Illegal file sharing powers 'too broad'

Parliament's Joint Select Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has said some of the proposed measures to tackle illegal file sharing have the potential “to breach internet users' rights to respect for correspondence and freedom of expression”.

The Committee said today in a report that the Digital Economy Bill may have created over-broad powers. It has called on the Government to ensure this does not happen.

It also called for certain points to be clarified so MPs can assess if the penalties and powers the Bill creates are proportionate to the offence.

Andrew Dismore MP, chair of the JCHR said: "Illegal file sharing is itself a breach of important rights, but the concern we have with this Bill is that it lacks detail.

"It has been difficult, even in the narrow area we have focused on, to get a clear picture of the scope and impact of the provisions.

"The internet is constantly creating new challenges for policy makers but that cannot justify ill-defined or sweeping legislative responses, especially when there is the possibility of restricting freedom of expression or the privacy of individual users."

The Digital Economy Bill currently going through Parliament has been drawn up to update the regulation of the communications sector.

Included are measures to combat illegal file sharing. This is expected to be a step-by-step process with alleged infringers initially receiving warning letters from their internet service provider (ISP).

If this fails, technical measures such as reducing the alleged offender’s internet speeds have been proposed, and disconnection of service if these measures fail.

However, it is not clear how this information will be gathered and what appeals processes will be put in place so people can defend themselves.

The Committee also has particular concerns about the new power that allows for the Secretary of State to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 by secondary legislation.

In correspondence with the Committee the Secretary of State explained that the Government intended to introduce amendments to limit the power and to use the special 'super-affirmative' procedure.

He said this would ensure that changes are better scrutinised by Parliament. This hasn’t, however, sufficiently allayed the Committee’s concerns.

It said it remained unhappy that Clause 17 remains, overly broad and that parliamentary scrutiny may remain inadequate.