Is there any other action people in the UK can take? I don't have much faith in the number10.gov.uk petition page.

The number 1 petition there was for Gordon Brown to resign [1],[2]

Despite getting more than 72,000 signatures, the response [3] was more like a boilerplate reply.

[1] http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/27/downing-stree...

[3]http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page21213

I thought it had a good effect with the Turing apology. It's hardly likely a Prime Minister would resign based on an online petition though.

The Turing apology wasn't something anyone in power cared about. Granting petitions like that makes them look benevolent (and us feel empowered), but doesn't interfere with their plans.

Agreed, the petitions site isn't terribly effective.

The best thing a UK citizen can do is write to their MP, in their own words. You can do that on http://www.writetothem.com/

Don't laws normally get tested in court? Ultimately if someone gets disconnected can't they challenge the legality in court, law or not?

The UK constitution is (and this is debateable of course) based in part on the concept of 'parliamentary sovereignty' - one commentator put it that 'parliament could make it legal to kill blue-eyed babies'. Since UK entry into the EU, passing of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Scotland Act 1998, there are things it cannot do with its laws (until, like David Cameron proposes, Parliament does away with those laws, to get back to the blue-eyed babies position). As things stand, the only testing of a law is a declaration of incompatibility with the HRA or EU law. Sadly a lot of powerful new EU law (under the Lisbon Treaty) doesn't apply to the UK (or Poland - both got waivers to certain treaty obligations).

To answer the second part of your question, I think the proposed Bill includes a provision for you to appeal a disconnection. There's also the interesting possibility of a business suing an ISP for damages after a wrongful disconnection (which, given the way this Bill is so poorly structured, I would expect will happen)... what would the ISP then do? TalkTalk, who started this petition, isn't happy (but doesn't mention this reason in the petition description)

Frightening to think how easily a rival could have any YC business based in the UK disconnected, through weak Wifi security or any other means of making it looks like that business is infringing this new proposed law.

That's the clever thing about these laws - they don't apply to you they apply to the ISP.

So they disconnect you on government orders, that's a commercial case between you and the ISP. So you have to find a lawyer to take a civil case against a huge multinational.

Or the ISP could take the government to court to test the law. Then the multinational has to prove to it's shareholders that taking the government to court is good for the business!

Unfortunately, in the 21st century that sort of common sense can no longer be relied upon.

It is much more "efficient" to have police issue on-the-spot fines for minor offences, without troubling busy magistrates with trivia like providing evidence or allowing the accused to explain themselves.

Road traffic laws are enforced by cameras and Fixed Penalty Notices, allow you to go from driving along to having points on your licence and paying a fine with almost no human involvement in between.

In most cases, you can still refuse summary justice and have your day in court. Of course, in doing so, you typically risk a much greater penalty if the court finds against you, and in any case, even successful defendants do not receive compensation. It is not uncommon for someone to plead guilty by post to a speeding ticket (you can't enter a plea of not-guilty this way) and send an explanation to the court saying that in fact they did not speed, but it would cost them more in lost earnings to attend court to defend themselves than to pay the fine.

The idea we're talking about here will be one more step in the same wrong direction: summary, guilty-until-proven-innocent justice administered by remote control, and with no adequate means of getting mistakes fixed quickly and with fair compensation for any damage caused.

I don't know about you, but I rely on my Internet connection for work, and I don't illegally swap files on-line. I find the idea that my personal livelihood could be jeopardised just because a computer system run by Big Media got confused to be abhorrent. Knowing that in the end some European human rights case might find in your favour is little comfort if you've been unable to work for months and can't pay the mortgage/rent...

> Is there any other action people in the UK can take?

Yes, vote Lib Dem on the next election. Not only they have come out against this, but they also defended the drug expert that was fired.

An e-peititon is going to do nothing. This nonsense distracts people from actual effort and helps bills like this get passed.

If you want to make an impact, the minimum you should do is write a letter to your MP, on paper, sign it and send it to them by post. Letters and phone calls (but particularly letters) are the currency your MP uses to gauge public opinion. Use them.

I think the whole point of the government petition website is to gauge public opinion. I think it'll do more than 'nothing'. I'd agree though, write letters as well.

It actually does less than nothing.

Since an e-petition site like the one linked gives people opposed to an issue the impression that they've accomplished something, those people are that much less likely to do something substantive to resolve the issue they're concerned about [Citation_Needed -- I couldn't be bothered to find it].

So, less is actually done to oppose the issue than if the site never existed in the first place. It actually helps those who are in favour of the issue opposed.

E-petitions aren't useless: They're worse than useless.

This might be what you're looking for - http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/internet.asp

Snopes.com on whether Internet Petitions serve any real purpose.

How about all the times the e-petitions on number10.gov.org have been reported in the mainstream media?

Now each article which reports on the issue will be able to say "An issue which has seen X sign a petition against it".

Also it's likely to make the news in more places.

But how many of those e-petitions with the media traction actually got meaningful results, other than making the news in more places?

Done.

Hardly. It's promising to be a long slug.