#IPBill Joint Committee report

It comes out tomorrow at 09:30. I have a copy.

I note the embargo does not say a time zone, so I wondered about finding an Aus site to publish it on tonight, but maybe not.

The whole issue of what would happen if I published it sooner it a grey area - with penalties for contempt of the House of Commons and House of Lords being a bit tricky under Human Rights law if they do not have a clear legislative framework, but suffice to say that I am not planning to be a test case for that right now. Maybe next time.

I am actually quite surprised how easy it is to be part of the democratic process. I, like many people, vote. However, like most people I have to feel my vote makes almost no contribution to the result. I could stay at home (again, like many people) and make no difference.

But the process here has allowed anybody - and not even just any UK citizen - to contribute to the process and submit evidence, yet only 148 people and organisations did, and only 59 people gave evidence in person. I submitted two bits of written evidence and one oral evidence session.

I am mentioned on 15 pages of the 194 page report!

I feel like I have made a contribution to the democratic process somehow. It is really a strange feeling - 64 million people and I am quoted on a report about a new law that impacts them all, 15 times!!!

I mean, that is not just my "15 minutes of fame" which I have done many times on TV, that is actually in the parliamentary process. It is a tad scary. They even mentioned my pornhub comment! I think someone owes me a free subscription :-)

I'll comment on the actual report tomorrow once the embargo is over, but I am sure many others will comment in more detail. The bill has many issues. The committee has picked up many, but not all, of the serious concerns. We'll see how it goes.


  1. I, too, am one of the 148 people who made a (small, in my case) voluntary contribution to the report. As you say, it is quite impressive that we can make a direct contribution to the legislative process.

    Well done, Revk, on publicising these issues through your social media presence.


  2. Hear hear SimonP, thank you Rev for so eloquently making the points that most of us don't fully understand but we know they need making.

    1. I agree. Thank you for providing some professional consideration to the process.

  3. Having got a copy myself, I was most surprised to find myself quoted, though I am sure that the same points have been reiterated multiple times by my learned colleagues.

    It's a little disappointing how relatively little people submitted evidence, though I myself -- someone who has not only technical knowledge, a strong interest in the subject, and an avid reader of technical sites and forums -- was only aware of the opportunity to give evidence because of a blog post here.

    I will comment in detail when it is formally released. I was pleased to see that the committee did pick up a lot of the serious issues. I was disappointed that these were seen as challenges that need to be overcome, rather than such flawed, show-stopping endeavours.

  4. > I was disappointed that these were seen as
    > challenges that need to be overcome
    It is not surprising, the agenda has been set by Cameron's rhetoric and cannot changed. Be thankful that MPs are just about aware that encryption is necessary to secure bank transactions (i.e something which affects *them*) otherwise it would doubtless already be illegal.


Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.

TOTSCO moving goal posts, again!

One of the big issues I had in initial coding was the use of correlationID on messages. The test cases showed it being used the same on a se...