New Laws on Internet Access

[greenbarncottages]

This is a direct appeal to VB for some statement and guidance on what is a very serious development that will affect all of us in the accommodation business, be it a large hotel or a small self catering cottage.

We are about to see the introduction of a law which will make the owner liable for any illegal internet downloads made by their guests - or indeed anyone else who manages to get onto their network. Preventing unauthorised access to the network is a matter of security settings, but those settings will have to be available to guests as bona fide users.

If guests use your internet access to download pirated material such as music, films or games, you will be liable to prosecution.

This is a bad law, introduced because the industry is incompetent at preventing the pirating of material, so they will be looking to obtain compensation from those who unwittingly enable the downloading of such material. That's every accommodation provider, bar, coffee shop or whatever that provides internet access.

Apart from a useless suggestion of "monitoring usage" I have seen nothing that gives any guidance as to what we, as owners, can do to avoid hefty fines, apart from denying guests in the UK what is now established as an essential service, or telling them that if they want to use the internet they will have to have their own mobile connection.

The implications of this law are even further reaching than the introduction of the FHL tax changes, which VB and others rightly attacked and campaigned against, and is another fine example of legislation being introduced without consultation or thought as to the consequences.

What are VB proposing to do about it?

[Windy]

I too would like an answer to this.

I was amused to hear John Redwood in the debate on the digital economy bill last night talking about the way in which we all quite reasonably share books, CDs, DVDs etc once we have paid for them and how he thought this was quite a good thing.

I wonder what he would make of Filmbank :-)

As was pointed out ad nauseam in the debate the unintended consequences of this ill-thought out legislation will hit many people. We do rely on bodies like VB to speak up for us. This is your chance to show what you can do. Please don't hang about!

[VisitBritain_Feedback]

Thanks for bringing this matter to our attention. As you know, VisitBritain is a government funded body and so bound by the same rules as the civil service during the election period. This means that we cannot take part in any political activity. In the meantime, the trade association for your sector would be best placed to assist you. After the election, we can look at this again with the national tourist boards.

[barbersdrove]

You can almost anticipate what the outcome to this will be. We will have to purchase a licence like we have to for everything else we provide for our guests!!

[Windy]

You couldn't make this stuff up could you :-)

[Windy]

"VisitBritain is a government funded body"

So it's not funded by us then? I could have sworn I just paid VB £150 and, given my inability to influnce any political action in this country, I can say with some certainty that I am not the government :-) !

[VisitBritain_Feedback]

"VisitBritain is a government funded body"

So it's not funded by us then? I could have sworn I just paid VB £150 and, given my inability to influnce any political action in this country, I can say with some certainty that I am not the government :-) !

Yes we're what's called a Non- Departmental Public Body (NDPB), set up as part of the Development of Tourism Act in 1969 - you can find out more about us on our website if you're interested http://www.visitbritain.org/aboutus/whatwedo.aspx

You probably paid your £150 to VisitEngland for participation in their quality scheme

[Sue & Dave]

Before Wi-Fi we used to offer our guests internet access. All went well, until one the first guest to bring a laptop into our guest house. He only stayed for a couple of nights but he spent most of his time using his computer. A few days after his departure we had a visit from the police enquiring after this "gentleman". It turns out he was on the wanted in connection with hacking into some big server and causing a lot of problems for big business. What type of business the police wouldn't say. Thank the lord that this law wasnt around then

[Dartmoor B&B]

has this already happened ? and how is it being policed ? and even if VB can't lobby for anything remotely useful, perhaps as we are paying they could have ensure that any obvious pitfalls for its members were introduced into the debate at the relevant time. If VB were not even asked at the time this suggests that its views are not considered important - this really does beg the question why I'm paying so much for membership.

[No_Sharking]

Before Wi-Fi we used to offer our guests internet access. All went well, until one the first guest to bring a laptop into our guest house. He only stayed for a couple of nights but he spent most of his time using his computer. A few days after his departure we had a visit from the police enquiring after this "gentleman". It turns out he was on the wanted in connection with hacking into some big server and causing a lot of problems for big business. What type of business the police wouldn't say. Thank the lord that this law wasnt around then
I have just checked the dates that the above have been logged. Never mind. As a new member but an owner of a Self Catering premise offering Wi-Fi to visitors. As we are distant from our visitors and have no control over their downloads other than recommending that they do not do it. Is there any way in which you can notify the provider say by a special agreement for the use of B&Bs, hotels and Self Catering etc. where they have the facility to automaitically 'lock-down' the use of the router so that no matter how it is adjust or set in the premise, it will not have any affect. Thus preventing any criminal ativity. This will then ensure that the provider takes ownership of the use of the router. I am sure this is better done at source than any retrospective action buy the account holder. This could be suggested by VisitBritian especially if they are our ears for the present Government. N.S.

[BASE_Controller]

My service provider (PlusNet) contacted me to advise that the 13 GB monthly data transfer usage had been exceeded. That gave me a clue about unusual usage - there was only one guest at the time. I asked them to cap the data volumes and to restrict inappropriate usage. They have agred to the cap but have no facility to restrict access - reminding me that it is owner liability. Surely, as vendors, they have the responsibility to moderate access, particularly if requested by their Customer. I have had to resort to drawing up an Agreement for guest to sign prior to giving them the access code, passing liability to the User - but that doesn't smack of welcome hospitality, and I have to make a special trip to the accommodation to get signature. Not the best impression. Yes - come on VisitBritain. You are our Agent. No 3 in your published Strategy is to Champion tourism and engage industry and Government in support of its growth. You have accepted our payments on this promise. Let's have some Championing - please. Help us out here. What do YOU suggest???

[joyce_taylor]

When people book we tell them that it is satelitte internet hard wired to my computer(we are extremely remote) so if they want to surf while they are here a vodafone dongle is their best option. I am not aware of losing any bookings because of this,but if I have(and if it was the kind of guest this thread is describing) I am glad they stayed away.

[greenbarncottages]

As our unelected President Mandelson’s Bill was rushed into law before the drop dead date for the election, the issue of politics and representation is now dead.

What we really, desperately, need is some technical guidance on how we can provide what our guests and visitors need and want, without us being open to prosecution for so doing. We can make our networks secure from unauthorised use, which is of little protection as soon as we give our Customers the means of access.
It seems I might be able to block access to certain types of sites, such as online gaming, via my router, but AFAIK there is no way to recognise and block, nor monitor access to, sites that provide for the downloading of pirated material.
If anyone has the technical understanding to explain how this can be done, and what measures we can take (apart from the “bring your own dongle” solution), please could they share this information? And if nobody has that knowledge, just who is endeavouring to find out on our behalf?

[VisitBritain_Feedback]

Given that this legislation has been passed, the best thing for you to do is to contact and brief your local parliamentary candidates and then your local MP once elected. As you rightly point out, we do champion tourism - the abandonment of abolishing furnished holiday lettings relief is a recent success story.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Yes this has been passed into law but there is a six month cooling off period while the Data Protection Czar determines the best way to implement it. So contact the BHA or the B and B Association or Visit Britain or write direct, make your new views known and shout very loud.

There is no technical fix. But do not worry if this bad law comes into effect, no one else will be offering free wi-fi so you can safely withdraw your service.

[greenbarncottages]

But do not worry if this bad law comes into effect, no one else will be offering free wi-fi so you can safely withdraw your service.

That's one solution. In fact, it looks like it's the only solution.

Never mind, who really needs internet access on holiday anyway? It's not as though you can use it to check the local weather forecast, look for local events, places to go, work out a route and time to get there, discover that an unpronounceable volcano has just burped and you're stranded as a result, keep in touch with friends and family, discover which insane law has just been dreamt up and passed.

Oh you can do all of those things, can't you. Not any more, though.

Of course, if you happen to be staying in a hotel on a business trip, the hotel won't be offering internet access to you either. So anyone planning a business trip to the UK, or indeed starting a business in the UK, might want to consider an alternative destination, where people have more freedom and Common Sense reigns supreme.

With VB's hands tied until after the election, maybe it's time to email all those wannabe MP's looking for our vote. Who knows, we might even get a reply.

[The_Sanctuary]

I agree that this Bill has been driven through Parliament to suit the media and copyright-holders, with a lot of concerns over the guilty-until-proven-innocent theme. That is a genuine concern.

Even so, if any of had unwittingly provided WiFi access for a guest to committ an offence, and we were prosecuted, the prosecution would still have to establish that we had not made any attempt to prevent mis-use. A bit like the diference between having locks on your doors and using them, or leaving the doors wide open.

That's the key point. If we show we have made reasonable attempts to prevent mis-use, we have not colluded with the wrong-do-er. A determined hacker can and does have the skills to get round "reasonable precautions" but that's like professional burglers.

So, what are reasonable precausions in this context? At the least...

1) Use a service like OpenDNS that allows you to control the type of websites that users can get to via your WiFi access and gateway. e.g. block "adult content" (porn sites)

See http://www.opendns.com/

2) Make sure your WiFi is using secure access with a key ID that you have to give the guests.
Don't leave it unsecured.

I agree that this may be an erosion of civil liberties, but it is not cause for paranoia or feeling defeated.

[greenbarncottages]

1) Use a service like OpenDNS that allows you to control the type of websites that users can get to via your WiFi access and gateway. e.g. block "adult content" (porn sites)

See http://www.opendns.com/

2) Make sure your WiFi is using secure access with a key ID that you have to give the guests.
Don't leave it unsecured.

I agree that this may be an erosion of civil liberties, but it is not cause for paranoia or feeling defeated.

AFAIK, the sites from which people can freely download music and movies aren't identifiable in any manner which would allow them to be blocked, and it is the copyright infringement of this material which the Bill is intended to protect, rather than preventing downloads from blockable porn sites which is only illegal for certain types of content.

As soon as a guest has the password key to use your internet access, there is, again AFAIK, no way you can prevent them from downloading material in a manner that infringes copyright, or even monitor if they are doing/have done so. Therefore, there is no way that we can demonstrate an attempt to prevent misuse, because we haven't actually made such an attempt; the only way to prevent misuse is to remove the facility. This is not to be confused with the onus on any member of the public who has WiFi in their home; the law applies equally to them if their access is hacked, but there it is possible to keep the door locked by ensuring that "adequate" security (WPS passkey rather than WEP??) is in place. Which, of course, is the information that we have to give a guest in order for them to be able to use the system.

So as it stands, and unless someone comes up with a way of blocking the download of material in a manner that infringes copyright, it is very much a cause for feeling defeated - because we are, and nobody seems to be doing anything about it.

But hey-ho, we're all criminals anyway, so one more transgression won't make much difference.

[The_Sanctuary]

I see that when I mentioned OpenDNS, I should have said it "also allows you to adult content (porn sites)" - instead I confused the issue by mentioning them together. Apologies for that.

There is a larger kind of confusion around this whole issue, which most people (including myself) are only slowly becoming aware of.

Wi-Fi hotspots in public and enterprise environments providing access to the internet to members of the public, free or paid, are public communications services.

A public communications service provider must, under the terms of the Data Retention Regulations that came into force in the UK in April of this year, retain records for 12 months on communications that have taken place over their network. This data includes user IDs, the times and dates of access, and the online destinations that were being accessed. The content of the communications cannot be retained without the user's permission, due to data-protection laws.

However, there is a get-out clause in the Data Retention Regulations, in that no public communications service provider has to keep such records unless they are notified by the government that they are required to do so.

These are the reasons why BT FON has NOT had to close down its network of free WiFi access points.

See
http://english.martinvarsavsky.net/general/uk-to-forbid-open-wifi-fon-can-help.html
and
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/3829671-digital-economy-bill-and-fon.html?page=2&fpart=all

[Windy]

"The abandonment of abolishing furnished holiday lettings relief is a recent success story."

Ah - I didn't realise that was all down to VB - Jolly well done chaps!

Seeing as how that was so easy perhaps you COULD turn your attention to this bill now? :-)

Somebody needs to make the government see the impact that this will have on the tourism industry. We've already had to remove our DVDs - now we'll have to stop offering WIFI - Maybe VB should be starting a "Back to the Stone Age - Come to England for Holidays without Technlogy" campaign? That way you'd be promoting the reality of what we'll be allowed to offer as well as keeping your government paymasters happy!

[Martin_Sach_CE_EASCO]

EASCO (English Association of Self Catering Operators) is working on this issue and has met with Ofcom to discuss. The issue is very complicated and the implications of the Digital Communications Act are not wholly clear. Ofcom have proposed that the new procedures, which require various monitoring by Internet Service Providers (including those providing Wi-Fi to guests) should only apply to ISPs who have more than 40,000 subscribers. We support this but the big ISPs don't. We need as many people as possible to use the form at:
http://www.englishselfcatering.co.uk/trade/issues.htm
to support the proposal for small ISPs not to have to follow the code of practice as proposed by Ofcom.

EASCO is continuing to work on this and will be making a full submission as regards the code.

Martin

[imported_]

When will VB be updating its legislation pages to include information on the Digital Economy Act 2010?

[Moderator]

We have published a news article about the Digital Economy Bill which you can find here: http://www.accommodationknowhow.co.uk/new-this-month/news/The-Digital-Economy-Bill
As soon as the new code of practice has been announced we will update our legislation pages with the information.

[mrsjeancorbett]

I was interested to read the article on the Digital economy bill as we apparently fell foul of the copyright laws earlier in the year. Our sevice provider, BTA (not to be confused with BT), informed us that they were terminating our connection and gave us 4 weeks to get another provider sorted out. The reason being that, unbeknown to us, one of our guests had downloaded the new Harry Potter film and as I was the one providing the WiFi connection to the cottage I was deemed guilty of breach of copyright! This brought home to me that I had no idea what was being downloaded in which cottage by which guest - but that I was considered the culprit! There is no easy way to "police" the connection that we offer so I am relieved to see that hopefully in the future we will not be responsible for our guests misdemeanours!

[joyful]

I was interested to read the article on the Digital economy bill as we apparently fell foul of the copyright laws earlier in the year. Our sevice provider, BTA (not to be confused with BT), informed us that they were terminating our connection and gave us 4 weeks to get another provider sorted out. The reason being that, unbeknown to us, one of our guests had downloaded the new Harry Potter film and as I was the one providing the WiFi connection to the cottage I was deemed guilty of breach of copyright! This brought home to me that I had no idea what was being downloaded in which cottage by which guest - but that I was considered the culprit! There is no easy way to "police" the connection that we offer so I am relieved to see that hopefully in the future we will not be responsible for our guests misdemeanours!

Thanks for pointing this one out! I have a note in my T&Cs saying wi fi is for "normal" e mails and web surfing! Thank you for raising this as I once saw a TV programme about a man who went on holiday and he had a huge bill as he had downloaded some films to keep his children quiet and had a terrible bill as a result!!!!

[rogercoleman]

I heard it was potentially dangerous for us to allow free internet access to guests as per other posts. We checked with BT who said don't worry it is not our concern we did not need to keep records of guest use etc. We swopped to BT Broadband and have a seperate router attached to the modem for guest use. Our biggest problem has been BT the router and their technician not being able to set it all up. We ended up going back to our old router as the BT Business modem and router kept crashing. Cheekily they still billed me for setting it up when they hadn't! The example I have been given of why we are not to blame is say a guest was arranging a bomb attacjk via email written and sent whilst staying in one of our rooms - how would we know and why would we be an accessory to the explosion! Of course we wouldn't and the same defence applies.

[The_Sanctuary]

EASCO ...We need as many people as possible to use the form at:
http://www.englishselfcatering.co.uk/trade/issues.htm
to support the proposal for small ISPs not to have to follow the code of practice as proposed by Ofcom.

Martin


Martin, on that link it says: "This should be sent to ofcom to reach them before 30th July 2010."

Are we too late?

[greenbarncottages]

...... how would we know and why would we be an accessory to the explosion! Of course we wouldn't and the same defence applies.

It's a totally different situation. It does of course defy common sense, but the law that could cause us all a problem is to do with copyright infringement - ie downloading pirated songs, games and movies. The initial wording of the Act gave rise to the concern, as the provider of the service would be responsible; however as Martin Sach points out previously

Ofcom have proposed that the new procedures, which require various monitoring by Internet Service Providers (including those providing Wi-Fi to guests) should only apply to ISPs who have more than 40,000 subscribers.

Which would rule us out, as we fall short of that figure by about 39,996 at any one time.

However, he goes on to say:

We support this but the big ISPs don't.

and provides a link to the campaign to represent our interests - something which EASCO seem to be rather good at in a quiet way.

[imported_]

Go to e-crime wales website. They have a factsheet and an agreement which you can amend for your circumstances to give to guests and they have to accept should they want to access your WiFi. It is written with B&Bs in mind. It is worth posting on your website and making part of your T&C. The link is
http://www.ecrimewales.com/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.1140&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Emailmarketingsoftware&utm_content=1196048315&utm_campaign=SeptemberNewsletter&utm_term=SecuringyourpublicWi-Fi

[Sue: White Horse Walking Holidays]

Very useful, thank you.

[Dartmoor B&B]

excellent, thanks

[Martin_Sach_CE_EASCO]

This is an issue that EASCO has been active in pursuing. In truth, it is very unclear exactly where an owner will stand if there is a copyright infringement using Wi-Fi. There are conflicting opinions and of course there have been no test cases yet. In any case, it seems very unlikely that an owner will be liable but it is perhaps possible. We have recently included this in a letter to the Minister for Tourism raising issues over reducing the regulatory burden.