On the last point, I'm not sure if it is still the case but for a while the BBC had a policy whereby acronyms wouldn't be capitalised, while initialisms (like BBC) would be. Partly because of that, "Tardis" is a fairly common way of writing it.
The way I see it he has several challenges to his claim (which still seems to be in the "pay me money" stage, rather than the "I've talked to lawyers" one) - I think that if he had a case he wouldn't be telling newspapers.
* Showing that there is copyright in the Tardis; it's not quite clear what he is arguing he has copyright over - obviously not the idea of a blue police telephone box, or a time machine, maybe combining those two (with it being bigger on the inside) or the name. The name might be an interesting claim, although then there's the argument that it isn't a literary work on its own, but part of a larger one - the script for the first episode. Then there's the question of whether or not it is a substantial part.
* Showing that his father was the first copyright owner; that requires raising evidence that it was his father (and not anyone else working on the show) who came up with the idea. Wikipedia suggests that he did come up with the idea of it being a police telephone box, but that might not be sufficient if that itself isn't covered by copyright. If he was employed by the BBC (rather than commissioned) then the copyright would start with the BBC anyway.
* Showing that there was an informal licence and that it expired on his father's death; I think this is the one where a court is most likely to throw the case out. Copyright licences are binding on (most) successors in title, so if there was a licence that allowed the BBC to use the Tardis in other episodes, there is no reason why it would expire on his father's death. He would have to raise evidence as to the terms of the licence; given that it was informal and the circumstances (writing for a TV show), there may be a strong presumption against it.
That said, it worked for the estate of Terry Nation (credited with creating the Daleks and co-owning rights to them, with the BBC) - although I don't think that ever went to Court.
Plus it seems the BBC isn't being entirely honest with the truth. The statement from them reads "The BBC registered the TARDIS trade mark in the 1980s unchallenged and there have been no challenges since..." (the Independent getting it wrong and thinking they were talking about registering the copyright - which isn't registered in the UK). There seem to be about 15 trade marks registered for "The Tardis" or "Tardis", not all owned by the BBC, the earliest (now expired) from 1931.
While there is one from the 80s it only applies to books etc., the main BBC ones seem to come from 1996 - possibly after the film was released. I think it may have been those ones that the Met Police challenged unsuccessfully, but I'd need to do more research to check that.
Authorised will mean; it is within the scope of our duties under law (which is very broad).
Necessary will mean; if we don't do this we have no other way of getting the information we need to carry out our legal duties.
Proportionate will mean; there is no less intrusive thing we could do to achieve this effect.
Rigorous oversight means: we have a couple of retired judges who come round a couple of times a year and ask questions, are answerable to a minister (who listens to whatever we say) and a Parliamentary Committee (appointed by the Prime Minister) which can ask us questions, but only force us to give answers about historical things and has no legal duty to investigate anything.
Which isn't to say that GCHQ is evil. But their legal rules and oversight framework could be improved.
You couldn't before. This is an extension only to the copyright in the sound recordings, not in the songs.
The distinction is important because, by default, usually the record labels own the former, and the composers etc. own the latter.
This extension gives the record labels and extra 20 years of monopoly over their works against composers and authors, so even if the composers want to use the sound recordings in any way (such as publishing them themselves) they still need the labels' permission.
Reading some of what was said in Court today, there seems to have been a "firewall" between different groups. The Security Services told a senior police officer about the national security issue, and then he told some junior officers to carry out the detention, with a list of things to ask about that didn't give too much away.
I think this may have been a policy shift due to a case from a year or so ago when there wasn't a "firewall" and the Court ruled the stop was illegal because the people knew the guy was a terrorist (and thus couldn't question him for the purpose of working out if he was a terrorist).
So they're using this firewall thing to get around the limited purpose of the detention power. Which I hope the Court will not appreciate...
Well someone has to decide what is and isn't legal, and usually that decision is left to courts. From what I remember there was no claim that the newspaper was trespassing (which wouldn't have enabled him to press charges, because that isn't how English law works). Instead they gave one of the individuals invited a secret camera.
So he sued them for misuse of private information. Privacy does seem to be a more European concept than American, but the basic principles are that if someone has a legitimate expectation of privacy about something, it is illegal to breach that privacy (say, by publishing photographs) unless the breach is in the public interest.
By me being fine with the original ruling, that was the original English High Court ruling (and, for that matter, the ruling of the ECtHR in the case). I would suggest that the French ruling wouldn't hold in the UK due to it being relatively futile.
Mosley won his claim in England on privacy grounds. His argument, which the Court accepted, was that a national newspaper has no business in infiltrating a private event, taking pictures of it and publishing them. And they didn't help their case by re-running the story after being sued - the Court wasn't happy about that.
The issue of it being a Nazi-themed event came up because one of the newspaper's arguments was that it was in the public interest that an important public figure, with connections to the Nazis, was appearing to celebrate that and mock victims of the Holocaust. But the Court looked into this and found that they were speaking German because one of the women involved wanted that, and Mosley was fine with it due to speaking German. The Court also noted "Russian might have also been suitable, but unfortunately none of the participants spoke Russian."
While I'm fine with the original ruling, he does seem to be getting rather ridiculous in his quest for vengeance.
The first quote is the statement from MI5, and makes no reference to him being a journalist.
The second quote is about what the the Police believed (completely different group), who had the information in that form given to them from MI5. Thus is it perfectly possible that they didn't know that he may have been connected to journalism at the time. And as (according to the police) Miranda didn't make that claim to them, plus he denied that he was carrying any documents etc. for anyone else, they had *no reason* to believe he was a journalist.
Plus, when the second quote was given, there was no evidence before the Court to the contrary (as there was no witness statement from Miranda).
So this may not lying. Nor nearly as crazy as it sounds.
Legal arguments don't always make sense out of context...
tl;dr: This is a legal argument, it shouldn't be read as anything else. Legal arguments sometimes sound crazy because they are based on specific legal definitions or the evidence before the Court.
So, let's get this straight. The UK is arguing (1) that it knew enough that Miranda was carrying the Snowden documents, such that they believed he might help them get published and that's terrorism, but (2) they had no idea he might be involved in journalism, so there was no human rights issue.
This is about evidence/legal stuffs. The police's position is that Miranda never claimed to be a journalist and denied he was carrying the documents on behalf of anyone else. They're not saying they had no idea he was connected, but that they didn't believe he was (because, from their point of view, he was denying it).
The second strand of this is that, when the first legal arguments were made, there was no evidence before the court that Miranda was connected to journalism because Miranda hadn't made a witness statement. So rather than the UK Government lying, they're being a bit snarky about the fact that Miranda isn't giving evidence in his own case. That has now been fixed given that Greenwald has been added as a party to the case and given his own witness statement.
Now the Government's position is apparently that they don't have a position on whether Miranda was involved in journalism, as that is for Miranda to prove if relevant (which they argue it isn't, as even if he was, the documents weren't "journalistic material" and even if they were, the protections for "journalistic material" don't apply to Schedule 7 powers).
If anyone is interested, you can find the Home Office's original defence here, the Police's defence here and Miranda's claim here - all with analysis from an English barrister.
Just in case this wasn't clear, I campaigned against the Comms Data Bill, and if anyone was actually doing it, would campaign against Part I of RIPA. They are bad laws and, imho are being abused. I would certainly argue against the need for secrecy for these provisions.
But that doesn't mean that I think the MtI programme is illegal. Yes, it doesn't matter where the tap is; what matters is that the communications being tapped are being sent or received outside the British Islands. This then is defined as being the entity sending or receiving the individual transmission of data, not the initial sender or ultimate receiver (so anything that leaves the country or comes into it is fair game).
The extent of these programmes may have been kept from the Cabinet (other than Hague obviously, who signs the warrants) and/or Parliament (the Courts haven't really been involved), but now that they have been leaked, there have (apparently) been investigations within Parliament and the Cabinet into them, and both were happy that the programmes were legal. The ECtHR may disagree on human rights grounds, but that's just going to lead to another boost for the anti-human-rights brigade.
While some of the spin for the Comms Data Bill was that it was necessary for the security services (which they claim it is on the basis of changing technologies), the driving force wasn't the security services (who lobbied against it), but law enforcement. Again, that's why it came from the Home Office (both under Labour and the Coalition) not the Foreign Office. There is a huge amount of pressure on the Home Office from Police groups and Arms Dealers to pass it, because they are the ones to benefit.
The Mastering the Internet programme (and Tempora, which appear to be parts of it) are likely authorised through warrants under Part I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
Whether or not they fully comply with that or other legislation is another matter. But the claim (yet to be rebutted) is that they are legal under the current regime.
However, the Part I RIPA regime has restrictions and limits on it, such as the warrants either needing specific targets, or being limited to "external communications" - which is why the main Tempora taps are just off the coast (as "external communications" covers anything sent or received outside the British Islands).
Under Part I RIPA, the surveillance technically doesn't have to be proportionate or necessary; the requirement is that the relevant Secretary of State (Hague) believes (reasonably or not) that it is proportionate and necessary. That said, the HRA imposes the duty to act compatibly with the relevant articles of the ECHR, even on GCHQ and the Cabinet, hence the current legal challenge to the Tempora etc. programmes in the ECtHR.
What the Comms Data Bill did was take the narrow, limited and restricted schemes in RIPA and make them much broader, giving the Secretary of State (then Theresa May) much greater discretion in authorising stuff. That it was pushed by Theresa May (and thus the Home Office) not William Hague (and thus the Foreign Office), along with what I've picked up from various articles and meetings/talks on it, suggest that the drive for it came from the police rather than security services. Again, they were already doing it and believe it to be legal (as did the Parliamentary Committee which investigated).
If you're interested in the detail of what they've allegedly been doing, and the legal basis for it, much of this is set out in Dr Ian Brown's witness statement to the ECtHR in this upcoming case.
The Snoopers' Charter or Communications Data Bill wasn't about authorising this sort of mass-surveillance by GCHQ. It was about expanding it to any other authority, including police, tax inspectors, local government etc.
GCHQ and the other security services were opposed to it, and lobbied against it, likely for the same reasons as above; they were afraid that if this law did pass, there would be much greater awareness of the sort of spying that was being done. It was being introduced because the police wanted access to this massive source of data they knew/suspected was already being gathered.
The legal regime the current spying is done under is that in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The reason it is causing a stir is because that programme requires a ministerial warrant for any interception, which targets "one person" or "a single set of premises." The thinking being that this power covered individual acts of targeted surveillance.
It seems that the Government may have interpreted this as allowing the "single set of premises" to be the place where the tap is (so the cable junction or whatever), and lasts for 6 months with indefinite renewals.
It may well be legal under domestic law, but that doesn't make it right.
The data retention doesn't require any data to be handed over to anyone - it just mandates that traffic data is stored for a certain period of time.
It doesn't even go as far as that; it requires the retention of data that fits within the appropriate categories if the service provider was creating the data in the first place. So if an ISP doesn't keep logs of anything, they're not required by the Data Retention Directive to make or retain them.
There are reasons many Governments are unhappy with the Directive and want it expanded...
I have no problem with an investigation into whether or not the Guardian has broken the law (although by a competent authority, not a select committee of MPs). Newspapers shouldn't be immune from a mere investigation into illegal activity.
In fact, I'm surprised this hasn't already happened. Given the rhetoric about how damaging these revelations have been, it seems odd that it has been several months before anyone has considered a formal investigation. It's almost as if the Government doesn't actually think they've done anything illegal or all that damaging (or are more worried about the political backlash if they do do something, than the threat to public security).
If it turns out that the Guardian's actions were illegal (and thus not in the public interest) they should surely be punished? If it turns out their actions were legal, but not in the public interest (the damage to national security being disproportionately greater than the advantages brought by transparency and public awareness) the law may need to be changed. Similarly, if their actions were illegal but proportionate (i.e. in the public interest) the law will need to be changed to fix that.
Of course that isn't what this is about; the questions, debate etc. is all about politics; both inside Parliament and within the Press.
But being a newspaper that is causing the Government embarrassment shouldn't make them immune to prosecution. But nor should it be the cause of it. The law should be applied to all equally.
I would suggest that Market Research and Public Opinion Polling doesn't rely too much on copyright (or shouldn't be able to) as they are about gathering facts, which cannot be restricted by copyright. The reports they produce might be, but the information isn't.
Reading through the report there are some interesting industries listed as IP-intensive, including:
Manufacture of kitchen furniture,
Wholesale of fruit and vegetables,
Sea and coastal passenger water transport,
Buying and selling of own real estate,
Media representation,
Market research and public opinion polling,
Rental and leasing of trucks,
Gambling and betting activities
Apparently when you are in a society where branding is everything, and you measure IP-intensity by "do they use trade marks", almost everyone ends up being IP-intensive.
Sometimes we do punish people for the sake of punishing them.
Personally, I don't think we should.
[That said, I don't think imprisonment should just be about rehabilitation, but about preventing that person from committing further offences. One way of stopping that is to rehabilitate them, another is to lock them up forever. I think the former is more likely to be proportionate. It's a balancing exercise, and one I think is better left to judges who can benefit from arguments from counsel, evidence and facts, than politicians or random people on the Internet.]
I get the deterrence argument, but have two problems with it:
Factually, I would need to see sufficient evidence that it worked - that is, that longer prison sentences for a particular crime significantly reduced offending rates. I don't know if that is or isn't the case.
Ethically, I have a problem with what amounts to punishing one person for what other people might do... I'm not convinced that that is just.
Replace the word rape with murder and would you feel the same?
Yep. Which is why I am opposed to the UK's mandatory life sentence for murder. I don't see why people should be imprisoned if that imprisonment is not going to have some positive and proportionate impact on society. If we can be sure (which is the big issue) they're not going to kill anyone ever again (or break the law again), what is to be gained from locking them up?
If I had good reason to think you were about to rape someone, should we incarcerate you? Maybe I should phone the police, I don't know you so for all I know you are about to rape someone RIGHT NOW.
If you have reasonable grounds to believe that I'm about to rape someone, of course you should call the police (if doing so is necessary to prevent it)! Why wouldn't you?
And yes, arresting someone and detaining them in such circumstances could well be proportionate. But that doesn't mean that locking someone up for 30 days (or 15 years) afterwards is proportionate. As for drawing a line, the great thing about proportionality arguments is that you don't draw a line. You say the punishment must be proportionate...
On the post: Son Of Writer Of First Episode Of Doctor Who Now Claiming Copyright On The Tardis
Re: Some points:
On the post: Son Of Writer Of First Episode Of Doctor Who Now Claiming Copyright On The Tardis
Not quite a lawyer but...
* Showing that there is copyright in the Tardis; it's not quite clear what he is arguing he has copyright over - obviously not the idea of a blue police telephone box, or a time machine, maybe combining those two (with it being bigger on the inside) or the name. The name might be an interesting claim, although then there's the argument that it isn't a literary work on its own, but part of a larger one - the script for the first episode. Then there's the question of whether or not it is a substantial part.
* Showing that his father was the first copyright owner; that requires raising evidence that it was his father (and not anyone else working on the show) who came up with the idea. Wikipedia suggests that he did come up with the idea of it being a police telephone box, but that might not be sufficient if that itself isn't covered by copyright. If he was employed by the BBC (rather than commissioned) then the copyright would start with the BBC anyway.
* Showing that there was an informal licence and that it expired on his father's death; I think this is the one where a court is most likely to throw the case out. Copyright licences are binding on (most) successors in title, so if there was a licence that allowed the BBC to use the Tardis in other episodes, there is no reason why it would expire on his father's death. He would have to raise evidence as to the terms of the licence; given that it was informal and the circumstances (writing for a TV show), there may be a strong presumption against it.
That said, it worked for the estate of Terry Nation (credited with creating the Daleks and co-owning rights to them, with the BBC) - although I don't think that ever went to Court.
Plus it seems the BBC isn't being entirely honest with the truth. The statement from them reads "The BBC registered the TARDIS trade mark in the 1980s unchallenged and there have been no challenges since..." (the Independent getting it wrong and thinking they were talking about registering the copyright - which isn't registered in the UK). There seem to be about 15 trade marks registered for "The Tardis" or "Tardis", not all owned by the BBC, the earliest (now expired) from 1931.
While there is one from the 80s it only applies to books etc., the main BBC ones seem to come from 1996 - possibly after the film was released. I think it may have been those ones that the Met Police challenged unsuccessfully, but I'd need to do more research to check that.
On the post: GCHQ's Response To Hacking Slashdot And LinkedIn: No Comment, But It Was Perfectly Legal
Re: Dictionary
Necessary will mean; if we don't do this we have no other way of getting the information we need to carry out our legal duties.
Proportionate will mean; there is no less intrusive thing we could do to achieve this effect.
Rigorous oversight means: we have a couple of retired judges who come round a couple of times a year and ask questions, are answerable to a minister (who listens to whatever we say) and a Parliamentary Committee (appointed by the Prime Minister) which can ask us questions, but only force us to give answers about historical things and has no legal duty to investigate anything.
Which isn't to say that GCHQ is evil. But their legal rules and oversight framework could be improved.
On the post: Copyright Extension Goes Into Effect In The UK: More Works Stolen From The Public Domain
Re: Does that mean
The distinction is important because, by default, usually the record labels own the former, and the composers etc. own the latter.
This extension gives the record labels and extra 20 years of monopoly over their works against composers and authors, so even if the composers want to use the sound recordings in any way (such as publishing them themselves) they still need the labels' permission.
On the post: UK Gov't: David Miranda Might Be A Terrorist Because Journalism Can Be Terrorism; Also: We Had No Idea He Was A Journalist
Re: Re: Re:
I think this may have been a policy shift due to a case from a year or so ago when there wasn't a "firewall" and the Court ruled the stop was illegal because the people knew the guy was a terrorist (and thus couldn't question him for the purpose of working out if he was a terrorist).
So they're using this firewall thing to get around the limited purpose of the detention power. Which I hope the Court will not appreciate...
On the post: French Court Orders Google To Magically Make Max Mosley Orgy Pictures Disappear
Re: Re:
So he sued them for misuse of private information. Privacy does seem to be a more European concept than American, but the basic principles are that if someone has a legitimate expectation of privacy about something, it is illegal to breach that privacy (say, by publishing photographs) unless the breach is in the public interest.
By me being fine with the original ruling, that was the original English High Court ruling (and, for that matter, the ruling of the ECtHR in the case). I would suggest that the French ruling wouldn't hold in the UK due to it being relatively futile.
On the post: French Court Orders Google To Magically Make Max Mosley Orgy Pictures Disappear
The issue of it being a Nazi-themed event came up because one of the newspaper's arguments was that it was in the public interest that an important public figure, with connections to the Nazis, was appearing to celebrate that and mock victims of the Holocaust. But the Court looked into this and found that they were speaking German because one of the women involved wanted that, and Mosley was fine with it due to speaking German. The Court also noted "Russian might have also been suitable, but unfortunately none of the participants spoke Russian."
While I'm fine with the original ruling, he does seem to be getting rather ridiculous in his quest for vengeance.
On the post: UK Gov't: David Miranda Might Be A Terrorist Because Journalism Can Be Terrorism; Also: We Had No Idea He Was A Journalist
Re:
The first quote is the statement from MI5, and makes no reference to him being a journalist.
The second quote is about what the the Police believed (completely different group), who had the information in that form given to them from MI5. Thus is it perfectly possible that they didn't know that he may have been connected to journalism at the time. And as (according to the police) Miranda didn't make that claim to them, plus he denied that he was carrying any documents etc. for anyone else, they had *no reason* to believe he was a journalist.
Plus, when the second quote was given, there was no evidence before the Court to the contrary (as there was no witness statement from Miranda).
So this may not lying. Nor nearly as crazy as it sounds.
On the post: UK Gov't: David Miranda Might Be A Terrorist Because Journalism Can Be Terrorism; Also: We Had No Idea He Was A Journalist
Legal arguments don't always make sense out of context...
This is about evidence/legal stuffs. The police's position is that Miranda never claimed to be a journalist and denied he was carrying the documents on behalf of anyone else. They're not saying they had no idea he was connected, but that they didn't believe he was (because, from their point of view, he was denying it).
The second strand of this is that, when the first legal arguments were made, there was no evidence before the court that Miranda was connected to journalism because Miranda hadn't made a witness statement. So rather than the UK Government lying, they're being a bit snarky about the fact that Miranda isn't giving evidence in his own case. That has now been fixed given that Greenwald has been added as a party to the case and given his own witness statement.
Now the Government's position is apparently that they don't have a position on whether Miranda was involved in journalism, as that is for Miranda to prove if relevant (which they argue it isn't, as even if he was, the documents weren't "journalistic material" and even if they were, the protections for "journalistic material" don't apply to Schedule 7 powers).
If anyone is interested, you can find the Home Office's original defence here, the Police's defence here and Miranda's claim here - all with analysis from an English barrister.
On the post: UK Spies Knew That Its Surveillance Was Likely Illegal, Which Is Why They Fought To Keep It So Secret
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GCHQ not telcos
But that doesn't mean that I think the MtI programme is illegal. Yes, it doesn't matter where the tap is; what matters is that the communications being tapped are being sent or received outside the British Islands. This then is defined as being the entity sending or receiving the individual transmission of data, not the initial sender or ultimate receiver (so anything that leaves the country or comes into it is fair game).
The extent of these programmes may have been kept from the Cabinet (other than Hague obviously, who signs the warrants) and/or Parliament (the Courts haven't really been involved), but now that they have been leaked, there have (apparently) been investigations within Parliament and the Cabinet into them, and both were happy that the programmes were legal. The ECtHR may disagree on human rights grounds, but that's just going to lead to another boost for the anti-human-rights brigade.
While some of the spin for the Comms Data Bill was that it was necessary for the security services (which they claim it is on the basis of changing technologies), the driving force wasn't the security services (who lobbied against it), but law enforcement. Again, that's why it came from the Home Office (both under Labour and the Coalition) not the Foreign Office. There is a huge amount of pressure on the Home Office from Police groups and Arms Dealers to pass it, because they are the ones to benefit.
On the post: UK Spies Knew That Its Surveillance Was Likely Illegal, Which Is Why They Fought To Keep It So Secret
Re: Re: Re: GCHQ not telcos
Whether or not they fully comply with that or other legislation is another matter. But the claim (yet to be rebutted) is that they are legal under the current regime.
However, the Part I RIPA regime has restrictions and limits on it, such as the warrants either needing specific targets, or being limited to "external communications" - which is why the main Tempora taps are just off the coast (as "external communications" covers anything sent or received outside the British Islands).
Under Part I RIPA, the surveillance technically doesn't have to be proportionate or necessary; the requirement is that the relevant Secretary of State (Hague) believes (reasonably or not) that it is proportionate and necessary. That said, the HRA imposes the duty to act compatibly with the relevant articles of the ECHR, even on GCHQ and the Cabinet, hence the current legal challenge to the Tempora etc. programmes in the ECtHR.
What the Comms Data Bill did was take the narrow, limited and restricted schemes in RIPA and make them much broader, giving the Secretary of State (then Theresa May) much greater discretion in authorising stuff. That it was pushed by Theresa May (and thus the Home Office) not William Hague (and thus the Foreign Office), along with what I've picked up from various articles and meetings/talks on it, suggest that the drive for it came from the police rather than security services. Again, they were already doing it and believe it to be legal (as did the Parliamentary Committee which investigated).
If you're interested in the detail of what they've allegedly been doing, and the legal basis for it, much of this is set out in Dr Ian Brown's witness statement to the ECtHR in this upcoming case.
On the post: UK Spies Knew That Its Surveillance Was Likely Illegal, Which Is Why They Fought To Keep It So Secret
Re: GCHQ not telcos
GCHQ and the other security services were opposed to it, and lobbied against it, likely for the same reasons as above; they were afraid that if this law did pass, there would be much greater awareness of the sort of spying that was being done. It was being introduced because the police wanted access to this massive source of data they knew/suspected was already being gathered.
The legal regime the current spying is done under is that in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The reason it is causing a stir is because that programme requires a ministerial warrant for any interception, which targets "one person" or "a single set of premises." The thinking being that this power covered individual acts of targeted surveillance.
It seems that the Government may have interpreted this as allowing the "single set of premises" to be the place where the tap is (so the cable junction or whatever), and lasts for 6 months with indefinite renewals.
It may well be legal under domestic law, but that doesn't make it right.
On the post: Dutch Telcos Used Customer Metadata, Retained To Fight Terrorism, For Everyday Marketing Purposes
Re:
It doesn't even go as far as that; it requires the retention of data that fits within the appropriate categories if the service provider was creating the data in the first place. So if an ISP doesn't keep logs of anything, they're not required by the Data Retention Directive to make or retain them.
There are reasons many Governments are unhappy with the Directive and want it expanded...
On the post: UK Prime Minister Urges Investigation Of The Guardian Over Snowden Leaks; There Shall Be No Free Press
In fact, I'm surprised this hasn't already happened. Given the rhetoric about how damaging these revelations have been, it seems odd that it has been several months before anyone has considered a formal investigation. It's almost as if the Government doesn't actually think they've done anything illegal or all that damaging (or are more worried about the political backlash if they do do something, than the threat to public security).
If it turns out that the Guardian's actions were illegal (and thus not in the public interest) they should surely be punished? If it turns out their actions were legal, but not in the public interest (the damage to national security being disproportionately greater than the advantages brought by transparency and public awareness) the law may need to be changed. Similarly, if their actions were illegal but proportionate (i.e. in the public interest) the law will need to be changed to fix that.
Of course that isn't what this is about; the questions, debate etc. is all about politics; both inside Parliament and within the Press.
But being a newspaper that is causing the Government embarrassment shouldn't make them immune to prosecution. But nor should it be the cause of it. The law should be applied to all equally.
On the post: Misleading Figures Used To Puff Up Importance Of Intellectual Monopolies In Europe
Re: Re:
On the post: Misleading Figures Used To Puff Up Importance Of Intellectual Monopolies In Europe
Manufacture of kitchen furniture,
Wholesale of fruit and vegetables,
Sea and coastal passenger water transport,
Buying and selling of own real estate,
Media representation,
Market research and public opinion polling,
Rental and leasing of trucks,
Gambling and betting activities
Apparently when you are in a society where branding is everything, and you measure IP-intensity by "do they use trade marks", almost everyone ends up being IP-intensive.
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The article doesn't say he was sentenced to 30 days due to the Internet being mean (or because the girl looked kinda old).
Which was my original gripe with this post. But that seems to have got a bit out of control.
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I don't think we should.
[That said, I don't think imprisonment should just be about rehabilitation, but about preventing that person from committing further offences. One way of stopping that is to rehabilitate them, another is to lock them up forever. I think the former is more likely to be proportionate. It's a balancing exercise, and one I think is better left to judges who can benefit from arguments from counsel, evidence and facts, than politicians or random people on the Internet.]
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is sick...
Factually, I would need to see sufficient evidence that it worked - that is, that longer prison sentences for a particular crime significantly reduced offending rates. I don't know if that is or isn't the case.
Ethically, I have a problem with what amounts to punishing one person for what other people might do... I'm not convinced that that is just.
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is sick...
If you have reasonable grounds to believe that I'm about to rape someone, of course you should call the police (if doing so is necessary to prevent it)! Why wouldn't you?
And yes, arresting someone and detaining them in such circumstances could well be proportionate. But that doesn't mean that locking someone up for 30 days (or 15 years) afterwards is proportionate. As for drawing a line, the great thing about proportionality arguments is that you don't draw a line. You say the punishment must be proportionate...
Next >>