C. So why are we blocking it? Why is there a problem with people stumbling upon it by accident (A)? Why should possession be illegal (B)?
If the problem isn't the material but the harm but the damage caused by production, surely the trick is to make production illegal. Or even better, make actual child abuse illegal, and then try to stop it from happening? The resources put into filtering, blocking and pursuing people for possession could be better spent on prevention and helping victims, perhaps.
For the record, under the current UK law (the aptly-named "Protection of Children Act" among others) it can be (by my reading) a crime for someone to let their husband or wife take "indecent" pictures of them. Because child porn. That should give you an indication of just how crazy this area of law is.
Common misunderstanding. Laws apply to wherever the law says it applies - that's one of the principles of individual sovereignty. If the US (or the UK) wants to pass a law making it a crime to do something in another country, they can. The only limit is their ability to enforce that.
In this case, though, it is arguable that the "act" was carried out in the US - certainly the damage was suffered there.
However, that doesn't mean there isn't a huge hole in the current multinational framework for criminal (and civil) liability; the systems were developed at a time when it would be clear where an act took place, and aren't suitable to a world where a single act can take place through multiple jurisdictions.
Given the recent mess with the ITU, though, I doubt the major countries will be able to sort out a framework for Internet-based jurisdiction any time soon...
Well yeah... when you arrest someone or try to prosecute them for a crime, it's all just accusations. In this case, it is unlikely to be proved in court due to there being no trial. The US are alleging he did this and caused this much damage, which is why they want to put him on trial...
But that isn't how (most) crimes work. It is (in many places) a criminal offence maliciously to gain unauthorised access to computer systems, and thus those who do so should get punished. Arguments of proportionality of sentences, precise wordings of the offence and the purpose/merits of a criminal justice system aside, whether other people are also doing shouldn't really be an issue.
Whether or not other people are to blame (the operators of the system, other people breaking the law) is a separate issue, and is between them and the authorities. Should the system techs and operators be held criminally responsible? Probably not. However, should they be liable for their own negligence and/or breach of contract, definitely. And their supervisors. And anyone else who is liable (civilly).
In most places you can't copy an idea, merely the expression of it. So they'd potentially own the various copyrights in the religious texts/works (the films, the books and so on). There is some debate as to whether or not a single word can be covered by copyright, in theory, yes, in practice, probably not, particularly in this case as "Jedi" is merely one word used in a film (so not really a substantial part of the work). Trade marks* might be an option, but infringement is harder to show.
A quick check shows that the following trade marks are registered:
- A community trade mark (EU-wide) for "JEDI" owned by Lucasfilm (covering classes 09; interactive entertainment software etc., 16; user manuals, and 28; games and playthings);
- A community trade mark for "JEDI POWER BATTLES" owned by Lucasfilm (for classes 09 and 16);
They also have trade marks for "Yoda, the Jedi Master" and "Jedi Power Battles" in the UK only. I think the former is due to an advertising campaign for Vodafone which they've licensed it to.
They would have had to shut down the computers/networks, but (and at this point I should declare that I'm not a computer security expert) presumably had they simply discovered the flaw, they could have taken them down in a controlled, scheduled way, and then combed through the stuff to check for problems at will. This way it seems the networks were crashed by McKinnon, which strikes me as being likely to cause much greater short-term problems and thus costs.
And no, I have no intention of getting a job in security; and I'm not saying this system was good, or that the US were not at all to blame - but that doesn't really matter in criminal prosecutions. The guy (allegedly) broke both UK and US laws by intentionally breaking in to some high-profile military computer networks and trashed them. That sounds fairly serious to me.
The UK prosecutor can't be bothered to charge him, because the damage wasn't done in the UK (so there isn't really any public interest in prosecuting) and the US didn't want to hand over all the (sensitive) evidence (of the details of all their military computer networks) to the UK authorities (for them to be made available in open court).
The CPS not bringing a case doesn't mean they think he's innocent, just that they don't think it's worth the trouble to try to prosecute him.
Was it " intentional and calculated to influence and affect the US Government by intimidation and coercion"?
Well the damage was obviously intentional, and it was calculated to influence the Government (even if it didn't) as evidenced by the note he admitted to leaving behind which read:
"US foreign policy is akin to Government-sponsored terrorism these days It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels "
That sounds rather like an attempt at intimidation and coercion (however pathetic) to me...
He's responsible for what he DID - break into a computer
Actually it was 97 computers (possibly 96). From which he was* able to access a further 73,000 networked, US Government computers. He shut down "the entire US Army's Military District of Washington network of over 2000 computers for 24 hours", and rendered some 300 computers at US Naval Weapons Station Earle inoperable for a while, including one "used for monitoring the identity, location, physical condition, staffing and battle readiness of Navy ships." Oh, and he installed a "suite of hacking tools" on the computers he did access to make it easier for him (and anyone else) to gain access to them in the future.
But yes, that's just like breaking into a single computer...
*Please insert the word "allegedly" as appropriate throughout. As this will never go to trial, we will probably never know what actually happened.
It's possible deleting a load of critical system files (shutting down various military networks) and removing over 2,000 user accounts may have caused some of the damage (both long-term costs of replacing, and call-out fees for technicians during the short-term panic of working out what was going). If you want more details of what he is accused of, read the first few paragraphs of this judgment.
McKinnon is accused of deleting a load of "critical system files" from a number of key military computers (shutting down various networks), along with over 2,000 user accounts from Army's Washington DC(?) network. They wouldn't have had to fix all of that without his interference.
As for the computers being unsecured, afaik there is no way to completely secure any network connected to the Internet, although I don't know how much work he had to do to break in.
"Between February 2001 and March 2002 he gained unauthorised access to 97 computers belonging to and used by the US Government... From those computers, he extracted the identities of certain administrative accounts and associated passwords. Having gained access to those administrative accounts, he installed unauthorised remote access and administrative software called "remotely anywhere" that enabled him to access and alter data upon the American computers at any time and without detection by virtue of the programme masquerading as a Windows operating system.
Once "remotely anywhere" was installed, Mr McKinnon proceeded to install his "suite of hacking tools" – software that he used to facilitate further compromises to the computers which also facilitated the concealment of his activities. Using this software, he was able to scan over 73,000 US Government computers for other computers and networks susceptible to compromise in a similar fashion. He was thus able to lever himself from network to network and into a number of significant Government computers in different parts of the USA. The relevant ones were:
53 Army computers, including computers based in Virginia and Washington that controlled the Army's Military District of Washington network and are used in furtherance of national defence and security [charges 1 to 2]
26 Navy computers, including US Naval Weapons Station Earle, New Jersey. This was responsible for replenishing munitions and supplies for the deployed Atlantic Fleet [charges 6 to 8]
16 NASA computers [charges 12 to 15]
1 Department of Defense computer [charges 17 to 18].
Once the computers were accessible by Mr McKinnon, he deleted data including:
Critical operating system files from nine computers, the deletion of which shut down the entire US Army's Military District of Washington network of over 2000 computers for 24 hours, significantly disrupting Governmental functions
2,455 user accounts on a US Army computer that controlled access to an Army computer network, causing those computers to reboot and become inoperable
Critical Operating system files and logs from computers at US Naval Weapons Station Earle, one of which was used for monitoring the identity, location, physical condition, staffing and battle readiness of Navy ships. Deletion of these files rendered the Base's entire network of over 300 computers inoperable at a critical time immediately following 11 September 2001 and thereafter left the network vulnerable to other intruders.
He also copied data and files onto his own computers, including operating system files containing account names and encrypted passwords from 22 computers. These comprised:
189 files from US Army computers
35 files from US Navy computers, including approximately 950 passwords from server computers at Naval Weapons Station Earle
6 files from NASA computers
Mr McKinnon's conduct was intentional and calculated to influence and affect the US Government by intimidation and coercion. As a result of his conduct, damage was caused to computers by impairing their integrity, availability and operation of programmes, systems, information and data on the computers, rendering them unreliable. The cost of repair totalled over $700,000."
Slightly more than a burglar walking in the front door and claiming the costs of upgrading the locks. More like breaking in (maybe through a weak door), completely trashing the place and leaving.
My understanding is that the existing court orders are for specific ISPs (Sky, Virgin, BT etc.), rather than any ISP. Thus even if the Pirate Party is acting as an ISP it would need its own order (or to be brought into the existing ones).
[Disclaimer: I haven't seen the ThePirateBay orders yet - only the ones from the Newzbin2 block.]
It just so happens that yesterday The Pirate Bay launched a separate site dedicated to promoting and distributing (legally) the works of some 10,000+ artists. Stuff which has already been on TPB for a while.
Sadly I haven't been able to check this out as I'm in the UK and this new site is blocked by my ISP.
I wish we had a few hundred more Ameila Andersdotters in the the European Parliament and in legislatures and governments across the world. While most politicians I have met want to do the right thing, she's one of the very few (if only one) who seems to know enough, be sharp enough and care enough to do it.
On the other hand, she does make the rest of us look bad...
It's because it's elected by proportional representation.
It also works through compromise and agreement (rather than divisiveness and opposition), is much harder to lobby (due to there being MEPs from all different areas) and much harder to pressure (mainly because most people don't know/care what goes on).
There's also the fact that MEP elections tend to have much lower turnouts, so a much higher percentage of voters know what's going on, and don't just vote for the party they like the sound of.
On the contrary, son, there are innocents in prison right now.
Technically there are people in prison right now who claim to be innocent. They may be innocent, they may not. The ones proven to be innocent (or rather, who have had their convictions quashed, which doesn't necessarily mean they are innocent) should have been released by now.
[Disclaimer: I've just started working on an Innocent project, so... not sure whether that makes me more or less likely to agree with them being innocent.]
Also, are you really the parent of the poster you were replying to?
In another article on this subject the Daily Mail wanted to show how easy it was to find porn online (and why Google was to blame), so showed a screenshot of a Google search (normal search, not image) for "porn" and highlighted the massive number of results. What they failed to point out was that with safe search on (to maximum) you get 0 results.
Which is kind of silly - you'd think you'd at least get dictionary results...
Hitler probably wasn't a vegetarian. There's some debate about this as it seems he decided to eat less meat some times, but never stopped eating it altogether. Also it seems he may not have liked most meats (other than sausages). The idea that he was a vegetarian, didn't smoke or drink and wasn't interested in women was apparently a piece of propaganda spread by Goebbels, in an attempt to portray Hitler as completely dedicated to the cause, and capable of great self-restraint. Most of it wasn't true.
Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper)...
Unless it's talking about anything to do with liberals, the EU, the ECHR, human rights, the judiciary, regulation of the media, the Internet...
But no, this plan has been in the works for a while now - there was a consultation over the summer (run by the Department of Education of all people) on how to protect children from evil things online (including non-traditional religions and political views), and the underlying move to "do something about the Internet" has been around for a few years. I think it is an attempt to win support from the Daily Mail (who want to make sure that children have to go to their site to view pictures of scantily-clad women).
I think the only part they've got wrong (having not read either the Telegraph or DM articles, but having read some of the briefing material earlier in the year) is that this is about buying a new computer. I think it is only about signing up to a new ISP account. In theory the ISPs were supposed to be doing this voluntarily, but I guess the DM wanted the government to do more - so yay for more pointless legislation.
The Monarch has very limited input on running the country. She has weekly meetings with the Prime Minister, and has some ceremonial functions (including signing all Acts of Parliament, calling and dismissing Parliament, and appointing the Prime Minister and certain other senior ministerial positions). These latter functions are historical formalities, and have limited impact on the actual governing. The last monarch who tried to meddle too much with Parliament was beheaded for treason.
In theory, the people who run the country are the MPs (who have near-absolute power); the elected members of the House of Commons (the "lower" house of Parliament). In practice, however, the country is run by the Prime Minister, his Cabinet (other ministers) and the various departments/ministries they head.
Usually, the "government" refers to the Prime Minister + Cabinet, but can also include the departments. While most ministers are also in Parliament (either in the House of Commons or House of Lords), they have two separate functions; a governmental one (as minister), and a legislative one (as MP/Lord). We tend to treat them distinctly (although I'm not sure most people understand the subtleties of this).
Except we do have a constitution. What we don't have is a Constitution. At least, according to dictionary.com's definitions:
"3. the fundamental political principles on which a state is governed, esp when considered as embodying the rights of the subjects of that state"
"4. ( often capital ) (in certain countries, esp Australia and the US) a statute embodying such principles."
So there are different meanings; one refers to the principles, the other refers to a document that lists those principles. The UK is governed through the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty (perhaps with a healthy dose of respect for the Rule of Law and Human Rights thrown in, but perhaps not if you ask the current Government). But this isn't written down in one single document - it is reflected throughout hundreds of years of Acts of Parliaments and judgments.
By that logic anyone who ever receives public money should have to comply with FOI requests; so that's anyone on any sort of benefits, anyone who has ever used a public hospital (which will be much of the population as most of us are born in one), any number of state-sponsored museums etc., and possibly anyone who has received a tax refund.
Of course, the argument itself is a bit silly, as the BBC does have to comply with valid FOI requests but only "in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature." [See the relevant part of the Freedom of Information Act.]
I imagine that the thinking behind this is that in carrying out journalism, art or literature it isn't exercising public authority, and so doesn't need to be as accountable/transparent (from a constitutional point of view).
Slashdot Mirror
C. So why are we blocking it? Why is there a problem with people stumbling upon it by accident (A)? Why should possession be illegal (B)?
If the problem isn't the material but the harm but the damage caused by production, surely the trick is to make production illegal. Or even better, make actual child abuse illegal, and then try to stop it from happening? The resources put into filtering, blocking and pursuing people for possession could be better spent on prevention and helping victims, perhaps.
For the record, under the current UK law (the aptly-named "Protection of Children Act" among others) it can be (by my reading) a crime for someone to let their husband or wife take "indecent" pictures of them. Because child porn. That should give you an indication of just how crazy this area of law is.
Common misunderstanding. Laws apply to wherever the law says it applies - that's one of the principles of individual sovereignty. If the US (or the UK) wants to pass a law making it a crime to do something in another country, they can. The only limit is their ability to enforce that.
In this case, though, it is arguable that the "act" was carried out in the US - certainly the damage was suffered there.
However, that doesn't mean there isn't a huge hole in the current multinational framework for criminal (and civil) liability; the systems were developed at a time when it would be clear where an act took place, and aren't suitable to a world where a single act can take place through multiple jurisdictions.
Given the recent mess with the ITU, though, I doubt the major countries will be able to sort out a framework for Internet-based jurisdiction any time soon...
Well yeah... when you arrest someone or try to prosecute them for a crime, it's all just accusations. In this case, it is unlikely to be proved in court due to there being no trial. The US are alleging he did this and caused this much damage, which is why they want to put him on trial...
But that isn't how (most) crimes work. It is (in many places) a criminal offence maliciously to gain unauthorised access to computer systems, and thus those who do so should get punished. Arguments of proportionality of sentences, precise wordings of the offence and the purpose/merits of a criminal justice system aside, whether other people are also doing shouldn't really be an issue.
Whether or not other people are to blame (the operators of the system, other people breaking the law) is a separate issue, and is between them and the authorities. Should the system techs and operators be held criminally responsible? Probably not. However, should they be liable for their own negligence and/or breach of contract, definitely. And their supervisors. And anyone else who is liable (civilly).
In most places you can't copy an idea, merely the expression of it. So they'd potentially own the various copyrights in the religious texts/works (the films, the books and so on). There is some debate as to whether or not a single word can be covered by copyright, in theory, yes, in practice, probably not, particularly in this case as "Jedi" is merely one word used in a film (so not really a substantial part of the work). Trade marks* might be an option, but infringement is harder to show.
A quick check shows that the following trade marks are registered:
- A community trade mark (EU-wide) for "JEDI" owned by Lucasfilm (covering classes 09; interactive entertainment software etc., 16; user manuals, and 28; games and playthings);
- A community trade mark for "JEDI POWER BATTLES" owned by Lucasfilm (for classes 09 and 16);
They also have trade marks for "Yoda, the Jedi Master" and "Jedi Power Battles" in the UK only. I think the former is due to an advertising campaign for Vodafone which they've licensed it to.
They would have had to shut down the computers/networks, but (and at this point I should declare that I'm not a computer security expert) presumably had they simply discovered the flaw, they could have taken them down in a controlled, scheduled way, and then combed through the stuff to check for problems at will. This way it seems the networks were crashed by McKinnon, which strikes me as being likely to cause much greater short-term problems and thus costs.
And no, I have no intention of getting a job in security; and I'm not saying this system was good, or that the US were not at all to blame - but that doesn't really matter in criminal prosecutions. The guy (allegedly) broke both UK and US laws by intentionally breaking in to some high-profile military computer networks and trashed them. That sounds fairly serious to me.
The UK prosecutor can't be bothered to charge him, because the damage wasn't done in the UK (so there isn't really any public interest in prosecuting) and the US didn't want to hand over all the (sensitive) evidence (of the details of all their military computer networks) to the UK authorities (for them to be made available in open court).
The CPS not bringing a case doesn't mean they think he's innocent, just that they don't think it's worth the trouble to try to prosecute him.
Was it " intentional and calculated to influence and affect the US Government by intimidation and coercion"?
Well the damage was obviously intentional, and it was calculated to influence the Government (even if it didn't) as evidenced by the note he admitted to leaving behind which read:
"US foreign policy is akin to Government-sponsored terrorism these days It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels "
That sounds rather like an attempt at intimidation and coercion (however pathetic) to me...
Actually it was 97 computers (possibly 96). From which he was* able to access a further 73,000 networked, US Government computers. He shut down "the entire US Army's Military District of Washington network of over 2000 computers for 24 hours", and rendered some 300 computers at US Naval Weapons Station Earle inoperable for a while, including one "used for monitoring the identity, location, physical condition, staffing and battle readiness of Navy ships." Oh, and he installed a "suite of hacking tools" on the computers he did access to make it easier for him (and anyone else) to gain access to them in the future.
But yes, that's just like breaking into a single computer...
*Please insert the word "allegedly" as appropriate throughout. As this will never go to trial, we will probably never know what actually happened.
It's possible deleting a load of critical system files (shutting down various military networks) and removing over 2,000 user accounts may have caused some of the damage (both long-term costs of replacing, and call-out fees for technicians during the short-term panic of working out what was going). If you want more details of what he is accused of, read the first few paragraphs of this judgment.
McKinnon is accused of deleting a load of "critical system files" from a number of key military computers (shutting down various networks), along with over 2,000 user accounts from Army's Washington DC(?) network. They wouldn't have had to fix all of that without his interference.
As for the computers being unsecured, afaik there is no way to completely secure any network connected to the Internet, although I don't know how much work he had to do to break in.
For the record, according to one of the court rulings he was accused of the following:
"Between February 2001 and March 2002 he gained unauthorised access to 97 computers belonging to and used by the US Government... From those computers, he extracted the identities of certain administrative accounts and associated passwords. Having gained access to those administrative accounts, he installed unauthorised remote access and administrative software called "remotely anywhere" that enabled him to access and alter data upon the American computers at any time and without detection by virtue of the programme masquerading as a Windows operating system.
Once "remotely anywhere" was installed, Mr McKinnon proceeded to install his "suite of hacking tools" – software that he used to facilitate further compromises to the computers which also facilitated the concealment of his activities. Using this software, he was able to scan over 73,000 US Government computers for other computers and networks susceptible to compromise in a similar fashion. He was thus able to lever himself from network to network and into a number of significant Government computers in different parts of the USA. The relevant ones were:
Once the computers were accessible by Mr McKinnon, he deleted data including:
He also copied data and files onto his own computers, including operating system files containing account names and encrypted passwords from 22 computers. These comprised:
Mr McKinnon's conduct was intentional and calculated to influence and affect the US Government by intimidation and coercion. As a result of his conduct, damage was caused to computers by impairing their integrity, availability and operation of programmes, systems, information and data on the computers, rendering them unreliable. The cost of repair totalled over $700,000."
Slightly more than a burglar walking in the front door and claiming the costs of upgrading the locks. More like breaking in (maybe through a weak door), completely trashing the place and leaving.
McKinnon even sued the CPS over their decision not to prosecute him, and lost (judgment here). The CPS really don't want to prosecute him.
Precisely. Although it may have bearing when it comes to litigation (complying with the pre-action practice direction and so on).
My understanding is that the existing court orders are for specific ISPs (Sky, Virgin, BT etc.), rather than any ISP. Thus even if the Pirate Party is acting as an ISP it would need its own order (or to be brought into the existing ones).
[Disclaimer: I haven't seen the ThePirateBay orders yet - only the ones from the Newzbin2 block.]
It just so happens that yesterday The Pirate Bay launched a separate site dedicated to promoting and distributing (legally) the works of some 10,000+ artists. Stuff which has already been on TPB for a while.
Sadly I haven't been able to check this out as I'm in the UK and this new site is blocked by my ISP.
I wish we had a few hundred more Ameila Andersdotters in the the European Parliament and in legislatures and governments across the world. While most politicians I have met want to do the right thing, she's one of the very few (if only one) who seems to know enough, be sharp enough and care enough to do it.
On the other hand, she does make the rest of us look bad...
It's because it's elected by proportional representation.
It also works through compromise and agreement (rather than divisiveness and opposition), is much harder to lobby (due to there being MEPs from all different areas) and much harder to pressure (mainly because most people don't know/care what goes on).
There's also the fact that MEP elections tend to have much lower turnouts, so a much higher percentage of voters know what's going on, and don't just vote for the party they like the sound of.
On the contrary, son, there are innocents in prison right now.
Technically there are people in prison right now who claim to be innocent. They may be innocent, they may not. The ones proven to be innocent (or rather, who have had their convictions quashed, which doesn't necessarily mean they are innocent) should have been released by now.
[Disclaimer: I've just started working on an Innocent project, so... not sure whether that makes me more or less likely to agree with them being innocent.]
Also, are you really the parent of the poster you were replying to?
In another article on this subject the Daily Mail wanted to show how easy it was to find porn online (and why Google was to blame), so showed a screenshot of a Google search (normal search, not image) for "porn" and highlighted the massive number of results. What they failed to point out was that with safe search on (to maximum) you get 0 results.
Which is kind of silly - you'd think you'd at least get dictionary results...
Hitler probably wasn't a vegetarian. There's some debate about this as it seems he decided to eat less meat some times, but never stopped eating it altogether. Also it seems he may not have liked most meats (other than sausages). The idea that he was a vegetarian, didn't smoke or drink and wasn't interested in women was apparently a piece of propaganda spread by Goebbels, in an attempt to portray Hitler as completely dedicated to the cause, and capable of great self-restraint. Most of it wasn't true.
Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper)...
Unless it's talking about anything to do with liberals, the EU, the ECHR, human rights, the judiciary, regulation of the media, the Internet...
But no, this plan has been in the works for a while now - there was a consultation over the summer (run by the Department of Education of all people) on how to protect children from evil things online (including non-traditional religions and political views), and the underlying move to "do something about the Internet" has been around for a few years. I think it is an attempt to win support from the Daily Mail (who want to make sure that children have to go to their site to view pictures of scantily-clad women).
I think the only part they've got wrong (having not read either the Telegraph or DM articles, but having read some of the briefing material earlier in the year) is that this is about buying a new computer. I think it is only about signing up to a new ISP account. In theory the ISPs were supposed to be doing this voluntarily, but I guess the DM wanted the government to do more - so yay for more pointless legislation.
The Monarch has very limited input on running the country. She has weekly meetings with the Prime Minister, and has some ceremonial functions (including signing all Acts of Parliament, calling and dismissing Parliament, and appointing the Prime Minister and certain other senior ministerial positions). These latter functions are historical formalities, and have limited impact on the actual governing. The last monarch who tried to meddle too much with Parliament was beheaded for treason.
In theory, the people who run the country are the MPs (who have near-absolute power); the elected members of the House of Commons (the "lower" house of Parliament). In practice, however, the country is run by the Prime Minister, his Cabinet (other ministers) and the various departments/ministries they head.
Usually, the "government" refers to the Prime Minister + Cabinet, but can also include the departments. While most ministers are also in Parliament (either in the House of Commons or House of Lords), they have two separate functions; a governmental one (as minister), and a legislative one (as MP/Lord). We tend to treat them distinctly (although I'm not sure most people understand the subtleties of this).
Then you don't have a constitution
Except we do have a constitution. What we don't have is a Constitution. At least, according to dictionary.com's definitions:
"3. the fundamental political principles on which a state is governed, esp when considered as embodying the rights of the subjects of that state"
"4. ( often capital ) (in certain countries, esp Australia and the US) a statute embodying such principles."
So there are different meanings; one refers to the principles, the other refers to a document that lists those principles. The UK is governed through the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty (perhaps with a healthy dose of respect for the Rule of Law and Human Rights thrown in, but perhaps not if you ask the current Government). But this isn't written down in one single document - it is reflected throughout hundreds of years of Acts of Parliaments and judgments.
So the BBC is happy to take public money...
By that logic anyone who ever receives public money should have to comply with FOI requests; so that's anyone on any sort of benefits, anyone who has ever used a public hospital (which will be much of the population as most of us are born in one), any number of state-sponsored museums etc., and possibly anyone who has received a tax refund.
Of course, the argument itself is a bit silly, as the BBC does have to comply with valid FOI requests but only "in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature." [See the relevant part of the Freedom of Information Act.]
I imagine that the thinking behind this is that in carrying out journalism, art or literature it isn't exercising public authority, and so doesn't need to be as accountable/transparent (from a constitutional point of view).