[LINK] When private cops get out of hand...

[rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au]

Glen Turner wrote:
> Jan Whitaker wrote:
>   
>> I know a BUNCH who don't. Any Melbpc users group member wouldn't. It's
>> not on offer. People who have dialup accounts from their place of work
>> wouldn't, e.g. unis, IT companies. So what do these idiots think they're
>> going to do with those private accounts?
>>     
>
> There's a lack of consideration of risk in MIPI's proposal.
> To put the extreme case: if a visitor misuses a hospital
> Internet network then it should be disconnected?
>   
Nor is it such an extreme case. To turn the case the other way: the home 
phone line is disconnected, and then the ambulance is needed. It only 
sounds like an extreme case if you ignore an inquest only a few years ago.
> Also, why is there punishment before the opportunity for
> trial?  This is especially relevant given the behaviour of
> MIPI's US counterpart RIAA, who have sued a large number
> of people with inadequate investigation, and thus there
> are a fair number of people who need a forum in which to
> show their innocence.
>   
...it was on my mind! But I think this is in the nature of private 
enforcement in general, not just MIPI. To take MIPI as a case in point:
- MIPI exists only for the purpose of combating illegal copying.
- To ensure its continued existence, it must (a) continue to demonstrate 
rising piracy and (b) conduct successful campaigns against same.

Funnily enough, in terms of MIPI's role, success alone is a bad thing. 
If it eliminates the problem, it eliminates itself. So it needs both the 
campaigns and continued high levels of offence. Any private enforcement 
is bound by the same conundrum; which is one of many reasons why private 
enforcement is a bad thing (another reason is simple: private revenge is 
bad for society).

IMO all private enforcement has the same fundamental problem.

Another point arises from this. MIPI's role is as a private 
investigator; in general, its evidence is, on its own, without criminal 
standing. It may be called to support a state prosecutor, but it is not 
itself a prosecutor. This whole business of approaching ISPs to seek 
pre-emptive actions is an outrageous attempt to sidestep normal legal 
processes.
> Disconnection is good punishment in some cases (especially
> if the alternative is a honking great fine which hangs
> over people even after their rebellious years), but that is
> a decision best made by a magistrate.
>   
Indeed. And a magistrate, while quite likely to say "no Internet access 
for the accused for X years", is wholly unlikely to say "no telephone 
for the accused".

RC
> Cheers, Glen
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>