[Liverpool] [ANN] Ignite Liverpool 2

[Simon Johnson]

 Hi Everyone,

I've just (by the skin of my teeth) managed to fly home from Canada. Trust a
volcano to nearly maroon me in some foreign country.

More thoughts are below on Tim's recent e-mail. I wanted to take some time
to consider his answers carefully.



> "Our 10 year copyright length will include a renewal after 5 years
> (allowing works that the creator is no longer interested in to fall into
> the public domain after 5 years). An exception will be made for
> software, where a 5 year term will apply to closed source software, and
> a 10 year term to open source, in recognition of the extra rights given
> to the public by open source licences. We will remove the loophole in
> copyright law that allows 'restarting the clock' by simply moving
> content to a new format, or making a small change to it."
> http://ppuk.it/manifesto2010
>
>
Something leaves a bad taste in my mouth that you've granted a special
extension to free software and only free software.

I mean, I'm a software guy, so I obviously value the work we do but do we
need special recognition?

I happen to think that Phantom of the Opera has made a more lasting
contribution to society than, say, the GIMP. Why should the copyright on
that play run out after five years but GIMP should last ten years?

I'm more in favour of a tax on copyrights after five years. Failure to pay
the tax results in the work falling in to the public domain.

You might start the tax at a hundred pounds and double it for each year the
copyright is renewed.

This means you don't have to grant special privileges and corporations
simply perform a cost benefit analysis to determine whether they should
renew their copyrights.

I would support a similar tax on patents, except that there is no grace
period at the beginning of the term. It would cost, say, £100 for the first
year, £200 for the second, £400 for the third and so on. I do not support
software patents and would seek to pass legislation to outlaw them.


> The UK Pirate Party is not a whipped party. Pirate Party UK policies
> only cover a certain number of subjects, mainly related to Digital
> Rights. Representatives are encouraged to form their own opinions on
> issues outside these areas so my policies on the issues you list below
> would not be representative of all PPUK candidate's perspectives.
>
> There are many technical issues that go wider than your manifesto. For
example, the disaster that is IT procurement. Specifically, the huge budget
overruns on the NHS IT project. What are you going to do about that? This is
a huge issue that a technically aware party can make a dent on.

You state your approach to open source with respect to education but nowhere
else.  I presume your party supports similar initiatives elsewhere, such as
procurement like the NHS IT project?

Next, I want to come on to some of the points about encryption in your
manifesto.

The public can already legally encrypt their private data. There is no
prohibition on this.

The state only has the right to demand decryption keys when an order is
signed by a short list of people. Even so, the way the act is worded makes
it impossible to demand encryption keys to something like a TLS session. You
never knew the key so you can't be forced to supply it.

Also, if you don't tell them what cipher you used it's their duty to find
it. However, failure to comply with the order results in a maximum two year
jail term. This term isn't chosen for no reason, it means that the case has
to be dealt within the magistrates courts. On a first offense, you'd likely
escape with a fine.

I wrote a detailed article on this a few years ago:

http://www.ckwop.me.uk/Articles/article01.html

I actually think this isn't a bad trade-off. The original plan was to force
you to record your encryption keys with the government!!!! Imagine how
dangerous that would have been! As much as people get hot under the collar
with respect to the RIPA, I don't think that we shouldn't give a free pass
to criminals because they used encryption to protect their data.

I would reform RIPA's encryption provisions by doing the following:

   - Making sure that orders to disclose encryption keys must be presented
   before a judge.
   - Remove the penalty for telling people you have disclosed your key. It
   is a useless authoritarian prohibition.

On to the issue of drug patents. I find your policy quite bizarre. You want
to abolish them and replace them with subsidies. Given that most drugs are
created outside the UK, do you plan on using tax-payers money to subsidise
private companies in foreign countries? Money that would be surely passed on
to shareholders? You've not thought that through have you?
Finally, I want to come to the issue of ID cards. The first issue is that at
the moment they are *not* compulsory. Anybody can refuse to apply for an ID
card. This is unlikely to change.

It also unlawful for a police officer to ask you to supply an ID card. There
will be no "papers please" under ID cards.

Much has been made of the Home Secretary's ability to add new fields to the
database using a Statutory Order. However, a Statutory Order must be
presented before Parliament and voted on to become law.

Statutory Instruments differ from primary legislation in that they do not
have to go through the full cycle of three readings and bouncing between the
two houses to become law. There is a single vote and it becomes law.

This is a good compromise. Adding a field to a database should not require a
full act of parliament. This is not a new type of legal mechanism, for
example, the Road Traffic Act is maintained in the same way.

People seem to object to ID cards on the basis that it will be the start of
building a giant authoritarian database. My argument is that such a database
already exists and it contains much more sensitive information. Moreover, it
is an offense punishable by a fine not to provide information for that
database. It's called the Census Database.

The following things are contained with in the Census database [1]:


   - Your Name and that of anyone who lives at your property.
   - Your address and any previous addresses in one year.
   - Visitors to your house on the night of the Census.
   - The type of property you're in.
   - Whether you share a toilet with another property or whether you have
   your own.
   - Whether you have central heating.
   - How many cars, vans or other motor vehicles do you have?
   - Your relationship to everyone else in the house. e.g.
   Wife/Child/Grandparent etc.
   - Whether you re-married.
   - Your country of birth
   - Your sex
   - Your ethnic group
   - Your religion
   - The state of your health
   - How much time you spend caring for members of your family.
   - How many qualifications for you have?
   - Are you in a qualified profession (teacher, doctor etc.)
   - Are you looking for work?
   - Have you ever had a job?
   - What is the title of your current job?
   - Do you supervise other people at your work place?
   - What is the name of the company you work for?
   - How many hours do you work per week?

The data contained with this database is much, much more personal than the
ID card database. Moreover, the data is entered by low-paid agency staff. I
know this because I knew people who entered the last census in to this giant
database.
So, Tim, Are you against the census database? Most anti-ID card people *are
not*. I find this position very interesting because I can't quite work out
what the difference is? Both are giant databases, both are/will be
administered by monkeys, both are computerised.

I have a copy of the Identity Card application form in front of me. All it
asks for is your name, your address, any address you previously lived at,
and your passport and NI numbers. It asks for the same details of your
parents [2]. Compare that to the Census database!

How can you be against one and not the other? You've already given the
government everything you consider personal at the Census, what difference
does it make if they want to store that database in a separate database?

Hitler could prosecute his war on the Jews comfortably with the existing
Census database. He wouldn't need the ID cards database at all.

 Since that's not true, is there any chance you'd be willing to take that
> back? It seems a bit harsh in retrospect, whether you'd vote for me or
>  not. :)


You're not running in my constituency so even if I wanted to, I couldn't.

I wouldn't vote Pirate due to the fact that, as far as I can tell, you do
not support Proportional Representation. It's a shame you don't try and fill
out your policy holes. There is a philosophy held by us geeks that is not
represented in Westminster. It can be applied to all policy areas equally.

Your technical policies aren't bad but I don't agree with a lot of the
detail. I think your policies need more work and more thought. Your heart is
in the right place though.

What I said was harsh, that I agree, but I do not apologise for it. I'm a
receptive ear and even I don't think you've thought through some of your
policies well enough.

None of the criticism is meant personally. I've met you a few times and
you're a likable guy. All I can say is "Welcome to politics." Prepare to be
dumped on from a great height!

Cheers,

Simon


 [1] - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/engh1.pdf
 [2] - What they can store is defined in the legislation:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060015_en_5.

The text of my parts of this discussion thread can be copied
freely, provided attribution is made and the text is not changed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/liverpool/attachments/20100416/1fa638f7/attachment.htm