Creative Indulgences

New British Law May Force Websites to Disclose Users

Across the world – various governments are trying to pass laws to regulate the internet under the pretense that protection is needed for the common people.

Of course – we’re always told how desperately we need to pass these laws to protect ourselves from ourselves. Just last year – a “conservative” lawmaker even tried to pass SOPA by calling it the “Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.” (source).

It’s pretty bad when legislators have to name things as ridiculous as that in order to try to get a bill passed. What legislator do you know that wants to be on record as having voted against the “Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011″? No one and we all know that the average person doesn’t know what the hell is in these bills so they just take it at face value that the people who vote against this really don’t want to protect our children from online predators. But the people voting NO are trying to protect people from predators …. both government and business.

It’s a constant war and while various governments may not be acting in tandem with each other … they are watching and learning from each other. Each country and member of government has their own reasons. In America – 800 companies currently support CISPA which has passed the House and is waiting in the Senate. There have been several pieces of legislation or attempts to regulate the internet in a way that will only further reduce privacy and anonymity for users and increase punishments for failure to follow X rule:

There was a UN proposal to completely alter the way the internet is currently set up. (source)

In the state of New York – legislators proposed to eliminate anonymity on the internet. (source)

Federally – the House of Representatives passed a bill called CISPA that would allow for greater electronic surveillance of Americans. That has yet to pass the Senate. (source)

The Arizona legislature passed a law that would make it a crime to say something offensive online (source)

Reuters has the story HERE:

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said the proposed approach would give greater protection to operators who complied with the procedure, ahead of Tuesday’s second reading in Parliament of the Defamation Bill.

“As the law stands, individuals can be the subject of scurrilous rumour and allegation on the web with little meaningful remedy against the person responsible,” said Clarke in a statement.

Under the new proposals, website operators would act as intermediaries, trying to resolve the dispute between author and complainant.

If attempts at resolution failed, they would be required to hand over the subscriber’s contact details so the complainant could pursue legal action against the author. The website itself would be protected against any action as long as it complied with these rules.

The government’s Defamation Bill aims to make the process of suing for defamation less expensive and more accessible, while providing for free speech.

Mediaite is reporting that the sponsor for CISPA in the House believes that President Obama will sign the bill despite warnings that he would veto it HERE:

““[I]f we can get a bill on information-sharing to the president’s desk, he’ll sign it. I do believe that,” Rogers said after a panel discussion on Monday. It’s unclear whether this belief is based on anything or whether it’s a symptom of wild arrogance.

While CISPA hasn’t changed at all since the White House reaffirmed its veto threat in early May, there has been a staff shake up that might change things a little. Howard Schmidt, one of Obama’s chief cybersecurity advisors and loud opponent of CISPA, retired just weeks after the last public statement on CISPA, and it’s possible his influence had a lot to do with the administration’s stance on the bill.

Proponents of CISPA are trying to ensure that the bill reaches a vote in the Senate before July is out for fear that if it doesn’t maintain its momentum, it will never pass. Of course, if it can’t make it through the Senate — again, Rogers is oh-so-sure it will — none of this veto stuff will matter in the slightest, but if it does, things could get sticky.