Criminal Jusctice and Police bill

[Donald ramsbottom]

SNIPPEROONIES


>The latest EU view on "Actual Knowledge" (interesting for Electronic
>Commerce Article, erm, 13ish on Hosting) is that you need official
>confirmation of each infringement from something almost as good as a
>court. In the short term, the IWF will do. You should read the IWF's
>discussion paper on "banning newsgroups by name" for all the arguments
>on both sides as to whether that strategy is a good idea or not.

The point I was making was that under the new bill, it was a question of
"knowledge" in the legal sense which may not be quite the same as the IWF's
or even the EU's (is that Commission, Parliament, Council of Ministers or
Court?) version, which may be persuasive in court but not binding. As for
banning anything I am against it, there is no where to draw the line, I was
just saying that with RIPA in place with its all encompassing definitions
of what is  "encrypted" and what  a is "key", coupled with the proposed
S:71  CJ&P bill there may be an argument to say that if you make accessible
a newsgroup, or whatever, which prima facie (or in actuality) contains
material which if it were in a "physical" state would be illegal, then if
such material is imported via an ISPs sytems, having been made available by
an ISP, then it is not beyond the bounds of reason, that that MAY be
construed by a court as an offence.
>
>>We all know that electronic pictures count just as much as 7 by 8 glossy
>>prints, the only question is whether the data bitstream counts, until RIPA,
>>I'd have said not, but you never know how these things will be interpretted
>>in the future.
>
>Huh? They've been counted as pictures under UK law for years.


Yup when decoded they have, but not the data bitstream or unencoded material.

As for knowledge and possession, look at the cases I have put up over the
last year or so regarding these matters.

I am NOT saying this IS the law, just a possibility. As I have said before
the law is not an empirical science and is very  susceptible to subjective
interpretation and influences. As the net seems to be the current bete noir
of the press, someone may seek to exploit that for other than purely
jurisprudential ends.

If you are confident that ISPs could not be held responsible, that's fine,
I'm just not as sure as you about it!      :)




Donald Ramsbottom BA LLb (Hons) PGdip
Ramsbottom & Co Solicitors
Internet and Global Encryption Law Specialists & General UK  Law Matters
5 Seagrove Avenue Hayling Island Hampshire UK
Tel (44) 023 9246 5931 Fax (44) 023 9246 8349
Regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of Investment business
Service by Fax or Email NOT accepted