Slashdot Mirror

No, I don't think animated films are covered by this absurd bill, because it says images are illegal only "where any such ...person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real".

You can read the whole bill here -- it's not long, and would be quite funny in parts if it wasn't so sad: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/07130.43-46.html#j400"

But that doesn't mean film fans are out of trouble.

As you can see from the act itself, the really bizarre thing about this bill is that it may be legal to own an entire extreme film (such as Pasolini's "120 Days of Sodom"), because it's been passed the British Board of Film Classification. But it would be illegal to own a still from that film, if it was decided you owned that still "for the purpose of sexual arousal". And of course there are plenty of mainstream films showing sexy people in danger - what happens if you're caught with a still from one of those?

Absurd. And bad news for any of us Brits who thought the principle of "freedom of speech" meant anything in the UK.

A final weird irony about this bill banning various forms of visual image is that it was sponsored by David Blunkett, a politican who -- to his great credit -- became Home Secretary even though he is completely blind.

"there's a thousand reasons why humans should always do jobs like that"... I'm not entirely convinced by this. If we can develop robots that can perform te simple care tasks efficiently and well, we cut down on the risk of infection posed by human skin, hair, fingernails, and clothing. We also cut down on the impatience towards and mistreatment of vulnerable patients which is so often found, at least in the British health system - see this speech by a member of the House of Lords for one perspective on the health service here.

I'm not saying that humans are incapable of doing these jobs, or that all (or even a majority of) care workers are lazy or impatient. But the risks of infection and death which abound in healthcare settings suggest to me that developing machines that can do these jobs well could provide serious and life-saving improvements.

I'm not really sure on this as it was quite a while since i read up on free-speech within the EU.

Article 10 of the ECHR is:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Unfortunately the get out clause is "for the protection of health or morals". I've no idea how this has been tested to apply so far in any court cases. With regards to the criminalising of possession of "extreme porn" that I talked about, the Government acknowledges that it violates article 10 (and article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life - which has a similar get out clause), but thinks it is justified for the protection of health or morals. The justifications are at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/016/en/08016x-s.htm#index_link_296 .

So we do at least have something, but unfortunately it has this get out clause, and obviously doesn't have anywhere near the same influence and strength as the First Amendment.

However i'm sure i've read somewhere that in the European Convention on Human Rights there is a "right for children not to be sexualized in fiction". That is, child pornographic drawings are illegal. As i said i'm not 100% sure on this, but some members (sweden for example) has already criminalized possession of child pornographic drawings.

I can't find this in the text, although one could see a country trying to do so under the get out clause. Note that the EHCR doesn't stop countries passing laws that violate it it - it would have to be challenged in court (much like the US where laws are passed then struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). I believe this is unfortunately time consuming and costly. I don't know if anyone's done this yet for laws regarding fictional child drawings.

Fictional child drawings aren't illegal everywhere in the EU - they were considering it in the UK, but they are (for now at least) only criminalising non-realistic images that have been derived from (already illegal) realistic child porn images (as it happens, in the same bill as the "extreme porn" plans).

Talking of Nazism, the release of a single Nazi-porn film is causing MPs in the UK to call for new censorship powers.

They claim they want to give the public more power - in fact, the film was approved years ago after the BBFC relaxed its censorship policies, after consulting with the public. What they actually mean is, they want the power to ban films everytime there is a media uproar from a vocal minority (who haven't even seen the film).

Of course they string out Nazism as the worse example, but we know the law won't stop at Nazi films. The Bogey Man, Death Trap, The Evil Dead and Zombie Flesh Eaters are the new "video nasties", along with Manhunt, which was blamed for a murder, even though it was the victim who owned a copy of the game.

I find the idea of a connection between these films and neo-Nazi groups laughable anyway - as if neo-Nazis are horror film and video nasty fans. Indeed, people who watch these are more likely to be seen as "deviant", and hence more likely to be persecuted by any Nazis anyway!

MP Julian Brazier is the prude who wants to control what you watch. Write to your MP if you disagree. The law is currently being debated in Parliament.

Portugal: 481 cops per 100,000 citizens
France: 397 cops per 100,000 citizens
USA: 238 cops per 100,000 citizens

So how about the WWI debt?

They're sitting on it: (from Hansard, the transcript of UK parliamentary debates / ministerial questions, etc):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=first%20world%20war%20debt&ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=%22first%20world%20war%20debt%20%22&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=20228w04.html_wqn4&URL=/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020228/text/20228w04.htm#20228w04.html_wqn4

War Debts

Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]

(2) what total payments have been made to meet World War II debts owed to the United Kingdom by other countries; what debts remain unpaid; and what the schedule is of future payments to the UK; [38425]

(3) what the level is of First World War debt owed by the United Kingdom to the United States of America; in what year repayments were last made to the USA; and what plans he has to (a) pay off the debt and (b) cancel liability to this debt; [38427]

(4) what outstanding schedule of payments the United Kingdom Government will make to the USA in respect of World War II debt; and what the date is of the final payment; [38424]

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1440W

(5) what loans and other financial liabilities incurred by the United Kingdom with the United States of America for World War II (a) have been paid and (b) are outstanding; [38426]

(6) what recent representations the United Kingdom Government have made to the USA for the cancellation of (a) World War I and (b) World War II debts and lend-lease loans. [38440]

Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows.

First World War debt

At the end of the First World War the United Kingdom debt to the United States amounted to around ÿ850 million. Repayments of the debt were made between 1923 and 1931. In 1931, President Hoover of the United States proposed a one-year moratorium on all War debts, which allowed extensive international discussions on the general problems of debt repayment to be held. However, no satisfactory agreement was reached. In the absence of such an agreement no payments have been made to, or received from, other nations since 1934.

At the time of the moratorium the United Kingdom was owed more by other nations (ÿ2,269 billion) than the outstanding principal it owed the United States ($4,368 billionat 1934 exchange rates this was around ÿ866 million).

Second World War debt

Under a 1945 Agreement the United States Government lent the United Kingdom a total of $4,336 million (around ÿ1,075 million at 1945 exchange rates) in war loans. These loans were taken out under two facilities: (i) a Line of Credit of $3,750 million (around ÿ930 million at 1945 exchange rates); and (ii) a Lend-Lease loan facility of $586 million (around ÿ145 million at 1945 exchange rates), which represented the settlement with the United States for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid and for the final settlement of the financial claims of each government against the other arising out of the conduct of the Second World War.

Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing intern

You are wrong. Your voter ID is written on the ballot stub after you go to the booth. See the third paragraph of section 8 of this Memorandum on Electoral Law and Administration.

Even worse, after a general election all the ballot stubs are delivered to central government. Do you really believe that the security services wouldn't take the opportunity to see who's voting for the BNP?

Read the F'ing Legal Opinion...

IANAL, but the lead opinion by Judge Posner on WGN v. United Video can be found here: http://www.projectposner.org/case/1982/693F2d622

In a nutshell, it was ruled a copyright violation for United Video, a satellite carrier, to replace WGN's content embedded in teletext (or the use of the vertical blanking interval to transmit content to tv watchers) with its own content when relaying WGN's broadcasts to cable television.

Why? Because WGN owned the programming and paid United Video to transmit the programming in total; this included news stories and station guides embedded in the vblank.

Specifically, Judge Posner states: "The cable system selects the signals it wants to retransmit, pays the copyright owners for the right to retransmit their programs, and pays the intermediate carrier a fee for getting the signal from the broadcast station to the cable system. The intermediate carrier pays the copyright owners nothing, provided it really is passive in relation to what it transmits, like a telephone company..."

He continues, and mentions viewers/users: "The cable system planned to run the teletext on a different channel (which the viewer would select, if we understand correctly, by pushing a button on the decoder) from the one on which it runs the nine o'clock news. But the cable system never received the teletext. United Video did not retransmit it along with the nine o'clock news but instead substituted teletext supplied by Dow Jones, containing business news. WGN and its affiliate brought this suit to enjoin, as a copyright infringement, United Video's failure to retransmit WGN's teletext along with the nine o'clock news."

The issue in question (in 1982, mind you) was never that of users circumventing embedded commercials, which they could easily do by simply a) not pressing the decoder button, b) not switching the channel to view the commercial, or c) not buying the decoder in the first place. The issue was that United Video was specifically paid a fee by the cable system to retransmit programming. It interfered instead; users/viewers were not part of the contractual loop. I.e., there is no implied consent to third parties in any contractual agreement - you pay me $.02 each time someone loads an ad. If no one loads them, that is your problem, not mine.

However, the actions of Danny Carlton, registrant of Whyfirefoxisblocked.com, aka Jack Lewis of JackLewis.net, aka Danny Carlton of Dannycarlton.com, may very well fall into the category of a Denial of Service attack, with all the liabilities that entails. In the UK, these are legal.

According to the UK Computer Misuse Act of 1990, Section 3.(2), and as amended in the Police and Justice Bill of 2006, Part 5, Section 34 & 35:

"For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to do the act in question 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, whether permanently or temporarily."

Blocking a specified browser is nothing more than a Denial of Service attack in another form.

Why? Because the access holder/user (i.e. cable or Internet subscriber) pays the service provider for access to the Internet, which the service provider then, well, provides. Service providers then connect to other service providers to access data on other servers and other computers, which is transmitted over cables, phone lines, etc. Advertisers pay domain holders or website owners to display ads on their sites, or to pay by the click.

The doma

To drag it back on topic, though: IIRC what got the brits with their panties in a knot about extreme porn, was a case where one deranged guy watched a bunch of snuff movies, then went and strangled a woman to death.

Nope, it was sites like Necrobabes. See the sites referred to by the Government Early Day Motion.

Necrobabes is not a snuff site. It's a stage where women - and men - pretend to play dead, for the purposes of making erotic imges. Some people may view it because they fantasise about killing people, but I doubt that's the only reason. Weird it may be, but it seems a bad joke that the Government wants to criminalise it.

I've nothing against criminalising genuine snuff movies if they actually exist - but the law covers images of staged and consensual acts, and would include things like plenty of BDSM.

Talking of rights, it's interesting to note that the bill states "these clauses constitute an interference" with the European Convention on Human Rights.

But it's interesting, shall we say, to see what justifications it gives for doing so ( 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.

I'd like to see how they spell out exactly what cross the line and what is acceptable.

Me too. They only give a few examples ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/ cmbills/130/en/07130x-f.htm#index_link_104 ), including depicting "sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon" (remember this includes simulated/fictional images, so er, doing some roleplaying with some knifeplay apparentely counts as "life threatening") and "this could include the insertion of sharp objects" (so, play piercings?) and "mutilation of breasts or genitals" (unclear whether mutilation means the strict definition, or is broad enough to include cutting). It could easily catch plenty of consensual S&M images.

But ultimately, it'll be spelled out in court.

After you've been arrested, had your computer searched, perhaps your kids taken away, branded a "sick pervert" by the media, gone through a publicised trial where the prosecution and jury inspect every aspect of your sex life and any images you have, to decide whether they are acceptable or safe enough to be legal.

Or maybe the police will scare you into accepting a caution, which you take to avoid risking prison - but still get put on the Sex Offender Register.

You're being ironic, right? You couldn't deliberately have meant to say what you said seriously, in a public forum, could you? It's just too humiliating for you to make such dumb statements.

I have no idea whether or not nuclear power plant operators have a consistently superb record in relation to a) and b) in the US, but they certainly don't in the UK. Problems of unsafe secret disposals of nuclear waste have dogged the industry for years. To take just a single example, waste was tipped down an unsealed shaft for 19 years between 1958 and 1977 at Dounreay fast reactor -- it stopped because the shaft actually blew up! Cleanup will cost £100m-plus and take twenty years. The story is dealt with at length in the following documentary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_06 _05_radiation.pdf
Quote:
"O'HALLORAN: How do you characterise the way nuclear waste was dealt with in your time at the plant?
LYALL: There's only one answer to that, a complete shambles and a damn disgrace."

As for every single molecule of waste being accounted for, low-level waste (not particularly radioactive, but certainly not what you'd be happy to have stored under your bed) is still discharged into the Irish sea at Sellafield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea

So you're writing either out of ignorance or malice when you say "every single molecule of waste has been accounted for". Or else you think the world consists of America and everywhere else, and only America counts.

And I'm interested to see you think that the concept of "economically recoverable" is just a buzzword. I'd love to see how long it took Exxon executives to stop laughing at such cretinous idiocy. Economic recoverability is what determines whether oil, natural gas, uranium and similar deposits are worth exploiting. Tar shales are not generally economically recoverable, despite the vast quantities of oil they contain. The same will be true for some sources of uranium, including, unless you're aware of some magic technology that no-one else knows about, seawater. Seawater also contains huge amounts of gold, but we still dig it out of the ground, because the concentrations are so low that's it's not economically viable to recover the gold. And, because I have doubts you'll be able to see it without someone pointing it out to you -- the lower the concentration of uranium, the less net energy you get from burning it. In fact, most poor quality ores would, if used, cost more energy than they produce.

Let's see if you've got the brains to understand the difference between quantity and concentration. On your current form, frankly, I doubt it.

If by some chance you do get it, perhaps you'll actually answer the question I posed: "Can you cite any reliable sources for the stock of *economically recoverable* uranium, and how long that stock could meet *all human energy needs* including ground transportation?"

As the chance of your doing this are pretty minimal, I'll help you out:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2005/pdf/Gitzel.p df
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/ cmselect/cmenvaud/584/5110906.htm
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php
http://www.bnes.com/myths.html

These sources all talk in terms of decades, not billions of years.

Finally, I'm all for having solutions. I'd just like ones that don't make things actually worse. Some examples would be: combined heat-and-power; having stores deliver shopping, rather than people picking it up; using coaches instead of buses; increasing use of wave, solar and wind power; opening window

It works alright for me in Seamonkey 1.1.1 on linux, maybe you have disabled something that messes it up. That being said the design is awful, though not quite as bad as http://www.parliament.uk/.

Some Shopping Malls will ban anyone who covers their
face.

This also applies to People wearing hats in public bars, even if they are pensioners.

It's also illegal to organise a protest in London without first gaining permission from the police first (The SOCPA Act).
Already one man has been arrested for dressing up as Charlie Chaplin and making a silent protest using signs such as "not aloud" and "right to remain silent". Another woman was arrested for baking a cake with a statement made using icing.

The incompetence of this legislation is being discussed by MP's

What many folk fail to understand when they say that governments should not try to regulate prices on M$ is that M$ have for some time used government systems to sell products.

Scotland, has by the hand of our pm signed a few deals with M$. At the same time M$ gets "free" use of the parliament building for the "Microsoft Government Leaders Forum Europe" to sell their software in a World business convention along with some other names that I will not bother to dirty this page with.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/mg lf/index.htm

Now, one could say that the forum was needed to be staged in that building but I have a dvd of what went on in the building and it is nothing but a sales pitch for M$ to folk who don't know any better.

That sales pitch cost us 400,000 GBP.

The EU needs to step in or M$ unchecked will do as it always has.

Most of the region was like that.

Damn, I was about to quote Herman Rauschning to you but I see his book has been declared fraudulent since I read it.

Anyway he claimed, perhaps falsely, that one of Hitler's approaches was to talk peace & treaty with neighbours over common geopolitical goals in order to stop them meddling, until it was prudent to turn on them.

That's partly why the Jews and Gypsies were chosen, because they were intra-state collectives and "dealing" with them is something European government has been doing for ever, be it Auswitch or planning directives.

The Jews, rightly, got plenty of world sympathy (though that word sounds a bit pale) whereas : Gypsies still among Europe's most discriminated-against people, EU center says

The article doesn't hide this either, but there is really very little real energy to be won in this way, I don't really get what Mr. Woodring says about megawatts being wasted though, no human is able to generate that much electrical power, maybe he refers to megawatthours which he might be right about, but it would have been generated over the span of many years.

Agreed. Top cyclists eat about 10000 calories/day while in competition. This works out to something like 30MJ over and above the 2500 calories for normal people.

Assume their muscles are at most 25% efficient and it's less than 8MJ useful energy output.

And that's for the top athletes while in competition.

Tim.

I found in the days when I used to travel around London from one meeting to another that cycling was by far the most reliable means of arriving on time--much better than taking the bus, a taxi or the Underground. And it was good exercise into the bargain. Cycling or walking to work on a regular basis is one of the best contributors to good health, far more worthwhile than the practice of a hospital executive I heard about the other day. He took his health seriously. He believed in getting into his company car twice a week and driving to a gym in order to sit astride a stationary bicycle. - Lord Thomson of Monifieth (from hansard)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ ldhansrd/vo990127/text/90127-03.htm

"This is not true. First the party in power has to write a law that makes it a crime to have such a name."

Or they create a blank cheque bill which would allow them in future to, e.g. imprison everyone with a surname starting with A for not longer than 2 years without all that tedious mucking about in parliament:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/ cmbills/111/en/06111x--.htm

Wait, I hear you cry. The ministers' use of this act has to to be proportionate!

But the oversight is as to what is proportionate is proved by - the ministers themselves!

If you really want to be frightened read up on how close we came to losing the rights granted to us by Magna Carta. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, passed with amendments that put in place safeguards, was a bill that had it passed as it stood, would have given Ministers the ability to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations being that new crimes could not be created if the penalty was greater than two years in prison and that it could not increase taxation. We came within a whisker of Fascism in the UK... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_and_Regul atory_Reform_Act_2006 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/ cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist s/guest_contributors/article733022.ece http://www.saveparliament.org.uk/index.php This is real - they tried it once they will try it again...

Then they have to convince the democratically elected House of Commons to pass it.

The House of Commons is hardly democratically elected. Our "first past the post" system means that despite only 22% of the population voting for them at the last election, and not even winning the popular vote in England, Blair's Labour party currently have an absolute majority in the Commons.

Then they have to convince the House of Lords to pass it.

Or just invoke the Parliament Act.

Then they have to convince the Queen to give her assent.

Which is a formality, since this was last withheld in 1708. Any attempt to withhold it now would probably result in the fall of the monarchy rather than the fall of legislation that had been approved by Parliament.

The party in power does not have the authority to imprison people at will without passing a law. That is a constitutionally protected right found in the Magna Carta, dating back almost eight centuries.

Presumably that's why they imposed legislation before imprisoning people at will. And note that when the arbitrary detention laws were thrown out, leading to the control orders we have today, it wasn't on ethical or constitutional grounds, but because the victims successfully argued that the laws were discriminatory. Had the government simply said that anyone suspected of terrorist activities could be held arbitrarily, without reference to quibbles like nationality, the same defence would not have been applicable.

And of course, if Blair and co succeed in getting through the sort of shortcuts they already tried once in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, this will all become academic in practice anyway, since MPs wouldn't even have time to read the complete text of a bill pushed through by the government, never mind debate it before voting on it. It's a brave new world, my friend.

Regarding your third point, yes, a lot of data is out there. Collecting it is part of a two-step political strategy. Figure that a civil libertarian doesn't want their government monitoring and analyzing their every move for suspicious behavior. So, a well-meaning person who thinks such a system is a good idea will say the following. One: "We're implementing a bunch of specific data-gathering systems for a variety of mostly-harmless purposes. Don't be paranoid; we'd never hook them up into a massive all-seeing database to analyze your every move, and there are plenty of safeguards on the data." Two: "We're merging existing databases and applying powerful new data-mining tools to them, but how can you complain? You already agreed that we could collect this data, and we're doing it to fight drugs/porn/terrorism. Besides, we'd never add a bunch of new systems to collect yet more data." Repeat.

In related news, Blair has called for a universal database of the DNA of British subjects and backed a bill against speech that "stirs up religious hatred." The UK has begun using cameras that bark orders at people. Then there's the plan to monitor all vehicle movements in the UK, the topic of petition #1 on the UK petition site.

Thank you. Yes, I'm primarily interested in the UK. A little bit of research on that story turns up more information and a followup. It looks like MPs hassled the government, it was determined that parental consent is necessary, and the fingerprinters are backing off, or at least making parents aware of the issue.

Following it up with a better source, Greg Mulholland MP seems to be the MP that is pressing the matter the most and he's not dropping it. Seems to be a good bloke all around - against ID cards, against terrorism laws, and for an investigation into Iraq.

Oh, and "bogtha" is Irish for "intoxicated". Somebody had a sig way back that said they were convinced that people remembered sigs more often than usernames, so I just put my username in my sig. Three times to allude to Badger Badger Badger.

Thank you. Yes, I'm primarily interested in the UK. A little bit of research on that story turns up more information and a followup. It looks like MPs hassled the government, it was determined that parental consent is necessary, and the fingerprinters are backing off, or at least making parents aware of the issue.

Following it up with a better source, Greg Mulholland MP seems to be the MP that is pressing the matter the most and he's not dropping it. Seems to be a good bloke all around - against ID cards, against terrorism laws, and for an investigation into Iraq.

Oh, and "bogtha" is Irish for "intoxicated". Somebody had a sig way back that said they were convinced that people remembered sigs more often than usernames, so I just put my username in my sig. Three times to allude to Badger Badger Badger.

I've always wondered why New Labour have passed laws to rewrite the constitution at whim, to arbitrarily punish innocent people and perform mass-surveillance at a level that Orwell never dreamed of... knowing that the people they most fear, the Tory Party, would be guaranteed to win the next election.

Here in the UK, under the Police and Justice Bill, I'd be breaking the law by "Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under section 1 or 3". Section 1 and section 3 are references to the preexisting Computer Misuse Act of 1990. The implications of a statement like that are scary.

The problem with BECTA is that while they have in the past said "open source is a good thing" and today "MS lock-in is bad" etc., they are responsible for setting school's purchasing policies. And these purchasing policies are not F/OSS-friendly, since purchasing can only be made from "approved" suppliers. These suppliers need to apply for the (costly, I believe) approval process. This indirectly excludes many suppliers who would provide F/OSS options.

At least one UK MP (Member of Parliament) has raised an Early Day Motion drawing attention to the fact that this is a bad thing - this motion has been signed by more than 100 MPs following a reasonably active campaign by technical individuals in the UK. If you're in the UK, write to your MP asking them to sign it!

For some more background and also the letters I've written to my MP, see my blog: my opening letter and my followup.

Wasn't 1984 set in London? It just proves UK is closer to "1984" than even we over here are. I mean wtf, if they can forbid a person to say the word "grass"? See the other bullshaznat they did. It's unreal.

-uso.

The bill does not mention "operation of data", but does make it an offence "to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of [...] any such data"

See the text of bill. It's an ammendment to and (dare I say it) clarification of the Computer Misuse Act.

If you read the bill itself, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/ cmbills/119/06119.27-33.html#j383
it talks about an "unauthorised" act carried out with "intent", so if you put Zonealarm on your ex employer's server without their permission and configure it to block all requests from the LAN, then you are in trouble. However, if you put it on your own computer to help prevent attacks, then that is permitted.

Of course, the former would be illegal anyway as an unauthorised modification to your ex employer's computer.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/ cmbills/119/06119.27-33.html#j381

it seems we are just catching up with the U

listed under:
Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in computer misuse offences

This is a pretty good description of DRM! So it's illegal now?

I think the news.com.com summary, or the submitter's words make a poor summary.

Here is the amended law which certainly mentions not accessing a computer you don't have rights to touch (33) and the D.O.S. clause (34).

Specifically stated (and both need to be true) is "he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer" and "he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge."

Requisite intent as far as 34.3.2.b would be D.O.S. or hacking and Requisite knowledge is defined at 34.3.4 as doing something you know is not allowed, that is, it's not an accidental D.O.S..

But.... Section 34.3.2.c could very well be taken as the UK's version of the DMCA. "If you attempt to defeat the lawful operation of a (DRM/WGA/SerialNumberCheck) program or provide tools (35.3a) to do such an act you face 10 years in goal".

IANAL

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/ cmbills/119/2006119.htm

"Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under section 1 or 3
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article--
(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence under section 1 or 3; or
(b) intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3."

I'm now a criminal. Joe Blackhat won't care; he'll still get hold of the 'articles', but now my website which tries to teach people about responsible use of such 'articles' now makes me liable for up to 2 years in jail, plus a fine. I hate the law.
Now I don't have to know what the tools will be used for, just that they can be used for wrongdoing.

On the contrary, cement production adds more CO2 to the atmosphere than the airline industry. (Source) The production of 1 tonne of cement clinker results in the generation of: ~535 kg "process" CO2 from the calcination of limestone; 375 kg CO2 from fuel used in the kiln; and 70kg CO2 "indirect" emissions from the electricity used. (Source)

There have been reports by vote counters, going back 60 years now, of Special Branch officers (our secret political police AND the people who look into electoral fraud) removing the boxes of left wing candidates for further examination.

This seems implausible because the ballots and the ballot stubs (which match voters to ballots) are all delivered to the government after the election. They don't need to play silly games with secret police.

It would be useful to know exactly what law had been broken - the links that I can find just quote the judge saying that "the offer for sale had taken place not in Hong Kong but in the EEA". Is this just "Asda and Tesco vs Levi" again?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1261829.stm
has a summary of that (grey imports from the rest of the EEA legal; elsewhere not)

Also see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/ cmselect/cmtrdind/380/38009.htm

http://www.patent.gov.uk/policy/policy-issues/poli cy-issues-trademarks/policy-issues-trademarks-para llel/policy-issues-trademarks-parallel-parallelcas elaw.htm
has a link to the judgement (those last two links may cause you to lose the will to stay awake, though).

If it IS just a trademark issue, what's to prevent some sort of "Iceweasel" solution to this? For example advertise the consoles as being of certain dimensions and able to play certain titles - but no more.

This is done by means of the so called 'license fee' - a license to watch TV, all of the receipts from which go to the BBC.

Not entirely true. Some of the proceeds go to the Independent Television Commission, who are essencially the UK equivalent of the FCC's TV-related departments in the US.

As a result, one of the main activities of magistrates courts in the UK is to jail single mothers for not subscribing to the BBC.

Hardly. As stated in the response to this parliamentary question, "Custodial sentences are not available for television licence evasion, the maximum penalty being a fine. However, custodial sentences can be imposed for non-payment of such a fine." The repsonse goes on to indicate that in 2001 (the most recent year for which the statistics were presented), a grand total of 21 people were so imprisoned.

Note that magistrates fines in the UK are calculated in accordance to the fined person's income, so as to not be either unduly burdensome on people with low incomes or completely ineffective on those with high incomes, so theoretically at least anyone fined for not having a TV license should be able to afford to pay the fine.

So the UK State Broadcaster is also the UK State Magazine Publisher, and is the largest magazine publisher in the UK.

Err... no it isn't. BBC sold 90 million magazines in the financial year 2005-06, which is dwarfed by figures for IPC and Emap.

What we in the UK need more than anything is to make subscription to the State Broadcaster optional, and to stop jailing poor people for the crime of wanting to watch some other TV channels, while not subscribing to it.

No. That's the last thing we need. What makes the BBC unique is that it is under little or no pressure to make popular programming, because as long as enough people support it, it doesn't matter how many people actually subscribe or whatever. This has made a lot of unique programming possible. The BBC produces some of the best TV in the world, precisely because it doesn't have to worry whether an experimental project will be popular or not.

What we need, I think, is to do what we should have done long ago: fund the BBC centrally from government, rather than making it collect its own revenue. This will cut costs significantly, because there will no longer be any need for the organisation called "TV Licensing". It can just go, replaced by a small increase in income tax. Good riddance.

In England they bill people falsely imprisoned for their room and board

Really? In cases I've heard about it's always the other way around, for instance this case where a woman was falsely imprisoned for a month and was paid £5,000 compensation.

Re: stopping ID cards, go to NO2ID.

PR will help but isn't nearly enough. Multiple electoral candidates from parties will help too.

We need to devolve power from the PM. He/she should not be allowed to exert undue influence over ministers and MPs - perhaps by no-one (including the electorate) knowing who the PM will be, thus voting purely on which candidate you trust. The elected MPs will subsequently vote for a PM, and perhaps several senior ministers.

The House of Lords should be able to set up courts to hold ministers accountable under existing behavioural guidelines.

I'd be tempted to try secret ballots too. The data could always be revealed just before the next election.

I'm not sure the PM's office should be able write legislation. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (never heard of it?) contains a clause which is equivalent to Hitler's Enabling Act ie instant dictatorship in the event of an emergency (Reichstag). I'm still not sure if the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (since amended) is even worse.

Our Parliamentary Committee for the Constitution said that the National Identity Cards Bill should be renamed the National Identity Register and Identity Cards Bill. They were ignored and thus only now, once the legislation has been passed, do the public (and MPs) get to see the massive privacy implications.

Last time we had these kind of upstarts abusing the will of the people, we had a Civil War and chopped off the leader's head.

There is a mistake in the article. It states that the police records will be kept fo five years. This is not strictly accurate as the DNA samples will be kept indefinitely on the UK's national DNA database.

Not been abused???

Have a look at some of the aburd rulings

• Banning a kid from saying the word "grass"
• stopping a 19-year-old from entering his own home
• Evicting pensioners from their own home (subsequently thrown out by the court)
• Charging an 88 yo man for being "sarcastic"
• Not allowing young kids from meeting more than one friend at a time.
• Banning a woman from owning a pay-as-you-go mobile phone (cell phone)

If telling people what words not to say, removing them from their own home, or arresting them for going to a public place like a park, so on are not abuses, then I dispair what actions would have to occurr before they were classed as such

But of course, they're only used against "bad people", so it's all okay.

Although you are correct, when the US billion was adopted in the UK after WWII it was supposed to be used only in parliament to avoid confusion between a 'real' billion and a US billion.
Parliament discussed sometime in 1948 and Hansard recorded it but currently they do not seem to have digitised that era.

It was never supposed to leak over into standard English language as that would, can and still does, cause some confusion.

Don't worry, our govt. is going for it, I'm sure they'll let you know how it works out :

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/ cmbills/119/06119.27-33.html#j383A

Be carefull!!! In the US, you can be charge with being an accessory to a crime.

...and shortly in the UK also if the government get their way. Or, for that matter, if you create a security testing tool that some copper takes a dislike to.

TFA also states that "People who distribute networking vulnerability scanning tools such as Nmap or Nessus could also be caught up in part (b), Clayton warned.". A quick reading of section 41 seems to bear that out. As author and maintainer of the Nmap Security Scanner, I am more than a little concerned.

I'm certainly not going to let anything as silly as some U.K. law stop me from distributing Nmap, but I also don't want to become like Dmitry Skylarov the next time I give a presentation in England. And even if (as I would expect) the rest of the world ignores this, it could have a chilling effect on important security tools and research from U.K. citizens. Think of all the good research and tools that David Litchfield from London (NGS Software) has brought us. And my London friend Hoobie brought us the free Brutus password cracker, which appears to be prohibited by this bill.

The good news is that this is just a proposal. So I would join the chorus in urging our British friends to make their voice heard against this silly bill.

-Fyodor
Insecure.Org

Or the human cattle ID cards Act, which creates by far the world's most intrusive Big Brother database on citizens by linking up 5+ previously unconnected databases...

The Dictatorship Bill, also called the Abolition of Parliament Bill, Totalitarianism Bill or (by the Govt) the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is nothing less than a naked grab for power. After being amended 3x, the Bill was passed in the form described here.

LRRB enables ministers to rewrite our constitution with only rudimentary scrutiny. Consider the extraordinary mass surveillance / coersion implications of the ID Cards Act. Even the well-organised opposition could not stop this legislation.

What chance then of:
1. Spotting obscure but deeply damaging clauses hidden in the boring legislation?
2. Motivating the Tories, LibDems and enough New Labour drones to subsequently block it?

LRRB is then carte blanche for Blair to do what he will with this country. What can we deduce of his plans?

New Labour already rejected an amendment to stop LRRB re-writing our most important constitutional laws. They then promised to introduce new amendments fulfilling the same thing. Our skepticism was once again justified. This is more than enough evidence that Blair wants dictatorial powers.

LRRB is obviously a precursor to passing laws which Parliament wouldn't otherwise pass.

Considering the deeply scary laws he's got through Parliament, the likelihood is that he wants something so badly, and so unpalatable that he won't even risk presenting it for proper Parliamentary scrutiny.

- He does not need Parliamentary approval to invade Iran
- He already has Hitler's Enabling Act.
- He has already passed RIPA and the ID Cards Act for more Big Brother snooping than anything China or North Korea have.
- He already has locked up people for 3 years without trial or even being questioned - although he has been twice been 'told off' for breaching the Human Rights Act in this way.

I did not believe that he needs LRRB to repeal the HRA - indeed one welcome amendment was to exclude the HRA from being amended. When every other explanation has been ruled out, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be considered. I think something much worse is coming although I dread to think what.

And, unfortunately, one of Europes worst health records. Even with the new smoking ban. Which is why I think this study is indeed comparing England to the US.

Northern Ireland similarly. Furthermore, even within England - each region is very distinctive (c.f. the North with Devon/Cornwall).