A government minister, not parliament, will decide on the maximum period for which people found guilty of illicit filesharing can have their accounts suspended if the Digital Economy bill becomes law.

Although the government insists that it would only implement "temporary suspension" of internet accounts of people deemed to have broken copyright law, it has not defined how long "temporary" is – and the definition does not appear in the bill now before Parliament.

Instead, the secretary of state at the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) will decide on how long it should be, based on a recommendations from the Ofcom, although the regulator's suggestions are not binding.

Presently, the person responsible would be Lord Mandelson, who has been particularly vociferous about the need to take action against persistent illicit use of the net.

The only brake on the "temporary" suspension being of unlimited length would be the Human Rights Act – whose applicability to internet access is untested – and the definition offered by DBIS was that "temporary suspension can't effectively mean termination of an internet connection". But there is no definition in the bill of what marks the legal difference between "suspension" and "termination".

On Monday the Guardian noted that Downing Street had responded to a petition calling on it to reject plans to disconnect people found guilty of illicit file sharing by saying: "We will not terminate the accounts of infringers ... [but] ... We added account suspension to the list of possible technical measures which might be considered."

The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) on Tuesday said that "suspension" meant "temporary suspension".

But the Open Rights Group said that this was "semantics" and that the government had simply chosen a different form of words to mean the same thing.

Asked for clarification, a DBIS spokesperson said: "Any move to using technical measures on internet connections would only be made as a last resort and only if our initial measures to deal with unlawful filesharing did not have the desired effect.

"If government decides to use technical measures the Secretary of State would be required to consider an independent report from Ofcom on whether they should be imposed, and on the most effective and proportionate measures."

The secretary of state would then decide the upper limit for a "temporary" suspension – which the DBIS indicated would be at least a few days.

The implementation of the upper limit would then be laid before parliament in the form of an order constituting secondary legislation amending what would be the Digital Economy act.

However, an Order cannot be amended by parliament; it can only be accepted or rejected. Any government with a working majority will be able to get an order passed – and so would be able to implement a "temporary" suspension of indeterminate length without any legislative review.

Ministers have repeatedly referred to "temporary suspension" rather than cutting off internet abusers, for example in a speech by Treasury secretary Stephen Timms on 21 January at the Oxford Media Convention.

TalkTalk, the ISP which has been most vocal in its opposition to the government plans over filesharing penalties, said on Tuesday: "The government's latest announcement on its copyright protection proposals is nothing more than semantics.

"It is still the case that on the say-so of record labels and film studios people will have their internet connections suspended (ie disconnected). All that the Government seems to be saying is that permanent disconnection will be reserved for the very worst offenders. But they have been saying that since day one. There is no change.

"This is simply spin which masks the real issue. The detection system will implicate innocent people whose connections have been hacked into. They will still be deemed 'guilty' and then have to prove their innocence.

"The Digital Economy Bill will give rights holders the power to act as a judge and jury, allowing them to demand that ISPs disconnect their customers without having to prove their case in a court of law. TalkTalk is the only major ISP that has said it will simply refuse to do this and will fight its case in every court in the land and in Europe if it has to.

"The proposed copyright protection measures are utterly futile. Determined filesharers will find other, undetectable ways to access material, leaving innocent people to bear the brunt of this oppressive legislation."