Presumed guilty until proven innocent. If you can afford it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

You mean, what would happen if the Daily Mail headline actually reflected reality? That's highly speculative.

Which part of it doesn't reflect reality? Disconnection of people accused of unauthorised downloading is definitely written into the law as one of the punishments. As are other "technical measures" that can be used as collective punishment if you can't prove your innocence.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

What do you think would be proportionate?

My next question will be: How does that compare to the actual consequence under the British law which was upheld this week -- eternally repeated warning letters?

Fines similar to what you would get if you stole a physical item of the same value. But only after evidence of guilt was presented. Collective punishment and presumed guilt upon accusation are what I object to. Once you accept that for one type of crime you may as well accept it for all crimes.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Which part of it doesn't reflect reality? Disconnection of people accused of unauthorised downloading is definitely written into the law as one of the punishments.

This is literally true and, as far as I can tell (and that may not be very far), misleading at the same time.

The Digital Economy Act does say that the British Secretary of State may draft an order to "limit internet access." But "no order is to be made . . . unless . . . a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House." Maybe there is something about the British system I do not understand. Since it has to get through both houses of parliament regardless, does this mere mention of possible future parliamentary action change anything? I didn't think so.

As are other "technical measures" that can be used as collective punishment if you can't prove your innocence.

If you are saying it is collective punishment because the whole family might lose internet access until another ISP was contracted, I think that every sanction imaginable, from execution to a $20 parking fine, is collective punishment. In the latter case, my money is equally the money of my wife and dependent son, so all three are equally punished if I am caught spending 3 hours in a 2 hour spot. In the former, well, depending on your views of the afterlife, my execution might be a neutral event for me, while I am arrogant enough to think it would be quite a severe punishment for my family.

[HansTWN]

Well, if it is pointed out that you have a criminal in your family, than you should be responsible to do everything you can to find out who it is and to help to stop those acts.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Well, if it is pointed out that you have a criminal in your family, than you should be responsible to do everything you can to find out who it is and to help to stop those acts.

But would you allow them to cut you, your wife, and the kids off from the internet entirely just because your son happened to download a couple of ebooks off the internet, and there was no way for you to find out?

[ignacio ferrer]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

But would you allow them to cut you, your wife, and the kids off from the internet entirely just because your son happened to download a couple of ebooks off the internet, and there was no way for you to find out?

Lets not be hysterical here. There is no problem just downloading something - especially not ebooks. You have to upload too.
Before you pay, you are given a warning. So you know there may some abuse be going on. So you can find out the culprit.
This has more to do with education than with anything else.
Where did you get the idea that you internet access could be cut off because
your kid downloaded some ebooks?

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by ignacio ferrer

Lets not be hysterical here. There is no problem just downloading something - especially not ebooks. You have to upload too.
Before you pay, you are given a warning. So you know there may some abuse be going on. So you can find out the culprit.
This has more to do with education than with anything else.

Warnings mean nothing unless they are directed at the guilty party. This is a scatter-gun approach. Parents can't be expected to install CCTV or keyloggers or waterboard their kids to find out who's the culprit. Pirates can be pretty good at hiding their activities from other family members, who are usually no more computer-proficient than click-and-point.

Where did you get the idea that you internet access could be cut off because
your kid downloaded some ebooks?

....However, the Act includes a provision that could, in future, see the guilty punished by having their internet service cut off......

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

But would you allow them to cut you, your wife, and the kids off from the internet entirely just because your son happened to download a couple of ebooks off the internet, and there was no way for you to find out?

You know, there is a very simple solution to that, along the lines of what they used for traffic violations in Germany. Let us say your car gets caught on camera running a red light. For some reason the driver is not clearly visible in the picture. Now you (and your family) can get off free by just saying "I don't remember who drove the car at the time the picture was taken". But you will have to keep detailed records in the future, who has the car at what times.

With a computer it is much easier, of course. You can create separate users and automatically log the time for each user. A court could order such a setup for your family. When, and only when, another infraction occurs those records can be retrieved and point to the guilty party.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You know, there is a very simple solution to that, along the lines of what they used for traffic violations in Germany. Let us say your car gets caught on camera running a red light. For some reason the driver is not clearly visible in the picture. Now you (and your family) can get off free by just saying "I don't remember who drove the car at the time the picture was taken". But you will have to keep detailed records in the future, who has the car at what times.

Okay, the court has mandated that you maintain those records. What if someone now steals your car, runs a red light wearing a mask, and returns your car before you even knew it was stolen? There's a huge difference between an approach of "We've got to punish those who run red lights" and "A red light was run. We don't know who it was, but somebody's got to pay!!"

With a computer it is much easier, of course. You can create separate users and automatically log the time for each user. A court could order such a setup for your family. When, and only when, another infraction occurs those records can be retrieved and point to the guilty party.

Would parents have access to their kids' accounts in order to monitor their activities online as any concerned parent would like, or would kids be entitled to keep their account completely private?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You know, there is a very simple solution to that, along the lines of what they used for traffic violations in Germany. Let us say your car gets caught on camera running a red light. For some reason the driver is not clearly visible in the picture. Now you (and your family) can get off free by just saying "I don't remember who drove the car at the time the picture was taken". But you will have to keep detailed records in the future, who has the car at what times.

With a computer it is much easier, of course. You can create separate users and automatically log the time for each user. A court could order such a setup for your family. When, and only when, another infraction occurs those records can be retrieved and point to the guilty party.

Surely it would be better for the government to install a key/click logger on everyone's computer? Then the data could be monitored for suspicious activity and the police could be sent round for further investigation within minutes of an infringement taking place.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Okay, the court has mandated that you maintain those records. What if someone now steals your car, runs a red light wearing a mask, and returns your car before you even knew it was stolen? There's a huge difference between an approach of "We've got to punish those who run red lights" and "A red light was run. We don't know who it was, but somebody's got to pay!!"

That sounds a little far fetched, a car being stolen and returned without you even knowing about it? Without a key?

And you might have an alibi, and it would be obvious that the car had been tampered with (lock and ignition). Just like when are accused of a crime and all the evidence is pointing at you you will be a serious suspect but you still have a chance to explain and (if necessary) have your day in court later. The jury decides, but you can't blame the police for suspecting you did it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Surely it would be better for the government to install a key/click logger on everyone's computer? Then the data could be monitored for suspicious activity and the police could be sent round for further investigation within minutes of an infringement taking place.

Good one. But let us stay serious.

As I have pointed out, this can be done so that the privacy of the accused is not being invaded at all. No records have to be collected besides log in/log off times.

[ignacio ferrer]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Warnings mean nothing unless they are directed at the guilty party. This is a scatter-gun approach. Parents can't be expected to install CCTV or keyloggers or waterboard their kids to find out who's the culprit. Pirates can be pretty good at hiding their activities from other family members, who are usually no more computer-proficient than click-and-point.





....However, the Act includes a provision that could, in future, see the guilty punished by having their internet service cut off......

This seems to be very far fetched in my opinion. If your kid does not tell you the truth when asked: the problem lies there ...

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by ignacio ferrer

This seems to be very far fetched in my opinion. If your kid does not tell you the truth when asked: the problem lies there ...

That's irrelevant. You're conflating an issue of parenting with an improper scatter gun approach by a company.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

That sounds a little far fetched, a car being stolen and returned without you even knowing about it? Without a key?

And you might have an alibi, and it would be obvious that the car had been tampered with (lock and ignition). Just like when are accused of a crime and all the evidence is pointing at you you will be a serious suspect but you still have a chance to explain and (if necessary) have your day in court later. The jury decides, but you can't blame the police for suspecting you did it.

In the UK, however, you can't get away with a driving offence by saying "I don't know who was driving the car at the time". Unless you can show that someone else actually WAS driving then the responsibility (and the punishment) will be imposed on the registered keeper of the vehicle. Your vehicle, your responsibility.