This just shows how out of touch the UK govt is. I wonder which Labour sponser lobbied for this. The government assume this is a hardcore minority. I'm not an illegal filesharer, but I sure know a lot people that do. I don't think it's a small minority. Questions...
- How do you define 'illegal fileshare'? Based on the network used? The content of the file?
- How would this be implemented? Would the ISP do the blocking?
- What's to stop the 'criminal' from using a wifi connection elsewhere?
- What effect does this have on the neutrality of the net in the UK?
None of them per se. This is Mandelson's baby, of course the fact that he's been in bed (pun or telling?) with hollywood execs over the last few months, tells you a lot.
Labour knows they're pretty much finished, NuLabour perhaps irrevocably so, and are just trying to setup their own little cushy cash cows before June.
Eh, maybe they should be blocked. Is it possible to look at the very very very small minority of users in an area that use tons of bandwidth, see what they're downloading, and make a correct decision to block them?
There may be technical challenges I'm unaware of, but it seems like this would be very unlikely to affect reg'lar people.
If there aren't practical challenges, are objections just about the spirit of the thing (gov monitoring over people's internet use)? Or are there objections to illegal file-sharers being blocked?
I can't speak for others, but here's the issues I have with it.
Firstly, as you suggest, I dislike the notion of the government monitoring the Internet use of private individuals. Fortunately for me, I do not live in the UK, which is (to my inexperienced eyes) a country where this is a relatively alien notion. (Perhaps relevant: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/uk-approves-pol/)
Secondly, it essentially does an end-run around large chunks of what I like about the legal system (the parts with juries and lawyers and defendants-who-can-defend-themselves). I suppose I just have this quaint notion that if someone is demonstrably doing something illegal, you should drag them into court for it rather than mucking around with some ad-hoc, newly minted system for inconveniencing them.
Ah, cool. I like the legal system bit. Seems that we have a system in place to deal with these people (criminals), and we should think long and hard before implementing something else on top of it. Or in between it.
I wonder if this kind of thing is brought up not because they want to crack down harder, but because somewhere in the back of their minds they don't want to have to go through the whole jail/immense fine conviction that the law demands, but would rather just prevent the criminals from criminaling any longer. Less fuss.
Similar, perhaps, to building a higher wall instead of arresting and prosecuting the guy that jumps over every morning and steals your cabbages?
7 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 25.3 ms ] thread- How do you define 'illegal fileshare'? Based on the network used? The content of the file?
- How would this be implemented? Would the ISP do the blocking?
- What's to stop the 'criminal' from using a wifi connection elsewhere?
- What effect does this have on the neutrality of the net in the UK?
None of them per se. This is Mandelson's baby, of course the fact that he's been in bed (pun or telling?) with hollywood execs over the last few months, tells you a lot.
Labour knows they're pretty much finished, NuLabour perhaps irrevocably so, and are just trying to setup their own little cushy cash cows before June.
There may be technical challenges I'm unaware of, but it seems like this would be very unlikely to affect reg'lar people.
If there aren't practical challenges, are objections just about the spirit of the thing (gov monitoring over people's internet use)? Or are there objections to illegal file-sharers being blocked?
Firstly, as you suggest, I dislike the notion of the government monitoring the Internet use of private individuals. Fortunately for me, I do not live in the UK, which is (to my inexperienced eyes) a country where this is a relatively alien notion. (Perhaps relevant: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/uk-approves-pol/)
Secondly, it essentially does an end-run around large chunks of what I like about the legal system (the parts with juries and lawyers and defendants-who-can-defend-themselves). I suppose I just have this quaint notion that if someone is demonstrably doing something illegal, you should drag them into court for it rather than mucking around with some ad-hoc, newly minted system for inconveniencing them.
I wonder if this kind of thing is brought up not because they want to crack down harder, but because somewhere in the back of their minds they don't want to have to go through the whole jail/immense fine conviction that the law demands, but would rather just prevent the criminals from criminaling any longer. Less fuss.
Similar, perhaps, to building a higher wall instead of arresting and prosecuting the guy that jumps over every morning and steals your cabbages?