This can become a rather serious question when combined with badly-drafted laws. The UK's upcoming mass-surveillance law is supposed to apply to any "system ... that exists ... for the purpose of facilitating the transmission of communications by any means involving the use of electrical or electro-magnetic energy." Now... electro-magnetic energy includes light, and sight runs of light, so by a literal interpretation, this would include hand-/smoke-signals, deadtree format books, films and videos and absolutely anything other than sound and touch (unless you include the electric signals within the brain).
I'm trying to pick out a few key insightful quotes, but I'll just end up pasting the whole thing, so go and read it. There's some stuff on "new technologies" and how we talk about them and try to resist them, suggesting the Internet is "just a silly fad", some stuff on interactivity and old v new media, why it *isn't* a traditional publishing system and so on.
Here is probably the most relevant quote, although more aimed at computers than the Internet specifically:
Another problem with the net is that it’s still ‘technology’, and ‘technology’, as the computer scientist Bran Ferren memorably defined it, is ‘stuff that doesn’t work yet.’ We no longer think of chairs as technology, we just think of them as chairs. But there was a time when we hadn’t worked out how many legs chairs should have, how tall they should be, and they would often ‘crash’ when we tried to use them. Before long, computers will be as trivial and plentiful as chairs (and a couple of decades or so after that, as sheets of paper or grains of sand) and we will cease to be aware of the things. In fact I’m sure we will look back on this last decade and wonder how we could ever have mistaken what we were doing with them for ‘productivity.’
Of course, the depressing thing about this article is that it was written by Douglas Adams, over 13 years ago, and we still seem to be stuck with computers and the Internet being "technology", we still get special mentions in the news when a crime is committed "on the Internet" (or when there's a risk that terrorists might plot their schemes "on the Internet."
Still, this data suggests that we are getting there...
What it actually concluded was that 88% of explicit images uploaded to the internet end up on parasitic websites.
From my reading of the IWF's press release it didn't even conclude this. A more accurate reading would be "88% of homemade explicit images we were able to find easily on social networks ended up on parawebsite."
Which isn't really that surprising. If the IWF can find it quite quickly, one imagines the parawebsites shouldn't find it too hard either...
Worse than the troll activity is the reaction we can expect from the enforcement lobby. I'm predicting either conveniently forgetting about it at all, blaming the government/ISP who was responsible for sending the messages which got messed up, or simply saying this was a fluke, one-off event that could never happen again.
The sad thing is, they will be able to convince their paymasters the latter is true. If past experience is anything to go by, it will take more than one ridiculous (near-)injustice for them to stop.
On a serious note, what are the arguments that it isn't 'in the Constitution'?
I'm not a US constitutional scholar, but I think you've missed the key part of that section. In full it reads:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
The way the Constitution is phrased, it is permissive; it says what the Congress can do, not what it must do. So this means that, if it feels like it, Congress can create something called copyright. This doesn't mean copyright exists; for that you need a separate act of Congress (or whatever it is called).
As a second example, further down it says that "Congress shall have the power ... To declare War...". This doesn't mean that they have to declare war, just that they can. The Constitution allows for federal war (and copyright), but doesn't create it.
This move is immensely significant, as it represents the first time an extradition was blocked by a Home Secretary under the Extradition Act of 2003
There's a reason for this; the Home Secretary has very limited grounds for blocking extradition (for good reasons). The law is pretty clear; there is no free-standing power for the Home Secretary to block extradition purely on human rights grounds, meaning that this decision may be illegal.
Now, obviously McKinnon isn't going to complain and I imagine this was all cleared with the US first, but it is still a very worrying ruling; it seems far too political. Theresa May has campaigned on this sort of situation for a while, and her decision has been pretty popular (both with the xenophobic right, who like her "standing up" to foreigners and the left, who are grateful she has finally discovered the importance of human rights law). Plus there's the suspicious timing - she has been putting off this decision for over 2 years, and yet finally announces it a week after the UK extradited a few high-profile terrorism suspects to the US, ignoring human rights issues. There are also no signs that Theresa May will use this magical new power in a couple of other, very similar current cases (where the defendants have less media support, but the facts are remarkably similar).
Under UK law, extradition is supposed to be a judicial/legal decision, with the government only intervening on matters where state-to-state negotiations may be needed and there are good reasons for this; under the old law (where it was a political decision) you had ridiculous situations such as mass-murdering dictators being allowed to walk free (over court objections) because senior politicians didn't want to set a precedent for senior government officials being held accountable for their actions while in power... And yet here we have a Home Secretary making a decision that appears to be illegal, for political reasons.
It may be the right result (and possibly for the right reasons), but it's a pretty terrible indication of our government's willingness to ignore the law (or exploit vague laws) when politically convenient.
This only refers to emails sent as a result of mass-email campaigns (see here for more info, and the original document). If you read through all the written evidence (warning, 449-page pdf) they got, there are quite a few people (including the first response) in favour of the plan.
Some provisions, such as the blocking of websites at the ISP level, have since been scrapped. This was not met with much resistance from rights holders, as they already had their Supreme Court precedent set with the blocking of the Pirate Bay.
Technically it was the (England and Wales) High Court, not the Supreme Court. Neither case (the Pirate Bay or Newzbin2) was appealed because the ISPs don't want to get involved (they didn't even turn up in the Pirate Bay case) because it would be expensive, and there was no one else party to the cases.
As for FAST's latest stuff... actually, this could be quite fun. If they did persuade the government to force Ofcom to change the DEA "Initial Obligations Code" (again), Ofcom would probably have to go through another round of consultation, rewrite a lot of it and send the new version to the EU for 3+ months for them to look into it. That would push back implementation by another 6-9 months, so it won't be in force until late 2014/early 2015.
And now news is spreading of another group of people charged for making comments on Twitter and Facebook, but here in a slightly less anti-free-speech way, perhaps. Five people have been charged for publishing the name/identity of a rape victim on the various websites (4 people have already been charged).
Obviously this is a completely different situation, and set of principles, but still involves criminalising online speech.
Actually, he was charged under s4A Public Order Act 1986, which is a summary offence, so even if he'd pleaded not guilty he couldn't have got a jury trial. You have to be charged with a serious law, and plead not guilty, to ever get to a criminal jury in England.
And yes, freedom of expression in the UK is definitely qualified by not being able to significantly annoy the police, the mainstream media, and certain conservative types...
There's a similar case being reported today of a man locked up for 4 months (plus 4 months for a previous thing) for wearing an offensive T-shirt. Apparently the guy was wearing a T-shirt promoting the death of police officers a couple of weeks ago when two nearby policewomen were killed on duty. People saw him, complained, and he has now been convicted and jailed. The backstory seems to be that his son died in police custody a few years ago, and he has had a rather tense relationship with them since.
This one is particularly interesting because it seems he was only arrested/prosecuted for wearing the shirt *after* the shootings, which seems rather unsatisfactory from a legal point of view. Of course it doesn't matter as he pleaded guilty, so there was no trial.
As for the social media stuff, yes the DPP has been meeting with lawyers (including some pretty awesome ones) and social media executives this week to "discuss" the issue (not that he can do much as he has no law-making powers), however note the lack of anyone actually from the Internet (or society in general) in that group... once again the ordinary person gets left out.
While it would be pretty great if it was, this isn't anything to do with copyright or collecting societies. This is about state licensing.
Under the Licensing Act that this amends, it is illegal to do certain things (sell alcohol, provide certain kinds of entertainment, late-night refreshment etc.) without a licence from the government (usually the local council), and this can vary from hundreds to tens of thousands of pounds a year, depending on what is being licensed. This fee is usually paid by the premises, rather than the artists.
While it is great for musicians (that it will be much cheaper for clubs, bars, pubs etc. to let them play), it still doesn't fix the issue of either musicians or venues having to pay the extortionate collecting society rates.
As an aside, the Licensing Act is pretty silly in places, but then a lot of stuff in the UK is heavily regulated.
Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for
What injustice? It's an insult to the real victims around the world to use the word "injustice" to describe the fact that some Hollywood studio won't let you watch their movie without paying for it.*
It would be nice if people could get over this idea that if there are two "wrongs" at the same time, only the "more serious" should be noted or dealt with. Yes, there are some very serious injustices in the world. There are also some smaller ones, and 21st century copyright laws are an example of this.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people are capable of caring about more than one thing at once; it is possible to campaign against "small" injustices while also caring about the "big" ones.
*I could argue about the details of this point, how it fits with Pirate policies and so on, but that is a bit too troll-feedy for now.
As someone who has been involved in both PPI and a domestic Pirate Party, the criticism of the name is a common one.
For people in the UK, the comeback is simple. For a while one of the main parties in this country was the "Tory Party" (and "tory" is still slang for what that party became). The word "tory" referred to Irish briggands. Originally it was hurled at people of a particular political leaning, but they embraced it, and took it as their own. Sound familiar?
The Tory Party's main opposition, the "Whig" Party (who were sort of the liberals, but died out). Their name is slightly better, and refers to Scottish cattle drivers. Again, originally used as an insult.
But a name is just a name. I have no problems calling myself a Pirate. If anything, I have more problems calling myself a politician.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many of those 381 TSA people fired for stealing have since been prosecuted (or even arrested/investigated) in connection with the (alleged) thefts?
Or is crime not crime when it's done by law enforcement minions?
I'm no expert, but isn't there some sort of US legal principle about the Government, and it not abridging free speech? Wouldn't that cover someone making a derisive comment about a criminal conviction?
Now personally I'm all for encouraging respect for criminal justice systems (and using Contempt of Court if needed), but somehow I don't think this is a way of achieving that. If someone is laughing off a criminal conviction, that suggests she isn't taking it seriously enough (and perhaps reflects a problem with sentencing), but shutting down a Facebook page seems more likely to decrease respect for the judicial system than improving it. It's almost as if the judge had no idea what he was talking about, but I'm sure you'd never have someone in power who was that much of a Luddite...
They're not. They have been making significant losses (in bns) for a few years now, got taken over by their creditors and are now being split up, with the biggest chunks going to UMG and Sony.
In my view, the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media.
Well that's nice. So what are you going to do about that, Mister DPP? Have a public consultation? Invite interested parties to discussion groups? Open up some sort of forum for comments? Apparently not.
Of course, he's completely wrong. The time for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media was quite a few years ago. And we had it. Without him. Not just debating the issues over things like the Twitter Joke Trial, or "offensive" Facebook pages, but how free speech is impacted by laws on copyright, defamation, child abuse, contempt of court, the Olympics, privacy, terrorism, mass-surveillance, religious and political freedom, pornography, suicide... and that's just the stuff I remember dealing with over the last few months.
This is the DPP; the person responsible for all public prosecutions within the jurisdiction. He issues guidance on when to prosecute, he is one of the most powerful people in the country when it comes to abusive limitations on free speech (judges and lawyers can work to throw cases out, but the CPS and police are the ones able to destroy lives before it gets that far). He should be actually getting involved with debates, opening up discussions to the public, commissioning studies... all those things good, transparent government agencies are supposed to do. Not writing a blog post explaining why he has (inconsistently) decided not to bring this particular prosecution (perhaps due to the guy being popular/rich enough to afford good lawyers).
Calling for an informed debate that has already been going on for several years doesn't strike me as particularly "informed". Still, at least the CPS has finally noticed that there are some issues with free speech online, and some people might want to talk about it. Only a decade or so behind the rest of us...
I don't know, but dying businesses seem to like keeping it artificially alive. There is a nice (and often-referenced) quote by Robert A. Heinlein about this from 1939, so this isn't a new idea. It's a common quote, but worth noting in full:
There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
On the post: Being Online Has Become So Common That Some People No Longer Identify It As Being Online
Re: Re:
On the post: Being Online Has Become So Common That Some People No Longer Identify It As Being Online
I'm trying to pick out a few key insightful quotes, but I'll just end up pasting the whole thing, so go and read it. There's some stuff on "new technologies" and how we talk about them and try to resist them, suggesting the Internet is "just a silly fad", some stuff on interactivity and old v new media, why it *isn't* a traditional publishing system and so on.
Here is probably the most relevant quote, although more aimed at computers than the Internet specifically:
Of course, the depressing thing about this article is that it was written by Douglas Adams, over 13 years ago, and we still seem to be stuck with computers and the Internet being "technology", we still get special mentions in the news when a crime is committed "on the Internet" (or when there's a risk that terrorists might plot their schemes "on the Internet."
Still, this data suggests that we are getting there...
On the post: Statistical Stupidity: 95% Of All Lazy Journalists Believe That 88% Of All Homemade Porn Ends Up Online
Which isn't really that surprising. If the IWF can find it quite quickly, one imagines the parawebsites shouldn't find it too hard either...
On the post: First 'Three Strikes' Case In NZ Dropped After It Becomes Clear Accused Didn't File Share
Re:
The sad thing is, they will be able to convince their paymasters the latter is true. If past experience is anything to go by, it will take more than one ridiculous (near-)injustice for them to stop.
*sigh*
On the post: Cracked Lists Examples Of Bad Copyright... Without A Single Actual Example Of Copyright
Re: Not in the constitution?
I'm not a US constitutional scholar, but I think you've missed the key part of that section. In full it reads:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
The way the Constitution is phrased, it is permissive; it says what the Congress can do, not what it must do. So this means that, if it feels like it, Congress can create something called copyright. This doesn't mean copyright exists; for that you need a separate act of Congress (or whatever it is called).
As a second example, further down it says that "Congress shall have the power ... To declare War...". This doesn't mean that they have to declare war, just that they can. The Constitution allows for federal war (and copyright), but doesn't create it.
On the post: Gary Mckinnon Extradition To US Blocked By UK Home Secretary
A really bad day for the rule of law
Now, obviously McKinnon isn't going to complain and I imagine this was all cleared with the US first, but it is still a very worrying ruling; it seems far too political. Theresa May has campaigned on this sort of situation for a while, and her decision has been pretty popular (both with the xenophobic right, who like her "standing up" to foreigners and the left, who are grateful she has finally discovered the importance of human rights law). Plus there's the suspicious timing - she has been putting off this decision for over 2 years, and yet finally announces it a week after the UK extradited a few high-profile terrorism suspects to the US, ignoring human rights issues. There are also no signs that Theresa May will use this magical new power in a couple of other, very similar current cases (where the defendants have less media support, but the facts are remarkably similar).
Under UK law, extradition is supposed to be a judicial/legal decision, with the government only intervening on matters where state-to-state negotiations may be needed and there are good reasons for this; under the old law (where it was a political decision) you had ridiculous situations such as mass-murdering dictators being allowed to walk free (over court objections) because senior politicians didn't want to set a precedent for senior government officials being held accountable for their actions while in power... And yet here we have a Home Secretary making a decision that appears to be illegal, for political reasons.
It may be the right result (and possibly for the right reasons), but it's a pretty terrible indication of our government's willingness to ignore the law (or exploit vague laws) when politically convenient.
On the post: Over 19,000 Emails Sent Concerning UK 'Snooper's Charter' -- Not A Single One In Support Of It
Re: Who wrote the bill?
On the post: Anti-Piracy Group Already Protesting That UK's Anti-Piracy Law Doesn't Go Far Enough
As for FAST's latest stuff... actually, this could be quite fun. If they did persuade the government to force Ofcom to change the DEA "Initial Obligations Code" (again), Ofcom would probably have to go through another round of consultation, rewrite a lot of it and send the new version to the EU for 3+ months for them to look into it. That would push back implementation by another 6-9 months, so it won't be in force until late 2014/early 2015.
On the post: UK Continues To Criminalize Bad Taste And Stupidity In Online Postings
... and another case
Obviously this is a completely different situation, and set of principles, but still involves criminalising online speech.
On the post: UK Continues To Criminalize Bad Taste And Stupidity In Online Postings
Re: Re: Another case today
And yes, freedom of expression in the UK is definitely qualified by not being able to significantly annoy the police, the mainstream media, and certain conservative types...
On the post: UK Continues To Criminalize Bad Taste And Stupidity In Online Postings
Another case today
This one is particularly interesting because it seems he was only arrested/prosecuted for wearing the shirt *after* the shootings, which seems rather unsatisfactory from a legal point of view. Of course it doesn't matter as he pleaded guilty, so there was no trial.
As for the social media stuff, yes the DPP has been meeting with lawyers (including some pretty awesome ones) and social media executives this week to "discuss" the issue (not that he can do much as he has no law-making powers), however note the lack of anyone actually from the Internet (or society in general) in that group... once again the ordinary person gets left out.
On the post: Musicians Celebrate: UK Small Venues Can Now Play Live Music License-Free [Updated]
Wrong kind of licence
Under the Licensing Act that this amends, it is illegal to do certain things (sell alcohol, provide certain kinds of entertainment, late-night refreshment etc.) without a licence from the government (usually the local council), and this can vary from hundreds to tens of thousands of pounds a year, depending on what is being licensed. This fee is usually paid by the premises, rather than the artists.
While it is great for musicians (that it will be much cheaper for clubs, bars, pubs etc. to let them play), it still doesn't fix the issue of either musicians or venues having to pay the extortionate collecting society rates.
As an aside, the Licensing Act is pretty silly in places, but then a lot of stuff in the UK is heavily regulated.
On the post: WIPO Scared Of The Pirate Party; Won't Give It Observer Status Due To Objections Despite Meeting Criteria
Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people are capable of caring about more than one thing at once; it is possible to campaign against "small" injustices while also caring about the "big" ones.
*I could argue about the details of this point, how it fits with Pirate policies and so on, but that is a bit too troll-feedy for now.
On the post: WIPO Scared Of The Pirate Party; Won't Give It Observer Status Due To Objections Despite Meeting Criteria
Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for
For people in the UK, the comeback is simple. For a while one of the main parties in this country was the "Tory Party" (and "tory" is still slang for what that party became). The word "tory" referred to Irish briggands. Originally it was hurled at people of a particular political leaning, but they embraced it, and took it as their own. Sound familiar?
The Tory Party's main opposition, the "Whig" Party (who were sort of the liberals, but died out). Their name is slightly better, and refers to Scottish cattle drivers. Again, originally used as an insult.
But a name is just a name. I have no problems calling myself a Pirate. If anything, I have more problems calling myself a politician.
On the post: How Do You Know If A TSA Agent Stole An iPad? There's An App For That
Or is crime not crime when it's done by law enforcement minions?
On the post: Judge Orders Woman To Delete Her Facebook Page For Typing LOL About Her DUI
Now personally I'm all for encouraging respect for criminal justice systems (and using Contempt of Court if needed), but somehow I don't think this is a way of achieving that. If someone is laughing off a criminal conviction, that suggests she isn't taking it seriously enough (and perhaps reflects a problem with sentencing), but shutting down a Facebook page seems more likely to decrease respect for the judicial system than improving it. It's almost as if the judge had no idea what he was talking about, but I'm sure you'd never have someone in power who was that much of a Luddite...
On the post: EMI: Legitimately Afraid That Aliens Might Listen To The Beatles Without A License
Re:
On the post: UK Prosecutors Finally Acknowledge The Need For A Real Discussion About Free Speech Online
Re: Complete
On the post: UK Prosecutors Finally Acknowledge The Need For A Real Discussion About Free Speech Online
Complete
Well that's nice. So what are you going to do about that, Mister DPP? Have a public consultation? Invite interested parties to discussion groups? Open up some sort of forum for comments? Apparently not.
Of course, he's completely wrong. The time for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media was quite a few years ago. And we had it. Without him. Not just debating the issues over things like the Twitter Joke Trial, or "offensive" Facebook pages, but how free speech is impacted by laws on copyright, defamation, child abuse, contempt of court, the Olympics, privacy, terrorism, mass-surveillance, religious and political freedom, pornography, suicide... and that's just the stuff I remember dealing with over the last few months.
This is the DPP; the person responsible for all public prosecutions within the jurisdiction. He issues guidance on when to prosecute, he is one of the most powerful people in the country when it comes to abusive limitations on free speech (judges and lawyers can work to throw cases out, but the CPS and police are the ones able to destroy lives before it gets that far). He should be actually getting involved with debates, opening up discussions to the public, commissioning studies... all those things good, transparent government agencies are supposed to do. Not writing a blog post explaining why he has (inconsistently) decided not to bring this particular prosecution (perhaps due to the guy being popular/rich enough to afford good lawyers).
Calling for an informed debate that has already been going on for several years doesn't strike me as particularly "informed". Still, at least the CPS has finally noticed that there are some issues with free speech online, and some people might want to talk about it. Only a decade or so behind the rest of us...
On the post: The Return Of Dumb Ideas: A Broadband Tax To Save Failing Newspapers
Re:
Next >>