+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 19 of 19
Internet Related/Filtering/Firewall Thread, Legal / filtering implications of Digital Economy bill in Technical; Originally Posted by localzuk I don't think that way of reading it would be legal and in line with Human ...
  1. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,156
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 529 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    I don't think that way of reading it would be legal and in line with Human Rights legislation. ie. group punishment for one person's actions.
    That's certainly the way it was being discussed in the commons last night. I've forgotten the name of the MP but he was pointing out that it was madness that his entire household could be blocked because one of his teenage children did something wrong.

    He may also have misunderstood what was going on; he was talking about changing "ISP" and "email address" as if they were the same thing (and I know that for many people they are - they have email addresses from their ISP and can never change!)

    He also raised the issue of what happens if a "banned person" goes to Starbucks etc and uses their internet - how can that be managed/monitored? Do you have to show proof of ID before you buy your morning latte??

  2. #17

    webman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    8,406
    Thank Post
    639
    Thanked 961 Times in 661 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    324
    From my understanding, connections aren't disconnected at the drop of a hat - technical measures (e.g. disconnecting someone) are a last resort, after numerous letters have been sent to the owner of said connection informing them an alleged copyright infringement has taken place.

    I watched the debate in the House of Commons with great interest, and only a handful of MPs showed any sign of understanding of the issues at hand (Tom Watson and Austin Mitchell). It has been rushed through without it being understood or its finer implications investigated; yet nearly 200 MPs agreed with its passing. It's disgraceful, when one of the MPs, Stephen Timms, thinks IP address means 'Intellectual Property' - http://i.imgur.com/1pXlO.jpg

  3. #18

    AngryTechnician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,730
    Thank Post
    698
    Thanked 1,212 Times in 761 Posts
    Rep Power
    394
    Some of them don't even understand copyright law, even those opposed to the bill. In his argument against, one MP used the example that we don't prosecute schools for the crime of photocopying chapters of textbooks, therefore we shouldn't pursue people for copying MP3s. As those here will probably know, schools aren't prosecuted for that copying because it's covered by a CLA licence and isn't a crime!

  4. #19
    AXE
    AXE is offline
    AXE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Right here. Right Now.
    Posts
    188
    Thank Post
    188
    Thanked 55 Times in 18 Posts
    Rep Power
    22
    If anyone wants to read more:
    Digital Economy Bill

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 1st April 2010, 12:49 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16th March 2010, 11:50 AM
  3. Digital Economy Bill - Open Wireless Access Points
    By somabc in forum General Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 1st December 2009, 12:36 PM
  4. laptop power implications
    By Disease in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11th September 2009, 01:06 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 3rd August 2008, 10:31 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •