As a constituent whose career and majority of personal communications are conducted across the internet, I’m very worried that the Government is planning to rush the Digital Economy Bill into law without a full Parliamentary debate.

The Bill contains measures that favour the protection of commercial interests at the expense of an individual citizen’s rights — specifically measures that allow copyright holders to issue requests to limit or even terminate the internet connections of private individuals based only on the belief of the copyright holder that the individual has infringed their copyright. In effect, this creates a situation outside the bounds of a fair and just society where a person can be punished by the withdrawal of a service that the UN is proposing be considered a basic human right.

In the digital age it’s only fair that copyright holders have greater recourse when their rights are infringed — but the measures in the Bill are a step too far. Millions of UK citizens depend on the internet for the ability to conduct their daily lives, their jobs, and for access to essential services. Restricting or withdrawing access to internet services is a disproportionate response, especially without the safeguard of a fair legal process.

Whereas a rights holder can impose penalties on an individual without the burden of proof and with almost no impediment of cost, the only recourse for an individual so restricted is through the courts — a massive, and clearly asymmetrical burden. The EU has adopted the position that any punitive measures affecting internet access by member states “must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens”. In particular, it the EU requires that citizens are entitled to a “fair and impartial procedure” before any measures can be taken to limit their internet access.

Industry experts, internet service providers (like Talk Talk and BT) and huge internet companies like Google and Yahoo are all opposing the bill — yet the Government seems intent on forcing it through without a real debate.

As a constituent I am writing to you today to ask you to do all you can to ensure the Government doesn’t just rush the bill through and deny us our democratic right to scrutiny and debate. As a life-long labour supporter whose career would be ended without internet access, I see no way that I can continute to vote Labour if the Bill passes unaltered.

Yours faithfully,

Sebastian Potter

Fortunately, the Guardian is able to tell us who the lawyers for the plaintif were. They’re Carter-Ruck, who just so happen to be mentioned in the list of Parliamentary Questions for Wednesday 14th October.

61 N

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

(293006)

Thanks to @handelaar, and Richard Wilson for pointing this out.

One such occasion is tomorrow night, when the US electorate takes to the polls and — with a little luck — elects Barack Obama their next President.

There are all sorts of reasons why this is such an important election, both in terms of America’s current standing within the world community, and a number of imminent domestic problems that the next President will find himself dealing with probably before he’s even inaugurated.

That’s perhaps a post or two for another time; once the results are in and the residents of Awesome Manor have either celebrated or commiserated until they drop.

For now, I simply offer my humble contribution to the election festivities. I call it “Bingo We Can Believe In”.