UK ISP Spots a File-Sharing Loophole, Implements It

Lets get rid of it by funkatron · 2010-04-27 21:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Vote pirate, or green or yellow or something like that. Anyone who thought that this was a good idea doesn't deserve to win.

--
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.

Re:Lets get rid of it by grantek · 2010-04-27 21:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

ISPs siding with the public domain is a good step towards having governments listen to someone other than media corporations - hopefully plenty of people flock to this.
Re:Lets get rid of it by zero.kalvin · 2010-04-27 21:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't know if what I am saying is 100% correct. But people who might vote for Pirate, Green, ect ect. are mostly geeks or people directly involved in this. The problem is that the general population are not very tech savvy or don't care(yet). What is needed now is not voting for these parties(even though it is important, and we should do it), but it's education the general population of the dangers of these laws and how can it affect them. Point is we need advertisement campaign or whatever that might do the trick. Or else we will have an internet dark age. However Kudos for the ISP, good work I say.
Re:Lets get rid of it by commodore64_love · 2010-04-27 23:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

The key issue for me is not the copyright law. I don't care if Paramount and other companies want to protect their income stream on the new Star Trek movie.
The issue for me is that these 3-strike laws assign punishment without benefit of trial by jury. And once that precedent is set, then the government can further erode the rights of Englishmen. "You were caught stealing three times. 5 years jail for you." - "But I had no trial." - "Precedent shows we don't need to give you a trial. Take him away!"

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Lets get rid of it by Snarf+You · 2010-04-27 23:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Could it be because this ISP charges for bandwidth (and quite heavily during the day) and are more expensive than other providers that supply truly unlimited tariffs?
Re:Lets get rid of it by pstorry · 2010-04-27 23:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Yep, they're not cheap.
But they offer static IPs, in both IPv4 and IPv6. They do decent monitoring of your line, and have excellent tools for reporting your bandwidth usage, uptime and so forth. They can be your domain registrar and offer DNS servers.
With the exception of the bandwidth limits, they're pretty much a geek's dream ISP - pay for good service, get good service.
Heck, you can ask their support staff questions via IRC. You can get SMS alerts when your ADSL line is down.
I have two friends that use A&A. They're very happy with them. Most other people I know are on cheap ADSL providers, Virgin Cable or work for an ISP so have a connection through their employer anyway. I don't really hear complaints from the A&A users or those getting their connection from their employer. But everyone else, myself included, has had issues and not felt the support was good.
And no, I don't work for A&A. I get my internet connection through Virgin's cable service, because I had cable already. And I'm not being paid to say this - A&A don't know me from the proverbial Adam.
But A&A are the first company I'd look at if I had to switch to ADSL. I want their service, despite the costs.
It's not about piracy, this is about service. Many A&A customers host their own webservers at home, for example... Do you want to lose your internet connection just because of a bogus complaint about a webserver only you and a few friends use?
That's probably why they're putting these protections in, more than anything else. Arse covering for their customers. ;-)
Re:Lets get rid of it by tlhIngan · 2010-04-28 03:19 · Score: 3, Informative

Pirates are any ISP's best customers. Once a pirate is hooked, then they're not likely to stop or downgrade their internet service. If anything, they'll upgrade their internet service.
If the ISP charges for the bandwidth they use, even better.
Actually, no. People who use bandwidth are an ISP's worst customers. They want to sell their basic high-speed plans to people who'll check email once a week and maybe surf the BBC or CNN for a few minutes daily, tops. They'll try to convince those who just use twitter and facebook all day that they need the next tier up. And oh, if you do any sort of gaming, well, you really want the super-high-speed $100+/month plan!
These people pay big bucks and the ISP can oversell very easily.
Pirates who use all their bandwidth mean they can't oversell as much. They'd much rather kick them off and replace them (even if they're paying $100+/month) with 5 light users who pay $40/month.

I can't believe..... by cb95amc · 2010-04-27 21:10 · Score: 5, Funny

....that such a well planned and comprehensive peice of legislation would have loopholes. It's almost as if they rushed it through the legislative process, but I'm sure our politicians would never be so careless....

Re:I can't believe..... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-27 21:24 · Score: 3, Funny

Poopholes can be found just above any legislation
Re:I can't believe..... by Angostura · 2010-04-27 21:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, but the point is that this was rushed through as part of the "washup" at the end of parliament, so did not have the same level of scrutiny as it would normally do. It's a crass way to handle complex legislation and I'm glad that this ISP has taken the time to go through the details. Well done.
Re:I can't believe..... by Tony+Hoyle · 2010-04-27 21:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

It was voted in by about 200 pissed up MPs who had been dragged out of the pub to make sure it passed. Only about 40 actually attended the debate.
Watching it happen was an eye opener to say the least. Any illusions that we have actual representation died that day.
Re:I can't believe..... by thomst · 2010-04-27 23:25 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm sure our politicians would never be so careless....
Then you must grow 'em smarter over there than we do over here.
Could we borrow some of your breeding stock?

--
Check out my novel.
Re:I can't believe..... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-04-28 01:34 · Score: 2, Informative

For those of you who might think that this is an exaduration, here's a snapshot (and associated article) from the BBC's coverage.

I'm fucking disgusted.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/

Well done by Janek+Kozicki · 2010-04-27 21:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

I hope that the ISP will earn enough money from this, so that they will be able to defend this when faced legal action.

--
# #\ @ ? Colonize Mars #

Re:Well done by AlexiaDeath · 2010-04-27 21:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, who will be suing them? The Labels cant. The practice of letting users register as communications providers has nothing to do with them or their content. The state? Over a service they provide for their customers? Not happening. Also UK is not us AFAIK. No punitive damages.
Re:Well done by iYk6 · 2010-04-27 21:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's sort of what I was thinking. Giant corporations can take advantage of loopholes to rip off their customers. Individuals and small businesses can't do that.
Re:Well done by PhilHibbs · 2010-04-27 23:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

There must be some redress that the labels can take against an ISP that is ignoring the rules. Now you can say "they aren't ignoring the rules", but the only person that can decide whether they are flouting the law or not is a judge.

Re:That'll work by Tony+Hoyle · 2010-04-27 21:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

2*[branches of the ISP]*[Family members/friends/dog]

Also the act says nothing about keeping a count for *ex* subscribers.. so pingponging between two may be enough.

Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by Taco+Cowboy · 2010-04-27 21:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apparently those running the ISP - presumably geeks - know how to interpret the laws better than those who wrote the laws themselves.

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-27 21:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is only one interpretation of the l;aw that counts, and that's the judge's one. This is espacially true in UK's(and US's) Common Law system.
So, they found loopholes, or so they think. They may be correct, but you will not know until thoose loopholes are tested in a courthouse.
Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by amw · 2010-04-27 22:00 · Score: 5, Informative

There is only one interpretation of the l;aw that counts, and that's the judge's one. This is espacially true in UK's(and US's) Common Law system.
Either you or I have misunderstood this particular section of the Digital Economy Act, and the balance of probabilities suggests that it's you. At issue is not the legality of sharing the files - the DEA doesn't deal with that, that's part of pre-existing Copyright acts - but the short-cut that now exists that enables rightsholders to harrass suspected filesharers through their ISP without the need for a court order.
Before the DEA, firms were required to issue a court order to the ISP - a timeconsuming and potentially expensive process if done in bulk - in order to collect enough information to contact the individuals themselves. With the DEA in place, they can simply require the ISP to do their donkey work.

So, they found loopholes, or so they think. They may be correct, but you will not know until thoose loopholes are tested in a courthouse.
The loopholes definitely exist, I've seen the various discussions that led to A&A making the implementations discussed and it is quite clear from the wording of the DEA itself (which, combined with the Telecommunitions Act IIRC, is very specific in its definitions of the parties concerned). The legal route, where the case can be presented in front of a judge, does still exist: it just requires more effort on the part of the rightsholders, and specifically the amount of effort that they should have had to take in the first place before the DEA came into effect.
Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by AmiMoJo · 2010-04-27 22:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well I'd say that the biggest flaw is not the loopholes, it's the fact that in the end the copyright holder still has to sue the individual they suspect of copyright infringement. As yet the idea that a screenshot and IP address are enough evidence is an entirely untested one.
There are also the human rights issues. If someone in a household does download something and gets the internet connection cut off, what about the other people who live there? Imaging being a student and not having the internet at home, preventing you from doing your work. Presumably you can't just switch ISP to get the connection back, unless they less that massive hole open too.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by Rennt · 2010-04-27 22:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Presumably you can't just switch ISP to get the connection back, unless they less that massive hole open too.
Indeed, this is one of the holes they are exploiting: "Operating more than one retail arm selling to customers and allowing customers to migrate freely with no change to service between those retail arms, thus bypassing copyright notice counting and any blocking orders."
Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by amw · 2010-04-28 00:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

With the DEA in place, they can simply require the ISP to do their donkey work.
Require how? There must be some recourse that the copyright holder can take against an ISP that is failing to respond to complaints.
By 'require', I was referring to the fact that the DEA allows rightsholders to send their complaints to an ISP, and the ISP is required by law to pass those complaints on and (I think - I've not read it in a while) take further action where they relate to a subscriber of that ISP. AAISP's view is apparently that they can alter the status of their customers away from 'subscriber' to circumvent this requirement.

Eventually such a recourse could end up in front of a judge, and that's when AAISP might find themselves in hot water.
They seem to believe otherwise. It is quite possible (I'm not going to say 'likely', these things are notoriously difficult to predict) that the judge will view the legal definitions as strictly as they are written, and AAISP can be shown to be in the right legally. At which point, court orders again become a requirement in order for the holders to contact the potential infringers directly.
None of this is directly aimed at taking the legal system out of the loop when it comes to copyright infringment. That is still something that can be put before a judge in a court of law. AAISP are, it seems, simply applying a large 'RESET' button that puts things back to how they were before this section of the DEA was put into law.
Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by laughingcoyote · 2010-04-28 01:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just out of interest, who would the rightsholder be allowed to approach (going by the DEA and AAISP's definition of 'subscriber') if the individual's personal details are suppressed?
I think the idea here is "no one, get a warrant/subpoena". Since that information is, you know, private.
Good on this ISP. Refreshing to see a company actually care about its customers.

--
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by rufty_tufty · 2010-04-28 02:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Disclaimer, I may not be an apple or linux fanboy, but i might just be an AAISP fanboy: I use AAISP as my service provider at home and they are awesome!
Want static IP addresses? Sure, how many? As long as they see access on roughly half of the addresses you ask for, no more questions. Very very useful for IP phones.
Want detailed traffic graphing? No problem.
Want direct access to all the log files right down to the ATM session layer, no problem, there's a webpage for that.
Want to restart the line from the BT side, another button to click.
Want a redundant connection for home use? Erm, only available in certain places but i have a friend in Manchester who is using them to do this.
If all this fails and you phone them up they treat you like the geek you are, the person you speak to knows what they're talking about and can fix it themselves. (yes I'm looking at you Virgin Media)
My best experience with them was I wanted to use a Cisco 877 router (completely none standard) for my router rather than the one they supplied. Any other company would have told me to sod off, but these guys helped me debug the setup.
Nope definitely a company run by geeks for geeks, you get the impression these people enjoy their job and revel in the technology.

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -

Don't see this working by Richard_at_work · 2010-04-27 21:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

I see this as something a Judge will strike down as spurious rather than an actual loophole - Judges love to come down harshly on people they think are deliberately trying to circumvent the law.

Re:Don't see this working by AlexiaDeath · 2010-04-27 21:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

If I have wifi hotspot open to the world, nobody can say I'm in any way deliberately skirting the law.
Re:Don't see this working by physicsphairy · 2010-04-27 21:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

They are only circumventing the intended aims of the people who lobbied the law into being.
Regarding the written law itself, they are legitimately following and making use of the provisioned measures. It doesn't sound like they are relying on particularly liberal interpretations of the text, but rather are going off of what it plainly states.
Granted, I don't know a great deal about UK law, but it sounds to me like it's rather more on the legislature want to remove these elements than for judges to sit down and play psychoanalyst of the "offender" and for the legislature simultaneously.

--
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Re:Don't see this working by Richard_at_work · 2010-04-27 21:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

An ISP having no customers but plenty of peering communications providers at residential addresses is a deliberate attempt to skirt the law.
Re:Don't see this working by gbjbaanb · 2010-04-27 22:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, if that's the case then all those peering network providers are also attempting to skirt the law.
I could set myself up as a communicatins provider - I've thought of it actually - put a colo server in a datacentre, then offer bandwidth (and web space) to paying customers. But then, why not simply offer payign customers to use my existing bandwidth that I have at home. Its not much, so I can't see many taking my up on my offer, but as I'm offering a niche product that shouldn't be an issue.
Re:Don't see this working by PhilHibbs · 2010-04-28 00:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

They can say that you are deliberately breaking the rule that says anyone providing communications services must monitor and log the usage of that service.

Lib Dems by FreeUser · 2010-04-27 21:29 · Score: 5, Informative

I don't know if what I am saying is 100% correct. But people who might vote for Pirate, Green, ect ect. are mostly geeks or people directly involved in this.

True, and it is unfortunate that the "geek" vote is being split so badly. The LibDems are the only one of the three major parties that stood up to this law (voting against it and calling for its repeal). Whether someone's agreement with them on this issue outweighs any disagreements they may have with them on other issues is an open question.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:Lib Dems by VJ42 · 2010-04-27 21:44 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't know if what I am saying is 100% correct. But people who might vote for Pirate, Green, ect ect. are mostly geeks or people directly involved in this.
True, and it is unfortunate that the "geek" vote is being split so badly. The LibDems are the only one of the three major parties that stood up to this law (voting against it and calling for its repeal). Whether someone's agreement with them on this issue outweighs any disagreements they may have with them on other issues is an open question.
Us Pirates only have 9 out of a possible 650 candidates standing; I doubt we'll have an impact on the Lib-dem vote (hell, as there's no PPUK candidate in my area, I'll be voting Lib-dem).

--
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Re:Lib Dems by amw · 2010-04-27 22:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

The LibDems are the only one of the three major parties that stood up to this law (voting against it and calling for its repeal).
They also seem the strongest generally when it comes to following common-sense approach to science; evidence-based policy is one phrase I've heard being banded around as well, which after the various allegations of ministers ignoring their own scientific advisors in the past few months is a welcome relief.
However, I'm more than just a geek. When it comes to my vote in a week's time, I also have to consider the pros and cons of each party to all the other aspects of my life: my wife, baby son, job, house, local environment, health, personal and moral beliefs, just to name a few. Being geek-friendly is a positive trait, but there are also areas important to me in which the LibDems are weaker.
Re:Lib Dems by Grumbleduke · 2010-04-27 22:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think suggesting that the LibDems "stood up" to this is giving them a little more credit than they deserve. They ended up supporting it in the Lords and even adding the controversial web-censoring clause (I know they tried to get it removed, but it was too late then). As it was, only a handful (14?) of LibDem MPs turned up to vote, and even fewer made any sort of speech.
The LibDems seem to want to repeal this mainly due to the method by which it was passed, not for the content; they claim they would "take it off the statue book and replace it with something better" - better for whom? From what I remember of their speeches in the debate, better here may be for copyright owners. This could just mean they want to remove all the loop-holes. I will not be voting LibDem next week - for other reasons as well - because I am certainly not convinced by their "promises" over the Digital Economy Act.
Incidentally, I'm currently taking an OU law course and brought this up at one of my tutorials (a few days after it passed through the Commons) and none of the other 6 people present had even heard of the Act. The general public doesn't know - while there has been plenty of news in our section of reality, it hasn't been getting out into the rest of the country. Of course, once people start getting threatening letters, this could change, but by then it will be too late. Welcome to the British legal system.
Re:Lib Dems by DagdaMor · 2010-04-27 23:49 · Score: 3, Informative

You don't have to be a British Citizen to vote in the British Election, any commonwealth country or Irish citizenship will do.

--
All is fair in love and war... ...as long as I'm not losing!
Re:Lib Dems by gibbsjoh · 2010-04-28 01:29 · Score: 2, Informative

One of the quirks of UK electoral law is that EU nationals may vote in local and European elections, but not Parliamentary elections. GP is correct as well, as a Commonwealth citizen resident in the UK I can vote in all 3 kinds of elections.

--
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson

Hmm... by AlexiaDeath · 2010-04-27 21:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

A communications provider is say someone that operates a free Wifi hot-spot and they are immune? And anyone can sign up? O_o Somebody has effectively neutered the entire law. You guys really vote some Pirate party to your parliament to properly put an end to this crap properly tho.

Re:Hmm... by dwarfsoft · 2010-04-27 21:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Oops, link. Forgot my preferences were changed ;). Preview fail.

--
Cheers, Chris
Re:Hmm... by tdobson · 2010-04-27 22:03 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm *trying* to get elected!
--Tim Dobson, Pirate Party Candidate, Manchester Gorton
http://votepirate.org/gorton
http://amiapirate.org/
Re:Hmm... by Rogerborg · 2010-04-27 22:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

A communications provider is say someone that operates a free Wifi hot-spot and they are immune?
Doesn't even have to be that. The contract for the line coming into my house is with me. My wife and kids use that line, without a contract with the ISP. How could they do that if I - the contracted individual - wasn't providing them with the service?

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Hmm... by Tim+C · 2010-04-27 23:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's very interesting indeed; I live alone, but my daughter and her mother live literally across the street, and they share my (secured) wifi connection. I most certainly am providing a service to them, and they don't even live under my roof.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

But these laws are carefully considered by 91degrees · 2010-04-27 22:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Surely teams of experts would have been consulted, and this would have been debated several times in several houses, with considerable thought put into the criticisms of those opposing it! The only way we could have all these silly loopholes is if it was somehow rushed. But why would the government ever do that with such important legislation?

Impractical and/or illegal? by Grumbleduke · 2010-04-27 22:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Just looking through the list, I'm not particularly excited by their loop-holes.

Ok, I'll accept that this is quite cunning; however, it is basically just shifting the burden. It means that rather than needing n strikes, you'll need 2n-1 strikes (assuming two people capable of signing the subscriber agreement). They will all still go on the list of alleged infringements and any allegations (from what I remember of the debates; can't find the Hansard quote) stay with you for some time, even if you switch ISP. - Ineffective
I'm a little worried by becoming a "communications provider". There are over 400 sections of the Communications Act 2003 most of which seems to be aimed at laying down rules and laws for communications providers. I haven't read this Act thoroughly, but I think this will just end up placing a huge burden on the unsubscriber (like the provisions on Data Retention, or registering with the Information Commissioner - that sort of thing). Even then, it could be argued that if you are a communications provider, then you must provide the service to some sort of subscriber (even if it is just you) so then you become the target of all the initial obligations and liable for carrying them out. - Could cause a lot of trouble
This hinges on the definition of "allocation". Not sure how well this would hold up in Court (when the ISP is taken to court for not carrying out its obligations). However, it is a good example of what happens when you have an Act "debated" only briefly by people who mostly don't understand the context. - Possible, but might not hold up.
Comments to the second point apply here as well. Could work, but will likely be highly problematic for the unsubscriber. Also, this would only apply to some users, not all. - Problematic and limited
This was discussed in the Lords (should be quotes somewhere in Hansard) and there was an idea that the copyright notice count should follow you from one ISP to another. It's not explicit in the Act (from what I can see), but could be in the Code. It probably will be now. - Probably covered
This seems to hinge on the definition of an ISP. The definition is quite loose, and the three criteria are that they have subscribers (also defined quite loosely), they mainly or entirely provide access to the Internet and allocate IP addresses. The first and third have already been discussed, but the second might work; you'd need to find another primary business for the ISP - i.e. they sell invisible pink unicorns, but you get an Internet connection free with every monthly sale. - Could work
Well, this one should be a given. If they receive an invalid notice, they should delete it (or if I get my way, take action against whoever sent it). Of course, what makes it valid will be in the Code. The main criteria would be ensuring the evidence of infringement was up to standards (standards that aren't defined yet) and that whoever sent the notice actually owns the copyright. Both of these could require a lot of effort from the ISP to check. Also, if the ISP doesn't comply with the DEA, under Section 14 (2) they can be fined up to £250,000. This isn't something small ISPs are likely to mess with. Not really a loop-hole

So, while I am impressed that at least one ISP has thoroughly read through the Act and is trying to work against it, I think their loop-holes aren't going to be that good in practice (with the one exception). Still, their draft Code seems to have highlighted many of the key points, and I hope that they will get heavily involved with the Code-drafting process.

The best way to get around this sort of thing is to either fight for repealing the Act (so vote Pirate or Green - while the Lib Dems have said they want to repeal it, that's due to the process by which it was passed, they still seem mostly in favour of the content) or making sure that the Code approved

At least they are trying... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-27 22:58 · Score: 5, Informative

Disclaimer: I am a happy A&A customer.

At least AAISP are attempting to bring to light the shortcomings of the law, as well as taking part in the OFCOM part of the regulatory process. Believe me that AAISP were also attempting early on to bring attention to this law and lobbying as much as they could themselves.
I've spoken to the owner. He does not believe in supporting pirates, but he does believe in due process and fairness. Things that the DEA is not.(to customers or the ISP's) If a court order is provided AAISP will happily process it, however someone randomly pointing at an IP and saying "they've downloaded something of mine, cut them off unless they can unequivocally prove otherwise" unfairly reverses the burden of proof.

AAISP just wants to be a neutral carrier, operating within the (sane) law and rightly so.

They particularly deserve mention on Slashdot as a geeks ISP. There aren't many ISP's that provide the following...

Support native (and tunnelled) IPv6
Give you real IPv4 IP's _for free_. If you request a /27 they will _give_ you it
Proper technical staff on IRC,email and phone ready to answer questions.
Graphing and full control of your line from the web.
A real, uncensored, non-traffic managed, non-port blocked line (No IWF watchlist here)

They aren't as cheap as the bucket providers, but then you get what you pay for....

Re:At least they are trying... by gbjbaanb · 2010-04-27 23:21 · Score: 2, Informative

one more thing for A&A is that they offer IPv6 across the board, included in your service for free.
They've always been a more "advanced" ISP in the UK.

Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by VJ42 · 2010-04-27 23:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

LibDems, OTOH, seem to like the idea of even more taxes and even more bureaucracy... and frankly we're taxed heavily enough as it is, TYVM. Damned either way, IMV.

Whatever you think of their other policies, the Lib-dems are the only ones proposing PR, vote for them at this election, so that another party that you*do* support can get MPs next time. If we do get PR, watch the Tory party split over Europe, Old Labour split from New Labour and the Lib-dems old Liberal (recently relaunched as the "orange bookers") split from the newer SDP more left wing part. We'd actually get a proper choice!

--
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me

Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by VJ42 · 2010-04-28 01:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

How would PR allow me to vote for an Individual to represent me and my constituency in parliment?

The Single Transferable vote system has larger, multi-member constituencies; the geographical link is not broken, and you can still vote for individuals, not party lists. It's already used in the UK and around the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

--
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me

Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by mdwh2 · 2010-04-28 02:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course they're proposing proportional representation, they've got the most to gain from it.

Even if they really only had a self-interest, what has that got to the question of voting for them? You're telling me that if a party was supporting something, that you wanted, you wouldn't vote for them because they gained from it? That makes no sense.

Slashdot Mirror

UK ISP Spots a File-Sharing Loophole, Implements It

50 of 179 comments (clear)