Slashdot Mirror

"Dr K, another UK hacker interviewed by the BBC News website, questioned why Mr McKinnon had to be extradited to be tried for the crimes for which he has already confessed.

"We have laws in this country to deal with this kind of trans-national data crime," he said, "Gary McKinnon should be tried here under UK law."
That's from the BBC page referenced by today's /. article, as for what he would be tried under in this country, I saw it today on the BBC but cannot find it now, but it said he would be tried under the 'Computer Misuse Act' in this country. That link has real legal language beyond my comprehension, but I do notice 'Territorial scope of inchoate offences related to offences under this Act.' and 'Extradition where Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 applies.' mentioned. If you actually did read it, I would want to know what you thought if it. Thank-you for only mildly insinuating I am crazy, I appreciate fair-minded discussion.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

I don't want to whitewash RIPA, OTOH - for instance I've just noticed:

28(3) An authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary-...
(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;

Not can it only be played to the court, but a recording of the court proceedings, with the song in the background, can be re-broadcast:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_1988004 8_en_1.htm

Parliamentary and judicial proceedings.

45.--(1) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings.

(2) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of reporting such proceedings; but this shall not be construed as authorising the copying of a work which is itself a published report of the proceedings.

OK, when looking at this, iBill can be glad their not a UK registered company, otherwise they could be facing stiff penalties for breaching the Data Protection Act 1998 even if it was just a single person who released the data, iBill could still be fined or ordered to improve security.

Would your friend say that they're a generally "good" employer? Would she want to keep working there? There's always the risk that her name could be made public, despite her wishes, during any action.

If you want advice, somewhere like the Citizen's Advice Bureau or her Trades Union (taking along any relevant contract of employment) would be a good starting point. Depending on what a workplace CCTV camera is actually doing and (most importantly) what the company has said that it is doing with the data the company may or may not be abiding by the data protection act or not. Even if they aren't now, a simple declaration may be all it takes to abide by the law (with the camera staying, which may not be what your friend wants). The ICO would be a useful organisation to contact but (from experience) not until you've definitely got a case.

If you want someone who's likely to campaign on your behalf, try "Liberty" (http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/). People have certainly made interesting use of the 1998 act (see http://www.fnord.demon.co.uk/mt/fifth/cctv.html).. .

Another possibility, although a bit of a long shot, would be the Human Rights Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm ). It's pretty vague in places, and while it's unlikely that said cameras interfere with e.g. "... the right to respect for his private and family life ..." it might be worth reading.

The usual caveats apply - I'm not a lawyer, but have been involved with the deployment in a camera system at a former employer in the past, and was involved with the discussions as to legal requirements (then under the 1984 act) re data retention policy and security, and later of the effects of the 1998 act (on non-camera data).

Contrary to popular belief amongst security professionals in the United Kingdom, port scanning is in fact illegal under UK law - Computer Misuse Act (1990). I am currently studying for an MSc in Information Security at the Royal Holloway, University of London and this matter actually came up during one of our lectures. It was hotly argued and debated, but our lecturer John Austen (Former head of the Metropolitan Police Computer Crimes Unit, New Scotland Yard) assured us that it was the case.

Warn those students not to scan UK-based systems, or they could end up in hot water. The UK's law states that either the offender or the system must have a "signifcant link" to the UK, so an American scanning a UK system but from the US would still fall foul of this law. The UK & US have a bilateral extradition treaty for computer related offenses, as has been demonstrated in the past.

IP theft at best

There is no UK law defining "intellectual property", and UK theft law has absolutely nothing to say about copyright infringement. Calling it "IP theft" is utterly indefensible and has no merit whatsoever.

IP theft at best

There is no UK law defining "intellectual property", and UK theft law has absolutely nothing to say about copyright infringement. Calling it "IP theft" is utterly indefensible and has no merit whatsoever.

"you're not entitled to tell anyone it's been read to you and they are fully authorised to kill or imprision for life anyone who does not do exactly what they say, how they say it."

I think you've been reading to many spy books.

Under no circumstances are "they" (the government, MI5 or anyone) allowed to kill you or anyone for not following the official secrets act. Both UK and EU law expresses forbides the killing of anyone for any reason outsite military conflict (which is a whole different thing) and even then they can't kill you for not following the official secrets act. Also, no-one in the past 50 years (i.e. apart from during the world wars) has been sentanced to anywhere near life imprisonment.

There is no part of the act which states you are not allowed to disclose the fact it's been read to you (except possibly in very specific circumstances where such disclosure in itself would endanger national security i.e. in the middle of a war-zone although even for this situation I cannot find a single test-case). There is also an independant commissioner who advises on any convictions under this act to prevent abuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act has more information.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_1989000 6_en_1.htm has the official legal wording of the act.

One aspect of English law that I thought existed, is that the people should be protected from the government (particularly from self-incrimination).

The right did exist, emphasis on the past tense. Then in 2000, the RIP Act gave the government the right to force you to hand over all your passwords and encryption keys and incriminate yourself. In addition, you're not allowed to tell anyone that you are under investigation and that your keys have been compromised.

And as of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, they can put you in jail for a month without even charging you with any crime. So any time they feel like it they can jail you and root around (pun intended) on your hard drive for a month, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, legally speaking.

You do not need a license for "live or nearly live".

You need a license for recieving "television programs".

Looking further up the chain, into the broadcasting legislation, which defines "television programme", it's that broadcast by a "television programme service". http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996055.htm

This is not a remote PC, sending you data, whether or not that data is sourced off-air.

The transcoder would, as I understand it though require a license.

They describe what information is stored, how it is stored, what laws protect it (none)

As a company operating in the UK, and as I am a citizen of the UK, m privacy is protected by the Data Protection Act. I have the right to demand access to my data, and they are legally obliged to give it to me. If I find it to be incorrect, they are obliged to correct it. They can only use this data in the manner in which they are registered to use it with the Data Protection Registrar, and they can only share it with others under strict rules.

As I understand it, the rest of the EU have similar laws.

In English Law it's called "Fair Dealing" and unless I'm misunderstanding something it's "Fair Use" in all but name.

Sections 28-76 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 lists the exceptions to infringing acts laid out in section 16. In a nutshell, copyright is not infringed in instances of using the work for research, private study, for criticism, for review or for news reporting. There are also exceptions for educational and library use.

Also, there are some exceptions relating to computer programs laid out in Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992. The most important exceptions allow for decompilation and the making of backup copies.

Do the "Fair Use" provisions in US law differ significantly?

there's no requirement for our Prime Minister to be Christian, or any of our MPs.

More importantly, they can get voted in without being Christian. I believe that if somebody wanted to make it an issue, they could overturn the requirements that various USA states have on constitutional grounds. However, even if they did that, not being a Christian would be a severe impediment to their election campaign.

I don't have to swear my allegiance to God at school every morning.

Take a look at the Education Reform Act 1988:

6.--(1) Subject to section 9 of this Act, all pupils in attendance at a maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.

7.--(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, in the case of a county school the collective worship required in the school by section 6 of this Act shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.

You'll be pleased to know that 76% of schools break this law.

Are you sure? I just skimmed the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/19973032.htm ) and the Copyright and Rights in Databases (Amendment) Regulations 2003 ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032501.htm ) and didn't notice anything to that effect.

Are you sure? I just skimmed the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/19973032.htm ) and the Copyright and Rights in Databases (Amendment) Regulations 2003 ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032501.htm ) and didn't notice anything to that effect.

Despite our much stronger data protection legislation, exactly the same trick works in the UK. Which just demonstrates that the whole data protection hoo hah is nonsense...

The fine hacks at The Register probably aren't subject to the Official Secrets Act, not being "a member of the security and intelligence services" or "a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection". Also, publishing this information isn't likely to be considered "damaging" w.r.t. the defence of the nation, etc. Official Secrets Act.

In fact, in the UK, journalists regularly get away with publishing "secret" information - just not when they're the BBC (due mostly to their lapdog governor, who should've said "fuck you, here's the complaint department's PO box" during the whole "sexed up intelligence" ordeal - which it turns out the Beeb was in the right about anyway. Note though how they never got slapped with any Official Secrets charges, or even a suggestion thereof.)

Now, slander and libel, those are areas where UK hacks have something to fear from the law - the libel laws are, simply put, draconian. Even so, the Tabloids are still printing absolute idiocy, so those libel laws apply more to lesser folk.

Well, we've got the Computer Misuse Act (1990)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_1990001 8_en_1.htm

which upon cursory perusal suggest that if Sony distributed their spyware in the UK, they're up for five years' porridge, and their extradition should be sought by the Crown straight off.

The requisite offence is

"3.-(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
  (a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and
  (b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.
        (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing-
  (a) to impair the operation of any computer;
  (b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
  (c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data."
© Crown Copyright 1990

We can but hope.

The Environmental Protection Act (1990), Chapter 43, section 79(1)(a), describes Statutory Nuisances as including "noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance". This would certainly cover the Mosquito - it's specifically designed to be, and marketed as, an annoying noise producer. The other pertinent subsections (particularly (9)) boil down to "unless we've specifically said you can do this".

October 31st Statutory Instrument, 2498 amendments to the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, section 296ZB.

No, they are not safe. The UK has a DMCA-like law as well, satisfying the requirements of the European Union Copyright Directive.

I am not a lawyer, but First4Internet probably should be phoning theirs.

3.(1) A person is guilty of an offence if
(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and
(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing
(a) to impair the operation of any computer;
(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

I think First4Internet's little toy is designed to prevent or hinder access to programs and data held in a computer, don't you? And I really doubt that their click-through EULA constitutes authorisation to do so; it was fraudulently claimed that the Software was necessary to play the music, which was a plain lie as is shown by every Linux and Apple machine that plays it just fine without the rootkit installed.

I might add that even though these discs are not available in the UK, the Computer Misuse Act still holds.

Anyone know if we could possibly get Inspector Knacker to take a look at these felonious fellows?

3.(1) A person is guilty of an offence if
(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and
(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing
(a) to impair the operation of any computer;
(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

I think First4Internet's little toy is designed to prevent or hinder access to programs and data held in a computer, don't you? And I really doubt that their click-through EULA constitutes authorisation to do so; it was fraudulently claimed that the Software was necessary to play the music, which was a plain lie as is shown by every Linux and Apple machine that plays it just fine without the rootkit installed.

I might add that even though these discs are not available in the UK, the Computer Misuse Act still holds.

Anyone know if we could possibly get Inspector Knacker to take a look at these felonious fellows?

Perhaps you'd care to read the referenced version of the allegedly libellous factsheet - which includes factual and textual citations for the claims.

(Some of which are from McDonald's-internal documents; others from such international bodies as the WHO and WWF.)

One additional point, though, just to drive the full absurdity of the UK libel system home;

Look at your original post:

"My local newspaper had an editorial that was basically cheering for the guys who libeled McDonalds.

That was when I decided that, if they care that little about the truth, I didn't really need to read that newspaper any more."

You are clearly implying that the McLibel defendants are themselves liars; and this is a fairly clear example of defamation - since you can't really claim any of the three defences below;

"1. - (1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that-

            (a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of,

            (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and

            (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to
                    the publication of a defamatory statement."

Congrats, you could (on some vague and theoretical level) be taken to court in the UK for libel (since web traffic is seen in the UK, too).

Now, in practice, simply saying that you didn't know it was defamatory isn't a defence unless you can prove undeniably that you tried to check your facts first; and in this example, you'd lose; because calling someone a liar in public is defamation pretty much everywhere; and it's known to be defamatory.

And, as I've already said, libel in the UK is stacked quite heavily in favour of the plaintiff; and your ability to fight such a case is usually proportional to your capacity to pay legal bills.

Now imagine that your opponent is not some theoretical entity, but is one of the wealthiest private organisations in the world.

In the UK, if you have assets to lose, then it is simpler to post a retraction of your statement - even if it's true - than it is to risk having your assets destroyed by an expensive lawsuit. That's why SLAPPs worked when McDonald's sued various UK national media and NGOs (including the BBC and Channel 4). The tactic only failed when they tried suing people who had no real assets to lose.

Oh - and not being in the UK doesn't make you safe; due to our libel laws, we get 'libel tourism' - where British citizens like Richard Perle initiate libel proceedings against the New Yorker in a UK court - because UK readers might see the allegedly libellous material.

If you put something in the public domain that might be seen by UK citizens, then you can be sued under UK libel laws.

Possibly there's a crime, but it's not so-called copyright theft. Many readers find this term as stupid and insulting as you probably find some Slashdot comments.

Also IANAL but I think The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 allows you to prevent reverse engineering, but does not forbid the making of a temporary copy for other lawful purposes such as identifying it for a spyware list. As I read it, people don't need permission from the copyright holder to do this.

In the UK, this legislation already exists, it's called the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). The provisions of this Act allow designated authorities to force users to surrender encryption keys and passwords to allow filesystems and files to be decrypted.

Section 15 of the Terrorism bill is to increase the penalty for withholding encryption keys from two years, to five in a "National Security Case".

While I don't support detention without trial or charge for 90 days (3 months, almost 13 weeks), arguing against this by reference to the RIP Act 2000 isn't ideal as that's also a bad, freedom restricting law, giving excessive powers to "Government Agents".

I am particularly worried by the section of the RIP Act 2000 stating when a failure to comply with a key disclosure notice - ie. stating when an offence will be committed:

In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.

Are you in a position to provide all encryption keys that the state could prove you once had in your possession? Are you taking precautions to ensure that you always remain able to supply such keys to the state should they demand them at any future point?

What if your computer equipment was confiscated / destroyed? How many people would loose the ability to comply with the law should they have a hardware failure - or accidentally fail to backup their data.

This is one of many laws that many people are going to find themselves vulnerable to committing an offence under - I think such laws are wrong and serve to give the state a power over people that they shouldn't have - either that or the law becomes so widely ignored that a prosecution under it becomes implausible - though as long as it remains law it the potential for it to be used as an tool for the state to use to threaten and intimidate those in breach of it remains. While key disclosure is only required by law for serious offences and under certain very limited circumstances - it's not only those guilty of serious offences who might find themselves in receipt of a disclosure notice - that group includes innocent people merely under suspicion.

An additional worry is that my MPs see "IT" issues such as these as technical and not of broad interest, so irrelevant.

We already did that in the UK. See the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - the authorities have the power to require an individual to disclose encryption keys etc.

Yes, we did protest it at the time

From the Computer Misuse Act http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_1990001 8_en_2.htm#mdiv1

1.--(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-- (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer; (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.

No mention of circumventing any kind of security protection. The act simply states that causing a computer to access data you aren't authorised to access is an offence.

In what way does putting up a website authorise the public to access it? There's loads of stuff kept in websites (credit card records, etc) that I'm not allowed to access. There's a common sense distinction between a public website (i.e. one with no security measures blocking access) and a private, protected website, but there's no distinction under this law. Under this act, starting an unsecured website containing priviledged data would allow you to prosecute anyone who viewed it.

I'm not saying that any judge would accept such a prosecution, I'm simply pointing to it to show that this law is complete bollocks. Anything as vague as "unauthorised access" without specific mention of the process of authorisation of the necessery presence of mechanisms to prevent unauthorised access has no place in a law.

If UK law doesn't considered this sort of computer act to be illegal what else isn't? What is illegal?

There is no warning on the Amazon UK site for this CD.

Any rootkit would be clear violation of sections 2 and 3 of the Computer Missuse Act. This Act comes from EU treaty obligations so substantially similar legislation exists throughout Europe. The territorial scope of this Act only requires one of the parties to the offense to be in the UK. So buying this from Amazon UK should cover you even if you dont live in the UK.

1. unauthorised access
2. unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences [my emphasis]
3. unauthorised modification

therefore, if the rootkit opens back doors, or makes it possible to hide programs, charge #2 applies.

I don't know where the stuff about bodily fluids and DNA came from, but the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, taken together, allow for any individual to be marked by the Secretary of State for detention (normally, it seems, in the form of house arrest, though that is not specified), or almost any other kind of restriction on movement, ownership of anything, etc etc, for an indefinite period (renewable 12 months at a time), without court intervention. In the 2005 act, see especially section 1 (what kinds of restrictions can be placed), section 2 (the Secretary of State can do anything he damn well pleases), and section 6 (you may be restricted forever).

Here's an especially good paragraph, from section 2:

(9) It shall be immaterial, for the purposes of determining what obligations may be imposed by a control order made by the Secretary of State, whether the involvement in terrorism-related activity to be prevented or restricted by the obligations is connected with matters to which the Secretary of State's grounds for suspicion relate.

So suspicion of terrorist activity, and hence restrictions, may be based on anything the Secretary of State feels like.

There's also a nice summary of the situation on Wikipedia. I especially like the quirk whereby an individual's human rights may legally be curtailed in the UK if the UK government decides that deportation would lead to the individual's human rights being curtailed in his/her home country.

I don't know where the stuff about bodily fluids and DNA came from, but the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, taken together, allow for any individual to be marked by the Secretary of State for detention (normally, it seems, in the form of house arrest, though that is not specified), or almost any other kind of restriction on movement, ownership of anything, etc etc, for an indefinite period (renewable 12 months at a time), without court intervention. In the 2005 act, see especially section 1 (what kinds of restrictions can be placed), section 2 (the Secretary of State can do anything he damn well pleases), and section 6 (you may be restricted forever).

Here's an especially good paragraph, from section 2:

(9) It shall be immaterial, for the purposes of determining what obligations may be imposed by a control order made by the Secretary of State, whether the involvement in terrorism-related activity to be prevented or restricted by the obligations is connected with matters to which the Secretary of State's grounds for suspicion relate.

So suspicion of terrorist activity, and hence restrictions, may be based on anything the Secretary of State feels like.

There's also a nice summary of the situation on Wikipedia. I especially like the quirk whereby an individual's human rights may legally be curtailed in the UK if the UK government decides that deportation would lead to the individual's human rights being curtailed in his/her home country.

Ok, so what is the real problem with this???

It's illegal vigilante action. Two wrongs don't make a right.

For instance, in the UK, it breaches Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act. When somebody is attempting to download Britney Spears' latest hit, they are authorising the download of that particular media file. They haven't authorised the download of a different media file. Thus, under 3. 2) c) they have performed an unauthorised modification of the contents of a computer, to impair the operation of the BitTorrent program and the reliability of the data.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_1988004 8_en_4.htm#mdiv70

Bieng in the UK, the site would have to abide by the Data Protection Act 1998, which basically specifies what a company can and can't do with personal infomation.

Notably, the DPA applies only to personally identifiable infomation - given that it's not possible to identify someone from an I.P. number alone, nor an IMEI number, no laws were broken and what these guys did was perfectly legal.

That said, I can't find a notice on their site regarding the DPA, the data they collect, and what it's used for, so MaDoCo may be in breach of the DPA. That said, even big commercial sites like Amazon fail to include the required notices, so they're unlikely to suffer action over it.

I'm not sure what the legislation in the U.S. is with regards to unauthorised use of computers, but here in the U.K. the legislation is pretty watertight.

Under section 1 of the Computers Misuse Act 1990, if you gain access to a machine/program/data that you're not authorised to have access to, you can be imprisoned for 6 months or get hit with a class 5 fine. You're not liable if you didn't know that your access was unauthorised, which is a nice little safety net if your boss decides to revoke your network access but forgets to tell you. :)

Under section 3, if you change anything after getting access that penalty becomes a five year prison sentence, but again you have to know that you weren't supposed to be doing it.
In this case, It's pretty obvious that the kids knew that they weren't supposed to be messing around with the data, so why should the law apply any less to them than it would someone hacking into police databases? Laws are only worthwhile if they apply to everyone evenly, and if they don't they may as well not exist.

Again, I'm not sure what the U.S. legislation is with regards to this, but if anyone wishes to know what the legislation is over here, you can find the text of the Computers Misuse Act on the following link.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_1990001 8_en_2.htm#mdiv1

Obscurely, the Olympic Symbol and related words already have special protection in English law. Irrespective of any changes to the law, The Olympic Hopefuls are already in breach of copyright.

Obscurely, the Olympic Symbol and related words already have special protection in English law. Irrespective of any changes to the law, The Olympic Hopefuls are already in breach of copyright.

Sections 125 and 126 of the Communications Act 2003:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--c.htm# 125

Basically, in order to be convicted he must have been "dishonest" (but doesn't define "dishonesty"). The way I read it, wardriving is entirely legal if you wear a big sign round your neck saying "I am looking for unsecured wireless internet connections".

For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if-

(a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Don't forget that BadGuy, a professional EvilDoer (i.e. a childmolesting terrorist moneylaunderer) will gladly hand over evidence guaranteed to giv him 25 to life to avoid a two year maximum jail sentence.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act introduced the offence of not handing over encryption keys back in 2000. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm# 49

Sometimes I think the country is run by madmen.

IANAL and I'm not bothered with reading all the legal jargon on a Friday night but I believe its the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which gives them that power

Read the text and tell me if I'm right

The BBC is a unit of the British Government

That's not true. The BBC is an independent company that receives funding from the government, and is dependent on the government for the grant of a licence to allow it to broadcast TV and radio signals, but it is not a unit of the government.

There's "crown copyright", but that's limited to certain types of materials.

As discussed here, even if the BBC were a government body, this recording would not come under crown copyright (see particularly paragraph 10). Crown copyright isn't limited by the type of material, but by who produced it. Only bodies on this list produce material for crown copyright; others receive standard copyright protection just as you or I would.

The BBC is a unit of the British Government

That's not true. The BBC is an independent company that receives funding from the government, and is dependent on the government for the grant of a licence to allow it to broadcast TV and radio signals, but it is not a unit of the government.

There's "crown copyright", but that's limited to certain types of materials.

As discussed here, even if the BBC were a government body, this recording would not come under crown copyright (see particularly paragraph 10). Crown copyright isn't limited by the type of material, but by who produced it. Only bodies on this list produce material for crown copyright; others receive standard copyright protection just as you or I would.

Not sure [raping one's neighbour's dog] is a crime in England...

It is. Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 69.

Interestingly (?), it looks as though oral sex with animals is legal.

Don't take my word for it - look it up. Nothing here suggests to me that downloading is an offence. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_1988004 8_en_7.htm#mdiv107

Feel free to point out any part that says something along the lines of "receiving or owning a copy of copyrighted material for personal/domestic use is an offence."

Looks like you're right about the levy though; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/20/uk_rejects _cdr_tax/

> If I can't get the shipping price BEFORE I put
> in my Name and Credit card - I take my business
> elsewhere.

Surely what you're describing is illegal. What country do you live in?

Here's an extract from the relevant British regulations (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm). This is an implementation of an EU directive so it should apply in essentially the same way Europe-wide. My understanding (and I run an online business) is that "in good time" means "linked from the front page of your web site".

Information required prior to the conclusion of the contract
7. - (1) Subject to paragraph (4), in good time prior to the conclusion of the contract the supplier shall -

(a) provide to the consumer the following information -

(i) the identity of the supplier and, where the contract requires payment in advance, the supplier's address;

(ii) a description of the main characteristics of the goods or services;

(iii) the price of the goods or services including all taxes;

(iv) delivery costs where appropriate;

(v) the arrangements for payment, delivery or performance;

(vi) the existence of a right of cancellation except in the cases referred to in regulation 13;

(vii) the cost of using the means of distance communication where it is calculated other than at the basic rate;

(viii) the period for which the offer or the price remains valid; and

(ix) where appropriate, the minimum duration of the contract, in the case of contracts for the supply of goods or services to be performed permanently or recurrently;