Great Britain: Internet users could be banned over illegal downloads

The Times (U.K.) ^ | February 12, 2008 | Francis Eliott

[Stoat]

February 12, 2008
 

 

Internet users could be banned over illegal downloads

 

Francis Eliott, Deputy Political Editor

 

People who illegally download films and music will be cut off from the internet under new legislative proposals to be unveiled next week.

Internet service providers (ISPs) will be legally required to take action against users who access pirated material, The Times has learnt.

Users suspected of wrongly downloading films or music will receive a warning e-mail for the first offence, a suspension for the second infringement and the termination of their internet contract if caught a third time, under the most likely option to emerge from discussions about the new law.

Broadband companies who fail to enforce the “three-strikes” regime would be prosecuted and suspected customers’ details could be made available to the courts. The Government has yet to decide if information on offenders should be shared between ISPs.

 

Related Links

• File sharing takes up to 95% of net use at night

• ‘Telecoms corporations profit at our expense’

• ‘Blocking illegal activity will also hit the innocent’

 

 

Six million broadband users are estimated to download files illegally every year in this country in a practice that music and film companies claim is costing them billions of pounds in lost revenue annually.

Britain’s four biggest internet providers – BT, Tiscali, Orange and Virgin Media – have been in talks with Hollywood’s biggest studio and distribution companies for six months over a voluntary scheme.

Parallel negotiations between Britain’s music industry and individual internet providers have been dragging on for two years.

Major sticking points include who will arbitrate disputed allegations, for example when customers claim to have been the victim of “wi-fi piggybacking”, in which users link up to a paid-for wireless network that is not their own. Another outstanding disagreement is how many enforcements the internet companies will be expected to initiate and how quickly warning e-mails would be sent.

International action in the US and France, which is implementing its own “three-strikes” regime, has increased the pressure on British internet companies and stiffened the Government’s resolve.

Ministers will make an explicit commitment to legislate with the launch next week of a Green Paper on the creative industries. A draft copy, obtained by The Times, states: “We will move to legislate to require internet service providers to take action on illegal file-sharing.” A consultation paper setting out the options is promised within months.

A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association said it remained hopeful that agreement over a voluntary agreement could be reached: “Every right-thinking body knows that self-regulation is much the better option in these areas.”

Roz Groome, vice-president of antipiracy for NBC Universal, welcomed the prospect of new laws. “We welcome the signal from Government that it values the health of the creative industries and takes seriously the damage caused by widespread online copyright infringement. We call upon ISPs to take action now. They must play their part in the fight against online piracy and work with rights owners to ensure that ISPs’ customers do not use their services for illegal activity. Piracy stifles innovation and threatens the long term health of our industry.”

Ed Vaizey, the Shadow Arts Minister, said: “David Cameron called on the internet providers to address this issue last summer. The credibility of the Government’s latest threat is undermined by the fact that ministers have spent so many years dithering on whether to legislate.”

The commitment forms part of a Green Paper on the creative industries entitled The World’s Creative Hub to be launched by Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, and Gordon Brown next week.

Other high-profile elements include a pledge that children will be entitled to five hours of culture a week overseen by a new youth culture trust. The pledge will give children the right to learn a musical instrument, visit art galleries and museums and even make films.

Other pledges include setting up a new international conference modelled on Davos, entitled the World Creative Economy Forum, and supporting a new £200 million film centre at the South Bank in London. A spokeswoman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: “Early drafts of our creative economy programme document were circulated to stakeholders for comment. The content and proposals for the strategy have been significantly developed since then and a comprehensive plan to bolster the UK’s creative industries will be published shortly. We will not comment on the content of the leaked document.”

[JerseyHighlander]

Been official UK policy to deny internet access to the masses from the start. The government refused to force the telephone companies in the nation to offer local area calling when dial-up internet was the best available for residential internet, they have imposed as many restrictions possible to deny the free flow of info to the subjects of that prison island.

[Old Professer]

Youth Culture Trust:

http://www.ignitefutures.org.uk/media/uploads/Analysis_of_Gov_response_to_Select_Cttee_report_Jan_08.pdf

[KarlInOhio]

> The British already require a license to *own* a TV.

Surely you jest? Not that I wouldn't believe it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bbc+television+license

£135.50 per household for colour TVs, £45.50 per household for black and white only (can you even buy a B&W TV anymore?).

[Stoat]

What I’m not certain about is whether owning a TV without paying the license is a civil or criminal offense. I *think* I’ve heard of jail sentences for it.

TV Licensing - Detection and Penalties

What happens if I don't have a TV Licence?
	Using a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) without a valid TV Licence is against the law and could lead to prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000, not to mention the embarrassment and hassle of a court appearance.

 

How will you know if I don't have one?
	There are a number of ways we can find out. At the heart of our operation is the TV Licensing database of over 28 million home and business addresses, telling us which of these have TV Licences. All of our enforcement officers have access to this database and will check whether or not you have a licence. If you are using a TV and are unlicensed, you could face prosecution and a hefty fine. We have a fleet of detector vans, plus our enforcement officers have access to hand-held detection devices capable of detecting a TV within 20 seconds. In fact, we catch on average over 1000 people watching TV without a licence every day.

 

TV detector vans
	Our TV detector vans and enforcement officers are equipped with state-of-the-art detection equipment which can tell in as little as 20 seconds whether you are using a TV.

 

How do the detector vans work?
	We have a range of detection tools at our disposal in our vans. Some aspects of the equipment have been developed in such secrecy that engineers working on specific detection methods work in isolation - so not even they know how the other detection methods work. This gives us the best chance of catching licence evaders

What if you can't get close enough to detect my TV in your van?
	We can use a hand-held scanning device. These measure both the direction and strength of a signal, making it easy for us to locate TVs - even in the hardest to reach places.

 

***********************************************************

An alternate view:

Detection

Now, first of all, the actual existence of a fleet of detector vans is a mythology that has been created over half a century by BBC press officers. The vans that drive around are therefore deception vans rather than detector vans.

[Stevieboy]

Good Lord. It's worse than I imagined. I especially like this part of the penalty clause: "...not to mention the embarrassment and hassle of a court appearance.

In other words: shut up and do as your told or your neighbours will think of you as a crazy person. Those crazy Brits shoulda' hung onto their gun rights.

[Stoat]

In other words: shut up and do as your told or your neighbours will think of you as a crazy person.

Or as a Criminal.

If the proposed law allowing internet bans goes into effect, those people who are banned will be faced with an even greater social stigma.

After all, how is a person going to defend their honor when the ban could be for anything from an "illegal" MP3 file featuring a symphony orchestra to kiddie porn or bestiality videos. 

Ian: "So Colin, I hear that you've been served with an internet ban!  What did you do?"

Colin: "Oh I downloaded a free music video from the BBC website, but then I sent it to a friend as an email attachment."

Ian:  "That's it? Yeah, sure....."

Those crazy Brits shoulda' hung onto their gun rights.

It seems that when something is gone, you can't ever get it back again.

[Still Thinking]

Internet providers are no more able to inspect and filter every single packet passing across their network than the Post Office is able to open every envelope.

Never mind the minor fact that the post office has no business opening every envelope.

[Stoat]

 

Internet providers are no more able to inspect and filter every single packet passing across their network than the Post Office is able to open every envelope.

Never mind the minor fact that the post office has no business opening every envelope.

Indeed.  In fact, here in the USA I seem to recall that opening First Class mail that's not yours is a felony (unless it's done by law enforcement under a specific warrant)....if not that, it's an extremely serious Federal crime.

I think that East Germany, at the height of the Communist insanity there, was able to screen just about anybody's mail that they were even vaguely interested in monitoring.  An excellent recent movie about life during those times is The Lives of Others

Amazon.com The Lives of Others

I was so impressed by the movie that I've seen it twice so far, and I would enjoy seeing it again.

 

[aruanan]

I’d like libraries to be banned from the internet for permitting users under 18 years of age to have unrestricted access to adult sites.

[Stoat]

I’d like libraries to be banned from the internet for permitting users under 18 years of age to have unrestricted access to adult sites.

Don't many (most?) libraries have internet filters these days?  I know that this issue has been a passionately-debated one, but I confess that I haven't kept up on what the latest court rulings have been on that....I never use a library computer except to access specific databases and services that I don't subscribe to at home.

[aruanan]

Read the library policies at the Cudahy Family Library of Cudahy, Wisconsin. They check out R-rated movies to underage kids. They say they have a non-discrimination policy and that if parents don't want kids checking out R-rated material, it's the parents' responsibility to keep them from doing so, not that of the library personnel. They also say that patrons, regardless of age, have a "right to view" anything in the library, including material on the internet.

The library also has advertisements posted for MySpace.com, "Find a friend on MySpace!" where a 15-year-old was bombarded with propositions and the offer of "special pictures" within a day of opening his "space" containing only the information that he was male and under 20. I think this verges on criminal irresponsibility.

[Stoat]

That’s awful! I’m very sorry to hear that this is going on.

I’m hoping that all of the parents in the area are aware of this, but even if they are it’s still wrong of the library to be so very “open minded” that their brains have fallen out. And a library ‘should’ be a safe place for children of all ages.

The administrators of this library have apparently forgotten who it is who pays their salaries, and hopefully the voters in the community can forcefully remind them of this sometime VERY soon. There’s nothing quite like having your funding cut by 50% to make you wake up and pay attention.

[aruanan]

That’s awful! I’m very sorry to hear that this is going on.

And that's not the worst of it.

[Still Thinking]

I was pissed about the ISP focusing immediately on the logistics of how hard it would be to spy on us, and the right and wtong (is anything right or wrong anymore?) of it be damned.

Even so, I'm kind of torn on how to view this one myself. If you send a postcard, open for anyone to read, you can't very well get pissed if they do. But is internet traffic more akin to a postcard or a letter, which they had better damn well have a good reason for opening? I guess we'd even be mad about reading post cards if the post office put a guy on the payroll to stand there and read every one.

I think there needs to be a lot more use of encryption. The problem is that's it's so little used now that it could form an index of suspicion in and of itself. So I think someone needs to get a push on to encrypt a significant portion of traffic, say 30% or more, so the mere fact of encryption isn't viewed with suspicion.

"Mr's Diffie, Hellman, Zimmerman, and Schneier to the white courtesy phone, please."

[DTA]

Good thing is that the kind people of Britain will have sharia law to defend them.

they can have their hands chopped off if download is considered a theft, or being stoned if it is considered adultery or insult to the Prophet (PBUH).

God Save the Queen, fascist regime.

[Stoat]

I was pissed about the ISP focusing immediately on the logistics of how hard it would be to spy on us, and the right and wtong (is anything right or wrong anymore?) of it be damned.

The way it's presented in the article reminds me just a little bit of the various excuses and rationales that I occasionally hear from abortionists and certain genetic scientists who, when asked about whether they think what they do is right or wrong they reply that it's not their job to concern themselves with such things; that's the job of lawmakers and legislators....essentially the "we don't care because we don't have to" defense.  It's a terribly convenient, lazy person's way of passing the buck on an important question, and I'm disheartened although not surprised that this would be their stance.

Even so, I'm kind of torn on how to view this one myself. If you send a postcard, open for anyone to read, you can't very well get pissed if they do. But is internet traffic more akin to a postcard or a letter, which they had better damn well have a good reason for opening? I guess we'd even be mad about reading post cards if the post office put a guy on the payroll to stand there and read every one.

As I'm sure you know, Postcards aren't First Class mail and aren't priced as such....also, the very format of them clearly indicates that it's for informal, offhand and non-mission-sensitive information.  First Class mail on the other hand is an entirely different animal.  It's a sealed, secure envelope and you're paying premium postage for it.  There is a very clear expectation of privacy and security associated with it that has been upheld by law enforcement for centuries.  The US Post Office takes security of the mail very seriously:

USPS - Postal History

When the million-dollar Hope Diamond was donated to the Smithsonian Institution, it was mailed from New York City to Washington, D.C., in a brown paper parcel.

It's my belief that people want very much to have a similar security of First Class Mail associated with email and internet traffic.  They are already paying a monthly fee to the ISP for the internet service, they have given lots of personal and financial information to the ISP which they expect to be kept confidential.  People have an expectation that for a paid service as this, that a respect be given to them and the transmissions that they engage in.

Techies understand all too well how unreasonable such expectations are given the nature of the technologies involved, but people want security nonetheless.

I think there needs to be a lot more use of encryption. The problem is that's it's so little used now that it could form an index of suspicion in and of itself. So I think someone needs to get a push on to encrypt a significant portion of traffic, say 30% or more, so the mere fact of encryption isn't viewed with suspicion

Sounds like a good idea, although I wonder how secure most forms of publicly-available encryption are anymore.  For years it's been required of any company that develops an encryption mechanism that a key for it be given to law enforcement (I think it's typically the NSA, if my memory serves, which it often does not).  When one combines the fact that law enforcement will have a key coupled with things like Carnivore, I'm not so sure that publicly-available encryption will do much except guard against non-governmental spying and making the users feel more secure, which of course all has value anyhow..

I was pissed about the ISP focusing immediately on the logistics of how hard it would be to spy on us, and the right and wtong (is anything right or wrong anymore?) of it be damned.

The way it's presented in the article reminds me just a little bit of the various excuses and rationales that I occasionally hear from abortionists and certain genetic scientists who, when asked about whether they think what they do is right or wrong they reply that it's not their job to concern themselves with such things; that's the job of lawmakers and legislators....essentially the "we don't care because we don't have to" defense.  It's a terribly convenient, lazy person's way of passing the buck on an important question, and I'm disheartened although not surprised that this would be their stance.

Even so, I'm kind of torn on how to view this one myself. If you send a postcard, open for anyone to read, you can't very well get pissed if they do. But is internet traffic more akin to a postcard or a letter, which they had better damn well have a good reason for opening? I guess we'd even be mad about reading post cards if the post office put a guy on the payroll to stand there and read every one.

As I'm sure you know, Postcards aren't First Class mail and aren't priced as such....also, the very format of them clearly indicates that it's for informal, offhand and non-mission-sensitive information.  First Class mail on the other hand is an entirely different animal.  It's a sealed, secure envelope and you're paying premium postage for it.  There is a very clear expectation of privacy and security associated with it that has been upheld by law enforcement for centuries.  The US Post Office takes security of the mail very seriously:

USPS - Postal History

When the million-dollar Hope Diamond was donated to the Smithsonian Institution, it was mailed from New York City to Washington, D.C., in a brown paper parcel.

It's my belief that people want very much to have a similar security of First Class Mail associated with email and internet traffic.  They are already paying a monthly fee to the ISP for the internet service, they have given lots of personal and financial information to the ISP which they expect to be kept confidential.  People have an expectation that for a paid service as this, that a respect be given to them and the transmissions that they engage in.

Techies understand all too well how unreasonable such expectations are given the nature of the technologies involved, but people want security nonetheless.

I think there needs to be a lot more use of encryption. The problem is that's it's so little used now that it could form an index of suspicion in and of itself. So I think someone needs to get a push on to encrypt a significant portion of traffic, say 30% or more, so the mere fact of encryption isn't viewed with suspicion

[max americana]

The beauty of BT is that the file is in PIECES. And can someone explain HOW the ISP can know if that file is legit or not? (sigh)

Just turn on your encryption AND safepeer/peerguardian 1 or 2, change your ports and DL to your hearts content.

sigh/....we’ve been through this a million times.

[Stoat]

I’m guessing that a lot of it will have to do with the user’s traffic volume and any sudden changes in that, and perhaps relating to sites that you’re connected to, as that will be the easiest things for them to flag. Just as it’s apparently accepted in the UK that a TV “detection” van can pull up in front of your house and you can get a knock at the door from An Official who says that you’re suspected of watching TV without a license and can I please have a look around for an illegal TV? And if not, why not? ....so also it may become the new norm that An Official will drop by your house and request to examine your computer, as a sudden increase in traffic volume has been reported at your address and illegal movie or music downloading is suspected.
And sir, why is it exactly that your download traffic has incread to 10GB this month when it was only 5GB last month?

Sadly, our British Friends don’t have quite as many civil protections as we enjoy in the USA.

[max americana]

Correct Stoat.

I’ve been nodding my head since I found out that you need a license to OWN A TELLY...I mean TV.

Dear God, I just love this country!

[Stoat]

Dear God, I just love this country!

Indeed, isn't it wonderful?

I find it particularly instructive, in this context, to look at one particular page on the UK TV licensing site:

TV Licensing - Excuses, excuses, excuses

On this page they give examples of various excuses that people have given them for not having a license, and they seem to find it all terribly funny that anyone would even think of wanting to watch TV without a license.

Also, the ways in which the Enforcement Officials contact the homeowner would, I think, strike many Americans as being reminiscent of the Gestapo, yet the agency proudly uses these examples in an obvious attempt to intimidate people.

An Enforcement Officer could see the TV in use from the road.

And did the Enforcement Officer also enjoy watching my wife undress in the bedroom through the tiny split in the curtains that he used to see the TV?

While visiting a property that was listed as not having a TV Licence, one of our officers could see through the living room window that there was a TV there. He couldn't get an answer at the door, so decided to call back later that evening. When he came back he walked up the garden path behind a man. The man rang the bell but didn't get an answer, so he shouted through the letterbox, "It's okay, it's only Steve. It's not the TV Licensing man." The door was duly opened and, when the owner of the house asked who the Enforcement Officer was, he replied, "I'm the TV Licensing man."

This kind of crap would trigger an armed insurrection in the USA.  Cities would burn over this.  And yet this all-powerful agency thinks it's terribly funny, because they know that there's absolutely nothing that the people can do about it. Modern-day Gauleiters in their little fiefdoms.

Given this situation, I don't find it even vaguely unbelievable that a monitoring of net traffic volumes would be required.  And when the Official comes 'round to your house to physically inspect your hard drive with forensic tools, you'd also better be able to explain why it was that your computer was connected to a server in Armenia for 22 minutes last month.