UK open wifi ban proposed
theinquirer.net
theinquirer.net
>> "THE GLORIOUS BRITISH GOVERNMENT, upon which the sun finally set almost 100 years ago, has decided that having open WiFi networks is bad for the general population and it wants them all shut off."
No. One unelected lord Mandleson who was kicked out of the commons twice and then made a lord by his cronies, otherwise known as Darth Vader, is trying to get his poorly thought out bill through. He doesn't represent the government, and he certainly doesn't represent the UK.
This is a mainly crazy proposed bill that is pretty moot. Despite it being completely crazy, there's likely going to be an election very soon.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy/s...
It's not even through the house of lords yet, let alone house of commons.
This sort of tripe anti-uk article has no place anywhere, let alone HN.
For example the tripe about the UK being overrun with CCTV cameras that are centrally monitored by the government.
As more and more people get their news from the internet, and don't bother fact checking, this will only increase. Rumor will rule. Knee jerk will be standard. Sad really how mob rule works.
I'd call that pretty much "overrun", yes.
They are in place so that if a crime happens, the shop owner can replay the tape or give it to the police.
Why would I care if individual shop owners want to put CCTV in their shop?
The problem is, that people assume it's some big conspiracy, and all your movements are tracked by the government. It's all been setup by the government to spy on people.
The reality however, is that in the 70s,80s, CCTV became so cheap that individual shop owners could buy them and have them as a little deterrent.
Also "The city of London alone" is fact fudging. Most CCTV is going to be in the city of London as it's the capital. Elsewhere in the UK usage is going to be less.
Most legal experts say it will become impossible for small businesses to offer WiFi access to their customers.
Really? No citations there?
Then the admission at the end that actually it probably wont affect them practically because they are too small....
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage_bill/index.h...
Now, I'm confused. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (and First Secretary of State, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mandelson ) does not represent the UK government ?
Mandelson was an MP but got disgraced and booted out some time back (I only vaguely remember it). He's well known for being sleazy.
Anyway somehow he's ended up a Lord; which means he is unelected. And then Gordon Brown gave him this cabinet position.
The sum result of it is that one of the most powerful and influential people in our government is unelected :(
So when people say he doesn't represent the UK Government what we really mean is he doesn't represent the elected government
(you will find us brits tend to get vey mad about Mandelson :))
Why does the government care so much about such a small minority group (movie studios / bands), anyway? It's sad that nobody wants to pay money for creative works anymore, but that's an issue with the market, not with people. Stop making music and movies if it's not profitable anymore.