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)."
We need a new Internet. Any ideas?
Another great idea signed by UK's gov
Oh, not those kind of Pirates.
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
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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
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
I thought piracy was the key to stopping global warming. Why are they trying to speed up global warming?
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?
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.
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.
Yeah - perhaps they could could better worry about the analogue pirates off the Horn of Africa.
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.
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
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 ?
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?
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.
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...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I didn't think finding Pirates was difficult.
Buy a boat, sail past somalia, and THEY'LL COME TO YOU!
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.
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
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
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.
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 :(
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/
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.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
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.
> 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
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.
(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
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).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.