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

Police??

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not police but more like a paid thugs or enforcers working for a group of corporations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Police??

[NotInHere]

Where is the (+1; Insightful Troll) mod?

Re:Police??

[demachina]

It should be noted that the City of London is a tiny part of London, like a square mile. Its the financial district, the Wall Street of London.

It isn't suprising they are taking a pro big business stance.

Re:Police??

[NotInHere]

That tiny part has financed most of englands colonisation efforts. It has helped building a world empire. However, nowadays its weird to see such a relic in a country that calls itself democratic. Having a queen who stays out of politics isn't a big deal. An institution where companies can vote based on the number of their employees, thats in the press and uses titles like "police" is however. I don't object to companies to publish their opinions, but they shouldn't use titles that sound like they were part of the state. This clearly shows their position towards democracy.

I know other companies fuck democracy, too, but to some extent that can't be avoided as the line between "legitimate participation in public discussion" and "lobby government" is thin. Companies should just clearly state its them.

Re:Police??

[ShanghaiBill]

They are not police but more like a paid thugs or enforcers working for a group of corporations.

Corporations have a legitimate interest in fighting piracy. It interferes with shipping, and endangers the crews. But it seems silly for the London Police to be involved. It would be more reasonable for anti-piracy to be handled by the Royal Navy, as part of a coordinated international effort. This could include arming merchant ships, providing convoy escorts, and/or retaliation against ports providing sanctuary to pirates.

Re:Police??

[mwvdlee]

As a territorial police force of sworn constables, are they responsible for proposing laws?
Because that's what they're doing here.

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.

Re:Police??

[Archtech]

"In a mature society, 'civil servant' is semantically equal to 'civil master.'"
- Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love"

Re:Police??

[cayenne8]

I saw this quote "

If that doesn't happen, then the Internet may descend into anarchy,

" and thought to myself, where has this guy been?

The internet started out as and has always been anarchy, and that is what made it good. It has been the last bastion of personal freedom and expression since inception. The lack of regulation and rules has made it what it is today.

The internet, was NOT created and constructed for the purpose of business and monetary transactions, that is something that came later and while welcome, was not and SHOULD not be the total focus of the network of networks.

How about protecting the public

[crioca]

How about protecting the public from the lobbyists and legislators pushing oppressive copyright laws?

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:How about protecting the public

[DoofusOfDeath]

Well then. Revolution it is.

It would be a horrible civil war, at least in the U.S. The citizenry is so divided on so many issues, that I believe the battles would continue long after the federal government was overthrown.

Re:How about protecting the public

[Opportunist]

What good is your right to vote if your choice is between a corporate shill and someone depending on handouts from corporations?

You may vote who you want in power, but they get to choose the pool of people you may vote for.

Re:How about protecting the public

[dargaud]

The only scenario I find credible and that is perhaps not so unlikely is that large parts of the army and national guard would split off and join the resistance [...]

Which is basically also the only way that any rebellion/revolution has managed to succeed in the past.

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???

[fabioalcor]

The Internet has already descended into Anarchy.

It has not descended, it was born as an Anarchy. Internet is anarchic by design. That's the way it always was, is, and must be.
A computer net with strict rules is not internet, it's something else.

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:Anarchy???

[DivineKnight]

He's a police officer...he doesn't understand any kind of design other than an Authoritarian hierarchy. You can tell him how the internet works, and he won't believe you...or he'll look at the DNS servers, see the hierarchy there, and claim that it is hierarchical after all. He's spent his entire life fighting against 'Anarchy' (watchword), and he'll be damned if he'll let it exist once he's discovered a 'nest' of it.

He's off in his own little world, fighting a war against tilting windmills...

Obligatory

[Areyoukiddingme]

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

And... the Internet shall descend into Anarchy! With a capital Anarchy!

The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[curmudgeon99]

That is certainly rich. The "City of London" is a lawless square mile in the center of London that is not subject to the laws of England. It is the center of all the tax evasion secrecy jurisdictions around the world. If you think of the rampant and lawless tax evasion that goes on in places such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Channel Islands of Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey, they are all directed from this cesspool of lawless behavior known as the City of London.
For context I direct you to the magnificent book by Nicholas Shaxton called Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens . But don't stop there. Further evidence of the vile and lawless damage the City of London does to the world:

• The tax haven in the heart of Britain
• City banks ‘cheat’ Europe in €600m tax avoidance trading scheme
• How Tax Havens Stole Your Money
• The Missing $20 Trillion

Re:The "City of London" - A Lawless Square Mile

[Anonymous Coward]

The city of London is not subject to the same laws as the rest of England. It has at least three special rights granted to the City of London by parliment.

1) In no other jurisdiction in the UK ( England is a part of the UK ) do corporation have the right to vote in municipal elections. The City of London allows corporations to vote in municipal elections.

2) In no jurisdiction in the UK does a person have more than one vote as based on their family size. The City of London allows that the number of votes a corporation has is based upon the employee count of the corporation.

3) In no jurisdiction in the UK can a human have only a post office box inside the voting boundries and be considered a valid voter. The City of London has the right to allow corporations with no presence in the municipal boundries other than a post office box to vote in municipal elections.

4) The City of London has a special officer in parliment whom is not considered a lobbiest even though the activities of the special officer are sometimes presented a "reminding the members of parliment of the rights granted to the City of London and it's voting members" oh and those rights were granted centuries ago.

5) It is not a tax haven by definition ... because it has greater input and in some degree a bit of control of the corporate (specifically finacial industry ) tax rates in the UK than any other municipal jurisdiction.

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: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:What a fool

[Calydor]

how do you identify these rouge, unlicensed website operators?

By catching them red-handed.

Re:just wow

[Microlith]

The rest is but a websearch away.

I hate this shitty mentality, but apparently it's worldwide. No, I'm not going to go searching to dig up evidence for whatever wild claims you choose to make, you need to present it then and there.

Re:Protecting Ain't Bea's Pie...

[sudon't]

I'm glad I'm not the only who noticed this bastard child of Andy and Barney. But, back to the original topic...

"In the end, that might mean that the Internet becomes completely ungovernable..."

That's how these idiots see the internet - as something to be governed. So far, it's been reasonably ungovernable, but as it's gained popularity, we've seen more and more "regulators" try to step in and control what happens on the internet. These nanny types have been very successful in other areas of public life, and they never seem to go away, so I'm very concerned. After all, we've already seen what dictators can do, so a clamped-down internet is technically feasible. I'd hate to see a situation where, in order to maintain freedom of information, we have to resort to a darknet model, and we lose useful things like search engines because those sites can no longer be indexed. But maybe that would be for the best? Either way, I'm not very optimistic.