Slashdot Mirror

Essentially, from what I read (correct me if something changed in the final bill), a copyright holder can accuse you of pirating anything without evidence, and your provider must throttle/disconnect you. If you want to counter, you have to take me to court, at your cost, with real evidence that you didn't.

I'm not convinced this is true. My understanding of it was that they would have to catch you actually doing it (although I'm sure you could claim entrapment on that) and give you a warning through your ISP. Then they would be able to tell your ISP to cut your internet connection off if they caught you doing it again.

Not that I want to get into a debate about whether it should or shouldn't be illegal or not. Given that it is, this seems to be a fairly sensible way of policing it. It may appear that they are being heavy handed with the threats (to satisfy those who think it is a problem), they can also get away with minimal policing and catching the biggest offenders.

Citation: Section 124A, section 3c of the bill

Link moved, here is where you can find the MP votes: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100407/debtext/100407-0032.htm#1004088001556

Everyone that watched the debate last night was pretty horrified at how broken the "wash up" process was, and how obviously this bill was pushed through by the front benches without the support of the backbench MPs present. Labour were responsible for 97% of the MPs that gave a yes vote, because those Labour MPs that didn't would have faced severe consequences, perhaps even eviction from the party. Some rebel Labour MPs did vote against, Tom Watson leading them, this guy deserves serious respect for standing up for what he believes despite the pressure.

The election is coming and we need to take away power from these corrupt parties (the other two major parties are hardly blameless, although the Liberal Democrats did at least vote against). Support the Open Rights Group and also support the Pirate Party UK who are currently raising money to field candidates. You can donate to the Pirate Party here if you are so inclined: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/party/donate/

My MP voted for the bill, so I'm going to vote against in the next election, I'd urge people to do the same, find out if your MP voted and which way by going here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/32.htm#hddr_2

Just take a walk through central London and see the machine guns and CCTV following you around everywhere you go.

Seriously? Okay, I've not been to London since last month, but I'm fairly sure I'd have noticed machine guns. CCTV, yes. London does have a lot, but then it needs to because it also has a lot of known criminals that it needs to keep track of. Machine guns? Not so much.

It's the same in the UK - I find it ridiculous, but most people don't care if it doesn't affect them.

Recently, the law which allowed this censorship - the Video Recordings Act 1984 - was found to have never been enacted. Did we get a chance to redebate this issue, now that the "video nasties" scaremongering of the 80s (which led to this law) was no longer around? Hell no. Instead we got a load of media scaremongering again, about how this law not being valid would mean porn would be sold to small children (not just tabloids, even the BBC were at it). The Government then brought in "emergency legislation" to enact the law as quickly as possible - it was rushed through the entire process in just over a month!

(And things look to get worse with the Digital Economy Bill, which will allow the Government to revoke a rating even after it's been granted!)

Lord Clement Jones "is paid £70,000 in respect of his services as Co-Chairman of DLA Piper's global government relations practice" according to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg/reg06.htm

DLA Piper works on behalf of the MusicFIRST coalition.

The RIAA is a founding member of the MusicFIRST coalition.

The thousands of pages of "peer reviewed" "settled" "science" by "thousands of" "scientists" in WG1 are one pile of biased studies linked by circular references, carefully selected by a small team to obtain a desired alarmist outcome.

36,000 physicists are worried.

CAGW is dead, the deceivers are being exposed while the deceived march on, for now.

I can't believe governments are spending so much time and effort going after file sharing. The types of punishment being proposed are also completely out of proportion. Why not spend this much effort going after other widespread crimes such as rape and human trafficking? Also, shouldn't the government be spending a lot more time worrying about environmental damage and climate change? Our futures are at stake, yet the biggest problem seems to be people exchanging bits on the Internet.

What is also particularly impressive about this legislation is that it is entitled the "Digital Economy Bill" and followed on from the Digital Britain report. The original idea behind this process was to put into place any laws that would help boost the UK's digital sectors and make sure the country was at least 'up to date' with the rest of the western world if not ahead. However, rather than pushing for high-speed broadband, establishing tax incentives for tech firms or anything else that might actually help the UK economy, we have this badly-written piece of legislation.

The Bill itself contains 44 main clauses of legislation, of which the first 17 are just about online copyright infringement. The government didn't even attempt to hide their (controversial and most likely pointless) anti-file sharing policies behind anything that might help the economy. While there is a section in the middle about TV and radio broadcasting rights (i.e. the government wants to push digital radio so it can sell off the rest of the radio spectrum), it then returns to Video Game censorship/classification (essentially out-sourcing it to PEGI) which adds an extra burden on video game producers.

Then there is a fun section where the government helpfully demonstrates that it doesn't care at all about the "artist" or "content creator" (neither of which appear anywhere in the draft text). Clause 42 effectively creates a public licensing body for orphan work - which itself is quite a good idea (although a better way to make orphan works more available might be to reduce the duration of copyright) - but then they tag on an extra section that allows the body to

to grant copyright licences in respect of works in which copyright is not owned by the body or a person on whose behalf the body acts. - Clause 42, 116B, (1)

It seems that it is OK to take powers away from artists provided it is some large organisation (such as the RIAA-controlled PRS) that is benefiting (the PRS kept a "small administration/commission fee" of £67m in 2007 or about 12% of their revenue) rather than the general public.

This Bill works out as a bad deal for internet users, content creators and even radio station operators. The bulk of the bill concerns adding further restrictions and costs on the digital sector; rather than helping the UK's "Digital Economy" this Bill seems to be doing all it can to hinder it. I guess that's what we should expect from an out-of-touch government and parliament full of politicians who care more about winning votes rather than doing the country any good.

I can't believe governments are spending so much time and effort going after file sharing. The types of punishment being proposed are also completely out of proportion. Why not spend this much effort going after other widespread crimes such as rape and human trafficking? Also, shouldn't the government be spending a lot more time worrying about environmental damage and climate change? Our futures are at stake, yet the biggest problem seems to be people exchanging bits on the Internet.

What is also particularly impressive about this legislation is that it is entitled the "Digital Economy Bill" and followed on from the Digital Britain report. The original idea behind this process was to put into place any laws that would help boost the UK's digital sectors and make sure the country was at least 'up to date' with the rest of the western world if not ahead. However, rather than pushing for high-speed broadband, establishing tax incentives for tech firms or anything else that might actually help the UK economy, we have this badly-written piece of legislation.

The Bill itself contains 44 main clauses of legislation, of which the first 17 are just about online copyright infringement. The government didn't even attempt to hide their (controversial and most likely pointless) anti-file sharing policies behind anything that might help the economy. While there is a section in the middle about TV and radio broadcasting rights (i.e. the government wants to push digital radio so it can sell off the rest of the radio spectrum), it then returns to Video Game censorship/classification (essentially out-sourcing it to PEGI) which adds an extra burden on video game producers.

Then there is a fun section where the government helpfully demonstrates that it doesn't care at all about the "artist" or "content creator" (neither of which appear anywhere in the draft text). Clause 42 effectively creates a public licensing body for orphan work - which itself is quite a good idea (although a better way to make orphan works more available might be to reduce the duration of copyright) - but then they tag on an extra section that allows the body to

to grant copyright licences in respect of works in which copyright is not owned by the body or a person on whose behalf the body acts. - Clause 42, 116B, (1)

It seems that it is OK to take powers away from artists provided it is some large organisation (such as the RIAA-controlled PRS) that is benefiting (the PRS kept a "small administration/commission fee" of £67m in 2007 or about 12% of their revenue) rather than the general public.

This Bill works out as a bad deal for internet users, content creators and even radio station operators. The bulk of the bill concerns adding further restrictions and costs on the digital sector; rather than helping the UK's "Digital Economy" this Bill seems to be doing all it can to hinder it. I guess that's what we should expect from an out-of-touch government and parliament full of politicians who care more about winning votes rather than doing the country any good.

To expand on this, it would require withdrawal from the EU due to the requirement of compliance to the European Convention on Human Rights to maintain membership. Were we not to do so, where deportation is impossible (as it would be for now-stateless individuals), automatic indefinite detention leads to breaches of Articles 5 and 14 ECHR, as long-term detention takes place even where deportation is impossible.

Even de facto stateless people who cannot obtain travel documentation to return to their country of origin cannot be deported, the stated aim of immigration detention. As a result, the policy of automatic indefinite detention is discriminatory as it leaves them far more likely to be detained for long periods. Indefinite detention functions in practice as an improvised extension of the criminal justice system, and is experienced by detainees as punitive. [1] The UK Border Agency (UKBA) cannot use detention as a long-term limbo for people considered to be undesirable, and detention without a fair trial breaches Art 6(1) of the ECHR.

Since the ex-UK nationals would still reside within the UK, they would be entitled to launch a civil action for damages combined with an injunction against deportation and a judicial review of the decision to remove their citizenship on the basis of both unfairness and ultra vires use of powers. They would then almost certainly be able to reside within the UK as newly enriched citizens. This is, for the avoidance of confusion, a good thing and the right result.

Although I do have UK qualifications in constitutional law, I am not your constitutional lawyer and this is not legal advice.

[1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/62/62we19.htm

e.g.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070220/debtext/70220-0013.htm

All laws, including tax law, should have a mandatory maximum validity period.
 

5 Jan 2010 : Column 35 The issue of privacy will be important, but all the images are destroyed immediately and the person responsible for the scanning is in a completely separate room, as anybody who has seen the system in Manchester or the version in Glasgow operating will know, so there is no immediate contact between the person doing the imaging and the person being imaged. Privacy considerations are important, but I believe that we can ensure that those who have concerns can be satisfied. I do not foresee a situation in which people can simply object to a body scan. We need to use the scanners perhaps not as the first line of our defence but as the second line, on a random basis.

Now after reading that, two questions come to mind. 1. Why are anyone's images being stored anywhere in the first place, 2. What definition does the word "immediately" deleted mean, one second, one day, one week, one year? Knowing government, the longer the timeframe the better.

It sounds even worse, the person doing the scanning is a locked room by themselves, paedo heaven!

Here's a report comparing the total life-cycle carbon footprint of all major methods of electricity generation.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf

Wind is second lowest but basically the same as Nuclear, the lowest.

I am amazed that so many people are willing to vote for X-Factor and who should be no1 in the Christmas charts but will not vote for who runs the UK!

That's like totally horrifying.

At least protest for a something worthwhile - e.g. against clause 11 of the "Digital Economy Bill"http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html Essentially gives Lord Mandelson complete control of what is published on Internet and unrivalled power and "interpretation" of copyright law.

You can join petitions here: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/list/open?cat=758

Then again Simon Cowell wants to "X-Factor" politics http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236002/The-Politics-Factor-Simon-Cowell-unveils-plan-launch-election-debate-show.html This mentality scares the crap out of me!

For the record, this clause didn't go completely unnoticed; it was spotted by the UK Pirate Party in their draft analysis (disclaimer: yes, I wrote most of that).

The entire clause reads:

124H Obligations to limit internet access

(1) The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in view of—
        (a) an assessment carried out or steps taken by OFCOM under section 124G; or
        (b) any other consideration.

(2) An order under this section must specify the date from which the technical obligation is to have effect, or provide for it to be specified.

(3) The order may also specify—
        (a) the criteria for taking the technical measure concerned against a subscriber;
        (b) the steps to be taken as part of the measure and when they are to be taken.”

A "technical obligation" is defined in the previous clause as an obligation on an ISP to impose a "technical measure" on a subscriber. The "technical measures" are also defined as something that limits the speed, blocks content, disconnects the user completely or "limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way". So yes, this clause would give a Secretary of State complete power over any internet connection in the UK.

This clause is probably the worst in the entire bill, and considering some of the other parts, that's saying something

See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html#j164. The proposal also gives the Secretary of State the rights to a) decide the punishment for copyright infringement, and b) redefine what a copyright infringement is. Therefore, he can effectively jail, or worse, anyone he likes for no reason. Also, the law gives him the power to rewrite the law itself; there are some restrictions, but he can just rewrite it to remove them. In short, passing this proposal would give Lord Mandelson a complete dictatorship over the UK. (If you don't believe me, read it yourself; the only meaningful restriction is to have a draft of the changes approved by parliament, and it would be easy enough to slip in a removal of that restriction at the same time as another change.)

People look uncomfortable because *you're* full of shit. Sceptic means exactly the same as skeptic. Septic is the spelling that refers to a tank for holding sewage.

Oh dear! Touched a nerve, did we?

The spelling depends on which dictionary you happen to be reading from. For some reason which I find curious, dictionary instances of the double spelling are much more difficult to find on-line than they were only a few years ago. Though I distinctly remember seeing the alternative spelling in dictionaries when I was a kid, they appear to no longer be available today. But I am clearly not the only one who remembers growing up with this alternative spelling being part of our basic reality. Others in the medical profession use the term frequently. Despite the difficulty presented by Google's auto-spell correcting filters which might even have something to do with this retroactive editing of a whole word, there are plenty of examples of people using the alternative spelling. Doctors and scientists and journalists and such. . .

here. . .
Exploding the albumin myth by M.M. Tjoeng; A.K.M. Bartelink; L.G. Thijs (pp. 17-20).
In this article arguments are given to stop the current practise of infusing albumin in patients in shock and low levels of serum albumin. Correcting the albumin levels is not correlated with better survival or change in morbidity. Fluid therapy including the use of synthetic plasma expanders is the accepted therapy for patients in sceptic shock.

and here
9. SAVU L., ZOUAGHI H., CARLI A., and NUNEZ E., 1981
Serum depletion of cortisolsteroid binding-activities, an early marker of human sceptic shock.
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm., 102, 411-419

and here
If the bacteria get into the bloodstream they can cause septicaemia, sceptic shock and pneumonia. Infection can be fatal.

and here
The pope's condition was 'very serious' after deteriorating dramatically following the heart attack, sceptic shock and a urinary tract infection, the Vatican announced early Friday, but by midday he had rallied somewhat and his condition was reported to be 'stable'.

and here
Additionally the programme will also cover the issues surrounding community versus hospital acquired infection and include a session focussing specifically on sepsis and sceptic shock.

and here
But the next day after vomiting several times, Mrs McCarthy was readmitted to the hospitals A&E department where doctors diagnosed sceptic shock.

and here
(Dr Langley) I believe that priority areas should be those research fields where procedures of the greatest severity are conducted on animals, and those fields which use the largest numbers of animals. I would select two particular main areas: one is fundamental medical research. I would say that is a priority target, because it accounts for one-third of all animal procedures and includes experiments of substantial severity for animals, especially in the development of models of human conditions, such as diabetes, sceptic shock, cancer, and liver and kidney failure.

and here
I was developing sceptic shock and I couldn't get through to anyone on the phone. I had to give myself an intramuscular injection of antibiotics.

and here
As an example, when Celltech announced the failure of its

People look uncomfortable because *you're* full of shit. Sceptic means exactly the same as skeptic. Septic is the spelling that refers to a tank for holding sewage.

Oh dear! Touched a nerve, did we?

The spelling depends on which dictionary you happen to be reading from. For some reason which I find curious, dictionary instances of the double spelling are much more difficult to find on-line than they were only a few years ago. Though I distinctly remember seeing the alternative spelling in dictionaries when I was a kid, they appear to no longer be available today. But I am clearly not the only one who remembers growing up with this alternative spelling being part of our basic reality. Others in the medical profession use the term frequently. Despite the difficulty presented by Google's auto-spell correcting filters which might even have something to do with this retroactive editing of a whole word, there are plenty of examples of people using the alternative spelling. Doctors and scientists and journalists and such. . .

here. . .
Exploding the albumin myth by M.M. Tjoeng; A.K.M. Bartelink; L.G. Thijs (pp. 17-20).
In this article arguments are given to stop the current practise of infusing albumin in patients in shock and low levels of serum albumin. Correcting the albumin levels is not correlated with better survival or change in morbidity. Fluid therapy including the use of synthetic plasma expanders is the accepted therapy for patients in sceptic shock.

and here
9. SAVU L., ZOUAGHI H., CARLI A., and NUNEZ E., 1981
Serum depletion of cortisolsteroid binding-activities, an early marker of human sceptic shock.
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm., 102, 411-419

and here
If the bacteria get into the bloodstream they can cause septicaemia, sceptic shock and pneumonia. Infection can be fatal.

and here
The pope's condition was 'very serious' after deteriorating dramatically following the heart attack, sceptic shock and a urinary tract infection, the Vatican announced early Friday, but by midday he had rallied somewhat and his condition was reported to be 'stable'.

and here
Additionally the programme will also cover the issues surrounding community versus hospital acquired infection and include a session focussing specifically on sepsis and sceptic shock.

and here
But the next day after vomiting several times, Mrs McCarthy was readmitted to the hospitals A&E department where doctors diagnosed sceptic shock.

and here
(Dr Langley) I believe that priority areas should be those research fields where procedures of the greatest severity are conducted on animals, and those fields which use the largest numbers of animals. I would select two particular main areas: one is fundamental medical research. I would say that is a priority target, because it accounts for one-third of all animal procedures and includes experiments of substantial severity for animals, especially in the development of models of human conditions, such as diabetes, sceptic shock, cancer, and liver and kidney failure.

and here
I was developing sceptic shock and I couldn't get through to anyone on the phone. I had to give myself an intramuscular injection of antibiotics.

and here
As an example, when Celltech announced the failure of its

Yeah, I'm gonna say this is a non-story.

Well, let's look at the bill itself that was published today: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html#j164

Yeah, I'm gonna say BoingBoing were right.

Also see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/11/the_digital_economy_bill.html , http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39893271,00.htm .

Interestingly though, contrary to GP's belief, it turns out that a large proportion of people served with such a notice refused to comply anyway. This might not have been a bad gamble, given the number of those subsequently prosecuted and convicted for doing so seems to be low. See here and here, for example.

Interestingly though, contrary to GP's belief, it turns out that a large proportion of people served with such a notice refused to comply anyway. This might not have been a bad gamble, given the number of those subsequently prosecuted and convicted for doing so seems to be low. See here and here, for example.

That depends on what you regard as 'the problem'.

The 'super-injunction', as the press are calling it, was the injunction placed on the Guardian's publication of the Minton Report, and the associated gag order that prevented the paper from revealing the existence of the injunction.

The judge didn't directly apply the gag order to the parliamentary question tabled by Paul Farrelly (which didn't exist at the time), and by all accounts the gag order did not cover parliamentary proceedings in any case because of qualified privilege. The only reason it became an issue was because the Guardian received a specific legal threat from law firm Carter-Ruck:

"The threatened publication would place the Guardian in contempt of court ... please confirm by immediate return that the publications threatened will not take place."

As we all know, statements made by lawyers are often merely the legal opinions of said lawyers.

The gag order is the sinister part of the whole thing (not the injunction, which is perfectly reasonable given judicial oversight), but I'd like to point out that these are not uniquely British as the GP seems to be alluding. I'm put in mind of the National Security Letters sent out by arms of the US Government, which placed similar gag orders, but unlike this situation did not have any judicial oversight.

example applications

accidents caused as a result of distractions such as smoking, changing a CD/tape or eating/drinking are likely to be prosecuted as careless driving.

are you guys subjected to the "something MUST be done" syndrome by your politicians as well

VI) THE "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE" SYNDROME

47. Another problem identified by a number of witnesses was what might be termed the "something must be done" syndrome. Lord Baker reflected upon the passage of the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act in 1991 when he was Home Secretary:

"What happened was that gangs of youths would steal a car, usually a high performance car, and do the most amazing tricks with it at night to such an extent that people came and watched it as a spectator sport and the television cameras came and filmed them night after night after night ... The Chief Constables of both [the affected] authorities came to the Home Office to see me and said that something must be done. That was the birth of the aggravated vehicle taking offence" (Q 61).

48. Professor Bradley told us that "the desire to legislate rapidly may be a response to an event of current prominence in the media. It may be difficult to separate the need for rapid legislation from the government's interest in being seen to respond decisively to current issues. Critics of such legislation may argue that the government could and should have asked Parliament to legislate at a much earlier date" (p 91). Professor Dickson warned that "members of the public may feel that the government is engaging in a knee-jerk reaction so as to be seen to be 'doing something' about the incident that has just occurred, even though existing laws may be adequate to deal with that incident" (p 84). Liberty were also fearful that "the policy behind such legislation will at best be ill-thought out and at worst may be motivated by political objectives to be 'seen' to be responding to an event or judgment" (p 51). Dr Fox questioned whether "public opinion and media pressure--and public opinion is a fickle thing--would meet grounds for immediacy" (QQ 7, 9).

Many posters here seem to believe he just 'pointed out security flaws', akin to telling someone their door locks are easily picked, and then suddenly being held responsible for the owner wanting better lock.

That is clearly not the case here. He found security holes, -and exploited them-, and -damaged systems- as a result.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/mckinn-1.htm

Even if I leave my door wide open, if someone comes in and trashes my house, I'm going to expect them to pay for the repairs and clean-up. That's going to include me doing a complete inventory to figure out what might now be missing or broken. And that will take a while.

Weak security != permission to exploit

And the $700K amount is vague as to it's origin, I also saw nothing that specifically indicated that any of the $700K was specifically for -upgrading- security.

Any of these credible?

It's not a tax.

The TV licence was reclassified as a tax by the OFN in 2006 (read the blue book). It was even talked about in the House of Lords.

Except, it's not a tax, it's collected by the TVLA not the government, and we don't have a federal government at all.

It is indeed collected by the TVLA but the authority to do so is set out in the Communications Act 2003 which makes it a criminal offense to not pay the TV licence fee.

, and despite the fact that the money doesn't pass through the federal government

Or even just our government...

This is false. The licence fee is set by the government. It is paid into the government bank account by the TVLA and then voted on by the BBC trustees before being allocated and distributed to the BBC by a government department.

The BBC is funded by the government as far as any tax is.

The political party with the most MPs in Parliament become the government.

That's not the way the term is correctly used in the UK. Her Majesty's Government consists of ministers and holders of certain specific offices, such as the Attorney General, and is composed of MPs and peers. The vast majority of the appointments to those posts are made by the PM, so damburger is correct.

Take a look in the House of Commons. Do you see any ninjas? Exactly.

FWIW, the actual text of what was said in the Lords can be found ont he Parliament website: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90519-0001.htm#09051975000669

Although drawing a naked baby being raped by guys in rabbit suits might not involve any children who once or ever will exist, it's still obscene. Lots of laws exist to prevent that level of obscenity.

Indeed. For example, the bill linked from the summary, which contains the following passage:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/009/09009.25-31.html#j3_100a

(2)"Image" includes--

(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means), or

(b)data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).

This is a very interesting passage. It seems to suggest that your description of a bunny-rape scene could be against the law, if said description could be turned into a graphical representation somehow. And indeed it can: I could draw it, based on your description - not well, but then again artistic merit is not listed as requirement to qualify as a illegal.

In other words, you are a criminal and a child pornographer, you sick fuck.

Theoretically we have such a law as part of the European Convention On Human Rights, however it has the get-out clause "protection of morals" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm ). This also came up with the recent "extreme" porn law - the Government claimed that this was not a violation of freedom of expression (or right to privacy) under the law, because of these get-out clauses. In the explanatory note for that law, they gave as justifications ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 ):

802. The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10 but that for the reasons set out below this is justified as being in accordance with the law, and necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime, for the protection of morals and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

803. The material to be covered by this new offence is at the most extreme end of the spectrum of pornographic material which is likely to be thought abhorrent by most people. It is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence, so it is therefore likely that a criminal offence is being committed where the activity which appears to be taking place is actually taking place. The House of Lords upheld convictions for offences of causing actual and grievous bodily harm in the case of Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 which involved a group of sado-masochists who had engaged in consensual torture. The threshold that the clauses have set is very high, so while those taking part might argue that they had consented to it, such consent is not valid at law.

804. In the case of images of staged activity , the Government believes that banning possession is justified in order to meet the legitimate aim of protecting the individuals involved from participating in degrading activities. This is also the case with images of bestiality, which while involving harm to animals can also involve the non-consensual participation of humans who are harmed in the process of making the images.

805. The Government considers that the new offence is a proportionate measure with the legitimate aim of breaking the demand and supply cycle of this material, which may be harmful to those who view it. Irrespective of how these images were made, banning their possession can be justified as sending a signal that such behaviour is not considered acceptable. Viewing such images voluntarily can desensitise the viewer to such degrading acts, and can reinforce the message that such behaviour is acceptable.

806. The Government considers that the restrictions on this material also achieve the aim of protecting others, particularly children and vulnerable adults, from inadvertently coming into possession of this material, which is widespread on the internet.

803 is the only one that has any strength - despite being a batshit ruling, it is nonetheless something that existing law says (although even there, an act being illegal doesn't mean that an image should be, nor should it mean you give up your convention rights). However, it ignores that the law covered even fictional/staged depictions, as well as things that might look risky but didn't result in harm - acts clearly legal to carry out. The rest of them - well, see for yourself how ridiculous they are.

I haven't seen similar justifications yet for this new bill, but if those justifications are allowed to fly, then our "freedom of expression" is basically useless.

I don't care if games are restricted to be for adults only. But I note there is an unfair double standard where only the unpopular things in society are restricted in this manner (and sometimes this argument can lead to an all out ban "in case a child might see it"). There is just as much argument that religion for example is "addictive", influences people (especially children), and there are countless examples of murderers who not only happened to be religious (the same level of "link" that exists for video games) but even claimed to murder in the name of God, or because "God told me too". Yet far from being age restricted, in many countries such as the UK, it's a legal requirement for children to be forced to participate in religious worship. And even atheists such as Dawkins do not call for religion to be banned for children - yet they still attract the wrath of the religious for merely criticising it, whilst those who call for video games to be banned are praised.

"it's more "Any kind of filtering is bad"
thin end of the wedge type of thing. First it's Child porn, once that's gone we'll move on to the next most horrific thing, until eventually all we have left are things we don't consider bad at the moment."

Actually, they're already starting to use child pornography as a wedge tactic for wider censorship of the internet. A research paper for the Coroners and Justice Bill mentioned that a clause criminalising foreign ISPs who violate UK virtual child porn laws "could potentially provide a test bed for the future development of wider internet regulation."

To people who don't know about UK politics this post might imply that Scotland is not governed by the British (Westminster) government. Scotland still is, though many powers have been devolved to the Scottish parliament.

If the Conservatives form the next British government, Scotland will still be affected.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/devolved.cfm

"Dude. Weak. The Register?!"

@x2A:
Between the arrogant way you try to construct a straw man argument, combined with the shocking display of close-mindedness demonstrated here, its frankly stupefyingly awe-inspiring. Just because you don't like The Register, you wrongfully therefore assume anything said on that website must also therefore be wrong. It is you who is wrong. Still don't believe me? ... want more proof you have been incredibly close-minded?

Here's proof. The official UK Government website:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_constitution_committee.cfm
"Mr Tim Hayward, Acting Director of the intercept modernisation programme"

It never ceases to amaze me how some people (who are determined to remain close-minded) see links as one stop shops for information, rather than seeing web links as simply a starting point, to help then go on to research a subject for themselves in more detail, by then seeking out more information themselves on other web sites, to help them cross reference information as well as learn.

"That's a common explanatory gloss, but it is not correct. "Indecent" isn't defined in the legislation (or any legislation) at all. It is for a magistrate or jury to decide as a matter of fact."

You are correct when you say that indecency is not defined by statutes, however its meaning is defined by precedents set in previous indecency and obscenity cases.

"They are aided in such decisions by the prosecution experts or police witnesses, who purport to grade material from their special experience and expertise in 'child protection'"

The grading of images is performed to aid sentencing, but not for deciding whether an image is "indecent". Images which do not meet the criteria for level 1 images have still been declared indecent; see my article here.

"Coincidentally, on Wednesday the UK introduced legislation that would make it an imprisonable offence to possess sexually explicit drawings that appear to be of minors."

Do you have a link to the text of the Bill? I can't find it at Parliament's website.

Well, things are a lot different now, especially with the recession and the constant debate over ID cards, property prices, and education standards.

Also, the SNP are in charge in Scotland now, not the Labour party.

2007 election statistics

Which is why conspiracy theorists think that the Scottish banks were forced to merge with the London based banks - to stop Scotland seeking independence from the esto of the UK. That would have pulled the tartun rug from under Brown's feet.

Protect the children...

It's against the terrorism...

The most used phrases to pass illegal law!

[yes a law is illegal if it's against existing laws as this is]

We have a little thing called parliamentary sovereignty in the UK.

Nuclear power is, believe it or not, the cleanest technology we have available

That's true (if you consider the carbon footprint of nuclear energy to be a measurement of cleanless, which seems fair to me). But it won't be forever; as the richest uranium ores have already been mined, we probably will steadily approach the level where the carbon footprint of nuclear energy is comparable to that of other clean energy sources like wind and solar.

At least, that's what the UK government sort of says: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf

Also, in theory it is possible to produce solar panels with near zero environmental impact, as long as the energy required to produce them is produced by solar panels;-) The same is true for uranium mining, though.

So you mean the system in Iran isn't as bad as the US Gov is painting it?

It probably isn't as bad, since some in the US government were itching to invade Iran until recently. However, the Iranian second chamber is full of Islamic scholars, who're basically there to elect a president and then ensure that he remains 'Muslim enough'. They also have zero transparency (quite unlike the Lords or Canadian Senate). Also they only meet once or twice a year, whereas the House of Lords is one of the busiest chambers in the world. If you look at those debates, you'll see many of them go on late into the night, debates lasting until 10 or 11pm are not uncommon.

In short: just because one unelected chamber is full of Islamic scholars, it doesn't mean they all are. :)

Sorry, rambo, but you may want to do your research first.

16. Analysis of the appellant's home computer confirmed these allegations. During his interviews under caution, moreover, he admitted responsibility (although not that he had actually caused damage). He stated that his targets were high level US Army, Navy and Air Force computers and that his ultimate goal was to gain access to the US military classified information network. He admitted leaving a note on one army computer reading: "US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days . . . It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year . . . I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels . . ."

If I put a note in your /home saying I'll continue to disrupt you "at the highest levels" and admit to it, would you thank me and send me on my way? Tell me, what would you do, exactly? Try to eliminate any hubris that will lead to either the answers "I'm too leet to get haxored a second time" or "I'm too leet to get haxored in the first place".

"We conclude that, given the clear differences in definition, the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the Government does not rely on such assurances in the future."

This means that for terrorism crimes, it's very likely that extradition requests to the U.S. will have to be denied, since the U.S. carries out activities that the U.K. considers torture. And a "no-torture" guarantee is worthless, since the U.S. doesn't consider the acts as torture in the first place. At a minimum, expect this issue to be brought up in legal challenges to extradition.

The United States wishes to require adult websites to verify ages of visitors "in case a child might see it".

The United Kingdom has recently criminalised possession of some adult material, "in case a child might see it" (well, the reasons are varied, but their "justifications" include this as a reason).

The United States law is struck down as a violation of freedom of speech. We do have freedom of expression under the European Convention of Human Rights which some believe this law will violate, however it has the get-out clause "subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, ... for the protection of ... morals".

The COPA law is broader than the pic-and-mix "extreme" images law, in that it covers all adult content not just some, but I thought the comparison is interesting. I am glad that the US has made this sensible step, I'm just unfortunate to live somewhere where the prudes are way ahead.

You can read transcripts of every Lords and Commons debate on the Hansard website. It's searchable as well. The BBC also hosts a lot of video of Commons debates.

Except that it's not at all similar to the situation you described. It's more akin to both houses of Congress passing a bill with a supermajority. Sure, the President can veto it, but it'll just get re-approved with the same supermajority and bypass him the second time. The House of Lords can only delay legislation, not revoke it.

Official
Wikipedia

Or even better, instead of having massive plants with a huge footprint make use of smaller pup nuclear reactors - about the size used in a naval ship. One of those could be placed where the power substations are now and pick up the slack that the solar panels can't fulfill. They wouldn't present any real contamination danger as once their fuel was spent after 30 years or so you truck out the entire unit and refurbish (i.e. refuel) it under controlled conditions in a remote area - while in service the internals of the thing aren't opened up.

Now effective solar panels and batteries to go with them would allow us to move to a more decentralized model.

Why don't we just use our homes to munch up our waste products and convert them to gas to run fuel cells that make electricity or process the at an urban level for gasses and pass that waste product further - for example why can't we use sewage water with a lot of nutrients to soak up carbon from our underground freeways or power stations with algae and produce bio-diesel. Given that the process would have inefficiencies, but who cares - they were waste products anyway, and after the inefficiencies you rightly point out in the grid anyway how much energy do we throw away after we have used it?

The threshold is not that they look "realistic" but that they look "real", which is a very different thing.

I don't think I particularly disagree with you, but note that there's two slightly different phrases in the bill:

An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following

(a) an act which threatens a persons life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a persons anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

I.e., the reasonable person ... thinks it was real test applies to the person/animal, but the actions themselves must be "realistic".

I am fine with this. People who have pics of people doing corpses or animals, or pics of people basicly ripping someone apart or killing them are screwed up big time. Anyone that gets off on that sort of thing needs to have their head checked. This law dosent affect soft stuff like bondage, it just affects the stuff that would be illegal to do to another person.

OH THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT! Stop the press! When someone is sent to prison for possessing an acted image of someone being threatened with a knife, or taking a screenshot from a legal film, we can tell the court that the bill is wrong, and it's okay, because Expert Witness Anonymous Coward on Slashdot told us that only images where people were being ripped apart or killed would be affected...

Watch this youtube video of The Excorcist crucifix masturbation scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyOSVqKYQNE
...congratulations! Soon you will be a sex offender under UK law. Because you are "in possesion" of that extract in your computer, and "It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image...(for example) an image of...an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person's...genitals..."

Now it's not an offense to watch The Excorcist -- but is IS an offense to own extracts (like this YouTube extract) where "it appears that the image was extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." That's not why you watched it? Better hope the jury believes you...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/07130.43-46.html#j400