Bill signals end of free WiFi
The administrative overhead in offering customers free Internet access could become to much to bear if the Digital Economy Bill goes forward.
Lillian Edwards, professor of Internet law at Sheffield University, is quoted by ZDNet as stating that the scenarios detailed in an explanatory document produced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills would "outlaw open WiFi for small businesses."
The trigger for the warning is comments in the DEB's explanatory document from BIS minister Lord Young who explains that no common class of publicly-accessible WiFi connection could be protected from proceedings under the Bill should one of its users trade in illicit material online. Young even singles out libraries, stating that offering such organisations a 'common carrier' status that would protect them from prosecution under the bill would "send entirely the wrong signal and could lead to 'fake' [libraries] being set up, claiming an exemption and becoming a hub for copyright infringement."
Young also states that universities would also have no protection under the proposed Bill should a student use the network to download copyright material without permission.
Edwards describes the Digital Economy Bill - as it is detailed in the explanatory document - as "a very unfortunate measure for small businesses, particularly in a recessions, [as many] are using open free WiFi very effectively as a way to get the punters in."
Even those who offer some semblance of control - to stop freeloaders from hogging the bandwidth without buying something from the shop - with the use of password protection have just "two options - to pay someone like [commercial managed hotspot provider] The Cloud to manage it for them, or to take responsibility themselves for becoming an ISP effectively, and keep records for everyone they assign connections to, which is an impossible burden for a small café."
Young details two classes of user in the document: subscribers, who have low-bandwidth connections and few end users; and ISPs, who have faster connections and many end users - with "large hotel chains or conference centres" being pushed toward the ISP end of the spectrum. Users who are classed as subscribers - even if they 'resell' the service to others - will be treated the same as a home user under the Bill, receiving notification letters and eventual disconnection should their connection be used to trade in copyright material. Sadly for the Bill, the details are still a little muddy: Edwards points out that universities in particular "don't know if they're subscribers, ISPs or neither. If the government is not clear, how on earth are the universities supposed to respond?"
Do you believe that Edwards has a point and that the Digital Economy Bill would make the administrative burden of running a free wireless service too great for small businesses to bear, or is it the responsibility of whomever provides a connection - no matter what the cost or reason - to police it for copyright infringement? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Previous Article
53 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyI think both cases are true. Laws always always increase administrative burden, and this is especially felt by smaller organisations without ease of access to specialist legal teams either through hiring the services of a lawyer or through an in house legal expert.
But similarly I tend to think of internet connections along the same lines as phone lines. Obviously, there are limitations of your responsibility, but if you were offering a free phone line (for example, for people to phone their parents to pick them up from a kids club or something), and then someone uses that phone line maliciously - it is YOUR responsibility as it is YOUR phoneline.
The same goes with the internet unfortunately. I would love for there to be a way around it - wimax is promising (which in a way is the phoneline analogy of the advent of mobile phones!) but until there is a neat solution unfortunately it is at small organisations own risk if they let anyone use their internet connection without caution.
Recently though more and more free hotspots have been cropping up over here - even my local library started their own free wi-fi service a few months ago.
Unfortunately, it sounds like this bill is just going to push access point owners further away from either being able, or wanting to offer these services for free. In an age when the government is trying to ensure 'internet access for all', this is A BAD THING.
If pure piracy is the only problem then surely limited bandwidth per user per minute, then a cap on usage per day/hour or whatever would mean no real amount of pirating could be done.
At university, you aren't allowed to download through file sharing, as peer to peer is banned (i believe they close the ports associated with it). At university there are also other measures such as bandwidth and usage each day (although this is a large figrure)
With help, small businesses could set up an open wifi network that would mean people can't use filesharing. It was only a while ago that companies were setting up wireless networks across whole towns. The government keep taking measures to stifle us growing, just because its worried about file sharers.
They then clim, that whoever's phone was used, is the user of this password.
Someone fileshared? We haven't got his name, but this connection was requested by this phonenumber.
On the other hand in Czechia, lots of cafe's have a full open network, no problem.
All depends on the local (national) law I guess.
i dout it rich
BT has the resources to track user logins
what do they propose for them? scrap them? or more likely pay to access them?
Smells like another attempt to tax/make money off Joe public.
That's not true.
If I stab someone with your knife? You are responsible?
If I run someone over with your car?
If I use your wifi to download copyright material, you honestly believe you are the one who should be punished?
You do not believe those things, and If you do, give me your address and the SSID of your wireless router, I'll come download some copyrighted material and get you into trouble so that you can confront your bullshit beliefs head on.
This sort of narrow minded, 'it doesn't affect my pocket book so I don't care' attitude is exactly what ruins democracy. You don't give a **** about small business owners, so you refuse to consider their position, it's selfish and sadly it's pervasive in our society. Nobody takes notice until they are personally inconvenienced, and by that time, the laws will be law and you won't have any personal freedoms left.
It's easy to dismiss the 1984-quoting, freedom-championing minority as pirates and hippies, who-cares, but it doesn't mean they aren't right. Which in this case, they are. Governments spying on their people is wrong, governments forcing private businesses to spy on their people for them is wrong. Governments forcing private business to spy on their people for other private businesses is sickening.
I mean, what the f*ck did you have against 100W lightbulbs? Thanks to UK, they're forbidden now in EU.
I knew I was right when I voted against joining the EU, in a few years I'll have to move to Canada to be able to make a phonecall without a policeman listening, while in EU Germany will resurrect Stasi and Gestapo to be the New European Union Police.
You can't VPN from most let alone fileshare.
Psytec you are so right, **** man what happened to innocent until proven guilty.
Also it no better here in Canada this **** is going on all over now.
But you can't get it through private wireless.
And the internet we're giving you is too slow to be of any real use. The project will inevitably end up late and over budget.
Thank you Socialism.
This government astounds me. On the one hand, we have the Science and Technology Committee making recommendations based in scientific fact and sound reasoning (i.e. recommending that NHS funding for homeopathy be removed); then on the other hand we have, amongst other misguided legislation, this short-sighted bill completely undermining all credibility.
Incidentally, the Science and Technology Committee is made up of members of the House of Lords, whereas this bill is backed primarily by Members of Parliament and was resisted by a number of strong voices in the House of Lords. Do we still think that - as many have called for - abolishing the House of Lords is a good idea?
There, I fixed that for you!:D
Exactly. The Lords and the Commons appear to have undergone pretty much a complete reversal; now the Commons are the corrupt, greedy ones that you wouldn't trust to run a fish stall. The Lords, as a rule, are pretty ordinary people.
@eddtox: In what way is restricting free enterprise by artificial and punitive laws Capitalism?
Who to vote for next........ Oh thats right different idiot same agenda.
On a side note has anyone watch the zeitgeist movies yet?
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
very good to be taken with a pinch of salt but it ain't to far from the truth.
Yeah Zeitgeist is great. It's been around for a few years now.
What a horrible news story this is.
Wait, am I the only one to take exception to this? This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.
Surely you do not think that this has been thought up with a complete lack of involvement from the various film/record industry associations? This is nothing to do with restricting free enterprise it has to do with the film/record/software industries lobbying to protect their bottom lines, and if free enterprise happens to be a casualty, so be it.
We have created a system where money comes above everything else and now we wonder why commercial entities care about nothing other than their bottom lines.
Holy crap calm down.
I'm discussing the issue of the need for property law. If it was my knife, I would have to explain how you got it, no? If you stole it, fair dues. If I gave it to you, am I not in some part culpable? Think it through before foaming at the mouth.
As for my opinion, like I said in my post I'm both ways about it. But you just find the bit you can object to loudest and have a right go while bashing one out if that's what gets you going.
Pissing confrontational forum warriors.
I've said it before and i'll say it again the best way to solve piracy is to make buying movies/games/music so cheap and so incredibly easy that the time spent pirating said content is not worth the effort.
Why don't we collate a list of good reasons why this bill is no good and get a petition going or something?
If people like us who are in the know do nothing, your average joe certainly wont...
University's may track usage but here at queens im limited to 400kb/s download speeds. It takes 4-5hours do download a 30min video from iplayer (I leave it downloading in lectures when not using the laptop). If queens drops wi-fi access ill personally lead a campeign to have a computer with wired access for every student. Simply because im in contact with lecturers, other students, downloading notes online, researching, bit-tech and applying for jobs through out the day. I got my netbook specifically because of uni needs.
Maybe not that drastic, but in the Netherlands if your car is photographed speeding, the owner will be punished. (unless presenting someone else that's driven)
Same principle though, owner is responsible for abuse of ... whatever.
It exists!
That sort of exists in the UK, but preys on the on the fact that people don't know, they hope that people will assume the guilt with out the real evidence remember innocent until proven guilty, a picture of the back of the car doesn't mean you committed the crime, prove who was driving, also you should be read your miranda rites (the rite to remain silent/right against self-incrimination).
But this is slowly changing, people are fighting it and the courts can't take it as its all a farce. So again the government try to change the law to circumvent this. All they really succeed in doing though is pissing more people off and creating more paper work for the coppers and less time to do there real job. Hey they can't loose their extra tax now can they.
In Germany all speed camera's take pictures from the front (with the passenger greyed out) clear evidence of the car and the driver. Go figure, no assuming guilt there
Your right +1 on the petition.
Talk is cheap.
I don't know about you, but I used to get around 2mbit when tethering my Kaiser (T-Mobile MDA Vario III), and that was without paying for faster access (7.2mbit). Besides, you have to pay for cellular/mobile broadband, whereas the article discusses open-access/free WiFi.
and just because a big cooperation does it it is not socialism? i think you forget that the a lot of big cooperations push for socialism *because* it is good for *their* bottom lines. if you can get a bunch of socialistic laws passed that force out smaller competitors but are specifically worded to give you a pass that may help you, but it is also not capitalism. capitalism is supposed to keep corruption out of the market, and make sure that all people are represented equally in a court of law (among a few other things) but it is most definitely not supposed to pass laws that favor certain parties above others, or make business possible only for the giants.
to summarize: restricting fair business for some may be good for others, but it is not capitalism.
this is pure socialism, no matter who is pushing it. saying anything else is intellectually dishonest.
@Psytek
right on.
@dreaming
about the knife. say i didn't loan you the knife, say you came into my store and bought it from me. am i still culpable? how far are you wiling to extend your argument?
if we were really being true to our "innocent until proven guilty" principles you would have to prove that i gave you the knife (either sold or loaned) with the fore knowledge that you intended to do malice. for all anyone knows i loaned you the knife because you said you had a large roast at home and nothing to cut it with.
and a lot of us have thought this through very well before hand, but it may not show because of our testiness when it comes to dealing with people who obviously have not.
With so many people with free "unlimited" internet on their phones its an alternative to wi-fi. Most people have "unlimited" internet on their phones anyway. For those that don't already have a data plan o their phone Why ignore the enormous cash elephant by offering a free alternative thats faster?
Also, following the "innocent until proven guilty" idea, wouldn't saying "he told me it was for a roast" prove you innocent unless someone had proof that you were told otherwise? That doesn't seem like a problem at all... you're still responsible for only allowing the safe and reasonable use of your possessions, to the best of your knowledge. That being the focal point of this whole issue in my opinion. No cafe owner, for example, has any specific reason to believe that they are supporting piracy, yet they will certainly know that it exists and must take actions to prevent the misuse of their service.
Another example, a little more violent. Let's say I own a handgun. Obviously it is a dangerous item and there is quite a lot of potential for it to be misused. Now if I set this gun down on a park bench I have no reason to think anyone's going to take it and commit murder, but there is obviously a risk. I am responsible for ensuring the safe and reasonable use of my possessions to the best of my knowledge and my knowldge says that leaving guns around is neither safe nor reasonable!
This bill may be taking things too far, but the general idea is that the internet and wi-fi specifically are becoming potetionally dangerous items and owners must be aware of this and take measures to provide safe and reasonable use to the best of their knowledge, such as blocking file sharing ports.
the issue with the knife is i am not presumed to be innocent in your version. i am presumed to be guilty and must prove my innocence with my statement. if i was truly presumed to be innocent, i would not have to say anything, and it would be up to you to prove that i was either malicious or criminally negligent. criminal negligence, in the u.s. anyway, usually extends to things that should have been accounted for, such as leaving a loaded firearm unattended in a public place. but then again criminal negligence is also applied to the little old ladies who mosh the gas in their cars and kill a pedestrian. it is the same concept.
that concept, i will add, does not apply to open networks. it would be like making the phone companies (or other owners) liable for crimes committed from payphones. service providers, of any kind, need to be heavily insulated from crimes committed with their service, least the innovation in the market be killed. you need to prove that they are criminally negligent in their operation, such as hosting files or trackers for illegal content. their are many reasons that someone may wish to remain anonymous online, and not all of them are illegal. and purposefully handicapping the technology is not really a good solution either, since it puts the burden of regulation on the small businesses more than on the large.
And the main point for restricting peer to peer services is that most users should be able to accept it. There are only a handful of reasons to reeeallllyyy want your torrents at a free wifi hotspot. One of them is piracy, the other is immorally mooching off of a service that is not intended for prolonged use. It's exceedingly hard to claim that honest, heart of gold users truly need to have access to file sharing applications at a wifi hotspot such as a library or cafe or school. Bittorrent has nothing to do with writing one's final, or checking the weather on lunch break :p
Of course, there's always the "It's the principle of being free citizens!" argument, but if that's the problem there are certainly bigger fish to fry in this world...
see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
(two parts)
moving on to free wifi
sure some business might find it useful to block file sharing ports, and it is their right to do so, but what if doing so hinders their business model? say they are catering to a gaming crowd. lots of games use the torrent app to download updates. take WoW for example. all of a sudden their customers can no longer get updates for popular games, thus alienating their user base. as i said before, there are all sorts of legitimate reasons to have an open an unhindered network, and imposing arbitrary limits only limits innovation.
not to mention that it is trivially easy to change around the port setting on a computer and have it share files, printers, ssh or whatever on whatever port you want. all you need is someone on the outside who knows what port you want to connect to. how long do you think it would take after port restricting legislation was passed for it to be completely ineffectual? a week? a day? a few hours?
To get back on subject, it would seem that a new market of security hardware and software could be coming about. Finding ways to limit innovation is ironically full of innovation. Cisco and all of it's daughter companies, for example, could certainly focus attention more towards products designed for protecting wifi hotspots through passively protected wireless access points. Pre-setup firewalls to cut back on administrative overhead and configuration costs. Creative ways of determining and allowing known-good applications such as Blizzard's updater, perhaps a sort of digital certificate. Necessity is the father of invention (did I get that right?) and this need for anti-piracy measures, especially if Big brother is pushing it, could certainly cause a number of security inventions.
you did hit on one of my points. companies (and governments) are perfectly free to control access on computers and networks they own. that is the whole point. if i own a hotspot *i* get to dictate under what terms and conditions it is available, not someone else. the moment government decides that "you must do this or someone may abuse it" they are presuming guilt. and while you are right that initially the legislation may drive some innovation, that innovation invariably comes with higher cost to the users, which has the net effect of stifling innovation in the long run. that on top of the fact that the legislation would limit a persons exercise of free choice, which means that whole sets of behaviors are not open for profit.
and the idea to have "creative ways of determining and allowing known-good applications" sounds like a huge cost to developers that will close the market to any independent developer, thus perpetuating the problem of big business legislating out smaller competitors through the use of unfair laws. cant afford to pay cisco $1000 to get on the trusted file sharing list? you must be one of those bad people we can't trust on the network. . .
the topics of presuming guilt and stopping network traffic "because it's bad" are very closely related. there are a number of other topics that share similar points as well, like 2nd amendment issues, and 1st amendment free speech. how much can you limit freedom "for the common good?" almost always you only wind up limiting the freedom of law abiding citizens and the criminals simply flaunt the law and find trivial ways around it. anything that would seek to legislate network traffic would be doomed to the same failure, and is therefor not even worth perusing.
a better solution is to make prosecuting those actually guilty easier, or changing existing laws to make the illegal behavior not worth the effort (or in some cases, simply enforcing existing laws, rather than writing new ones to go on top of the old ones).