking and entering is still illegal,

I am not aware of a crime of "breaking and entering" under English law — it's possible that there is one which I have not come across, of course.

The nearest I know is the crime of burglary — which is, in effect, trespass plus theft (or a number of other crimes, including rape and criminal damage, depending on whether the relevant intention is there). However, if the only act upon entering the premises is the removal of one's own property, the second part is not made out, so it remains just trespass.

Is it legal for you to steal your stuff back from a robber?

Under English law, you cannot steal something which belongs to you — theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive.

So the BBC is happy to take public money...

By that logic anyone who ever receives public money should have to comply with FOI requests; so that's anyone on any sort of benefits, anyone who has ever used a public hospital (which will be much of the population as most of us are born in one), any number of state-sponsored museums etc., and possibly anyone who has received a tax refund.

Of course, the argument itself is a bit silly, as the BBC does have to comply with valid FOI requests but only "in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature." [See the relevant part of the Freedom of Information Act.]

I imagine that the thinking behind this is that in carrying out journalism, art or literature it isn't exercising public authority, and so doesn't need to be as accountable/transparent (from a constitutional point of view).

In the UK the FBI agent would seem to be guilty of

Misue of Public Office Misusing his authority.
Computer Misuse Act - Unauthorised access to a computer.
Data Protection Act - Disclosure of private data
The Harassment Act - Continuing Harassment after being warned to stop.

In the UK the FBI agent would seem to be guilty of

Misue of Public Office Misusing his authority.
Computer Misuse Act - Unauthorised access to a computer.
Data Protection Act - Disclosure of private data
The Harassment Act - Continuing Harassment after being warned to stop.

In the UK the FBI agent would seem to be guilty of

Misue of Public Office Misusing his authority.
Computer Misuse Act - Unauthorised access to a computer.
Data Protection Act - Disclosure of private data
The Harassment Act - Continuing Harassment after being warned to stop.

Use of the law for that sort of thing has most definitely come about in response to the religious hatred laws because it specifically came about when there was a showdown between the EDL and the "Muslims against crusades" group:

Muslims against crusades was founded in 2010.
The burning poppies arrest was made "under section 127 of the Communications Act" - from 2003.

Which basically states that one could be arrested for trolling. Also, for making shit up on the internets.

A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, heâ"
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

No mention of burning symbols, religious or not.

Under such a law, YOU TOO could also end up in jail for up to 6 months, because of the following statement:

This is in part, part of the West's battle with Islam, and is not the first time this has been done.

See... you just generalized an entire hemisphere of this planet of ours and several dozens of cultures and civilizations, an entire family of religions and the followers of all those religious flavors - and then you've put them on opposing sides of a statement by which you claim that those sides are in a "battle" with each other.
You do realize that all those generalizations make your statement either a phenomenal pile of bullshit - or a conscious lie.
I.e. "a message that you know to be false".

And considering that barring, maybe, Chinese you've managed to include a grater part of the population of the planet into your generalizations - it is just a matter of statistics for your generalizations to offend SOMEBODY.
I.e. Unless you want to argue some... "inability to comprehend" on your part - you wrote all that, ON the internets, to purposefully cause "inconvenience or needless anxiety to another".

Applying it that way wouldn't really be "being applied consistently and fairly" - now, would it?
On a positive side, it should cause all those annoying penis enlargement advertisements on the internets to disappear forever.

I don't blame the police, they're simply enforcing the law fairly and making it clear that it's a two way street.

Actually, THAT is exactly who you should blame. Along with those who created such a law.

It is a poorly written, overgeneralized law which tries to regulate and/or predict the effect of ANYTHING transmitted by "public electronic communications network" - on some imaginary "offended person".
I.e. It's fucking nonsense.
Police officer who would make an arrest under such a law is either deliberately trolling the judicial system, or is making an arrest out of spite.

The problem is that in this case, the law shouldn't exist at all whether it's for the Koran, a flag, or a poppy, but fundamentally it's got to be one or the other, either you can burn poppies, flags, and Korans, or you can burn none of them.

Well... You're half-right there.
In theory, there should be no such law. In theory, we should all be "brothers and sisters of humanity" to each other.

Then again, we live in a world of "extremists or just general dicks", who's aim is to cause emotional harm and to bully people.
As such, if we want such cases to be handled in civilized fashion by the representatives of a democratically elected government, instead of in an "eye for an eye" fashion - then we need SOME laws and regulations to handle such cases.
But they need to be better written.
And all sides - possible future offenders, those offended and the police should be both educated

In UK Law (Communications Act) it is an offence to send a offensive messages over a communications network this is the same law that makes offensive phone calls illegal and is proportionate.

Malicious Communications Act
1988
1988 CHAPTER 27
An Act to make provision for the punishment of persons who send
or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing
distress or anxiety. [29th July 1988]
B E IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, as follows:—
1.—(1) Any person who sends to another person—
(a) a letter or other article which conveys—
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be
false by the sender; or
(b) any other article which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or
grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it
is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause
distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he
intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

(2) A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (l)(a)(ii)
above if he shows—
(a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand which he believed
he had reasonable grounds for making; and
(b) that he believed that the use of the threat was a proper means of
reinforcing the demand.
(3) In this section references to sending include references to delivering
and to causing to be sent or delivered and "sender" shall be construed
accordingly.
Offence of sending
letters etc. with
intent to cause
distress or anxiety.

2 c. 27 Malicious Communications Act 1988
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on
summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
Northern Ireland. 2. An Order in Council under paragraph 1(l)(b) of Schedule I to the
1974 c. 28. Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the
interim period) which states that it is made only for purposes
corresponding to those of this Act—
(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule
(affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of
either House.
Short title, 3.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Malicious Communications Act
commencement 1988.
and extent.
(2) Section 1 above shall not come into force until the end of the penod
of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) This Act does not extend to Scotland or, except for section 2, to
Northern Ireland.

So how do you do quality monitoring for people who are judged based on the emails they send?

As has been shown here, different countries have different rules — in the UK, it is relatively easy to monitor someone's email in the course of business, provided that you comply with The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, which forms an exception to the general prohibition on interception.

If the data cannot be turned into "personal data", (e.g. because the means to do so no longer exists) then it doesn't have to be provided at all.

It depends what you define as "personal data" . The trust could argue that giving him the binary data fulfils the requirement to provide it now that they do not have a means of generating the image. As you say, there is no provision for charging more than £50 to provide the data. In effect, it cannot be provided.

It would be like making murder by bludgeoning someone with a lead pipe illegal. Great - I'll just use a knife instead. You're trying to stop the murder, not the misuse of lead pipes.

We have both of those laws in the UK: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/contents

The search was on private land. So they person that owns the land owns the stuff

My feeling is that, in the UK, there is a reasonably large exception to this, which is where the find constitutes "treasure" for the purposes of the Treasure Act 1996 (which has been extended by the Treasure (Designation) Order 2002).

Where a find is classified as treasure, it belongs to the Crown (or its franchisee, where there is one), "subject to prior interests and rights." (s4). Ownership of the *land* is not necessarily a sufficient prior interest or right here — to override the Crown's ownership, one would need to establish a right coming from the original owner of the treasure, such as being an heir to the treasure. (Paragraph 19 to The Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice.)

The Act includes a duty to notify, within 14 days (s8).

The search was on private land. So they person that owns the land owns the stuff

My feeling is that, in the UK, there is a reasonably large exception to this, which is where the find constitutes "treasure" for the purposes of the Treasure Act 1996 (which has been extended by the Treasure (Designation) Order 2002).

Where a find is classified as treasure, it belongs to the Crown (or its franchisee, where there is one), "subject to prior interests and rights." (s4). Ownership of the *land* is not necessarily a sufficient prior interest or right here — to override the Crown's ownership, one would need to establish a right coming from the original owner of the treasure, such as being an heir to the treasure. (Paragraph 19 to The Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice.)

The Act includes a duty to notify, within 14 days (s8).

Anybody know where I stand?

Here's what I would do — just my thoughts, not legal advice or anything like that. This is based on a number of things:

• * I am based in the UK, as my thoughts are based on UK law;
• * I bought the product as a consumer, and not a business;
• * Apple was the seller — the party from whom I bought the product. If Apple is the manufacturer, but not the seller, because I bought the product from a third party store, O would need to pursue your claim (which is for breach of contract) against that third party instead; and
• * It genuinely is a case of a latent fault, not me having broken something and looking for a remedy — for example, that I was poking about inside the machine / trying to take it apart, and, in doing so, caused the problem in question.

I would not cite the legislation, or make it sound all legalistic — in my experience, that just causes problems and gets people nervous, but knowing the position can be helpful, to avoid being fobbed off. I've cited and linked the relevant legislation, for reference, and tried to outline my thinking / methodology, but I would *really* be aiming for it to be a casual exchange rather than one full of legal overtones.

I would go back to the Apple store and explain that under English law, goods sold in the course of business must be "of satisfactory quality" (s14, Sale of Goods Act 1979). This is a requirement which is implied automatically into a contract, and which cannot be excluded in a business to consumer relationship (s6(2), Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977).

With this in mind, would they please fix the product for free, on the basis that, because of this fault, the product was not of satisfactory quality.

If necessary, I would explain that:

• * the fault was latent, in that, without abuse, which would be obvious from the outside of the machine, the problem should not have happened, and thus must relate to a defect present at point of purchase;
• * the fault is not something which could fall within reasonable wear and tear; and
• * it is reasonable to expect the part in question would have an operational lifespan of longer than a year and a bit.

If pushed further, I would explain that:

• * because it is a requirement that goods are of satisfactory quality, and that Apple supplied a product which was not of satisfactory quality, Apple is required to provide a remedy and that I was looking for a repair (although, if this would be uneconomical, I would accept a refund (long shot) or a replacement), to put me in the position which I would have been in if I had not been supplied with a faulty machine;
• * whilst Apple may only reference a one year warranty, what this means is that Apple has offered additional support, over and above its legal requirements, for a period of a year, but that this does not mean that any right of remedy under the Sale of Goods Act ceases after a year; and
• * in the case of a breach of contract, I have six years from the breach to bring a claim (s5, Limitation Act 1980). Since I would be claiming that the contract was breached when the goods were supplied, because the goods which were supplied were not of satisfactory quality, this would give me six years from supply / purchase (if I took the goods away with me from the shop). (This does not mean that the product has to work for six years — it may be reasonable for a given product to only work for, say, a year, or two years, but that, if it should fail within the period of time in which it should reasonably be expected to work, I have six years from the point of supply to make the claim. As above, I would be stating that the nature of the product means that it would be reasonable to expect an operat

Anybody know where I stand?

Here's what I would do — just my thoughts, not legal advice or anything like that. This is based on a number of things:

• * I am based in the UK, as my thoughts are based on UK law;
• * I bought the product as a consumer, and not a business;
• * Apple was the seller — the party from whom I bought the product. If Apple is the manufacturer, but not the seller, because I bought the product from a third party store, O would need to pursue your claim (which is for breach of contract) against that third party instead; and
• * It genuinely is a case of a latent fault, not me having broken something and looking for a remedy — for example, that I was poking about inside the machine / trying to take it apart, and, in doing so, caused the problem in question.

I would not cite the legislation, or make it sound all legalistic — in my experience, that just causes problems and gets people nervous, but knowing the position can be helpful, to avoid being fobbed off. I've cited and linked the relevant legislation, for reference, and tried to outline my thinking / methodology, but I would *really* be aiming for it to be a casual exchange rather than one full of legal overtones.

I would go back to the Apple store and explain that under English law, goods sold in the course of business must be "of satisfactory quality" (s14, Sale of Goods Act 1979). This is a requirement which is implied automatically into a contract, and which cannot be excluded in a business to consumer relationship (s6(2), Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977).

With this in mind, would they please fix the product for free, on the basis that, because of this fault, the product was not of satisfactory quality.

If necessary, I would explain that:

• * the fault was latent, in that, without abuse, which would be obvious from the outside of the machine, the problem should not have happened, and thus must relate to a defect present at point of purchase;
• * the fault is not something which could fall within reasonable wear and tear; and
• * it is reasonable to expect the part in question would have an operational lifespan of longer than a year and a bit.

If pushed further, I would explain that:

• * because it is a requirement that goods are of satisfactory quality, and that Apple supplied a product which was not of satisfactory quality, Apple is required to provide a remedy and that I was looking for a repair (although, if this would be uneconomical, I would accept a refund (long shot) or a replacement), to put me in the position which I would have been in if I had not been supplied with a faulty machine;
• * whilst Apple may only reference a one year warranty, what this means is that Apple has offered additional support, over and above its legal requirements, for a period of a year, but that this does not mean that any right of remedy under the Sale of Goods Act ceases after a year; and
• * in the case of a breach of contract, I have six years from the breach to bring a claim (s5, Limitation Act 1980). Since I would be claiming that the contract was breached when the goods were supplied, because the goods which were supplied were not of satisfactory quality, this would give me six years from supply / purchase (if I took the goods away with me from the shop). (This does not mean that the product has to work for six years — it may be reasonable for a given product to only work for, say, a year, or two years, but that, if it should fail within the period of time in which it should reasonably be expected to work, I have six years from the point of supply to make the claim. As above, I would be stating that the nature of the product means that it would be reasonable to expect an operat

Anybody know where I stand?

Here's what I would do — just my thoughts, not legal advice or anything like that. This is based on a number of things:

• * I am based in the UK, as my thoughts are based on UK law;
• * I bought the product as a consumer, and not a business;
• * Apple was the seller — the party from whom I bought the product. If Apple is the manufacturer, but not the seller, because I bought the product from a third party store, O would need to pursue your claim (which is for breach of contract) against that third party instead; and
• * It genuinely is a case of a latent fault, not me having broken something and looking for a remedy — for example, that I was poking about inside the machine / trying to take it apart, and, in doing so, caused the problem in question.

I would not cite the legislation, or make it sound all legalistic — in my experience, that just causes problems and gets people nervous, but knowing the position can be helpful, to avoid being fobbed off. I've cited and linked the relevant legislation, for reference, and tried to outline my thinking / methodology, but I would *really* be aiming for it to be a casual exchange rather than one full of legal overtones.

I would go back to the Apple store and explain that under English law, goods sold in the course of business must be "of satisfactory quality" (s14, Sale of Goods Act 1979). This is a requirement which is implied automatically into a contract, and which cannot be excluded in a business to consumer relationship (s6(2), Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977).

With this in mind, would they please fix the product for free, on the basis that, because of this fault, the product was not of satisfactory quality.

If necessary, I would explain that:

• * the fault was latent, in that, without abuse, which would be obvious from the outside of the machine, the problem should not have happened, and thus must relate to a defect present at point of purchase;
• * the fault is not something which could fall within reasonable wear and tear; and
• * it is reasonable to expect the part in question would have an operational lifespan of longer than a year and a bit.

If pushed further, I would explain that:

• * because it is a requirement that goods are of satisfactory quality, and that Apple supplied a product which was not of satisfactory quality, Apple is required to provide a remedy and that I was looking for a repair (although, if this would be uneconomical, I would accept a refund (long shot) or a replacement), to put me in the position which I would have been in if I had not been supplied with a faulty machine;
• * whilst Apple may only reference a one year warranty, what this means is that Apple has offered additional support, over and above its legal requirements, for a period of a year, but that this does not mean that any right of remedy under the Sale of Goods Act ceases after a year; and
• * in the case of a breach of contract, I have six years from the breach to bring a claim (s5, Limitation Act 1980). Since I would be claiming that the contract was breached when the goods were supplied, because the goods which were supplied were not of satisfactory quality, this would give me six years from supply / purchase (if I took the goods away with me from the shop). (This does not mean that the product has to work for six years — it may be reasonable for a given product to only work for, say, a year, or two years, but that, if it should fail within the period of time in which it should reasonably be expected to work, I have six years from the point of supply to make the claim. As above, I would be stating that the nature of the product means that it would be reasonable to expect an operat

From this:

1
a : neglect or wrong performance of official duty
b : concealment of treason or felony by one who is not a participant in the treason or felony
c : seditious conduct against the government or the courts

Also refer to the Criminal Law Act 1967 section 5(1):

Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence or some other arrestable offence has been committed, and that he has information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender for it, accepts or agrees to accept for not disclosing that information any consideration other than the making good of loss or injury caused by the offence, or the making of reasonable compensation for that loss or injury, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for not more that two years.

It is not only a crime to not report a crime, it is a compoundable indictment.

Now you, please shut the fuck up or present a citation to your assertion that overrides the definitive source of English Statute.

IANAL either (but hopefully will be in a couple of years) and I have no idea how this case made it through two courts.

From the original Daily Mail article (I find it hard to believe I'm using that as a reliable source, but...) he was convicted under s10 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sort of NSFW).
It states that a person (A) commits an offence if he "intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in [a sexual] activity" and "B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over."

So somehow he is supposed to have "intentionally incited" the teenagers by sending that text message. Now, I can see that he may have intentionally sent the message, but I fail to see how he could have intentionally incited them to carry out the act. It is pretty clear on the facts available that it wasn't at all intentional.

Hopefully the court will publish a written judgment and we can see how they've managed to warp this offence to fit the facts (unless the Daily Mail is lying, which isn't beyond the realms of possibility).

You can't copyright typefaces

Is this a particular provision of US law? In the UK, the design of a typeface may be protected by copyright as an artistic work. There are, however, special provisions of copyright law dealing with infringement of artistic copyright in the use of typefaces, in s54, Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988:

(1)It is not an infringement of copyright in an artistic work consisting of the design of a typeface— (a)to use the typeface in the ordinary course of typing, composing text, typesetting or printing, (b)to possess an article for the purpose of such use, or (c)to do anything in relation to material produced by such use; and this is so notwithstanding that an article is used which is an infringing copy of the work.

Similarly, the font may be protected as a literary work, being a computer program. Given the recent case law within the EU on user interfaces, and the difference (or seeming lack of perceived difference) between copying the code comprising a computer program and copying what a program looks like on screen by writing your own code to achieve the same outcome, which may amount to an infringement in the literary work comprising the font, rather than the artistic work comprising the design of the typeface, which may make things even less clear...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents
The relevant section is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/10
"Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity

(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in an activity,
(b)the activity is sexual, and
(c)either—
(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused or incited involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(3)Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

"would you fuck me" - is clearly inciting penetration, so you can do up to 14 years for this.

This is _NOT_ a strict liability offence.
The jury must have had reason to believe that he intended to do this.
Doing it by accident _CANNOT_ lead to a conviction, unless the judge misdirects them.
For example - if he'd directed that because he intended to send it to one person on the list, that intent carried over to the unintended recipients.

Indeed, I can't seem to see any 'strict liability' offences in the act.
I may have missed some.
At a minimum you need to have intended the action and not known the other party was underage.