This is getting silly

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on 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.

0

Free the Bolton one

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on 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:


Additional smoke-free places

(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.

-1

Recycling old announcements

By | | ,
Comments Off on Recycling old announcements

Reading the Metro today is seems that the Transport Minister Sadiq Khan has announced that the fines for over running roadworks will be increased from 2,500 pounds a day to 25,000 pounds a day, which notionally seems a good idea just as it did when he announced the same thing back in October.

One thing that the new announcement does tackle is the concern that “utility firms could use it as an excuse to put up domestic prices to compensate“, the cunning plan to stop this which can not possibly fail is …they won’t be allowed to do it. Because of course if the Government tells them not to pass on the costs they’ll just accept the lost profits and work harder to avoid the fines, there’s no chance they won’t just change prices for utterly unrelated reasons that happen to cover this increased overhead.

With a government so full of people skilled at fleecing the tax payer whilst working strictly within “the rules”, you’d have thought that they might at least suspect that merely forbidding something may not actually work. A more cynical person might in fact suspect that every time they forbid the passing on over regulatory costs they know damn well they’ll be covered in the next price hike. Though if one were that cynical one might also note that it’s a neat indirect route of pulling money out of our pockets without actually increasing taxes and with the added bonus of being able to blame those evil utility companies

-1