[LINK] Internet cut-offs, website censorship about to drop on UK

[Roger Clarke]

[Another nail in the coffin of what was once UK democracy.]


Internet cut-offs, website censorship about to drop on UK
By Nate Anderson
Ars Technica
7 April 2010
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/internet-cut-offs-website-censorship-about-to-drop-on-uk.ars

Wash-up" might sound homely, conjuring visions of a family scrubbing 
up after a cheerful dinner as the evening descends. But it's also the 
name of a UK legislative process in which bills can become law 
through a quick process that bypasses normal debate. Wash-up happens 
at the end of a parliamentary term, just before new elections, and it 
is designed to finish non-controversial outstanding business.

But is it appropriate to use wash-up to make major changes to UK 
Internet access, giving copyright holders tremendous new power to go 
after P2P pirates and even block entire websites?

The UK's current Labour government thinks so. It is intent on jamming 
the "Digital Economy" bill through Parliament in the next couple of 
days by means of the wash-up process after calling a general election 
for May 6. Chris Marsden, a senior lecturer in the University of 
Essex's law school, calls the process "an absolute insult to 
Parliament, to Internet users, and to democracy." He goes on to "add 
for overseas readers that this Bill is not just anti-digital economy, 
but very obviously anti-net neutrality as well as against basic 
rights."

But according to the government, the problems addressed by the bill 
are so severe that it's simply not possible to wait a few weeks until 
a new government is in place. The UK's "creative industries" are 
bleeding, hemorrhaging red ink and jobs, so action must be taken. The 
bill's "second reading" in the House of Commons took place last 
night; it is set to pass the committee stage and a third reading at 
some point today. In a day or two it could become law.

Graduated response and censorship, UK style

What's in it? All sorts of stuff (read the current draft). ISPs will 
immediately have to send warning letters to accused P2P users, for 
one thing. After a year of letters, new "technical" measures can come 
into force that include speed throttling, measures that will prevent 
subscribers from "using the service to gain access to particular 
material, or limits such use," and Internet disconnections. (Backers 
of the bill note that these are only "suspensions," not permanent 
"disconnections"; the difference between the two seems largely 
semantic, as a subscriber account is in fact cut off from the 
Internet, regardless of whether the subscriber himself committed any 
infringement.)

As for blocking complete websites, the government is on board with 
that, too. The bill grants the UK's High Court the power to order Web 
blocks against any site, for a number of vague reasons including "any 
issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State." 
Generally, the blocks are meant to target sites where a "substantial 
proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online 
location infringes copyright."

The bill does incorporate protections for these penalties, including 
an appeals process for Internet subscribers, but taken in total, 
these are dramatic changes to the current Internet regulatory scheme.

How much debate was taken on these matters in Commons? We found out 
last night, when less than 40 of the 646 MPs showed up for a few 
hours of debate on the bill, which then passed its second reading. 
One of the reasons for the low turnout: debate didn't even get 
underway until 4:27pm.

A "weak, dithering, and incompetent" bill

Those who did show up had plenty to say (read the lengthy 
transcript). Even the bill's main backer, Secretary of State for 
Culture, Media and Sport Ben Bradshaw, opened his remarks by saying, 
"It is not ideal that the Bill is not likely to enjoy full debate 
through its Committee stages in the House, but at the end of a 
Parliament there are always Bills to which that applies."

Bradshaw was soon interrupted by Tom Watson, a Labour MP, who 
references a recent petition campaign to hold the bill back for more 
debate. 20,000 people wrote their MPs on the issue, but Bradshaw 
isn't swayed. "We are all aware of the e-mails with which we have 
been inundated in recent days. I am sure my honourable Friend is also 
aware of the competing newspapers adverts today from the unions and 
trade organisations representing those who work in the creative 
sector who, with respect, probably number hundreds of thousands and 
feel it is important that the work that they create is not devalued 
by an issue that we will shortly discuss in more detail. They feel 
just as strongly that they need the legislation now as the people he 
mentioned think we should not pass it."

Kate Hoey, a Labour MP from Vauxhall, was even more direct, saying 
that pushing this bill through will hurt people's involvement in 
democracy. "Will the Secretary of State look back in history and see 
what happens to legislation that gets pushed through the House 
quickly, without consultation? It looks as though we could push some 
measure through-perhaps there will be a little stitch-up between the 
three Front-Bench teams-but out there, ordinary people, many of whom 
have only begun to realise the repercussions of the Bill, will feel 
totally let down by Parliament, just before a general election."

Jeremy Hunt, a Conservative MP from South-West Surrey, then blasted 
the entire bill. "This afternoon, on the very day when time has 
finally been called on a weak, dithering and incompetent Government, 
we are faced with a weak, dithering and incompetent attempt to 
breathe life into Britain's digital economy... Instead of a big, 
ambitious vision for this country, we have a digital disappointment 
of colossal proportions."

A "contradictory absurdity"

But concern about the creative industries propelled the bill through 
its second reading anyway. It should move quickly through the rest of 
the wash-up process in the next couple of days before Parliament is 
dissolved next week.

The Open Rights Group, a leading digital rights group in the UK, has 
made its opposition clear, replacing its normal home page with this:

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

We asked our own resident Londoner, Peter Bright, to pull an opinion 
from his vast store of them and share it with us. Is the opposition 
to the Digital Economy bill and to the wash-up process overblown?

"The passage of the bill shows a fundamental dereliction of duty by 
our elected representatives," he responded. "It places the demands of 
big media companies ahead of the rights of the citizenry, and the 
very idea of cutting people off from the Internet in a bill designed 
to promote the 'digital economy' is a contradictory absurdity.

"However, I'm not even sure I can muster the energy to be angry about 
this; it's precisely what we've come to expect from our illiberal, 
corporatist, fundamentally corrupt government."

Unlike the current UK government, Bright is happy to debate his 
assertions; drop by the comments of this article to discuss the bill, 
the current state of UK politics, and the best way to address online 
infringement.


-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
			            
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University