Piracy Police Chief Calls For State Interference To Stop Internet "Anarchy"

An anonymous reader writes The City of London Police's Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) is determined to continue its anti-piracy efforts in the years to come. However, the unit's head, Andy Fyfe, also believes that the government may have to tighten the rules on the Internet to stop people from breaking the law. PIPCU's chief believes the public has to be protected from criminals, including pirate site operators who take advantage of their trust. If that doesn't happen, then the Internet may descend into anarchy, he says, suggesting that the government may have to intervene to prevent this. The Police chief believes tighter rules may be needed to prevent people from breaking the law in the future. This could mean not everyone is allowed to launch a website, but that a license would be required, for example.

Comments

Anarchy???

[_Sharp'r_]

The Internet has already descended into Anarchy.

That's why we like it. The rules are made by the people who own/run/create/manage it, by mutual agreement, not enforced from the top down. If people don't agree, they go their separate ways, because you can't be forced to allow someone on your network if they violate your network's rules.

The Internet is fine. We like it how it is. No need for more government regulation to ruin it on behalf of those with influence with government officials/politicians/bureaucrats.

Re:Anarchy???

[hey!]

Somebody forwarded me an article the other day about how we should all switch to dairy from grass fed cows. Now many of the points in the piece I happen to agree with, but one of the claims was that grass-fed dairy has fewer "toxins". Whenever I see "toxins" used without further specification as to what exactly the "toxin" is, that's a signal that someone's trying to sell something expensive but useless -- which turned out to be the case. The piece was hawking stuff you were supposed to mix into your grass-fed milk, which is a good way to expose yourself to toxins given how weakly regulated supplements are.

People use ideas like "law and order" in just the same way as marketers use "toxins". It's all well and good to say you're going to stop people from breaking the law on the Internet, but what specifically are you proposing to do? Set up an anti-fraud unit? I'll cheer you on. Monitor everyone's email? That cure's worse than the disease.

But I also have to say that the word "freedom" is just as subject to misuse -- or in this case "anarchy". Now there are many things about anarchy I like. There are others I don't. I don't like having to remove malware off my wife's computer. I don't like having to be vigilant that my older relatives aren't taken in by Internet scammers. I don't like having to deal with attacks on my websites. Even government agencies poking around in your Internet data -- that could be seen as a case of the agency exploiting a specific lack of Internet regulation.

I'm all for reducing my exposure to toxins, but I'm not going to get colon irrigated. I'm for cracking down on Internet crime, but not at the expense of the government doing things that *ought* to be criminalized. I'm for freedom, but not the freedom to interfere with other people's freedom. It's really not that complicated. Find out the specifics of what people are proposing to do, even when their stated goal sounds reasonable.

Re:What a fool

[Jason Levine]

Not to mention: How are you going to enforce this?

Let's assume that this guy somehow is successful and starting tomorrow, everyone in the UK needs to obtain a license before starting a website.

First, they would need to define "a website." Is a Facebook page a website? A Twitter feed? A Google+ page. People can those just like any WordPress blog. What if you're starting a new web service that you hope to go commercial with at some point. Do you need to apply for a license before you can publish one line of HTML code?

After this would come the big problems: Namely, how do you identify these rouge, unlicensed website operators? If I were living in the UK and opened an account with a US hosting firm, using a domain registrar located outside of the UK, how could the UK authorities tell that I was the one behind the website? Registrars have privacy settings that enable you to hide your WHOIS address and I doubt many non-UK registrars would bother with UK police calling them up demanding the personal information of their clients. Same goes for those non-UK hosting providers.

I almost want them to try instituting a "create a website license" just to see it crash and burn. Almost. In reality, I realize that they wouldn't attempt to apply it 100% but would simply use it to either add a charge onto someone whose online opinions they don't like or to silence critics. (You want to speak out against us? What a coincidence, your website license has mysteriously been revoked. You have a week to shut down your blog.)

Re:How about protecting the public

[Anonymous Coward]

There is alrady a mechanism in place for that. It is called a VOTE. Although people are complaining all the time about the government, hardly anyone here is ready to get their ass up and go vote when they are able to vote.

Yeah that's great! As a wonderful right I get for being a citizen I get to make my very own choice. My options are: Candidate A that got there because of lobbyists and funding and will be friendly to corporate interests ... or Candidate B that ... got there because of lobbyists and funding and will be friendly to corporate interests BUT uses different rhetoric.

Wow. This is truly an awesome and definitely not-broken mechanism. Of course! Your belief in this system is definitely not baseless and naive. At all.

If the sheeple ever get a clue and figure out how rigged this game really is and fucking WAKE UP from their hypnotic zombie groupthink daze, maybe they can write-in somebody who takes no money. Till then, best of luck to you.

Re:lol

[DivineKnight]

Agreed. The man has zero understanding of how the internet works...he might as well have said "let's all meet together on Sunday with our flying rainbow pegasuses." And it's painfully obvious...to the point where I am running out of facepalms for this year...I just can't handle the stupid. Obnoxious third-parties spitballing bad ideas at hundreds of miles per hour starts to add up...IT doesn't get paid to do their own job anymore, let alone put up with this political shit.

The next time some moron gets up to talk about 'fixing duh Interwebs,' I vote we trap 'em in a room with a router, with their release contingent upon successfully configuring it. I'll even be kind and leave the manual in there so they'll have something to read.

Re:Police??

[mwvdlee]

They are indeed free to do so just like you and me.
But it's not part of their job and they have no more legal standing to do so than you or I.
So in proposing laws they are NOT acting as a territorial police force of sworn constables, they are in fact acting as a corporate lobbying group.

City of London Police when enforcing laws = territorial police force of sworn constables.
City of London Police when proposing laws = corporate lobbying group.
It's important to distinguish these two roles and their difference.