Today in Parliament

[David Biggins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Richard Clayton
> Sent: 23 July 2008 14:58
> To: UKcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Today in Parliament
>=20
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>=20
> In article
> <C6F343320DAC194BA010FD66AD49362339160E@home.usermgmt.local>,
> David Biggins <David_Biggins@usermgmt.com> writes
>=20
> >Richard Clayton wrote
> >
> >> I suppose someone might think there was value in determining which
> >> subscribers had resolved www.binladen.me over the past year... but
> it
> >> doesn't sound very proportionate to me (or likely to be useful).
> >
> >Personally I would agree with you.
> >
> >But this perhaps bears comparison with a court instructing
>=20
> The comparison is between self-authorisation by the Law Enforcement as
> to whether an action is necessary and proportionate, and a court
> deciding after an adversarial hearing whether an action is necessary
> for
> justice to be done in a civil case....
>=20
> ... not a very close comparison in my view :(

Perhaps an issue of perception...

>=20
> > Google to
> >hand over the log details of all the people who have viewed YouTube
> >videos - regardless of whether or not such videos were actually
> >copyright of the plaintiff.
>=20
> That was the whole point, the plaintiffs are seeking to show that
> copyright material is more popular than the random bits of webcam
> footage...  because if so, then the defendant's entire business
> (selling
> ad space!) clearly depends on the "piracy"; which would go directly to
> the issue of damages.

Definitely your point. =20

I was perhaps concentrating too much on the issue of those who upload
such material to YouTube, and not enough on what that implies about
their overall business model.

> Now why the court said it had to be all the records (and didn't
> originally insist upon anonymisation) is probably something best
> addressed to the judge's fourth grade maths teacher :(

Indeed.

Though again it does go to the extent to which TPTB (whether in the form
of the Judges or of a Government department)  consider the commercial
interests (or government interests) to be more important than privacy
and rights of the public, or their own supposed safeguards of
proportionality and appropriateness.

Though you have given me more to think about...  =20

Many thanks

Dave.