Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The UK Government's Struggle With Digital Rights

Posted by Soulskill on from the regulating-a-series-of-tubes dept.

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."

33 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Well that's not a surprise... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The UK doesn't have a policy on civil rights anymore. Those were eroded away over the last few years.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:Well that's not a surprise... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      The UK never had civil rights, they took the direct route from the big empire to the big brother state.

      That's a fancy line of thinking. In the real world though, the UK had civil rights as in, an as much as the magna carta gave rights to the US, Canadians, Aussies and so on.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Well that's not a surprise... by Andy_R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The interesting thing is that none of the parties (with the exception of us Pirates, of course) even has a solid position on civil rights. With almost any other issue, Labour will go one way, Conservatives the other, and the Liberals will suggest a compromise. Membership of the European Union and the legal status of fox hunting are the only other issues that the big parties can't seem to make up their minds on, and falling out over both has caused a lot of internal damage to the parties.

      On digital (and to a lesser extent civil) rights, all the other parties are flip-flopping or in internal disagreement. The really odd thing about this is (unlike fox hunting or EU membership) it doesn't represent the mood of the general public, who either don't care or are strongly in favour.

      I'm shocked that neither of the 2 big parties have jumped on to the digital and civil rights bandwagon, forcing the opposition to take a less popular stance against them. It's a sure-fire vote winner, that doesn't have a economic big cost to implement.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    3. Re:Well that's not a surprise... by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      canadians as long as they were queens canadians. aussies as long as they weren't aboriginals, people of the great isles as long as they weren't scottish or irish and the english as long as they weren't against the state's ever changing policies. fine civil rights right there..

      you do understand the difference between a free man and a serf? magna carta isn't as much about civil rights as it's about who has the right to fuck the common men up as much as they want, come industrialization and the mechanics changed just a little bit - for the better a bit as anyone could theoretically climb up, but magna carta is a lot about how all men are not equal.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Well that's not a surprise... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Whereas here in the UK, we replace webpages with 404 errors so that not only are they censored, but most viewers wouldn't realise the censorship was occuring.

    5. Re:Well that's not a surprise... by digitig · · Score: 2

      I was watching that debate as it was broadcast live. The PM made it clear that he was talking about stopping specific individual's access to social networking, not the whole population's access to it. He specifically stated that social networking was an important resource for the public to have access to during civil disobedience, because during the riots people were using it to avoid areas where there was. Whether it would be right to cut off an individual's access is an important debate, but the UK Pirate Party would much rather we thought he was talking about something more draconian.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    6. Re:Well that's not a surprise... by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That assumes the big two parties give a shit about votes, and not their paymasters. The electorate are also highly malleable. Recently, the Tories sold them the idea that the current electoral system is better than AV.

      I'm coming round more and more to the idea that we should just scrap the veil of 'democracy' altogether.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
  2. This feels a lot like by Zsub · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:This feels a lot like by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      No way dude. If twitter and facebook are inaccessible for even one minute because they are rebooting their servers it is way worse than 1984 or V for Vendetta because access to twitter is a basic human right. Not having access to them would be like if North Korea was run by Hitler disguised as Big Brother. And like you know how everyone is smoking dope and shit. Well that's exactly like soma in Brave New World. We should totally legalize it. And if you like put on a mask and try and blow up Parliament people call you a terrorist.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:This feels a lot like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is there some Godwin's Law equivalent for mentioning 1984/Orwell when discussing the UK government? If not, there should be.

      More specifically, people saying: "I didn't think 1984 was meant to be an instruction manual!" or similar.

      If you have a problem with the policy - explain why you think it's a bad policy.

    3. Re:This feels a lot like by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is why any kind of censorship has to be fought as if it was "North Korea was run by Hitler disguised as Big Brother" because that is what all those things has in common.

      They're also run by people who breathe, so by your argument we should put a stop to breathing. Ever heard of affirming the consequent?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    4. Re:This feels a lot like by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      Totally dude. When my grandfather was storming the beaches at Normandy I'm sure one of the rights he was sure he was defending was the right to say publicly "NE1 ELSE FEEL LIKE JOINING ME ROBBIN JB SPROTS IN TEH EAST END AN STEELIN XBOXEZ AN PSFREES(LOL) FROM CURRIES?!?". Also as someone who was not exactly a teetotaller but was not keen on alcohol I'm sure he'd be very keen to allow kids to smoke heroin around the subway station instead of going to school.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:This feels a lot like by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      "NE1 ELSE FEEL LIKE JOINING ME ROBBIN JB SPROTS IN TEH EAST END AN STEELIN XBOXEZ AN PSFREES(LOL) FROM CURRIES?!?"

      Yeah. As long as you don't find that type of speech important, it must not be! It's factually okay to censor any speech you deem as unimportant.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:This feels a lot like by digitig · · Score: 2

      With the cooperation of the social network providers -- some of whom already said that they were cooperating with the government during the riots. Yes, of course the instigators could move onto other networks, but it doesn't matter so much if hardly anybody is listening to them there.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  3. That was a party political broadcast on behalf of. by s7uar7 · · Score: 2

    Is this a new service that ./ is trying? Will the other parties also get their statements posted word for word?

  4. Re:That was a party political broadcast on behalf by azzy · · Score: 2

    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?

  5. It's not a power grab, that's a side effect by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's not a power grab, that's a side effect by Nursie · · Score: 2

      And if you think that applies to the situation in which the current UK PM suggested shutting down social media, then you've been misinformed.

      Don't get me wrong, the curtailing of communication freedoms is evil, but in this case it's evil done with misguided (mostly) good intent. This (IMHO) makes it all the more dangerous and would make it all the easier for Qadaffi's to take over the UK in the future.

      I don't believe that UK politics is in the stage where communication of the people scares it, I believe they are in the stage where they genuinely think that censorship is a good thing.

  6. Propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, is /. pushing political parties now?
    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 /. community (and mine).

    1. Re:Propaganda? by Andy_R · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I'm no wiser about the submission system policy than you, but I guess that any other party that submitted something coherent and relevant would probably get it featured too. Any pro-Pirate bias probably comes from the fact that we're submitting stuff and the others are not.

      Personally, I'd love to see the other parties engaging with the Slashdot crowd, talking to a well informed non-partisan audience about digital matters could really help them make good decisions on digital (and civil rights) issues.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  7. Every cloud has a silver lining ;-) by MrNthDegree · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

  8. Why should digital rights be any different? by Oxygen99 · · Score: 2

    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
  9. Brave New World? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Brave New World? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

      The islands were not public knowledge.

      Brave New World showed a society controlled by luxury and trivia - the bread and circuses approach. Rather than keep people in their assigned place through the threat of violence, BNWs model kept people in their place by making them so happy there that they would not want to consider rebellion. The system gave them food, comfort, a culture of sexual liberation, and all the shallow and vapid entertainment they could ever want - even the promise of a recreational drug to relieve any feelings of futility coming from living a life pre-scripted by the government. As dystopias go, it's one of the better ones - even those who are most 'oppressed,' the deltas, are manufactured and conditioned in such a manner that they are happy. There are almost no need to stop people from rejecting the society of that world, because very few people had any reason to.

      Or just look at the image: http://www.recombinantrecords.net/images/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.png

  10. Re:Not coherent or relevant by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

    What exactly do you suggest are the "real issues"?

    IMHO, the "real issues" are that copyright trolls are working hard to ensure that no copyrighted material ever arrives in the public domain. Copyright in perpetuity is what they are aiming for. More, they are working to ensure that those copyright "laws" are enforceable around the world.

    The 1984 posts may amuse you, but I consider them to be words of wisdom. As for the UK, it's been a police state for quite a long while now. Brits have an entirely different psychology than us wild men from the Americas. In fact, their psychology is quite different from those wild men down under, as well! Then, there is Canada, where the women are wilder than the men, LMAO!

    --
    "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
  11. Re:Struggle with digital rights? by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. We need the Pirate Party in the USA by kurt555gs · · Score: 2

    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 *
    1. Re:We need the Pirate Party in the USA by ras · · Score: 2

      Yes, the current term is ridiculous, but so is 10 years!

      The economic argument behind copyright is we get more software, books, movies or whatever because of it. The balance becomes one of making copyright long enough to the producers of works so they an economic incentive return to produce more works, but no so long that they earn money from old works and have no produce not ones. We are after all a society built upon continual incremental improvement of things we have built before. Interfering with someone's ability to build on what others have done has to be done with a very light hand, otherwise it will reduce the rate on innovation and improvement rather than increase it.

      A good for guess at how long we should afford a work protection is its economic lifetime - ie the time it takes them to haul in the bulk of its income. For movies and books that is under 2 years. How long do you think Microsoft should have to get to each back its development effort into XP? 10 years sounds reasonable to me. Ditto for those CAD packages. It we had 10 year copyright terms, it's probably that (a) the people who developed the original ones would have earned a substantial return and (b) many more people would have access to them now. That is the balance you want to strike. Bear in mind you need very little economic incentive to drive the production of software - open source shows us that.

  13. Re:Struggle with digital rights? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    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.

  14. Re:You clearly don't understand politics by AGMW · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Liberals made plenty of pledges... like education and then whoops ...

    ... and then whoops, they didn't win, so all bets are off! I'm not a Lib Dem supporter, but really, their election promises were for if they won the election and however you cut it, they didn't win!

    I'm more annoyed about both Lib Dem and Con MPs who said they'd repeal the Digital Economy Act if they got into power and they haven't done so. That's a far more heinous crime because there was really nothing to stop them just cutting it dead in the water on day one after the Nu-Liebour unelected mandarin, and multi-expelled from government for sleaze, Lord Mandlemort rail-roaded it through at the last minute.

    It will be interesting to see what the parties are willing to promise next time around, but of course we haven't actually held them to their word this time, so I guess we're just back to business as usual!

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk
  15. Is this a surprise? by 0123456 · · Score: 2

    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.

  16. Nah by HalAtWork · · Score: 2

    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
  17. Re:Not coherent or relevant by Nursie · · Score: 2

    The UK is a police state but the US isn't?

    Have you ever seen "Cops"?
    You know, the show that's supposed to show the best of the US police but instead ends up showing people harassed and arrested for looking at an officer the wrong way?

    The uk may be a surveillance state like no other, but it's not half the police state the US is turning into.