A tidal wave of objections to disconnection being rushed through Parliament are reach MPs inboxes.

The numbers have exceeded even our expectations, but we are all clear that disconnection is wrong as a punishment.

It should be no surprise to corporate lobbyists like the BPI are busy trying to write our copyright law, and forcing attempts to curtail our human rights to favour their business interests.

But we expect better of our MPs. Many are decent folk; many won’t have through through the implications of this Bill. A debate is what allows the issues to be drawn out and understood – as well as fully publicly debated.

The internet has become a fundamental part of our lives. While not yet a formal right, it clearly is the prime means by which we exercise our rights to work, to receive an education and for freedom of speech.

This is what is drawing the reaction to this legislation. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement: we are appalled that the basic tool of our society – the internet – could be taken away from people because of trivial financial misdemeanours.

Please take action today:

Write to your MP

Write to your local paper

Come to our demo and gig

Yesterday, I debated the Digital Economy Bill in front of law students and academics. The debate could not have been more different from last night’s Panorama.

Graham Smith of Bird & Bird outlined the legal situation. Then Richard Mollett of the BPI outlined his ‘top ten’ myths about the Digital Economy Bill, in a point by point attack on such well known radical critics as Liberty, Consumer Focus, JANET and the British Library. He did fail to mention that other group of political dissentors, MI5.

I then presented a series of points dealing with the extremity of disconnection as a punishment, and the stark contrast between this and how we treat gas, water and electricity. It is illegal to cut off water, companies go to extreme lengths not to disconnect any of these services, even offering reduced tariffs for the hard up.

The BPI is waging a war on every citizen in the country by demanding disconnection. Everyone’s rights are being curtailed in the name of their business interests. They are manipulating the political process and distorting the legislation that results.

They have gone so far as to suggest that politicians should evade democratic scrutiny of the Digital Economy Bill.

There are plenty of other corporate lobbyists that have manipulated politics before, of course. We might think of the oil industry, the motor lobby, tobacco giants, PFI lobbyists, Monsanto or pharmaceuticals.

What all these industry lobbies frequently share is a desire to act in their own interests against clear public interests. This is the path that the BPI and rights holders are choosing to take when they demand that citizen’s human rights are curtailed in order to better enforce their property rights, and appear to think that wider collatoral damage, such as backdoor censorship, chilling effects and the death of open wifi are acceptable.

This perspective was curiously underplayed in the Panorama broadcast yesterday. Instead, we mostly listened to a discussion between different musicians worrying about the future of their industry.

While that’s a concern – and the central concern of the BPI – our concern is our rights, democracy, and the future of our society, which is being built on the internet. We do not withdraw the basic tool of society without the most extreme reason. We certainly do not do such a thing without a massive public and democratic debate.

Please write to your MP – demand a debate – and tell everyone you know about this disgraceful Bill.

Dan Bull's latest from Dontdisconnect.us - great video - tell your friends, and take action now!

Take action: tell your MP they must debate disconnection

Panorama will blow the debate open this evening – as Parliament shuts it down

This evening, Panorama is telling an unknowing public about disconnection. For many people, this is the first they will have heard about it – aside from reading the TV schedules today.

Then, when the Bill is first debated by MPs, they will shut democratic discussion down – after about two hours of debate.

So our elected MPs will have spent a whole two hours on this Bill – before they disappear back to Constituencies to ask for our vote.

Meanwhile, a ‘Rump Parliament’, made up of retiring MPs, and party whips, will pass disconnection measures – with no actual debate.

That’s what our right to freedom of speech, education and work means to our government, compared to copyright laws promoted by music industry bosses.

Please demand that these controversial measures are debated. Write to your MP – or better still phone them up, and ask why the Bill is not going to be debated.

Tell your friends. And email to let us know.

The Digital Economy Bill’s disconnection and web censorship proposals suffered a massive blow today as Liberal Democrats voted unanimously to oppose these draconian measures.

Not a single speaker made any comment against the text – and Liberal Democrats reiterated their opposition to the closed ACTA negotiations. They emphasised the huge social, educational and economic value of the net today.

As several speakers noted - it was people like you writing to them that made them realise how important this issue is to voters in this election.

Liberal Democrats MPs now need to insist on Parliament’s duty to debate this Bill, and fully scrutinize it.

As the BPI said in their note leaked yesterday, the greatest chance this Bill’s dangerous measures have is if MPs fail to exercise their duty, and do not examine the myriad problems in it.

Without that debate, MPs could end up voting to damage the digital economy and society.

This Bill is now an election issue. As the Liberal Democrats have found out – this will change how people vote. We are talking about an essential service, vital to people’s lives, being withdrawn and lives and businesses damaged by very dangerous legislation.

Take action

Please write to your local paper, and your candidates. Ask your MP to make this controversial Bill is debated – and ask if your candidates oppose censorship and disconnection.

A leaked memo from label lobbyists shows they expect Parliament to pass their plans for draconian disconnection punishments without debate.

The BPI, lobbyists who represent the four multinational music corporations in the UK, say that:

[MPs] will have minimum input … from this point on. … John Whittingdate MP [DCMS committee] … has said this week it [the Bill] could be lost if enough MPs protest at not having the opportunity to scrutinise it. Whist true in constitutional terms, the hard politics of the situation makes it seem unlikely … Come the week of 29^th March the main political focus is likely to be on the …  Budget”

This will allow all the decisions to be made in dirty last minute deals behind closed doors between the party whips in what they call “wash up”.

This way, disconnection penalties could be agreed with no democratic scrutiny whatsoever.

No debate.

The memo, published by Cory Doctorow, shows BPI lobbyist Richard Mollett, who hopes to become a Labour MP at the next election, telling music bosses that if MPs do their job and debate the Bill, the BPI's disconnection proposals may face defeat.

Mollett also claims that there is not the sense of a groundswell of opposition to the Bill. Well, we have seen nothing but a torrent of outrage at the Bill, and now Lib Dem candidates are saying that they are hearing the same thing. This week, many people threatened not to vote for the Lib Dems because of their stance in favour of web blocking and the likelihood of censorship. This Bill could cost MPs their seats: that's how controversial it is.

Do MPs really believe that they can pass disconnection without debate? Something so appalling as removing people’s basic tools to get on with their life, education, work and political expression, without actually needing to be guilty?

It is more or less impossible to disconnect someone’s water supply. It’s extremely difficult to disconnect someone's gas or electricity, even after non-payment. 

Yet the government plans would mean that disconnecting families from the net for alleged copyright infringement will be automatic and very difficult to contest. 

We need to show MPs that is not possible to agree to a measure like this on the nod. To refuse to exercise their democratic duty to debate legislation on a matter this important would be as corrupt as the Expenses scandal. We pay MPs wages. We expect them to do their job.

What to do

Write to your MP. Say that you are worried and appalled that something as serious as disconnection and interference with people’s freedom of speech, their right to work and education, could pass without debate. Point out that businesses, schools, universities are worried the Bill is unworkable. Ask them to ensure that time is given to such a controversial and ill-thought out Bill, especially clauses 11-18, about disconnection and web blocking. If you live in a marginal seat, let all your candidates know that supporting disconnection is something which would cost them your vote.

Just in case you were wondering where the idea for a web blocking amendment came from, we attach to this blog post a copy of the BPI’s draft, along with their justification for it.

Now, amendments often come from lobby and campaign groups, including us, not least because it’s the easiest way for them to show parliamentarians what they want. But the fact that twice, with the original copyright by diktat proposal, and then the web blocking proposal, the BPI essentially got to write what they wanted and get it proposed more or less wholesale as law, in such a tremendously sensitive area and in such a one-sided manner, shows something is very wrong with the way this debate is being conducted.

Parliamentarians need to recognize that copyright touches everyone and every technology in the digital age. It is no longer a question of inter-business regulation and deals. Getting copyright wrong has the potential to mess up our freedom of speech, prevent us from getting the benefits of new technologies, and damage society in other very profound ways.

It is therefore deeply inappropriate for such fundamental proposals to have been introduced by both the government or the opposition parties at the behest of one side of the debate. That applies just as much to disconnection, which Mandelson introduced in the summer at the last minute under pressure again from the BPI and other rights holders.

As the Conservatives launch their digital policies today - we again ask why these proposals are being supported, in such direct contradiction to their apparent aims?

Take action

We again urge you to take action on the Digital Economy Bill, and challenge your local candidates to say what they think.

(And come to our demonstration on March 24)

Today at midday, the Conservatives are announcing manifesto plans for faster broadband and a ‘data freedom act’ to release masses of government data.

But these progressive ideas stand in stark contrast to the actions of the Conservative party today, supporting disconnection and threats of self-censorship in the Digital Economy Bill.

Let’s be clear: trying to get everyone online and building a society dependent on the internet is a policy that is totally contradicted by a policy of disconnection as a punishment for civil copyright infringement. And Conservative support for poorly worked out BPI-drafted proposals for web blocking looks ignorant and destructive.

This Monday, a survey showed that 80% of world’s citizens see the internet as a fundamental right. And today, the British Computer Society added their weight to concerns about disconnection, saying that they current plans would harm digital inclusion. Meanwhile libraries and the FSB warn about the harm that will be done to them, as they too are threatened with disconnection.

Conservatives want to win the fight for our heart and minds: they cannot hope to do so while supporting regressive policies like disconnection.

Take action

Please do help the Conservatives to realise that disconnection is wrong. If you are a Conservative, let your party leaders know. If you have a Conservtitve MP, write to them. 

And whoever you are, challenge all the candidates to tell us what they think.

ORG, alongside consumer and industry groups, had this letter published in the Financial Times today

Amendment 120A Digital Economy Bill March 10th, 2010

Dear Sirs,

We regret that the House of Lords last week adopted amendment 120A to the Digital Economy Bill. This amendment not only significantly changes the injunctions procedure in the UK but will lead to an increase in Internet service providers blocking websites accused of illegally hosting copyrighted material without cases even reaching a judge. The amendment seeks to address the legitimate concerns of rights-holders but would have unintended consequences which far outweigh any benefits it could bring.

Endorsing a policy that would encourage the blocking of websites by UK broadband providers or other Internet companies is a very serious step for the UK to take. There are myriad legal, technical and practical issues to reconcile before this can be considered a proportionate and necessary public policy option.  In some cases, these may never be reconciled. These issues have not even been considered in this case.

The Lords have been thoughtful in their consideration of the Bill to date.  It is therefore bitterly disappointing that the House has allowed an amendment with obvious shortcomings to proceed without challenging its proponents to consider and address the full consequences.  Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the Internet in the UK and elsewhere, threatening freedom of speech and the open Internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended. To rush through such a controversial proposal at the tail end of a Parliament, without any kind of consultation with consumers or industry, is very poor law making.

We are particularly concerned that a measure of this kind as a general purpose policy could have an adverse impact on the reputation of the UK as a place to do online business and conflict with the broader objectives of Digital Britain.  This debate has created a tension between specific interest groups and the bigger prize of promoting a policy framework that supports our digital economy and appropriately balances rights and responsibilities.  All parties should take steps to safeguard this prize and place it at the heart of public policy in this area.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Allan, Director of Policy EU, Facebook

Neil Berkett, Chief Executive, Virgin Media

Matt Brittin, Managing Director, Google UK and Ireland

Charles Dunstone, Chairman, Talk Talk Group

Jessica Hendrie-Liaño, Chair, Internet Services Providers Association (ISPA)

Jill Johnstone, International Director, Consumer Focus

Jim Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group

Mark Lewis, Managing Director, eBay UK Ltd

Ian Livingstone, Chief Executive, BT Group

Professor Sarah Oates, University of Glasgow

Dr Jenny Pickerill, University of Leicester

Mark Rabe, Managing Director, Yahoo! UK and Ireland

Dr Paul Reilly, University of Leicester

Jess Search, Founder, Shooting People independent film makers

Professor Ian Walden, Queen Mary, University of London

Tom Watson MP

Yesterday ORG met with Liberal Democrats about their new Clause 17, proposing web blocking. We are grateful for the meeting, and for their contribution to the Lords debate, which had been generally very positive. Today, more of their own candidates and bloggers, including Cory Doctorow, who is both on ORG’s Advisory Council, and a Liberal Democrat, met with them as well.

ORG made it clear what the problems with take down processes were: that they can easily be abused, and compliance is the easiest route, especially for ISPs. The result could be that copyright take down is used for anti-competitive attacks and attempts to stifle freedom of speech. While courts may be more lenient than cautious ISPs, people are not always able or prepared to protect their rights in courts.

There are partial remedies to some of these problems, but abuse will always be a feature of any system like this, which is why we were disappointed to see it proposed at such a late stage.

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems themselves, may be debating an emergency motion at the weekend on the subject of web blocking and disconnection.

It is a very forward-thinking, liberal-minded motion, that very few people in ORG could disagree with. And the fact that open democratic debate is happening from within the Liberal Democrats does them all much credit, whatever position they eventually take.

The substance of our meeting with Don Foster and Clement Jones left us with one other significant worry: that the Lib Dems are currently implying that they accept disconnection as a punishment, and that their primary concern in this legislation is to protect copyright holders.

We think the national debate would be well served by a strong line against disconnection from the Liberal Democrats, as a voice naturally concerned with human rights and justice.

We understood Don Foster and Clement Jones to be sympathetic to this position when the debate started, and would welcome stronger clarification and contribution to the debate from Liberal Democrat MPs, as well as Labour and other parties.

The Lib Dems’ web blocking amendment created an eruption of anger last week, which rumbles on this week as Lib Dem members, bloggers and others are asking how their party, based on the principal of freedom and liberty, got this so wrong. 

In Labour, Tom Watson, John Grogan and others have raised strongly their voices about disconnection, from their Labour values of social justice and progressive politics: but their party is pushing for the punishment of the innocent in the Digital Economy Bill.

The Conservatives, the friends of liberty in markets, remain supportive of the opposite, through of disconnection and harsh IP enforcement in the Digital Economy Bill.

What can we do to make our political representatives understand the consequences of their actions, and how they are being misled into working against their own values? Protests, letters, press work, this all helps, but we need  a deeper change.

In companies, board rooms, and in every social network – voices that understand the impacts of the digital age are needed. From the Greens and the Pirate Party – we need greater dialogue and connection with groups like ours.

In short – we need a much bigger movement, crossing every political and social divide. We need you. We need you to join ORG.

We need, within ORG, to build these networks, so that we can help people like you who understand the threats to digital freedom and innovation. That’s why we are asking you to start supporting ORG today.

Please join and help us protect your digital rights and freedoms.

Despite firm warnings from ourselves, Consumer Focus and others, Liberal Democrat and Tory peers Lord Clement Jones and Howard pushed through an amendment allowing the courts to order web blocking for ‘substantially infringing’ websites.

Later today, protests prompted a public justification of the approach from Clement Jones, on LibDem Voice which got torn apart, mostly by fellow Liberal Democrats.

Thus we are faced with an appalling sight: on the one hand, Labour, pushing Clause 17 as a means to ‘future proof’ copyright against new infringement, and on the other, the Lib Dems and Tories, pushing an approach likely to produce straightforward threats, bans and withdrawals of sites with user generated content.

We will be asking to meet the Liberal Democrat and Conservative front benches. We will let you know if they can find time for us.

Take action

In the meantime, you should take action yourself. You should write to your local paper, about the disconnection proposals, and these new measures for web blocking and backdoor censorship, and make this a national political debate. And if you haven't already, join ORG.

The proposal is technically defective, for instance:

[1] there's no power to vary or discharge the injunction

[2] the definition of "online location" is insufficiently precise -

almost all internet gateways would be covered for instance

But the most enormous defect is in 97B(4) - the proposed costs provision. An ISP told by a copyright owner that they are seeking an injunction will have the choice of block or face a costs bill. That is an unfair position in which to place an ISP who will usually have no knowledge of whether the claim is good or not (that evidence belongs to other people). There is no sanction against the operators of the online locations, its the ISP's who are almost always going to pay costs, yet they are ex hypothesi innocent.

There will be a serious chilling effect as ISP's play safe.

Also: there is no requirement to notify the owners of the online location *prior* to the making of the application. What that means is that 97B(2)(b) appears to make the success or failure of the injunction depend on whether the operator of the online location has taken reasonable steps to remove material that they may not know exists (since there's no requirement to notify them), that may factor into "reasonable" but its a weird way to put things.

Something *more like* a DMCA notice would surely be reasonable.

Just completely the wrong way to go about it.

Further, Section 97A of the CPDA 1988 provides:

"97A Injunctions against service providers

(1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.

(2) In determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge for the purpose of this section, a court shall take into account all matters which appear to it in the particular circumstances to be relevant and, amongst other things, shall have regard to—

(a) whether a service provider has received a notice through a means of contact made available in accordance with regulation 6(1)(c) of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2013);

and

(b) the extent to which any notice includes—

(i) the full name and address of the sender of the notice;

(ii) details of the infringement in question.

(3) In this section “service provider” has the meaning given to it by regulation 2 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002."

Rights holders may the following concerns about this provision:

[1] Its unclear what form the injunction will take and whether it would be satisfactory.

[2] They are likely to have to pay the ISP's costs, which could be high (cf the way in which Norwich Pharmacal orders have developed, and other forms of 3rd party).

[3] If they do bring claims in the High Court they may set a precedent they don't like so they have been reluctant to try.

[4] They would have to keep making applications concerning different sites (these things move around).

 

The Lib Dem / Conservative amendment solves [2] for them nicely, and probably [1] and [3]. It would be wrong in principle for ISP's to pay costs of such applications unless they were somehow at fault.

Now, in an even more dangerous amendment, Lib Dems and Conservatives push for web blocking. This would open the door to a massive imbalance of power in favour of large copyright holding companies. Individuals and small businesses would be open to massive 'copyright attacks' that could shut them down, just by the threat of action.

This is exactly how libel law works today: suppressing free speech by the unwarranted threat of legal action. The expense and the threat are enough to create a 'chilling effect'.

And worse still together, Lib Dems and Conservatives can vote down the government. Write to them both urgently!

Please write to the Lords now

Write to Conservative Lord Howard of Rising

Write to Lib Dem Lord Clement Jones

Amendment 120a

LORD CLEMENT-JONES

LORD HOWARD OF RISING

Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new Clause—

   "Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement

   In Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, after section 97A insert—

"97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement

(1)   The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court for the prevention of online copyright infringement.

(2)   In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the following matters—

(a)   whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright,

(b)   the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both),

(c)   whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location,

(d)   any issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State.

(e)   the extent to which the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access to content,

(f)   the importance of preserving human rights, including freedom of expression, and the right to property, and

(g)   any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant.

(3)   An application for an injunction under subsection (1) shall be made on notice to the service provider and to the operator of each specified online location in relation to which an injunction is sought and to the Secretary of State.

(4)   Where—

(a)   the Court grants an injunction under subsection (1) upon the application of an owner of copyright whose copyright is infringed by the content accessible at or via each specified online location in the injunction, and

(b)   the owner of copyright before making the application made a written request to the service provider giving it a reasonable period of time to take measures to prevent its service being used to access the specified online location in the injunction, and no steps were taken,

  the Court shall order the service provider to pay the copyright owner's costs of the application unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider's failure to prevent access despite notification by the copyright owner.

(5)   In this section—

  "copyright owner" includes a licensee with an exclusive licence within the meaning of section 92 of this Act,

  "infringing content" means content which is produced or made available in infringement of copyright,

  "online location" means a location on the internet, a mobile data network or other data network at or via which copyright infringing content is accessible,

  "operator" means a person or persons in joint or sole control of the decisions to make content accessible at or via an online location, and

  "service provider" has the meaning given to it by section 97A(3) of this Act.

(6)   Subsections (1) to (5) shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint not less than 3 months and not more than 12 months after subsections (1) to (5) have been notified to the Commission of the European Communities ("the Commission") in accordance with the obligations of notification imposed by Directive 98/34/EC.

(7)   If any comments are received from Member States of the European Union or the Commission after subsection (1) to (5) have been so notified and the Secretary of State reasonably considers amendments are necessary to give effect to such comments, he may make the necessary regulations within the period referred to in subsection (6)(a), to amend subsections (1) to (5).""

Please write to the Lords now

Write to Conservative Lord Howard of Rising

Write to Lib Dem Lord Clement Jones

Lib Dem peers are seeking to amend the Digital Economy Bill to allow site blocking for copyright infringement. This could lead to unwanted blocking of sites accused of copyright infringement, including sites like Youtube, and a massive chilling effect as any site with user generated content could easily fall foul of provisions like this.

Please write to Lords Razzall and Clement Jones (direct links at Write to them)

After Clause 16

LORD RAZZALL

LORD CLEMENT-JONES

112

Insert the following new Clause—

"Preventing access to specified online locations  

In Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, after section 97A insert—

"97B Preventing access to specified online locations

(1)  The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court.

(2)  In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the following matters—

(a)  whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright,

(b)  the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringing content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both),

(c)  whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location, and

(d)  any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant.

(3)  An application for an injunction under subsection (1) shall be made on notice to the service provider and to the operator of each specified online location in relation to which an injunction is sought.

(4)  Where—

(a)  the Court grants an injunction under subsection (1) upon the application of an owner of copyright whose copyright is infringed by the content accessible at or via each specified online location in the injunction, and

(b)  the owner of copyright before making the application made a written request to the service provider giving it a reasonable period of time to take measures to prevent its service being used to access the specified online location in the injunction, and no steps were taken,

the Court shall order the service provider to pay the copyright owner's costs of the application unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider's failure to prevent access despite notification by the copyright owner.

(5) In this section—

"copyright owner" includes a licensee with an "exclusive licence" within the meaning of section 92 of this Act,

"infringing content" means content which is produced or made available in infringement of copyright,

"online location" means a location on the internet, a mobile data network or other data network at or via which copyright infringing content is accessible,

"operator" means a person or persons in joint or sole control of the decisions to make content accessible at or via an online location, and

"service provider" has the meaning given to it by section 97A(3) of this Act.""

Write via writethem them:

Please write to Lords Razzall and Clement Jones (via Write to them)

The Lords laid into the government last night, in a very emotive and passionate debate. There was anger, the same anger we are feeling.

Lords doubted that an accused infringer would have sufficient legal rights to appeal. They also made clear that the music industry and other copyright holders unleashed an “extraordinary degree of lobbying” in order to get the bill through as quickly as possible. Finally, Lords complained about the impact on libraries, universities and internet cafes with (open) wifi.

The Government front bench's reply was disappointing to say the least. They don't want to see unis in front of a court over infringement but don't want to exclude them from the proposed law either.

The Government has been down playing the impact on these institutions and businesses in general and keeps saying that if we all behave sensibly it will all be fine. No it won't.

The main problem remains that the account holder is responsible for infringements, not the infringer. The Government acknowledges that this is true, but doesn't care.

Another worrying aspect is that the government thinks that it is unnecessary to pass on the bill to the Office of the Information Commissioner for oversight. They don't even hide their intentions: It would delay the process of passing the bill into law.

There are some very serious concerns regarding the privacy of citizens and Lord Puttnam was right to accuse the Government of attempting to push the legislation through and not allowing proper discussion.

More importantly he  said that the bill as it stands is not fit for purpose. Or a total mess you might want to add. Lord Puttnam said:

I am absolutely convinced that, within the next two or three years, there will be another bill before this house which will be created to deal with the deficiencies of the present bill.”

Lords asked the right questions, but amendments were withdrawn or votes on amendments lost. The government's idea to rush though with the legislation became apparent once more as they 'discussed' a block of 5 or more amendments at a time.

A whole lot of the bill remains unclear or unspecified and opposition peers have tried to get answers from the government. It may look like a naïve question when the Conservative front bench asks what hotels should do if they receive an infringement notice for a guest, but it points to one of the major problems of the bill.

How would internet cafes, libraries, universities deal with infringers? What happens to their connection of they receive the qualified amount of infringement reports from Ofcom? If they get disconnected how would students, for instance, continue their studies?

The government has not offered any satisfactory solutions to this problem.

The debate continues tomorrow with the most crucial pieces of the legislation, i.e. clauses 11 and 17. We will be tweeting from 4pm.

What can you do?

We want to make this bill a public debate across the country as the election approaches. That's why we are asking you to write to your local paper and let people know that disconnection is wrong. Ask your MP and election candidates what their positions on the Digital Economy Bill is.

Today the real voting on amendments to the Digital Economy Bill gets underway. We have won some significant concessions, including some changes to Clause 11 that tries to limit the power to block web content to the Ofcom assessment of copyright infringement, rather than creating a blanket power to censor. Some clarity on defences look likely. And the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats look likely to vote down the notorious Clause 17, which would allow copyright law to be rewritten by rubber-stamped Statutory Instruments.

But what we have not heard yet is anything that would deal with the dual insanity of an effective ban on open wifi networks, and the threat of disconnection for copyright infringement. Please make sure you challenge MPs on this and make this a public debate – by writing to your local papers.

If you wish to follow the first day of debate, you can watch the debate live and read people’s reactions live on twitter.

Government notes from the Digital Economy Bill Team admit that cafes and other similar businesses will face disconnection: but say that a combination of blocking technologies and the right to appeal means they will be ok:

The type of free or “coffee shop” access is a basic bandwidth service which offers users access to e-mail and web browsing. It is seems unlikely that the type of free broadband service currently available would be sufficient to support any file-sharing or could be used for significant copyright infringement. Under our proposals such a service is more likely to receive notification letters as a subscriber than as an ISP. As before there are measures that can be taken to reduce the possibility of infringement with any cases on appeal being considered on their merits.

In a world of ever increasing bandwidth, and very small music files, this seems incredible advice. The government seems to be saying: you can block, hope for the best, and then trust to British justice if you face disconnection. The note goes on:

… Hotels, holiday parks and conference centres will in many cases offer a level of service where infringement could become a significant problem. Business users will want a high speed bandwidth connection and wireless internet access is becoming a default requirement for holiday parks and the like. … Again, advice should be made available which is relevant and proportionate to the establishment.

Establishments that need to block can find cheap products, the note claims:

These products … allow the user to block the most popular P2P applications such as: Bit Torrent, eMule, Gnutella, Kazaa, Morpheus, and Limewire.

We doubt this is really true, and anything that works now is going to be very easily circumvented if the application developers think their users have a problem. This is exactly what Skype does today - route round these sort of blocks to allow non-technical users to avoid organisational firewalls. For the businesses concerned, they will just have to hope that these measures remain effective. But whether effective or not, quietly, through the backdoor, allowing the use of legitimate technology has effectively been criminalized.

Throughout the consultation BIS claimed this was not going to happen: but this is the consequence of the policy that is being adopted. As a result, BIS and Mandelson are relying on very narrow, quickly thought-up, probably innaccurate technical advice.

Mandelson’s deputy Lord Young adds:

As I said during the debate, we cannot simply give a blanket exemption to such establishments [as libraries or universities] – this would in effect give carte blanche to infringement and would attract infringers to exploit these spaces. Instead, we see a pragmatic approach as the best way forward using three elements:

i)            existing action,

ii)            information and advice, and;

iii)            the independent appeals body.

This is unreasonable and incredibly bureaucratic. This Bill is going to make life very difficult for a very wide range of users – the government’s notes admit as much. Please take action, especially if you own a business that could face tribunals and disconnection, and write to your local papers and MP.

Read the full note and letter (both in their original .doc format)

When is ‘disconnection’ not disconnection? When it is ‘account suspension’, of course.

The government therefore felt justified in a response to a petition on Friday in claiming that they were not intending to ‘disconnect’ families from the net after accusations of copyright infringement. If you think they mean that their internet cabling will still be plugged in at the wall, then that’s true.

If you think they mean that these families will be able to connect to the internet, well, no they won’t. Their connection will be switched off.

Please do not be confused by the government’s semantics. BIS and DCMS decided in the summer that they would not refer to ‘disconnecting’ users, because that sounds harsh and over the top. ‘Temporary account suspension’ sounds much more reasonable.

Language matters. What journalist is going to run a story on ‘temporary account suspension’ (yawn)? This is why the government has chosen these disingenuous terms: it‘s just more spin.

What we still don’t know is how long a family’s internet might be disconnected for.

A month? Three? A year? There is nothing in the Bill or any of the notes that we are aware of that might give us a clue.

‘Temporary account suspensions’ sound like the government would to suspend accounts for a few hours, or at most a day, to fit most people’s idea of ‘temporary’ and ‘suspension’. We doubt ‘suspensions’ would be so brief. We can assume what the government means to you and me is ‘disconnection’.

As Electoral Returning Officer, I would like to thank the candidates and everyone who voted in Open Rights Group’s first ever Board election, and also Francis Davey, Michael Holloway and David Gerard for helping with the election process.

ORG supporters voted to elect two Board members each for a two year term. 198 votes were cast. Votes were cast using a Single Transferable Vote, counted by the Meek method. Quota (the number of votes needed to elect a candidate) was therefore set for the first round at 66 votes.

First round votes were cast as follows:

Emma Byrne 85

Felix Cohen 14

Terence Eden 34

Neil McGovern 50

Christi Alice Scarborough 14

Re-Open Nominations 0

Spoilt 1

Emma Byrne was elected on the first round, with 85 votes.

Surplus votes were then redistributed between the candidates, and candidates eliminated, until a second candidate reached quota. Quota was 64.9 at the final stage. The final results were as follows:

Terence Eden 51.4

Neil McGovern 71.5

Re-Open Nominations 0.3

Spoilt / exhausted 6.2

Neil McGovern was duly elected with 71.5 votes.

Full results are available here (PDF).

A number of ORG supporters were unfortunately unable to vote in this election, because ballot papers were sent to addresses from which they had moved. We clearly needed to do much more to make sure that everyone’s records were as up to date as possible. We deeply regret that anyone lost their chance to vote, and will make sure that, over the next two years, we endeavour to make sure our records are as up to date as possible.

We wish ORG’s new Directors all success in their new role.

Every year we hear the lament, "Where are all the women in tech?" Whether it's after another conference with an all-male line-up or pointing out the paucity of female tech movers and shakers, every year the debate comes around.

The truth is, there are some amazing women in tech. Not as many as we would like, perhaps, but nevertheless there are women doing brilliant work across the spectrum of tech industry roles. Women sysadmins, developers, entrepreneurs and hardware hackers. Women tech consultants, journalists, researchers and thinkers. Yet mostly these women go undiscovered and this lack of recognition conceals the value of their contributions.

Last year, I stumbled upon some research by psychologist Penelope Lockwood who discovered that women need to see female role models more than men need to see male ones. It seemed to me that at last here was a tractable problem: We can easily create more female tech role models simply by talking about the women in tech around us. So was Ada Lovelace Day born, an international day of blogging to celebrate the achievements of women in technology and science.

Named after Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace, who wrote the first computer programmes for Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine, the first Ada Lovelace Day was a huge success. It attracted nearly 2000 signatories to the pledge and 2000 more people who signed up on Facebook. Over 1200 people added their post to the Ada Lovelace Day 2009 mash-up. The day itself was covered by BBC News Channel, BBC.co.uk, Radio 5 Live, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Metro, Computer Weekly, and VNUnet, as well as hundreds of blogs worldwide.

This year, Ada Lovelace Day will again be held on 24th March. We hope to get 3072 people to sign the pledge and blog about their tech heroine. And that's where we desperately need your help! With only a little over a month to go, we still need to spread the word and get 2400 more people signed up!

Please sign the pledge now, tell your friends, and send a message to any mailing lists or groups that you think might be interested in joining us. Once you've signed the pledge, the most important thing you can do to help is spread the word. Every signatory, every blog post is important. If we want to change the world, change the way women in tech are viewed, then we need to make Ada Lovelace Day 2010 another rocking success!

Ada Lovelace Day is organised by Suw Charman-Anderson, with design and development support from TechnoPhobia and hosting from UKHost4U. Suw was the first Executive Director of the Open Rights Group.