Slashdot Mirror


UK Man Faces Prison For Circumventing UK's Pirate Site Blockade (torrentfreak.com)

An anonymous reader writes with news from TorrenFreak that a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit in the UK has charged a man for operating proxy sites and services that let fellow Internet users in the UK bypass local pirate site blockades. In a first of its kind prosecution, the Bakersfield resident is charged with several fraud offenses and one count of converting and/or transferring criminal property. During the summer of 2014, City of London Police arrested the then 20-year-old Callum Haywood of Bakersfield for his involvement with several proxy sites and services. Haywood was interrogated at a police station and later released on bail. He agreed to voluntarily hand over several domain names, but the police meanwhile continued working on the case. I wonder if the same logic applies to customers of the shrinking number of VPNs that can be used to bypass other kinds of country-level controls.

130 comments

  1. Hmm by liqu1d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wonder how much taxpayers money was wasted on this effort.

    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much, that the taxpayers can no longer pay for legal media content.
      Does anybody have a solution to help these poor taxpayers?

    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Encrypt everything, then pirate everything.

      When government bans encryption, use steganography to hide data (including pirated content) in unecrypted data streams.

    3. Re:Hmm by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is the world now. It is a form of corporate welfare. Issues that should be civil and handled by the corporation's at their cost are legislated into criminal issues where the taxpayers bear the cost burden. Privatize the profits, socialize the expenses.

      Of course this does not even touch upon whether it is ethical to jail people for these types of offenses. Hint, it isn't.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    4. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No where near as much as the police expended on this investigation. They moved hell and high water to help those rich cunts. Next time some prick steals your car, or bicycle, or even breaks into your home: just note how fucking useless the cops are. They simply don't give a shit. Fucking traitors to the working class.

    5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, but the media companies should start pirating their own content since pirates clearly have higher revenues than they do according to them.

    6. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, it is worth noting this is the City of London Police, that is the "square mile" police force and so not the regular London Metropolitan police. These chumps have deliberately profiled themselves as lapdogs of big entertainment, not surprising since the City of London itself is entirely corporate with corporations for voters and so on, so it may well not directly be taxpayer money they're burning.

      Even so, it's not the taxpayer money that's the problem here. The pernicious venom of censorship is.

    7. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not as much as you might suppose. The "City of London" Police force is not the general police force for the City of London (Odd I know) it is literally only responsible of the area inside the "Square mile" that is a bought-and-paid for feudal fiefdom inside the rest of the UK democracy. The "police" there pretty much serve corporate interests only. Thankfully very few people actually live inside the square mile not their influence is much less than you'd expect. It is a very strange legacy of out past that is now very difficult for us to rid ourselves of, because of corporate backing.

      But it doesn't represent London proper nor the rest of the UK

    8. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      PS: If anyone cares, the investigation into this burglary most likely utilised illegal GCHQ data. At no point has *anyone* revealed how the men were found and arrested. My money is on parallel construction.

    9. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. The City of London abuse taxpayers money on levels far worse than this every single day.
      More so than the damn copyright "losses" they claim to have due to piracy.

      The UK is at the knees of multinationals now.
      And with the Conservative government in house at present, all they have done is ensure that relationship is even closer.
      Although, admittedly, Cameron and Osbourne seem to be on a fight against them as of recent. Taxing them in favour of local businesses. (which they will easily get around by having an HQ here. Fuck our tax code)
      Boris Johnson is opposed very vocally since he is the one that basically runs London and its multinational empire. He'd label himself King if he could.

    10. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they weren't starting shit internationally *cough cough USA cough*

    11. Re: Hmm by mooterSkooter · · Score: 1

      It's not hypocritical to _not_ steal somebody's wallet or bike is it? Surely it just means he's not a massive cunt?

    12. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is very odd. This plod office has been doing a massive amount of copyright infringement work in recent years. One has to wonder who is driving it, as it's clearly designed to stop them from looking into the real financial crooks they can see outside their own windows on a daily basis.

      And don't bother with FoI requests. They'll get zero response.

    13. Re:Hmm by infolation · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Then let's set aside 'ethical' issues, and look at it, step-by-step, from a legal perspective, since that is how the police view it. I'm not a lawyer, but UK law is written in fairly plain english:

      There is no law in the UK that stops people accessing The Pirate Bay. There is a court injunction, obtain by a consortium of media companies.

      The injunction tells UK ISPs they must block access to specific websites (URLS) under a 'section 97'

      That refers to section 97 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

      The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.

      The service providers listed in that injunction were Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2, Virgin Media and BT

      This has also been an issue with other Pirate Bay proxy sites, for example the BFI attempted to get the Pirate Party's Pirate Bay proxy shut down, unsuccessfully.

      Amongst all these laws and injunctions, I don't see mention of anything that would refer to Callum Haywood's site, except the unsuccessful BFI attempt, since that's the only one that concerns a proxy. His site isn't one that's listed in the injunction but, even if it was, the UK ISPs listed should already be blocking it at a network level in the same way they block the original Pirate Bay.

    14. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, something like that won't be investigated at all, unless there's very obvious evidence like the criminal leaving their name and address on a piece of paper with a, "You can't catch me, fucking pigs!" And even then you'll have to find the piece of paper yourself and hand it in, because no police will actually do any investigative work at the scene of the crime.

      It's quite likely that you have never lived in England. We're a fairly peaceful society, but it's a cultural thing rather than because of police enforcement.

    15. Re:Hmm by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except circumventing a court order or helping someone else do so is an offence in itself, contempt of court I believe.

    16. Re:Hmm by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not as much as you might suppose. The "City of London" Police force is not the general police force for the City of London (Odd I know) it is literally only responsible of the area inside the "Square mile"

      The square mile is the City of London. Greater London area is an agglomeration of a large number of towns, cities, boroughs and other miscellenia such as City of London, City of Westminster, and bits stolen from the surrounding counties, such as Kingston which is the county town of Surrey despite being in Greater London.

      What everyone thinks of as London is Greater London.

      But yes, the City of London is weird. From an administrative point of view, it's older than England, never mind the UK. It's current charter dates from 1067 (England dates from 930 or so), but that recognises its previous charter which is sadly lost to history as it woud have happened well inside the Dark Ages. Since it was already there, the laws got crafted around it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Was his service for the ISPs or the citizens?
      Was the court order for the ISPs or the citizens?

      If the court order did not mention him, he was not circumventing the court order.
      If the answers to the above questions don't match, he wasn't helping someone else circumvent the court order.

    18. Re:Hmm by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Wonder how much taxpayers money was wasted on this effort.

      Surveillance seems to be the British equivalent of the DEA.

    19. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, it is worth noting this is the City of London Police, that is the "square mile" police force and so not the regular London Metropolitan police. These chumps have deliberately profiled themselves as lapdogs of big entertainment, not surprising since the City of London itself is entirely corporate with corporations for voters and so on, so it may well not directly be taxpayer money they're burning.

      Even so, it's not the taxpayer money that's the problem here. The pernicious venom of censorship is.

      Censorship undermines the basic philosophy of the internet. The thing that has made the internet such a great social phenomenon is that, by it's very nature the internet views censorship as damage and routes around it. This has stopped a lot of attempted media control by corrupt governments from being able to cover up social injustices, genocides etc.. This version of censorship looks like it is the garden variety media companies sticking it to the lower class to offset their claimed losses due to piracy, but it really sets a bad precedent, what is to stop someone from using this law to cover up a murder or political scandal and charge the people who try to circumvent their misdirections with this law? In the US we have this poorly written law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been mis-used so much that I would be surprised if some money embezzler at a financial firm tried to invoke the DMCA to suppress evidence of their crimes.. It is missed and it is a bad law and needs to be put in the circular file along with prohibition and slavery and all the other injustices and bad ideas generated by our society.

      It seems that Australia and the UK are slipping on terms of civil liberties into becoming a combination of a corpratocracy and a police state. If they are not careful they could have a nasty revolution on their hands soon.

    20. Re:Hmm by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This didn't circumvent the court order. The order didn't apply to Joe Sixpack, it applied to a specific list of ISPs and ordered them to take a specific set of actions.

      In no way does running a proxy interfere with the ability of BT to block an official list of UKIP... er, I mean, piracy sites.

    21. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pushback is there. There are a lot of people out there in the UK and the US who actually are so fed up with the government, they don't give a rat's ass about how Daesh is attacking anymore, because they are tired of losing freedoms to "protect" against the terrorists... but the bombings and shootings continue to happen, no matter what spying abilities are given to the governments.

    22. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I recall years ago socialists complaining about how companies had unlimited deep pockets and could use civil courts at their leisure to crush individuals who couldn't afford to protect themselves with equally high priced lawyers.

      So the socialists pushed for a "fair" system whereby everyone paid into it with their tax dollars and everyone had an "equal" and "fair" chance at justice.

      This is the usual result of applying legislation to a social issue.

    23. Re:Hmm by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with this arrangement is the City of London Police force, which has the ability to enforce corporate interpretations of law anywhere in the UK. This is clearly a civil matter at best.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re: Hmm by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      If you think the cops don't give a shit about petty crimes,[Bullshit deleted]

      My experience when someone broke into my car and stole a radio was that the cops don't care. The cop pretty much told me so. They are "too busy" to investigate small time theft. He told me he was only taking a report for the inevitable insurance claim. They did thousands of dollars in damage by cutting a convertible soft-top and then totally destroyed my dashboard just to pull out a radio that wasn't worth $20 at a pawn shop.

    25. Re:Hmm by Zaowulf · · Score: 1

      Does anybody have a solution to help these poor taxpayers?

      More taxes, naturally.

    26. Re:Hmm by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Well, it is worth noting this is the City of London Police,. These chumps have deliberately profiled themselves as lapdogs of big entertainment, not surprising since the City of London itself is entirely corporate with corporations for voters and so on, so it may well not directly be taxpayer money they're burning.

      The City of London has very few residents, being almost entirely offices, pubs, cafes and shops. Hardly suprising that they mostly investigate crimes against businesses, who are indeed the main local taxpayers. "Big entertainment" ? You are thinking of the West End of London, it's not part of the City.

    27. Re:Hmm by MitchDev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Revoke copyright after 5 years

    28. Re:Hmm by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unlike the USA, I don't think there would be any legal problem with that.
      In UK law, the GCHQ data is legal (or at least - you'd have a hard time proving otherwise)
      If GCHQ provided data to the police, then that's just a source giving a tip-off to the police.

      We don't have any equivalent of the fourth amendment, and the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine is not nearly so strong here if it applies at all.

      Having said that - it seems perfectly plausible that they police got a tip-off from someone other than GCHQ. Perhaps somebody who wanted the £20k reward - and who quite properly is not being named.

      IANAL

    29. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As the court orders instructed the specified ISPs to block access to certain URLs, if one of their customers accesses one of the URLs via a proxy, or otherwise, then it is the ISP which is breaking the court order. How the ISP enforces this is the ISP's problem.

    30. Re: Hmm by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What are you rambling on about?

    31. Re:Hmm by gstoddart · · Score: 3

      Issues that should be civil and handled by the corporation's at their cost are legislated into criminal issues where the taxpayers bear the cost burden. Privatize the profits, socialize the expenses.

      Absolutely true.

      Notice how neatly they've maneuvered the DHS and ICE into policing copyright?

      Notice how they've paid the US to force this into "trade" negotiations, and effectively write new laws for other countries?

      America is absolutely leading the charge in the globalization of corporate welfare to ensure that corporations have more rights than people. And they've taken the public stance that them being on the payroll of corporations is somehow going to be better for us all ... I have no idea if they believe this or not, or they're just laughing as they take money from corporate interests to sell out ours.

      Welcome to the global oligarchy, because they now enjoy many legal rights you and I no longer have .... like having the police protect us from abuse of the law.

      The police now exist to enforce the will of their corporate overlords. Holy fuck, you can't even make this shit up.

      But, make no mistake about it, the will of the corporations carries far more weight than any rights we think we're supposed to have, and the system is now stacked against us. And that was bought and sold in the open by lobbyists.

      Where the fuck is Reg the Blank when you need him?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    32. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe you didn't read the later part - "When government bans encryption, use steganography to hide data (including pirated content) in unecrypted data streams."

      Imagine running software on your PC that sends a stream of cat jpegs to another person running the steganography software. Some percentage of the cat jpegs contains hidden data that can be re-assembled into something useful on the other end, using techniques only known to the sender and receiver (which can be transferred in unecrypted data streams and still be safe from snooping). It's improbable if not impossible for a snooper to re-assemble this data on their own, even with resources on the scale of the NSA.

    33. Re:Hmm by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The government is corrupt! Give the government more power!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    34. Re:Hmm by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Give it another generation, UK muslims will vote Daesh into government and then they'll have all that surveillance to track down any remaining infidels who insult the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    35. Re: Hmm by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Back in the 1980s, I was in my second enlistment to get more money for college. They sent me off to learn to drive small and medium sized vehicles - even some training on larger stuff. Anyhow, one of my instructors made a comment that has stuck with me all these years.

      "As the fucking commies get more freedom, we get less. It's like it's seeking an equilibrium. Like we're going to meet in the center someday. I wonder if it's intentional."

      I won't speculate as to the latter but it does seem to have some merit. Also, I'm pretty sure that's 100% verbatim.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    36. Re:Hmm by KGIII · · Score: 2

      It's also important to realize the differences between legal systems. If you're unfamiliar with how the courts work in the UK then, at least traditionally, unless a plain text reading of the law suggests this AND the magistrate(?) agrees that the defendant was the target - they may well not even go very far into the proceedings. They write some zany laws and let the courts interpret them - lots and lots of leeway. If you're from the US, it's not a damned thing like what we've got. Australia and, I think, Canada are similar. There's a name for it but I'll be damned if I can remember it at this point.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    37. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that it's a criminal offence in the UK already to not decrypt something when asked to by the Authorities don't you? Mandatory jail sentence I believe.

    38. Re: Hmm by sudon't · · Score: 1

      You know, I guess it depends on where you live. My experience, having grown up in Chicago, and living in cities like San Francisco, was like yours. Then, I moved to a small town in North Carolina, where my house was broken into. I was absolutely flabbergasted to see the cops dusting for fingerprints! Nothing really expensive had been stolen, as I hadn't finished moving in yet. And, then they caught the dude! I never get tired of telling this story to my city-slicker friends.

      But ok, this is the exception.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    39. Re:Hmm by Progman3K · · Score: 2

      You forgot apostrophe's on:

      The plural of apostrophe is "apostrophes", not "apostrophe's".

      Back to trolling-school for you?

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    40. Re:Hmm by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      A CCTV recording of the incident was released by the Daily Mirror before the police released it. The video recording showed people nicknamed by the newspaper as "Mr Ginger, Mr Strong, Mr Montana, The Gent, The Tall Man and The Old Man".[15][16]

      Yeah, some serious parallel construction needed there. They were caught on camera.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    41. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, suck it up. Get over it. It won't change. It won't get better. Ever. The One Percenters have won. Time to accept it and move on.

    42. Re: Hmm by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      There's a name for it but I'll be damned if I can remember it at this point.

      Common Law (as opposed to Civil Law)

    43. Re: Hmm by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Unlike the USA, I don't think there would be any legal problem with that.

      That doesn't necessarily mean the gov't toadies want to admit it.

    44. Re: Hmm by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Nice. Thanks. ;-)

      My brain doesn't work that way. I'll remember details but have no idea what the name or acronym is. I can tell you all sorts of history but if you ask for a specific date or the names of the units (sometimes the people) involved then I may not be able to tell you.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    45. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you heard of this new thing called sarcasm? It's pretty new.

      CAPTCHA: ketchup

    46. Re: Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, there's probably not going to be some legal argument like the USA used with drug wars and interstate commerce/tax laws(where they refused to sell you the stamp!).

    47. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really doesn't matter. The UK is a police state where the law changes on a whim to fit any situation that those in power want it to.

    48. Re: Hmm by snowsnoot · · Score: 1

      Not if we start killing them. I'm not even joking.

    49. Re: Hmm by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Imagine running software on your PC that sends a stream of cat jpegs to another person running the steganography software. "

      No need to imagine. Someone was doing it 20 years ago, only it was Claudia Schiffer gifs posted on Usenet

    50. Re:Hmm by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "They were caught on camera."

      Cameras which the gang had paid someone to disable - he'd failed to do so.

    51. Re:Hmm by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      One of the problems is that people roll over and play dead when CoLP show up with unenforceable warrants (they're out of their jurisdiction)

      A couple of targets have called their local fuzz, who have shown up and told CoLP to piss off.

      CoLP have also repeatedly seized domains without court orders (illegal) thanks to registrars who roll over and play dead on a letter on police letterhead.

      There have been more than enough convictions of corrupt british police to underscore that this is a really bad idea. A lot of the registrars are wising up.

  2. Why is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Although laws blocking content are draconian, why wouldn't someone expect the government to frown upon operating websites to circumvent the law? It seems like political activism to overturn the law would be a better course of action. Although copyright holders may be entitled to damages, I don't see why they should be able to enforce censorship.

  3. Really not legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I will find it hard if they find him guilty under the charges, but with DUMB judges who believe the cattrap the plod talk about I suspect he will do down. The thing is that UK BLOCKING is not legal. Their is not UK law derived from Parliment that create the law, hell not ALL ISPs are are even covered by the court order to block site as it only the few biggest one which have to block. So this guy is being led to slaughter for a crime that does not exist and in now legal law, hell it would have to be EVERY UK ISP to be forced to block to get any where near it

    1. Re:Really not legal by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      So this guy is being led to slaughter for a crime that does not exist

      UK judges are trained rather than elected, they know the law and will see this for the publicity stunt that it is. Of course the media will have forgotten all about it when they guy walks out of court (if he ever gets there). OTOH unlike the UK, a false arrest suit in the US could make the victim richer than Scrooge McDuck.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Really not legal by Xest · · Score: 1

      Web blocking certainly is legal under UK law, that doesn't make it right of course, but it's certainly legal because we have no inherent legal right in the UK to wholly uncensored internet access.

      I'd like to think though that this guy has a reasonable chance of going free (though it might not happen until appeal, lower courts are generally inept on technical issues - see the Doncaster airport bomb threat tweet case). The OiNK owner got away with it and he was running an actual piracy site rather than a simply list of proxys, so mostly I suspect this is the police abusing their power to try and make a point that even if you do nothing wrong they can still fuck up their life. That's obviously unacceptable and if it is the case the police will need to be heavily reprimanded for it, and the people pushing for prosecution fired.

      I wont hold my breath though, these guys are part of the City of London police and it doesn't get much more corrupt than that bunch of corporate puppets. Those guys are basically a government mandated, publicly funded, corporate run hit squad and are the complete anti-thesis of the concept of policing by consent that has been at the core of British policing since it's very inception. PIPCUs entire modus operandi is bullying and intimidation, it's what they do and how they operate.

      It's just a shame more people don't stand up to them - they've only been able to claim they're successful because too many companies have done as PIPCU has asked (i.e. pulled advertising from sites PIPCU doesn't like) rather than tell them to go fuck themselves. The sooner PIPCU's tactics start failing, the sooner they'll get their funding pulled and the sooner this embarrassment to British policing can be swept into the bowels of the history books and forgotten about.

    3. Re:Really not legal by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Canadian judges are the same way, the justice system is for all intents the same between both countries. The difference seems to be the laws, and the fact that the UK decided to go "hail corporate" unlike other commonwealth countries. And I see a lot of Americans trumpet how great the justice system is up here. Though there are plenty things wrong such as light sentences and allowing absolute garbage back out on the streets after they have 100+ violent assaults, and not actually throwing them in jail until they ambush and try to murder someone.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re: Really not legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope he has a really really good lawyer... If I was a UK lawyer I'd represent him pro-bono.

    5. Re:Really not legal by Neil_Brown · · Score: 1

      Web blocking certainly is legal under UK law

      And under European law, in its current form:

      Article 8(2), directive 2001/29/EC: "Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that rightholders whose interests are affected by an infringing activity carried out on its territory can bring an action for damages and/or apply for an injunction and, where appropriate, for the seizure of infringing material as well as of devices, products or components referred to in Article 6(2)."

      Injunctive relief (such as a blocking injunction) is specifically recognised as acceptable by the law which grants ISPs "mere conduit" status:

      Article 12(3), directive 2000/31/EC: "3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement."

      Of course, this is just law, and could be struck down by a court on, for example, human rights grounds, and the CJEU's Advocate General made some interesting comments on human rights considerations in the context of blocking of open, free Wi-Fi recently but, to date, the courts have been relatively comfortable granting blocking injunctions.

    6. Re: Really not legal by infolation · · Score: 1

      He was originally arrested in 2014. How his case progresses will depend to a great extent on who represented him in the station at that time, and what he said. The fact he voluntarily handed over a few of the domain names at that time may, unfortunately, indicate that he was made to believe that an offence had been committed, and he may have said more than he should have, unadvisedly.

    7. Re:Really not legal by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's only the top ten ISPs who are required to block, I believe. The rest (mine included) are wide open.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  4. Strike him centurian! very roughly! by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 2


    ...and throw him to the floor sir? -oh yes.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    1. Re:Strike him centurian! very roughly! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      That's "stwike him centuwion, vewy woughly"

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  5. This is intolerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is intolerable. Criminal charges, the prospect of decades in jail. A life ruined. For what? Perhaps may be enabling people to copy a bunch of crappy music and movies from Hollywood and such?

    I'm coming to the conclusion that it is now every human beings duty to copy and share whatever they can get hold of and break this accursed copyright system.

    By the way, "Intellectual Property", what on Earth? There is nothing intellectual about hoarding stuff and extorting rent from everyone over and over again to see or hear it. Is there anything intellectual about property anyway?. Certainly most of the content they are fighting over has no intellectual merit.

       

    1. Re:This is intolerable by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      This is the UK not the USA. There is *ZERO* I repeat *ZERO* chance that he will in jail for decades. The maximum sentence in the UK for any copyright offence is 10 years and/or an "unlimited" fine. Further to get the maximum sentence would require you to be profiting financially from the copyright infringement. Also note in the UK damages are limited to *actual* losses.

    2. Re:This is intolerable by Neil_Brown · · Score: 2

      The maximum sentence in the UK for any copyright offence is 10 years

      It is worth bearing in mind that the charges in question do not appear to be charges under copyright law. They are, apparently:

      one count of converting and/or transferring criminal property and six counts of possession of an article for use in fraud

      Converting criminal property falls under s327 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and has a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

      Possession of an article for use in fraud is covered by s6 Fraud Act 2006, which carries up to 5 years imprisonment.

    3. Re:This is intolerable by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      My bad for not checking what he was been charged under. However 14 years is still not decades.

      Further I severely doubt they will hand down a maximum sentence either. Maximum sentence's are very much the exception in the UK. For example those involved in the Hatton Garden burglary, the biggest in British history only got seven years maximum.

    4. Re: This is intolerable by Neil_Brown · · Score: 1

      I agree on the likely "number of years" front, although I suspect that this might be perceived by some as an opportunity to make an example. Whether the judge goes for it, of course...

    5. Re:This is intolerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and fortunately after jail, although his ability to support himself through employment will be ruined due to his criminal record, the UK has a very generous benefits system (Thanks Benefits Britain for showing me!) so he'll be okay once he's released.

    6. Re:This is intolerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If British people can't be bothered to vote, why shouldn't they have an obviously unjust system? Isn't it right and proper that their lives be Hell until they finally give in and show up at their polls (which would obviously make easy victories for a repeal-all-the-bullshit platform)? Shouldn't innocent people sometimes be occasionally randomly attacked by their government? It's not like anyone cares.

      (Yes, you get to throw this back in my face after the 2016 election in America, since at least judging by the primaries, few Americans (of either corrupt persuasion) are bothering to vote either).

  6. Brexit, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Brits. Go fix your democracy. In the meantime stay outside the EU (which itself is already in a pitiful state and can't bear your authoritarian adventures).

    1. Re:Brexit, Please! by MartinG · · Score: 1

      The EU, despite it's problems has been the main thing limiting the insanity of recent UK governments.

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
  7. To answer the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the same logic applies to customers of the shrinking number of VPNs that can be used to bypass other kinds of country-level controls.

    Don't worry, as long as you you wear a suit and a tie and have a good lawyer, there will be no problem. The City of London Police only picks on misfits and people who do not conform to City of London standards of appearance.

    1. Re:To answer the question by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, as long as you you wear a suit and a tie ... there will be no problem.

      Well, a suit and tie won't cost you much.

  8. Same in North Korea and China by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Using proxies to bypass government mandated restrictions on Internet use is illegal in some other authoritarian countries. Why should be UK be any different?

    1. Re:Same in North Korea and China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad to see a country like the UK cracking down on those that are trying to help the citizens of those authoritarian countries.

    2. Re:Same in North Korea and China by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't a government mandated block. A private company took the largest ISPs to court and got an injunction requiring them to block a long list of web sites. Smaller ISPs are unaffected.

      The correct course of action would for that company to now ask for an injunction against this guy, asking the court to make him stop providing proxies to bypass the other blocks. Instead, they got their private police force, the City of London Police, to treat him as a criminal. If you were not aware, the City of London is a small area in London that is basically run by corporations. Corporations get to vote on their elected officials, and the City of London Police basically work for them.

      This is extreme abuse of power by the City of London Police.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Same in North Korea and China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I did not get your comment. You're saying that you're sorry that an authoritarian dictatorship is cracking down on citizens that can potentially harm the other authoritarian dictatorships? What else do you expect? Authoritarian countries should stick together and share the knowledge.

    4. Re: Same in North Korea and China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In China I can download all the copyright stuff I want. Then I go back to Hong Kong (or just put on my VPN) to access the censored stuff. But by doing so I can no longer access some pirate Chinese site that only accept China IP address.

      Each country has different standards of acceptable and not. It's hard to say one is better than other, like blocking political stuffs is worse than blocking copyright violations. All are bad, and we as citizens of whatever country we come from have to oppose censorship, no matter the content.

    5. Re:Same in North Korea and China by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I like that you mention China considering that it is NOT illegal to bypass the great wall. It is discouraged, there is an active program to clamp down on VPNs, but it is NOT illegal to use or provide.

      Now what you do on the other end of that proxy can quickly get you into hot water.

    6. Re:Same in North Korea and China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like that you mention China considering that it is NOT illegal to bypass the great wall. It is discouraged, there is an active program to clamp down on VPNs, but it is NOT illegal to use or provide.

      Now what you do on the other end of that proxy can quickly get you into hot water.

      Bypassing the Great Fire Wall may or may not be illegal. It all depends.

      According to Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall), (China) "intentionally left the law 'flexible' so that it could be open to future interpretation and development." (According to Law CL97, crimes carried out over computer networks) "also includes using the internet to distribute information considered "harmful to national security, and using the internet to distribute information considered 'harmful to public order, social stability, and Chinese morality'. The central government relies heavily on its State Council regulators to determine what specific online behavior and speech fall under these definitions."

      In real world, you might be interested to find what happened to the authors of GoAgent and Shadowsocks, regarding "it is NOT illegal to use or provide".

    7. Re:Same in North Korea and China by jittles · · Score: 1

      Isn't the city of London technically just a small area around the financial district of the greater London area?

    8. Re:Same in North Korea and China by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      This isn't a government mandated block. A private company took the largest ISPs to court and got an injunction requiring them to block a long list of web sites. Smaller ISPs are unaffected.

      The correct course of action would for that company to now ask for an injunction against this guy, asking the court to make him stop providing proxies to bypass the other blocks. Instead, they got their private police force, the City of London Police, to treat him as a criminal. If you were not aware, the City of London is a small area in London that is basically run by corporations. Corporations get to vote on their elected officials, and the City of London Police basically work for them.

      This is extreme abuse of power by the City of London Police.

      City of London != London.

      The City of London is a small area dominated by business. Historically, it IS London, founded by time immemorial (no one knows when it was founded), and basically existed when England was formed, so the monarchy never could really control them. There is basically an uneasy tension - the City of London agreed to certain terms in order to get certain benefits but they pretty much have autonomy. Later monarchies didn't like this, and they created Westminster to be the power center. Westminster expanded and expanded, encompassing London, to become what we know today as London (Greater London), while the original London is known as the City of London. I'm pretty sure the original intent was to basically have the whole area called Westminster and thus getting rid of London, but history.

      And because of the way things were, the City of London has around 30,000 residents, but over 2M people actually work there This results in companies actually having voting rights and control over the governance.

      Even today, the City of London is really an autonomous entity inside of England.

      Here's some nice YouTube videos showing how messed up it all is. It goes through the history, and the really, really, screwed up governance structure.

      https://www.youtube.com/playli...

    9. Re:Same in North Korea and China by theCoder · · Score: 1

      This isn't a government mandated block. A private company took the largest ISPs to court and got an injunction requiring them to block a long list of web sites.

      Isn't the court a part of the government? And doesn't it interpret laws passed by the government? Just because the mandate didn't come from the Prime Minister (or the Queen) doesn't mean it isn't government mandated. Those ISPs wouldn't be blocking any sites just because a private company told them to.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
  9. Re:Another man faces prison... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only someone who cares a lot about Jews would post like this. Are you Jewish?

  10. I've seen this film... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A man accused of a crime in Bakersfield is imprisoned. Later he escapes but is re-captured, only to be used in a game show where contestants fight for survival.
    Is Callum Haywood ready to be The Running Man?

  11. Re:Another man faces prison... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or a complete prick?

  12. shrinking number of VPNs?????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shrinking number of VPNs???

    Are you actually kidding, The number of these services has gone up ten fold.

    1. Re: shrinking number of VPNs?????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until they're banned.

  13. Fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can understand the authorities not being happy at him providing bypasses to their mandated blocks, but where does fraud come into it?

    1. Re:Fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting the Police just make up crimes for their own agenda?

  14. Reassuring by Laxator2 · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to know that given all the cuts on the police force that Osborne is talking about, the humming a tune in the shower police unit remains well-staffed. Right along the lines of the "Big Society" trumpeted by Cameron.

    After all, who cares about assault, burglary, etc ? Good luck having the police respond to a call reporting assault. Good citizens should band together and defend against those, the police is too busy with much more serious crimes. Like not paying for the right to hum a tune in the shower.

    1. Re:Reassuring by Christian+Smith · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm glad to know that given all the cuts on the police force that Osborne is talking about, the humming a tune in the shower police unit remains well-staffed. Right along the lines of the "Big Society" trumpeted by Cameron.

      After all, who cares about assault, burglary, etc ? Good luck having the police respond to a call reporting assault. Good citizens should band together and defend against those, the police is too busy with much more serious crimes. Like not paying for the right to hum a tune in the shower.

      Last time I was assaulted in the street, the next police officer I flagged down was more concerned that I happened to be inadvertently spitting blood in his face.

    2. Re:Reassuring by rhazz · · Score: 1

      the next police officer I flagged down

      Was the previous police officer the guy that assaulted you?

  15. The city by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Yes, when Brits talk about "The city" they are referring to London's financial district, it's the equivalent of "Wall St" in the US.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:The city by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Fitting, in that they both seem to control government much more than anybody else does.

      We don't need a fucking illuminati when the government is on the payroll of corporations and now officially responsible for policing their interests.

      Because that is literally the situation we find ourselves in.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  16. Re:Another man faces prison... by Z80a · · Score: 1

    If you keep thinking on ethnic groups rather than individuals, someone from an ethic group you trust will stab in the back.

  17. STFU whitey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Epic fail attempt at ebonics.

  18. Similar to tax dodging by Christian+Smith · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This appears to be a "spirit of the law" sort of case. While nothing he has done is in itself criminal (he's laundered no money, and personally committed no fraud) he has assisted others in potentially performing now criminal acts.

    So how is this any different to myriad of tax evasion schemes, which also fly in the face of the "spirit of the law"? I'd rather the powers that be concentrate on the (IMO) fraudulent actions of large (and small) corporations denying the people of this country reasonable tax income.

    1. Re:Similar to tax dodging by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      he has assisted others in potentially performing now criminal acts

      So, if you sell someone a gun, have you assisted them in "potentially" performing criminal acts?

      Is visiting a website a criminal act? Linking to a website? What is our threshold for the hypothetical act of hypothetically allowing people to commit hypothetical crimes for which only they are actually responsible for hypothetically doing?

      Sending someone to prison for running a web proxy to bypass a restriction placed on ISPs by a court as per a court order brought by a private corporation .. if this is what we're calling "a criminal act", then the assholes running this copyright shakedown have been given FAR too much leeway.

      This entire thing sounds like bullshit, because as far as I can tell, there isn't a single law this guy has actually broken.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  19. not property by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Our wise fore fathers recognized the difference between nonduplicable "property" and infinitely duplicable copyrighted materials. The rest is corruption of legislation or judges.

    1. Re: not property by Neil_Brown · · Score: 1

      We will need to wait to see the detail, but my guess would be that the "property" is probably money to do with some kind of advertising, or other slightly tangential activity. Potentially a bit "Al Capone" like.

  20. Re:Another man faces prison... by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    The crime he allegedly committed wasn't "talking to a muslim woman", it was for inciting racial hatred online (which is illegal in the UK). He asked a muslim woman to "explain Brussels" and she said "nothing to do with me", which he described as a "mealy mouthed reply". He then went on to tweet other things, including using the word "towelhead" multiple times.

    I don't think this should be a crime, free speech and all that. The guy supposedly works in PR, I'd rather see him try to further his career in that field after this.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  21. There's a difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between 'Hey, use my proxy! Be anonymous!' and 'Hey, use my proxy! Pirate shit!'

    1. Re:There's a difference by RDW · · Score: 1

      Between 'Hey, use my proxy! Be anonymous!' and 'Hey, use my proxy! Pirate shit!'

      Plausible deniability?

  22. Jail for non-violent crimes? by naasking · · Score: 1

    It's still ridiculous that jail time is considered suitable for non-violent crimes. Copyright infringement is a civil matter with fines. Why should this be treated differently?

  23. Not all ISPss... by Retron · · Score: 1

    This is even more daft when you consider that it's only the big ISPs that block those sites anyway. Smaller ISPs, even though they go via BT's network, still allow access to them all.

    Heck, back when Wikipedia was blocked a few years ago (due to a contentious album cover) I could still access it via my ISP at the time, Entanet... which meant they weren't even implementing the super-secret block list as operated by the Internet Watch Foundation.

  24. Bakersfield ? by nukenerd · · Score: 2

    I'd never heard of Bakersfield, and Googling brings up somewhere in California. Yet TFA refers to a UK man, and he is going on trial in Nottingham (UK). Can someone explain?

    1. Re:Bakersfield ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakersfield,_Nottingham

      Next question.

    2. Re:Bakersfield ? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      Now, how do I solve World hunger?

    3. Re:Bakersfield ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, lots of places have the same name?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakersfield,_Nottingham
      https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Bakersfield,+Nottingham

  25. Meanwhile in Rotherham.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...young girls are still being groomed, raped and tortured, because despite the mainstream press being shamed into shaming the police force to actually do something about it, an incredible 11 people (yes, as many as 11!) have actually been prosecuted and sent to jail, out of a list of supposedly 300 suspects.

    And in other news, all the junior doctors are striking because we've asked them if they would mind taking a 13% pay rise (over and above inflation) to receive basic pay rate on Saturdays (but only from 9am to 5pm, the rest is premium rate).

    Ah, the British public sector - worth every penny, eh?

    1. Re: Meanwhile in Rotherham.... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Whereas your job is vital to society I suppose.

  26. Re:Another man faces prison... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a complete fucking piece of shit. I did as requested and typed in "brussels attack muslim" into Google News. First of all, what the fuck kind of response did he think he was going to get going up to some random person and trying to hold them accountable for somebody else's actions? Then he goes online and starts shitposting about her all over the place.

    Did you consider that maybe these "Jews" want you to hate Muslims? You are a fucking cow just like every other fucking cow who is being brainwashed and controlled by the Illuminati. You know who else that guy reminds me of? Social Justice Warriors and feminists.

    OMG, I used SJW! My point must be invalid!

    Kill yourself.

  27. VPNs are false security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you use a VPN, some soviet in the UK is probably sniffing all of your traffic.

  28. Selective targeting, just like the RIAA by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

    The article says the perpetrator was 20 years old. Like the RIAA going after grandmothers and teenage children, they selected a target least likely to afford to defend themselves. How many 20 year old men have deep enough pockets to afford a lawyer?

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  29. A charge is one thing... by Doghouse13 · · Score: 1

    ...a conviction is another. The PIPCU will have taken legal advice, I'm sure, but just because the police bring a case, that doesn't automatically mean that a court will see things their way. It may yet prove an interesting one to watch.

    1. Re:A charge is one thing... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "...a conviction is another. "

      Indeed. The PIPCU have yet to secure a single solitary criminal conviction in any case.

      In the cases where targets have called their local police when PIPCU have shown up, the locals have quite rightly assessed that it's a civil matter and PIPCU have no right to be onsite - moreover as they have not consulted the local police before showing up (legal requirement), their presence is a criminal matter all in itself. Thus you're now looking at police telling police to go away or face arrest.

      The best advice I've seen on this if/when PIPCU show up is to refuse entry and call the local fuzz immediately.

  30. Corporate Police Force by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    That's what you get when let a Corporate police force run amok and arrest ordinary citizens outside of the Corporation's domain. You were watching Robocop eons ago and thought we'd never see corporate police going after citizens? Well, here you go.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  31. If he's wealthy he will get set free.. by doccus · · Score: 1

    Because he did not violate any laws.. with a good legal team. he will be able to prove his innocence. If, however, he cannot afford a good legal team he will surely get sent down the river for life. And pleez no cracks about "innocent until proven guilty"! Does *anyone* even still believe that's how the real world works?
    Justice in this case is absolutely "up for sale". :hint: Where the F#$k is the EFF in this case? Shouldn't they be all over it with support?

  32. Looks like he needed another proxy by kmoser · · Score: 1

    If only he had been operating a service which obscured the identity and origin of its users, he would not have been caught.