A phone call to a loved one. An e-mail to a prospective employer. A confidential message to a support service. Under new Government proposals, every single communication you make will be monitored and stored. Every time you phone someone, a record will be made of who, when, and where. Every time you access a website, it’ll be recorded. Your entire private life on display to the government, your friendships, your beliefs, your troubles, and your lifestyle. Everything.

Rank Hypocrisy

Despite opposing similar plans whilst in opposition, the Coalition Government are bringing forward plans to legislate a requirement for ISPs and telecoms providers to monitor and store information on every communication you make, providing the government “real-time” access to your data without warrant. The policy also flies in the face of Tory and Lib Dem election promises, and the coalition agreement:

We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness. We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion… We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation… We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason… – Section 3 “Civil Liberties”, Coalition Programme for Government

Technological Ignorance

Every week over 3.5 billion pieces of content are shared on Facebook. Every day, over 290 billion emails are sent. Every hour over 1.3 million tweets go out on twitter. As the 8th most connected country in the world, interactions from UK citizens will represent a great deal of that content. With so much data being generated every second, storage costs alone would be astronomical. Then imagine that ISPs will be required to keep all that spam, too. Implementing this law would require widespread reworking of network infrastructure, and investment in provision and upkeep of servers that would make Google’s server costs look like nothing.

The Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) has already hit out at the government over this. But given the Government’s inability and unwillingness to listen in the Digital Economy Act debate, one would hardly be surprised if their concerns are brushed aside yet again.

War on right to privacy

If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide. Only criminals, paedophiles and terrorists should be afraid. That’s the line from Home Secretary, Theresa May, anyway. The Government’s spouting of the fallacy-filled trope is utterly wrong – turning every civilian into a suspect, with everywhere you go, and every connection you make up for government tracking, is nothing short of declaring war on privacy.

Civil Liberties groups have lined up to condemn the move, with Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group stating “The saga of complicity between senior police officers and Murdoch’s journalists should tell us how vulnerable people’s privacy can be. The government should stand by the commitments both parties made before the election to protect our privacy.”, whilst Big Brother Watch have said “It is remarkable that they wish to pry into everything we do online but seem intent on avoiding any public discussion.”

Fighting the proposals

Unfortunately the public don’t seem to like getting up in arms or taking direct action on issues devolved from what they see as “real life”, so your options here are a bit limited to liberal things like writing to your MP or signing a petition, which the Government will happily allow because it makes no impact as they ignore everything said, whilst liberals pat themselves on the back for trying. “At least we didn’t take direct action”, they’ll proudly cry, as this legislation passes.

A phone call to a loved one. An e-mail to a prospective employer. A confidential message to a support service. Under new Government proposals, every single communication you make will...

Today was a good day for supporters of the Communications Act 2003, or more specifically, s127(1a) of the Communications Act, which makes it an offence, punishable by up to 6 months in prison and a hefty fine, to “send by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” By contrast, today was a bad day for people who believe in freedom of speech.

Firstly, the courts have upheld the verdict against Paul Chambers (@PaulJChambers), who was prosecuted under the act for posting a tweet on twitter saying “Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!” as a clearly frustrated, non-serious response to travel disruption. The whole farce has come to be known as #twitterjoketrial and has been heavily criticised by lawyers and laymen alike, and rightly so.

Secondly, earlier today Gareth Compton, a Tory Councillor, was arrested and bailed, also under s127(1a) CA2003, for posting a message on twitter calling, most likely non-seriously, for a woman to be stoned to death. Now, whilst that makes him a major douchebag, that should not make him a criminal. The fact that he was not hit with an Incitement charge suggests the CPS are fully aware that a more well-defined and scrutinised charge just wouldn’t stick, hence relying on the until recently rarely used s127. Regardless of his political affilation, or the crass nature of his joke, Compton should have the full support of liberals, lawyers, and anyone who believes in the right to free speech, just as Paul Chambers has had.

Together, these cases also go some way to suggest a wider issue in our courts than just bad law – the distancing of judges from the perceptions and understandings of modern, common persons. Is it right that a case focused on social media should be judged by a person who has no understanding of  the circumstances surrounding the very heart of the case? Is a generational divide between defendants and judiciary undermining justice by preventing a full understanding of the facts? Perhaps, but that is a discussion for another time.

The real issue here is one of restrictions on free speech. Freedom should obviously extend to the freedom to express frustration or make a twat of yourself. That freedom should not be restricted on some concept of a “climate of terror” dreamt up by those in power. Imagine if you tweeted something like “Argh I’m going to kill my MP for breaking his pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees”, and then the next day the police come knocking at your door. How can the CPS honestly claim prosecuting for something so clearly not serious could even come close to passing the public interest test?

I believe it is time for a full review of the Communications Act, and I will be campaigning for such; as well as looking to see this adopted as policy in the Pirate Party UK manifesto, who already fight against horrendous laws restricting our rights and freedoms.

Now, I don’t know about you, but after all this I could murder a cup of tea… oh shit wait…

Today was a good day for supporters of the Communications Act 2003, or more specifically, s127(1a) of the Communications Act, which makes it an offence, punishable by up to 6...

Today @PaulJChambers was found guilty of a criminal offence contrary to s127 Communications Act 2003, which makes it a strict liability (i.e. you’re guilty if you just did the act of it, regardless of circumstance) offence to make “”indecent, obscene or menacing” messages via a telecommunication network.

Originally he was charged under Criminal Law Act 1977 for a bomb hoax, however the CPS decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence for this, and instead opted for the rarely used s127.

But just what did Paul Chambers do? He tweeted a joke. A crap joke, but a joke all the same.

“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

For this, he now has a criminal record, and faces a £1000 fine.

Just to be clear, here, a British citizen is now a criminal for making a completely non-serious comment on twitter. This is yet another example of the ridiculous restrictions we have on freedom of speech in the UK, joining the growing list of heavy-handed offences such as Incitement, and the infamous Libel law; as well as yet another example of the erosion of our liberties under the authoritarian New Labour party.

Keep checking #twitterjoketrial for updates, and possible link to a whip-round to pay for his fee.

Today @PaulJChambers was found guilty of a criminal offence contrary to s127 Communications Act 2003, which makes it a strict liability (i.e. you’re guilty if you just did the act...

On Monday afternoon, I attended a hustings at my college, with Julian Lewis, incumbent Tory for New Forest East. Shortly thereafter, I tweeted that I had “just spent an hour listening to the scaremongering of a corrupt, paranoid homophobe“ – not the first time I have declared him to be such, after I first met him in the spring of 2009, just before the expenses scandal went public. Since I published this tweet, I have been contacted by several bloggers, journalists, and reporters asking for details on just what was said.

In response to the first enquiry, from Left Foot Forward, I outlined the event as I recalled it bearing in mind I did not take notes, as I was not expecting anything to come of the encounter. Whilst the statement contains paraphrasing due to lack of notes, it was written only shortly after the event, and is as accurate as can be expected, and almost any omitted details weren’t relevant to the points discussed, or relevant enough for me to remember them. As such, I disagree with Julian Lewis’ claim that what I have said was “both incomplete and inaccurate”. Although there was one thing I neglected to mention – that he said his vote against civil adoption was about the child’s rights not those of the civil partners’ (as if somehow a homosexual family is detrimental to a child’s welfare?).

In my statement, I mention that he compares the risks of homosexual sex to fighting in the armed services. A point he clarifies and confirms (so much for inaccurate?) in a response to pinknews – “When it comes to legalising practices that involve serious risk, I believe the higher limit should apply. This is the reason we no longer allow 16 and 17-year-old into front-line situations in the Armed Forces, for example.”

To this I repeat the question asked of him at the hustings, and I invite Julian Lewis to point to scientific evidence proving that homosexual sex involves a level of risk so much greater than that of heterosexual sex, that a higher age limit should apply.

Below is a copy of the statement as sent to the Lymington Times

Brockenhurst College, on Monday, where this week all the New Forest East candidates are coming in for a Q&A session separately.

firstly, in his “presentation” on defence, he was talking about how it’s ridiculous to vote lib dem because they want to fully scrap trident and all deterrents, to which i corrected him as it’s non like-for-like replacement. he kept insisting that if we don’t have nuclear weapons, we are at greater risk, and that the liberal idea of disarmament is ridiculous. He said exclusively using cruise missiles would lead to world war 3 due to other countries believing them to be nuclear warheads when they were not.

Then, in the Q&A session, he would constantly drift off topic into areas he’d pre-prepared, such as how voting lib dem results in another 5 years of brown. how there’s only two real choices – LAB and CON. He said that coalition governments never work, pointing to 1960s Germany, and that the party in 3rd place percentage wise shouldn’t have such a large say (despite our current system still allowing those in 3rd to have more seats, as seen when the recent poll with the LD on 33% is calculated)

Questioned on his gay rights votes, he continued his claims that homosexuality/anal sex alone poses risk of HIV/AIDS, and that is why he still opposes gay sex at 16. Someone put it to him that it is no more dangerous than any sexual activity, to which he insisted on proof, but when asked to do the same – over 10 years after he already made up his mind, he said he didn’t have figures and it would have to be a project to find them. He then made a comparison that gay sex is as big a health risk as being a soldier, and that they don’t let people fight in the army until the age of majority, so why should gay sex be allowed at 16 if fighting in a war isn’t. He also said “I know it’s cliché, but… some of my best friends are gay”

When it came to expenses, and his votes against transparency and reform, he quickly spun it to suggest his private members bill that prevents the publication of MPs Addresses from FOI Requests was a good thing, and that “in this state of heightened terror” it was unacceptable to have 646 insecure addresses available to the public. He then said that the publication of his expenses (including £119 for a trouser press that he explained at the time of the scandal as needed “otherwise [he'd] be up all night ironing”, and an attempt to claim £6000 for a floor), was purely because the reporter from the telegraph had a personal vendetta against him, as the journalist had been opposing the MPs Addresses legislation Julian Lewis pushed through.

He also expressed support for the Whips Office as it presently works.

Anticipating contact from Julian Lewis’ office himself regarding the matter, I would like to say that every part of my original tweet holds true. At the hustings he was scaremongering by suggesting the only choice was Vote Tory, otherwise it’s 5 more years of Brown, as well as the claims that nuclear disarmament would potentially lead to war. He is corrupt by any standard definition, as evident through his expenses claims and opposition to increased expenses scrutiny, as well as voting against reforming Parliament to be more democratic. He is paranoid, as he claims anti-FOI legislation is a good thing due to ridiculous claims of risk of terrorism, something I’d more often expect to hear from New Labour, and strongly fought against the publication of his ‘home’ (whether it be his first home, second, or his Southampton flat) address, and he is evidently homophobic, voting against gay rights on numerous occasions, justified by shocking unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, I wonder if he’ll put forward a bill in the next parliament to increase the age of consent for sexual intercourse among the black population, given claims that they are also more likely to pass on HIV? Or would racism be one step too far for this out-of-touch politician?

On Monday afternoon, I attended a hustings at my college, with Julian Lewis, incumbent Tory for New Forest East. Shortly thereafter, I tweeted that I had “just spent an hour...

Today, a general election was declared. It was also the day that the human rights infringing, industry-drafted, protectionist Digital Economy Bill had its 2nd Reading in the commons, before being passed through the wholly undemocratic process of wash-up in the coming days.

The controversial bill would see the death of public wi-fi, houses being disconnected on allegation of copyright infringement – with them having to prove innocence by paying for an appeal after the fact, photographers and works creators having work taken and exploited by industry without consent, or as one MP put it (in an endorsement of the bill!) – “putting creativity before freedom” – despite the fact the bill mentions not once the content creator or artist, and instead refers only to the rights holders – most often record labels or publishers, not the artists who created the works.

Understandably there has been outrage over the bill itself, and the government’s insistence on passing it without true scrutiny and debate: Over 20,000 letters and e-mails to MPs, over 35,000 signatures on the Number 10 petition against the bill, 100,000s of tweets, campaigns against the bill from consumer groups, business groups, ISPs, the  public, and the Pirate Party; concerns from the JCHR and the Law Society of Scotland that the bill breaches human rights, one of the  most discussed topics on social media worldwide, even on the day of the declaration of the election.

Guess how many of our great ‘Representatives’ turned up to the debate today?

(more…)

Today, a general election was declared. It was also the day that the human rights infringing, industry-drafted, protectionist Digital Economy Bill had its 2nd Reading in the commons, before being...