Slashdot Mirror

The Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees freedom of expression in article 10.1:

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.

... and then takes away the protection on the contentious speech that might actually need protecting in 10.2:

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.

It's not that surprising. Remember that they all have some form of ban on public nudity or indecency - it's illegal to just go outside naked. All it takes to go from there to a public breastfeeding ban is lack of an exception and a single precident, as breastfeeding requires a woman expose one breast to the clear view of anyone in the area.

It doesn't need a special exception, just a sanely worded law. Here in the UK the act prohibiting indecent exposure doesn't mention nudity per se, to commit an offence I need to intend that others will see my genitals and have intent to cause distress. The exact wording:

A person commits an offence if he-
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.

source

Prompting my second question - can they ask more than once for the same volume? (and therefore the same key)
I've had a glance through the legislation and I can't really tell or not, but since it's the same key, it would seem to be merely the continuation of the same offence, and therefore subject to double jeopardy. To quote myself - "anyone know?"

No it's not. There is no place anywhere in UK law that stipulates that gun ownership is a right.

That's not technically true, the 1689 Bil of rights* states:
Subjects’ Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

It's widely accepted that the US 2nd amendment is based on this article of the bill of rights, indeed it's a very heavy influence on other parts of the Bill of rights as well.

*the same one that grants freedom of speech in parliament, the right to trial by jury, a bar on excessive fines (and stops the state from levying one without due process) and a whole lot more - it's a cornerstone of the our constitution, even if many other Brits are oblivious to it.

At first face, there is no issue with the Data Protection Act 1998: the computer and network belongs to the school (or university) and there is no "right of access" to the Internet. The situation might be different if staff or students were obliged to use the school's computers to access certain resources that required the sharing of personal data. Examples might be registration or HR systems run by a third party. The seventh data protection principle requires that:

"Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data."

The Act goes on to say that:

"Having regard to the state of technological development and the cost of implementing any measures, the measures must ensure a level of security appropriate to... the harm that might result from such unauthorised or unlawful processing or accidental loss, destruction or damage as are mentioned in the seventh principle..."

The usual interpretation of this requirement with respect to web traffic is that HTTPS/SSL is required for the transmission of personal data. In fact, this has been an explicit requirement for public authorities in the UK since the high profile loss of data by HM Revenue & Customs in 2007.

Therefore, in the specific circumstance where a public authority required the sharing of personal data electronically by its staff or clients, it is likely that blocking HTTPS/SSL would lead to a breach of the Act.

At first face, there is no issue with the Data Protection Act 1998: the computer and network belongs to the school (or university) and there is no "right of access" to the Internet. The situation might be different if staff or students were obliged to use the school's computers to access certain resources that required the sharing of personal data. Examples might be registration or HR systems run by a third party. The seventh data protection principle requires that:

"Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data."

The Act goes on to say that:

"Having regard to the state of technological development and the cost of implementing any measures, the measures must ensure a level of security appropriate to... the harm that might result from such unauthorised or unlawful processing or accidental loss, destruction or damage as are mentioned in the seventh principle..."

The usual interpretation of this requirement with respect to web traffic is that HTTPS/SSL is required for the transmission of personal data. In fact, this has been an explicit requirement for public authorities in the UK since the high profile loss of data by HM Revenue & Customs in 2007.

Therefore, in the specific circumstance where a public authority required the sharing of personal data electronically by its staff or clients, it is likely that blocking HTTPS/SSL would lead to a breach of the Act.

At first face, there is no issue with the Data Protection Act 1998: the computer and network belongs to the school (or university) and there is no "right of access" to the Internet. The situation might be different if staff or students were obliged to use the school's computers to access certain resources that required the sharing of personal data. Examples might be registration or HR systems run by a third party. The seventh data protection principle requires that:

"Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data."

The Act goes on to say that:

"Having regard to the state of technological development and the cost of implementing any measures, the measures must ensure a level of security appropriate to... the harm that might result from such unauthorised or unlawful processing or accidental loss, destruction or damage as are mentioned in the seventh principle..."

The usual interpretation of this requirement with respect to web traffic is that HTTPS/SSL is required for the transmission of personal data. In fact, this has been an explicit requirement for public authorities in the UK since the high profile loss of data by HM Revenue & Customs in 2007.

Therefore, in the specific circumstance where a public authority required the sharing of personal data electronically by its staff or clients, it is likely that blocking HTTPS/SSL would lead to a breach of the Act.

Partly. The Criminal Justice Act 1994 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/ukpga_19940033_en_7#pt4-pb2-l1g60 provides for example in s60 the right to temporarily search anyone or any vehicle without suspicion if violent disorder is anticipated. The main search laws etc are in PACE, and these generally do require reasonable grounds. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871558

If you want to check, the relevant bit of law is Section 13A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended by the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003) which states:

(2) ... copyright expires—

(a) at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, or

(b) if it is released before the end of that period, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is released, or

(c) if during that period the recording is not published but is made available to the public by being played in public or communicated to the public, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,

While various minor Acts (mainly based on EU directives or international treaties) have extended the duration of written works to life+70 from the life+50 in the original Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, so far, duration of copyright on sound recordings has escaped largely untouched. Of course, it is still a long way from the original 14+14 years, but it is something.

As far as I am aware, there is nowhere I can find a copy of the Communications Act after the changes from later legislation have been applied.

This should be it, but I don't think it's been brought up to date yet. (Quoting from here: 'Update Status Warning: There are effects on this legislation that have not yet been applied to the Statute Law Database for the following year(s): 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.' Oh well, it exists in theory.)

As far as I am aware, there is nowhere I can find a copy of the Communications Act after the changes from later legislation have been applied.

This should be it, but I don't think it's been brought up to date yet. (Quoting from here: 'Update Status Warning: There are effects on this legislation that have not yet been applied to the Statute Law Database for the following year(s): 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.' Oh well, it exists in theory.)

The UK has a statute law base provided by the government. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx Don't ask me how they do it.

It's required in the UK: here, I think. IIRC magistrates only ever handed out absolute discharges so nobody is prosecuted for it any more.

Drawings of schoolgirls getting raped.
There's quite a difference.

You might want to tell a few more people about that.

Section 64 PACE 1984.

Note particularly paras 3, 3AA and 3AB. The net effect is that they can retain the DNA, but can't use it in any new investigations.

You shouldn't believe everything you read in hysterical right wing media. The British government passed 27 laws in 2009. So that's about one law every 2 weeks, not one a day.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?TYPE=QS&Title=&Year=2009&Number=&LegType=Act+(UK+Public+General)

Your search misses these results: http://opsi.gov.uk/si/si-2009-index

All right, it would be hard to describe _all_ 3,500 of them as laws (many are just administrative orders), but _some_ of them are, e.g. no 6 (The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, which among other things amends the definition of the offence of disturbing a wild animal in a conservation area). In some cases it's hard to tell the difference between an adminstrative order and a law. Is an order requiring a body (with the legal power to regulate RF communications) to designate a particular RF band for a particular purpose a law or not? Probably, yes: it affects what actions are legal for a certain group of people (i.e. those authorised to use the communication system that it makes provision for).

I read that in Britain they pass on average a law a day.

You shouldn't believe everything you read in hysterical right wing media. The British government passed 27 laws in 2009. So that's about one law every 2 weeks, not one a day.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?TYPE=QS&Title=&Year=2009&Number=&LegType=Act+(UK+Public+General)

I wouldn't be too sure of that; IANAL of course, but as I understand it here in the UK at least the mere act of counterfeiting money is illegal, you don't have to actually try to spend it:

14 (2) It is an offence for a person to make a counterfeit of a currency note or of a protected coin without lawful authority or excuse.

and

16 (2) It is an offence for a person to have in his custody or under his control, without lawful authority or excuse, any thing which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a counterfeit of a currency note or of a protected coin.

From this page. There are other points that deal with passing counterfeit money off as the real thing, but those two points would seem to make it illegal to deliberately create or possess counterfeit money, whether you intend to spend it or not.

The end result of Climategate should be academic discreditation for several of those involved, and jail for a few - most likely to include Phil Jones. He very blatantly disregarded valid Freedom of Information requests. That's a felony in Great Britain.

Sorry to nitpick but (i) there is no legal jurisdiction called "Great Britain", there is (A) England and Wales, (B) Scotland, and (C) Northern Ireland, each of which are different (Scotland markedly so); and (ii) assuming you meant "England and Wales", we abolished felonies over 40 years ago with the Criminal Law Act 1967.

XVIII. That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs and such Excises to which Scotland is by virtue of this Treaty to be lyable be the same in Scotland from and after the Union as in England and that all other Lawes in use within the Kingdom of Scotland do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain With this difference betwixt the Laws concerning publick Right, Policy and Civil Government and those which concern private Right That the Laws which concern publick Right Policy and Civil Government may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom but that no alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland Click to open XIX. That the Court of Session or Colledge of Justice do after the Union and notwithstanding thereo XIX. That the Court of Session or Colledge of Justice do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom and with the same Authority and Priviledges as before the Union subject nevertherless to such Regulations for the better Administration of Justice as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain And that hereafter none shall be named by Her Majesty or Her Royal Successors to be Ordinary Lords of Session but such who have served in the Colledge of Justice as Advocats or Principal Clerks of Session for the space of five years or as Writers to the Signet for the space of ten years With this provision That no Writer to the Signet be capable to be admitted a Lord of the Session unless he undergo a private and publick Tryal on the Civil Law before the Faculty of Advocats and be found by them qualified for the said Office two years before he be named to be a Lord of the Session yet so as the Qualifications made or to be made for capacitating persons to be named Ordinary Lords of Session may be altered by the Parliament of Great Britain And that the Court of Justiciary do also after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kindom and with the same Authority and Priviledges as before the Union subject nevertherless to such Regulations as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain and without prejudice of other Rights of Justiciary . . . F9 And that the Heritable Rights of Admiralty and Vice-Admiralties in Scotland be reserved to the respective Proprietors as Rights of Property subject nevertherless as to the manner of Exercising such Heritable Rights to such Regulations and Alterations as shall be thought proper to be made by the Parliament of Great Britain And that all other Courts now in being within the Kingdom of Scotland do remain but subject to Alterations by the Parliament of Great Britain And that all Inferior Courts within the said Limits do remain subordinate as they are now to the Supream Courts of Justice within the same in all time coming And that no Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Commo

XVIII. That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs and such Excises to which Scotland is by virtue of this Treaty to be lyable be the same in Scotland from and after the Union as in England and that all other Lawes in use within the Kingdom of Scotland do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain With this difference betwixt the Laws concerning publick Right, Policy and Civil Government and those which concern private Right That the Laws which concern publick Right Policy and Civil Government may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom but that no alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland Click to open XIX. That the Court of Session or Colledge of Justice do after the Union and notwithstanding thereo XIX. That the Court of Session or Colledge of Justice do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom and with the same Authority and Priviledges as before the Union subject nevertherless to such Regulations for the better Administration of Justice as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain And that hereafter none shall be named by Her Majesty or Her Royal Successors to be Ordinary Lords of Session but such who have served in the Colledge of Justice as Advocats or Principal Clerks of Session for the space of five years or as Writers to the Signet for the space of ten years With this provision That no Writer to the Signet be capable to be admitted a Lord of the Session unless he undergo a private and publick Tryal on the Civil Law before the Faculty of Advocats and be found by them qualified for the said Office two years before he be named to be a Lord of the Session yet so as the Qualifications made or to be made for capacitating persons to be named Ordinary Lords of Session may be altered by the Parliament of Great Britain And that the Court of Justiciary do also after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kindom and with the same Authority and Priviledges as before the Union subject nevertherless to such Regulations as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain and without prejudice of other Rights of Justiciary . . . F9 And that the Heritable Rights of Admiralty and Vice-Admiralties in Scotland be reserved to the respective Proprietors as Rights of Property subject nevertherless as to the manner of Exercising such Heritable Rights to such Regulations and Alterations as shall be thought proper to be made by the Parliament of Great Britain And that all other Courts now in being within the Kingdom of Scotland do remain but subject to Alterations by the Parliament of Great Britain And that all Inferior Courts within the said Limits do remain subordinate as they are now to the Supream Courts of Justice within the same in all time coming And that no Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Commo

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

With annotations and revisions and everything. Not perfect, but a pretty good example of "how it ought to be done".

and is not connected to the government at all.

Sorry but you don't seem to have any idea how the process works.

From the Communications Act 2003: "Subject to subsection (8), sums received by the BBC by virtue of any regulations under this section must be paid into the Consolidated Fund."

Even wikipedia recognises that fact. As well you might want to look at the BBC Charter from which I quote: "The Agreement was made between the BBC and the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, and approved after a debate in Parliament in July 2006."

You are correct in saying that the collection is done by the BBC, which I would say is one of the biggest issues I have with the whole thing. When a real tax is collected you don't get someone trying to convince you to let them into your home who isn't a bailiff and doesn't even have a warrant.

Below is the link to the relevant section of the current act

Where did the words 'use of infringing copies' come from?

To save clicking, here's the main section:

107.

Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c.

â" (1) A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright ownerâ"

(a) makes for sale or hire, or

(b) imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or

(c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or

(d) in the course of a business â"

(i) sells or lets for hire, or

(ii) offers or exposes for sale or hire, or

(iii) exhibits in public, or

(iv) distributes, or

(e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

IANAL, but that reads that the only time I, as a private citizen, for private use infringe is if I sell/hire (a) or distribute to an extent which affects the owner (e). Possessing is only bad if it is in the course of business.

I can't find the line from the wikipedia in other articles on the web, and notably it's missing a reference to the relevant section of the act. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=0&activetextdocid=2250425&versionNumber=3

3. Law should be treated like software: any and all changes should be incorporated into the text, not distributed as amendments. The current legal system looks like Linux 0.01 with all the patches distributed separately up to 2.6.30, and you can win a case by confusing the judge and your opponent into forgetting a critical patch.

3. Make the up to date text of every law easily accessible and searchable by anyone.

This exists (for both of your item 3s :-), for the UK at least...

Why would they need to decrypt it?

Section 1 of the computer misuse act merely requires you to access a computer without authorisation. They did, 22000 times, hence they are culpable.

Intending to send an email 1(1)(a), without the computer owner knowing 1(1)(b), knowing that one is not authorised 1(1)(c). 3 strikes, go straight to jail, do not pass go.

Care to revise your claim that the parent appears wholly incorrect? I'd say they were spot on. Notice that SS2 (ibid) speaks to intent and gives no disclaimer for those with beneficent ends.

You may like to peruse SS2 and 3; there's a good chance that they're in breach of those also. For example, they used the botnet to DDoS a computer (their own, but nonetheless a computer, SS3(2)(a) doesn't mention ownership).

Nope IANAL but nor am I a stranger to reading and interpreting statute.

---
Computer Misuse Act 1990

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=computer+misuse+act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1353366&ActiveTextDocId=1353370&filesize=1958

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

- (2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed atâ"
(a) any particular program or data;
(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c) a program or data held in any particular computer.

-(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
---

In the UK, I would suspect using one of these cards would class as an offence under Section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, or more broadly under sections 2 and 6 of the Fraud Act 2006

Or they'll sharpen points on their knives themselves. It's not hard.

But that's simply not true. There are enough crimes of passion that people would never stop in the middle of to fabricate a weapon. That alone would save lives. I'm not saying it's a worthy justification, but it simply isn't true to say that they'd find another deadly weapon. Yes, they may then just strike with their hands in an attempt to kill, but it is less likely to succeed than a gun or knife.

In the UK the perceived problem is "youths" going out armed with knives. There have been a lot of headlines recently wrt youths being stabbed to death. It's not obvious how much this is the papers blowing up a topical issue and how much is an actual increase in fatal youth on youth violence.

It may be that the decision to use the knife is a spur of the moment "crime of passion" thing, but the decision to carry said knife is certainly premeditated and there's no reason to suppose that adding a point to an otherwise round ended knife wouldn't also be done.

It is an offence in the UK to carry almost all knifes[1] in almost all circumstances in public. There are exceptions, folding pocket knifes (knives that do not lock open) with a blade of less than 3 inches and when you have a legitimate reason (e.g. a chef returning home from work or someone who has just bought a knife and is going home with it) but the law is an absolute offence with statutory defences (i.e. it's presumed you are guilty unless you can assert one of the defenses) so woe betide that chef who forgets and leaves his knives in the boot of the car when he goes into town to do his shopping.

[1] Actually it's any bladed or pointed article or offensive weapon. A child's plastic sword is illegal to carry in public, as is a spare safety pin that, AIUI, the mother of the bride always carries "just in case" (although that might come under traditional or religious dress defence, I'm not sure)

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Criminal+Justice+Act&Year=1988&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116820&filesize=4468

Tim.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/8b7wx6 : tvlicensing.co.uk

"You will not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as long as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time as you are viewing it."

Thankfully buffering ensures that you are not viewing at at the same time as it is being shown ... strictly speaking.

I'm guessing that one may not wash - perhaps the uncertainty of the BBC as to whether using "watch live" requires a license or not. For example, on your link it merely states that to watch as a show is broadcast requires a license - if they knew watching that stream required a license, surely they'd just say that? They can't be lacking that much in people able to write plain English??

Interestingly that site doesn't tell you anywhere under which law you're required to have a license, nor does it mention the case law that broadens "tv equipment" to encompass computers .. I'm guessing they're interpreting the law to their own ends.

Under SS3.11 of The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended, http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1528097) there is a specific exclusion for computer apparatus which is not specially adapted to be used "in connection with the reception by means of wireless telegraphy of television programme services" - my computer has no wireless parts and no special adaptations.

The UK Statute Law Database (the project I mentioned in my final paragraph) contains pretty much all primary legislation, though it's not all edited yet.

I'm not a resident of the UK. However this info has been shared

YT video/a> of an officer explaining the new rule

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1)

I'm not in agreement, but this is the law being sited and enforced.

Not quite; it's perfectly legal to carry folding blades under 3 inches as per the the criminal justice act 1988

In the UK we've got various laws protecting consumers. Also worth remembering that Scots law is somewhat different from the law in England & Wales. The main bit of law is the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 which states that goods must be of reasonable quality, as described and fit for purpose. If you buy second hand, goods have to be as described but that's it. The contract is between you (as the consumer) and the retailer. The manufacturer doesn't get a look in and they can't add terms to the contract after it has been made. If the goods become faulty within 6 months of purchase, it is assumed that they were faulty when they were purchased and it's up to the retailer to prove otherwise. Specifically on guarantees, section 15 of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 mentions that "The guarantor shall ensure that the guarantee sets out in plain intelligible language [my italics] the contents of the guarantee and the essential particulars necessary for making claims under the guarantee, notably the duration and territorial scope of the guarantee as well as the name and address of the guarantor."

Something else we have is the Distance Selling Regulations which covers mail order stuff. This gives you a cooling off period of 7 days after the goods arrive, during which you can cancel no questions asked. If the supplier wants the goods back, they have to pay the postage. They also have to refund within 30 days.

As far as EULAs go, it's a bit like Heinz putting a note on the inside of a tin of baked beans that says you can't sell the tin to someone else and they aren't responsible if the tin explodes and causes damage. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 covers one part of this and the Consumer Protection Act 1988 covers another bit.

All these rights are protected by law and it's illegal for any contract, EULA, guarantee or whatever to exclude them.

Another bit of protection is offered courtesy of the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. May Donoghue met a friend at a cafe. Her friend bought some drinks, including a bottle of ginger beer. Mrs Donoghue drank it and found a dead slug at the bottom of the bottle. Naturally enough she fell ill and decided to sue David Stevenson whose company made the ginger beer. Stevenson claimed that she wasn't entitled to anything because it was her friend who bought the drink and not her. The case ended up in the House of Lords (highest court in the UK at the time) and it was decided that Stevenson had a duty of care to the end consumer, even if they didn't pay for it. (Claims in advertising are covered by the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, another bizarre one).

It'll be interesting to see what the OFT investigation comes up with. There's more to writing an EULA than just crossing out "

In the UK we've got various laws protecting consumers. Also worth remembering that Scots law is somewhat different from the law in England & Wales. The main bit of law is the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 which states that goods must be of reasonable quality, as described and fit for purpose. If you buy second hand, goods have to be as described but that's it. The contract is between you (as the consumer) and the retailer. The manufacturer doesn't get a look in and they can't add terms to the contract after it has been made. If the goods become faulty within 6 months of purchase, it is assumed that they were faulty when they were purchased and it's up to the retailer to prove otherwise. Specifically on guarantees, section 15 of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 mentions that "The guarantor shall ensure that the guarantee sets out in plain intelligible language [my italics] the contents of the guarantee and the essential particulars necessary for making claims under the guarantee, notably the duration and territorial scope of the guarantee as well as the name and address of the guarantor."

Something else we have is the Distance Selling Regulations which covers mail order stuff. This gives you a cooling off period of 7 days after the goods arrive, during which you can cancel no questions asked. If the supplier wants the goods back, they have to pay the postage. They also have to refund within 30 days.

As far as EULAs go, it's a bit like Heinz putting a note on the inside of a tin of baked beans that says you can't sell the tin to someone else and they aren't responsible if the tin explodes and causes damage. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 covers one part of this and the Consumer Protection Act 1988 covers another bit.

All these rights are protected by law and it's illegal for any contract, EULA, guarantee or whatever to exclude them.

Another bit of protection is offered courtesy of the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. May Donoghue met a friend at a cafe. Her friend bought some drinks, including a bottle of ginger beer. Mrs Donoghue drank it and found a dead slug at the bottom of the bottle. Naturally enough she fell ill and decided to sue David Stevenson whose company made the ginger beer. Stevenson claimed that she wasn't entitled to anything because it was her friend who bought the drink and not her. The case ended up in the House of Lords (highest court in the UK at the time) and it was decided that Stevenson had a duty of care to the end consumer, even if they didn't pay for it. (Claims in advertising are covered by the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, another bizarre one).

It'll be interesting to see what the OFT investigation comes up with. There's more to writing an EULA than just crossing out "

In the UK we've got various laws protecting consumers. Also worth remembering that Scots law is somewhat different from the law in England & Wales. The main bit of law is the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 which states that goods must be of reasonable quality, as described and fit for purpose. If you buy second hand, goods have to be as described but that's it. The contract is between you (as the consumer) and the retailer. The manufacturer doesn't get a look in and they can't add terms to the contract after it has been made. If the goods become faulty within 6 months of purchase, it is assumed that they were faulty when they were purchased and it's up to the retailer to prove otherwise. Specifically on guarantees, section 15 of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 mentions that "The guarantor shall ensure that the guarantee sets out in plain intelligible language [my italics] the contents of the guarantee and the essential particulars necessary for making claims under the guarantee, notably the duration and territorial scope of the guarantee as well as the name and address of the guarantor."

Something else we have is the Distance Selling Regulations which covers mail order stuff. This gives you a cooling off period of 7 days after the goods arrive, during which you can cancel no questions asked. If the supplier wants the goods back, they have to pay the postage. They also have to refund within 30 days.

As far as EULAs go, it's a bit like Heinz putting a note on the inside of a tin of baked beans that says you can't sell the tin to someone else and they aren't responsible if the tin explodes and causes damage. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 covers one part of this and the Consumer Protection Act 1988 covers another bit.

All these rights are protected by law and it's illegal for any contract, EULA, guarantee or whatever to exclude them.

Another bit of protection is offered courtesy of the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. May Donoghue met a friend at a cafe. Her friend bought some drinks, including a bottle of ginger beer. Mrs Donoghue drank it and found a dead slug at the bottom of the bottle. Naturally enough she fell ill and decided to sue David Stevenson whose company made the ginger beer. Stevenson claimed that she wasn't entitled to anything because it was her friend who bought the drink and not her. The case ended up in the House of Lords (highest court in the UK at the time) and it was decided that Stevenson had a duty of care to the end consumer, even if they didn't pay for it. (Claims in advertising are covered by the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, another bizarre one).

It'll be interesting to see what the OFT investigation comes up with. There's more to writing an EULA than just crossing out "

In the UK we've got various laws protecting consumers. Also worth remembering that Scots law is somewhat different from the law in England & Wales. The main bit of law is the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 which states that goods must be of reasonable quality, as described and fit for purpose. If you buy second hand, goods have to be as described but that's it. The contract is between you (as the consumer) and the retailer. The manufacturer doesn't get a look in and they can't add terms to the contract after it has been made. If the goods become faulty within 6 months of purchase, it is assumed that they were faulty when they were purchased and it's up to the retailer to prove otherwise. Specifically on guarantees, section 15 of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 mentions that "The guarantor shall ensure that the guarantee sets out in plain intelligible language [my italics] the contents of the guarantee and the essential particulars necessary for making claims under the guarantee, notably the duration and territorial scope of the guarantee as well as the name and address of the guarantor."

Something else we have is the Distance Selling Regulations which covers mail order stuff. This gives you a cooling off period of 7 days after the goods arrive, during which you can cancel no questions asked. If the supplier wants the goods back, they have to pay the postage. They also have to refund within 30 days.

As far as EULAs go, it's a bit like Heinz putting a note on the inside of a tin of baked beans that says you can't sell the tin to someone else and they aren't responsible if the tin explodes and causes damage. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 covers one part of this and the Consumer Protection Act 1988 covers another bit.

All these rights are protected by law and it's illegal for any contract, EULA, guarantee or whatever to exclude them.

Another bit of protection is offered courtesy of the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. May Donoghue met a friend at a cafe. Her friend bought some drinks, including a bottle of ginger beer. Mrs Donoghue drank it and found a dead slug at the bottom of the bottle. Naturally enough she fell ill and decided to sue David Stevenson whose company made the ginger beer. Stevenson claimed that she wasn't entitled to anything because it was her friend who bought the drink and not her. The case ended up in the House of Lords (highest court in the UK at the time) and it was decided that Stevenson had a duty of care to the end consumer, even if they didn't pay for it. (Claims in advertising are covered by the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, another bizarre one).

It'll be interesting to see what the OFT investigation comes up with. There's more to writing an EULA than just crossing out "

In the UK we've got various laws protecting consumers. Also worth remembering that Scots law is somewhat different from the law in England & Wales. The main bit of law is the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 which states that goods must be of reasonable quality, as described and fit for purpose. If you buy second hand, goods have to be as described but that's it. The contract is between you (as the consumer) and the retailer. The manufacturer doesn't get a look in and they can't add terms to the contract after it has been made. If the goods become faulty within 6 months of purchase, it is assumed that they were faulty when they were purchased and it's up to the retailer to prove otherwise. Specifically on guarantees, section 15 of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 mentions that "The guarantor shall ensure that the guarantee sets out in plain intelligible language [my italics] the contents of the guarantee and the essential particulars necessary for making claims under the guarantee, notably the duration and territorial scope of the guarantee as well as the name and address of the guarantor."

Something else we have is the Distance Selling Regulations which covers mail order stuff. This gives you a cooling off period of 7 days after the goods arrive, during which you can cancel no questions asked. If the supplier wants the goods back, they have to pay the postage. They also have to refund within 30 days.

As far as EULAs go, it's a bit like Heinz putting a note on the inside of a tin of baked beans that says you can't sell the tin to someone else and they aren't responsible if the tin explodes and causes damage. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 covers one part of this and the Consumer Protection Act 1988 covers another bit.

All these rights are protected by law and it's illegal for any contract, EULA, guarantee or whatever to exclude them.

Another bit of protection is offered courtesy of the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. May Donoghue met a friend at a cafe. Her friend bought some drinks, including a bottle of ginger beer. Mrs Donoghue drank it and found a dead slug at the bottom of the bottle. Naturally enough she fell ill and decided to sue David Stevenson whose company made the ginger beer. Stevenson claimed that she wasn't entitled to anything because it was her friend who bought the drink and not her. The case ended up in the House of Lords (highest court in the UK at the time) and it was decided that Stevenson had a duty of care to the end consumer, even if they didn't pay for it. (Claims in advertising are covered by the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, another bizarre one).

It'll be interesting to see what the OFT investigation comes up with. There's more to writing an EULA than just crossing out "

It's an amusing story, but of course it is not true. First, the Official Secrets Acts (1911 and 1989) are law, and is enforceable whether the person in question has signed anything or not, just like any other law. "Signing the Official Secrets Act" (or more properly, signing a statement acknowledging that they understand the provisions of the Act) is simply a way of impressing people and reminding them that loose lips sink ships. Second, the Act doesn't say anything about signing it, and of course nothing about not telling people whether you've signed it. (Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989)

It's an amusing story, but of course it is not true. First, the Official Secrets Acts (1911 and 1989) are law, and is enforceable whether the person in question has signed anything or not, just like any other law. "Signing the Official Secrets Act" (or more properly, signing a statement acknowledging that they understand the provisions of the Act) is simply a way of impressing people and reminding them that loose lips sink ships. Second, the Act doesn't say anything about signing it, and of course nothing about not telling people whether you've signed it. (Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989)

Actually we do have a constitution, it's just not all written down, and the bits that are written are spread over multiple documents, ranging from the Magna Carta and our own bill of rights to the recent Human rights act. With various Acts of Union, acts of settlement and back to devolved powers again in between.

Here it is The Magna Carta though a bill just as important is the Bill of rights 1688 Which even gives us Brits the right to bare arms. Well sort of, here's the relevant passage:
Subjects' Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

Here it is The Magna Carta though a bill just as important is the Bill of rights 1688 Which even gives us Brits the right to bare arms. Well sort of, here's the relevant passage:
Subjects' Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

If the party in power in the UK wants to imprison everyone whose last name begins with the letter "A", there is nothing to stop them

This is not true. First the party in power has to write a law that makes it a crime to have such a name. Then they have to convince the democratically elected House of Commons to pass it. Then they have to convince the House of Lords to pass it. Then they have to convince the Queen to give her assent.

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.

Magna Carta was redeclared several times, only the 1297 one passes down to us in the law. And not very much of that either - you may be thinking of this bit:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType= All+Primary&PageNumber=106&NavFrom=2&parentActiveT extDocId=1517519&ActiveTextDocId=1517542&filesize= 1804
(the right to a fair trial)

It didn't include habeas corpus, which didn't get a mention until several years later. Modern habeas corpus goes back to 1679:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType= All+Legislation&title=Habeas+Corpus&searchEnacted= 0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendmen t=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&par entActiveTextDocId=1518495&ActiveTextDocId=1518499 &filesize=7021

Magna Carta was redeclared several times, only the 1297 one passes down to us in the law. And not very much of that either - you may be thinking of this bit:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType= All+Primary&PageNumber=106&NavFrom=2&parentActiveT extDocId=1517519&ActiveTextDocId=1517542&filesize= 1804
(the right to a fair trial)

It didn't include habeas corpus, which didn't get a mention until several years later. Modern habeas corpus goes back to 1679:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType= All+Legislation&title=Habeas+Corpus&searchEnacted= 0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendmen t=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&par entActiveTextDocId=1518495&ActiveTextDocId=1518499 &filesize=7021