Civil Liberties
Hogan home
Well done to everyone invovled in getting him out, seems Nick hogan got released today
Excellent Stuff, special kudos to Anna Raccoon and Old Holborn for all their work.
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.
Free the Bolton one
If you’re reading this you’ve probably already read about the plight of Nick Hogan, if not go and read about it over at Old Holborns and whilst you’re there make use of the donate button to chip in an help get him out of prison. I thought debtor’s prisons had been done away with but apparently not, and by all accounts this particular prison has a particularly bad reputation.
Even if you agree with the smoking bad, the issue here is as Charles Crawford says far more about “the definition of a privately owned pub as a ‘public place’ under the relevant legislation. Just because the public have ‘access’ to a pub does not mean that it should be treated as a public place.“.
The other interesting point as observed by Old Holborn is that none of the smokers were breaking the law it was perfectly legal for them to smoke in the pub, it was just illegal for the owner to let them smoke (even though he wasn’t there). Which does make me wonder who’d get prosecuted if one. were to smoke in a government or crown building, as again as OH observes most of the staff there will have no power to compel you to stop, and you’re not breaking any law.
Finally in case you’ve not already done so go and chip in a few quid to help get Mr hogan out of prison so he can get back to trying to keep his remaining pub open, and you don’t even have to leave your chair.
Correction The law does make it an offence to smoke in a smoke free place, but that still doesn’t give them much power to enforce it. However a slightly more worrying bit with concern to the point Mr Crawford makes is this:
(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations designating as smoke-free any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under section 2.
(2) The place, or places falling within the description, need not be enclosed or substantially enclosed.
(3) The appropriate national authority may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the authority’s opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.
Not a terrorist? – doesn’t matter
Via Old Holborn on Facebook and already picked up on by LegIron and Obnoxio it seems that the plastic plod still haven’t got the message about not harassing photographers. Taking photographs of Christmas festivities in that well known security hotspot of Accrington is “Suspicious” behaviour and if you don’t “volunteer” your details when stopped under Section 44 they’ll just get you arrested for anti-social behaviour instead.
Given how many public statements there have been concerning both the police and the plastics abusing their powers in this way, and despite the repeated reminders that “no laws prevent people from photographing buildings” the message just isn’t getting across. It’s almost enough to make you start to wonder if the public message we hear is actually the same one that is being given to the people in uniforms. Also Section 44 applies in designated areas only – so is a shopping centre in Accrington really a designated area or where they just making things up and is there an on-line list of all the designated areas anywhere?
EDL leaders arrested
Just seen over at Old Holborn go read what he’s said and it’s worth following the few links in the article as well it won’t take long. But the gist taken from EDL Media is that:
On Saturday 20th February 2010 Members of the leadership team of the English Defence League were arrested as they traveled to Scotland to support the Scottish Defence League demonstration.
While in custody the team members homes and families homes were raided by police armed with automatic machine guns which terrified the leaderships family which included small children and other older family members. Computer equipment was seized during the 3 hour raid.
It doesn’t say on what grounds they’ve been arrested and will be charged so it’s possible they’ve been up to something they shouldn’t and arresting them en-route to a demo like that was just a convenient coincidence. But on the other hand it does look a tad troublesome from the point of view of awkward demonstrators of all sorts. The various comments and sound bites in the articles linked to by OH also don’t paint a very reassuring picture with the police seeming to co-operate with counter protesters to prevent the EDL from exercising their legal right to make a static protest. This comment in particular doesn’t suggest that the anti-EDL protesters the police were helping had entirely peaceful intentions in mind:
Student protester James Nesbitt, 23, from Glasgow, said: “We had spotters out across the city looking for fascists in pubs. We got here quickly but the police are doing everything they can to keep us away from them.
Certainly a situation to watch to see how things develop.
Update on e-petitons
A while back I wrote asking what e-petions are good for following on from a hopeless response from the Government about the petition against the change to cost recovery for defendants. Well I have a slight update in the comments from Jeanette Miller (aka Miss Justice) which suggests that in an entirely predictable fashion people are indeed opting to accept a fine and thus guilt rather than end up far more out of pocket due to trying to clear their name.
Read on:
I was also very disappointed by the response received. Feel free to publish details from this press release. At least the fight continues!
Another disappointing day’s work for Gordon Brown.
The Government’s long awaited response to a petition backed by almost 22,000 signatures has been described as “a joke” by Jeanette Miller, aka ‘Miss Justice’. The expert Motoring Lawyer who is also the Founding Chief Executive and President of AMOL, The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers, began the petition back in September 09 in response to the government’s plans to introduce regulations to restrict the amount of costs an innocent defendant could recover after fighting to clear their name. She says, “The reason I started a petition was primarily to raise awareness of what the government’s plans were. The method that they chose to introduce the rules was very much under the carpet and an almost farcical process. The overwhelming response to the consultation was against introducing the rules that have since come into force on 31 October 2009.”
When the petition closed Jeanette Miller wrote a letter to the prime minister with 37 pages of supplementary information to enable him to produce a proper considered response that she hoped would address many of the flawed premises in the consultation process itself. In relation to the response received today Miss Miller states “I am astounded by the dismissive approach adopted by Gordon Brown and his pitiful response for the issues I tried to raise.”
The petition was launched in an attempt to stop or to repeal the regulations implemented to limit the amount of legal costs an acquitted defendant can claim back from the court once a criminal case against them fails or is discontinued.
Under the rules prior to the 31 October 2009 a defendant could expect to recover between 50-100% when acquitted or found not guilty. The government were losing too much money however, due to the number of cases they were losing. In 2007, 26 per cent of motoring offence prosecutions in Magistrates’ Courts were unsuccessful. The rules do not just extend to motorist but to all criminal defence.
Miss Justice explains that she chose to launch her campaign as she was fearful that many innocent motorists would chose to accept penalties for less serious offences such as speeding or mobile phone offences when they were not at risk of a ban.
Since the rules have changed it seems she has already been proven right. Ian Harrison a company director who contacted Miss Miller in December admitted a motoring offence he had not committed. He was issued a penalty notice but says he was using a Bluetooth device which is legal. He said he could not afford to take his case to court because even if he won he would have to pay nearly all of his legal bills of at least £2,000. The 53-year-old instead opted to accept a £60 fine and three penalty points.
Miss Justice commented “When I spoke to him I was pretty convinced we would succeed in securing his acquittal at court if he chose to contest the proceedings. I had to warn him, however, that even if he won his case he could be liable to pay nearly all of his costs, likely to reach more than £2,000. Mr Harrison said he could not afford to proceed on the basis that even if he was vindicated he would still be the loser because it would have cost him £2,000.”
Turning to the government’s response the Prime Minister argues that the government does not believe that a defendant will be more likely to plead guilty under the new regime as they claim a defendant could never be guaranteed an acquittal. There is no research whatsoever published or referred to that justifies this belief. In the wealth of experience of Miss Justice and her fellow AMOL member solicitors they find that where someone knows they are innocent under the new regime they are far more likely to give up their principals and take the punishment than be several thousand pounds out of pocket.
Miss Justice has confirmed that her firm, Geoffrey Miller Solicitors, have seen a drop of 34 per cent in the number of motorists taking their speeding claims to court in November 2009 compared with November 2008, when costs were still met from central funds. With an offence that carries points and poses no risk of a ban, most drivers seem to be admitting to offences rather than be out of pocket. A scenario Miss Justice predicted would happen when launching the petition.
The government also referred to there being no guarantee of the sum recovered if acquitted. Jeanette Miller’s response to this is ”This point is true. However, my firm Geoffrey Miller Solicitors, maintain detailed statistics of our clients’ costs recovery levels so that all of our clients are fully informed of the likely recovery they can expect at the outset of a case”
The rates the government claim to be sustainable for criminal lawyers are widely known across the legal field as nothing more than a pittance. With most plumbers charging more than the government plan to pay under the legal aid scheme, their response is likely to infuriate the majority of the legal profession.
Jeanette Miller states “The final paragraph of the government’s response is insulting not just because of the sentiments expressed but it is clear that the Prime Minister has simply dismissed all requests to review this significant issue. Mr Brown has adopted the wording of several press releases that were issued during the campaign and continues to miss the point entirely.”
Miss Justice suggested a face to face meeting with the Prime Minister once the petition had closed to be able to discuss the more intricate details relating to the campaign. Unlike the Tories met with Miss Miller, and fellow AMOL member, David Sonn, Gordon Brown chose to snub this opportunity and dismiss the concerns raised with nothing short of an extract already used during the campaign to raise awareness of the petition.
The fight is not over though as a result of Miss Justices’ petition, the Tories backed her cause and tabled an early day motion which received support from 30 MPs.
Following on from that was the Law Society’s Judicial Review Proceedings issued against the Government on 7 January 2010. One way or another, the government will have to respond with real answers rather than the nonsensical responses they continue to spout in the hope that the majority of the general public either will not understand or will not care about the erosion of the British Justice System as we know it.
For more information or to speak to Jeanette Miller, President of The Association Of Motor Offence Lawyers about any motoring issues please contact Caroline Tomlinson at Geoffrey Miller Solicitors on 0161 271 5591 or ctomlinson@motoroffence.co.uk.
Update: Almost forgot to link to this older article by Anna Raccoon about the Law Society launching a judicial review into the matter.
Just spreading the word
Via Captain Ranty comes this rather excellent post by Corrugated Soundbite
“Now I’m glad Brits don’t riot
No, really.
We live in a nation with a State that assumes every adult to be a paedophile unless proven otherwise. They can take your kids away by simply deeming you “not bright enough”, whilst knowingly leaving children in the hands of parents who abuse them until they die.
No riot. “
Go read the whole thing, it rather echo’s and sums up a lot of stuff that’s been said by Leg Iron in the past, and they’ve got a damn good point.
Update: LegIron counsels patience even though there are even more reasons to be a tad miffed.
Monday morning papers
Having foolishly made the mistake of reading the metro today, there were a few articles that tie in rather too well with my last post.
There’s a half page article about Megan Ward who’s invented a “smoking kills” key ring which is being ordered by “anti-smoking consultancy”* GASP, and she’s also produced possibly more useful strong sun indicators. In smaller news the Scots it seems are drinking a shocking one and a half pints a day (Of course these numbers will get increasingly inaccurate as people home brew or buy abroad) . The really impressive article though is the call from Dr Shyam Kolvekar to ban butter it seems just advising people to use less is no longer enough. Once he’s done with butter though he’s already got a few other foods in his sights:
To round off the mornings madness the Independent is reporting on a man arrested for a twitter post threatening to blow up Robin Hood airport. Yes it probably warranted someone going round for a quiet chat, but the arrest and life time ban from the airport? I hope that he wasn’t reported by someone following his tweets.
* What on earth is an “anti-smoking consultancy” anyway?
The new puritanism
I’ve been meaning to write this for quite a while and never quite getting round to it, but the recent post over at Devils Kitchen has prompted to actually do something. If you read Devils Kitchen and Leg Iron already you can probably just skip this as I’m not going to say anything new and will be linking to them extensively, as I’m just trying to pull a load of stuff together for my own benefit.
This thread goes back quite a long way especially over on Leg Irons, who seems to have predicted events rather well – though we’ve not yet travelled all of that road . But today Devils kitchen brought to my attention that the powers that be have taken a leaf from the SNP’s book and are in favour of minimum pricing per unit for alcohol. Setting the minimum price at around 40 or 50 pence a unit. It’s worth at this point stopping to recall that “a unit” is a measurement invented by the government, and so subject to redefinition if the minimum pricing isn’t raising enough money, sorry doing enough to prevent binge drinking. So perhaps in that regard the Tory proposal to change from units to centilitres works in our favour, though no doubt it’ll be dropped as soon as they notice that it makes things more transparent. Also notice that the minimum price also covers spirits, now what’s the betting that this will turn out to be rigged in some way to apply before excise duty? Given that excise duty already accounts for a fair chunk of the price of spirits? As this government doesn’t seem to have any qualms about banning things, and is probably stupid enough to try prohibition, one has to conclude that this is as much about getting more taxes as it is a matter of control and probably very little to do with the stated goals..
Of course it is being sold as being to protect precious NHS resources, so presumably we can soon start to see taxes on ski-ing holidays and other activities which increase the risk of injury and thus costs to the NSH. Public backing is wanted for the scheme and will no doubt be provided by the various fake charities that exist for just such a purpose.
Taxes though aren’t the only weapon they hope to deploy against drinkers bar staff have a role to play as well no longer asking “same again” but offering water instead and so “slowly” drinking will be denormalised.
There are laws already in place that would address the alleged problems if they were enforced. They could even charge fixed penalties for bars serving people when drunk or for being drunk and disorderly which would help the revenue issue. But using existing laws has never been popular with this government much better to penalise everyone even though alcohol consumption hasn’t actually risen. All of which makes me wonder, as many times before, if either the government is really that incompetent, is just addicted to making laws or if as others suggest the aim is greater control of the population.
Greater control of the population seems more likely as booze seems to be following the same path taken with smoking. Once booze is nicely unerway they seem to already have lightbulbs, batteries and food lined up to be tackled next. Not to mention driving, taking photographs and a host of other things all subject to increasing controls and heading towards being banned. Every time it’s for the sake of the children/environment/NHS and every time nothings banned out right as people would notice that, instead costs are pushed up (got to keep that tax revenue), choices are curtailed and the individual singled out for opprobrium. None of it achieves the stated objectives, it isn’t meant to, it just makes us all guilty of something, all at risk of summary punishment, all part of the “other” and thus all controlled. Fear and control really do seem to be the only aims that make any sort of sense. Not breaking the law won’t even be sufficient as they’ll just arrest you until you prove you haven’t broken the law. An obvious up shot of this would be the rise in home brewing and other untaxed activities in the home, but they’ve got that covered by encouraging children to spy on their parents (and look out for terrorists for now) and a shiny new database to track it all.
Obviously as we’re so often told, it would be nonsense to even suggest that we might be heading towards being a totalitarian sate – but there does seem to be a hell of a pattern emerging. Though perhaps it is actually just a new puritanism, a medievalist revival where it’s ok to “sin” as long as you act suitably penitent and buy your indulgence.
Quick post whilst I defrost
Sadly problems with trains have stopped me getting to work today, and with my laptop in the office I have unexpected time on my hands so I may be updating a bit today. So whilst I defrost it seems that we may in fact be in for some global cooling and recent warming may not be man made after all, but it’s just temporary warming will resume before too long honest (hat tip Old Holborn).
Update
Harry’s place has a different view on the banning of Islam4UK.
Also after the monumentally bad move by our home secretary to ban Islan4UK, for saying nasty things that people didn’t like (they’ll no doubt form up under a new name within the week I suggest the “peoples front for Islam in the UK” not to be confused with the “Islam for UK people front”). Anyway meantime Anjem Choudary get’s to be all put upon and persecuted, taking a leaf from the BNP’s book. So as incredibly well summarised buy The nameless libertarian – the government has yet again takes the worst possible option putting the boot into free speech and giving Islam4UK more publicity than any march could hope to achieve. Joy.
UK terror threat status
- Severe 2010/01/25