You'll remember that I wrote to my MP, Ben Wallace, a couple of days ago about the Digital Economy Bill. He responded by email today. I've not really analysed the message yet; I'll do that tomorrow. For now, here's the full text of the response:

Dear Mr Binns,

Thank you for contacting me about the Government's plans to crackdown on illegal filesharing as set out in the November 2009 Queen Speech.

This is an extremely serious issue that costs the creative industries hundreds of millions of pounds each year. It also puts consumers at risk, as those who download illegal material increase the likelihood of their machines being attacked by computer viruses, and are exposed to unverified advertising and inappropriate material. Regrettably, the Government has neglected this crucial area until now and legislation is urgently needed.

As part of the Digital Economy Bill, the Government has finally set out measures to tackle digital piracy. Under the proposed legislation, in the first year of operation persistent illegal filesharers could be issued two warning letters in an attempt to reform their behaviour. If illegal filesharing has not dropped by 70 per cent within this period, then further measures to cut off the most serious offenders' internet connections could also be introduced.

I support measures to tackle internet piracy. However, I share your concerns about the practical implications of the Government's announcements. These proposals fail to answer some critical questions; for example, what criteria will the Secretary of State use before deciding to cut someone off? They also fail to suggest incentives for technical solutions that prevent or deter people from illegal file-sharing in the first place.

Whilst my party are happy to consider the use of technical measures against the most extreme offenders, we believe this should be a last resort. Conservatives advocate the use of more educational programmes in schools and amongst the general public to educate people on the wrongs of illegal downloading.

Please be assured that my colleague Jeremy Hunt MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, will be following the progress of the Bill closely and Conservatives will continue to press the Government for more details of their plans, and to promote a more educational based solution.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Kind regards,

BEN WALLACE

I just sent the following email to my MP, Ben Wallace:

Dear Mr Wallace,

I am writing to you to express my grave concern about the Digital
Economy Bill [1], which was announced during the Queen's speech and is
due to be proposed to Parliament this week.

The bill is purported to "make provision about the online infringement
of copyright". However, as far as I can tell, these provisions consist
entirely of reducing or withdrawing internet access from those accused
of copyright infringement.

The bill makes no provision for finding the actual culprit who committed
the copyright violation, so if, for example, my neighbour were to hack
into my network and download copyrighted content either deliberately or
otherwise, my entire household could be disconnected from the internet,
without it even having to be proved that it was my internet connection
that was used to download copyrighted content in the first place.
Considering that I telecommute, that essentially means that I would lose
my job, and my fiancée, a secondary science teacher, would find it
extremely difficult to do any kind of planning or research whilst at
home, since so many of the resources she uses for her classes are to be
found online.

Worse still, section 17 of the bill contains provisions that allow the
Secretary of State to:

 (a) confer a power or right or impose a duty on any person;
 (b) modify or remove a power, right or duty of any person;
 (c) require a person to pay fees.

These powers would be carried out using a Statutory Instrument, meaning
that the Secretary of State is essentially able to create extensive and
arbitrary enforcement measures without proper Parliamentary oversight
(in that Parliament can approve or deny a Statutory Instrument, but
can't alter it).

To summarise the problems with the bill:

 1. The bill begins with a statement from the Secretary of State that he
   believes that the bill does not violate the European Convention on
   Human Rights. In other words, there has been no legal audit made;
   we're expected to take Lord Mandelson's word for it.
 2. The bill's provisions for copyright enforcement appear to be
   designed specifically to target people who do anything to upset the
   entertainment industry.
 3. If someone in your house is accused of filesharing (but, remember,
   there is no burden of proof), your household's internet connection
   may be withdrawn.
 4. If an ISP refuses to spy on its customers in order to help the film
   and music industries find something for which to sue those
   customers, that ISP could be subject to a £250,000 fine.
 5. The Secretary of State is granted the right to create new measures
   to combat online infringement without proper Parliamentary
   oversight, essentially allowing him to grant whatever powers to
   whomever he wishes in the name of fighting online infringment. Some
   commentators have referred to this as creating the position of
   "Pirate Finder General"

Let me state in no uncertain terms: the proposals in the Digital Economy
Bill are disproportionate and unacceptable. They are not in keeping with
the spirit of government of the United Kingdom, and they do not properly
respect the rule of law and the duty of the courts to ensure a fair
trial for those accused of a crime.

I hope that you will stand against these measures in Parliament. Should
you wish to talk to me to discuss these matters further, you can reach
me by any of the means listed below.

Best regards,

Graham Binns

If you haven't spoken or written to your MP yet, I suggest you do so, pronto. Also, sign up to the petition.

I know I'm not American. I know that America is not my country. I know that, in fact, America had quite a big argument with my country a while back and we split up and did our own things for a while (but we're friends now, so that's okay). I know I have no right to tell the people who read this and who are of an American persuasion anything about what to do or not to do in the next few days, particularly when what I'm talking about is something that, really, has nothing to do with me.

Except that it does have something to do with me. It has something to do with all of us. Every last one of us on this tiny little planet, sooner or later, is affected by what America does or does not do. Every. Single. One. It's just a matter of time. This shit matters.

And I know that the people reading this to whom this actually applies are smart enough for it not to apply anyway. I get that. But I'm saying it anyway.

So seriously, guys, I'm just asking you: Don't vote. 'Kay?

Link via.

My colleague and friend Matt Revell has a nice summary of some of the reasons for rising domestic fuel prices in the UK at the moment. A phrase that particularly caught my eye was this one:

Wind power, also, is not reliable nor particularly efficient and requires generation from other sources (coal, gas, nuclear, for example) to back it up when it’s either too windy or not quite windy enough. So, this is the Goldilocks of power generation and just like Goldilocks in the story, it can’t go for that long without needing a lie down; it’s the energy source with ME. So, no, your electricity won’t be free and nor should it be.

I confess that I don't pay a huge amount of attention to the telly these days. It's a means for me to watch DVDs and little else; most of the news content I read on a daily basis is read via the intertubes. But the point that Matt is making in his post, the one about the problem with TV audiences, or rather with TV programs who cater to the lowest common denominator and require no effort from their audience (that's how I see it, it may not be how Matt sees it) is a valid one.

One of the problems with living in an age of high information availability, when all you need to do to be able to know something more about an issue is look it up on Google, is that people accept the information that comes to them almost without question, in the same way that a stereotypical Daily Wail reader will accept the paper's opinion that the country is going to the dogs almost every single day of the week.

Is this just a human problem? Are we just naturally rather too trusting of, well, just about anyone who seems to be better informed than us? One of the most common phrases I've heard - and which has irked me no end - over the years is "It's (in the paper|on the web|on the TV) so it must be true!"

Anyway, I'm not going to go on further in a post that started out with a purpose but has subsequently become somewhat disjointed and is turning into a rant. Go and read Matt's post for a saner and less crabby commentary on matters.

Instead, dear reader, I'll leave you with a summary of my thinking on such matters by that other web luminary, XKCD:

Excellent. Short, (enforcedly) honest and to the point:

New Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has answered "no" when asked on BBC radio if he believed in God.

The rapid-fire question and answer format on 5 Live meant the 40-year-old did not have the chance to elaborate.

I know that a politician's religious beliefs are not as big a deal over here in Blighty as they are stateside, much to my relief. But it's nice to see someone come out and say "No," when asked the question. To be fair to the guy, he did elaborate later:

He later said he had "enormous respect for people who have religious faith", that his wife is Catholic and that his children are being brought up Catholic.

He also said:

"However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind."

Which I think is the right attitude all round.

So good on you Nick Clegg. Buggered if I know how good a Lib Dem leader you'll be, though.