(Submitted via http://www.writetothem.com/)

Dear Simon Hughes,

You are hopefully aware of the issues surrounding the proposed Digital Economy bill, especially the suggested provisions for disconnecting or restricting people's internet access based on an accusation of file piracy. Whilst copyright protection can be a difficult issue, I hope you recognise and whole-heartedly support the right for fair punishments, fair trials and freedom of expression. The idea that a copyright-holder -- such as a big music publishing company -- can have a person's access to the Internet removed or limited on the basis of an unproven accusation of piracy hopefully sounds as abhorrent to you as it does to me (and, according to a YouGov poll, some 70% -- with only 16% of all surveyed accepting an automatic curb based on accusations).

It is most important (and instructive) to realise that "disconnection on accusation" will only affect regular citizens, as anyone involved in deliberately criminal piracy will have the technical abilities to circumvent and/or mask their illegal activities. Indeed, the only outcome I can see of introducing such measures would be to force regular citizens to learn to use such masking tools/techniques in order to avoid the possibility of being incorrectly disconnected from essential services (bill payments, government, banking, shopping, even the BBC) on the strength of a mistaken or false accusation.

e.g. a piracy criminal somewhere masks her IP address so that her traffic appears to come from my computer, and I am disconnected because of it -- without trial, burden of proof or any of the things which keep our legal system "fair" for individuals and large corporations both.

I therefore implore you read, research and (if convinced) sign Tom Watson's Early Day Motion 1997 on illicit file sharing.

Yours sincerely,

Glenn J. Mason