<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Hi Everyone,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>More thoughts are below on Tim's recent e-mail. I wanted to take some time to consider his answers carefully.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">"Our 10 year copyright length will include a renewal after 5 years<br>(allowing works that the creator is no longer interested in to fall into<br>
the public domain after 5 years). An exception will be made for<br>software, where a 5 year term will apply to closed source software, and<br>a 10 year term to open source, in recognition of the extra rights given<br>to the public by open source licences. We will remove the loophole in<br>
copyright law that allows 'restarting the clock' by simply moving<br>content to a new format, or making a small change to it."<br><a href="http://ppuk.it/manifesto2010" target="_blank">http://ppuk.it/manifesto2010</a><br>
<br></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Something leaves a bad taste in my mouth that you've granted a special extension to free software and only free software.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I mean, I'm a software guy, so I obviously value the work we do but do we need special recognition? </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>You might start the tax at a hundred pounds and double it for each year the copyright is renewed.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">The UK Pirate Party is not a whipped party. Pirate Party UK policies<br>only cover a certain number of subjects, mainly related to Digital<br>
Rights. Representatives are encouraged to form their own opinions on<br>issues outside these areas so my policies on the issues you list below<br>would not be representative of all PPUK candidate's perspectives.<br>
<div><br></div></blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Next, I want to come on to some of the points about encryption in your manifesto.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The public can already legally encrypt their private data. There is no prohibition on this.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I wrote a detailed article on this a few years ago:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 40px"><a href="http://www.ckwop.me.uk/Articles/article01.html" target="_blank">http://www.ckwop.me.uk/Articles/article01.html</a></div>
<div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 40px"><br></div></div>
<div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0px">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.</div>
<div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0px"><br></div>
<div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0px">I would reform RIPA's encryption provisions by doing the following:<br></div>
<div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0px">
<div>
<ul>
<li>Making sure that orders to disclose encryption keys must be presented before a judge. </li>
<li>Remove the penalty for telling people you have disclosed your key. It is a useless authoritarian prohibition. </li></ul></div></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">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?<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Finally, I want to come to the issue of ID cards. The first issue is that at the moment they are <em>not</em> compulsory. Anybody can refuse to apply for an ID card. This is unlikely to change. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">It also unlawful for a police officer to ask you to supply an ID card. There will be no "papers please" under ID cards.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">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. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Statutory Instruments <font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">differ</font> 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.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">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.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">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. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">The following things are contained with in the Census database [1]:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<ul>
<li>Your Name and that of anyone who lives at your property.</li>
<li>Your address and any previous addresses in one year.</li>
<li>Visitors to your house on the night of the Census.</li>
<li>The type of property you're in.</li>
<li>Whether you share a toilet with another property or whether you have your own.</li>
<li>Whether you have central heating.</li>
<li>How many cars, vans or other motor vehicles do you have?</li>
<li>Your relationship to everyone else in the house. e.g. Wife/Child/Grandparent etc.</li>
<li>Whether you re-married.</li>
<li>Your country of birth</li>
<li>Your sex</li>
<li>Your ethnic group</li>
<li>Your religion</li>
<li>The state of your health</li>
<li>How much time you spend caring for members of your family.</li>
<li>How many qualifications for you have?</li>
<li>Are you in a qualified profession (teacher, doctor etc.)</li>
<li>Are you looking for work?</li>
<li>Have you ever had a job?</li>
<li>What is the title of your current job?</li>
<li>Do you supervise other people at your work place?</li>
<li>What is the name of the company you work for?</li>
<li>How many hours do you work per week?</li></ul></div>
<p>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.</p>
<div>So, Tim, Are you against the census database? Most anti-ID card people <em>are not</em>. 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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hitler could prosecute his war on the Jews comfortably with the existing Census database. He wouldn't need the ID cards database at all. </div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>Since that's not true, is there any chance you'd be willing to take that<br></div>back? It seems a bit harsh in retrospect, whether you'd vote for me or<br> not. :)</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>You're not running in my constituency so even if I wanted to, I couldn't.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Simon</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div> [1] - <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/engh1.pdf">http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/engh1.pdf</a></div>
<div> [2] - What they can store is defined in the legislation: <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060015_en_5">http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060015_en_5</a>. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The text of my parts of this discussion thread can be copied freely, provided attribution is made and the text is not changed.</div>