Slashdot Mirror
The UK Government's Struggle With Digital Rights
With his first accepted submission, Ajehals sends this excerpt from a post by the UK Pirate Party:
"... at every turn, the coalition has been exposed as having no coherent policy on digital rights. Nothing illustrates this better than its zig-zag course on Internet filtering and website blocking. ... As if any further confirmation was needed that the government's policy on digital rights, and freedom of speech is entirely made up on the fly, along came the riots and a classic knee-jerk reaction to the use of social media. ... one of the few concrete parts of David Cameron’s statement to the recalled House of Commons was a full on attack on social media. It was carefully worded, but the thrust was that the Prime Minister thought further action is necessary to combat the 'ill' done by status updates. At this point things took a turn for the authoritarian, with MP Louise Mensch saying it was 'acceptable to shut Twitter and Facebook off for an hour or two.' ... Worse still, it has been recently revealed that the Government actually asked Ofcom to make Digital Economy Act appeals harder. It also wants to rule out a public consultation – once again trying to do deals away from the public eye. I suspect it is actually this fear of the power technology can give us to hold our representatives to account that drives alarm about the Internet in the corridors of power."
The UK doesn't have a policy on civil rights anymore. Those were eroded away over the last few years.
Om, nomnomnom...
V for Vendetta
1984
A Brave New World
We see it coming and just don't give a damn, it seems. Where are the times governments were afraid of their people? Or at least had some respect for their people?
Is this a new service that ./ is trying? Will the other parties also get their statements posted word for word?
I wouldn't quite describe it as a broadcast, as here you are offering your opinion. /. is giving us the opportunity to debate the 'political statement' and if you have a contrary political position you get to paste it in here word for word in reply.
As for why /. is prepared to accept this 'political statement' for publishing, it could be due to its relevance to us 'nerds'. If the way our politicians treat our internet and deal with us as internet users isn't something that 'matters', when what does matter?
Is this a new service that ./ is trying? Will the other parties also get their statements posted word for word?
Quite a lot of article summaries on slashdot are usually a word for word extract from the source (which are often press releases).
Too many concepts are confused in TFA, where the concepts are really simple.
Government must not prevent competition, it must not create and maintain monopolies through any of its policies. It must not be allowed to prop up monopolies, businesses, money interests.
The entire concept of "digital rights" cannot be understood if the concept of basic human rights is completely thrown out of the window, and this concept IS thrown out of the window where government is manipulating, regulating individuals and businesses, destroying liberties instead of maintaining and protecting them.
1. Individuals have all the rights.
2. Government cannot assign rights. Rights exist, government must only protect them.
3. Government cannot take rights of individuals away and give these rights to non-individuals. This means that liability of one individual in the market for a recourse against another individual must not be limited by government, which must protect rights, not take rights away.
All of the above means this: government must not be allowed to set rights or to remove rights artificially. So there must not be a government dictated concept of "limited liability". Government must not be able to take away rights of people to copy and reproduce ideas, doesn't matter who came out with them.
If you want your idea to be protected from copying - it's your problem. Two words for you: trade secrets.
---
PS. I am posting this as AC, because my account has been flooded with "troll" moderations, so I cannot post under my own name.
I am given clear indications on how this site operates, any opinion that I express is immediately marked as a troll. Doesn't matter, whoever marks it: I am going to keep posting my opinions, and if anybody is interested, they'll find them on this site. But it's interesting how many people on this do not understand the most basic concepts of what rights are, what government is for and what is basically right and wrong.
The UK government folks probably genuinely believe that shutting down social media would be usful to stop waves of criminality like the recent rioting. The fact it hands enormous power to the government is a side effect that they either don't see or (more likely) welcome, but it's not the aim.
This ranting and posturing about evil people in charge is misguided. The point is that through good intentions both people and government can slide into sinister and easily abused situations. Not that the politicians at the top are already aiming for them.
This is why the people who notice this stuff must be extra vigilant, because it is all done with semi-good intent, but it takes us to the same bad place.
Seriously, is /. pushing political parties now? /. community (and mine).
Yes, the UK government has problems. But that's no reason to blatantly promote another political party. Even if it aligns with the general opinion of the
I like this kind of article. Thanks soulskil.
Well, you get to debate them and offer your opinions. It's got clear Your Rights Online interest. Loz Kaye's blogged about this kind of thing a lot.
One thing Loz pointed out here which even I missed was that the Government hasn't done a U-turn exactly, it's being careful not to contradict itself, but rather different departments have inconsistent positions on the same issue. You ask, you get a statement, you ask someone else, you get a different statement, and they're completely at odds with one another. Deliberately confusing the issue so there isn't a consistent position to fight against, or just woolly thinking?
[soapbox]
I personally feel that website blocking is not only unworkable and impractical, but wholly undesirable in a Western democracy party to the ECHR with (since the Human Rights Act) a constitutional requirement for freedom of speech, communication and association. That this Government has made rumbles about going back on that, if they are even capable of doing so, is extremely distasteful and needs to be fought in the strongest possible terms - these are, after all, human rights you're talking about here, things we consider to be fundamental. Mass internet censorship is one of the primary hallmarks of an oppressive state: ask Iran, Syria, Burma, China, or of course Egypt, whose attempts to turn off the internet during a popular revolution massively backfired.
Or put another way: If the Chinese government praises your internet strategy, you're doing it wrong.
Internet censorship is evil. The internet community treats it as the fundamental damage it is, and people like me help it to route around that damage. It needs to be fought, by any reasonable means necessary. Personally, my chosen ways to do this are political campaigning and the continuing development of anti-censorship tools, some of which you may already have used, some of which are new and still in development. Are anti-censorship tools like this - things which the UK and US governments have praised, and even once funded and offered to fund more recently, as enabling freedom to those in oppressive states - are they going to become illegal as censorship circumvention tools here, too?
Do you honestly think that I'd change a clearly-held political and moral stance and stop fighting against censorship - or fight harder because the evil has moved so close to home I can face it directly and stand and fight it? I already consider adversaries up to the level of state actors as being the threat model for my protocols: it's a bitter taste to actually consider my own government as an adversary to be countered, if it comes to it, but I have planned for that, I stand ready, and I'm quite certain I'll win. After all, I'm still winning against the others, and the Iranians are more technically capable than the UK government. How many smart people do you think will stay on your side, if you think the way forward for Britain is censorship, oppression and intolerance? We know where this road ends. This isn't how you stop a revolution. It's how you start one. Think it over.
[/soapbox]
Full disclosure: This Anonymous Coward is a PPUK member, and a developer of anti-censorship software.
Suggesting shutting down Facebook for an hour or two sounds like the best thing the Conservatives have said/done in a long time... Facebook is as creepy as hell. They keep a lot of data pretty much indefinitely, without a lot of user cooperation and/or DPA requests. Every message ever sent between users, every wall post, every app result/request, GeoIP on logins and EXIF tags from pictures to reveal location at any given point in time, friends "check you in" to places. Even without malicious abuse of Facebook APIs for using all that data to track you (Police app anyone?) the whole thing is as creepy as hell. That and Facebook controls the flow of information quite strictly, there are phrases one can't post on Facebook due to censorship/filtering. It takes a lot of hard work to sanitise a Facebook profile and still have it be usable for all the benefits of social networking. Sure the rest of Conservative policies when it comes to IT and freedom (RIPA, DEA, Terrorism Act) are ghastly but I can't disagree with wanting to shut down Facebook, that is doing the brainwashed masses a favour...
Heh, Mensch is a loudmouth with only a tangential connection to reality. I wouldn't take what she had to say too seriously. Besides. I don't see why the policy on digital rights should be any less zig-zag and arbitrary than anything else that shower come up with. Cameron, Gove et al have been making up policy on the hoof since they returned to power. This is just one more example of the woeful disconnect between what reality is and what they'd like it to be. Ah well. I guess we all get the politicians we deserve.
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
Watch Yes Minister, not as a series on a specific subject but to get a feeling for the general atmosphere that exists in politics. Is it exaggerated for comedy effect? Not as much as you might think to some politicians of the time who commented on it.
If you jump on an issue and use it against the other side, the other side will use it against you when it comes time to deliver. take for instance the police. The Tories want safety BUT they are firing a record number of police officers and Labour is just tearing into them for it. The party though on crime? How can that be true if you are firing the same number of police officers as were needed to bring down the riots?
Promise something and you might have to deliver on it and have to deliver on something that you have no control over. Force British Telecom to respect privacy? Good luck, the board knows they got a job for near life, a poltician if he is lucky a job for a year or two at most before he is out by election of cabinet shuffle.
You can't even get rid of an obviously evil and dispised man like Rupert Murdoch. The people wanted his blood and ALL the politicians ended up with is smeared with Ruperts excrement quivering that the NEXT revelation will be about them.
The Liberals made plenty of pledges... like education and then whoops, the political reality of the day is that you sold your soul to the most sleazy party in history and not a single of your campaign promises survives. Gosh, they got a trashing for that didn't they in the most recent elections?
A politician is bound by what he says in the past but has almost no real power. See the recent riots, the public demanded strong punishment, the strong punishment want but now the immidiate outrage is over the bleeding hearts are right there back again with their weak sentencing that created the riots in the first place. Let us remember what the riots were about. A known criminal was shot while in possesion of a loaded weapon, something that is rather worse in a country where most police is not armed. the outcry? A black leader claiming that yes, this known dangerous criminal had a loaded weapon but surely that is not a reason to shoot someone... eh yes it is? Didn't even think of denying that the guy was dangerous or a known criminal or in possesion of a loaded weapon. The community leader has come to see that as normal and how dare the police upset the status quo by denying this man his right to be an armed criminal!
But as said, the first sentences were though and then they were overturned and the public is once again being lead by their media to be told how to feel and the BBC just can't stand to see a criminal in jail. They already had a hard enough time to show black people riotting, you could hear every commentator say that it was a mix of races when every video image showed immigrants. Only a few carefully selected shots showed white people.
Good luck taking a stand as a politician with all this.
Go ahead, take a stand on a single issue and I will show you will be torn apart for it and loose your next election. Right, left or center, don't care.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
at least, they thought they did...
"'acceptable to shut Twitter and Facebook off for an hour or two.'"
When and why is it ever acceptable? Why, in the midst of a riot, would you want to shut off people's means of communication? That's like locking the doors in a burning building to make sure an arsonist doesn't escape. Or blockading all highways after a hit-and-run, not even allowing ambulances to travel to the accident scene. Sure, maybe you'll stop the "bad guys", but you'll stop everyone else too. Granted, maybe twitter and facebook aren't exactly important, but the principle behind doing this is risky. Will they start blocking mobile phones generally?
Communication in a riot is what you *NEED*, so that people who need help can contact people they care about and contact the authorities. It doesn't make sense unless you can reliably identify the "bad guys" and shut off their access individually. Good luck with that.
Have you read Brave New World? Control was based on distraction, not policing -- it was basically on the opposite end of the spectrum from 1984. People were allowed to disagree with the government and reject the society of the world; they just had to do so on an island somewhere.
Palm trees and 8
Back when I was younger, everybody had this common dream of a democratic participatory decision society, one in which opinions would be sent and compiled -- to give a more close to common folks control of the society.
We've seen what happened in countries like Egypt and Lybia; but the same things already happen in more advanced countries, with emails making candidates resign etc.
Now, we learn politicians are afraid of this and want to throttle it down, probably because traditional voting is more prone to being "influenced" (i.e., less democratic).
It seems our dream is annoying certain folks...
The government has said it isn't going to pursue powers to inhibit Twitter, Facebook or Blackberry Messenger.
Convenient as they might be, sites like Newzbin which are used almost entirely to engage in copyright infringement do not have a right to that speech. I've both used them, *and* expected that their existence could not continue.
The inevitable "1984 was a warning not a guide" and "UK is turning into a police state" posts are as predictable as they are stupid. We should be talking about the real issues.
That's not accurate. The licence fee pays for the BBC (advert free), and some subsidy of Channel 4 and S4C (which are also funded by advertisments). You only need a television licence to receive live broadcasts. Non-live services like iPlayer do not require a licence. There is no requirement at all to have a licence to receive radio.
Anyone thinking that the Pirate Party UK are in any way relevant to the debate are entirely mistaken. The leader of the party stood at the last election here in Worcester and lost his deposit. The real debate about digital rights should be about why the Labour Party were allowed to push through the Digital Economy Act 2010 (UK equivalent of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act) right at the end of the final Parliamentary session before the General Election without it receiving anything like the amount of scrutiny it needed or deserved in Parliament. The Liberal Democrats promised to repeal many parts of the act in their manifesto, however the act was not mentioned in the Coalition Agreement. The Conservative Party promised a 'bonfire' of bad legislation passed by the Labour Party; this has not yet materialised and the DEA 2010 appears to be off the political agenda at the moment.
Being a Democrat or Republican is so 90's. In fact, when it comes to corporate ass kissing, I see very little difference. Either the Democrats are "in charge" and our President can't wait to roll over to the Republicans demands, or the Republicans are and there is one less step in the process loop. I'm tired of all of it.
I want the Pirate Party! They stand for fairness.
I know, it's "throwing away my vote" but in reality our county has Diebold electronic voting machines so what I choose is changed to fit "our owners" wishes anyway.
I'm done!
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Some of us are more than happy to pay to support the BBC. They actually provide some good programs, and their documentories are some of the best in the world. Unlike the commercial broadcasters, they don't have to dumb things down to achieve mass-appeal and maximum ad revenue.
So it is Brave New World after all. Those sites are the new Soma. They soothe the populace. Yes, some care must be taken down to delete the really dangerous threads, otherwise all is nice and dandy with cat pictures.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Don't shut them down during riots, monitor them and arrest those leading the riot. Knowledge is power, knowing who and where to arrest to stop a riot is great power. The police are fools not to use this to their advantage.
As opposed to stealing a television or a radio to own it?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Cameron has no coherent policy on anything.
He's a PR weenie, 'policy' is determined by whatever will get him the best press at the time.
The UK Government's Struggle with basic law and order.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The ranting and posturing about evil people organizing is misguided too. Shit happens, and you don't choose when you feel the urge. In this case, people don't care about the harm they are doing because they care more about taking advantage of the situation to feed some short term desire. Sounds like that's what the UK government is trying to do as well..
Twinstiq, game news
Plus they force all the commercial broadcasters to raise their game. Without the BBC, British media would long ago have descended to the same level as the USA.
Personally I think the vast majority of the rioters were opportunists who were doing this for kicks or a few looting opportunities. However, shutting down an entire communications network is overkill - sure, when people arrange and commit crimes using social networking, arrest them and throw the book at them. But when you stop people communicating because you fear what they're saying, that's when your real riots will start.
Warcraft main?!? Are you serious?
Uhh - what about those stories we heard, about people being fined for playing a radio in a place and manner in which OTHER people might hear the radio? Those individuals ran afoul of copyright and licensing laws. Preposterous, I say.
I'll grant that the BBC is a superior broadcasting enterprise. I watch and listen to as much of the BBC as I can, because they are better than our American mass media, and usually get a better angle on the news around the world. All the same, the entire Western world is under seige by the those "rights holders", and the UK is rolling over for them. Just like the United States, and Australia. Canada stands apart from the rest of our English speaking countries - not far enough apart, but at least they can actually boast about a "struggle".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Everyone, from the sovereign to the common serfs has rolled over
The Middle Ages just called and want their national sterotype back.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Anyone thinking that the Pirate Party UK are in any way relevant to the debate are entirely mistaken. The leader of the party stood at the last election here in Worcester and lost his deposit.
It's OK, it was just the transfer of a few bits from one account to another, nothing was actually lost.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Uhh - what about those stories we heard, about people being fined for playing a radio in a place and manner in which OTHER people might hear the radio? Those individuals ran afoul of copyright and licensing laws. Preposterous, I say.
You do not have a right to use music from the radio in your place of business for customers to listen to for free; in theory at least you need to pay the Performing Rights Society (PRS) a royalties/fees for that. It's nothing to do with the BBC.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Stereotype or not, remember that people in the UK are "subjects", while people in the US are "citizens". Yeah, I know, we tend to forget that here - most of us are content to be referred to as "consumers".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br