I'm no professional but I do quite a lot of proofing at work... (listen to me, the big I am!) anyway, I've read it and make a couple of changes. Nothing to detract away from some very good points well made!
I wish to discuss the Digital Economy Bill with you. I strongly believe this important issue requires a full Parliamentary debate before it is passed into law and I would like to know your views on the subject.
I have concerns about several aspects of this Bill, namely:
1) The financial burdens that will be placed on ISPs will be counter productive for the national economy. They will be required to monitor and log all Internet traffic across all their customers, which will inevitably result in increases in costs passed on to consumers. Government research as part of the Digital Britain programme (
http://www.ipa.co.uk/Content/Digital-Br ... 14-billion) has suggested that the British economy would be £1.4 billion better off if the target of 100% broadband access by 2012 is achieved. Making it more expensive for businesses and consumers isn't going to help that goal.
2) The appalling privacy implications of the aforementioned monitoring. We have always, as a society, recognised that free speech is important and worth standing up for. We have also believed that people are innocent until proven guilty. Why should my Internet traffic be intercepted and examined, when I have not been accused of a crime? My phone calls are not treated this way, nor my post, nor my conversations with friends and colleagues. We don't allow the government to tap phone calls without due diligence and we wouldn't allow them to install listening devices in offices, so why do we seem to think it's acceptable for Internet based communication?
3) By making all account holders liable for all traffic, libraries will find it very challenging to offer public Internet access. Coffee shops, pubs, and other businesses who have found the offer of "free Wifi" a valuable perk they can use to compete in their marketplace, will also be at risk of substantial fines for just a very small percentage of users who will inadvertently spoil it for everyone.
4) It is impossible to see how legislation can be drafted that will allow the government to shut down one type of website linking to illegal things (the Pirate Bay, for example) whilst not also targeting other websites that do the same (such as Google). Ministers have dismissed this argument as scare mongering; of course they won't use the powers granted in this Bill to pursue Google. I'm sure that's correct but all that means is that the powers will be applied in a hypocritical manner. Is that really what we want? A law applied only to smaller firms who cannot afford to defend themselves against it whilst larger firms are ignored?
5) Clause 42 of the Bill allows publishers to use an orphaned photograph without the explicit permission of the copyright holder as long as they have done a "diligent search" to locate the holder, as explained here:
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPa ... age=873803. This appears to me to be a disaster in the making, as there is a clear conflict of interests as to how "diligent" the search will be. To expect publishers to not flat out lie about their search processes when they are caught using an image is naive to the extreme. I myself, when working as a freelancer, have had copyrighted work published illegally in a UK magazine, and could not possibly have taken the publisher to court to pursue my compensation. This clause will only allow publishers to take further liberties with the rights of freelancers and ordinary citizens.
I have a PhD in computer science and I have worked all my life in the digital sector. As such, I feel qualified to understand some of the issues around this Bill, and I feel strongly that it is overly broad and overly vague. I think it will harm the privacy of individuals, stifle vital innovation, and do more harm to a British economy already reeling from a global recession.
As a constituent I am writing to you today to ask you, please: do all you can to ensure the Government doesn't rush the bill through without granting us our democratic right to scrutiny and debate.