The Government's Digital Economy Bill is coming under scrutiny from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has said that it needs to see more details in the law before it can be passed.
One significant issue the Committee has raised is whether the warning and disconnection system proposed in the Bill is a proportional response to the infringement targeted.
Not only that, but without more detail the Committee says it cannot make a judgement as to whether the disconnections will interfere with rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
With disconnection referred to as 'technical measures' in the Bill, the breadth of measures will also need to be specified, with the Committee adding: "As we have explained in the past, flexibility is not an appropriate reason for defining a power which engages individual rights without adequate precision to allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny of its proportionality."
Proportional response
For its part, the Government has argued that "the sending of notifications and the keeping of lists in themselves do not affect the level of service provided by the ISP and received by the subscriber," according to the report, though you would think eventually being cut off would quite significantly affect a subscriber's service.
The report from the Committee acknowledges the Government's response, but goes on to say that it considers that "there is a stronger case that these provisions may engage the right to respect for private life than has been acknowledged by the Government".
The technical side of the report concludes by recommending an assessment by OFCOM of the "necessity and proportionality" of the 'technical measures', and much better detailing of the "minimum criteria for the imposition of technical measures" including the standard of proof and the "trigger" for resorting to heavy measures.
With the Committee's report echoing earlier concerns about the lack of information about a right of appeal in the case of copyright infringement reports, it seems that the Digital Economy Bill is still far from being viable.
Via The Register [Report]
Your comments (2) Click to add a new comment
vandea
March 23rd 2010
2. Disconnection is the only human right mentioned in this article. What about being accused of doing something wrong and then being treated as though you're guilty? The presumption of innocence has been abolished in this Bill. Of course you have the right to appeal, but doing so will cost money, and the Lords saw fit to make the amount a "substantial one" to deter cheeky persistent downloaders from abusing the system.
Also, what about the use of DPI, or Deep Packet Inspection, to inspect the data communication on a person's Internet connection? This will not only enable your ISP to look at your torrent data, but will also enable them to look at your emails and instant messages. This, in my opinion, violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his communication".
Don't we also have the right to democracy? This Bill is going to find its way into legislation using the sneaky and very undemocratic "wash-up" process, where amendments and additions are made behind closed doors. We won't even know what the final Bill will contain until it becomes an Act.
What about the right to have to have decent, honest, and respectable men and women represent us in government? Men and women of integrity who would not sell out to big business. Men and women who have impeccable reputations. Mandelson, having resigned from office twice in the past amid allegations of wrong doing, is not (in my opinion) someone who should be writing British law:
16th Oct 2000 - accused by Geoffrey Robinson of lying the Common about his "home loan" affair. Both men resign.
24th Jan 2001 - Mandelson resigns after being accused of abusing his position to influence the passport application of Srichand Hinduja, an Indian businessman under investigation by the Indian government in relation to the Bofors scandal.
I have read many people discuss the possibility of boycotting the purchase of films and music in protest, and I for one am in full support of the idea.
Alert a moderator
syganymede
February 28th 2010
1. The people that own copyright material should take more care of it. If they do nothing to exploit sales of their product, then they must accept the loss. This has always been the case (Cassette tapes, VHS video recorders, etc) and has not harmed the business. Just because now the studios have lost strangle hold control of their distribution chain (the CD and DVD) does not mean the collapse of the industry, they must adapt.
Ok, so the internet is a bigger threat , but should be countered not by legislation, but by new business models by copyright owners - i.e. by studios and labels (don't think that artists own copyrights! they mostly sign them away in exchange from promotion to big media businesses...)
This Digital Bill or DRM, or whatever, is not justified in an open society, it is against freedom.
However the international steamroller behind it is huge, already the EU and UK are in the final stages of negotiation of a US treaty called ACTA which could sign away our freedoms and rights without debate or votes. Check it out with your politician, ask if he has seen and considered ACTA. Tell him to vote against the Digital Bill.
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments