As Ever We're Not Hearing What We Need

[muninnhuginn]

We missed any coverage of this, Europe Hacker Laws Could Make Protest a Crime, in the UK press, including the Grauniad over the weekend. OK, we could be going blind, nodding off.... Oops, sorry, faded out for a moment there.... Now what was I saying? Oh, yes. Why no outcry? Or coverage at all?

Comments

for some discussion as to whether any outcry is needed at all

[groliffe.livejournal.com]

see http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/002397.html#002397 - the consensus is largely not

Re: for some discussion as to whether any outcry is needed at all

[muninnhuginn]

Thanks for that. Interesting. It's fascinating to see what gets picked up and what doesn't, let alone how it's then spun, i.e. I'd guess (tho' it would help if folk--journalists, if I could use such an unkind term--would sufficiently identify which bit of EU legislation they're writing about--otherwise it can be a tedious search) this is the same bit of legislation that is being praised elsewhere for its increased protection of children.

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

It's quite a stretch, to call the action of constituents expressing their opinions to their elected representatives, via the phone and fax numbers and e-dresses that were set up by those representatives specifically to solicit constituent feedback, could constitute "illegal access."

Failing such a twisted interpretation, I don't see that the proposed legislation would have any relevance at all to a protest such as last week's "virtual march on Washington." (Which was, btw, mostly quite well received on Capitol Hill, where it was seen as a great change from the usual resounding silence.)

And if one is willing to twist the law that much in its application, then it hardly matters what law one begins with. Any old law will do.

Sounds like a bit of a bugbear to me.

Re:

[muninnhuginn]

To be quite honest I'd guess the real point is that it'd be unworkable. Prosecuting that number of individuals, rather than say an individual writer of a virus, would be such a massive--and costly--undertaking. In a spirit of peaceful resistance, anyone charged would presumably deny it, opt for trial by jury if it's available, and use the appearance in court as a means to attempt to get thier message across.

It might be quite hard to prove too: use of a particular 'phone number or fax machine could be proved, but without corroborating witnesses that x made the call/sent the fax, it might be tricky to pin on one individual, especially in an environment where such things as fax machines are shared. Even with a computer and mail account protected by passwords such definitive identification might be hard to come by.

I, cynically and fatalistically, assume that any loophole that exists will be exploited, not necessarily by the "wrong" side. What worries me is, when it comes to EU proposals and consequent legislation, we don't get coverage in the press in the UK (which at the least is a source of pointers to search out information, if not always a reliable source in itself) until it collides with UK legislative and judicial processes. What goes on in the EU remains woefully underreported. OK, it's fine if you have the access, the persitence and the time to look it all up online, but the warnings (even false one) needs to be there: it's not the kind of thing one reads for relaxation.