ralpress.org

Charles Nesson, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School:

“the idea of imposing law on the global ocean of free bits that has flooded into cyberspace is a gross and harmful over-extension of the power of the state and authority of the law.”

Source: Judge rejects fair use as Tanenbaum P2P trial begins

Nancy Gertner, judge for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts:

[Judge Gertner] then concluded by telling the RIAA lawyers that they were “basically bankrupting people, and it’s terribly critical that you stop it.”

Source: How Harvard Law threw down the gauntlet to the RIAA

UPDATE: So much for the encouraging sentiments. The trial didn’t go well. The Register was less than impressed with Charles Nesson’s tactics.

Kick me again, RIAA. Please!

We can’t find the plot, so let’s harrass some harmless tourists instead.

Officers of the Met treating guests to our country with contempt, behaving as if they’ve been trained in North Korea, and frankly, demonstrating that they lack sufficient common sense and judgement to be entrusted with the rights-circumventing powers they’ve been given:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-delete-tourist-photos

How long ago it now seems that we used to regularly hear government ministers resolutely declare “If we let the terrorists change our way of life, they’ve won”. We don’t bloody well hear it now, do we?

(Title quip shamelessly nicked from commenter on Craig Murray’s blog)

Not content with ignoring due process (post pending), the rule of law, demonstrating utter contempt for democracy and civil rights, beating young girls over the head with clubs, manslaughtering those down on their luck (2), and spying on our personal communications, our government, police and security services also want us to rummage through our neighbours’ dustbins, you know, in case there’s anything in there that can be used to denounce them.

Frankly, I’ve long harboured suspicions that one of my neighbours is a democrat, committed to open, accountable government. Obviously, I’m reluctant to report him without good evidence for it’s a serious, unsavoury allegation, one that could ruin his career and family life, But rest assured, I’ll be scratching and sniffing his wheely bin for the tell-tale signs. If he so much as drops an Open Rights Group pamphlet in there, it’ll be the salt mines for him and his counter-revolutionary brood.

Note for the smug cynics, bullies, thugs and rule-breakers within our police force. This government won’t be in power forever. You might want to start thinking about your exit strategies. At the very least, consider how to CYKCA (Cover Your Kevlar-coated Arses). Oh, and here’s some advice, this time around “I was just following orders” isn’t going to cut any ice.

How did democracy end up in this mess? “It just fell down the stairs, honest M’Lud”.

Guess which story is currently at the number 2 spot on reddit.com? Yep, the censored Guardian memos — and in the same submission title, the name <cough>Wikileaks</cough>.

Information Commissioner’s Office statement on the Communications Data Bill

“This summer the Information Commissioner called for a public debate on government proposals for the state to retain citizens’ internet and phone records. The Commissioner warned that it is likely that such a scheme would be a step too far for the British way of life. Creating huge databases containing personal information is never a risk-free option as it is not possible to fully eliminate the danger that the data will fall into the wrong hands. It is therefore of paramount importance that proposals threatening such intrusion into our lives are fully debated. We welcome the fact that the government intends to fully consult the public on any scheme it brings forward. Precise details of the plans are unclear at this stage the ICO will be studying the proposals once published and responding to the Government’s consultation in due course.”

Source:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2008/ico_statement_comms_data_bill.pdf

Commentary:
http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=9533

If you wish to make your voice heard on this matter, sign this petition!

Cory Doctorow in the Guardian on the three way deal between the government, the music industry and ISPs:

Under the new scheme, the rule of law is replaced by a cosy inter-industry deal. Whereas before, anyone who wanted your ISP to spy on your internet connection would have had to show evidence to a judge and get a court order, now any joker who claims to be an aggrieved copyright holder can do so.

And whereas actual criminals are punished by judges who make rulings that are proportional to the offence, and which are calculated to minimise external harm, the new scheme allows ISPs and their pals in the record industry to randomly shake up your connection like a snow-globe, dropping some or all of your services – whether you’re using your VoIP phone to speak to your dying granny in Australia or downloading the latest hit single from the guy who did the “Crazy Frog Song”.

Then there’s the question of trust:

They claim that the surveillance data will only be used to police copyright and not to spy on every communication you make. But Transport for London claimed that Oyster cards would only be used to simplify paying for travel, and not to bulk-surveil Londoners, and yet here we are. As novelists say, “A gun on the mantle in act one is bound to go off by act three.”

And when it comes to “trust”, let’s not forget the following:

• Voice and data networks were built to help citizens communicate and share, not to provide our government with unprecedentedly powerful means of spying on our most private activities.
• Filesharing is an inherently legal activity; despite this, there is strong evidence that ISPs are interferring with the right of their customers to engage in this activity.
• The Terrorism Act was supposedly drawn up to combat terrorism, not to enable local councils to spy on parents attempting to obtain a place for their child at a particular school
• Roadside CCTV cameras were originally supposed to be used to penalize dangerous driving, not to create a nationwide, automated system for control, punishment and extortion.
• The data within the police DNA database was supposed to be used to fight crime, not sold to  commercial researchers to help the police cover their operational expenses.
• Electoral roll data is entrusted to our local authorities and is supposed to be used to facilitate the functioning of political democracy, not as yet another means for our local authorities to raise extra-taxation revenue.

But we needn’t worry, the ISPs have given us their word that they won’t spy on us or allow our data to be viewed by third parties. With such reassuring pledges, who needs legal or constitutional protection?

One of the great ironies here, is that the ease of data access, copying and manipulation that the recording industry is demanding be curtailed, is the same ease of access, copying and manipulation that has seduced our authorities into thinking that they can control and punish citizens remotely, and earn a quick buck by selling our most sensitive and constitutionally essential data to the highest bidder. Given that the government is siding with the record industry on this matter, it’s not irony, it’s arch hypocrisy. If hypocrisy were the only misdeed, we could just raise our eyes to the heavens and carry on with life, but this hypocrisy is eroding our civil liberties, and it doesn’t get much more serious than that.

In the light of the current “MP bugging” furore, Rosemary Jay, a partner at Pinsent Masons Solicitors, had this to say on BBC4’s “PM” program yesterday regarding solicitor-client confidentiality:

“Solicitors have an obligation of confidentiality to their clients. However, no obligation is absolute where the public interest overrides the confidentialities. You can’t rely on confidentiality to protect your misdeeds.”