Slashdot Mirror

The important thing is that this is the DRAFT Communications Data Bill. It would have been a normal bill where amendments are possible but usually opposed by the Government (who have the majority). But Nick Clegg and other Lib Dems insisted it be published as a draft, so people can comment on it and so changes can be made. Julian Huppert MP is already working to change it, and has got himself on the committee of MPs who will be considering it - see http://www.libdemvoice.org/julian-huppert-mp-writes-communications-data-we-have-to-get-this-right-28964.html

We MUST have a new bill, if only to replace RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) passed by the previous Government, which introduced state snooping on a grand scale, (did you know that in the past year alone, there were 540,000 data requests under RIPA?). But the proposed bill has many flaws too; jsut to start with, Part 1 gives far too much arbitrary power to the Secretary of State.

So it is up to those who oppose the bill to make their views known and put reasoned arguments and views forward to the Committee considering it. This government has shown it /will/ change its mind if enough people object to things it is doing, and in this case it's easy for them to do so as it's a draft, with changes expected. See also http://carons-musings.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/169-days-to-help-julian-huppert-protect.html

So that's why wi-fi catches your eye, but for instance the John Venables story plastered all of the news, with the comment pages full of privacy vs. disclosure debates, didn't register?

With all the noise about Jon Venables, exactly which news outlet would pick up on the Pirate party's view of this story? With only volunteers to write press releases and blog posts we prioritize on issues that give us the most visibility. That's not to say we're not discussing it internally, there's a thread on the forum devoted to the issue.

The fact remains that it simply doesn't seem coincidental that none of the stories on the site on are really about freedom of speech or privacy, but a narrow set of interests.

Really? I just checked the PPUK fron page and there's a story about CCTV cameras being installed in a school toilet in Solihull http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2010/mar/9/solihull-school-installs-cctv-childrens-toilets/

It isn't surprising the Pirate Party has not been able to do that with their central concern of copyrights - it has a rather more limited vision.

Really? We've got things on our agenda like abolition of drug patents to make medication cheaper (I paraphrase). Sounds like medical policy to me. Similar principles can be applied throughout policy areas, you'd be surprised at how far IP law pervades society. Having said that, we're not looking to win power, just with the debate. The green party has all the big ones falling over themselves to appear greener than one another. We're looking for that type of success, not government.

The idea of a political party whose members mostly come from a similar domain of knowledge is kind of offputting, too.

This is hardly our fault, we are recruiting & we do have people from outside IT. I'm a librarian, for example. I agree we need more though, and we'll welcome anybody.

Oh, and if Green doesn't appeal, the Lib Dems and their Freedom Bill would deliver a number of the PPUK policy goals. Your efforts will have more effect feeding into an existing political machine rather than a new one. Really, why take a the less effective route to realise your goals?

These would be the same lib-dems who made the digital economy bill worse: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2010/mar/6/lib-dems-make-digital-economy-bill-even-worse/

Well we helped convince their PPCs, but their MPs are ignoring them. http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-parliamentarians-reply-to-prospective-candidates-18200.html If the lib-dems were to adopt all areas of Pirate policy, the need for the pirate party would be over, but they haven't and don't look like doing so.

Great and many thanks ... Have we met? If you're interested in helping out we can always use assistance! There are plans - see for example http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html I'm expecting more shortly ... Julian

Also this comment makes some good points: http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html#comment-109185

(Though depressingly there are a lot of comments from people who simply don't understand basic politics, such as those saying he's lost their vote - since when did they vote for a Lord? - to people talking as if the Lib Dems now can't criticise what's been proposed as "their" amendment; in reality, it's not uncommon for Lords of the same party to propose amendments disagreeing with the Government, in fact, even in the Commons, there may be disagreement between individual MPs and their own party.)

Lord Clement Jones has replied to critism of the ammendment
http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html

To sum up he argues that; this is only an addition to existing power of copyright holders in the UK and simply clarifies their role in the process.

I do think he misses the point however that this ammendment puts emphasis on the ISPs which provide any service that can access this material rather than those which host the material. It's one step closer to to a great firewall of the UK, I think this has been missed by commentators who have compared it to the DMCA and the vitriol in their critcism has somewhat distorted the issue.

He's been demonised for opposing the media groupthink on some hot-button issues, e.g. this or this. His Conservative leadership failed because the media didn't like him, preferring the Blairite David Cameron. The central issue is that, to quote one left-wing blog, "Our vision of civil liberties is fundamentally different to that of Davis". I found this interview with him to be quite interesting.