censorship
This is getting silly
I’ve been meaning to write about the Digital economy bill for a while, but life has been getting in the way and it just keeps getting sillier. Plus of course loads of other people are providing excellent commentary faster than I was getting round to it, but I’ve never let being late to the party stop me before.
The things that are wrong with this bill are almost too numerous to mention, it’s obviously written with either no technical understanding at all, or with the deliberate intent to be wide open to abuse. The current government does such things so often I’ve given up trying to work out if they’re deviously evil or just incompetent or even some odd mix of the two. The latest silliness added to this bill oddly doesn’t come from the government benches but from Lib Dem peers who want to be able to force ISPs to block “access to specified online locations“. Now not only is this silly it’s pointless. (it may be worth noting that the Lib Dem peer concerned gets money from a law firm specialising in copyright protection.
It’s pointless because it’s very easily circumvented, the internet was designed to work around points of failure. So if they block a site people will still be able to get to it using proxies, VPNs, the TOR network or various other methods. A lot of work has been done in solving the problem of blocked sites to deal with far more oppressive and organised regimes than this. Plus of course such banned sites will get more publicity than before they were blocked, as any number of banned lists in the past will testify.
It’s silly because very many “online locations” share an IP address with other “online locations”, so the usual way to block access to a site is to block the IP address. This will have huge amounts of collateral damage as such a block will also block access to all the other sites at that address. Think of it as closing down an entire shopping centre just because there’s a single dodgy shop tucked away in the corner. I imagine that the innocent sites blocked in such a manner might be a bit miffed and contemplate taking some action against the ISP’s so blocking them. Depending on how the required court orders are worded it gets sillier still. If the order says block “copyrighttheft.anonymong.org” then the blocked site can get out of that by just changing the name to “copyrighttheft2.anonymong.org” and if they make it more general and block “anonymong.org” well a new domain costs two quid.
Of course there is a way they could block a site by name and not by IP address, all they’d need to do is look in depth at your traffic, rather than just where it’s going, to see what it’s actually doing. Then they could tell which actual site on a shared server you wanted and only stop requests going to the banned site. This is called deep packet inspection and BT are currently in court about it – but on the upside it would cause the ISPs to have records of everywhere you’ve visited, and with only a tiny bit of feature creep what you’ve done on all of those sites. Such transaction records of course being subject to other legislation which requires the ISP to keep them for seven years just in case the government needs them – to stop terrorists of to protect the children or something.
All of this will of course have a cost, particularly as the bill now says that “the Court shall order the service provider to pay the copyright owner’s costs of the application unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider’s failure to prevent access despite notification by the copyright owner.“. Whilst this cost will be passed onto the end user pushing up your internet bill, the ISPs are also going to minimise the cost by just blocking things on notification rather than waiting for a court order they have to pay for. Ever since Lawrence Godfrey* ISPs have pretty much had to remove/block content on notification this will just make that situation worse. Though I strongly suspect that where someone such as Guido to ask that the BBC be blocked for violating his copyright** he’d probably not get such a helpful response. Ultimately the aim of this clause is to allow large corporate copyright holders to trample all over the net at no cost to themselves and with little or no risk.
For a more legal focused review of this clause you could go worse than reading panGloss’s take on the matter.
I may attempt to tackle some of the other lunacy in this bill later.
Many thanks to Freya for passing on most of the links referenced above.
* Yeah, sorry about that.
** It’s worth remembering that by default you own the copyright to anything you create – without having to do anything. If some corporate site, or spotty oik in college nicks your graphic/music/content you could in theory get them blocked under this bill (good luck with that though if it’s not a spotty oik in college). This potentially makes this bill an incredible denial of service tool.
Carter-fuck at it again
So like a dose of the clap Carter-fuck are back at it again ( hat tip to Anna Raccoon). They seem to have realised that trying to stop the press reporting on Parliament is a bad move from a publicity point of view, so… now they’re trying to stop Parliament discussing the report about their client Trafigura dumping toxic waste on the Ivory Coast. The plan seeming to be to make use of the convention that Parliament doesn’t discuss matters that are sub judice, so as long as they can keep spinning out proceedings Parliament won’t be able to discuss Trafigura dumping toxic waste on the Ivory Coast and there wil be nothing for the press to report from Parliament and in the meantime everyone will get bored and go away. Simples!
Go read Anna Raccoon’s article and more at the Guardian
Oh and that report they really really don’t want people to know about that can be found here
More on Carter fuck
As there’s a few more commentaries around on the Guardian gagging order i thought it only right to help improve it’s ineffectiveness to link t a few of them. The general consensus seems to be that the question cart-fuck don’t want us to know about is:
Questions for Oral or Written Answer beginning on Tuesday 13 October 2009
61. Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura. (293006).
Though spy Blog high lights some other possibly interesting questions also being tabled.
According to Guido the report they’d really rather we didn’t here about is this one.
Other commentaries that are probably far more useful to read than this one can be found at:
Ministry of Truth, Dizzy Thinks and Iain Dale
Update A lot more on the Carter-fuck/Trafigura business on the Guardian. There’s also a Petition on number10 to request that press freedom to report Parliamentary business should be enshrined in law. Probably won’t do much good, but never hurts.
Update 2 Guido is reporting that Carter-fuck have thrown in the towel. Having managed to achieve precisely the opposite of what was intended. As explained rather well by Samizdata.
Update 3 Really can’t neglect the excellent article by Mr Eugenides
What a start
So the “honourable” members are back to their subsidised bars restaurants and hard days of submitting fraudulent expenses claims. So how’s that first day gone? Well Jacqui Smith has read out a grudging apology for being caught claiming that a room at her sisters was her main home, and not the house family live at. But as she’s apologised it’s now all ok, no further action will be taken, not even for claiming for her husbands porn, and no she doesn’t have to give the money back. Which is perfectly reasonable you see, as claiming for an entire house obviously costs just as much as claiming for a room so it doesn’t really matter which she claimed for. So all just a terrible misunderstanding and can we all move on please.
Someone who has at least been asked to pay back the odd 12 grand is former iron chancellor gurning Gordon, along with quite a few others. Though it is to be noted that so far they’ve only been asked, as it seems the person asking exceeded their remit in actually applying the existing rule of expenses having to be actually due to costs incurred doing their job, and not just because they want to build up a property portfolio. Terribly terribly mean of Sir Thomas, after all a grand a year for a gardener hardly goes any where these days.
But it’s all ok as they’ve passed a new law (they’re terribly fond of those) putting an independent government funded body (or qango if you will) in charge of approving authorising their expenses. Fret not though it won’t impact the troughing too much the Lords are utterly exempt from it. There is actually good news in that bill, they managed to not scrap parliamentary privilege. Nor did they (as far as I can tell) get to make new laws covering these accounting errors, as opposed to say existing laws such as those covering fraud.
Alas however whilst parliamentary privilege may still be intact. So that our representatives can safely speak freely and ask awkward questions for their lobbyists constituents, it seems that thanks to the auspices of those bastions of free speech at carter-fuck, we may no longer have the chance to hear about it. In the mean time in case you haven’t heard (and you probably won’t have) it turns out that the way the police dealt with Damian Green MP the other year was not proportionate. The Met have a slightly different take on things.
So what a start to the new troughing season, so time for another walk. One day if we’re really really lucky and all wish very very hard they might take a hint.
(Feel free to steal the crap graphic, I’m working on a better version)
NightJack update and round up
Following the Times notable victory over decency yesterday they’ve graciously allowed NightJack to respond in an article I can’t help but feel is very reminiscent of a communist show trial where the accused is allowed to publicly confess their sins and misdemeanors. The tactics he describes the Times using are also very reminiscent of those used to expose Girl with a one track mind, so they definitely have form on this one. speaking of having form it would seem that the Mendacious Patrick Foster, that fearless journalist so desperate to move on from the celebrity pages he’s prepared to sacrifice the career of a decent man to do so, also has form for hacking and covertly filming people having sex – which I think clearly tells us his views on peoples privacy. Whilst as many have pointed out no one has a right to privacy and on the internet probably not a lot of expectation of it either, that still doesn’t make the Times actions in any way justifiable. However there is one very slim upside from this as noted by Anna Raccoon there is now some precedent for investigating and publishing identifying material relating to a serving police office as prohibited by the counter terrorism act 2008.
Update
Daniel Finkelstein responds, and another Times journalist expresses mixed feelings.
Round up of other blogs
› Continue reading
Malevolent voices that despise our freedoms
Finally the erosion of our Civil liberties appears to be hitting the main stream media, via a rather excellent article in the Times by the Childrens Author Philip Pullman. If you don’t read anything else today make sure you read:
Malevolent voices that despise our freedoms
Though oddly now it’s vanished, one could almost get paranoid about such a thing. Fortunately despite going from google cache as well (I guess keeping it must have been evil) it wasn’t properly vanished. So there is a copy below the cut tag and links to other peoples copies below so you can double check for edits. Best to save it from further vanishing.
(Via Old Holborn, Hat Tip Van Helsing)
UK terror threat status
- Severe 2010/01/25