The 3-strikes/graduated response measures in the  Digital Economy Bill entail State-sponsored measures to limit Internet access. They will  impact on fundamental rights. The government should fully justify why it wants to interfere with those rights.

A Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has examined the UK's proposed 3-strikes/graduated response measures,  which occupy the lion's share of the inappropriately-named  Digital Economy Bill.  The Committee's  report was released last Friday, and it contains a  serious and exhaustive criticism  of the Bill. 

 Although  many news media are drawing the obvious  conclusion that   the Bill breaches human rights, I think it is actually more complicated than that.

 In fact, the report highlights areas where there is a likely breach

Tom Watson and Don Foster have placed calls in the UK Parliament for information on the ACTA . But are they asking the right questions?

The UK Member of Parliament Tom Watson, who is courageously opposing his own party on the issue of copyright enforcment, has asked in Parliament for information on the ACTA process. ACTA is a proposed  international agreement which will impose new copyright enforcement measures onto Internet users worldwide, and it has serious implications for civil liberties and freedom of speech.  

Questioning one of the  Ministers from the Department of

Members of the European Parliament  are calling on the European Commission to stop keeping it in the dark, and  tell citizens what being negotiated in the ACTA (Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement).  In particular, they want to know about the measures in ACTA which threaten the Internet.

Six MEPs have now tabled questions demanding public statements from the EU on the ACTA (Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement) negotiations. This puts the pressure on the European Commission's negotiators in DG Trade to come clean. Specifically, there is interest to know the details of the negotiations in respect of the Internet and online copyright.

The Parliament is likely to be

Digital Economy Bill: Nominet provisions. Should the government be able to step in and take over the Internet domain registry? If so, under what conditions?

The final stages of  the House of Lords examination of  the Digital Economy Bill  saw their lordships arguing over  a clause which will give the government the power to take over the Internet domain registry in cases where there has been a "serious failure" .

The government wants the provision (in Clause 18)  because the Internet is now so important for the UK economy.  One would asssume that the concern relates to the management of the domain servers by the registry, and ensuring that they do not become sloppy resulting in network failures for consumers downstream. However, the government has not specified that

What's in a name? Finally, a public admission by the UK government that the Digital Economy Bill is about Graduated Response. With an  appeals process, not a prior hearing, thus it is unlikely to comply with a new European law. 

 The Minister responsible for the Digital Economy Bill in the House of Lords has admitted in Parliament that the Digital Economy Bill is about bringing in a graduated response  system for copyright enforcement on the Internet. This appears to be the first time that the UK government has been explicit in calling it by its rightful name.

Speaking in the Lords last week (26 January 2010), Lord Young of Norwood Green, Parliamentary Under-

The Digital Economy Bill includes a new Code to limit Internet access.   The government may bypass consultation process to bring it into force.

The UK Digital Economy Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, provides for  a new Code  which will  implement the government's plans for  dealing with peer-to-peer filesharing and any form of copyright infringement via the Internet. The Code is to be drawn up behind the scenes, by Ofcom, without scrutiny of Parliament. 

The  new code is outlined in

Is the House of Lords serious? Could users be asked to divulge their computer logs in order to prove themselves innocent of copyright infringement?

The debate last week on the Digital Economy Bill  discussed the tribunal procedure for applying sanctions to users accused of copyright infringement. The question was asked  by Lord Lucas,  how would a user be able to prove their innocence? I will say upfront, that he was not happy with the answer he got.

The Digital Economy Bill provides for a 3-strikes system against peer-to-peer downloading and alleged copyright infringement. Lord Lucas'  concern is that in a 

The  Digital Economy Bill, which seeks to introduce copyright enforcement measures against peer-to-peer downloading   is currently being debated in the House of Lords. An amendment passed last weekappears to widen the application of the government's proposed " technical measures", and legal experts are debating whether it could open the door for 'filtering'.  It is a simple linguistic change, but the meaning is unclear.

Amendment 155A  replaces the words 'particular' subscribers' with the words ‘all relevant

UK Digital Economy Bill: The infamous Henry VIII clause  which will permit the Secretary of State to re-write UK copyright law without oversight from Parliament, will also permit the copyright industries to keep their trade secrets, under a proposed new amendment from Lord Mandelson.

*Next debate is this Tuesday, 26 January. Lords Razzall, Whitty, Clement-Jones and Lucas have announced their intention to oppose the Clause. *

An amendment tabled to the Digital Economy Bill calls for the details of representations made to the Secretary of State  in consultations amending copyright law to be kept confidential. The aim of the amendment is  to protect the commercial interests of the copyright industries. (See full text below).

The amendment is one of several which Lord  Mandelson has

The Digital Economy Bill provides for the regulator, Ofcom, to supervise the new copyright enforcement measures targeting  Internet users. The measures, which occupy over one third of the Bill, initially target peer-to-peer users, but in fact, the scope of the Bill looks set to go much wider. (I am still in the process of analysing it, but this is my current view.)

Ofcom will be asked to draw up a code of practice by which the rights-holders and the Internet service providers are to operate the new measures. Effectively, Ofcom will be supervising the policing of the Internet in the UK. The document which has recently been released provides a model outline for this code, and

As we say RIP to the laboratories which invented fibre optic cable, what should be the government response?

The UK government's stated policy is that  the communications infrastructure should support future economic growth.  So should  it let  a once-proud UK telecoms company be broken up into mere products? Nortel  - whose laboratories developed the  fibre optic cable on which 21st century communications depend - is being sold off. Its staff, who possess the skills essential for the Digital Economy,  accuse the administrators of breach of contract, and government support is seriously lacking.

Neelie Kroes, commissioner designate for the Digital Agenda (formerly Information Society)  has said that it is clear the net neutrality will be central to her policy agenda. But a closer analysis of her answers to the European Parliament reveal quite a number of contradications. Not least of which was her position on ACTA.

Neelie Kroes was speaking at her ‘job interview' with the European Parliament, where she was quizzed by members of the Internal Market and Industry committees.

 Asked specifically about her policy on net neutrality by MEP Lena Ek, she said in reply: "I believe that net neutrality is