DEB - A Reply from my MP
I wrote to my MP about the Digital Economy Bill and this is his response:
Chris,
Yes, I agree - as co-founder of the Internet Group in Parliament and with
18 years working in the field, I feel strongly about these issues. However,
the position is not quite as reported and I think that some of the
comments on the internet haven't fully understood the procedure at the end of a
Parliament. The DEB is a mammoth project containing dozens of different
issues, many of them entirely uncontroversial - for example, a harmonisation of
the system for age-limit ratings on video games which everyone from
consumer agencies to the industry is keen to get. It also contains several very
dubious things, including the one you mention and also others. What is going
to happen is that anything which the parties think is controversial will
get thrown out, and a slimmed-down Bill containing only the things which
everyone approves of will go through. There is as I understand it zero risk
that the provisions about disconnecting people for alleged illegal downloads
will get through.
On the substance of the issue, I'd expect to oppose any such measures. I
don't think it's appropriate - if people use the internet illegally they can
be prosecuted for that, but not blocked from communication, in the same
way as if I used the postal service in some illegal way - I would expect to
be fined for doing so, but not that the postman would stop delivery!
Best regards
Nick
I'm am suspicious of his "Don't worry, all the nasty stuff will be taken out" approach. It is naive and ignores the fact that all the parties in the Lords accepted the bill.
My original letter below the cut.
P.s. Is posting Nick's reply a breach of copyright?
Wednesday 17 March 2010
Dear Nick Palmer,
I am writing to you with regards to the Digital Economy Bill that has
recently passed through the Lords. It appears that the bill will be
pushed through the Commons with little or no time to debate the bill.
The bill includes far reaching and significant powers that are for the
sole benefit of the large media companies. Whilst these companies need
to protect their interests, the bill, as it stands, risks damaging many
aspects of the digital economy and free speech.
But please don't take my word on it.
Labour peer Lord Whitty said yesterday
"... a whole range of changes in our approach both to the law and to
the way in which our digital media operate. We have imposed police
powers on ISPs which are reluctant to accept them. We have threatened
several millions of our citizens with exclusion from the internet by
administrative decree, with dubious means of identifying who was
actually the perpetrator of the alleged infringement. We have seen the
Government, putatively this House and other political parties backing
protectionism rather than competition and innovation, moving towards an
exclusion of people from digital access rather than the inclusion that
the rest of the Bill-which I fully support-provides. It has landed us
with a pretty much unenforceable law that will get a penny back to the
rights owners whom the legislation was intended to support.
Out there, however, there is no unanimity at all. There is a very
widespread opposition to the Bill from individuals who feel threatened,
from parents who are concerned that measures will be taken against them
because of their children's use of the internet and from employers who
are worried about the same thing in relation to their staff. Surveys
conducted by my organisation, Consumer Focus, indicate that 75 per cent
of the population do not understand what is lawful and unlawful in this
context and that a rather higher proportion, when told what is lawful
and unlawful, do not support those laws."
Please make it clear to your colleagues that this bill needs the
parliamentary time necessary for proper debate.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Tregenza
Chris,
Yes, I agree - as co-founder of the Internet Group in Parliament and with
18 years working in the field, I feel strongly about these issues. However,
the position is not quite as reported and I think that some of the
comments on the internet haven't fully understood the procedure at the end of a
Parliament. The DEB is a mammoth project containing dozens of different
issues, many of them entirely uncontroversial - for example, a harmonisation of
the system for age-limit ratings on video games which everyone from
consumer agencies to the industry is keen to get. It also contains several very
dubious things, including the one you mention and also others. What is going
to happen is that anything which the parties think is controversial will
get thrown out, and a slimmed-down Bill containing only the things which
everyone approves of will go through. There is as I understand it zero risk
that the provisions about disconnecting people for alleged illegal downloads
will get through.
On the substance of the issue, I'd expect to oppose any such measures. I
don't think it's appropriate - if people use the internet illegally they can
be prosecuted for that, but not blocked from communication, in the same
way as if I used the postal service in some illegal way - I would expect to
be fined for doing so, but not that the postman would stop delivery!
Best regards
Nick
I'm am suspicious of his "Don't worry, all the nasty stuff will be taken out" approach. It is naive and ignores the fact that all the parties in the Lords accepted the bill.
My original letter below the cut.
P.s. Is posting Nick's reply a breach of copyright?
Wednesday 17 March 2010
Dear Nick Palmer,
I am writing to you with regards to the Digital Economy Bill that has
recently passed through the Lords. It appears that the bill will be
pushed through the Commons with little or no time to debate the bill.
The bill includes far reaching and significant powers that are for the
sole benefit of the large media companies. Whilst these companies need
to protect their interests, the bill, as it stands, risks damaging many
aspects of the digital economy and free speech.
But please don't take my word on it.
Labour peer Lord Whitty said yesterday
"... a whole range of changes in our approach both to the law and to
the way in which our digital media operate. We have imposed police
powers on ISPs which are reluctant to accept them. We have threatened
several millions of our citizens with exclusion from the internet by
administrative decree, with dubious means of identifying who was
actually the perpetrator of the alleged infringement. We have seen the
Government, putatively this House and other political parties backing
protectionism rather than competition and innovation, moving towards an
exclusion of people from digital access rather than the inclusion that
the rest of the Bill-which I fully support-provides. It has landed us
with a pretty much unenforceable law that will get a penny back to the
rights owners whom the legislation was intended to support.
Out there, however, there is no unanimity at all. There is a very
widespread opposition to the Bill from individuals who feel threatened,
from parents who are concerned that measures will be taken against them
because of their children's use of the internet and from employers who
are worried about the same thing in relation to their staff. Surveys
conducted by my organisation, Consumer Focus, indicate that 75 per cent
of the population do not understand what is lawful and unlawful in this
context and that a rather higher proportion, when told what is lawful
and unlawful, do not support those laws."
Please make it clear to your colleagues that this bill needs the
parliamentary time necessary for proper debate.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Tregenza