´óÏó´«Ã½

Parliament does not need to improve the way it engages with the public. Parliament needs to understand the it serves the public and not lobbying bodies. The public should not even need to be made aware of the digital economy bill - it should have been thrown out long ago by our elected representatives chosen to protect our fundamental rights at the highest level!

This is going to be brilliant for that section of society that will never give up paper
and embrace the on-line world, the lawyers. Regards, etc.

Aside from the fact that proposals are a disgraceful affront to the most basic principles of freedom and justice, they are clearly written by people who don’t understand the basics of the area in which they are legislating. Take for instance the requirement for courts to consider whether "a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright" prior to giving a blocking order. The "via" would cause every search engine to fall foul of the law.

The general wording betrays a failure to understand even the difference between the operator of a website, a website host and an ISP. In a mature democracy, most legislation should be in response to changes in technology, yet we got legislators who are ignorant of the most basic elements of the things they should be legislating on.

The end result, if it passes, will be a mess which the courts will struggle to interpret in any meaningful way without handing down nonsensical judgements.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

There's only one digit that's relevant to our political system: the middle finger.

This bill is a mess - but I struggle endlessly with the notion that my right to have something for nothing is greater than someone else's right to be rewarded for their creative efforts. Especially as I write software for a living.
The process is a mess too (and whilst the house of lords may have done the wrong thing for the right reasons in this case they, the unelected body, are more often than not the voice of sanity and reason - not least because they have the freedom to do what is needed without having to worry about getting re-elected).
In terms of the process and "digital" - legislation in progress should effectively be shown in the same way as source code stored in a version control system:
- This is what we proposed (the starting point)
- This is what it looked like after each amendment (flagged with the source of the amendment and the voting record and linked to the hansard entries for the discussion)
- This is what it looks like at the end
Tools and UX for doing diffs are well developed and understood.

Like you say rather complicated and following it is not for the faint hearted. Whoever gets elected will have to think hard about educating the masses on how to 'engage' better with Parliament and its workings.

Sounds like you want to sign up for the Free Our Bills campaign. If Parliament publishes their bills properly, third parties will be able to build websites annotating legislation like this to explain what's going on.

I think the Parliament website has improved dramatically over the past few years - its now much easier to track Bills. It will always be difficult to read the text of a bill - law is complicated. though it would be useful to have one place where all charities, lobbyists, companies briefings can be viewed in one place so people can weigh up the arguments. Transparency is key.

On the Digital Economy Bill - there is a real danger that the Bill will be passed with little or no debate as it is so close to the General Election. This is an absolute travesty and I urge people to join the Opens Rights group/38 degrees campaign to ensure there is a proper debate in the House of Commons to understand the possible impacts of the Bill.

1 'Account suspension' is unlimited and could therefore be from days to indefinite. By suspending an account,

2 The internet is a fundamental part of people's lives. Removing it will create enormous impacts on people, many of whom will have done nothing wrong, simply because they live with an infringer.

It is entirely unexplained why disconnection is an appropriate, proportionate and necessary response to copyright infringement. This is the requirement of the new EU 'internet right'.

Such a debate needs to be had, by elected representatives. Yet we are about to be denied this. This is why people should write to their MPs.



3 The web blocking proposals we now hear will be changed again. They are likely to create ways to get backdoor censorship, much as libel law does today. The proposals are going to be drafted by the government with the Conservative party's agreement, according to Jeremy Hunt's blog. We won't see these until the 'wash up' procedure, and there will be no debate.

Anyone concerned about the railroading of this Bill through parliament without debate should write to their MP now. Thousands of others are doing so: please demand open, democratic debate and scrutiny.

I thought the Parliament website was fairly easy to navigate, but I guess I've been using it a fair bit over the past year.

Parliament Home Page > Business > Bills and Legislation > Bills before Parliament 2009-10

and you've got the whole list of what's there and what stage each bill has reached. Click on a bill and it gives detailed information and a couple of links to the Hansard transcripts of each completed stage and the documents relating to each Bill. OK, so the search is a bit naff, "digital economy bill" gives over two thousand hits but even clicking on the top one gets you really close.

You've no doubt discovered that simple cut-and-paste doesn't work, I recognise the effect, especially with the line numbers :-)

While I do have some concern for clauses 17 & 18, I don't think the internet police will be able to keep up with technology available to pirates.

MY BIG CONCERN with this bill is the switch off of analogue (FM) radio

Has anyone calculated to real costs of phasing out analogue radio by 2015?
1) COSTS TO LISTENERS - My family has two cars so that's two car radios, 4 hifi radios, two portable radio/cassettte/cd players and 2 high quality portable radios. The cost of replacing all of these with DAB will run into many hundreds of pounds. Sure, you can buy a DAB radio for £25 these days but it won't sound like my high quality £120 portable radio.
Is the purpose of this bill to make everyone spend more money and stimulate the economy? HAS ANYONE CALCULATED THE AVERAGE COST PER HOUSEHOLD IN PURCHASING NEW RADIOS ON A LIKE FOR LIKE (ie quality) BASIS?

2) THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - Manufacturing all of these new radios we will be forced to buy (over 10 in my case) will create millions of tons of greenhouse gases. Recycling of old analogue radios may help a little towards reducing landfill waste but transportation and recycling will generate further co2. DAB radios use much greater energy than analogue radios. So more electricity and more batteries to buy and throw away.
HAS ANYONE CALCULATED THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF PHASING OUT ANALOGUE RADIO?

What is the point of going to the Copenhagen summit with a mind to reduce our carbon footprint when a bill such as this will pollute our planet so much more

Analogue radio is far superior than DAB will ever be in terms of reception, hifi quality and battery life and cost. I don't know of ANYONE in favour of an end of analogue radio.

So why, why, why???

1. The "creative industries" (copyright holders, not so much the artists) are blaming piracy for declining profits without giving a second thought to the recession and/or the fact that some of the music created is simply rubbish. Just because an artist creates a single or album it doesn't mean they should be rewarded with a truck load of cash. Market forces dictate monetary returns for works created - public demand dictates which artists are successful and which ones offend the audio senses.

2. Those spearheading this bill have misled politicians by claiming that every illicitly downloaded track equates to a lost sale. This simply is not true (not in all cases!!!). Many downloaders I know of will do so because they cannot find a track or album using the existing commercial channels. Some folks download singles or albums they already own in vinyl or CD. Furthermore, others use illicit file-sharing facilities as a "try before you buy" facility.

3. This proposed legislation will be ineffective as there will be (already is I believe) a huge exodus to encrypted services (VPNs, secure proxies etc.). This will obviously have dire consequences. For starters, it's going to make the fight against terrorism a lot more difficult (and for what? Copyright infringement? Nice one!). I also believe that in the future this will result in governments enforcing some kind of registration/licensing for the use of cryptography - something that would be disastrous for all.

4. Privacy. The mechanism that will be employed to identify connections being used to illegally download copyright material is something called Deep Packet Inspection (DPI). This is where the ISP will not only look at who you are connected to, but what you are sending and receiving over your Internet connection (this includes your emails). Tim Berners-Lee himself (the inventor of the Web) has called this "...the digital equivalent of opening people's mail..." - which it is!

5. The innocent are going to be punished in the form of higher Internet charges. The implementation of DPI is expensive, and someone has to foot the bill.

6. The presumption of innocence has been lost. Merely accusing the person who happens to pay for the Internet connection is enough to put the wheels in motion (how many people in London share an apartment and hence an Internet connection?). There is an appeals process, but this will cost the accused money.

In my perfect internet aware future I should be able to download the entire history of a bill in some sort of version control system. Then I could view the changes over time, who tabled the amendment and even a link to the part of the debate when it was discussed. The current bill drafting process seems more like a product of the 19th century than the 21st!

I find the Digital Economy Bill disgusting, simply because it does nothing to truly support the digital economy, but in most parts, quite the opposite- seeks to destroy and control the elements of the internet that have allowed it to be so successful i.e. openness.

However, I also somewhat fail to care, because the beauty of the internet is such that anything the MPs try and do to curb internet freedoms will be annoying, frustrating, but ultimately, unworkable.

If China which supresses dissidents physically, which has no regards for fundamental rights such as privacy granted by the UN, and which has a national firewall is entirely unable to prevent people accessing dissenting information, or simply undesirable information like porn, despite having been trying to do this for years and years, then what hope does the British government thinks it has?

So yes, I'm disgusted by the Bill, but no, I am not concerned. The internet will do what the internet does, regardless of what MPs think. They'll soon find themselves left behind, and they'll find themselves constantly embarassed by technology defeating their authoritarian plans.

I'd rather see the DEB dissapear, simply because it wastes everyone's time, and parliamentary time could be better spent on the things that matter. Even better, I'd like to see a technologically literate parliament that can comprehend the requirements for innovation to truly allow the UK to be a digital leader. I'm also a realist though and realise these things wont happen- let's face it, this bill is going through, but people will keep pirating, the music industry will continue to fail itself, and really, for all intents and purposes, nothing will actually change.

Horrible piece of legislation. Technically ignorant, reactionary, authoritarian and arbitrary. I'm concerned also that these injunctions might become like those super injunctions we've heard about recently and we won't even be told which websites are blocked. So much for freedom of speech and information. Everyone talks as if this only effects filesharing but how will this effect sites like Wikileaks? If access is blocked to sites like this because of one disgruntled company, Britain deprives itself of the great power of the internet as force for change and social justice.

Just like the Australian's with their Great Firewall, we're now in danger of losing a truly free web, the driver of so much creativity and good in the world, all because of the failure of the music industry to modernise it's business practices, and the failure of politicians to stand up to them.

If this bill goes through substantially unamended, I expect we'll see protests not just online but in the streets as well.

Information is Free.

Jon

So they plan to unplug the filesharers. What if you go to the shop and make a copy of CD and then share copies with your friends. Are you going to be banned from shopping?

Also i believe there are already encryption options for torrents, so good luck in finding what is being transmited (there are legal torrents too).

I'm in disbelief that a Bill that blatantly breaches both the UDHR and the ECoHR can even be raised in Parliament. These people are meant to be working for us, not against us.

The Bill is so deeply flawed it is unreal, yet all the parties don't seem to care. MPs are all in the back pockets of major businesses and couldn't give two hoots about the people of this country. Whilst I am all for supporting artists with their efforts, these are not the people who will benefit from the court Bill. Of course piracy is hurting the entertainment industry. Avatar didn't make any money at all, and as far as I am aware, Lady Gaga is having to get a paper round to fund her next album...

In the last month I have been to four separate gigs, each of which cost me at least £20. Artists can still make money through touring, and will still continue to make money from album/singles sales. File sharing is hurting the industry, yeah right...

Copying and Pasting Copyrighted Materials. This site should be shut down.

Ironic.

'edwardjecle' Makes a very good point about the Analogue Switch off in 2015. I have yet to find a logical or reasoned explanation as to why this needs to happen. FM works very well with excellent quality - this is why it was developed! The cost of the switch off/over and the replacement radios needed will far out way any saving. Any cheap radios available will bound to be imported, so not even UK Manufacturing and the economy will benefit from this change over.
Just don't understand the logic in this. Again it hidden vested interests that are calling the shots and we the ordinary citizen that gets to foot the bill, again! To use that hackneyed phrase, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The fact that this Bill is being pushed through parliament and by-passing democratic protocols and process leaves many people speechless and stunned with disbelief...

I don't want anyone legally building a digital persona/profile of me based on my Internet browsing habits (or worse still - a profile based on the habits of my flatmates!!).

I'm not on a substantial wage - in fact I usually fall further into debt each month (I'm trying to rectify this - have a project I'm working on outside of work hours). I'm hammered with taxes, rent, travel expenses, national insurance, TV license, etc... I abstain from buying/eating food for 4 or 5 days each month because I can't afford to eat (usually the week before being paid). Other than signing into Spotify and listening to the odd track every now and then, I rarely listen to music, let alone purchase singles or albums.

Unfortunately the Internet connection in my shared apartment is in my name. I watched Panorama on ´óÏó´«Ã½ iPlayer last night. If I receive a letter in the mail demanding £1,000 for copyright infringement it's going to ruin me. I can't take it any more - so many people demanding money from me (I'm on less than £20,000 pre-tax), and now the government is going to make it possible for copyright holders to demand money from me for the actions of my flatmates.

I tried to cancel my Internet subscription with Virgin Media but I can't because I'm locked into a 12 month contract and I have 8 months left on it.

What to do?

We desperately need a digital parliament. Only this way will interested constituents be able to see what is the government business, how the government business is supporting their election pledges, how our MPs have voted and why, how the wording of bills have changed through their stages, what lobbying groups have said, how we can inform our MP of our opinions, etc. Then we really could have constituents involved in our democratic processes, and voting turnouts may then improve.
All of this, though, depends heavily on civil servants and politicians who even understand the concepts involved. Little hope then! zzzzz!

@22 - I would suggest a trip to the Citizens Advice Bureau who can advise you on ways to manage debt - they can even advise you on how to extracate yourself from lengthy contracts. I have been there before myself and I can honestly say that if you keep your head up, work hard and look for ways to better yourself then things get easier - don't despair!

As for this bill, it will become irrelevant as it will ultimately be un-policable. They cannot hold the person who pays for the connection to the ISP responsible for what is downloaded as they ultimately will not be able to prove that it was that person that acted illegally. If they did start to try and do this, all free or paid for wireless services in libraries, cafes and towns would have to shut down for fear of liability.

This is a political and financial gesture aimed at appeasing powerful lobbyists such as the entertainment industry. These industries have never had to prove that what they are saying they are losing in lost revenue is accurate - they simply assume that every download is a lost sale - not true, nowhere near I bet.

Its as simple as this. Government should never legislate a business model, ever. The DEB goes a long way to creating business cartels where they use the law to define their business practice and not letting the market decide.

I've been watching the discussions in the news media for the past couple of weeks, reading people's opinions on the recent developments, but is this government or parliament ever going to listening to us? I doubt so,
but at least we can join this wonderful blog and express our disbelief.
Sheer madness, stubbornness and ignorance.

22. At 4:48pm on 17 Mar 2010, Vanessa wrote:
"and now the government is going to make it possible for copyright holders to demand money from me for the actions of my flatmates."

Still Mr Brown and Co. promise fairness. My mother used to say - "Enough is enough!"

@ 27. At 00:06am on 18 Mar 2010, Peter Frampton wrote:
Still Mr Brown and Co. promise fairness. My mother used to say - "Enough is enough!"

Funny because the biggest reason music and movie torrenting is so rife is because consumers have gotten sick of the draconian media industries and their inability to adapt to change (instead they choose to legislate and dictate against it).

For example, how is DRM (technology that harms the innocent consumer yet has zero impact on those who intent to pirate) "fairness"?

So consumers have let their actions do the talking and have spoken out: "enough is enough!"


If the media industries were any other industry - they'd have to adapt or die. But because the media industries practically dictate the law, they're trying prevent the change from happening (which is a bit late as the genie is already out of the bottle).
So the media industries only have themselves to blame the complete mess that we're in at the moment.

[reposted to clarify my reply from the original quote]

@ 27. At 00:06am on 18 Mar 2010, Peter Frampton wrote:
Still Mr Brown and Co. promise fairness. My mother used to say - "Enough is enough!"


My reply:
Funny because the biggest reason music and movie torrenting is so rife is because consumers have gotten sick of the draconian media industries and their inability to adapt to change (instead they choose to legislate and dictate against it).

For example, how is DRM (technology that harms the innocent consumer yet has zero impact on those who intent to pirate) "fairness"?

So consumers have let their actions do the talking and have spoken out: "enough is enough!"


If the media industries were any other industry - they'd have to adapt or die. But because the media industries practically dictate the law, they're trying prevent the change from happening (which is a bit late as the genie is already out of the bottle).
So the media industries only have themselves to blame the complete mess that we're in at the moment.


[reposted to clarify my reply from the original quote]

And now a recording insustry sponsored study says they lost 1.4bn Euros in the UK in 2008 due to illegal downloading. ONE POINT FOUR BILLION EUROS - IN THE UK ALONE!!! Where on earth do they get these number from? It is so crazy it makes you laugh! You would have to be really stupid to listen to them! Oh Dear! We are in trouble!

Would the last person out please switch off the lights...

I think they equate those figures to actual potential sales.
However it doesn't work out that way as:

1/ some people download because they already own a movie but DRM is preventing them from playing it on their older systems (I know of at least one person that has done this)

2/ some people download music to "try before you buy" - so they like it, then the recording industry still get the sale. And if the consumer doesn't like the music, then the recording industry wouldn't have got a sale anyway.

3/ some people download because their original CD / DVD is damaged or lost

4/ some people download to make back ups of their original media (thus pre-empting point 3)

5/ some people download because it's quicker and easier than ripping their CD / DVD to their portable media player.

6/ some people download TV because the shows aren't aired or aren't available to buy

7/ similarly to point 6, some people download music because it's discontinued or not available in the UK (I've had difficulty buying some albums and resorted to buying 2nd hand from Amazon and ebay - both of which don't technically support the recording industry nor the artists any more than bit-torrenting does)

Of course, some people will download simply because it's free. But to brand everyone as criminals is much like accusing all motorists as being murderers because cars have the potential to kill.

8/ Some people download because they missed the show as it was aired when they were still at work or too late at night to see it. They do not have DVD recorder to tape it, so they download it while at work and watch it after work.

I guess my point is this. Why are the media (Rory?) not challenging these ridiculous figures when they are published? No-one ever seems to ask them how they compiled them and whether they are realistic?

Also, when they say they lost 1.4bn are they seriously suggesting that their business plans for 2008 meant that they expected to get 1.4bn Euros more profit than they actually got?

I would suggest that any loss they made was probably more to do with bad investments, not investing in news ways to distribute their media and pricing as well as the general downturn in the economic climate. In reality I would seriously doubt that many illegal downloads would have actually been a lost sale.

If they are using this argument to lobby the government (and other parties) to push through this useless bill, then they should be made to explain their numbers.

@ 33. At 09:01am on 18 Mar 2010, Jedra wrote:

I guess my point is this. Why are the media (Rory?) not challenging these ridiculous figures when they are published? No-one ever seems to ask them how they compiled them and whether they are realistic?

My reply:
Because the media is terrible at challenging facts. Investigative journalism seems to be a forgotten art these days.

Take Apple's marketing for example. I'm not going to argue that Apple don't make good platforms, because clearly they do. However Apple are also allowed to make some wild claims and often sales figures that are so fudged that the figures become downright inaccurate because nobody in the press questions them.

Same for statistics released by the MPs, and so on.

Reporters these days are just commentators and not investigators.

@26. I agree. We complain and do nothing! What would you suggest? How can we make the powers that be listen to reason and common sense? How can we force this government to give this Bill the thorough democratic scrutiny and debate it deserves instead of just bending over and doing what the powerful entertainment industry demand?

I have written to my MP: . I have also signed up to attend a protest in front of Westminster at 5:30pm on the 24th of March: . Other than this, I what can I (as a concerned law abiding citizen who loves the Internet and doesn't want to pay for the implementation of DPI) do?

I happen to use the BitTorrent protocol in a pet project as a mechanism to distribute a large database (nothing to do with music and films). I am concerned that unscrupulous copyright holders (wanting to increase profits) will simply send out warning/threat letters and will demand money even though they have little or no evidence that your torrent connections are not being used for illicit sharing of music and/or films. After all, they have nothing to lose by accusing an Internet user, and everything to gain (money).

Furthermore, I fear that this Bill (which will soon be an Act) will lead to the Secretary of State creating further legislation to prevent normal every day citizens from using cryptography. The Bill is complicated, but I believe there is a provision in their allowing the Secretary of State (Lord Mandelson) to amend the Act as he sees fit without using the normal democratic legislative process. Imagine that you have a home Linux server and you have to use (God forbid) Telnet instead of SSH because encryption can't be legally used by citizens! Don't laugh! The writing is on the wall - cryptography will be the next victim (you'll need to be licensed to use cryptography, or something stupid like that).

I have one crazy suggestion: let's not buy any music and/or films for a month (or perhaps 2 or 3 months). Let's boycott X-Factor, or better still, not watch TV at all for a while. Let's do something - anything that will make the government and the entertainment industry listen. There is more at stake here than we can imagine.

@10 - lobby your MP

Thanks to the above post, I used the link in order to send an email to my MP asking them to oppose the inclusion of this bill in the end-of-parliament "wash-up" process.

Would be interesting to see what happened if enough emails went to MPs in marginal seats....

Unfortunately the above link I posted in comment 35 includes a terminating full-stop, making the URL invalid. Try this:



It's important to write to your MP - the more people who write, the more chance we have of making a difference.

Can we really get unbiased journalism on this topic from the ´óÏó´«Ã½? They are rights' holders for some of the contents that is downloaded and hence they have a vested interest in the bill being as strong as possible in favour of the industry.

I wrote to MP a couple of months ago with regard to this bill (Conservative, West Lindsey) and unfortunately his reply was that he broadly welcomed the bill with little amendment. The truth is that the politicians have been convinced by the 'industry' that their losses are everything to do with illegal downloading and nothing to do with poor business models. They also simply do not understand the technology and the shear stupidness of trying to police the internet.

@39. I agree that protesting to a government that doesn't listen to its constituents can feel futile, but it's still an important step. The only other measure I can think of is organising a month or two (or three) where those of us concerned enough about this issue abstain from purchasing any music/films, we don't go to the cinema, watch as little TV as possible etc. It's a little drastic and would be difficult to organise, but it can be done. My only concern with this approach is that there would be some "collateral damage".

I feel so strongly about this issue that I'm attending a protest on the 24th of March:



I'm also so sick and tired of the major parties (their reckless spending, deceit, complicity with big business, intrusion into my personal life by the government, and my personal freedoms dwindling away) that I'm going to vote for the Pirate Party this election:



If all else fails, I'm going to relocate to Russia. I lived there for a year, and with my hand over my heart I swear I felt a lot more "free" over there than I do here (despite Russia's shortcomings on various issues).

@40 - Russia eh? It has come to something when the UK is seen as more oppressive than an ex-Soviet state! Me, I had my eye on New Zealand, but I am not sure if Australia's great wall of Internet Censorship reaches that far across the water!

I would love to register a protest vote this June, but more important to me is to get this lot out as quickly as possible. Party politics leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, but I will vote with a big C in June as it is the only way to see the back or Mr Brown, Mr Madlesson and the rest of them.

#22 need not worry about ´óÏó´«Ã½ tv content. You only need a TV licence to watch Live TV. Which you apparantly already have.

Yes, earning less than £20000 pre-tax is a bind, especially if you have to pay a lot (rent / commuting) to earn it.

However, I wonder if the post itself (never mind the comments) went bizarre. The number of people engaged or wishing to engage in e-Democracy is minor. Blogs are niche. Use of Government web sites limited - even a useful tool like LOCATE from the FCO is hardly used by travellers or Brits living overseas.

@41 - New Zealand is a lovely country, as is Australia (I lived in Perth WA for many years - even attended uni there). It broke my heart when I heard about the Australian Firewall. Hopefully New Zealand doesn't route traffic through Australia, haven't looked at a map of the Internet backbone lately. I had problems accessing certain web sites from Canada because traffic was being routed through the US, and the US was blocking certain sites.

@42 - Yes, the number of people engaging or wishing to engage in e-Democracy is small. This has been something I have been acutely aware of for many years. I ask people about this whenever I have the opportunity (when someone else brings up the topic). Not a single one of my friends here in London has ever voted, signed a petition, written to an MP, or participated in a peaceful demonstration. Yet, these same friends of mine complain about:

* The price of cigarettes and petrol.
* Police officers taking their names and addresses for taking a photographs of police in public and demanding they delete the photos.
* Being "stop and searched" in tube stations, even though they don't fit the "terrorist profile", because the police officer has to make up quotas to avoid racism claims.
* Taxes.
* Congestion charge.
* Civil liberties disappearing.
* Not being able to jump on the property ladder because it's too expensive.
* Speed limits and expensive parking violation fines.
* Bailing out the banking and finance sectors.
* The country's mounting debt that tax-payers will have to pay for.
* Bank charges.
* Mounting personal debt.
* A block on media coverage of the war during the election.

[ad infinitum]

Perhaps things work just fine and we should just trust the powers that be? I think not. I've asked my friends why they don't vote, and why they don't get involved in issues that will effect them (and their families/loved ones). Most of the answers are along the lines of:

* Politics is boring.
* I can't make a difference.
* If I speak up against government then I'll be flagged as a trouble maker.

This must be music (pardon the pun) to the government's and lobbyist ears, as it leaves them free to do what they want without much resistance.

I never thought I'd ever hear a British citizen say he (or she) was too scared to voice his (or her) opinion, or complain about something he or she didn't think was right. What has this country become? It's certainly not the bastion of freedom and democracy I've read about in history books (something I was ordered to put good men in the ground for in the Middle East to protect). People today would rather vote on X-Factor or Celebrity Big Brother.

Citibank was right - we're living in a "plutonomy", not a democracy.

This problem of information distribution has existed before the internet and the only change now is that we have the ability to provide the people with all of the information but that information is too much for every individual to handle on their own.

Having a balanced source of information on legislation and all other governmental activities will be difficult and organizations free from censorship will need to devote time to this.

The only difference between such an organization and news corporations is the level of depth and clarity that these organizations should have that would allow each individual to quickly immerse themselves into the public political realm without having to sacrifice all of their time.