This weekend's Lib Dem conference will feature a debate and vote on a new IT policy paper.

Getting IT policy right is hard, because technology is a moving target; but getting IT policy right is vital, because today there's virtually nothing we do that doesn't touch on IT, and tomorrow there'll be practically nothing that doesn't require it.

In other words, there's not really any such thing as "IT policy" any more – there's just policy.

The working group responsible for the new paper – titled Preparing the Ground: Stimulating Growth in the Digital Economy – notes that this is the first overhaul of Lib Dem IT policy since 2003.

The group further states that this particular document was spurred into creation by the 2010 Digital Economy Act, which was rammed through Parliament in the wash-up without any debate, though not before two Lib Dem lords had introduced an amendment in favour of a national regime of internet censorship to curb copyright infringement (this amendment was later revealed to have been written by the UK record industry's chief lobbyist).

The party's involvement in advocating censorship sparked a revolt among the rank and file at the next general conference, leading to passage of a resolution to reject the censorship proposal and to fight against web censorship under any rubric.

Accordingly, this paper lays out two proposals for the membership: option A would require the party's MPs to work to repeal sections 3-18 of the Digital Economy Act, which establish the national copyright censorwall and make provision for disconnecting families from the internet if someone using their connection is accused of illegal downloading.

Option B is much softer, only seeking the repeal of sections 17 and 18, the web censorship stuff that the Lib Dems have already rejected, and that has also been rejected by Vince Cable, Ofcom and Professor Hargreaves, the independent expert who prepared a report on the Digital Economy Act for government, and there's already a Lib Dem motion on the table in parliament to repeal these sections, all of which would render option B a pretty symbolic gesture at best.

Though not entirely symbolic, as Jeremy Hunt is back on the internet censorship war-path this week, calling on Google and ISPs to block websites that the entertainment industry doesn't like.

Really, option A should be a no-brainer for a party that styles itself as a bastion of personal liberty. Disconnecting families from the internet because someone who used their connection was accused of violating copyright is both disproportionate and illiberal.

If the internet were merely a means of delivering entertainment, then letting the entertainment industry dictate who does and who doesn't have access to it might make sense.

But the internet is the preferred vehicle for civic engagement, politics, news, education, employment, health delivery and participation in all forms of 21st century life, and exacting collective punishment on whole households of people because someone they know may or may not have downloaded a movie without paying for it is mad.

Besides, it won't work. In France, where a version of this law is already in effect, surveys show that only 4% of illegal downloaders are deterred by it.

It will be interesting to watch how the party goes on this issue. It's clear from the shameful introduction of the web-censorship clause by the Lib Dem lords that there are some in the party whose version of protecting personal liberty and defending liberalism checks out the minute copyright infringement is on the table.

That split is in dire evidence in Preparing the Ground. I've seen the "final draft" of the paper as prepared by the party's working group, and I've seen the paper that the membership will be given this weekend, and somewhere between the "final draft" and the paper as published, someone has inserted a clause that describes copyright infringement as "a form of theft" and goes on to say that "there is no reason why digital offenders should not be prosecuted under the criminal law in the same way as those who steal tangible goods".

This is pretty outre stuff. Every developed nation's legal system treats thefts of tangible goods as absolutely distinct from copyright violation. Applying criminal sanctions for copyright infringement would be unprecedented in the industrialised world.

Don Foster, the Lib Dem MP with the DCMS brief, apparently lobbied to have "a statement making clear that copyright infringement is as serious as theft" included in the document, though his staff disavows any involvement in the phrasing and says: "For Don, non-commercial copyright infringement has only ever been a civil issue." Julian Huppert, the Lib Dem MP who was also involved in the drafting, says, "there is no intention to change the current system in this regard".

So it's rather a mystery who is behind this bizarre statement that everyone seems to disavow. Foster says: "The principle that 'digital piracy is a form of theft' appeared to already be in the paper, but it wasn't stated explicitly. I was one of a few people who thought it could be made more explicit, and it was. I certainly didn't ask for the insertion of anything that was not in the spirit of the original document."

I've read that original document, and I'm afraid I have to disagree.

Luckily for the Lib Dem members, a vote for option A or B doesn't mean a vote in favour of jail time or criminal records for people who download music or TV. But if I were at the conference this weekend, I'd want some answers about how an extreme, illiberal proposal for criminalising copyright infringement made it into the party's official policy document.