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

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

In most cases I know of people elected to pay the fine, that seems preferable to being forced to keep records.

Many years ago my father once got off by saying "My son was driving while he was on vacation, he lives overseas. Send him the ticket!". Can't do that too often, of course.

[bla]

It's all a load of bollocks.... just how are you going to stop someone getting internet access??? when every second coffee shop/Cafe has open wi-fi not to mention Libraries,train stations and the like

It's purpose is to get people "panicked" .. seems to have worked lol.....

[SteveEisenberg]

There seems to be an assumption in a few posts that a child is more likely to be a copyright disrespecter than a parent. But for families with younger children, the parent may more likely be the violator.

If the British parliament passes the provision, it would be just like when the parent drinks away the money that would have gone to pay the ISP.

Originally Posted by bla

It's all a load of bollocks.... just how are you going to stop someone getting internet access???

And why would you want to? Disrespecting copyright is only mildly wrong and so should be only mildly sanctioned.

[ignacio ferrer]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

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.

You might get a visit from social services - but that is besides the point anyway - before your internet access is cut, you have to cut your kid's access ...

[ignacio ferrer]

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?

You mean the "law" should do something you are not capable of?

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by ignacio ferrer

You might get a visit from social services - but that is besides the point anyway - before your internet access is cut, you have to cut your kid's access ...

Why should it even be a consideration that my internet access will be cut for something I didn't do? Are we dealing with the mafia here? "Nice internet connection you got there. Be a pity if you were to lose access." You're basically sanctioning threatening an entire family.

[mr ploppy]

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.

The key point being evidence. In the Thomas and Tenenbaum cases, evidence of wrongoing was proved so it is obviously possible to do. So the real question would be what is there to be gained from removing the need to provide any evidence?

[mr ploppy]

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?

I had one of those net nanny type things for my son when he was little, by the time he was 9 he knew how to disable it. As for teens, you might as well try herding cats while blindfolded. They do whatever they want to do, always have, always will. Even our prime minister and mayor of London used to go around smashing up restaurants when they were teens.

[speakingtohe]

Generally the person who signs up for a service is responsible for those who they allow to use it. If you rent an apartment and violate the rental agreement the eviction punishes all who live in the apartment.

In some Canadian jurisdictions the property can be confiscated from the landlord if it is used to sell drugs.

Automobiles can be confiscated at the border for smuggling whether the owner is aware of the smuggling or not.

That said, there have been many attempts to enforce internet controls at the ISP level, by governments to control pirating and by the ISP's themselves to control bandwidth usage. Putting a law in place is easier than enforcing it. To ferret out the guilty from millions of users and penalize them is a monumental task and then there is the time in court for those who dispute their guilt. The government (our taxes) pays for the court time, the ISP has to pay someone to show up and give evidence. Just by showing up in court each defendant could cost hundreds(maybe thousands?) of dollars to prosecute.

The ISP also uses a customer for each one cut off, so how hard will they try?

Helen

[ignacio ferrer]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Why should it even be a consideration that my internet access will be cut for something I didn't do? Are we dealing with the mafia here? "Nice internet connection you got there. Be a pity if you were to lose access." You're basically sanctioning threatening an entire family.

All a matter of perspective. If you can't control your kids(i.e. convincing them that their behaviour endangers the family's internet access) in this respect, you are up to much more serious problems in the future ...

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by ignacio ferrer

All a matter of perspective. If you can't control your kids(i.e. convincing them that their behaviour endangers the family's internet access) in this respect, you are up to much more serious problems in the future ...

Ah, still avoiding the crux of the matter, I see. It's the usual obfuscation at play here. You propose a deterrent that you can't justify, and to avoid having to justify it, you'll try to play up an issue you've created out of thin air.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Ah, still avoiding the crux of the matter, I see. It's the usual obfuscation at play here. You propose a deterrent that you can't justify, and to avoid having to justify it, you'll try to play up an issue you've created out of thin air.

Yes and no. If you have a child that doesn't listen to you at all and would rather see the whole family go down and lose the internet connection than stop downloading stuff then you do have some serious problems don't you think? Sort of like a child with a download addiction, a child that doesn't care about what happens to anybody else. I feel this certainly does deserve to be pointed out in the context of this discussion.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes and no. If you have a child that doesn't listen to you at all and would rather see the whole family go down and lose the internet connection than stop downloading stuff then you do have some serious problems don't you think? Sort of like a child with a download addiction, a child that doesn't care about what happens to anybody else. I feel this certainly does deserve to be pointed out in the context of this discussion.

It's a spin on the old "Why are you opposed to the government doing XYZ by invading your privacy if you have nothing to hide?" argument. It's the conflation of two issues in order to avoid addressing the main point. You can focus on the errant child and the apathetic parent, but that is no excuse to not address the issue of the lumping together of the guilty and the innocent.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

It's a spin on the old "Why are you opposed to the government doing XYZ by invading your privacy if you have nothing to hide?" argument. It's the conflation of two issues in order to avoid addressing the main point. You can focus on the errant child and the apathetic parent, but that is no excuse to not address the issue of the lumping together of the guilty and the innocent.

Or a spin on the 'Throw my child in jail just don't cut of my internet'. If it is your service you are reponsible for the bills and infractions. If it isn't perhaps you should get your own internet service and allow no one else to use it.

While not saying it is right or wrong the government regularly invades my privacy just by requiring me to file tax returns. Search warrents are an invasion of privacy on a far more intrusive level but seem to be deemed necessary by society to discourage crime. Credit card companies checking on suspected identity theft is also an invasion of my privacy as they are using information collected from my credit card usage to determine this.

I do not see a way to totally preserve my privacy without moving to a cabin in the woods, using cash only which I could only earn in illegitame ways and and eating my own home grown or trapped food.

Bottom line is no-one is punishing you unless it is your service and you are allowing it to be abused. If it is not your service then you are not being punished. You might consider it collateral damage but even that is stretching it.

Helen

[teh603]

Originally Posted by ignacio ferrer

All a matter of perspective. If you can't control your kids(i.e. convincing them that their behaviour endangers the family's internet access) in this respect, you are up to much more serious problems in the future ...

Its all fun and games until someone uses magnets to attach a bundle of drugs to the underside of your car or cracks your computer's security and sets up a kiddie porn repository by remote control. You have no reasonable way of preventing it or even knowing it happened, but you're still accountable for it.

Same thing goes with children; they'll usually do something you had no reasonable way to expect, and leave you holding the bag.