U.K. Government Wants New Powers To Block Wikileaks and Squeeze Web TV

Just over a week ago I wrote a fairly dry legal analysis of the Digital Economy Bill. I spotted an extremely serious provision — clause 11 — in the version being discussed in the House of Lords. Having looked at the amendments (which you can find on the Bill's document page) I am worried that no-one in Parliament appears to be taking the problem serious.

What is the problem with clause 11 that I am getting so alarmed about it? It amends the Communications Act 2003 to insert a new section 124H which would, if passed, give sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. It begins:
(1) The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in view of—

Pausing there. Note that this says nothing at all about copyright infringement. For example the power could be used to:
  • order ISP's to block any web page found on the Internet Watch Foundation's list
  • block specific undesireable sites (such as wikileaks)
  • block specific kinds of traffic or protocols, such as any form of peer-to-peer
  • throttle the bandwidth for particular kinds of serivce or to or from particular websites.
In short, pretty much anything. I do not exagerrate. The definition of a "technical obligation" and "technical measure" are inserted by clause 10:

A "technical obligation", in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against particular subscribers to its service.
A "technical measure" is a measure that— (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.
As you can see blocking wikileaks is simply a matter of applying a technical measure against all subscribers of any ISP.

Surely something must limit this power you ask? It seems not. The Secretary of State may make an order if "he considers it appropriate" in view of:
(a) an assessment carried out or steps taken by OFCOM under section 124G; or (b) any other consideration.
Where "any other consideration" could be anything. To their credit the Tories do seem to have realised that this particular alternative is overly permissive. Lord Howard of Rising and Lord de Mauley have proposed (in the first tranche of amendments proposed that the "or" be replaced by an "and".

What astonishes me is that there is no obligation for the Secretary of STate to even publish such an order, let alone subject it to the scrutiny of Parliament, yet he could fundamentally change the way the internet operates using it. Other orders made under other parts of the Bill will have to be made by statutory instrument and most will require Parliamentary approval. Not this one.

The only other amendment that has so far been tabled that might restrict the powers of the Secretary of State under clause 11 appears in a third tranche proposed by the liberal democrat Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer which deletes the paragraph (b) from the definition of a technical measure (i.e. "limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way") which does put some bounds, although not very tight bounds on what an imaginative Secretary of State might do.

The government is not at all imaginative. In their explanatory notes they envisage:
The government envisages that the criteria for taking a technical measure against a particular subscriber would be the same as the criteria used to determine whether the subscriber' s alleged infringements are included in a copyright infringement list under the initial obligations. So a technical measure would be applied if a subscriber had been linked to a number of CIRs sufficient to place them on a serious infringers list.
Note very well: they expect to use the power against the guilty and the innocent (of copyright infringement) equally.

The problem, I think, is that people are skim-reading the Bill and thinking that this part has to do with copyright infringement. Clause 11 is nestled between provisions about notifications of copyright infringement (the "strikes" idea) and the technical obligations code. People seem to be assuming that the Clause 11 power will only get used in that context but there is nothing in the Bill to make that so. As fellow blogger Julian Todd pointed out the government froze the funds in the Landsbanki bank using powers contained in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. A future government might well think "that's a useful power" and use it for almost anything. Let us hope that the Lords wake up to this fast. I have much less hope of the Commons.

Source: Francis Davey.co.uk, December 10 2009

Views: 47

Comment

You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!

Join 12160 Social Network

"Destroying the New World Order"

TOP CONTENT THIS WEEK

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!

mobile page

12160.info/m

12160 Administrators

 

Latest Activity

Doc Vega posted blog posts
9 hours ago
Burbia posted a video

A few reasons I don’t like jews. It’s not complicated.

These are the reasons I became antisemitic. It’s not complicated. Sure, I could go on for days, weeks, months outlining everything, but I don’t need to. This...
yesterday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Unusual Discoveries and Headlines
"Less Prone, Thanks Buddy! I'd like to volunteer as a historical reconstructionist! "
yesterday
Less Prone left a comment for t.me/TheIntelligenceLibrary
"Welcome to a revolutionary concept in public communication, the truth."
yesterday
pohonemas33 team is now a member of 12160 Social Network
yesterday
Less Prone favorited cheeki kea's discussion Tartaria
yesterday
tjdavis's 2 blog posts were featured
yesterday
Doc Vega's 7 blog posts were featured
yesterday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post Unusual Discoveries and Headlines
"Some incredible pieces of history!"
yesterday
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post Unusual Discoveries and Headlines
yesterday
tjdavis posted a blog post
Sunday
Doc Vega posted a blog post

First Week of July 1947 an Inflexion Point for Humanity!

The year is 1947 and sometime around July 4th the anniversary of the birth our nation, when a…See More
Saturday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Government Issued Wearables? What’s Wrong With this Picture?
"cheeki kea Ha! Good one!"
Friday
tjdavis posted a video

This is Paris Now… You Won’t See This in the Tourist Brochures

In this video, I take you through Marché Barbès and its surrounding neighbourhoods — an area that reflects the modern, complex face of Paris most tourists ne...
Friday
Doc Vega posted a blog post

Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Passes Amidst Democrat Lies About a Tax cut for the Rich Being Averted

AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.It’s over, folks. President Trump and congressional Republicans aimed to…See More
Thursday
Doc Vega posted blog posts
Wednesday
cheeki kea commented on Doc Vega's blog post Government Issued Wearables? What’s Wrong With this Picture?
"I wonder what wearables must have been like before the last reset. "
Wednesday
Burbia commented on Burbia's video
Jul 1
Doc Vega commented on tjdavis's blog post National Blueprint For Biodefense
"Another scare tactic to push people into anew regime of vaccinations! Either that, or this is a…"
Jul 1
Doc Vega posted blog posts
Jul 1

© 2025   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 12160.info 2007-2019 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted