FAQblog

So, only a few days into the new government, and we have the latest case of Liberal Democrats saying one thing in opposition and then finding that the reality in government is somewhat different.

The latest example of this is the extradition of Gary McKinnon.  Last August, writing in the Daily Mail, Clegg wrote

Even now the courts have spoken their last, the Prime Minister and Attoroney [sic] General could step in.

It appals me that, so far at least, no one in government seems prepared to lift a finger to help him.

It is time for Gordon Brown and his Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, to step in and do the decent thing.

And once that’s done, they must tear up the unequal, unfair treaty they signed with George Bush, under which the American authorities have sought Mr McKinnon’s extradition, and negotiate a new one with President Obama’s administration.

The Prime Minister just needs to pick up the phone to make this prosecution happen. I urge him to do so, before it is too late.

So, now that there is a new government, it should be straightforward for this to happen.  The Prime Minister and his Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, just need to step in and do the decent thing.  Grieve and Clegg were pretty vocal when in opposition, so now they need to act.

Some hopes were raised when the Home Secretary Theresa May indicated she would look again into whether he was mentally fit to stand trial in the United States, and would instead face trial in this country.

And then, the reality seems to have hit the deputy prime minister:

“What I haven’t got the power to do, neither has the home secretary, neither has even the prime minister, is to completely reverse and undo certain legal aspects of this,” Clegg told Radio Five Live.

So, a few days in, and the Liberal Democrats seem to be finding that what you say in opposition might come back to bite you when you are expected to fulfil some of those promises.

OK, so I wrote yesterday about how long will it take before the government acts on Nick Clegg’s pledge to repeal the Digital Economy Act that he made when in opposition.

Looks like it’s going to be a long wait, if the statement from Conservative Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt to paidContent:UK:

“We’re not going to repeal it,” the new UK government’s Conservative culture secretary Jeremy Hunt told paidContent:UK.

Instead, the administration will wait to see how the act’s measures perform and, if alterations or something more is needed, take action later, Hunt said.

So, what was said in opposition didn’t make it into action when in government – surely not!

Well, we have a new government now.  The Deputy Prime Minister committed to repealing the Digital Economy Act when he was in opposition, so now he has the chance to do it.

Thankfully, there is now a website that counts up to see how long it will take for the government to act.  It can be found here.

Just found another quick story about copyright infringement from the party that brought us the Digital Economy Act.

On April 22nd, Waltham Forest Guardian reported that the local Labour party had stolen a copyrighted image from Flickr, cropped it, and then included it in their election material.  The blog that the image was taken from is a green party supporter, who

uses his site to regularly criticise the council’s leading Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition for its “poor” treatment of cyclists and pedestrians

Whether he got an apology from the local party for what they described as “an innocent error” I don’t know, but it’s nice to see that the government that wants to crack down on copyright infringement is yet again caught doing it themselves.

And a quick explanation to all those that described a potential coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats as a “Coalition of Losers” – ALL coalitions are coalitions of losers.  If there was a winner, there would be no need to form a coalition, would there?

OK, so it’s been a LOT longer than I’d planned since my last moan about my (now sadly departed) MP, Kitty Ussher.

So – having hounded her office for a response and imploring her to take a stand and ensure that the DEB got a full and fair debate in parliament, I waited for her response letter, which reads:

Thank you very much for recently contacting me regarding the Digital Economy Bill.

I have now taken up the matter with the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills on your behalf, who will reply to me soon.  I will, of course, write back to you as soon as I receive their response…

So, that was the great response – dated April 1st.  Rather than actually read the emails that I had sent her, rather than understand what I was asking, rather than thinking about disagreeing with the party line – Kitty Ussher decided that she would write to the appropriate department and get a standard response for me.

If you have followed anything about the Digital Economy Bill, you will know that during the wash-up phase of Parliament, it was debated on April 7th – you can read what was discussed in the rather excellent live blogging that the Guardian did at the time.  A couple of points were dropped, but the main thrust of the bill was passed into law.  I was proud to see that Kitty Ussher had voted with the government, in what Ben Goldacre wonderfully described as

the final poetic act of lobbyist cocksuckery in a corrupt & vile parliament

So, that was possibly the end of that – except that the online debate continued much longer than the parliamentary debate seemed to.  Twitter was again set alight the following day when Adam Liversage (Director of Communications at the BPI, one of the main lobbying groups pushing for the Digital Economy Bill / Act, because the internet allows for, and encourages, copyright infringement) had the following exchange on Twitter with his wife:

Janet: “Great. Bought a card but forgot the envelope – doh.”
Adam: “There’s some in my study on the shelf.”
Janet: “yes but not necessarily ones that will fit the card I have bought”
Adam: “Crop the card using scissors – job done. Or scan the card, shrink it and re-print it.”

Since then, both Adam and Janet have protected their tweets, and Adam has deleted his posts – but you can see them on Flickr.  So, the Communications Director for one of the biggest groups campaigning against copyright infringement was advocating copying an image, manipulating it and reprinting it. Maybe as a consequence, we should have nipped round to their house to confiscate their toner and ink, and switch off their electricity?

Adam later clarified his position by tweeting

Is it really not obvious that my comment about cutting or scanning a card was a joke? Let me be clear: I do not condone card-scanning.

Of course since the case of Paul Chambers for making a joke on Twitter, maybe Adam now has no defence…

The same day, the Daily Telegraph blogged about how both the Labour party and the Conservatives had themselves been asked not to re-use images in their election campaigns because they had not obtained permission from any of the interested parties.  So, now we have the government breaching copyright publicly, at the same time that they were legislating Draconian measures to “prevent” copyright infringement.

Many people have said that the Act is pretty unworkable and in a short space of time, those intent on downloading copyright material illegally will find a way round it.  One of the arguments that the security services had put forward in opposition to the proposals was that it would force otherwise pretty “normal” internet users (albeit ones downloading material) into more hidden methods of accessing the internet, which makes their job of trying to police more serious criminals significantly harder.  On April 14th, The Register reported that it had already happened:

A block of 86 lines of C# code is creating a buzz online following claims it may make BitTorrent downloads untraceable.

The code, sweetly named SeedFucker, is actually an exploit discovered last November that would allow a BitTorent user to fake the IP address of a server from where a file could be downloaded. It could also be used to flood a BitTorrent with dozens of fake peers.

So, within days of the bill becoming law, there was already a way round it circulating freely on the internet.

Ironically, the same day that the article was posted on The Register, Stephen Timms MP wrote back to Kitty Ussher, with a generic response.  I haven’t actually got the letter in front of me as I write this, but it was a fairly standard response which detailed exactly why the government was right and that there was nothing to worry about.  At least in the letter to me, it was correct in the majority of what it said – he wasn’t so lucky when he wrote to another concerned voter.  In a letter where he explained how copyright holders would be able to track infringers by downloading the material themselves and then finding where they were downloading from, Timms wrote

They can seek to download a copy of that material and in doing so capture information about the source including the Intellectual Property (IP) address along with a date and time stamp.

So, the Minister for Digital Britain didn’t even know the fundamental basics of how the Internet works!

That’s not quite the end of the Digital Economy Act, one hopes – although it’s the end of my diatribe for the time being.  The new government has only been in power for a day, but in the past both Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs have criticised the Act and Nick Clegg pledged to repeal the Act.  Now I know that pledges from politicians aren’t necessarily worth the paper they aren’t written on, but perhaps in this instance, some sense might prevail and the bill might be included in the raft of Labour legislation that the Con-Dem coalition is intending to repeal…

After the few emails that I had exchanged with Peter the Office Manager, I let the matter drop.  I didn’t really follow what was being said, until I found a copy of an email from Richard Mollet (director of public affairs at the BPI) which was published here.

The gist of the email was that there probably wasn’t going to be enough time to get a proper debate of the bill before the dissolution of parliament, and it would get caught up in the wash-up process which is held between calling an election and parliament being dissolved:

MPs with whom we spoke back in Autumn are already resigned to the fact that they will have minimum input into the provsions from this point on, given the lack of time for detailed scrutiny.  One leading backbencher has told us that there is “little point in meeting since the Bill will be determined at wash-up”.

In addition to that quote, In the minutes, John Whittingdale MP is quoted as saying that he “thinks it [the bill] could be lost if enough MPs protest at not having the opportunity to scrutinise it”.

This seemed to contradict the assurances that I had been given by Peter in his emails about how Kitty would listen to the debates and then form her opinion, so on March 14th 2010, I emailed Kitty directly and asked her whether she “will be pushing to ensure that the bill (and in particular clauses 11-18) will be given the appropriate amount of time in debate?”

Fifteen days later, I emailed her again (March 29th) since I had not received a response.

Two days after that (March 31st, 0916), I emailed her again as I had not received a response.

That afternoon (March 31st, 1351), I emailed her again as I had not received a response.

On April 1st, I had a response!!

It said

Please supply me with your full postal address and Kitty will contact you in writing.

So, I waited for the contact in writing…  Would Kitty be assuring me that she would be ensuring that the parliamentary process wouldn’t be bypassed to rush through ill-conceived legislation of such complexity in the wash-up?

In my next post, I’ll provide details of what she said.

So, as I said in the last post, I continued to ask questions of my MP.

Drawing on the response from the Office Manager for my MP (isn’t it great how democracy works!), I picked out some of his key phrases and questioned them, and again got a response reassuring me about how good the legislation was and there was nothing to worry about.

Included in his response were such gems as

• Kitty has said that given it is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State will be given anything like the powers you suggest, so long as it is clear why the powers are being given and what they are then she has no issue with Statutory Orders in the bill. However she will listen to the debate on the matter. There is no legitimacy to the argument some are using that these powers would enable the Secretary of State to become “Pirate Finder General”.

So, the Office Manager for my MP says that she says that it is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State will be given the powers that the bill provides.  In which case, why does the bill make provision for allowing the Secretary of State to change the Copyright laws without the need for recourse to new legislation?  In my next email, I somewhat sarcastically suggested that “I would also venture that some months ago she would have said that it was highly unlikely that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury would be forced to resign after claiming £20,000 from the taxpayer to do her house up”, to which I received no response.

• The consultation on the Bill showed that hijacking would likely only be an issue in a tiny amount of cases….That is why I am sure during the debate your concerns will be raised and proper checks and balances put in place to ensure that innocent people have ample opportunity to have their say while ensuring those that break the law are punished accordingly.

So, the prospect of someone sharing a router with someone who engages in illegal activity is a rarity.  As far as the bill is concerned, it is the account holder that is to blame.  During the debates (such that they were!), the question was asked about public internet providers, and the impact of the new law on them.  Sadly, there is no exemption – so if someone illegally downloads illegal material on a public computer (for example at their local library), then the library would be to blame and be prosecuted for it.  Some have speculated that the DEB could well spell the end of public access to the internet, which given that the bill is meant to be promoting the use of digital technology would be something of an own goal.

• The views of the security services are not minor. The Government have made assurances that the Security Services will have an input into the legislation and that it is vital their activates are not disrupted. However it is not easy to justify not acting and allowing a crime to be committed to prevent other crimes.

As far back as October 23rd 2009, The Times was reporting that the police and intelligence services were coming out against the bill.  One of the predicted consequences of the bill is that the more tech-savvy users who are downloading material illegally will simply move to an encrypted connection.  At present, using an encrypted connection tends to be an action taken by someone with something a lot more serious to hide.  If more routine surfers move to an encrypted connection, then the workload of those that are monitoring internet traffic is dramatically increased.

• It is simply not an option to not act.

This was something that has been said a few times, and to a certain extent I agree.  However, with the way that the bill has been forced through without any decent amount of scrutiny, is not the way to do this.  It seems that the logic (such as it is) is – something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do this.

• it is Kitty’s job as an MP to listen to those debates and make her decision then, and she will do so.

An interesting point.  Kitty’s job is to listen to those debates – and I would love to know how many of them she actually attended.  I know how she voted, because she nearly always votes the way that the whips tell her to.  I know she voted in favour of the bill at the third reading, but I don’t know whether she voted this way because (a) she was told to, (b) she listened to all the debates and researched what the issues where before reaching an educated position, or (c) she made a gut judgement about which way to vote.

I’m guessing it’s the first, though.

So, parliament rushed through the Digital Economy Bill this week – I’ve been looking at lots of different things online about it for a while yet.  Over the next lot of posts, I’m going to be writing more about it – recounting the “discussion” I had with my MP – Burnley’s very own Kitty Ussher.

Last November, I wrote to Kitty about the DEB, which had just been announced in the Queen’s Speech.  Having read what the bill entailed, there were a number of things that concerned me.  I read what the Open Rights Group had to say about the bill.  I read what other members of the online community had to say about it.  I read what the newspapers were saying about it.

So, on November 24th, I sent an email via www.writetothem.com expressing my concerns.  Since she had already announced that she was going to stand down at the next election, I urged her to actually do something that was right rather than just toeing the party line (since her election in 2005, Kitty has voted against the government 9 times, and with the government 801 times).

The following day, her office manager wrote to me, ignoring the concerns that I had raised, and told me (my emphasis where added):

The Bill in no way allows the Secretary of State to rewrite copyright laws at his discretion. The use of Statutory Instruments is common place in legislation and the limits of those discretions will be placed in Hansard when the Bill is debated in parliament. The examples of possible changes to the law by instrument would be unacceptable, however it is not likely and the limits will clearly be drawn during debate. Kitty will listen to this debate and if she feels that the measures are legitimate and proportionate she will support them.

In respects to illegal file sharing, the matter is a big one. As Lord Mandleson points out many people have grown up believing that we live in a society where software and virtual property does not have to be paid for. It is also estimated that file sharing and bit torrents use around 40% or more of internet bandwidth. The law will enforce Internet Service Providers to address copyright and intellectual property law. On three separate occasions their trade body has been given the opportunity to act but their proposals have failed.

In respects to cutting off users there are legitimate concerns about establishing the varsity of claiming a data exchange is illegal, however technology providers are working on such systems, as the disconnection of users of “chipped” Xbox consoles using pirate software has show. How the legislation is intended to work will obviously be a focus of the debate. In principle Kitty has no issue with disconnection but obviously there must me provision for due process and the bill contains this but Kitty would consider supporting strengthening those provisions if an amendment is made and shown to be needed. There is no legitimate excuse for using for downloading illegal files and software.

The collective punishment argument is not valid as terms and service conditions clearly state that the account holder is responsible for the usage of their service and this has precedence in other areas of law, such as data for large organisations or the responsibility of landlords for the activities occurring on their property. The account holder will be advised well in advance that there is a problem with their downloading limit and it would be up to that account holder how to tackle the issue or not and internet service providers do offer advice on the issue, that is not a matter for government. What is a matter for government is that a possible crime is taking place and the account holder needs to address it. If an account holder has had sufficient time and warning yet fails to act then there is no legitimate issue why the service should not be terminated.

The argument on “innocent until proven guilty,” is also misplaced as a similar system already exists for certain offences such as speeding when a car is captured by a speed camera. In the same sense the argument that just because people increasingly carry out personal business online limits the ability to terminate service is illogical. Internet and telecommunications are not a right, they are a service, and misusing that service by breaking the law is simply illegal. It is the same as stating that a drink driver should not be allowed to lose their licence because they drive to work. If people misuse their computers, download and use illegal files then they are breaking the law and therefore while there is a debate to be made over how it will be made to work and Kitty will listen to this, in principle, Kitty has no problem with the bill.

Kitty believes that we are at a point where an issue is just beginning to be addressed. 40 years ago drink driving and road safety were similar issues and drink driving was quite simply tolerated and the consequences ignored. Today piracy is in a similar position but it is no less an issue. If we want to live in a technologically advanced society that values hard work, that work can not simply be allowed to be stolen as happens now. Just because the crime is digital does not mean it is less illegal. That is why the issue needs to be tackled and why Kitty supports tough action against offenders and if that means, after proper due process people lose their internet connection, then they have only themselves, not the state, to blame.

I hope this helps.

So, obviously, there is nothing wrong with the bill, we’re all worried about nothing, and the fact that someone should be assumed innocent until proven guilty is misplaced.  I understand that under this Labour government civil liberties have been eroded, but to have the fundamental legal principle that some had to be proved guilty of a crime so baldly stated was, to say the least, disappointing.

So – I wrote back to Kitty.  Details in the next post…..

Was woken this morning at four o’clock, to hear some banging downstairs.  Followed by a crash, and a bit more crash.

Ran downstairs, baseball bat in hand to find that someone had smashed through the front window with a paving slab, grabbed the Mrs’ laptop and my wallet and done a runner.  No sign of anyone (not that I could see much without my glasses), no signs of movement, just an incredibly pissed off me.

I’m thrown by how they got to my wallet, which was inside, on the table, to one side of the window – they reached over my mobile phone and digital camera to get to it, and off they went.  I don’t think anyone was inside the house – I was downstairs within about 30 seconds of the window going.  Neighbour heard it go, but didn’t see anyone out there.

Very frustrating – had to cancel the credit cards (the ones I remember were in my wallet!), order a new drivers licence, order a new frequent flyer card (which I need to get into the lounge on Monday morning!), order a new National Trust card, order new oyster card….  Have to wait until 9  before I can ring the insurers (had emergency guy out to board up the window).  Just what I need when I start a new project on Monday and haven’t booked any accommodation yet – I have no credit cards, so need to pre-pay it as I won’t be able to swipe a card when I turn up and won’t have enough cash to pay for it.

Oh – and apart from the cards, the wallet had £0 in it.  I’d put £15 on the side in the kitchen to put in, but hadn’t got round to it.  Laptop has photos of work / ideas for new projects for my wife, so those are lost.  Apart from that, though, there is precious little on the laptop – photos go onto Flickr, important documents are sent via email or stored in Google docs.  Cloud computing FTW!