bit-tech.net

The government is as clueless as the music industry about the Internet

Posted on 10th Apr 2010 at 10:48 by Antony Leather with 43 comments

Antony Leather
So the Digital Economy bill has largely been passed here in the UK (except for a few loose ends). It's been a topic of conversation in countless online forums and indeed here in the office.

However, while there's something positive to be said for wanting to reduce piracy, and for the government at least taking an interest in the Internet, I'm not the only one to think the process by which this bill has been created, debated and passed into law is extremely worrying.

In one case, a list of 42 clauses were discussed and agreed upon in less than five minutes (that's one every 7.1 seconds). Even if the people involved in the debate were web experts (and let's face it, they have been known to think the IP in IP address stands for 'intellectual property'), five minutes is no where near enough time to properly debate that kind of information.

The government is as clueless as the music industry about the Internet The government is just as clueless as the music industry about the Internet
The House of Commons during a debate on the Digital Economy Bill - not exactly a full house

Watching any of the extremely sparsely attended debates on the TV and you could see politicians with simply woeful technical knowledge passing law that really depends on technical issues - for instance, as you probably know, if you use your net connection for pirating copyrighted material, that connection can ultimately be suspended - so what about shared connections? Some MPs did raise this (well done Fiona MacTaggart, for this speech in particular) but others thought it was impossible to crack your average wireless router's security, and weren't at all concerned about the fact that not everyone is tech-savvy enough to even make sure their wireless internet connection is protected.

The severe lack of knowledgeable on behalf of most MPs and the way the Digital Economy Bill has been passed - rammed through on the orders of the whips, right at the end of this Parliamentary session - is damaging, offensive and in some cases disturbing. It proves one thing: our politicians have very little understanding or even a regard for how the Internet works, how important it is and what its needs are.

The issues the UK faces are as wide ranging as they are important. Take speed for example; in January, it was reported that the UK ranks 26th in the world for broadband speed and even more optimistic data don't put us in the top 10.

A majority of ISPs have speed or download caps even if you're lucky enough to live near an exchange. In a time of public spending cuts, it seems unlikely this situation will be improved any time soon.

The list is pretty long, but the lack of interest and understanding is, amazingly enough, mirrored elsewhere. The music industry. It all kicked off big time with a little program created by a student at Northeastern University in Boston in 1999. Shawn Fanning's file sharing program, Napster, took the Internet by storm but the music industry completely and utterly failed to recognise the enormity of the problem. When it did eventually go on the defensive, it was far too late and far too aggressive.

Critically though, it totally failed to take advantage of the fact that people were actually quite partial to getting music online in favour of the high street and 11 years after Napster was doing the rounds, we still don't have a legal music download service that's proved as popular. Spotify might change that, but it's not available in the US, and while iTunes is good for some it's tricky to use with many MP3 players in addition to being rather bloated. Still at least Apple saw the light and on 24 February 2010, the iTunes store delivered its 10 billionth song download.

Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking interest in something other than money and its existing business model, the music industry decided to ignore the problem. Instead of getting creative and leaving its outdated ways behind it, it was and still is content to let other people such as Apple, Spotify and The Pirate Bay sort it out.

I salute those MPs who didn't turn up in protest but in my view Parliament, by not properly debating the Digital Economy bill, is showing similar disregard and lack of knowledge of our online world. What makes this so infuriating is that it's a difficult subject and a solution has evaded everyone for over a decade, yet when it comes down to actually make decisions on the really important stuff, the government's attitude stinks. As it's the body with both hands on the reigns of progress, this is very worrying indeed.

43 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
capnPedro 10th April 2010, 10:56 Quote
Mod: Fixed, thx!
Cupboard 10th April 2010, 11:04 Quote
its ridiculous isn't it?

The fact that they went against the recommendations of expert reports in places as well makes a mockery of even having those reports done in the first place! Oh well, nothing new there...

the treasury has advised against many thing GB has pushed through regardless. And that is ignoring accountants pointing out flaws in many of the taxes he introduced as chancellor. This is meant as an explanation of my comment above, and I do not mean it to spark off a tangential debate.
digitaldave 10th April 2010, 11:58 Quote
I hear only 170 of the 640 MP's where present for this, obviously non of the politicians care.

there should be a law against such a low number of MP's passing ANY bill as all it shows is the majority of them are not interested.

if they where interested. there would have been more than 25% in attendance.

its a farce.
_Metal_Guitar_ 10th April 2010, 12:09 Quote
So when is bit-tech going to rise to power?

I mean we can do it. We've had evil games teaching us how to kill people all our lives.
rollo 10th April 2010, 12:15 Quote
No shock this went through

If you pirate music beware as everything will attempt to aquire you
CampGareth 10th April 2010, 13:46 Quote
"The severe lack of knowledgeable on behalf of most MPs"

Beginning of 5th paragraph
dec 10th April 2010, 13:48 Quote
is youtube considered piracy?
Ryu_ookami 10th April 2010, 13:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dec
is youtube considered piracy?

Considering that google can be loosely classed as a torrent search engine if you use it the right way then YouTube probably is considered piracy by the copyright rats
Psytek 10th April 2010, 16:11 Quote
"I salute those MPs who didn't turn up in protest"

I don't. It sounds noble on paper, but turning up and voting against the bill would have sent a much stronger message. Saying they aren't turning up as a protest is really just a cop out because they are too apathetic to the issue and just want to garner favor.
thehippoz 10th April 2010, 16:41 Quote
the government here has been trying to net a lot of our best.. they'd at least have a group of guys who don't think an ip address relates to a airport bathroom

I dunno if you guys watch the apprentice over there.. but the corrupt governor of chicago (guy who tried to sell obamas senate seat after he was elected president) was on there for charity.. the guy is a total imbecile- he couldn't type or even turn on a laptop, he couldn't answer a freaking telephone! I mean how the hell do you become governor and be so technically illiterate

he could just spin words when he talked which made him look like a psychopath basically.. but that's the kinds of people we have in government running things.. they can run their hands under the bathroom stall for sex and talk a good game (well bush couldn't even do that)

but ask them what 9 divided by 3 is and you'll get a deer caught in the headlights
Nexxo 10th April 2010, 17:06 Quote
Quote:
Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking interest in something other than money and its existing business model, the music industry decided to ignore the problem. Instead of getting creative and leaving its outdated ways behind it, it was and still is content to let other people such as Apple, Spotify and The Pirate Bay sort it out.
Word. This is reminiscent of the downfall of the 1900's railroad and 1950's movie industry in the US. The former met its demise at the hand of motorways and air travel; the latter at the hand of television.

The problem was, as an economist astutely observed, that they forgot what business they were actually in. The railroad industry was not in the business of trains and track; it was in the business of transport. The movie industry was not in the business of film but in the business of entertainment. But they forgot that: they focused too much on how they did it than what it was they did, and got complacent. When their business came under threat by competitors they clung onto doing what they knew rather than learning to do what the customer wants.

The music and video industry is now facing the same problem. Instead of regarding piracy as a crime (or really, a competitor), they should see it as an expression of consumer demand; a market to get into and make money out of. But they have been successful in the past, and as Andy Grove from Intel says: success breeds pride; pride breeds arrogance; then complacency, then downfall. Only the paranoid survive.

The UK government is incompetent and corrupt. It rallies to the anxious bleating of big industry and it does so in the most stupid way possible. Moreover they are old. They don't grok the internet or technology; they are reminiscent of the old male misogynist dinosaur Tories of the 70's resisting removing VAT on feminine hygiene products because (in the words of one idiot) "soap and water suffice".

6th May, people. Vote wisely.
yakyb 10th April 2010, 17:29 Quote
my larger worry is how many things other than this are being passed through where the MPs have no idea of what is actually going on

**** them!!
Shagbag 10th April 2010, 21:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitaldave
there should be a law against such a low number of MP's passing ANY bill as all it shows is the majority of them are not interested.
lol. Parliament is supreme. It can pass and 'unpass' any law they like. That's the way it works in the UK. Of course I'm actually ignoring the role of the Sovereign but I really can't be arsed.
Hugo 12th April 2010, 10:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
11 years after Napster was doing the rounds, we still don't have a legal music download service that's proved as popular... the iTunes store delivered its 10 billionth song download.

Is it just me that sees the contradiction here? iTunes has clearly proved incredibly popular.
Combatus 12th April 2010, 12:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
11 years after Napster was doing the rounds, we still don't have a legal music download service that's proved as popular... the iTunes store delivered its 10 billionth song download.

Is it just me that sees the contradiction here? iTunes has clearly proved incredibly popular.

It has, but a hell of a lot more music has been downloaded using file sharing and that's before you take into account other legal sources too. iTunes is still far from all-encompassing.
xaser04 12th April 2010, 16:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article (Picture Caption)

The House of Commons during a debate on the Digital Economy Bill - not exactly a full house

Has anyone seen the number of MP's in the house when they were debating the arguably more important finance bill? Its pathetic. Especially when they go on and on and on and on and on and on - not-really-getting-to-any-point....... and on etc.

One positive is that the parliament channel acts as a very good way to lull yourself to sleep - especially if you suffer from insomnia.
Fizzban 12th April 2010, 17:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Word. This is reminiscent of the downfall of the 1900's railroad and 1950's movie industry in the US. The former met its demise at the hand of motorways and air travel; the latter at the hand of television.

The problem was, as an economist astutely observed, that they forgot what business they were actually in. The railroad industry was not in the business of trains and track; it was in the business of transport. The movie industry was not in the business of film but in the business of entertainment. But they forgot that: they focused too much on how they did it than what it was they did, and got complacent. When their business came under threat by competitors they clung onto doing what they knew rather than learning to do what the customer wants.

The music and video industry is now facing the same problem. Instead of regarding piracy as a crime (or really, a competitor), they should see it as an expression of consumer demand; a market to get into and make money out of. But they have been successful in the past, and as Andy Grove from Intel says: success breeds pride; pride breeds arrogance; then complacency, then downfall. Only the paranoid survive.

The UK government is incompetent and corrupt. It rallies to the anxious bleating of big industry and it does so in the most stupid way possible. Moreover they are old. They don't grok the internet or technology; they are reminiscent of the old male misogynist dinosaur Tories of the 70's resisting removing VAT on feminine hygiene products because (in the words of one idiot) "soap and water suffice".

6th May, people. Vote wisely.

+1
webcider 13th April 2010, 08:34 Quote
So wouldn't it be possible to make a new party called the online party and crash the government :P
lacuna 13th April 2010, 12:46 Quote
Since you're all so frustrated about this I can only assume that you all lobbied your local MP's and expressed your concerns to ensure that they turned up and voted?

Hmmm, thought not.

I can't see any problem with this at all. It seems the geeks are just annoyed because they might actually have to pay for something!
capnPedro 13th April 2010, 13:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Since you're all so frustrated about this I can only assume that you all lobbied your local MP's and expressed your concerns to ensure that they turned up and voted?
Phil Wilson voted in favour of the bill, the ****. And yes, I had written to him explaining some of the problems with the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
It seems the geeks are just annoyed because they might actually have to pay for something!
Right, because the right to privacy and sane regulation over who controls my data pipe and the powers they have completely doesn't factor into my views. I couldn't care less about the ability for the government to sensor any website they feel like. ****, I wish I lived in China.


And it appears the Labour government is clueless about networking - or at least they don't know the difference between a bit and a byte.
lacuna 13th April 2010, 13:51 Quote
You're datapipe?? You lease your phone line, you don't own it.

On the privacy issue; there are ~18.5 million households in the UK, most of which will have an internet connection. This is in addtion to the thousands of businesses/services/education facilites etc. which have huge numbers of workstations connected to the internet and you are worried that somebody is watching you? Get real.
savara 13th April 2010, 14:02 Quote
I think it's a shame that very few MPs turned up to debate and then vote on the issue, however I do stand by the point that if an MP isn't interested / doesn't understand all the issues at hand (which is another issue entirely), then they shouldn't vote on it.

Obviously I'm not suggesting that all the Labour MPs who turned up to push it through (I suspect mainly at the behest of the whips) had actually read and understood more than a small portion of it!

lacuna: for what it's worth, I did lobby my MPs (both my MP at home, and Roberta Blackman-Woods in Durham), but only heard anything from Vince Cable. I got a very interesting reply from Dr. Cable, saying that the Lib Dems wouldn't support it unless it was heavily amended, and to their credit, all the Lib Dem MPs who turned up voted against it, but I was disappointed that he didn't bother to vote at all.
yakyb 13th April 2010, 14:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Since you're all so frustrated about this I can only assume that you all lobbied your local MP's and expressed your concerns to ensure that they turned up and voted?

Hmmm, thought not.

I can't see any problem with this at all. It seems the geeks are just annoyed because they might actually have to pay for something!

actually yes i did write to my local (labour) MP but heard no reply from him

this and a few other things have me as a genuinely undecided leaning towards conservatives atm
capnPedro 13th April 2010, 20:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
You're datapipe?? You lease your phone line, you don't own it.

Owning or renting, there's no difference (the government don't own it either) as I'm paying for a private connection. You lease your phone line too, does that mean you'd be happy for your neighbour to listen in to all your calls too, because you don't own the line?

For all intents and purposes, if you pay for something, while you're paying, you own it.
lacuna 14th April 2010, 10:01 Quote
No, leasing is not like owning. Leasing a phone line is not dissimilar to paying road tax and driving on the public highway. You wouldn't say that you owned the road because you paid your tax. In both situations you pay for the right to use the infrastructure provided by BT or the Government. It is now the case that both types of infrastructure are monitored and governed by 3rd parties (ISP's and the police).

When the two are compared in terms of punishment for misuse the 'unfairness' of the 3 strike policy for the internet seems trivial. You could, by process of accumulation, lose your driving licence by speeding or suffer an immediate ban for a serious offence. The additional fines and costs make this far more severe than just losing your connection.

This law was brought about because we, as a populous, apparently do not have the ability to control ourselves when it comes to downloading copyrighted material.
kenco_uk 14th April 2010, 15:47 Quote
I get fed up with all the car analogies. Why not say something like.. I dunno.. when you sign up to rent a storage space, you agree to not store bombs, gas cylinders or body parts. Then you go against the policy set and decide the zombie you killed the other night is starting to whiff a bit, so you disguise it and store it in your rented/leased storage space.

After a while, obviously it's going to be noticable.

Similar enough to constantly downloading music/films/games/cars illegally?
Tulatin 14th April 2010, 21:28 Quote
I can't believe the shortsightedness of the people defending the actions of parliament, or the terms of guilt in this case. To be honest, the only thing that citizens of the UK can now do to ensure that they're not being consistently monitored by the greedy dogs of war online, is to stick everything through a Tor pipe.

Oh, and what stops you from getting "banned" from the internet if your computer gets infected with a virus, and downloads the material to distribute to themselves?
Elton 15th April 2010, 02:57 Quote
As glad as I am that I'm not in the UK, I'm more scared if the US pulls this on us.

The problem is first of all enforcement and classification of said crime, not all P2P sharing is a crime firstly and the thing is we can't really classify it anyhow.

At any rate, the out of proportion for theft of INTELLECTUAL property is insane as it is.
lacuna 15th April 2010, 09:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenco_uk
I get fed up with all the car analogies. Why not say something like.. I dunno.. when you sign up to rent a storage space, you agree to not store bombs, gas cylinders or body parts. Then you go against the policy set and decide the zombie you killed the other night is starting to whiff a bit, so you disguise it and store it in your rented/leased storage space.

After a while, obviously it's going to be noticable.

Similar enough to constantly downloading music/films/games/cars illegally?

Because that analogy isn't set in reality, nor does it have sufficient similarities to the case in hand.

I chose to compare the internet and the public highway because they are both forms of national infrastructure that the public can lease the right to use.
kenco_uk 15th April 2010, 22:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Because that analogy isn't set in reality, nor does it have sufficient similarities to the case in hand.

Okay, how about if you had 3 zombies then?

It'd have to be a fair sized lockup that you leased though. I mean, if one was a boomer that hadn't boomed, that's going to cost an arm and a leg to store. Mind, it wouldn't be there for long as I guess it wouldn't be long before it did boom and the bile would surely seep under the door. Hmm..
Ryu_ookami 15th April 2010, 23:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Because that analogy isn't set in reality,

It isn't? Since when? The 3,594 people who have read the "The weapons you would use at your last stand against a legion of zombies" thread and the 1,634 people who have been reading and listening to the " The songs you would play at your last stand against a legion of zombies" thread as well as the 8,733 people who have been reading the "What's your Zombie Plan?" thread are not going to be impressed if you have scientific proof that zombies don't exist.

Oh, also theres a guy looking for you, he says he's a lawyer from something called Umbrella Corp?




Edit : I just realised this forum is seriously into Zombies!
steveo_mcg 16th April 2010, 09:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
No, leasing is not like owning. Leasing a phone line is not dissimilar to paying road tax and driving on the public highway. You wouldn't say that you owned the road because you paid your tax. In both situations you pay for the right to use the infrastructure provided by BT or the Government. It is now the case that both types of infrastructure are monitored and governed by 3rd parties (ISP's and the police).

Road tax didn't even exist when German tank rolled into Poland. VED covers your car not the road you drive on. The roads are paid for either from general taxation or local council tax depending on the road. The Zombie analogy was more grounded than this fantasy that car tax is used entirely for the upkeep of the moonscape that is the average British road.
lacuna 16th April 2010, 14:23 Quote
It is completely irrelevant what amount of money is spent on the roads or even where the money originates from as these issues have no impact upon the validity of the analogy. I can't see where the link with WW2 fits in at all. The point is that if you want to drive on the public highway in a car then you have to pay, just like if you want to use the internet on the telephone network you also have to pay.
steveo_mcg 16th April 2010, 14:58 Quote
Wrong again! If you want to own a car you must pay VED (with some exceptions) or keep it off the public highway. If one wants to use the public highway one must only go for a walk or a bike. If one wants to drive on the highway then one could rent a car, drive a pre 1973 car, drive a governmental vehicle....
Please make sure your analogies are correct, the road network is paid for from general taxation there for it is completely different from the leasing of a private phone line or broadband connection from a private company.

/pedantry.


For your general ignorance Road Tax was stopped in 1937, before WWII broke out.
ZERO <ibis> 17th April 2010, 01:09 Quote
It is not just the internet this is how they do everything.
gnutonian 17th April 2010, 10:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
It is completely irrelevant what amount of money is spent on the roads or even where the money originates from as these issues have no impact upon the validity of the analogy. I can't see where the link with WW2 fits in at all. The point is that if you want to drive on the public highway in a car then you have to pay, just like if you want to use the internet on the telephone network you also have to pay.
We all pay for our phone lines and internet connection. I pay €29.99 + cost of calls. Every month, on the dot - no stealing from me, no sir-ee.

The only car analogy I can see work is when you lease a car (like you lease a phone line): the car isn't your property, but you'd be pretty pissed if the leasing company went through your wallet whenever it's in the car; or if you'd have to have a body search every time you wanted to enter the car (just to make sure you're not going to blow it up).

I pay for my internet connection (and DRM-free media). I don't want my taxes (as they do now in France) to be used to spy on what I do online.
If the internet was 99% pedophiles exchanging pictures, I would agree to surveillance - now it's 99% normal guys jacking it to adult pictures, so there's no need to treat us all like criminals (serial masturbators, though...). As a decent, law-abiding, tax-overpaying citizen, I find this really ****ign insulting, and I'd rather have a daily kick in the balls from Ass of the Republic Sarkozy himself.
Neophyte 18th April 2010, 02:42 Quote
its amazing how some people are so ignorant!!!

1. internet is invented by the people for the people! and i dont mean what was created for in the beginning connecting 2 computers blah blah! i mean this is one huge network created by people! therefore i fail to see how the government has any rights on it... but that's completely different story!

2. I do not understand why people continue to believe is for their own good? its not! i would very much would love for these people to share their address online so someone demonstrates how easy it is to frame you for downloading! this is done for the benefit of the companies... companies that obviously bribe lords and mp's and what not!

3. fences are meant to keep people in since they have never done a good job to keep people out! this ban is stupid and i hate to see taxes i pay go to such a waste! if i want to download something i will.... get a VPN encrypt and download as much as i want... HA-HA-HA! just made all their debate pointless!

4. car tax and internet is unbelievably far fetched analogy... this just goes to prove how short-sighted people can be! internet is the internet and nothing else! there are different ways there and these ways have to regulate laws! you cant simply copy and paste laws to accommodate this and that! if it was that easy we might as well copy and paste from the beginning! murder = murder-------- 500 years later----- pirated song = death sentence!

this is a classic problem! there is NO WAY stooping the internet and preventing people from downloading one way or another people that do not want to pay... simply WONT PAY! its irrelevant if you just opened a kick ass factory for horse shoes! WE DRIVE CARS! these businesses need to grow up and move on!

for the rest of you guys:
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/index

Bindi Edit: Corrected all your spelling mistakes for you.
thehippoz 18th April 2010, 17:19 Quote
you know that's true.. the botnet could be run outside the country and get a lot of people in trouble.. that's a good point really

the loophole could be as simple as saying- I'm innocent.. enough good people get banned from their isps there will be a backlash on the law itself

this law could also be used to damage a business.. trojan into the business computers and get them to infringe on a copyright.. I've always laughed at how the music and movie industry do things.. there's no way for them to truely know if the offender is just a poor sod on the botnet

I was wondering when it would get down to the isp level as they see everything..

it's the only way to stop piracy really.. but they also have to make a living, it's not in their best interest to lose their customers.. and you can see the problem with innocents- it's one of those laws that looks great on paper and would only work in utopia
loner1994 19th April 2010, 03:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Metal_Guitar_
So when is bit-tech going to rise to power?

I mean we can do it. We've had evil games teaching us how to kill people all our lives.

Are you sugesting that someone biulds a cs sorce map of the houses of parlement
not me
someone nealy got arested for
making a map of there school

just a Side note to stop me double posting:
anything that is put on the Internet will be made public
if the govoment trys to block a site I will take less than a week to have the site acsessable again.
This has already happened when one country blocked fackbook and within a week a total incription progam had been made to get round it
lacuna 19th April 2010, 15:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Wrong again! If you want to own a car you must pay VED (with some exceptions) or keep it off the public highway. If one wants to use the public highway one must only go for a walk or a bike. If one wants to drive on the highway then one could rent a car, drive a pre 1973 car, drive a governmental vehicle....
Please make sure your analogies are correct, the road network is paid for from general taxation there for it is completely different from the leasing of a private phone line or broadband connection from a private company.

/pedantry.


For your general ignorance Road Tax was stopped in 1937, before WWII broke out.

Being pedantic about how people colloquially refer to 'VED' does not impair or invalidate the analogy. It is irrelevant where the money comes from for the maintenance of the highway, only that you have to pay to use your car on the highway. I pay a fixed amount for line rental, is this amount directly proportional to cost of line maintenance etc?
steveo_mcg 19th April 2010, 21:01 Quote
:(

The source of the funds is exactly the point! The roads are paid by every one who pays any tax at all, yes even the local junky who only buys fags is paying for the road. Your least line is a contract between a corp and an individual not using a publicly owned resource, you may remember a government privatised the telephone network some time ago. You DO NOT pay to use the highway in any way (well except the M6 Toll).


Next, who pays for the policing of this public network? Ah yes that's right the public to ensure the roads are safe for the use of said public. The government uses tax to ensure the laws they enact are enforced. In the case of the ISP's the government are passing expensive laws and then passing the cost on to the company hardly unprecedented but completely unrelated to the road network. Equally neither the roads or the postal service are routinely for the benefit of some other corporation or special interest group.
ev1lm1nd666 20th April 2010, 12:19 Quote
I'd love it if some hacker got into the pc's of all the top mp's in the country and downloaded as much illegal porn, music and films as their hard drives could handle then ask them if they can prove their innocense and if not, they have to anul the Digital Economy Bill. Sounds fair to me
Neophyte 20th April 2010, 21:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ev1lm1nd666
I'd love it if some hacker got into the pc's of all the top mp's in the country and downloaded as much illegal porn, music and films as their hard drives could handle then ask them if they can prove their innocense and if not, they have to anul the Digital Economy Bill. Sounds fair to me

some time ago a bill called "rippa" or something like this was pushed forwards banning any type of encryption.... you could get arested if you didnt tell the passwords to a policeman that requested it! so what naturaly happened the guy that was pushing for the bill got a mail with encryption on it someone called the police and accused him... later that day he called again and told them the truth!

the problem though is this idiots in westminister do not use computers this also why they vote on such stupid laws!
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums
Mionix Nash 20 Review

Mionix Nash 20 Review

30th July 2014

Mionix Naos 8200 Review

Mionix Naos 8200 Review

24th July 2014

MSI Z97S SLI Plus Review

MSI Z97S SLI Plus Review

23rd July 2014