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

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

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.

You did not address this point:

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

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?

[howyoudoin]

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.

Having one's day in court isn't necessarily a panacea. It depends on whether we're dealing with the police being required to prove you did it, or whether the burden of proof is on you to prove you didn't do it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

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

So what you are saying is, that parents are not responsible for their kids? When a kid doesn't go to school the parents can be put in jail.

Parents should be responsible to get their house in order once they have been notified that there is a problem.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Having one's day in court isn't necessarily a panacea. It depends on whether we're dealing with the police being required to prove you did it, or whether the burden of proof is on you to prove you didn't do it.

As with any crime, when all the evidence points at you, you will have some explaining to do. Even if you are innocent. Somebody steals your credit card and buys material to make a bomb. Will you be get a visit by the police and asked to explain and will you have to cooperate? Oh yes. Does that mean you will be convicted, no. Innocent people come under suspicion all the time. That doesn't mean that they are being found guilty. But if there is evidence, you should help to clear it up. It is in your best interest.

That is the way the system always works.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So what you are saying is, that parents are not responsible for their kids? When a kid doesn't go to school the parents can be put in jail.

Parents should be responsible to get their house in order once they have been notified that there is a problem.

Parents are only responsible to a reasonable extent. Responsibility isn't even the focal point of the matter. It's the punishment that's the issue. You can hold a parent responsible for their kids' act of piracy, but you cannot involve them in the punishment that is meted out to the kids. Cutting off internet access for the house punishes the entire family. If your kid pinches a couple of CDs from the shop and sells them on the street, a judge wouldn't hand out punishment to the entire family as a unit.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

As with any crime, when all the evidence points at you, you will have some explaining to do. Even if you are innocent. Somebody steals your credit card and buys material to make a bomb. Will you be get a visit by the police and asked to explain and will you have to cooperate? Oh yes. Does that mean you will be convicted, no. Innocent people come under suspicion all the time. That doesn't mean that they are being found guilty. But if there is evidence, you should help to clear it up. It is in your best interest.

That is the way the system always works.

Even in your example, the underlying principle is still 'presumed innocent until proven guilty'. Which is fine, and no one has an argument with that. Cutting off the internet for the entire house has a 'presumed guilty until proven innocent' principle to it, because if you had really proven the guilt of the guilty person, you wouldn't be punishing the entire house.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

You did not address this point:

My guess is that usually parents have filters if they want to control their kids' internet usage. If parents strictly monitor that, how would a parent NOT know who is the culprit?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

I know that in the US in some location the claim is against the car, not the driver. Meaning the car will be impounded when the fines are not paid and nobody cares who drove it. Which has led to some problems. People who owed more in fines than the car was worth could just let the police take the vehicle and "weasel" out of part of what they owe.

In Germany and in California (back when I lived there - I have no idea how it is today) the claim was against the driver. Which means the police have to know who the driver was. Today all cameras take pictures from the front, so that you can clearly see the face.

Anyway, it was just an example of a system similar to what could be implemented here.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

In Germany and in California (back when I lived there - I have no idea how it is today) the claim was against the driver. Which means the police have to know who the driver was. Today all cameras take pictures from the front, so that you can clearly see the face.

It's the same here but, as I say, the law says that as the owner of the vehicle, offences committed by it are your responsibility unless you can prove otherwise.

Anyway, it was just an example of a system similar to what could be implemented here.

It's a very good parallel, and personally I have absolutely no issue with the "owner" of the internet connection being held responsible for its usage.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

My guess is that usually parents have filters if they want to control their kids' internet usage. If parents strictly monitor that, how would a parent NOT know who is the culprit?

You can't assume the existence of a filter. Even if you did, it doesn't guarantee a fool-proof system. Most filters are targeted towards pornographic sites, and it is impossible to create a filter that will, either specifically or heuristically, filter out all sites or protocols that might be used for the exchange of copyrighted material.

Many parents just check the browser history and go through the files on the computer as best as they can. This is not a thorough method, but by disallowing parents access to their kids accounts, you take even this basic functionality away from them.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Even in your example, the underlying principle is still 'presumed innocent until proven guilty'. Which is fine, and no one has an argument with that. Cutting off the internet for the entire house has a 'presumed guilty until proven innocent' principle to it, because if you had really proven the guilt of the guilty person, you wouldn't be punishing the entire house.

They are not cutting off the internet immediately. You get two warnings, and a chance to do something about it. If you don't know what, you can contact them and you will get help. If you feel you have been wrongly accused (you suspect a hacker or something) they will investigate. So it is not as bad as you make it out to be. The basic principle, innocent until proven guilty, can still be upheld under the system.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

They are not cutting off the internet immediately. You get two warnings, and a chance to do something about it. If you don't know what, you can contact them and you will get help. If you feel you have been wrongly accused (you suspect a hacker or something) they will investigate. So it is not as bad as you make it out to be. The basic principle, innocent until proven guilty, can still be upheld under the system.

Then why the provision for cutting off internet access for the entire family? Why isn't there a provision instead for punishing only the guilty party?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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".

Nor here. Nor should it. No matter who committed the red light or parking violation, it is coming out of the total income available to our family, so it makes no difference.

If you live in a close family unit, your being sanctioned always hurts your family. That's true if you go to jail. That's true for fines. That's true if they turn off your internet for not paying the bill. And it would, of course, also be true if they turned off your internet for disrespecting copyright. This is not some specific unfairness of the service cancellation mandate mistakenly alleged to have been enacted by the British parliament. Rather it is part of the fundamental and unavoidable unfairness of life.

Do we want to keep that fundamental unfairness to a minimum? Yes. You do that by avoidance of excessive punishments, not by thinking we can dream up a sanction that only hurts one person.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Then why the provision for cutting off internet access for the entire family? Why isn't there a provision instead for punishing only the guilty party?

I am sure there is a provision for punishing the guilty party only, if they can identify the culprit? If it is known who it was and they still punish the whole family, that would definitely be very wrong. I am with you on that.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I am sure there is a provision for punishing the guilty party only, if they can identify the culprit? If it is known who it was and they still punish the whole family, that would definitely be very wrong. I am with you on that.

Yeah, I agree on the principle with you. But the very fact that they even include a provision to punish the entire family makes me believe that they're side-stepping the requirement of pin-pointing the guilty person, and instead only requiring themselves to prove that the crime occured over a particular connection (essentially, in a particular household). I cannot think of any other explanation for the insertion of this specific provision when instead a mere "The guilty person/s will be denied internet access" would have sufficed. They're making it easier for themselves to prosecute the guilty, even if it involves also punishing those who happen to share the same roof with him.