×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Three Strikes" To Go Ahead In Britain

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the follow-the-money dept.

Music 294

David Gerard writes "Lord Peter Mandelson has carefully ignored the Gowers Report and the Carter Report, instead taking the advice of his good friend David Geffen and announcing that 'three strikes and you're out' will become law in Britain. The Open Rights Group has, of course, hit the roof. Oh, and never mind MI5 and the police pointing out that widespread encryption will become normal, hampering their efforts to keep up with little things like impending terrorist atrocities. Still, worth it to stop a few Lily Allen tracks being shared, right?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

294 comments

Three Strikes on /. (5, Funny)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#29896851)

Can we also have a 3 strikes law on Slashdot for dupes??

And one for Mandleson? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897033)

The "minister" resposible for this was forced out of office twice for misconduct, he has no place even being in public office.

Re:And one for Mandleson? (5, Informative)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897829)

Some misconduct links for the unelected Mandleson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mandelson#Recent_controversies [wikipedia.org]
but wikipedia is missing some other controversy:
From Lord Mandelson: Whitehall's Emperor, or just a team player? [independent.co.uk]

"Unelected yet holding a raft of political positions, including that of cabinet minister, Mandelson is the TV executive who learned to play both the Labour party and the UK system. Previously forced out of Blair's cabinet office twice, once for mortgage fraud and once for abusing his power to help chums get passports, Blair nevertheless then gifted Mandelson the job of Britain's European Commissioner for Trade in 2004 where he hob nobbed on yachts with Microsoft executives and Russian oligarths wanting favours, and then inexplicably returned to the UK in 2008 a very rich man.... Who says the public sector doesn't pay?!! Even the UK citizenship of Mandelson's Brazilian boyfriend stinks of favourtism and misconduct. Reinaldo Avila da Silva came to Britain in 1996 aged 22 on a student visa and was picked up by the then 43 year old Mandelson pretty much on his first night out. Da Silva had no right to British citizenship in 2005, indeed it was apparent that he had overstayed his visa and as such was an illegal immigrant. No worries, a few phone calls from Mandelson and da Silva was safely clutching a shiny new British passport. "

Seriously, write to them (5, Informative)

kazade84 (1078337) | more than 4 years ago | (#29896853)

I've contacted my MP. The open rights group has a brief PDF to send to them so they are clued up. Ask them to back EDM 1997.

More info here: http://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/ask-your-mp-to-help-protect-our-freedoms-on-the-net [openrightsgroup.org]

Re:Seriously, write to them (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29896973)

Do you think they care at all what the people think? If anything proves that any form of democracy is not at work here, this does. Business interests are guiding, directing and even controlling government all over the world. The world may be pissed off at the U.S. government, but one only has to look to the "Military Industrial Complex" for why things are the way they are.

Re:Seriously, write to them (4, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897387)

but one only has to look to the "Military Industrial Complex" for why things are the way they are.

I think the M-I complex is more complicated. Defense contractors in the U.S. are smart about creating jobs in the states of legislators whose votes they need. This in turn builds up public support in those states for the defense programs that might not be in the overall national interest (militarily and/or fiscally).

So one might argue that when the constituents are being parochial and myopic in their support for various spending, that is democracy in action. And it can lead to abysmal results.

Re:Seriously, write to them (3, Interesting)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897441)

I disagree - I happen to work for a massive piece of this 'M-I Complex', and we're dying here. All the major aerospace and defense companies are going through a seriously hard time and shedding people or outsourcing like mad.

If it were as simple as this, I wouldn't be looking for work :)

Re:Seriously, write to them (2, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897595)

I think they're talking about schemes where projects like the B-2 bomber have parts manufactured in all 50 states, making projects like that hard to kill, since they employ someone in every congressional district.

Re:Seriously, write to them (3, Funny)

JWW (79176) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897717)

I'd have to agree. I think what we are seeing is the full taking of power of the Banking-Content complex with banks and entertainment industries calling almost all the shots in government.

Look, banks are getting Hundreds of Billions of dollars thrown at them and NASA can't even make a case of increasing funding by single billions of dollars.

The Military will eventually be cut back dramatically, the leading edge of this is the new weapons systems, which is whats putting the aerospace and defense contractors in a bind.

I know I've brought up before, but theres a hell of a lot of engineers and scientists being thrown out of the M-I complex right now, but the politicians are stressing 'science and engineering' education. My response to this is what the fuck are they doing this for? Specifically the Banking-Content complex has absolutely NO value for science and engineering (I count the quants as complete sellouts so they don't count and lord knows that the content industry has NO ONE who understands technology at all).

Look, banks are getting Hundreds of Billions of dollars thrown at them and NASA can't even make a case of increasing funding by single billions of dollars.

The Military will eventually be cut back dramatically, the leading edge of this is the new weapons systems, which is whats putting the aerospace and defense contractors in a bind.

I know I've brought up before, but theres a hell of a lot of engineers and scientists being thrown out of the M-I complex right now, but the politicians are stressing 'science and engineering' education. My response to this is what the fuck are they doing this for? Specifically the Banking-Content complex has absolutely NO value for science and engineering (I count the quants as complete sellouts so they don't count and lord knows that the content industry has NO ONE who understands technology at all).

We are in an age where those who handle the money and sell sight and sound think they're the only game in town. The Industrial part of the complex is completely gone.

Re:Seriously, write to them (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897651)

Absolutely agree that the political establishment in the UK is not particularly democratic (though it tends to be reactionary I suggest that's not quite the same thing). I would advocate this is why we could benefit from proportional representation in the UK as it would lend power to pressure groups (though I am not blind to the drawbacks).

If our government were more democratic we would probably have a three strikes rule for traditional crimes (robbery, assault, sexual offences) but not for unlicensed content redistribution. As it is, you can have a dozen offences for robbery and minor assault and still not get a custodial sentence (at least not one more than a few weeks at most).[1]

It's true that people in the UK worry way too much about crime, but it's also true that the state is seen to be ineffective when it comes to punishment (commonly regarded as dealing it out ham-fistedly and at the wrong targets). Personally I would argue it works most of the time, but when it fails it does so spectacularly.

[1] Going off topic, but as an explanation, this is because our prisons are overcrowded (not as much as the US, but more than is typical in Europe) and this government (as well as in part the previous administration) have failed to provide adequate facilities.

Re:Seriously, write to them (2, Interesting)

tomtomtom (580791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897693)

There's nothing special about the so-called military-industrial complex in this respect, and you don't have to assume that politicians or businesses are either inherently evil or particularly incompetent. It's more like a defect of the system and is explained by the Public choice theory [wikipedia.org] of government. Lobbying happens in all sorts of policy areas and unfortunately it tends to be a case of those who shout loudest, get what they want. I think this also explains a lot about why three-strikes is apparently happening in the UK against almost every expert opinion and the wishes of the majority.

Re:Seriously, write to them (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#29898013)

Do you think they care at all what the people think?

Yes! We sign their cheques!

How friendly do you think that business interests would be if we put them out of a job?

Encryption is a bad thing? (5, Insightful)

xtal (49134) | more than 4 years ago | (#29896885)

Not sure if this place has changed over the years, but I'm all for encryption becoming the norm.

For legitimate law enforcement needs, search warrants and traffic analysis are not impeded.

In fact, draconian enforcement of copyright would be the best thing ever - it would illustrate the absurdity of the status quo.

Re:Encryption is a bad thing? (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897155)

Draconian enforcement is so wonderful, see how stirred up everyone is getting about the routine Police Riots at the various and divers New World Order Summits &c.

Re:Encryption is a bad thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897191)

I said a similar thing when TorrentFreak announced that TPB was ordered to delete torrents and access to the Dutch was blocked:

http://santiance.com/2009/10/pirate-bay-court-ordered-to-delete-torrents/

Re:Encryption is a bad thing? (2, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897415)

Absolutely.

Whilst mentioning encryption causes people to post that f'ing cartoon with the $5 wrench adnauseum, the fact is, even fairly weak encryption whilst data transits though your ISP goes a long long way.

For example, a certain bone-headed ISP which one of my relatives uses, enforces using their outgoing mail server for "anti-spam reasons".
Do they log all outgoing emails? You can bet they do. SMTP over SSL raises the bar just high enough that they don't bother any more.

Re:Encryption is a bad thing? (4, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897921)

Whilst mentioning encryption causes people to post that f'ing cartoon with the $5 wrench adnauseum, the fact is, even fairly weak encryption whilst data transits though your ISP goes a long long way.

That's why the spy agencies are against it. The best way to avoid an arms race is to simply avoid raising the stakes so the other side remains blissfully ignorant. If things are good now, not rocking the boat is the best solution.

For example, a certain bone-headed ISP which one of my relatives uses, enforces using their outgoing mail server for "anti-spam reasons".
Do they log all outgoing emails? You can bet they do. SMTP over SSL raises the bar just high enough that they don't bother any more.

MOst ISPs block outgoing SMTP, for spam reasons. Despite this, an annoyingly large amount of spam still comes from outgoing SMTP connections, enough so that sending email from a dynamic connection is mostly useless anyhow because of the dynamic IP blocklists.

The solution is to either use the ISP's mailserver, or your own mailserver at your hosting provider using stuff like Authenticated SMTP, which, surprise, uses a different port. It's an intentional workaround, because either your mail is going through your ISP (who can detect if you're sending 1000 emails a day 24/7), or your hosting provider (ditto, if the spambot is smart enough to steal your SMTP authetication details). Since all modern email clients support this standard, it's just a setup issue. And Authenticated SMTP can use SSL (to protect login credentials) if you're inclined.

Re:Encryption is a bad thing? (2, Interesting)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29898041)

The UK! Nice.

If it had started on a computer wise under-developped country. All it's population would have to wait until the law reached the UK, France, USA, etc. to have any chance of a working full network encryption.

Anyway, as I've often stated in slashdot, the arms race will keep going, and the corporation lobbied laws will fail to keep up with the technologists.

In little more than a decade the americans will start a war on piracy that will work about as well as the current unwinnable wars. i.e.: A secure, illegal, connection will cost several times more than it's lawful price and a huge percentage of the population will pay them and access the contents anyway.

they need something based on the rules of cricket (5, Funny)

ffflala (793437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29896891)

The US 3-strikes rule is based on a concept from baseball, and as a result probably makes little sense in the UK. I'm surprised they didn't go with something more appropriate, like a "bowled, leg-before-wicket, or hit-wicket" and you're out rule.

Re:they need something based on the rules of crick (4, Funny)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897039)

Not a good idea, it'd take 5 days to make a decision and probably end in a draw.

Re:they need something based on the rules of crick (2, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897403)

Not a good idea, it'd take 5 days to make a decision and probably end in a draw.

Sounds good to me.

Do not be optimistic... (1)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897553)

There is something called T20 now, which ends in a few hours, and never ever results in a draw, unless it rains, and even then a draw is not certain :)

Re:they need something based on the rules of crick (1)

tomtomtom (580791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897763)

Not a good idea, it'd take 5 days to make a decision and probably end in a draw.

Not if they use the Duckworth-Lewis scoring method.

Re:they need something based on the rules of crick (2, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897131)

And that old favourite, "ban quashed due to bad light".

Re:they need something based on the rules of crick (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897147)

Yeah, there should be something to make sure that people do not consider this rule to be in the same ballpark as the rule prevalent in the criminal laws of the states in the U.S. Yes, that pun was intended.

But more seriously, being punished with the loss of the use of the internet for continuing to do something that they have twice told you to stop doing is hardly the draconian rule that in America has lead to people serving 25 years for stealing three golf clubs because they had previously committed 2 felonies. See Ewing v. California, 123 S.Ct. 1179 (2003).

Re: 25 years for three golf clubs (-1, Troll)

pastafazou (648001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897323)

If you haven't learned to be a law abiding citizen after being punished twice already for breaking the law, then you should be spending a long time in prison for a third offense. Punishment for a fourth offense should be exile.

Re: 25 years for three golf clubs (1)

Fjodor42 (181415) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897521)

Because long prison terms create nicely-behaved perfect citizens after time served? Got any research material to that effect lying around?

Re: 25 years for three golf clubs (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897739)

Because long prison terms create nicely-behaved perfect citizens after time served? Got any research material to that effect lying around?

Less that, and more "just put away repeat offenders" so they can't commit anymore crimes. Here (Vancouver, Canada), it's reported that 10% of criminals commit 90% of the offenses (we're talking property crime and such). So it's less rehabilitation, and more lock them up so they can't commit crimes aspect. (Especially since bleeding-heart judges often just let them off with a slap on the wrist, so they'll commit their next robbery or mugging fresh from court - revolving door justice).

Of course, this should be more than 3 offenses...

Re: 25 years for three golf clubs (1)

pastafazou (648001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29898061)

don't care if long prison terms create nicely-behaved perfect citizens. Long prison terms keep poorly-behaved flawed citizens from F*ing with the nicely behaved perfect citizens. Where the hell did people get the notion that prison is meant to reform criminals? It's meant to keep them away from society for a set period of time. After that, they're given another chance to be a normal citizen. If they screw up again, they go back again, this time for longer. Human lifespan is finite. If they choose to spend most of theirs in a prison because they don't like the laws society has made, then so be it.

Re: 25 years for three golf clubs (4, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897543)

"Three strikes" laws -- particularly the California version that allows petty crimes to trigger the third strike -- are problematic. There are varying levels of severity for felonies, some that deserve life sentences, some that deserve probation, and everything in between.

One guy commits two two heinous felonies, somehow lawyers his way out of long prison terms, and another guy, a) steals a purse, b) hits a parked car and runs away, and c) steals bubble gum from the store goes to prison for life. I'm not sure how any sane, thinking person on this planet can't see the glaring flaw with this system.

Re:they need something based on the rules of crick (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897377)

I was thinking something along the line of red card analgoies, but you normally don't get three "strikes" before the red card.

Re:they need something based on the rules of crick (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897519)

I got two strikers on the same red card once.

Re:they need something based on the rules of crick (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897655)

Nice! As a striker myself, I can appreciate your brutal form of defense, but still don't like it ;-)

Re:they need something based on the rules of crick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897383)

Oh ho ho. Contrary to popular belief most of us don't really care about cricket, football (soccer) is the national sport.

Re:they need something based on the rules of crick (4, Funny)

Kozz (7764) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897499)

I'd been trying to make this joke all week, but despite reading the wiki page on Cricket, I couldn't write the joke to make it sound like I knew what I was talking about. Three strikes and I suppose now *I'm* out.

Agreed - ban encryption. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29896903)

Agreed - ban encryption.

Re:Agreed - ban encryption. (4, Insightful)

killmenow (184444) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897081)

Sure this is an attempt to be funny, but don't be surprised. When this 3 strikes thing doesn't prop up profits for the copyright regime like they expect, and the cops start yammering about the crypto tech used by the bad guys making it harder for them to do their job, banning encryption WILL be the next step. Remember the "hey, let's force back doors in all encryption schemes" the US government was trying to pass not too long ago? Clipper chip ring a bell? Skipjack? Key escrow? It will be done.

Re:Agreed - ban encryption. (4, Insightful)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897183)

RIPA already allows the UK police to rubber-hose your password out of you.

The interesting thing will be SSL and Tor-based stuff, which doesn't require you to even have a password to use.

Re:Agreed - ban encryption. (1)

JackDW (904211) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897375)

They can try, but I don't believe they will get very far, because encryption is so deeply entrenched into everyday technology. It's no longer just a matter of banning PGP. Now, they would have to come up with some way to add escrow features to (at least) SSL and WPA, as well as banning all other non-approved forms of encryption such as SSH... which is very widely used.

Any attempt to enforce escrow would impact a huge number of businesses, universities and individuals. They could expect widespread protests at the expense of replacing perfectly good software and hardware, not just from supporters of civil liberties, but from major corporations and institutions.

Re:Agreed - ban encryption. (3, Informative)

@madeus (24818) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897901)

The dealt with this already (sadly). The RIP Act allows the state to send you for jail for 5 years if you can't (or won't) supply the means (i.e. passpharse / key) to decrypt content in your possession.

The legislation was drafted so poorly that it is to the extent that if someone gives you some encrypted data on a disk and you don't know the key and the police demand it, then you fall foul of it and can go to jail.

Anecdote:

Someone actually performed a stunt at a press conference at the time and confronted a minister supporting the bill as I recall, but handing them over a floppy disk with the confession to a real crime they had committed (most likely something real but trivial, like theft I presume) and informed her they had burned the disk containing the key and that as such she was now withholding evidence of a crime and so had fallen foul of the law.

For dramatic flair, they had a video of them burning the disk with the decryption key.

The minister responded "that's not what the legislation says". The protagonist responded it was to which the minster replied "well, that's not what it means".

Would be great if anyone could remember who was involved.

Re:Agreed - ban encryption. (1)

Djupblue (780563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29898011)

I love the idea of an escrow. We just need to create a communication system that uses rapidly changing keys and feed their escrow an enormous amount of worthless keys. Time to by stocks in Seagate..

makes sense. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29896957)

-anything- is worth it to stop folk listening to Lily Allen

New rule (5, Insightful)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29896961)

I propose the three strikes law three strikes law. A politician gets a strike for mentioning the three strikes law in a non-derisive manner, and gets banned from government after three strikes.

Can't Wait (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897001)

I can't wait for some motivated group to deliver a clear message to politicians through a concerted effort to get politicians and their employees cut off from the internet simply by accusing them, three times, of copyright violations. Perhaps, once politicians and their staff are cut off from the online world, they'll begin to realize just how moronic this law is. When a simple accusation carries the weight of punishment, the possibilities of abuse are egregious.

Ah, the days of "innocent until proven guilty" seem like a distant memory now...

Re:Can't Wait (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897073)

All that would accomplish is immunity for politicians and their staff from this law.

Re:Can't Wait (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897151)

All that would accomplish is immunity for politicians and their staff from this law.

Unlikely. The UK doesn't go in for granting politicians legal immunity, even when this would be of great benefit for the party in power. I don't know if there are any formal rules in this area though.

Of course, if anyone does decide to use the three-strikes approach, could they please use it against some media types too? Might as well get some benefit out of a bad law...

Re:Can't Wait (5, Insightful)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897311)

All that would accomplish is immunity for politicians and their staff from this law.

Unlikely. The UK doesn't go in for granting politicians legal immunity, even when this would be of great benefit for the party in power. I don't know if there are any formal rules in this area though.

Of course, if anyone does decide to use the three-strikes approach, could they please use it against some media types too? Might as well get some benefit out of a bad law...

They don't have formal legal immunity, but if anything like this would happen, the police chiefs and the attorney general would likely determine that it is not 'in the public interest' to prosecute or punish politicians or other powerful people. (Just like it happens when an MP or minister falsifies expenses or commits other kinds of fraud.)

Re:Can't Wait (3, Informative)

tomtomtom (580791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897905)

They don't have formal legal immunity, but if anything like this would happen, the police chiefs and the attorney general would likely determine that it is not 'in the public interest' to prosecute or punish politicians or other powerful people. (Just like it happens when an MP or minister falsifies expenses or commits other kinds of fraud.)

There are numerous examples of this. My favourites are Harriet Harman, the solicitor-general, who was caught speeding. The police officer in question claimed she was doing 99mph. Coincidentally, 1mph faster would have earned her an automatic 1-year driving ban and a much more serious criminal record likely resulting in her sacking from government.

Another good one is the recent case of Baroness Scotland, who was caught breaking a law which she herself was partly responsible for the creation of (she employed an illegal immigrant as her housekeeper then later claimed she'd seen documents giving the housekeeper the right to work in the UK but failed to keep copies so there was no evidence as to whether this was actually true or not).

Re:Can't Wait (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897107)

yeah they already know how absurd the law is; hence they'll make sure to include an exemption for themselves.

Re:Can't Wait (-1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897153)

BTW, the UK has never had "innocent until proven guilty". I'm pretty sure it's the other way around there.

Re:Can't Wait (4, Informative)

bloobloo (957543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897345)

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6.2

"2.Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

The ECHR is part of British law.

Re:Can't Wait (2, Interesting)

mitgib (1156957) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897569)

So when your ISP cans you, with no trial, no conviction, simply waive the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6.2 at them and demand your connection back, if/when they decline, start running it up the legal flagpole, the court system, and get the law stricken from the books.

Re:Can't Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897957)

Of course, for that it has to be a criminal offence. They will make sure this is classified as a "misdemeanor" or some such, that puts it outside the scope of the ECHR.

Re:Can't Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897745)

For the time being. The tabloids have been running a hate campaign ever since it was introduced, only ever highlighting negative uses (criminals using it to challenge sentences and the like.) Sickeningly, "human rights" has become a phrase usually heard with a negative sneer in the UK.

Re:Can't Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29898021)

I can't wait for some motivated group to deliver a clear message to politicians through a concerted effort to get politicians and their employees cut off from the internet simply by accusing them, three times, of copyright violations. Perhaps, once politicians and their staff are cut off from the online world, they'll begin to realize just how moronic this law is. When a simple accusation carries the weight of punishment, the possibilities of abuse are egregious.

Ah, the days of "innocent until proven guilty" seem like a distant memory now...

All that will happen from that is people who make these deliberately false accusations will go to jail. For you know, terrorism. Attacking the government and all.

So I'd suggest declining to engage in such behavior. The only person who would be punished is yourself.

Three strikes in Politics.. (5, Insightful)

malkavian (9512) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897041)

Well, considering "Mandy" has already been forced to resign from Labour twice already for scandals (involving borrowing money from someone he was supposed to be investigating to buy a lovely house in central london among other activities), one wonders if he's caught with his hand in the cookie jar yet again, will this third strike resignation force his exclusion from Politics?
Allegedly, he'd shown no interest in this whatsoever before going for a meal at a lovely retreat owned by a movie producer, and a few days holiday.. On his return, this was basically mandated with no consultation.
Yay for unelected politicians who keep coming back despite being forced to resign in shame.

Welcome To The (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897057)

New World Order [youtube.com].

British colonialism at work: conflicts for the last 200 years in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia.

Yours In Yaznogorsk,
K. Trout

Except for Govt of course. (3, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897063)

Amazing it gleefully says "file sharing" and not "music sharing". So let him grab one graphic he swipes because his office can't be bothered to cleanroom it, grab one little shareware snip that he can ignore even the postcard-terms on, and then let the last one be one of the Britain's Got Talent winning songs. Poof!

 

Lily Allen wikipedia article (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897093)

BTW, there's an editor on wikipedia who keeps on moving the detail about Lily Allen's stance on copyright infringement into a subsection labelled "Social Activism' on her page. Hardly social activism I would think to speak out about something that is in her own financial interest.

Re:Lily Allen wikipedia article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897639)

Mod++ and InformWikiEditors(this)!

Don't call him "Lord" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897101)

There is no legal penalty for failing to refer to him by his "proper" title. Don't defer respect to this appalling man because Mister Mandelson is utterly undeserving of it.

Re:Don't call him "Lord" (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897269)

or Comrade Lord Mandelson, as he is known to the readers of the great journal of the nation's affairs

Re:Don't call him "Lord" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897469)

Personally I prefer Sith Lord Mandelson.

Capcha: Tremble. How appropriate...

Re:Don't call him "Lord" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897917)

"Lord" Fondlebum of Boy.

Govt does this all the time (3, Interesting)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897127)

Appoint a knowledgable committee to look into something and the do something else based on what a mate told them on the golf course, or some well funded pressure group said (party donations help).

The UK parliament is in enough trouble through them dishonestly claiming too much expenses -- time for a real reform. Men of honour don't seem to exist in politics (in large enough numbers), so we need real transparency and accountability.

Guy Fawkes night is soon -- maybe a real reenactment is about due!

Re:Govt does this all the time (1)

mistralol (987952) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897887)

And the last committee the goverment setup was tasks with coming up with a new design of a horse. They called there new prototype a camel

Why would anyone pirate Lily Allen anyway? (3, Insightful)

twoshortplanks (124523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897139)

If you're in the UK you can play her album [spotify.com] for free on Spotify anyway...

(I'm being silly. Of course I'll be contacting my MP about this.)

Mandelson is waiting for his third strike (5, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897201)

In other news, serial resigner, unelected jobsworth, and general insult to the democratic process "Lord" Peter Mandelson, having been appointed to high government office on a technicality by serial bad decision maker, unelected jobsworth, and general insult to the democractic process Gordon Brown, will shortly be resigning, again, having demonstrated a stunning lack of competence in public office, again.

Sorry, we've got an update: the Labour Party are going to get hammered so badly in the general election next year that they might actually come third, the current administration is already in lame duck mode, and Mandelson's views are all but irrelevant.

Frankly, I'm more worried about what David Cameron and his crew are going to do when they get in. If memory serves, they have publicly backed screwing the people in favour of Big Media pretty much any time the question has come up, also directly contravening overwhelming public sentiment expressed to Gowers et al.

Re:Mandelson is waiting for his third strike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897695)

I've always looked at government and politics from a common-sense perspective. The people who seek power over others are, naturally, NOT those who intend to mind their own business and live in peace among equals. The people who seek power over others are, naturally, those who intend to use it for personal gain, not as an equal, but as a superior. After all, if these people truly wanted to be equal, then they wouldn't enter the business of government.

Voting can't change this basic law of human nature. No amount of sugar-coating will ever change this. Looking from the outside in, it's easy to see what really goes on in the business of government. It's not so easy looking from the inside out (for those who have faith in government and politics).

Whoever wrote TFS is retarded (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897215)

They start off good, railing against the absurd 3 strikes law, but then continue on to rail against encryption as hampering the ability of law enforcement to fight terrorism? It seems you missed the grape Kool-Aid, but ended up drinking the blue raspberry just the same...

Re:Whoever wrote TFS is retarded (4, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897331)

It wasn't railing against encryption, it was pointing out that both the police & the intelligence services have voiced their disapproval over the "Three Strikes" idea because it's likely to increase the use of encryption and therefore make their lives more difficult. i.e. It's not just a load of pirates that Mandy's ignored on this one.

Re:Whoever wrote TFS is retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897401)

err... TFS mirrors TFA... not that you read it or anything...

TOR (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897231)

I know that TOR can already have P2P data streamed across it at the expense of the network, but honestly, I wonder how long it is before someone comes up with a purpose built anonymizing P2P system.

I really think the government is chasing it's tail on this one. "The Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it."

Re:TOR (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897935)

It's been done [wikipedia.org], although there are questions about exactly how secure PD is (closed source, performance-orientated.) There's also Freenet [freenetproject.org] which aims to be considerably more secure/anonymous, but is slower and still under heavy development.

So I can ban anyone I want? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897239)

Does this mean I can declare any content I want my copyright and accuse anyone I want of stealng it until they get cut off without anyone looking over my shoulder?

Widespread Encryption (5, Interesting)

DanMelks (1108493) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897245)

...And I say we need to be encrypting our traffic anyway. The average computer contains more than enough processing power, and the average 'pipe' width can easily handle the extra resources needed for widespread use of encryption in day-to-day use.

In addition, the recent trend in government is towards snooping and perv-ish behavior: China with its "great" firewall, USA with its unwarranted spying and packet sniffing, and now the UK with its new "three-strikes" policies. I pay my ISP a significant sum of money to deliver me 1s and 0s as fast as they can, and there are very, very few exceptions in which they have a need to know what those 1s and 0s add up to.

I call upon the open source community to lead the way -- while I would love to see the big leagues (Microsoft, Apple, etc) apply their tonnage behind such a problem, pigs are more likely to fly first. How hard would it be for a browser to automatically attempt to negotiate a secure connection for every visited web page and only use normal, unencrypted access when a secure connection fails or cannot be completed in a secure amount of time? People running web servers would not have to make major modifications, only implement a new protocol.

Tempting... (2, Funny)

BumpyCarrot (775949) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897247)

"Still, worth it to stop a few Lily Allen tracks being shared, right?" Truly, the cost is too dear, even for that.

Hey Britons (3, Interesting)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897263)

Thanks for allowing this to happen. I expect it will be only a few months before someone stands up in Canadian parliament to make a speech that includes the phrase "3 strikes laws have already been enacted in other nations, such as Britain...". There comes a point where you should realize that angry letters aren't going to get it done, you're going to have to accept your responsibility to take more aggressive action when your government does not stand up for its people.

Re:Hey Britons (5, Funny)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897425)

Wow Britain, you just got told to take "more aggressive action" by CANADIANS. Talk about called out.

Re:Hey Britons (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897523)

These things seem like they're only a matter of time. Everyone thought this was dead in France when ruled unconstitutional, then a week or two ago it was suddenly opened again. Sheer persistence ends up getting these things passed, regardless of the opposition and regardless of due process. It's almost inevitable.

In other words, politicians do what they want to do (or what other people convince them they want to do), whether or not it serves the interest of their constituents. And they'll keep trying until they get what they want. That persistence is probably one of the traits that got them elected in the first place, after all.

Re:Hey Britons (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897989)

this is a serious issue for everyone. I'm Canadian and I disagree with this being the fault of Britons, it's the fault of politicians. Before you know it this "Three strikes" rule will spread to Canada and to the US, especially if it "appears" to work in France and Briton.

Before I was able to download music, movies and other information I was locked into what was locally distributed. Someone else was deciding what I should have access to. I've discovered all kinds of new things I would have never even known existed. My policy is download to try, if I like it I try to buy it. And I have bought several movies and albums that weren't available here.

I don't want to go back to only having access to what someone else thinks I should like.

So, what I can the rest of us do to help stop this before it gets too out of hand?

Level of Responsibility (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897371)

If one person in a family is accused of pirating, the whole household gets cut off?

If one person in a company is accused of pirating while at work, the whole company gets cut off?

If one person in a ministry is accused of pirating while at work, the whole ministry gets cut off?

Who is _allowed_ to accuse?

Why would P2P switch to encryption? (2, Informative)

will_die (586523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29897567)

If encryption becomes popular then I can see the point the police are making but why would people using P2P start using encryption to start the cycle?

If everyone on P2P started encrypting the transportation it would make no difference because the arrests and letters to pay or else have not been caused by MITM sniffing.
If P2Pers start encrypting all files you have to have some method of getting the password out to everyone and that would require some club or private site and once you have that it is easier to get a legal right to inspect and copy all infomation on that site. Such a site would have email address and other information about the users, so if anything this is something that P2Pers would avoid.
The only place P2P where encryption would work is with blocking the IP address of the people sharing but that would require some central site that routes the traffic so it is not really P2P anymore.
I don't really understand in depth how P2P works so what am I missing here?

Re:Why would P2P switch to encryption? (1)

scoobertron (1406559) | more than 4 years ago | (#29898101)

I agree. As I understood it, the RIAA etc just got themselves some torrents and read the IP addresses of their peers - Im assuming encryption would not stop this (but I invite correction). I suspect that the safest and easiest way to avoid detection is to crack someone else's wifi. I imagine someone with better script-fu would find it pretty straightforward to automate aircrack so it just runs down the list of available networks hadopi-router-style. This is why the legislation is really dumb. I don't see any serious torrenter getting caught. But I see lots of regular folk who don't know much about network security getting disconnected because they live next door to a university hall of residence (for example) and only have WEP security on their wifi.

Re:Why would P2P switch to encryption? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29898189)

With encryption, they cannot see whether you are illegally sharing copyrighted material or transferring legal data. And I guess even with current legislation, "they have copied a large amount of data, but we have no clue what it was" would not be enough for legal action. Of course if the site they connected to contained only illegal content, it would probably enough. However, it probably isn't too hard to also put up torrents for all sorts of free material (Open Source material, Creative Commons stuff, etc.) besides the illegal stuff.

Another option would be to combine cryptography with steganography. Hide the encrypted illegal material inside larger, legal material. I think if done right, unless you know the password to decrypt, you shouldn't even have a chance to detect that there is encrypted material inside (but then, I'm not an expert in cryptography or steganography). The disadvantage of that method is, of course, that your files would have to get much larger (AFAIU it has to offer enough noise to be replaced by your data).

Why would they care about hampering terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29897801)

Terrorist attacks typically affect normal people. Copyright violations typically affect rich people. Guess which one they're more concerned with? Besides, increased terrorism means the plebs are more willing to give away whatever liberties they may have left in exchange for reassurances of safety.

Mandelscum (4, Insightful)

AdmV0rl0n (98366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29898047)

These bastards, and that slimy scumbag Mandelson have spend the past 13 years utterly ruining everything, every institution, way of life, habitat, hobby, social fabric and this?

Basically, people are slowly concluding a few things, some are less than good, but for every action, there is a reaction, clearly 13 years too late. Vote anyone but these bastards, and tell them why at every moment they bang on your door or come to your doorstep. Vote BNP, UKIP, Con, Lib - ANYONE but these slimy dark forces shits.

Their brand of nanny state 1984 insanity, and mass persecution of population, drivers, and all the rest, and their enforced political correctness and multiculturalism, and devolution, and EU fanatisism, and the rest is DEAD. OVER. FINISHED.

Its the worst government the UK has had in any modern times, and people cannot wait to be rid of them.

One more reason why Labour will not be re-elected (3, Insightful)

tebee (1280900) | more than 4 years ago | (#29898123)

I can't help wondering why it has not occurred to this government, that if there are as many filesharers as they say, then being nasty to them is not going to exactly encourage them to vote Labour at the next election.

Obviously a Government with a suicide wish.

not again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29898151)

Rear shafted by the UK Labour Government again...Bring on the General election...time to show these twats that we have had enough.

I did contact my MP, but seeing as he is standing down at the next General election due to the expenses scandal I ain't holding my breath...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...