tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post1792525092154252433..comments2022-12-02T13:41:41.120+00:00Comments on Francis Davey: Government wants new powers to block wikileaks and squeeze web tvFrancis Daveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-26398895808043515252009-12-18T13:37:06.131+00:002009-12-18T13:37:06.131+00:00I'm also concerned at the lack of scrutiny thi...I'm also concerned at the lack of scrutiny this bill is receiving. The alarming provision you mention was present in the consultation document. As I said in my blogpost: http://martinbudden.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/illicit-p2p-file-sharing-and-the-law/<br /><br />"...Once a minister has this power, who’s to say their judgment won’t be biased by, say, the fact that the accused has a blog that is critical of the government.<br /><br />Mandelson seems to want to create a Judge Dredd for the internet. And the most frightening thing is that, with the current cabinet, he would be Judge Dredd."<br /><br />See also my response to "Consultation on Legislation to Address Illicit P2P File-Sharing": http://martinbudden.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/consultation-on-legislation-to-address-illicit-p2p-file-sharing-my-response/Martin Buddenhttp://martinbudden.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-85205684713559707202009-12-18T12:57:01.508+00:002009-12-18T12:57:01.508+00:00Good analysis. Must confess I like others had miss...Good analysis. Must confess I like others had missed this point. As is, this is as bad as clause 17, as an open invitation to future governments to 'control'.Scotthttp://www.informationoverlord.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-63653464064286020002009-12-18T11:38:54.484+00:002009-12-18T11:38:54.484+00:00Nice one Francis! Found this via http://www.out-la...Nice one Francis! Found this via http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10613<br /><br />Steve HarrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-13333958069797282322009-12-17T09:17:32.288+00:002009-12-17T09:17:32.288+00:00@Anon the clue is buried in the "Technical Me...@Anon the clue is buried in the "Technical Measures" definition : "c) Suspends the service provided to a subscriber".<br /><br />So the SoS can order the ISP to suspend the wikileaks serviceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-39231245111161485512009-12-16T18:47:08.047+00:002009-12-16T18:47:08.047+00:00I worry that this is simply a ruse to cause anger ...I worry that this is simply a ruse to cause anger about this one clause, distracting concerns over the rest of the bill.<br /><br />Don't take the removal of this provision as a victory.Tim Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06898229856635469333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-5300950396191266522009-12-13T14:24:42.940+00:002009-12-13T14:24:42.940+00:00Stephen
Don't be so sure that serious actually...Stephen<br />Don't be so sure that serious actually means what you or I think it to mean or that it has any resemblance to the dictionary definition.<br />The anti terrorist legislation allows for a search when an officer has serious suspicions, see; http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-special-branch-terror-suspect <br /><br />found this article from tweet by glynwintle<br />http://twitter.com/glynwintle/status/6564230197Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-37918257197682573992009-12-12T18:40:47.287+00:002009-12-12T18:40:47.287+00:00I agree with the above anonymous commentator above...I agree with the above anonymous commentator above, the use of serious as an adverb in the lede stands out particularly stark and bad. See what I did there.<br /><br />I think the power is just too strong for the wrong it's supposed to remedy. The best way to remedy copyright breaches suffered by private companies surely can't be to give the executive blanket practically arbitrary disconnection / blocking controls over the the entire UK.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180325668437665385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-19017591422024735982009-12-12T02:47:59.505+00:002009-12-12T02:47:59.505+00:00Information technology (Internet, email records, w...Information technology (Internet, email records, wikileaks.com) is imposing <a href="http://legal-beagle.typepad.com/wrights_legal_beagle/2009/11/transparency.html" title="governance" rel="nofollow">radical transparency</a> on all publicly accountable organizations, be they scientific units (University of East Anglia), county governments in South Carolina, or in the case above, the Secretary of State.Benjamin Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11543639411820745571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-90684399545190018982009-12-11T13:52:21.892+00:002009-12-11T13:52:21.892+00:00'I am worried that no-one in Parliament appear...'I am worried that no-one in Parliament appears to be taking the problem seriously'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-43007764179106814062009-12-11T13:31:08.491+00:002009-12-11T13:31:08.491+00:00Oh you have GOT to be kidding me.Oh you have GOT to be kidding me.Graham Simpsonhttp://www.geekchique.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-63382976844501863692009-12-11T12:57:26.118+00:002009-12-11T12:57:26.118+00:00Wouldn't the 'particular subscribers' ...Wouldn't the 'particular subscribers' be a limiting factor in the case of blocking sites like wikileaks. I would've thought even the most technically illiterate judge would see blocking everyone's access to a site as not being 'particular subscribers'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com