3 ms·

UK open wifi ban proposed

7 points by Roridge 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago
Fortunately you can buy cheap 3G data SIMs with cash in the UK... so I am not exactly sure what this will prevent. Why does the government care so much about such a small minority group (movie studios / bands), anyway? It's sad that nobody wants to pay money for creative works anymore, but that's an issue with the market, not with people. Stop making music and movies if it's not profitable anymore.
- beeker 17y ago
  KK has eloquently explained the Internet is a copy machine. Money can/should be made on the so called 'generative values'. http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_f...
- griftah 17y ago
  Really? I would prefer a world without internet than a world without movies and music.
proemeth 17y ago
Another battle won for copyright lobbies. This bill as no upside for British society, neither for consumers nor for companies. >libraries and universities could not be exempted That sentence made me tick, reminiscence of autodafés.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  It's certainly not won. As Axod points out this has barely made it's way past the proposal stage and I don't think it will actually make it through (due to the election coming, political climate etc.)
Tichy 17y ago
The craziest aspect is that this seems to be done in the name of copyright protection. At the very least, they should have claimed it is necessary to fight terrorism. But piracy?
axod 17y ago
Link bait misleading headline. Flagged. >> "THE GLORIOUS BRITISH GOVERNMENT, upon which the sun finally set almost 100 years ago, has decided that having open WiFi networks is bad for the general population and it wants them all shut off." No. One unelected lord Mandleson who was kicked out of the commons twice and then made a lord by his cronies, otherwise known as Darth Vader, is trying to get his poorly thought out bill through. He doesn't represent the government, and he certainly doesn't represent the UK. This is a mainly crazy proposed bill that is pretty moot. Despite it being completely crazy, there's likely going to be an election very soon. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy/stages.html http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy/s... It's not even through the house of lords yet, let alone house of commons. This sort of tripe anti-uk article has no place anywhere, let alone HN.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  do you know why this sort of article is easily believable?
  - axod 17y ago
    Because some people believe everything they read on Reddit? For example the tripe about the UK being overrun with CCTV cameras that are centrally monitored by the government. As more and more people get their news from the internet, and don't bother fact checking, this will only increase. Rumor will rule. Knee jerk will be standard. Sad really how mob rule works.
    - bartl 17y ago
      There are over 10000 cameras in the city of London alone. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-tens-of-thousands-of-cctv-cameras-yet-80-of-crime-unsolved.do http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-tens-of-...) I'd call that pretty much "overrun", yes.
      - axod 17y ago
        Yes, and the vast majority of those are going to some crappy VHS tape, which tapes over the previous days tape. They are in place so that if a crime happens, the shop owner can replay the tape or give it to the police. Why would I care if individual shop owners want to put CCTV in their shop? The problem is, that people assume it's some big conspiracy, and all your movements are tracked by the government. It's all been setup by the government to spy on people. The reality however, is that in the 70s,80s, CCTV became so cheap that individual shop owners could buy them and have them as a little deterrent. Also "The city of London alone" is fact fudging. Most CCTV is going to be in the city of London as it's the capital. Elsewhere in the UK usage is going to be less.

7 points by Roridge 17y ago

Fortunately you can buy cheap 3G data SIMs with cash in the UK... so I am not exactly sure what this will prevent. Why does the government care so much about such a small minority group (movie studios / bands), anyway? It's sad that nobody wants to pay money for creative works anymore, but that's an issue with the market, not with people. Stop making music and movies if it's not profitable anymore.

beeker 17y ago
KK has eloquently explained the Internet is a copy machine. Money can/should be made on the so called 'generative values'. http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_f...
griftah 17y ago
Really? I would prefer a world without internet than a world without movies and music.

proemeth 17y ago

Another battle won for copyright lobbies. This bill as no upside for British society, neither for consumers nor for companies. >libraries and universities could not be exempted That sentence made me tick, reminiscence of autodafés.

ErrantX 17y ago
It's certainly not won. As Axod points out this has barely made it's way past the proposal stage and I don't think it will actually make it through (due to the election coming, political climate etc.)

Tichy 17y ago

The craziest aspect is that this seems to be done in the name of copyright protection. At the very least, they should have claimed it is necessary to fight terrorism. But piracy?

axod 17y ago

Link bait misleading headline. Flagged. >> "THE GLORIOUS BRITISH GOVERNMENT, upon which the sun finally set almost 100 years ago, has decided that having open WiFi networks is bad for the general population and it wants them all shut off." No. One unelected lord Mandleson who was kicked out of the commons twice and then made a lord by his cronies, otherwise known as Darth Vader, is trying to get his poorly thought out bill through. He doesn't represent the government, and he certainly doesn't represent the UK. This is a mainly crazy proposed bill that is pretty moot. Despite it being completely crazy, there's likely going to be an election very soon. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy/stages.html http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy/s... It's not even through the house of lords yet, let alone house of commons. This sort of tripe anti-uk article has no place anywhere, let alone HN.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
do you know why this sort of article is easily believable?
- axod 17y ago
  Because some people believe everything they read on Reddit? For example the tripe about the UK being overrun with CCTV cameras that are centrally monitored by the government. As more and more people get their news from the internet, and don't bother fact checking, this will only increase. Rumor will rule. Knee jerk will be standard. Sad really how mob rule works.
  - bartl 17y ago
    There are over 10000 cameras in the city of London alone. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-tens-of-thousands-of-cctv-cameras-yet-80-of-crime-unsolved.do http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-tens-of-...) I'd call that pretty much "overrun", yes.
    - axod 17y ago
      Yes, and the vast majority of those are going to some crappy VHS tape, which tapes over the previous days tape. They are in place so that if a crime happens, the shop owner can replay the tape or give it to the police. Why would I care if individual shop owners want to put CCTV in their shop? The problem is, that people assume it's some big conspiracy, and all your movements are tracked by the government. It's all been setup by the government to spy on people. The reality however, is that in the 70s,80s, CCTV became so cheap that individual shop owners could buy them and have them as a little deterrent. Also "The city of London alone" is fact fudging. Most CCTV is going to be in the city of London as it's the capital. Elsewhere in the UK usage is going to be less.