Slashdot Mirror


Secret UK Plan To Appoint "Pirate Finder General"

mouthbeef writes "A source very close to the UK Labour government just called me to leak the fact that Secretary of State Lord Mandelson is trying to sneak a revision into the Digital Economy Bill that would give him and his successors the power to create future copyright law without debate. Mandelson goes on to explain that he wants this so he can create private copyright militias with investigatory and enforcement powers, and so he can create new copyright punishments as he sees fit (e.g., jail time, three strikes)."

265 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. New internet by cellurl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We need a new Internet. Any ideas?

    1. Re:New internet by iainl · · Score: 1

      No, sorry. But we'll get a new UK Government in the next six months or so, and that'll probably have the same result of getting it out of Mandelson's hands.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    2. Re:New internet by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, you need new politicians. Which, in the UK's case, means you're due for another round of governance by the Tories. So you're basically fucked.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:New internet by KitsuneSoftware · · Score: 1

      Nevermind that, we need a new government. I don't know how well-known Mandy is outside of the UK, but here... well, our satire shows were calling him a "Lord of Darkness" well before he became a Lord. By all rights he shouldn't have any power, he's lost his job several times already due to scandals, but seems to keep coming back.

    4. Re:New internet by gedrin · · Score: 1

      The internet is not the problem. The people of Great Britian need new governance that doesn't think Hobbes had the right idea.

      --
      Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
    5. Re:New internet by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The UK needs a successful non-religious Guy Fawkes.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:New internet by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The people of Great Britian need new governance

      That would be a good thing for the people of Great Britian, but what about the people in the UK?

    7. Re:New internet by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2, Funny

      At first I thought you meant we needed another effigy to burn, and thought that Sith Lord Mandy would probably make a good candidate.

    8. Re:New internet by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Guy Fawkes? The man burned in effigy to underline his failure to accomplish his goals? I can think of better symbols!

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    9. Re:New internet by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    10. Re:New internet by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What part of "successful" do you not understand?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    11. Re:New internet by gedrin · · Score: 1

      Great Britian is the name of the island on which nearly everyone in th UK lives. If people call The United States simply "America", I'm not going to be upset that they've missed Hawaii. Ireland and Hawaii are both nice places, but saying Great Britain and America gets the point across.

      If it makes you feel better, you're very much smarter than me.

      --
      Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
    12. Re:New internet by nomadic · · Score: 1

      No, you need new politicians. Which, in the UK's case, means you're due for another round of governance by the Tories. So you're basically fucked.

      But...but...the UK has more than two major political parties. Doesn't that mean they have a utopia? Because that's what everyone here likes to say the US' problem is.

    13. Re:New internet by ByOhTek · · Score: 1
      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    14. Re:New internet by cellurl · · Score: 1

      Do you think the nhtsa is afraid of Wikispeedia ?
      Doubtful, they will ultimately compete and win...

    15. Re:New internet by caramelcarrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Conservatives will be all for this, I don't expect a change in govt will affect this plan at all, unless widespread opposition can be made.

    16. Re:New internet by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      V?

    17. Re:New internet by kickedfortrolling · · Score: 1

      I would almost garuntee that the incoming conservative government would abolish this as an unnecessary cost, its just another quango for the bonfire

      I'd also point out that we'd struggle to do worse under cameron than we have under brown..

      --
      --AlexC
      Just because I dont agree with climate change doesnt make me a troll
    18. Re:New internet by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It seems some look back to the simple days of Oliver Cromwell...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    19. Re:New internet by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Funny

      The bit where my brain parsed it as "successful as an image" rather than "successful at what he was attempting to do". *facepalm*

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    20. Re:New internet by Jeff+Carr · · Score: 1

      Certainly. I plan to launch a series of 25 geosynchronous satellites providing broadband internet access to the entire world. It will be independent from any government's control or oversight. I'm going to call it the Archangel Network. ...What?

      --
      The television will not be revolutionized.
    21. Re:New internet by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      No, you need new politicians. Which, in the UK's case, means you're due for another round of governance by the Tories. So you're basically fucked.

      The problem with that is, if the UK is anything like the US, a new batch of politicians isn't going to be any better than the old batch.

      Sure, each party is going to have its own pet ideological projects... They'll push for some kind of reform or regulation, or less of those, or whatever. But, ultimately, politicians really don't seem to be terribly interested in what the average citizen has to say. They just wind up doing whatever their lobbyists and corporate interests tell them to.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    22. Re:New internet by TheMeuge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually I think the people of Great Britain need new governance that doesn't think that Aldous Huxley had the right idea.

    23. Re:New internet by cellurl · · Score: 1

      not bad

    24. Re:New internet by bth · · Score: 1

      kheldan - is it ok if we are afraid of some of the people in our government? and if they are afraid of some of us? I am sure we can satisfy that statement easily.

    25. Re:New internet by gedrin · · Score: 1

      Well, one Leviathan is as good as another.

      --
      Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
    26. Re:New internet by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or the liberals, depending on what laws they wanna muck around with, hiding from direct election.

      You can try to create a constitution, but even putting non-delegation as front-and-center as it's possible to get will not save you from weasel re-interpretations by the power hungry:

      Article I

      Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

      Let the weaseling commence! "But having regulatory bodies allows Congress to hide from the direct effects of unpopular regulations!" and the ever-popular "But there's no way you can expect Congress to vote on that many laws!", ignoring the associated corollary that The People, who will be the ones to go to jail, are somehow expected to know and behave according to that many laws.

      It burns your ears because it's true.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    27. Re:New internet by Canazza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The scary thing is is that Mandelson is a capable man in a house of incompetent loonies and he may just get his way with this. Ofcourse, that's only if the rumour is true (I wouldn't put it past him though)

      The Conservatives are no different, they have a few more capable members than loonies, but they're as removed from the general population as they ever were, and no-one in Scotland will vote for them.

      The Lib Dems are a non-entity since they kicked out their leader for being an alcoholic (he was the only personality the party had)

      The SNP are still popular in Scotland (and ofc, they have their boy as first minister)

      the BNP are making disturbing headway into certain areas (they came fourth in the Glasgow North East by-election)

      Our only real hope is that the next election sees no one party gaining majority and forcing power sharing between Labor, Conservatives, Lib Dems and the SNP to prevent any one party dominating.

      Or, and this is only a win in the worst of terms, Scotland goes for full independence and disconnects itself from the English. As much as I hate the idea, it's becoming more and more likely as time goes on and confidence in Westminster is dissolved.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    28. Re:New internet by EasyTarget · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And don't forget that Murdock (yeah.. the guy who's future business plans rely on the removal of free-to-view alternatives and full copyright micro-enforcement) has just 'switched' to them, and they will be in power in the UK soon. I wonder what the deal was; I suspect he thinks it is elimination of both peer-to-peer and the BBC. But I really doubt Camerons ability to deliver that.

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    29. Re:New internet by EasyTarget · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your ignorance of UK politics is amazing..

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    30. Re:New internet by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      You forgot Executive Orders which allow presidents to make laws in direct violation of Article I.

      If I were president my very first EO would read, "All executive orders are hereby declared null-and-void, per Article I and Amendment 10 of the People's Constitution. Executive orders are an unconstitutional usurpation of power that is reserved to other branches and governments of the Union." I'd also veto any budgetary bills that exceed 50% of last year's spending level.

      I'd probably get impeached rather quickly.
      Oh well.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    31. Re:New internet by Spad · · Score: 1

      *Northern* Ireland

    32. Re:New internet by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Yes... I've been thinking that if I were to distribute a home aquaponics system that had some automation and was controlled by a dedicated low-end computer that had wireless networking and allowed you to supervise your food production remotely, if there was enough penetration, they could be modified via a software update to form a citizens mesh network without having to actually convince the public that they should spend money upfront to create said network. The technology is already proven, it's just a matter of getting enough units in the hands of the public.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    33. Re:New internet by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1
      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    34. Re:New internet by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      We need a new Internet.

      I told them letting in all those AOL users was going to trash the place.

      Whatever we come up with next, just make sure users have to pass a really difficult intelligence test before they get a login.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    35. Re:New internet by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Tony Blair made the UK join the US, therefore its laws apply, naturally.
      I got my information from an allegorical depiction in a videoclip by George Michael, so it is trustworthy.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    36. Re:New internet by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Great Britian != Great Britain

    37. Re:New internet by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Hardly :) It's Northern Ireland, not Ireland (which is a different country altogether), and it contains just under 3% of the UK's population. That'd be like if Hawaii had a population of about 9m people.

    38. Re:New internet by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      *Northern* Ireland

      Pronounced Norn Irland.

    39. Re:New internet by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      I'd probably get impeached rather quickly.

      O no... you would be hailed as a great leader and then promptly shot by a lone assassin working for alcada(tm)(r)(c)

    40. Re:New internet by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      It burns your ears because it's true.

      Oh thank God. I thought maybe over driving the electron gun on my CRT to make it much brighter had introduced some unplanned side effect... that whole "truth" thing accounts for the arcing and smoke coming from my dental work too, right?

      Seriously, my favorite gripe about legislative behavior is the number of laws that do not apply to the legislative body itself...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    41. Re:New internet by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Because terrorism historically results in hard-right authoritarian douches being thrown out of power and kept out of power.

    42. Re:New internet by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Guy Fawkes? The man burned in effigy to underline his failure to accomplish his goals? I can think of better symbols!

      Yet people complain that we need another one every year.

      In fact, I recall when I was a kid reading the Just William books where William mentioned that his father "thought we needed someone to do the same again" (or words to that effect) - and they were mostly written in the 1930's-50s.

    43. Re:New internet by syousef · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your ignorance of UK politics is amazing..

      If he's not from the UK it's really not so amazing. Why should he care? (Except in so far as it sets a precedent for other countries to follow when the UK passes a draconian law)

      Me? I'm not from the UK and I think the way you've been going you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by siimply surrendering to Hitler during WWII. Did I just Godwin myself? Oh well Godwin's asinine "law" is another thing I don't give a monkey's testicle about.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    44. Re:New internet by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      If they are all dead then who needs to throw them out?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    45. Re:New internet by Marcika · · Score: 1

      Actually I think the people of Great Britain need new governance that doesn't think that Aldous Huxley had the right idea.

      I just wish they would model it after Huxley! Then at least we'd have free recreational drugs for everyone, relaxed sexual mores and yobs that are actually conditioned to like doing menial jobs instead of being anti-social...

      Instead we get a re-imagining of Orwell - Animal Farm or Nineteen-Eightyfour, take your pick.

    46. Re:New internet by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Well, you've got my vote. Just please tell me you'll also leave the pot smokers, gun toters, gay marriage supporters, and other harmless folks alone. Of course, those positions won't leave you with much of a voter base.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    47. Re:New internet by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      The scary thing is is that Mandelson is a capable man in a house of incompetent loonies and he may just get his way with this.

      Actually, I think I'd prefer a House full of Loonies to one that tries tricks like this.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    48. Re:New internet by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      In terms of parties that actually make a Government, the UK has been swinging between two parties for god knows how long, so yes, we have the same problem - perhaps not as extreme as the US, but it's still present. Thanks to the backwards FPTP system, the Lib Dems can't influence anything the Government wants, because the Government have a majority in Parliament. They can only have an influence when there's a split even within the Government.

    49. Re:New internet by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      I am sure the GCHQ would love to roll out a good network. Like the phone system was.
      Lots of choke points in and out of the UK. Perfect for 24/7 interception. If you want to know what the old version of this looked like try:
      http://www.lamont.me.uk/capenhurst/original.html
      Using land on a British Nuclear Fuels Ltd site, they built a tower to tap the microwave line-of-sight trunk phone lines running through Britain to the Republic of Ireland.
      Now think of that for p2p. They dont want to have p2p reported in the wild, they want to watch everything all the time and then pick out p2p.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    50. Re:New internet by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, we do need new politicians, that's why I'm standing for parliament as a Pirate Party candidate.

      I'm well aware that I don't have the slightest chance of being elected, but I believe that the Pirate Party can demonstrate to the next government, and to the newly elected members of parliament that are replacing those standing down after the expenses scandal, that a significant portion of the voting public cares about Mandelson's plans.

      If you're in the UK and want to do something positive about this story, we need memberships and donations to help fund the £500 per seat deposit needed to get our place on the ballot papers, and if you feel strongly enough to put yourself forward as a Pirate Candidate we are about to start our candidate selection process, so now is the time to get involved.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    51. Re:New internet by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      Well, there's also UKIP I suppose. They came second in the recent European elections, beating Labour into 3rd place, but they are currently leaderless and probably won't do well in the next General Election.

      The important thing from my point of view (as leader of the Pirate Party UK) is that Labour and the Conservatives are fanatical vote-chasers with hardly and difference between their manifestos. If the Pirate Party can gain even a quite small percentage of the vote, it will be a percentage that the big parties will consider chasing.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    52. Re:New internet by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they need to consider http://www.greenparty.org.uk/. Green parties the world over seem to be the new balance to labour parties that have drifted a little to far to the right. The right wing parties of the rich and greedy have drifted off into the ether, into a world of rage and hate as they desperately try and retain power over everything and know they are losing. Add to that there are always independents (not recent closet right wingers) but people who have had a long history of independence.

      Specifically targeting those individual politicians who have demonstrated their corruption and their contempt of the rights, values and well being of the majority citizens, and driving them permanently from political office with a concerted political campaign is the way to go. You don't need to target the whole party just do a little aggressive weeding to remove the worst pests and replace them with someone more concerned about the people rather than their own Swiss et al bank account.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    53. Re:New internet by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      If I were president my very first EO would read, "All executive orders are hereby declared null-and-void, per Article I and Amendment 10 of the People's Constitution. Executive orders are an unconstitutional usurpation of power that is reserved to other branches and governments of the Union." I'd also veto any budgetary bills that exceed 50% of last year's spending level.

      So the very first thing you'd say would directly contradict itself. In a single line of text? Bodes well for the rest of the 4 years ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    54. Re:New internet by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually your best bet for copyright reform is the Green Party. They already have some electoral success, particularly in Europe. Why start from nothing again?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    55. Re:New internet by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If they are all dead then who needs to throw them out?

      Then you're stuck with whoever threw them out - and since he's already been shown willing to kill in order to remake the society as he wishes, it seems unlikely that he will shy away from trampling you and your rights underfoot. As an added bonus, Britain is a democracy, with the people in power elected there because people approve of their rule, so someone killing them out of disagreement with their politics is also demonstrating his willingness to suppress every political opinion he disagrees with by force.

      That's the nasty thing about revolutions: the people who get in power are almost always those who were most willing to resort to force to get their way, which pretty much guarantees that they're be tyrants. A revolution is an attempt at a quick and easy fix to the complex problem of how to run a society, and as such it usually makes things worse. Even if the revolutionaries are actually benevolent, it's a truly rare human who has the discipline to wield power and put it back down.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    56. Re:New internet by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that just means the next ones will be Orwellians.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  2. Great Idea by behemoth64 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Another great idea signed by UK's gov

    1. Re:Great Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Considering the proud history of the British navy, it would make sense of them to appoint a person in charge of finding pirates on the high seas. I don't see how this is relevant to Slashdot, though. Nor do I see why they should keep such a role secret. Keeping our oceans save is a noble job.

      If pirates and piracy is measurably affecting ocean travel and commerce, someone should get on doing something about it. If not, then this ocean pirate hunter idea seems kind of pointless.

      I'm sure they have reliable data from the people who use the oceans which affirm that ocean piracy is a big issue.

    2. Re:Great Idea by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Considering the proud history of the British navy, it would make sense of them to appoint a person in charge of finding pirates on the high seas.

      FWIW, a lot of the proud history of the British navy is due to their support for pirates. Privateers were a sizable portion of the British navy that sunk the Spanish Armada (of course, a timely storm helped a lot with that one). They were also a very important tool in the economic war with Spain that QE I was waging. I read a very good biography of Drake that goes into detail... suffice it to say the Crown fully supported piracy, as long as it wasn't targeted at British vessels. So much so that QE I entertained Drake as a suitor to ensure his support of Her.

      There's some kind of analogy here... if the high seas, as a chief method of commerce of the time, can be equated to the internet, as a chief method of commerce in our time... then perhaps Brtain should consider sponsoring these pirates instead, and riding their coattails to a new era of economic dominance? And maybe Dark Lord Mandy should consider dating one of the pirates?

      OK, it's a bad analogy. But I haven't seen Bad Analogy Guy in a while, so I'm doing my best to fill in.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Great Idea by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I went fishing in the Atlantic with a friend in his small boat and the RIAA sued me!

    4. Re:Great Idea by hitmark · · Score: 1

      and i am sure microsoft turned a blind eye to the home copying of their software as long as it meant more people had passing familiarity with its use, meaning that less corps had to pay for expensive training of their workers, and could always find someone to do something, as long as it involved microsoft software.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    5. Re:Great Idea by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wonder if that might not be so farfetched... could a case be made that the *AA-type powers actually support content piracy, provided it's aimed at their competitors??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:Great Idea by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I wonder if that might not be so farfetched... could a case be made that the *AA-type powers actually support content piracy, provided it's aimed at their competitors??

      No; the last thing the *AAs want is for people to learn that content can be found outside their rubrick. Even if people are pirating it.

    7. Re:Great Idea by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Privateers were a sizable portion of the British navy that sunk the Spanish Armada (of course, a timely storm helped a lot with that one). They were also a very important tool in the economic war with Spain that QE I was waging.

      You're describing Letters of Marque which is basically state condoned piracy. A cheap way of increasing the effective size of your navy in times of economic warfare.

      State condoned piracy in this case seems to be largely done by the large corporations misusing copyright, DCMA and ACTA. So the pirate's victims seem to be the general populace which means the government is trying to use proxies to wage war against it's constituents.

      Which, of course, is the way it seems to be going these days but messes up your naval pirates - modern day pirates analogy.

      Crap. I'm stuck in the same mental hole you got stuck in. Oh well, that's life in the analogy lane.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Great Idea by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm not describing Letters of Marque. The fallacy of Wikipedia is exposed yet again :)

      LoMs did not exist when Drake roamed the Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Channel.

      I know your wikipedia link cites Drake as a famous recipient, but he was dead long before the first British LoM was issued in 1707. He had a different, stronger support from the Crown than a LoM. From time to time, QE I authorized and funded him to go on piracy expeditions, the returns of which were split with the Crown to some degree. Eventually, he became wealthy enough that it worked another way... he was a funder of the British navy, because QE I demanded that merchants and other ship owners such as Drake fund their own defense (she was poor, by our notions of Crown Royalty -- although schemes like this ended up making her rich).

      And back to the meat of the issue, the analogy --

      State condoned piracy in this case seems to be largely done by the large corporations misusing copyright, DCMA and ACTA. So the pirate's victims seem to be the general populace which means the government is trying to use proxies to wage war against it's constituents.

      I think that's backwards. The pirates, in the modern case, are the **AA member companies. They are getting laws and regulations enacted (like LoMs) that allow them to seize the assets of others based upon nominal ownership of IP.

      That's the great marketing success of the **AAs -- they've managed to rebrand the victims as pirates, while they (as corporate entities, like in the famous Monty Python sketch) are the real pirates.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  3. Film at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sith Lord Mandelson wants sweeping powers that any sensible person would consider grossly out of all proportion? Film at 11!

    He can want all he likes: this shower of bastards, including Sith Lord Mandelson himself, is unlikely to be in a job by the summer of next year anyway. With Christmas and the General Election they wont have the time to enact much of any legislation anyway.

  4. IP log at http://www.barbrastreisand.com/?? by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, not those kind of Pirates.

    1. Re:IP log at http://www.barbrastreisand.com/?? by Alinabi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That was exactly my reaction. I thought they were dispatching an actual general to Somalia. But I guess oil-tank-jacking is not as big a problem as counterfeit Jonas brothers CDs.

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    2. Re:IP log at http://www.barbrastreisand.com/?? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Well, they do wear poofy shirts.

    3. Re:IP log at http://www.barbrastreisand.com/?? by Spad · · Score: 2, Funny

      *Any* Jonas Brothers CDs should be considered a serious issue.

  5. I don't think they really care.... by santax · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They have over 5 million camera's with face recognition following their every move... Seriously, they just don't care. (And this is coming from a Dutchman where there are even more phonetaps and as of 2012 mandatory GPS in every car)

    1. Re:I don't think they really care.... by VJ42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      face recognition following their every move...

      We don't have face recognition in public CCTV systems, I don't know where you pulled that one from. I agree we have massive surveillance problems here in the UK, but we don't need to make things up to make it sound worse. It's bad enough already

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    2. Re:I don't think they really care.... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      How do you guys handle the GPS thing?
      I mean I really can't see a way of making a system that could tell the difference between driving through a tunnel/parking inside and wrapping a tin foil bag around the antennae.

    3. Re:I don't think they really care.... by santax · · Score: 1

      They want to punish the foilwrappers with 4 year in prison and 74.000 euro's in fine. That's about 110.000 dollar. To make matters worst, today a guy who tortured a woman involving 2 fists and a reconstructed anus, also got 4 years... Yeah, we are fools too.

    4. Re:I don't think they really care.... by santax · · Score: 1

      Hi, sorry they didn't tell you this in the UK, but please search for operation Mandrake. It will answer your questions.

    5. Re:I don't think they really care.... by santax · · Score: 1

      (leave the operation out, face recognition and mandrake will get you more results)

    6. Re:I don't think they really care.... by VJ42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (leave the operation out, face recognition and mandrake will get you more results)

      Ok, the only facts (amongst lots of paranoid rants) I can find from those search terms is that there was a trial of facial recognition software called mandrake back in 1998. No mention of it since This suggests to me that it was a failure (biometric tech 11 yeas ago wasn't brilliant) so it was dropped. Indeed, the company that supposedly sells it: TSSI has no mention of it on their UK website (you'd think they'd want to sell it; after all most CCTV cameras are in private hands).
      Indeed I can only find an Australian company selling it there, not in the UK.
      Again, no need for the paranoia, we've got it bad enough without making things up.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    7. Re:I don't think they really care.... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      By your logic, "they" in the US don't care either, about all the nonsense that gets posted here?

      Or, last time I looked, perhaps laws were passed by Governments, and not Slashdot readers?

  6. Same old, same old by BC_Man · · Score: 1

    Who is this "source". Someone trying to create more hysteria ? An atmosphere where legislation can be rushed through while everyone is distracted by a false debate ?

  7. WTF? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, this comes from BoingBoing so it may be nonsense, but what does the government think they're doing appointing Sith Lord Mandleson? He's an out-of-control power-crazed sociopath and should never have been allowed back into government.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:WTF? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...what does the government think they're doing appointing Sith Lord Mandleson?

      Has it ever occurred to you that they might know exactly what they're doing?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:WTF? by Bai+jie · · Score: 1

      Who was it that once said "Everything is proceeding according to my design."?

    3. Re:WTF? by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      this comes from BoingBoing so it may be nonsense

      Please to explain their lack of credibility.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    4. Re:WTF? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      [Mandelson is] an out-of-control power-crazed sociopath and should never have been allowed back into government.

      We didn't allow him back in. In fact, he resigned twice already under dubious circumstances. Then he got appointed to Europe, and now he's been appointed to a very senior position in Parliament after being appointed to the House of Lords. Note that the term "appointed" here implies that the people never got a vote, he was put into those positions by the Prime Minister and his chums. Oh, and the Prime Minister was appointed as Tony Blair's successor, in direction contradiction of a Labour Party manifesto promise to voters at the last general election, which they won with such a huge majority because of funny electoral math and not popular support (having actually lost the popular vote in England to the Conservatives, in fact).

      Basically, these guys don't even have a shadow of a mandate for what they're doing in the first place, but since they're already a lame duck administration they seem to feel they have little to lose by wading in with the most illiberal, draconian legislation they can shove through in the final parliamentary session before the general election. Thus we get resistance to court rulings on cleaning up the DNA database, a roll-out of trials for an expensive ID card scheme that both the major opposition parties in England have long since pledged to scrap, and now this.

      My personal favourite from this week's Queen's Speech was the bill to make it a legal requirement to half the budget deficit within four years, which would conveniently mean that having destroyed our economy themselves, they could then pass a poison pill to their successors when they inevitably lose the next general election. Presumably they will then claim in four years that whoever won the election has broken the law by being unable to do the impossible, and pretend that in some alternate reality Labour would somehow have been able to fix the problems they were unable to prevent in the first place.

      The various extreme anti-copyright-infringement policies flying around at the moment sound like much the same thing: having mostly ignored or actively gone against the recommendations of their own Gowers Review when it comes to IP laws, they are now setting up back channel ways to suck up to big business while they still can, knowing that if they tried to push these things through Parliament properly they would face stiff opposition (not to mention probably losing even more votes, since post-Gowers they pretty much know that people overwhelmingly oppose things like copyright term extension).

      As a final note, the Open Rights Group are pretty dumb if they think invoking the recent XBox cut-offs supports the case against this. I haven't seen a single report that suggests there were people cut off by Microsoft inappropriately (i.e., not after breaking the rules), the cut-off only affected their use of the XBox and not unrelated Internet services, and even the BBC carried an article based on one such person, who admitted freely that he was ripping off games illegally because it saved him money, which is exactly what the cut-off was intended to obstruct.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:WTF? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      I don't really read much BoingBoing, but I'll just bold everything that made me stop reading after the first couple paragraphs.

      A source close to the British Labour Government has just given me reliable information about the most radical copyright proposal I've ever seen.

      Secretary of State Peter Mandelson is planning to introduce changes to the Digital Economy Bill now under debate in Parliament. These changes will give the Secretary of State (Mandelson -- or his successor in the next government) the power to make "secondary legislation" (legislation that is passed without debate) to amend the provisions of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988).

      Doctorow claims to have a source that claims that someone in the UK government is going to try to attach a rider to a bill that no one would ever approve. Yeah, I'm gonna say this is a non-story.

    6. Re:WTF? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Which is why my letter to my MP didn't mention the xbox at all, and instead highlighted the various other issues with this fucked up legislation.

      I haven't even started on the 'unelected government' issue..

    7. Re:WTF? by Threni · · Score: 1
    8. Re:WTF? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gendo Ikari? No, wait, it was David Xanatos. On second thought, it was Light Yagami. Then again, it might have been Ozymandius. There's always the possibility that it was Hari Seldon. And, of course, *everything* is a Nemesis plot. But when you get right down to it, the Count of Monte Cristo did it first.

    9. Re:WTF? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      The story has no credibility by itself. It comes from an anonymous source. It could just be made up, or some heavily garbled version of the truth.

      Nonetheless, anonymous sources are useful in reporting. When they are used, the author of the story is making an implicit request to the reader - you can't trust my source, but you can trust me instead. You need a high degree of trust for this to work - we are being asked to transitively trust the source through the reporter. Some reporters have enough integrity, neutrality and respect to do this. Most don't.

      Cory Doctorow in particular (a) has a very strong agenda and (b) has a habit of reporting stories about Evil Government Plans from anonymous sources, probably because they drive traffic. He isn't a respected journalist or otherwise highly trustable figure. He is most noted for writing some fairly far out sci-fi, and working for the EFF.

      In short, this appears to be a repeat of the ACTA situation. Somebody says some government employees are planning something evil, but the exact nature of who or what cannot be reliably pinned down. Doctorow then reports it as fact.

      Boils down to who do I trust less - Mandelson or Doctorow? That's tough. Neither of them can be trusted.

    10. Re:WTF? by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you equate a strong point of view with trustworthiness. A better metric would be to judge by past accuracy or honesty.

      You don't have to agree with something to trust it. As an example, compare Fox News to The Economist. Both have a (from my point of view) very conservative slant, but one is manifestly more trustworthy than the other.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    11. Re:WTF? by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      No. Never. I think He Who Must Not Be Named got in because he has leverage on the incumbent govenrment, something that's saved him after being sacked severeal times. He's a very powerful guy...

    12. Re:WTF? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the Xbox story has to do with any of this. The Open Rights Group campaign on broader issues than just what the Government does, and things like allowing modding (which might be done for reasons other than piracy - e.g., running non-approved software such as Linux) or DRM seem perfectly valid causes for the ORG.

      I'm not sure that the BBC's poor straw man coverage of their side of the argument is the fault of the ORG - that's the fault of the BBC being biased.

  8. He's got about 70 days to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    UK elections due May. Gives ~70 days of parliamentary time left before this 'government' and all its legislative programme is gone.

  9. If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak" by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Informative

    But this is exactly up Darth Mandelson's alley. He truly and passionately believes in the utter dominance of the State over the individual. Of course, he plans to be a most benign dictator.

    For those not in the know, Lord Mandelson is the de facto ruler of the United Kingdom, and one of the chief architects of the European super state under the (also "benign") dictatorship of the unelected, unaccountable European Council of Ministers.

    He is the #1 threat to individual rights and freedoms in the UK and possibly in the whole of Europe. Think Palpatine, only with fruitier ties.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  10. War is being declared on UK citizens. by elucido · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is the same sort of moves that were made during prohibitions and during the war on drugs. They do not care about the consequences to the economy or about the UK citizen. He only cares about the people he really works for and thats the copyright cartel. This Mandelson works for the RIAA/MPAA. He is their man, not yours. If you want this to change then your man will have to be in that position.

    1. Re:War is being declared on UK citizens. by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

      Just wish we could work out how the c**t keeps getting back into powerful positions

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    2. Re:War is being declared on UK citizens. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Easy - powerful friends.

    3. Re:War is being declared on UK citizens. by Dusty101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yup. For those Slashdotters lacking some of the background on Mandelson's suddenly-developed interest in copyright law:

      http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6797844.ece

      (Not that I'm a Times reader or anything, but this story covers the background as well as many others).

    4. Re:War is being declared on UK citizens. by mrlarone · · Score: 1

      and lube i imagine.

  11. Undemocratic by mrjb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "What that means is that an unelected official would have the power to do anything without Parliamentary oversight or debate, provided it was done in the name of protecting copyright"

    Which means that it's undemocratic. If nobody can control this unelected official, what's to stop them from abusing their position? In my opinion, that's a bit too much power to be given to any individual.

    Would the (supposedly democratic) government be so kind to please start representing the people again already?

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:Undemocratic by mbone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except for sometimes in military affairs, it is an iron law that secrecy in Government is intended to cover up malfeasance. Like the ACTA, if it's secret it's bad.

    2. Re:Undemocratic by ignavus · · Score: 1

      It is actually a cunning plot: to make the people SO sick of copyright that we abolish it.

      So far, the plot is on course. We are sick of it.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
  12. sneaking .... by NoYob · · Score: 2, Interesting
    When a politician sneaks anything into law, I have to wonder what nefarious reasons he could have for doing it.

    Why does it have to be sneaked in?
    Is there something that is undemocratic about it?
    What is being hidden from debate?

    This is as bad as I've ever seen, folks. It's a declaration of war by the entertainment industry and their captured regulators against the principles of free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly, the presumption of innocence, and competition.

    I see. The entertainment industry is calling the shots.

    For Queen, Country and the Entertainment Industry.

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
  13. You need more by elucido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But you need more than new politicians. You need "your" politicians. You need more influence, and it will only change when people who profit from peer to peer are financing campaigns and getting people elected. It will only change when the political atmosphere changes. The old timer curmudgeons rule the political arena and until you put new minds not just new faces into these positions it will not change. Keep in mind that bribery/quid pro quo is how things get done and corruption is how things work.

    1. Re:You need more by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, well, we did that in 1997 and elected Labour. Right after that, Blair turned the party hard right, cut the Tories' balls off, and the rest is history. If the Lib Dems had ever been able to get their shit together, we might have had a chance, but now, we are just like the US, with two different flavours of corporatist parties. It's over.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:You need more by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Aye, England's finest politician is sorely missed.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:You need more by gedrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's been over for you for a long time. You live in a rapidly nationalizing, disarmed, surveilence society. The world needs the UK and her historic spirit of resolve. It makes me sad to think that it's gone. I hope I'm wrong.

      --
      Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
    4. Re:You need more by arthurpaliden · · Score: 4, Informative

      You need a law like we have in Canada that says only individual citizens can contribute, up to a set maximum per year, to political campaigns. No companies, organizations, unions or groups of any kind are allowed to contribute anything. So companies cannot overtly buy politicians.

    5. Re:You need more by pbhj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, well, we did that in 1997 and elected Labour.

      That's the problem right there, we didn't elect Labour but "New Labour" which is like labour but more Conservative so as to be sure the Tories didn't get in again.

    6. Re:You need more by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      Corruption and bribery may be a lot rarer than you think. Human ignorance is always abundant. Those in power tend to be older and have little understanding of open source and like all people they always deeply fear change. These older law makers usually struggle just to have enough energy to get out of bed and put their clothing on. Making really good decisions is something that is random with them despite good intentions.
      Trying to summon up enough energy to really consider the lack of merits in copyright law is just beyond these folks.

    7. Re:You need more by Canazza · · Score: 1

      They're not overtly buying them, it's totally covert (but blatant all the same)

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    8. Re:You need more by euxneks · · Score: 1

      They may not be overtly buying politicians, but they're still doing it.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    9. Re:You need more by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      "Advocacy Groups"
      "Issue Advertising"
      "Astroturfing"

      A company does not need to simply hand over money (or other direct assistance) to a politician, in order exert leverage.

    10. Re:You need more by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Meanwhile, here in the US the Supreme Court is about to rule that restrictions on corporate contributions are a violation of free speech. How it is that corporations have free speech rights, and how money is considered speech, I don't know.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:You need more by dave420 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The UK always supported nationalisation, until Maggie Thatcher that is. Even then she didn't privatise everything. Disarmed? Hardly - just handguns (shotguns and rifles are still available). Surveillance? Most cameras are owned by private people for private purposes, not by the state. I hear where you're coming from, but you seem to be sorely misinformed.

    12. Re:You need more by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      how money is considered speech, I don't know.

      Simple. 'Speak' to powerful people who like being 'spoken' to.

      I can't listen to the Pet Shop Boys song "Shopping" anymore. Too depressingly accurate.

    13. Re:You need more by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      The are many and varied ways around such laws. My favorite (that may now be illegal in the US) was for a friendly artist to give the politician artwork. (The the artist made themselves) The value of the artwork would be declared as the value of the materials plus a small amount for the artist's time.
      Then, after a period of time, the artwork would be "sold" at auction. Amazingly, the only bidders at this auction would be supporters of the politician. The bids would go up to what the supported really wanted to give the pol, way beyond what the limit was.
      There are always ways around campaign contribution limits. Another favorite is for a rich person to give less well off supporters of the politician money which they then contribute. If gifts like this are banned, they give the supporters jobs in which they don't have to do anything real, and get paid way too much. Then they give most of their earnings to the politician.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    14. Re:You need more by Gandalf_the_Beardy · · Score: 1

      HE never made Parliament sadly. At least this one entered it with honest intentions... http://order-order.com/

    15. Re:You need more by shentino · · Score: 1

      If you aren't a crook, you'll never get on the ballot to begin with.

      Both candidates are cherry picked by the Old Guard in each party, which means that anyone who has even half a sense of decency will never make it past the corporate trough-feeders.

      So your only choices each election have already been vetted by plenty of special interests.

    16. Re:You need more by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

      I agree with this

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
    17. Re:You need more by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 1

      Well, correct me if I'm wrong but the term "money talks" seems to have come from the US, so I guess that'd be the reason.

      --
      Silly rabbit
    18. Re:You need more by twostix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What extraordinary cognitive dissonance.

      How can the party that has expanded the size of government to a size never before seen in the entire western world which employs one in four people in the workforce, has allowed unfettered immigration in an open and cynical attempt to change the culture, waged open class warfare against the middle and upper class family AND created the biggest welfare state in the western world possibly be called "conservative".

      Nu Labour are authoritarian LEFT. When they got in they ran to the extreme LEFT, not right.

      Authoritarian right is just as bad in different ways (shutting borders, looking after the upper class to the expense of everyone else, etc) but the current Labour party in the UK are the very definition of authoritarian champagne socialists.

      I mean how far more left do you want them to go?? There's nothing more in the left wing ideology that they can possibly fulfil, every box has been checked, every government programme run and every aspect of every part of the country fiddled with, altered, over regulated or suppressed in an attempt to reshape it and control it as they see fit.

      If you think the current labour party of not left wing I shudder to think what it is exactly that you want.

    19. Re:You need more by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Curious, how is television advertising controlled in Canada? In the US corporations, collectives, etc.. usually spend tons of money advertising "their views" for a candidate. They didn't donate, they are just exercising "free speech".

    20. Re:You need more by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Under the Act, a third party may spend a total of $150,000* on election advertising. It cannot spend more than $3,000* on advertising to promote or oppose the election of one or more candidates in a given electoral district – for example, by naming one or more candidates, showing their likenesses, identifying them by their respective political affiliations, or taking a position on an issue with which one or more candidates are particularly associated.

    21. Re:You need more by Smegly · · Score: 2

      What extraordinary cognitive dissonance.

      I think you need to check your political compass: UK Parties 2008

    22. Re:You need more by Leynos · · Score: 1

      >waged open class warfare against the middle and upper class family

      Just wondering. I consider myself middle class, and I've never felt under attack. What is it that you consider to be open warfare?

      I'm not a Labour supporter and have never voted for them. I'm just a little confused whenever I hear this statement.

      Perhaps it's because I don't have a car or children that I am insulated from such changes?

      Thanks.

      --
      "Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
    23. Re:You need more by horza · · Score: 1

      How can the party that has expanded the size of government to a size never before seen in the entire western world which employs one in four people in the workforce

      Eh? I live in France, a few km across the water, and last time I checked around 40% of the country worked for the government.

      has allowed unfettered immigration in an open and cynical attempt to change the culture

      England has always welcomed immigrants, especially from our former colonies. For the most part they have been of great benefit to our society and our economy. Having bloody good Indian restaurants is one change I don't mind.

      waged open class warfare against the middle and upper class family

      I'll give you that one.

      AND created the biggest welfare state in the western world possibly be called "conservative"

      Still one of the smallest welfare states in the West. Try looking at Germany, France and Spain. ...

      If you think the current labour party of not left wing I shudder to think what it is exactly that you want.

      Could be worse. Imagine Ken Livingstone as Prime Minister?

      Phillip.

    24. Re:You need more by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Curious, how is television advertising controlled in Canada? In the US corporations, collectives, etc.. usually spend tons of money advertising "their views" for a candidate. They didn't donate, they are just exercising "free speech".

      There is no “free speech” in Canada. Remember? We’re the redcoats.

      I have a flag in my house that I fly every June 24th. That flag is banned (it is prohibited to sell it), and I can be sent to jail for flying it.

      Like 85% of people in Canada, I believe that we should get rid of the queen. Ooops, that’s “sedition”. I can be sent to jail for saying that.

      So with a context like this, it's a no-brainer to restrict who can say whatever during an election.

      And we don’t have the slightest problem with it.

    25. Re:You need more by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      government to a size never before seen in the entire western world which employs one in four people in the workforce

      I think you need to stop getting your facts from Daily Mail headlines. Unless of course you can provide a reliable citation to back those claims up?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:You need more by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Trying to summon up enough energy to really consider the lack of merits in copyright law is just beyond these folks.

      Perhaps, but we aren't talking about the merits of copyright law, we are talking about a law that basically lets Mandelson make new laws, raise troops to enforce them, and give arbitrary sentences for breaking them all by himself - in other words, it gives him dictatorial power. If a lawmaker can't understand or summon the energy to care about that...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  14. you know by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the law versus technological progress is a pretty heavily loaded contest

    please study your history on the outcome of these contests

    a lot of supposedly smart, but hopelessly old (not necessarily chronologically, just in terms of anyone set in their thinking) people just do NOT understand the full implications of the internet

    again, for anyone who's missed it, even though hearing it for the 1,000th time isn't probably going to finally open your eyes:

    the internet has effectively replaced pre-internet distribution models. copyright law consists of gentleman's agreements between major publishers from that era. you cannot extend those gentleman's agreements to random anonymous teenagers the world over. rather, random anonymous teenagers the world over will compel you to rewrite fundamental copyright law, simply because its completely unenforceable in a new technological reality

    were you listening? do you get it yet? do you understand?

    no?

    well then onward with the fucking copyright secret police then brave soldier. whatever. fucking retarded. i guess we just need to wait for certain closed minds to just fucking die already like the ossified dinosaurs they are then. stubborn ignorant blind obstacles to progress

    ten thousand lawyers, government paper pushers, and enforcement goons

    versus

    ten million media hungry, technologically savvy, and most importantly, POOR teenagers

    figure it out

    you lose, you fucking morons

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you know by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are wrong about the purpose/origin of copyright law. Copyright law was written to protect against someone else profiting from "stealing" your creative work. It was not designed to keep me from copying your stuff for my own use. Until the advent of computers it to some degree it had that effect. The cost of producing copies was high enough that, for most people, it was more cost efficient (counting both time and money) to buy a copy from the copyright holder (although with the advent of home recording devices that began to change).
      As the cost of copying dropped with modern technology, many companies that based their business on distributing copyrighted material wanted to use the reduced cost of producing copies to increase their profit, intending to use copyright law to prevent people from using the now affordable methods to produce copies for their own personal use from obtaining copies.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:you know by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      That's as may be, but there's nothing in copyright law that says that it's ok as long as you can do it cheaply. (In fact under UK copyright law you are not allowed to rip CDs to other formats for use on an iPod, etc - there is no personal use exception.)

      Intent is worthless if the language doesn't back it up by codifying it in the law.

  15. So confused by jschen · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought piracy was the key to stopping global warming. Why are they trying to speed up global warming?

  16. I don't get it... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    How do you SNEAK something into a law? Doesn't it have to go through a ton of revisions and get voted on and all that jazz?

    If the system is set up in such a way that people can put in new constraints without anyone noticing it, I'd say thats pretty broken.

    1. Re:I don't get it... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Politicians in the UK do not vote on 'all or nothing'. They can vote on individual clauses in bills, raise new ones, and (between the two houses) send a bill back a couple of times for revision and wording changes.

      It's rare for a bill to pass unchanged. It's common for the opposition to vote for 95% of a bill and stand against the government on the one or two clauses that differ from their own policy.

    2. Re:I don't get it... by Wowsers · · Score: 1

      How to sneak something into UK law, easy, you use what's called the "Statutory Instrument". It was beefed up and abused by the current crooked government, and it allows ANY law to be passed without anyone in The House of Commons or House of Lords EVER having seen it.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/jan/14/statutory-instruments-parliament

      If you're looking for an answer to the question - how does Labour make so much law without anyone noticing? - and if you want to know how 3,000 new offences have been created, over a third of which carry prison sentences, then you are half way there. The shocking abuse of secondary legislation, usually referred to by the term "statutory instruments", is one of the scandals of our time.

      Statutory instruments - ministerial diktats by any other name - are a way of making sure that little is debated or scrutinised by MPs. With their increasing use, power passes from the chamber of the House of Commons and parliamentary committees to ministers and ultimately to senior civil servants, a naturally undemocratic group who think of the public as an awkward managerial problem.

      The provisions, which are inserted in a bill and allow the government to amend or repeal the legislation without debate are known as Henry VIII clauses. With good reason: they were named after Henry VIII's Statute of Proclamation of 1539, which gave him the power to make law by proclamation.

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    3. Re:I don't get it... by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      How do you SNEAK something into a law? ... If the system is set up in such a way that people can put in new constraints without anyone noticing it, I'd say thats pretty broken.

      One quote for you:

      "It's now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors' expenses?"
      -- Jo Moore, Labour Party spin doctor, September 11, 2001

      The key is distraction. (Note that Moore's advice was followed to the letter.) As far as I'm aware US politicians have several further methods in addition to distraction: such as pork, or the way that the PATRIOT Act was handled (voting on laws before anyone has time to read them).

  17. Nobody knows what a politician believes. by elucido · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Lets accept that politicians are bribed robots programmed by moneyed masters.

    The reason the RIAA/MPAA copyright cartel is making the rules in this instance is because they won over the moneyed masters who control the politicians. If you support limited copyright rather than unlimited then you are in the minority of the moneyed masters because in most cases unlimited copyright just like some of the scams on wallstreet is free money. The owner of the copyright doesn't have to work for it.

    I'm not against copyright but I'm against using copyright infringement as a political weapon.

  18. It's the UK, what do you expect? by elucido · · Score: 1

    Doesn't the UK have a house of Lords? Wasn't the house of Lords unelected officials?

    Fill m in on UK politics if I'm wrong but this seems to be how they always operate.

    1. Re:It's the UK, what do you expect? by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but at times the House of Lords is the only thing standing between the House of Commons (the elected one) and some truly asinine, knee-jerk legislation.

      By being unelected and essentially in the job for life, they don't have to worry about pandering to the populist cause of the moment and can (theoretically) take a more level-headed view on things.

      Why do you think NuLabour has spent so much time and effort slowly chipping away at the Lords? They're tired of being forced to introduce less batshit insane laws...

    2. Re:It's the UK, what do you expect? by Raemond · · Score: 1

      Yes but the Lords tend to stay in their legislative chamber in the House of Lords, not be part of the Cabinet (executive). We have enough problems trying to reform their chamber without them trying to insinuate themselves into executive power.

      For some dark deal of a reason Mandy got back into Brown's good books and got positions and titles heaped on him. All without us, the electorate, having voted him in again (impossible) nor having a way of getting rid of him without a general election. He should be ashamed of himself first for taking a position counter to British political democratic ideals (note: though not reality), and so should we for allowing such a system to persist.

      Grr. Annoyed.

    3. Re:It's the UK, what do you expect? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      We still do, and it historically worked surprisingly well for a number of reasons.

      The Lords can't pass laws on their own. In fact, I don't think they can even propose laws under normal circumstances (though there's no law stopping them from making a suggestion to the right people, I suppose...). What they can do is debate and amend laws which are going through the parliamentary process.

      Most of the lords were from well-off families (which made them harder to bribe), had been educated in top schools (best education money can buy, and frankly in most cases money can buy a much better education than the state can provide) and because they weren't elected, they didn't have to worry about whether their stance on an issue would impact their re-election. Of course, in the strict sense of the word it is elitist but there's no intrinsic reason an elitist system can't work pretty well.

      The Labour government has got rid of most of the hereditary seats in the House of Lords, replacing them with people appointed by, er, the Labour government.

    4. Re:It's the UK, what do you expect? by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      In fact, I don't think they can even propose laws under normal circumstances (though there's no law stopping them from making a suggestion to the right people, I suppose...).

      Laws can be introduced directly to the lords, it happens if the ministerial responsibility for the bill lies with a Government Minister who's a Peer. Peers can also introduce private members bills; indeed, if a backbencher managed to get a bill through the commons they would need to find a Lord to introduce it there. but as in the commons, these almost never become law. Obviously a bill started in the Lords still has to be passed by the commons before receiving Royal accent.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    5. Re:It's the UK, what do you expect? by BeShaMo · · Score: 1

      This is sadly true, the one thing that is preventing the passing of some truly horrific laws is a body of unelected upperclass twits, and they do a surprisingly good job. Makes you wonder about democracy when we have to be protected from our elected officials by people who gained their power through birth. Of course, as you say, Labour has done their very best to chip away their power, by using a combination of popularist issues (foxhunting) and the very obvious fact that they are not Democratic.

  19. Cute name by R2.0 · · Score: 1

    Will Major Major Major report to him?

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  20. Mandelson - Palin Cage Fight by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know your government is truly in the gutter when an American begins to criticize its brazen corruption and abject stupidity. How the hell are you guys still stuck with Mandelson?

    1. Re:Mandelson - Palin Cage Fight by peterprior · · Score: 1

      He came in through the back door ;)

  21. A Tad Biased by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Secretary of State Peter Mandelson is planning to introduce changes to the Digital Economy Bill now under debate in Parliament.

    So that's what you consider secret? I mean, it sounds bad but I probably wouldn't flip out until it's actually introduced and added to the bill. I guess I'm not an expert on UK law ... by saying "planning to introduce" do you mean it's already law? If not, I would expect parliament to be highly suspect of the introduction of something designed to give the Secretary of State such power ... when it's introduced by the Secretary of State.

    This is as bad as I've ever seen, folks.

    So, it's worse than ACTA (which affects the entire world)?

    It's a declaration of war by the entertainment industry and their captured regulators against the principles of free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly, the presumption of innocence, and competition.

    Are you aware what "declaration of war" and "captured" mean? How about swapping that out with "threat of control" and "purchased"? I mean, if it's a declaration of war then the populace should just capture their parliament as prisoners of war, right?

    This proposal creates the office of Pirate-Finder General, with unlimited power to appoint militias who are above the law, who can pry into every corner of your life, who can disconnect you from your family, job, education and government, who can fine you or put you in jail.

    That's it. You had a really informative post going there but that last part is a level of fear mongering I haven't seen since the United States invaded Iraq.

    I heavily suspect you are being played as an unwitting rube by the party opposite of those planning to introduce this. If you had kept your post informative I'd have gobbled it up but at this point I'm dubious that another propaganda tool isn't at work somewhere along this channel.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:A Tad Biased by The+Sandbag · · Score: 1

      Ah no the party opposite are mostly in support, you see were run by utter baboons in this country who have absolutely no idea about tech and progress and want to still e in the 1950 prudish post war England.

    2. Re:A Tad Biased by dissy · · Score: 1

      Are you aware what "declaration of war" and "captured" mean? How about swapping that out with "threat of control" and "purchased"? I mean, if it's a declaration of war then the populace should just capture their parliament as prisoners of war, right?

      I know you were being sarcastic, but actually I like your idea!

      Quick, someone photoshop up a declaration of war from the media cartels, and lets get to work.
      I'll go warm up the waterboards!

    3. Re:A Tad Biased by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      Waterboarding, actually, is a dish best served cold.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    4. Re:A Tad Biased by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      If not, I would expect parliament to be highly suspect of the introduction of something designed to give the Secretary of State such power ... when it's introduced by the Secretary of State.

      Ha! I wish.

      Various MPs might - if the changes are even debated - express suspicion, but that means nothing when the majority Government can vote the new bill in. The only real hope to bring in amendments to bills is in the House of Lords.

    5. Re:A Tad Biased by selven · · Score: 1

      I mean, if it's a declaration of war then the populace should just capture their parliament as prisoners of war, right?

      That's a pretty darned good idea.

  22. Palin wouldn't do this. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Funny

    Palin might make you read the bible and believe in creationism, but other than that, her government wouldn't be involved in this sort of stuff.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Palin wouldn't do this. by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 1

      Palin might make you read the bible and believe in creationism, but other than that, her government wouldn't be involved in this sort of stuff.

      Mod parent funny.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    2. Re:Palin wouldn't do this. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Someone, I think it was Colbert, nailed Palin recently, they showed a pie chart with (something like) 28% of Americans thinking it would be great to have Sarah Palin run for president, and then the remaining 72% thinking it was hilarious.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Palin wouldn't do this. by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      really. I don't give a fig whether she'd be good or bad as president. All I know is she couldn't be stupider than say, Reagan, or Bush; given today's politics is much more about style over substance, she'd probably make an excellent president.

      That's the thing you should be worrying about, not Palin herself.

    4. Re:Palin wouldn't do this. by sweatyboatman · · Score: 4, Funny

      All I know is she couldn't be stupider than say, Reagan, or Bush

      Sarah Palin accepts your challenge.

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    5. Re:Palin wouldn't do this. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Well, I dislike her style. Intensely.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Palin wouldn't do this. by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > Colbert, nailed Palin recently

      ah, sweet daydreams...

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    7. Re:Palin wouldn't do this. by maxume · · Score: 1

      I meant that they accurately and succinctly characterized her political prospects, not sexual intercourse.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Palin wouldn't do this. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Well... Palin doesn't have a chance in hell of winning a presidency, but you're right she's no dumber than Bush Junior. Probably smarter. And Obama, intelligent as he is, demonstrates that that doesn't make you a good president either. In fact here's a rundown of presidential IQs (estimated). I'm just going to offer my opinion of which presidents were good or bad during their office term. Hmmm. It appears the smartest are also the worst (IMHO)

      Summary:
      bad - 1. John Quincy Adams, IQ 175 - protective tariffs - single termer - split Democrats in half
      good - 2. Thomas Jefferson, 160 - our best president
      bad - 3. John F. Kennedy, 159.8 - got us into Vietnam War; makes him no better than Bush imho
      bad - 4. Bill Clinton, 159 - scandal; failure to deal with Bin Laden; crash of 2000
      bad - 5. Jimmy Carter, 156.8 - duh
      bad - 6. Woodrow Wilson, 155.2 - promised to keep us out of WW1 - lied; arrested protesters against the war; imprisoned women asking for voting rights

      bad - 7. Theodore Roosevelt, 153 - broke-up corporations- unconstitutional; took land from states without just compensation
      good - 8. Chester A. Arthur, 152.3 - ended the spoils system of governance; replaced it with a merit system
      bad - 9. Abraham Lincoln, 150 - suspended habeas corpus to jail American citizens without trial; ignored Supreme Court decisions; basically he acted like Bush

      http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/pops/2006/00000027/00000004/art00001;jsessionid=1i07kdv5wgn5p.alexandra?format=print

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  23. Yeah, but it takes hundreds of years. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Well, look at how many hundreds of years, wars and world wars it took for the printing press to trump governments and it still doesn't do that in most of the non-western world. The only technology that usually always wins is guns, and that is why we have a 2nd amendment.

    --
    This is my sig.
  24. Analogue pirates by Potor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah - perhaps they could could better worry about the analogue pirates off the Horn of Africa.

    1. Re:Analogue pirates by Zordak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When I first read the headline, I literally thought, "Cool, the Brits are going to build a super-secret navy to hunt down pirates and send those bad boys to Davy Jones' locker!" Then I was disappointed when I read the summary and realized these would just be lame copyright police. I WANT A SECRET NAVY!

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    2. Re:Analogue pirates by dgr73 · · Score: 1

      Considering how well the international navy's fight against the Pirates of the Indian Ocean is going, i'm sure Skid Row would be shaking in their boots.

  25. This is why leaks are important. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

    What the subject says...

  26. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    He is the #1 threat to individual rights and freedoms in the UK

    And that's with some pretty damn stiff competition for the title from Jack "Boots" Straw and Blunkett, too. I'd tip my hat to him, if I wore one, and didn't despise pretty-much everything he stands for.

  27. Opposites? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Mandelson - Palin Cage Fight

    I guess you must have put that pairing together because Palin is the natural enemy of this kind of liberal fascism - Palin is a small government Libertarian, not some maniacal power-seeking despot.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Opposites? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      > Palin is a small government Libertarian AHAHHAHAH

      > not some maniacal power-seeking despot. AHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHH!

      It must have been some OTHER Palin who screwed up her town and then her state.

      The trollish AC response is pretty much on the nose.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  28. What he really cares about... by swb · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is ensuring he has a new Mercedes S600 every year, a decent yacht, a few homes, unlimited access to private jets, and access to the best schools for his children.

    1. Re:What he really cares about... by serveto · · Score: 2, Funny

      I he's not into the having children thing, if you get my drift.

    2. Re:What he really cares about... by swb · · Score: 1

      OK, then strike that and change, "access to the best boys available."

    3. Re:What he really cares about... by aedan · · Score: 1

      Aluminium magnets? Are they transparent?

  29. the gun itself is a disruptive technology by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it helped destroyed the feudal code and the social stratification that came with that

    "The only technology that usually always wins is guns, and that is why we have a 2nd amendment."

    i don't know where this fantasy cam from that yahoos in the backwoods are somehow protecting us from fascism. if anything, if our democracy is destroyed by fascism, it will be yahoos in the backwoods with guns who are the shock troops of that fascism

    just study what these rabid teabaggers think about the need to "protect" the "real" america from (modern urban existence) and how they intend to do that: with a gun. this is the soil in which fascism grows, not a bulwark against it

    the second amendment is about native americans, british and french running around in the backwoods. which isn't a reality anymore. the second amendment is a quaint historical anachronism, that has been reinterpretted and repurposed by vaguely paranoid schizophrenic rural folk to put them in a starring role as heroes and saviors in the valiant struggle against modern urban politics

    problem is, demographically, the united states is majority urban nowdays. meaning rural folk will have to give up their guns at some point, since the country will only accelerate towards urbanization. reverence of the second amendment as if it were the word of god is a rural thing, not an urban thing. it is inevitable, but gun control will only tick up in this country, as it should

    in urban environments, guns are not tools of the valiant struggle against fascist scoundrels (cue ride of the valkyries and slip dirty harry into the dvd player and dream about boy scout wish-fulfillment fantastic scenarios), but simply the tools of moronic thugs to unleash senseless tragedy

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the gun itself is a disruptive technology by tjstork · · Score: 1

      s heroes and saviors in the valiant struggle against modern urban politics

      We yahoos in the backwoods would argue that attempting to enforce a national urban politic on American as a whole is actually a sort of fascism on the part of the left.

      --
      This is my sig.
    2. Re:the gun itself is a disruptive technology by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>just study what these rabid teabaggers think about the need to "protect" the "real" america from (modern urban existence) and how they intend to do that: with a gun. this is the soil in which fascism grows, not a bulwark against it
      >>>

      Ahem.

      I walked in one of those protests (back in December 08) and generally support their mission. I'm no more radical than Daniel Jackson on SG1. In brief, "teabaggers" share the same ideas you would find if you read the works of James Madison or Thomas Jefferson. That's it. Sorry to disappoint you with the lack of radicalism. ----- As for "modern urban existence", I shall assume you mean a government-provided healthcare monopoly, since that's currently the hot topic.

      - I believe in the right to get health or sickcare.
      - I also believe in the right to choose smoking, drinking, or overeating as a lifestyle.
      - I even believe you have the right to replace your damaged lung, liver, or fatty heart.
      What I do Not believe is that you can raid your neighbors' wallets to pay the bill.
      I do Not believe you are entitled to other people's labor.

      And last but certainly not least, our debt rose 6 trillion under Bush and is projected to rise 11 trillion under Obama (until 2016). I fear that we are on the verge of economic collapse, as do most of the Tea Bag Protesters. All we are saying is, "Please stop spending like a teenager with a credit card. You are putting our children and grandchildren deep into debt." That's not such a radical request. Currently it's about $120,000 per U.S. home, but it's projected to be almost $200,000 by 2017.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:the gun itself is a disruptive technology by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Currently it's about $120,000 per U.S. home

      Lat time I posted this people didn't believe me and then tried to claim it's only $40,000. Well here's the numbers so you can verify them yourself: 12 trillion dollars divided by 100 million households == about $120,000 per home

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:the gun itself is a disruptive technology by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Here's another debt clock, this one's been ticking for years already: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  30. RE:"Pirate Finder General" by Ruvim · · Score: 1

    Very well... It should greatly improve UK's chances of apprehending Somali pirates and preventing any further boardings and hijackings! I just don't understand why it's filed under "Your Rights Online" section?

    Oh....

  31. Lame Duck Government by mbone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The UK just had the Queen's speech, which was widely regarded as full of things that will never come to pass, as this government most likely has only a few months to live. Even the Queen seemed dubious.

    Can someone who is actually plugged into UK politics tell us the likelihood that this would be passed by the current lame-duck government ?

    1. Re:Lame Duck Government by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      this government most likely has only a few months to live

      Most likely? It's coming to the end of its term, and legally must call a general election by (iirc) July 2010.

    2. Re:Lame Duck Government by damburger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are starting from a false assumption; that the election will result in a change of government. Don't get me wrong, the Tories are certain to win - but there will be no real change in government.

      Consider that The Sun, owned by News International, has publicly changed its allegiance from Labour to Tory, indicating that the Tories are now in Murdoch's pocket; given that we know well the views News International have about the Internet, do you not think the next government will continue the same anti-freedom policies and abuse the laws that Mandelson is proposing?

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    3. Re:Lame Duck Government by Cederic · · Score: 1

      And yet, with Mandelson in charge, I'm not putting my money on anything..

    4. Re:Lame Duck Government by asc99c · · Score: 1

      It's not really a lame duck government in comparison to the last republican government after the midterms. Most of the recent local elections have gone to the conservatives, but the vast majority of seats are still occupied by Labour - according to parliament.uk:
      Labour: 350
      Conservative: 193
      Liberal Democrat: 63
      Total Seats: 646

      The government still has a substantial absolute majority - enough to push through just about any laws they want as long as they can pressure their own MPs into voting along party lines.

      Somehow the current government has tweaked the voting areas to give themselves an ever bigger advantage and not many people seem to have noticed or care - and they already had a substantial advantage in this regard before the changes.

      At the 2005 general election, Labour won just 36% of the popular vote, which gave them 355 seats. Conservatives won 33% to get 198 seats. So a fairly close result gave Labour a massive parliamentary majority. By comparison in 1992, when the Conservatives last won a general election, they took 42% of the vote (much better than Labour in 2005) and won 336 seats (only just a majority and less than Labour gets from a 36% vote!). Labour's 34% gave them 271 seats (nearly 50% more for 1% of popular vote).

      Factors like this mean the Conservatives aren't yet 100% sure they can win the next election, even though the popular vote looks certain.

    5. Re:Lame Duck Government by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be fun if Mandelson ALSO changes allegiance to the Tories?

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    6. Re:Lame Duck Government by damburger · · Score: 1

      Won't happen. Mandelsons allegiance has been, and always will be, to Satan himself.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    7. Re:Lame Duck Government by jimicus · · Score: 1

      They've proposed a list of legislation as long as your arm and there has to be an election at some point before July next year - which means any legislation realistically needs to be passed before then. My guess is they'll have to prioritise and I'm not sure how high this would be on the priorities list.

      It's not a vote winner, but at the same time it's being put forward by Mandelson, who is the original zombie politician - just when you thought he was dead he comes back again.

      The consensus of opinion is, IMO, that this government will lose the next election. But don't count your chickens - it wouldn't be the first time a government which most people thought was in its dying gasps somehow got re-elected.

  32. No consequences. by damburger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Politicians are offered incentives to fuck over human beings, but face no consequences for doing so. Now, I'm not normally one to consider people as pure incentive-following machines - but politicians aren't people in the strictest sense. They are psychopaths.

    Look at Tony Blair. He lied to start an illegal war which killed probably hundreds of thousands of people. He left office when he chose to, and is now living comfortably, despite what he did. Why wouldn't a British politician simply do as they will? They know they are fucking untouchable.

    I'm trying to think of sane and enlightened ways the people can deal with this situation, but the only thing running through my mind is sic semper tyrannis. They need, somehow, to fear the consequences of their actions.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:No consequences. by damburger · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Blair didn't have to send British troops over there and participate in mass murder on behalf of corporate interests.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    2. Re:No consequences. by PeterAitch · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it is well-established that the catch-22 of politics is that those who want the top jobs shouln't be allowed anywhere near them because they are simply too dangerous once in office.

      For the benefit of our American cousins, just think of Mandelson as an unholy combination of Rasputin and Goebbels.

    3. Re:No consequences. by horza · · Score: 1

      What does the Iraq war have to do a Digital Rights bill? The war wasn't illegal as it passed through Parliament. Same as if this bill gets altered and passed then the government will be legally allowed to send random people back into the information stone age. Mandelson will get rewarded by his buddies, much like Tony Blair is being rewarded by probably becoming President of Europe.

      You do know you can become a politician yourself if you want to change things. Put down a £500 deposit and your name on the ballot paper. Or you can be a journalist and work for a non-Murdoch paper. Or run a political blog. Or create a lobby group along the lines of the EFF. A sane enlightened way is to get off your arse and do something yourself.

      Phillip.

    4. Re:No consequences. by damburger · · Score: 1

      How touchingly naive. I left behind the notion that I could change things a long time ago; I am not a billionaire, therefore I am powerless. Even working alongside other powerless people I am powerless; just look at the Iraq war protests. The largest protest march ever and it changed not one thing.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  33. yes, copyright's quaint idealistic beginnings by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    and, much like early earnest well-meaning idealistic communists would probably recoil in horror at what communism really meant: authoritarian terror, those who originally intended copyright law as a way to protect authors would recoil in horror that the legal framework is nothing more than a tool of DISTRIBUTORS to line their pockets by taxing our culture

    if you think copyright law is about protecting creators, then thanks for the laugh

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:yes, copyright's quaint idealistic beginnings by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded that most copyrighted works of previous centuries were done essentially as work for hire, so yes, the protection really was for the distributors, all the way back. Only rarely was the creator also the distributor, and not very often the owner of the work either.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  34. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Straw and Blunkett were amateur blunderers. They made the mistake of going through the motions of doing consultations and producing detailed legislative plans, which really hampered them.

    Mandelson has spotted that instead of bothering with this tiresome "laws" nonsense, he can just churn out two or three absolutely bonkers dictats per week. The sheer volume of administrative evil makes it hard to oppose him; by the time you've mounted a defence to any of his plots, he's busy announcing the next one.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  35. oh sure by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    you can make life miserable for a few unlucky enough to be caught, but you can't change reality. and the reality of the situation is, the rich goons aren't rich enough to alter the fundamental rules of the internet

    the rest of your comment reeks of defeatism and capitulation to force. unless you live in tehran, i suggest you think about what your cowardice means in the real world. the rich goons win partly by depending upon people who think like you to do nothing. every authoritarian regime exists partly because of the resignation of the defeated masses, which is the essence of the content of your thoughts: you think like a sheep

    via your ridiculous levels of fear and negativity, you are part of the problem, you aid the rich goons. now i'm not asking to man the barricades and throw molotov cocktails, all i'm asking you to do is simply say something positive and supportive, or to shut up

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:oh sure by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      you can make life miserable for a few unlucky enough to be caught, but you can't change reality. and the reality of the situation is, the rich goons aren't rich enough to alter the fundamental rules of the internet

      The problem is, they just might be. We already have the DMCA in the US and the EUCD in Europe. Three-strikes legislation is being actively pushed for in several places, even after being turned down once already in some of those places. Copyright infringement has already been criminalised under some circumstances in several places.

      If you think they can't impose mandatory monitoring/filtering on ISPs and then issue arbitrary, disproportionate fines to thousands or even millions of people, you're new at this. Look at speeding fines generated automatically from start to finish based on roadside cameras, or the summary powers available to police officers in many jurisdictions these days for that matter.

      It doesn't help that a lot of the people who take your view actually are flagrantly violating the more reasonable parts of copyright law for personal gain and freeloading off the work of others. The balance of copyright law is wrong and going in the wrong direction IMHO, and I do oppose things like copyright term extension, and I do support a right for individuals with legitimate copies of works to make personal use those works as they see fit in private. But those aren't the people the industry is going after for the most part; they're going after those who are openly trading (or outright selling) copies of the latest pop tracks and Hollywood blockbusters.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  36. I thnik they mean ... by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

    The Pirate Smeller Pursuivant?

  37. Lower Tadfield needs it by Bold_Cucumber · · Score: 1

    Now they just need to appoint a new witchfinder.

  38. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

    Being slowly shredded by the irked fingernails of a million disgruntled voters is far more appropriate than just a plain bullet. With shooting, it's over too quickly and far too impersonal ;)

    --
    Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
  39. Hey, I Know! We'll Send You Geithner... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    ...kill two birds with one stone.

  40. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    It's too bad you folks in the UK let them take your guns away, or you might have other options available to you. (At the very least, the UK government might fear the people instead of the other way around)

    They always have throwing knives and bombs.

  41. "Pirate finder general" by tdobson · · Score: 2, Funny

    I didn't think finding Pirates was difficult.

    Buy a boat, sail past somalia, and THEY'LL COME TO YOU!

    1. Re:"Pirate finder general" by Houndofhell · · Score: 1

      Aah, but its a Pirate Finding General.

      That means he'll be stuck back on dry land in Britain waving his fist in the approximate direction of Somalia

  42. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

    Think Palpatine, only with fruitier ties.

    with love and respect John, "think Palpatine, only fruitier" is more appropriate.

  43. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by apmonte · · Score: 1

    I wasn't suggesting that anyone be assassinated. It sets a bad prescedent for when your guy is in power and the other side disagrees with his position. I meant to imply that it's far easier to suppress a people that have no means to easily rise up in response. At what point do a governed people turn on that government and establish a new one? It clearly can not be done through the election process with the current system.

  44. Finally by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's great that the UK is going to dedicate a whole branch of government to fight something as important as piracy off the coast of Somalia...

          Oh wait, what?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  45. England has a great history of piracy by Megane · · Score: 1
    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  46. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    It's too bad you folks in the UK let them take your guns away, or you might have other options available to you.

    Which explains why the US was led by George W. Bush for such a short period: you have guns available, so as your nation gave up even the pretense of due process and respect for your own Constitution in the name of wars on abstract nouns, watched your economy crumble and the ongoing rise of the mighty corporations, and introduced infringements of privacy and civil liberties at least as draconian as many of those going on elsewhere in the world, you... elected the guy a second time, let him serve a full second term, and then let him retire quietly to a life of riches with no apparent remorse for the mess he made during his time in office. Yeah, guns are definitely the answer to people like this. Right. Absolutely.

    In the real world, violence rarely helps anything. At best, it provides a temporary respite or a catalyst for change that already had a solid basis. You have to be in a pretty extreme position, effectively civil war and changing your entire system of government forcibly, before violence really gains you anything, and even then it's only good for creating an opportunity to change and not much use if the change isn't a good one in its own right. If the only way you can make your point is through violence then the chances are that once you stop beating it into people you'll lose the debate again anyway. This is true of anything from police abusing their authority to waging war to physical abuse of public officials.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  47. Guy Fawkes by Houndofhell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's the thing the politicans don't understand.

    We celebrate Bonfire night not because he failed to blow up parliament but because he had the idea.

    We're all just waiting for the next guy to come along and pull it off

  48. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yeah yeah - every damn time something on the UK comes up, some nutter attributes it to our lack of firearms.

    Tell you what - try actually doing something against your own Governments anti-liberty antics with your oh-so-precious guns before coming back and suggesting we lament the loss of ours*.

    *Not that we ever actually had them - please remember the UK and its Government pre-dates guns.

  49. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, 'cause you Yanks can sure show 'em a thing or two with your handguns against squads of armored SWAT teams with grenades and automatic weapons, helicopter support, and the latest in anti-riot gear. Worked well at WACO. Good luck with that.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  50. This is not flamebait. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I completely disagree with the parent post. I am one of the backwoods yahoos that he talks about. But, what this guy wrote is not flamebait.

    --
    This is my sig.
  51. Yar! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Mandelson goes on to explain that he wants this so he can create private copyright militias

    Ah, Privateers!

  52. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

    What I said was meant as a joke... but surely if you say Brits should never have let th egov take their guns away... surely you're advocating shooting someone with them? Or is the mere fact that that populace have guns meant to deter the government from running roughshod over the voters?

    --
    Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
  53. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by apmonte · · Score: 1

    I guess I should have wrote a book to explain my statement more clearly, and I would encourage you to read my response to another poster in this same thread. Quote from Thomas Jefferson: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." My statement was intended to convey that it's harder to refresh that tree of liberty when the general poulace has limited means to do so. The UK and Australia seem to have incrementally reduced the liberties of their citizens. (The US is probably on the same path, but just lagging) I doubt that either are at the breaking point yet, but at what point do the people say enough, and how do they then effect that change? Pitchforks will likely not stand up well against the homeland security forces. If you believe it's in the voting booth, then you have more faith in the current system than I do. (at least in the US) I'll try to make my future postings more clear.

  54. Meanwhile in a cave in Afghanistan.... by thrillbert · · Score: 1

    Osama bin laden says "hahahaha! Those stupid western infidels are more worried about catching 14yo Billy Johnson than they are of catching me or my 18 virgins! I knew that buying stock in the world wide movie industry would pay off.. now, you, child of allah, did you get my copy of the movie 2012 from Mandelson???"

  55. Re:Yeah, and you were expecting what? by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The answer is not to ignore the judiciary, penalise innocent people and throw away the principles embodied in the Magna Carta.

    The answer is to encourage copyright holders to leverage the reduced distribution costs and easier access to their markets, and to reduce copyright terms to something that benefits society.

    If Mandelson is still in power in June I'm going to end up getting arrested :(

  56. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by apmonte · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, I'd say it was surprisingly effective at Waco. 50 men held off 100's of trained law enforcement officers for 51 days. The initial raid by 75 ATF agents was repelled, killing 4 and wounding 16 agents. The defenders had 6 killed and 3 wounded. Sure, all the branch davidians died in the end, but the results are still impressive for such a small group of people. (no matter which side you side with) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege/

  57. Obligatory Gilbert and Sullivan by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    I am the very model of a Pirate Finder General
    I've information that makes me extrem-ely tyrranical
    For studios and patent trolls I infringe upon the people's rights
    And make sure that these practices will never really come to light.
    Creative use of copyrights and patents and all trademark laws
    Ensures that all will pay to watch another re-release of Jaws.
    To plug all analog holes is the highest honor I can reach
    So stop whistling that music in Phil Glass's Einstein on the Beach.

    [I'm done for the moment, but feel free to add your own verses]

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  58. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by apmonte · · Score: 1

    Deterent.

    That's really the problem though, isn't it. A government isn't usually oppressive enough to rise up against when their taking your guns away. (I'm thinking about UK, Austrialia, Canda) By the time it comes to revolution, you're basically screwed - or at least starting off at a severe disadvantage. I've had this conversation with several of my friends. What would we do if the government came for our guns? I'd like to think that we'd at least hide them. But what happens when that becomes a class 1 felony punishable by 60 years? Is it worth the risk, or do you just give them up and hope for the best? I just think it's sad that several countries have let it come to that. That's not to suggest that the US won't follow that same path.

  59. Hat by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    I'd tip my hat to him, if I wore one

    He does wear one occasionally, when he feels like concealing his horns.

    --
    Reply to That ||
  60. Re:Not for long by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually they wanted to restrict stuff even further. They wanted to get rid of the government campaign subsidy. You know the one that gives each party $7 per vote they got in the last election. Unfortunately the other parties did not like this because it would mean the they would have to rely on their supporters for money, so it got dropped. You would have thought that their supporters would have been quite willing to step up to the plate and donate.

  61. Scratch that by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    My fault. I realized you were discussing your own hat-wearing habits, not those of Darth Madelson.

    --
    Reply to That ||
  62. Don't worry too much about it... by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

    Come 2012 the world (as we know it) will end... Because we'll be so fed up with governmental BS we rise up and kill the bastards, leading to a golden age of ?anarchy? WTF? My brain just reset, damnit.

    --
    When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    1. Re:Don't worry too much about it... by thehostiles · · Score: 1

      Come 2012 the world (as we know it) will end... Because we'll be so fed up with governmental BS we rise up and kill the bastards, leading to a golden age of ?anarchy? WTF? My brain just reset, damnit.

      doubt it, the youth of today are too lazy to do anything about anything these days

    2. Re:Don't worry too much about it... by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about "the youth"? My standard of living isn't nearly as good as it used to be even 15 years ago! If all I have to look forward to is a life of increasing poverty, then all I have to look forward to is a slow death. FUCK. THAT. If I'm going to die, it'll be for what my family has fought for, for centuries: family and freedom. Before you say, "But we have it so much better than many others!", remember this: We don't have it nearly as good as we used to. Get a people used to eating rotten food, and they'll thank you for poorly prepared hamburger. That's what's happened all over the world. It's time to water the tree again...

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
  63. well its a democracy isn't it? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i believe that if guns are outlawed, rural folk would die at the hands of outlaws as a consequence of that law

    however, i can't feel sorry for all 12 of them, seeing as hundreds of urban folk every year die in american cities for the sake of a law that serves only rural yokels

    in reality, you are not given a choice between a universal good and a universal evil, you are given a choice between two negative situations, and you must decide which situation is least negative. so its: 1. free access to guns, lots of urban dead at the hands of moronic thugs, or: 2. severely curtailed guns, a few rural dead due to predation by random outlaws

    difficulty factor: the majority of the usa is now and is increasingly urban

    extrapolate to the political future

    tick tock, tick tock

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:well its a democracy isn't it? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      difficulty factor: the majority of the usa is now and is increasingly urban

      Split the country in half.

      --
      This is my sig.
    2. Re:well its a democracy isn't it? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      extrapolate to the political future

      Civil war?

      American cities are dead weight, anyway, really only propped up laws that favor banking, health and ip industries. Look at the top 20 businesses in Pennsylvannia. It's all hospitals and banks. They don't do anything actually useful. The red states, which have all the food, engineering, and manufacturing know this.

      The northeast needs to bail on free trade, and put all its poor people to work on manufacturing. Otherwise, its dead meat.

      --
      This is my sig.
  64. Re:Yeah, and you were expecting what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The internet is a negligible threat on the grand scale of things. What destroyed new production in China is that there's no enforcement against owning a CD/DVD pressing factory and churning out endless copies of music/video/software and selling them for 1/20th the price.

    Everywhere *else*, both the factories and the sellers would be in major trouble under existing laws and enforcement.

  65. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by dave420 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If the government wants to oppress the people to the point where they'd fight back, the armed forces would get involved. Either the armed forces will be on the side of the government, in which case the people are fucked regardless of how many guns they have, or they're on the side of the people, in which case the peoples' guns are not needed. They might split down the middle, but then the guns in private ownership will be like a fly trying to take sides in a fight between two bull elephants. Guns in private hands don't do anything but make people targets. No overweight accountant on his roof with a rifle is going to cause problems for an apache attack helicopter, or a tank, or even a humvee with some soldiers in it. I'm sure guns make people feel safer, but they won't help. Explosives, on the other hand, would make a difference. And anyone anywhere can make those. IEDs are what cause issues for people forcefully oppressing a populace, not shooters. It's easy to identify someone with a gun, kill them, and remove the gun from circulation. It's impossible to stop people from making explosives. I know it's tempting to think that as soon as the balloon goes up, everyone will scarper into the forest and go all John Rambo, but that's a dream. In reality the crack-down would be brutal, and those with guns who made a stand would die very quickly, very violently, while causing very little collateral damage to the oppressors. The sensible folks will keep their heads down, appear to cooperate, but in secret create, distribute, and use explosives against well-chosen targets.

  66. So, is his Letter of Marque and Reprisal by Reziac · · Score: 1

    ... in PDF format??

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  67. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by hoggoth · · Score: 3, Informative

    > all the branch davidians died in the end

    Like I said.

    If the goal is to win "points" as tough guys, home-made militia can get a song written about them.
    If the goal is to overthrow a fascist ruling class this fails.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  68. Please mod parent up! by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    Mandelson is gay but for years wouldn't admit it and used his media contacts to ensure that it wasn't reported. In fact he is (more or less) Rupert Murdoch's mole in the Labour Party, and he is probably proposing this in a last-ditch attempt to get the Sun back on side. Claims that he has also sold his soul to the Devil are categorically untrue. When asked for confirmation, all Satan would say was "we do have standards down here, dear boy."

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  69. When I first glanced at the headline... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...I thought they were talking about Somali pirates, which, it seems to me, is a genuine problem that needs a genuine solution. Then I read the article. Oh, that. As usual, busybodies mucking about as the hard questions go unanswered.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  70. Could someone please explain why... by Raisey-raison · · Score: 1

    I am not interested in conspiracy theories, I just want to know the UK is freaken draconian when it comes to copyright. This despite the fact that there is lots of evidence that the increased terms for copyright and increased stringencies ae actually harmful. Also don't they also realize that they are potentially criminalizing a whole generation? It seems that they keep on wanting to extend copyright forever and would be quite happy if people were still paying copyright fees for the beetles in the 22nd century. Seriously I don't get it!

    1. Re:Could someone please explain why... by acid_andy · · Score: 1

      Also don't they also realize that they are potentially criminalizing a whole generation?

      Probably - it's another step towards a police state. You keep making new laws until everyone is guilty of some crime or other, then when the authorities don't like someone's behaviour or opinions or just don't like them they can make them disappear.

      Add in a healthy dose of spin that the tabloids and masses lap up chanting "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear", job done.

      </tinfoil hat> although in the UK under Labour it gets more like this by the day...

      --
      Your ad here.
    2. Re:Could someone please explain why... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      It's not just the UK though, sadly...

  71. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by lgw · · Score: 1

    Guns in private hands obviously don't protect you against the military: they protect you against Brownshirts. Unofficial or somewhat official government bullies who pull people out of thier homes and kill them on the spot or "disappear" them. When they come for your family, or the neighbor's family, will you fight? It only takes the will and a weapon.

    Very few people are willing to act as brownshirts. Perhaps more people are willing to fight and perhaps die, one by one, to protect their loved ones from immmediate threat - but they need a weapon to do so.

    Much evil can be committed by Brownshirts, that the government would never do officially, and so can't use the army, or even the police, to attack the people in this way. Defense against such evil is no small thing.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  72. Why this was leaked, and why it sounds so bad by internewt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The way this government brings in unpleasant legislation follows certain patterns, and I would bet that this plan by Vold^WMandelson is going to fit the model.

    What they do is come up with what the goals they want to achieve in private. They know what they come up with, no matter how "good" or "bad", it will come under attack from groups with vested interests and political opposition, and what they want will inevitably get scaled back.

    So they come up with their plan, and come up with a version 3 times worse than they want. They leak the extra bad idea to the press (or to a blog this time), and the press and internet go nuts in reaction to the plan. But the politicians can hide behind the fact it was leaked and deny that is their plan at all.

    The vitriol generated tells them which parts of the plan will not fly, and which they can deal with with some spin. They announce their revised plan (now at 2x what they want), roll things back a bit (to 1 times) as a token lip service to democracy, and then go on to implement what they wanted in the first place.

    We've seen it before, and we'll see it again: this system works for getting unpopular legislation on the books.

    --
    Car analogies break down.
  73. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

    You know what's funny was that was the exact same sentiment held by the Brits before the Revolutionary War.

    "The colonists? What threat could they pose? We have the entire British Army and Navy with mounted cavalry and well armed and supplied troops. The colonists have a few hunting rifles and tomahawks..."

    Not saying we are going to start another war or anything, but never underestimate American inventiveness. Our society may be inflated with a lot of cruft, laziness, and uselessness now, but put our backs against the wall and quite a few of us yanks still know how to bring the raucous.

  74. Timing is everything by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    The Nazis didn't have to go to war with England to turn it into a fascist state. All they had to do was sit back patiently and wait for England to make the change all by itself. Somewhere in hell, Hitler's nodding and smiling.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  75. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you seriously believe the public would take up arms against this? Seriously?

    The vast majority of the population won't care at all, let alone enough to pick up a gun and go up against armed police officers (or the army, if things really got that bad).

  76. Lord Mandelson is an idiot, a dangerous one by omb · · Score: 1

    Who will hopefully be out of office before he can do much more damage

  77. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by daeley · · Score: 1

    Not *that* impressive. The failure of the initial assault was a result of the ATF team being ordered in despite the element of surprise having been lost. The 51 days were a combination of Koresh's negotiation stalling, including not holding up his end of the bargain when concessions were made, to prolong his moment in the sun as long as possible.

    If, back in the context of this particular thread, a military-style police force were ordered to suppress what amounted to (in the state's eyes) armed insurrectionists, you can bet it won't last very long. Those government tanks would be put to very different uses than driving around and around the building blasting music. All the Davidians would be dead within a day.

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  78. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by VJ42 · · Score: 1

    It's too bad you folks in the UK let them take your guns away, or you might have other options available to you. (At the very least, the UK government might fear the people instead of the other way around)

    If a revolution ever comes, you can keep the guns, I'll have IEDs. far more effective and I'm less of a target (therefore less likely to end up dead).

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  79. Re:Yeah, and you were expecting what? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I'm trying to figure out if I'll get a "woosh". Can you cite anything about China's once booming recording industry that's now died? The facts are that pirates (and I'm not one) spend more on music than non-pirates. Here are some citations:
    http://www.switched.com/2009/11/03/music-pirates-also-buy-more-tunes-than-others-poll-finds/
    http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Pirate-Fileshare-Music-Download-Illegal,news-5001.html
    http://www.mixx.com/stories/9014955/music_pirates_spend_more_on_tunes_than_non_pirates_finds_poll
    http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27090916
    http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/11/02/music-pirates-spend-more-on-music-than-their-legal-law-abiding/
    http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars

    In the US it is generally known that almost everyone speeds and have for 80 years or so

    In some places where it's obvious that the speed limit for the road conditions are way too low. Especially during the '70s when the national speed limit was 55 and had been reduced from 70 or higher in most places. here in town I notice that people drive well UNDER the limit most of the time; the speeding is mostly on straight interstates.

    Law enforcement has been "cracking down" and imposing draconian penalties on speeders since the beginning of the automobile era.

    A hundred dollar fine is a draconian penalty? When I'm travelling I notice that the speeders are all driving Hummers and Escalades and the like -- to these people, a hundred bucks is NOTHING.

    Are you trolling, joking, or just ignorant?

  80. Witch Hunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This feels very much like McCarthyism and witch hunting. Soon I will be able to accuse anyone of not paying for media without proof and they will be burnt at the stake.

    Do we learn nothing from history?

  81. Re:Not for long by CapnStank · · Score: 1

    We voted for them because we were tired of getting sat on by the Liberals. They're all evil, just have to give each one its turn to screw us over even more. Its not fair to let Liberals have all the fun!

    Except for Quebec's party... they can just shoo; they have no interests except for that of a single province.

  82. That's the precisely the trouble... by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    We're all just waiting for the next guy to come along and pull it off

    Well heck, there's your problem -- stop waiting, and set to it already!

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  83. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    They have learned from the stasi. You just dont allow small groups to form.
    You dont allow media capture in open areas.
    Film near a gov building, terrorist until you can prove otherwise.
    Film near a road, park, school, pedophile until you can prove otherwise.
    Meet in a group, Public Order Act can start to be useful.
    The use of Forward Intelligence Teams to keep tabs on any opposition.
    Once known, infiltration or turning of a member.
    The problem for the UK is the internet, yourtube can give one photogenic, articulate protester BBC like coverage.
    Small changes to laws like this will not stop people, but sets the legal framework to find them.
    Does the UK gov care about p2p? They do care a lot about connecting an IP to a real person.
    They also care a lot about looking back over your net usage.
    Minitel a French telco "internet' was used to spread news about nation wide protests, that was a warning.
    This new net tracking seems to be more about a protest to protester finder.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  84. Re:Pirate-finder.. Paedofinder.. Hmm by Alphathon · · Score: 1

    1+ for the reference (I love that show and noticed it instantly :P) but several hundred minus for delivery. I highly doubt they got the idea for a copyright enforcer from a caricature of the medias "witch hunt" of paedofiles.The name maybe, but just no.

  85. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by ignavus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You seem to forget the fact that there are over 80 million gun-owners in the US

    They are not all in one place

    They do not have: machine guns; tanks; artillery; aircraft; cruisers and aircraft carriers; missiles; weapons of mass destruction ... the BIG stuff.

    They do not have a leader (aka organisation)

    The armed forces have all the above.

    The 80 million gun owners might just be suspicious enough of each other to start their own civil war, without the military stepping in.

    Have a look what happened when a superior force of armed peasants rose up against the King of England (Wat Tyler - look up Wikipedia) - they were outsmarted - not outgunned.

    The people are stupid, at least they are stupider than the people at the top. And if the armed people did win, things could well be worse.

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
  86. Poor Brit's by twoHats · · Score: 1

    The poor Brit's are really taking it these days. Stiff upper lip boys and girls - fight the power.

  87. Brits! Get a constitution by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

    I really pity the fools that think that constitutionless country can exist without any negative side-effects. Brits, get a constitution in ASAP. So that idiots like this guy, who is also a Business Secretary, don't think they can just push through anything past the parliament.
    Constitution basically defines a country, while your parliament is basically uncontrolled.

  88. It's true - see for yourself in the bill by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

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

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

    Yeah, I'm gonna say BoingBoing were right.

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

  89. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    Yes, obviously no stupid laws are ever passed in the US. Everyone knows that the US Government lives in fear of the citizens, and they don't dare pass any stupid laws.

  90. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's good to know that if such plans were proposed in the US, you would descend into civil war to prevent it.

    I mean, that's what happened when the DMCA was proposed wasn't it? Thank heavens for the right to bear arms, it's so great that the DMCA was dropped, and that Mickey Mouse is now finally in the public domain.

  91. Re:Yeah, and you were expecting what? by alexo · · Score: 1

    If Mandelson is still in power in June I'm going to end up getting arrested

    Come June, remind me to contribute to your legal defence fund.

  92. Whats the balance back? by headkase · · Score: 1
    --
    Shh.
  93. Re:If it were anyone else, I'd scoff at this "leak by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Civilians don't have the infrastructure. It's that simple. Take a soldier out of the army, and he's just a man with a gun. Take a military plane out of the air force, and it's just a plane.

    And you were thinking of the V1, not the V2. As for military planes in civilian hands, so what? Do the owners have armourers with regular supplies of weapons? Competent mechanics with abundant spare parts? ATC? Fuel? A backup plane ready to be used when that one is out of commission? If the answer to any of those is 'no', then there's an issue with your claim.

    Civilians have an advantage in chemical warfare? Sure, they have access to the chemicals, but the 'warfare' part of that is severely lacking. I'm sure you're aware that modern armed forces have masses of chemical weapons, right?

    I don't know what your point about the Tamil Tigers is. They were pretty much wiped out in May of this year, anyway.