Slashdot Mirror

In a 2009 study, the data show that women working in construction earn about 92.2% of what men earn, which fits fairly nicely in my guess that "undesirable" jobs will generally hire anyone, and pay them relatively the same.

They may pay them relatively the same, but very few women are actually employed in construction and apparently even fewer are actually construction workers.

I expect people arguing for the equalization of the pay to downplay the safety concerns, and the people arguing against the equalization of the pay to exaggerate the safety concerns, but then, I'm a cynic...

Don't think I managed to get any figures on safety here in the UK, but in the US roadside trash collection is somewhere between the 3rd and 8th most dangerous job in the country depending on which year's stats you use.

Also, apparently even if you just look at the job of cleaner by itself "Although women represent the largest part of employees in the cleaning sector, the figures indicate that more men suffer an occupational accident than women. This may be explained by the gender distribution of the work where men are employed more often in higher-risk cleaning activities such as industrial cleaning, refuse cleaning and window cleaning."

So, this cuts a fair amount against your argument, that the gap is only there because women aren't working in the undesirable but high-paying jobs... no, even when breaking it up into respective fields, women are statistically earning less than male counterparts.

I don't think it's the only reason but it certainly seems to be an important one. This is particularly true when we're talking specifically about the gender pay gap in blue collar and semi-skilled/unskilled work, which is kind of a big deal in some feminist circles; as I recall there's a certain amount of controversy over feminism's failure to address this. It's also used as a justification for why the fact more women than men are attending higher education isn't a problem for men.

(For what it's worth, a lot of the remaining gender pay gap - though not all - can be traced to less women entering certain industries in the past due to historic sexism.)

Well, our 4% of the population has the largest GDP per capita than anyone else in the world. In other words, yeah, we use the most energy, but we also produce the most stuff with that oil.

Not really the largest GDP/capita, but point taken when compared to the EU.

What do you produce with that oil? More planes than Airbus? More electronics than Foxconn? The American industry is slowly fading away and I expect that trend to continue. Your investments in fundamental research (i.e.: not immediate profit oriented) are ridiculously small compared to the ones made by EU (CERN, ESA, etc.) and even China (indirectly by investing heavily in their education at this stage). This in turn leads to a technologically outdate America in the near future. You've already outsourced production, if you also loose the technological edge, you have nothing (except a "service based economy").

72% of your oil is used for transport and only 22% for industrial use. At this rate it's clear that your transport system is inefficient. By comparison, the EU-27 countries use 33% for transport, 24% for industry, 12% for services and 26% for households. Since 2007-2008 there has been a 10% decrease in consumption in Transport after a continuous increase according to Eurostat.

Consider that the EU is using less oil while at the same time having a larger population in a more climatically challenging environment. And while the GDP figures don't show it, I certainly wouldn't suggest that the US is the most advanced in the world at anything except a failing polarizing political environment.

You're using the GDP values to the fact that you're to comfortable to get your phat arses to work in anything lighter than 2 tons.

We produce smaller cars that are simply more efficient. A normal European 2004 diesel sedan car will easily do 50 (US) MPG without being a hybrid. A normal European car is anywhere between 1.2 and 1.5 metric tons and the engines tend to be between 1.3 and 2 litters in capacity. That is the reason why even in eastern Europe a (US) gallon of Diesel is $7.5

Since the electric grid actually benefits from night charging cars by flattening the load curve, I expect that soon enough we'll have small electric city cars everywhere for zero transport emissions.

Actually, they very much do.. Maybe you'd like to familiarize yourself with the relevant rules and regulations before you spout off with incorrect bullshit that you assumed was true.

The rules and regulations specify what may or may not be done with people who are extradited from one country to another. Specifically, if Britain extradites Assange to Sweden, Sweden MAY NOT extradite him on to a third country without the approval of Britain's justice minister. This is an EU member state obligation under current EU laws.

He can be extradited to Sweden to face charges there. Sweden cannot then turn around and hand him over to the US without first getting approval from the UK. They also cannot get him to Sweden, go "LOL WE DROP TEH CHARGEZ!" and then hand him over to the US. The UK has a say in what Sweden does with/to him for the entirety of his extradition from Britain to Sweden.

In Europe we have the Consumer Affairs EU rapid alert system for all dangerous consumer products. Very interesting to do a search on car brands to see recalls and other problems. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/dyna/rapex/rapex_archives_en.cfm I found it while having dangerous stuff happening with my Volvo V50 diesel spontaniously starting to accelerate on the high way. Searching for Volvo there learned me that Volvo definitely still has serious quality problems. I think cars haven't become that much better. The car companies have become that much better in covering up their problems.

The European Parliament had quite a few misgivings about ACTA last year.

I don't see how this addresses any of those concerns.

Here is the text of the document, the interesting parts are in annex2.

In my opinion, RAND only gives the illusion that it can match the safety of open standards. It isn't defined properly, and in the end the IPs of a standard are still in the hands of a company or a cartel (sorry, standards body), giving them effective monopoly over a market segment.

Yes, I was fooled by the slashdot summary (yeah, yeah), which said "EU bans the trade of used technology to Africa".

Some sources for those interested in the actual legislation:

Summaries of legislation: Waste electrical and electronic equipment
"The European Union (EU) is taking measures to prevent the generation of electrical and electronic waste and to promote reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery in order to reduce the quantity of such waste to be eliminated, whilst also improving the environmental performance of economic operators involved in its management."

Business Link: Exporting WEEE
"You should export waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) only if you are sure that it will be recovered or recycled safely in the receiving country."

So yes, exporting old hardware for reuse is okay. My apologies to EU.

The European Parliament (at the top of the food chain) is already deeply suspicious of what the Commision is doing with ACTA and asked them to clean their act up in March of last year.

Some quotes from the report:

2. Expresses its concern over the lack of a transparent process in the conduct of the ACTA negotiations, a state of affairs at odds with the letter and spirit of the TFEU; is deeply concerned that no legal base was established before the start of the ACTA negotiations and that parliamentary approval for the negotiating mandate was not sought;

3. Calls on the Commission and the Council to grant public and parliamentary access to ACTA negotiation texts and summaries, in accordance with the Treaty and with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

4. Calls on the Commission and the Council to engage proactively with ACTA negotiation partners to rule out any further negotiations which are confidential as a matter of course and to inform Parliament fully and in a timely manner about its initiatives in this regard; expects the Commission to make proposals prior to the next negotiation round in New Zealand in April 2010, to demand that the issue of transparency is put on the agenda of that meeting and to refer the outcome of the negotiation round to Parliament immediately following its conclusion;

5. Stresses that, unless Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, it reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives;

6. Deplores the calculated choice of the parties not to negotiate through well-established international bodies, such as WIPO and WTO, which have established frameworks for public information and consultation;

7. Calls on the Commission to conduct an impact assessment of the implementation of ACTA with regard to fundamental rights and data protection, ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures, and e-commerce, prior to any EU agreement on a consolidated ACTA treaty text, and to consult with Parliament in a timely manner about the results of the assessment;

I'm pretty sure the Commission hasn't done any of that, so if the Parliament gets involved again it's doomed. Hopefully this weekend's protests will help get that done.

My MEP is Christian Engström, you insensitive clod!
I think he's already on the ball.

SOPA and PIPA are dead... meet their cousin, ACTA. Please contact your MEP (Members of the European Parliament) using this link and register your protest:

UK:
http://www.writetothem.com/

Rest of Europe:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch.do;jsessionid=EAF5D554A71EBE16A5E8A71092CD2DB9.node2 [europa.eu]

A brief analysis of the issue, but obviously presenting a one-sided view... so weigh the info as you see fit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ihere3PEPg&feature=g-all-u&context=G20f3a72FAAAAAAAABAA

You were denied a pat-down? Is that not in violation of EU rules?

I don't know... While it's common (especially in USA) to claim that all politicians are scum, let's look at the European Parliament's stance on ACTA, as supported by something like 98% of the members in 2010. European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2010 on the transparency and state of play of the ACTA negotiations. The relevant parts:

1. Points out that since 1 December 2009 the Commission has had a legal obligation to inform Parliament immediately and fully at all stages of international negotiations;

2. Expresses its concern over the lack of a transparent process in the conduct of the ACTA negotiations, a state of affairs at odds with the letter and spirit of the TFEU; is deeply concerned that no legal base was established before the start of the ACTA negotiations and that parliamentary approval for the negotiating mandate was not sought;

3. Calls on the Commission and the Council to grant public and parliamentary access to ACTA negotiation texts and summaries, in accordance with the Treaty and with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

4. Calls on the Commission and the Council to engage proactively with ACTA negotiation partners to rule out any further negotiations which are confidential as a matter of course and to inform Parliament fully and in a timely manner about its initiatives in this regard; expects the Commission to make proposals prior to the next negotiation round in New Zealand in April 2010, to demand that the issue of transparency is put on the agenda of that meeting and to refer the outcome of the negotiation round to Parliament immediately following its conclusion;

5. Stresses that, unless Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, it reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives;

6. Deplores the calculated choice of the parties not to negotiate through well-established international bodies, such as WIPO and WTO, which have established frameworks for public information and consultation;

7. Calls on the Commission to conduct an impact assessment of the implementation of ACTA with regard to fundamental rights and data protection, ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures, and e-commerce, prior to any EU agreement on a consolidated ACTA treaty text, and to consult with Parliament in a timely manner about the results of the assessment;

8. Welcomes affirmations by the Commission that any ACTA agreement will be limited to the enforcement of existing IPRs, with no prejudice for the development of substantive IP law in the European Union;

9. Calls on the Commission to continue the negotiations on ACTA and limit them to the existing European IPR enforcement system against counterfeiting; considers that further ACTA negotiations should include a larger number of developing and emerging countries, with a view to reaching a possible multilateral level of negotiation;

10. Urges the Commission to ensure that the enforcement of ACTA provisions – especially those on copyright enforcement procedures in the digital environment – are fully in line with the acquis communautaire ; demands that no personal searches will be conducted at EU borders and requests full clarification of any clauses that would allow for warrantless searches and confiscation of information storage devices such as laptops, cell phones and MP3 players by border and customs authorities;

11. Considers that in order to respect fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, while fully observing the principle of subsidiarity, the proposed agreement should not make it possible for any so-called ‘three-strikes’

the fact that a specific website is accessible from country XYZ, does NOT mean this website must comply with the local laws of country XYZ.

This certainly is not a new discussion — there's plenty written and opined about the applicability of one country's laws (and the jurisdiction of courts) to services made available from other countries, generally under the title of "private international law" or "conflict of laws."

In terms of the law in the EU, at least as between Member States, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on the issue, with regard to websites operated from one country and available in another — whether, for the purposes of EU law on applicable jurisdiction (i.e. which Member State's courts should hear the case*), a hotel's website amounted to an activity "directed" to other Member States (if you are interested in the law, it's Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation 44/2001). The case is Hotel Alpenhof, and the court held that:

The classic forms of advertising expressly referred to in the previous paragraph involve the outlay of, sometimes significant, expenditure by the trader in order to make itself known in other Member States and they demonstrate, on that very basis, an intention of the trader to direct its activity towards those States.

That intention is not, on the other hand, always present in the case of advertising by means of the internet. Since this method of communication inherently has a worldwide reach, advertising on a website by a trader is in principle accessible in all States, and, therefore, throughout the European Union, without any need to incur additional expenditure and irrespective of the intention or otherwise of the trader to target consumers outside the territory of the State in which it is established.

It does not follow, however, that the words ‘directs such activities to’ must be interpreted as relating to a website’s merely being accessible in Member States other than that in which the trader concerned is established.

...

It must therefore be determined, in the case of a contract between a trader and a given consumer, whether, before any contract with that consumer was concluded, there was evidence demonstrating that the trader was envisaging doing business with consumers domiciled in other Member States, including the Member State of that consumer’s domicile, in the sense that it was minded to conclude a contract with those consumers.

Such evidence does not include mention on a website of the trader’s email address or geographical address, or of its telephone number without an international code. Mention of such information does not indicate that the trader is directing its activity to one or more other Member States, since that type of information is, in any event, necessary to enable a consumer domiciled in the Member State in which the trader is established to make contact with it.

So, no, mere accessibility of a website is not enough for an EU member state to be able to seize jurisdiction — are Facebook and Google and other sites with a main entity located in another country doing more than making their sites merely accessible?

* whilst the courts of Member State A might have the power to hear the case, this is different to saying that they must apply the law of Member State A. Depending on the arguments as to applicable law, a court in one Member State may have to interpret the contract in accordance with the laws of Member State B.

the fact that a specific website is accessible from country XYZ, does NOT mean this website must comply with the local laws of country XYZ.

This certainly is not a new discussion — there's plenty written and opined about the applicability of one country's laws (and the jurisdiction of courts) to services made available from other countries, generally under the title of "private international law" or "conflict of laws."

In terms of the law in the EU, at least as between Member States, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on the issue, with regard to websites operated from one country and available in another — whether, for the purposes of EU law on applicable jurisdiction (i.e. which Member State's courts should hear the case*), a hotel's website amounted to an activity "directed" to other Member States (if you are interested in the law, it's Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation 44/2001). The case is Hotel Alpenhof, and the court held that:

The classic forms of advertising expressly referred to in the previous paragraph involve the outlay of, sometimes significant, expenditure by the trader in order to make itself known in other Member States and they demonstrate, on that very basis, an intention of the trader to direct its activity towards those States.

That intention is not, on the other hand, always present in the case of advertising by means of the internet. Since this method of communication inherently has a worldwide reach, advertising on a website by a trader is in principle accessible in all States, and, therefore, throughout the European Union, without any need to incur additional expenditure and irrespective of the intention or otherwise of the trader to target consumers outside the territory of the State in which it is established.

It does not follow, however, that the words ‘directs such activities to’ must be interpreted as relating to a website’s merely being accessible in Member States other than that in which the trader concerned is established.

...

It must therefore be determined, in the case of a contract between a trader and a given consumer, whether, before any contract with that consumer was concluded, there was evidence demonstrating that the trader was envisaging doing business with consumers domiciled in other Member States, including the Member State of that consumer’s domicile, in the sense that it was minded to conclude a contract with those consumers.

Such evidence does not include mention on a website of the trader’s email address or geographical address, or of its telephone number without an international code. Mention of such information does not indicate that the trader is directing its activity to one or more other Member States, since that type of information is, in any event, necessary to enable a consumer domiciled in the Member State in which the trader is established to make contact with it.

So, no, mere accessibility of a website is not enough for an EU member state to be able to seize jurisdiction — are Facebook and Google and other sites with a main entity located in another country doing more than making their sites merely accessible?

* whilst the courts of Member State A might have the power to hear the case, this is different to saying that they must apply the law of Member State A. Depending on the arguments as to applicable law, a court in one Member State may have to interpret the contract in accordance with the laws of Member State B.

In regards to the Schengen Borders, nope, not allowed:

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l14514_en.htm

> When crossing an external border, European Union (EU) citizens and other persons enjoying the right of free movement within the EU (such as the family members of an EU citizen) undergo a minimum check. This minimum check is carried out to establish their identity on the basis of their travel documents and consists of a rapid and straightforward verification of the validity of the documents and a check for signs of falsification or counterfeiting.

> However, on a non-systematic basis, when carrying out minimum
checks on persons enjoying the Community right of free movement,
border guards may consult national and European databases
in order to ensure that such persons do not represent a
genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to the internal
security, public policy, international relations of the Member
States or a threat to the public health.

All they typically do is look at your passport to determine whether it's counterfeit. Not allowed to systematically record, lookup or otherwise any EU citizen. While they can periodically look stuff up, if you aren't a threat to the member state you are going to, they probably still won't stop you.

Within the EU:

> Irrespective of nationality, any person may cross the internal borders at any crossing-point without checks being carried out.

If you go to the UK / Ireland, you will have the same treatment, quick look at your passport and keep walking. If you hold an Irish passport and go through the airport in Dublin, it seems holding your passport up to the officer in question is enough, don't even break step as you walk through. In London, they will hold and look at your passport but usually won't ask you a question.

if you are situated on an eu member country, or, live/work in an eu member country, or, is employed by a company that is registered inside eu, you have the right to petition european parliament. you also have the right if you are citizen of a country that is an official candidate for eu.

Petition euparl from below link. tell them to fuck this shit :

https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/petition.html

this is no joke petition - its official petition form of euparl itself. just drop your real name, address while petitioning.

Oh, you mean the very same EU Data Retention Directive that has been condemned by the EU's own data protection authority, slammed by legal experts and is currently under evaluation within the European Commission and which, after being found in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in Romania and staggeringly overpowered in Germany, will probably be either restricted so severely it will not matter much anymore or, if enough political pressure can be built in time, completely taken back.

Yeah, looks like a winner to me to introduce into your country now.

Ok, so you may say, pirates are not in parliament yet [...]

You could say that.
You'd be wrong, of course, but you could certainly say it.

Ok, so you may say, pirates are not in parliament yet [...]

You could say that.
You'd be wrong, of course, but you could certainly say it.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but being associated with Big Media is pretty much toxic for politicians right now.

It may be toxic, but they don't seem to care! http://torrentfreak.com/australia-us-copyright-colony-or-just-a-good-friend-120121/

Oh, and also in case you hadn't noticed, the EU hasn't actually signed ACTA yet. Technically they have until March next year, IIRC, though I expect someone will try to sneak it through in the very near future before the politicians realise it's too close to SOPA and PIPA (in some respects) and likely to cause similar grief.

Poland is looking to sign it now. That was the reason for all those attacks, and they seem to be pushing them forward against the public wishes. http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/01/25/0211219/piratbyran-co-founder-says-stop-ddosing-polish-sites

Also, while the European Commission (the unelected guys who seem to be behind the secret negotiations) still publicly support ACTA, whether they can get it through the European Parliament (the elected guys who recently got new teeth under the Lisbon Treaty and seem to be enjoying exercising their powers) is a different question.

That would make sense, but the politicians all over the world seem to be doing the opposite of what is sensible. Once again, the entire world of elites are ignoring the people. And once again, there will come a point where the people remind them that they are outnumbered.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but being associated with Big Media is pretty much toxic for politicians right now.

Oh, and also in case you hadn't noticed, the EU hasn't actually signed ACTA yet. Technically they have until March next year, IIRC, though I expect someone will try to sneak it through in the very near future before the politicians realise it's too close to SOPA and PIPA (in some respects) and likely to cause similar grief.

Also, while the European Commission (the unelected guys who seem to be behind the secret negotiations) still publicly support ACTA, whether they can get it through the European Parliament (the elected guys who recently got new teeth under the Lisbon Treaty and seem to be enjoying exercising their powers) is a different question.

First of all, I do not think ACTA needs ratification both at the european parliament and at the individual countries' parliaments, but rather one way or the other. If the kind of measures ACTA treaty contemplates are already allowed to the European Union by the current EU treaties (the last one being the Lisbon treaty), then no individual ratification is required - I think this is the case.

Second, the europarliament has already contemplated the signing of ACTA last year, and passed a resolution about it - one that was interpreted by some to be an stop to ACTA, whilst at the same time was interpreted by others as an advance for ACTA. My guess is that it allows the European Comission to sign the ACTA treaty as long as some concerns are addressed. Hence, ratification from the europarliament might be no longer necessary.

Third, the European Council has already approved to sign the ACTA Treaty on its meeting on December 15th and 16th - Agriculture and Fisheries. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/127031.pdf Yes, you've read it right. It was approved on a Agriculture and Fisheries meeting. Sit down, the surprises aren't over. It was approved without even being on the agenda. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/agricult/126837.pdf

So, as far as I know, all that remains to be done is a protocolary signature event, and ACTA treaty will be deployed in the European Union.

First of all, I do not think ACTA needs ratification both at the european parliament and at the individual countries' parliaments, but rather one way or the other. If the kind of measures ACTA treaty contemplates are already allowed to the European Union by the current EU treaties (the last one being the Lisbon treaty), then no individual ratification is required - I think this is the case.

Second, the europarliament has already contemplated the signing of ACTA last year, and passed a resolution about it - one that was interpreted by some to be an stop to ACTA, whilst at the same time was interpreted by others as an advance for ACTA. My guess is that it allows the European Comission to sign the ACTA treaty as long as some concerns are addressed. Hence, ratification from the europarliament might be no longer necessary.

Third, the European Council has already approved to sign the ACTA Treaty on its meeting on December 15th and 16th - Agriculture and Fisheries. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/127031.pdf Yes, you've read it right. It was approved on a Agriculture and Fisheries meeting. Sit down, the surprises aren't over. It was approved without even being on the agenda. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/agricult/126837.pdf

So, as far as I know, all that remains to be done is a protocolary signature event, and ACTA treaty will be deployed in the European Union.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf

If you take not picking "believe there is a God" in that then you have all of these with more than half:
Estonia
Czech Republic
Sweden
Denmark
Norway
Netherlands
France
Latvia
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Iceland
Bulgaria
Finland
Belgium
Hungary
Luxemburg
Germany
Switzerland
Lithuania

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/127031.pdf

Page 43 (the last one).

The press release you link to is from the Council of the European Union, primarily regarding a meeting held by the Agriculture and Fisheries (Agrifish) 'configuration' (participants are on pages 5-7). Other items on the release (page 4) unrelated to Agrifish include the environment; foreign affairs and security; trade policy; and social policy.

To be clear: Agrifish have not been involved with the Anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA). Another example of a document with ACTA in is the Foreign Affairs Council's (FAC) meeting about trade issues, with ACTA again being classed as an 'other item' (which to paraphrase, is "expected to be approved without discussion").

The Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER), composed of representatives from the EU states (ambassadors, civil servants etc.), meet each week to prepare the work and tasks of the Council, and monitor and co-ordinate work and deals with the Parliament. They work as part of the European Civil Service, and are responsible for reviewing the passage of ACTA. You can read also read a recent proposal to the Permanent Representatives about ACTA.

Thnak you for the link, by the way. Disappointing, though, that no expression of doubt about the subject was expressed in an earlier post; and that it was modded 4, Interesting.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/127031.pdf

Page 43 (the last one).

The press release you link to is from the Council of the European Union, primarily regarding a meeting held by the Agriculture and Fisheries (Agrifish) 'configuration' (participants are on pages 5-7). Other items on the release (page 4) unrelated to Agrifish include the environment; foreign affairs and security; trade policy; and social policy.

To be clear: Agrifish have not been involved with the Anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA). Another example of a document with ACTA in is the Foreign Affairs Council's (FAC) meeting about trade issues, with ACTA again being classed as an 'other item' (which to paraphrase, is "expected to be approved without discussion").

The Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER), composed of representatives from the EU states (ambassadors, civil servants etc.), meet each week to prepare the work and tasks of the Council, and monitor and co-ordinate work and deals with the Parliament. They work as part of the European Civil Service, and are responsible for reviewing the passage of ACTA. You can read also read a recent proposal to the Permanent Representatives about ACTA.

Thnak you for the link, by the way. Disappointing, though, that no expression of doubt about the subject was expressed in an earlier post; and that it was modded 4, Interesting.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/127031.pdf

Page 43 (the last one).

The press release you link to is from the Council of the European Union, primarily regarding a meeting held by the Agriculture and Fisheries (Agrifish) 'configuration' (participants are on pages 5-7). Other items on the release (page 4) unrelated to Agrifish include the environment; foreign affairs and security; trade policy; and social policy.

To be clear: Agrifish have not been involved with the Anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA). Another example of a document with ACTA in is the Foreign Affairs Council's (FAC) meeting about trade issues, with ACTA again being classed as an 'other item' (which to paraphrase, is "expected to be approved without discussion").

The Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER), composed of representatives from the EU states (ambassadors, civil servants etc.), meet each week to prepare the work and tasks of the Council, and monitor and co-ordinate work and deals with the Parliament. They work as part of the European Civil Service, and are responsible for reviewing the passage of ACTA. You can read also read a recent proposal to the Permanent Representatives about ACTA.

Thnak you for the link, by the way. Disappointing, though, that no expression of doubt about the subject was expressed in an earlier post; and that it was modded 4, Interesting.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/127031.pdf
Page 43 (the last one).

Here you go:

http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/diagram_en.htm

Technically, we are about to complete step 1.

It's only happened once in the UK before as well, and then (TV-Links), the case was dismissed. Despite the web being around for some time now, it seems that the issue of linking is only just reaching courts, and unsurprisingly, there will be a few odd rulings until it settles down and precedent is established.

In this case, the US was arguing that providing the website (even merely linking to stuff) was "communicating [copyrighted stuff] to the public", and was "in the course of a business" due to the money being made from adverts (contrary to Section 107 (2A) of the CDPA). The counter-argument was that (as in the TV-Links case) his actions were protected by the 'mere conduit' defence (established by Article 12 of the Electronic Commerce Directive) which protects ISPs, website hosts etc. from the actions of their users. However, in this ruling, the judge seems to have found that because O'Dwyr (the defendant) was in control of the site, and those adding the links had to be "vetted". Imho (as a mere observer, not a lawyer) that's a very narrow interpretation of the Directive, which might be grounds for a successful appeal.

If he does appeal, we might get a "definitive" ruling on the legality of linking, and the scope of the EC Directive defences, which could be very useful (or terrifying, if they go the other way), so in some ways this is a good thing.

Of course, if he gets to the US, he then may face a completely different trial under US law, where he will be able to argue facts, not just points of law...

The Irish government may create law, but there's also this thing called the EU which has its own laws, some of which Ireland must follow. If Ireland isn't following those laws and EMI can prove they've suffered damage as a result, EMI is entitled to compensation from Ireland. It's a thing called state liability. This action may not be quite as crazy as it sounds.

What these companies have done is grant the same access the CALEA law gives the US Government to other countries. Other countries have taken this authority and used it for espionage. Thus these companies statements that "We didn't build a back door for India" then is correct. They built it for the U.S. Government.

...which is probably not correct; the EU, for example, has a council resolution concerning requiring capabilities for "lawful interception of communications" and I suspect the Member States have implemented laws for that. I.e., they built it for all countries that require lawful interception capabilities, which probably covers most countries in which they sell mobile phones.

What both of you are missing is that all of these laws are about wiretapping at the network level, not at the device level.

What these companies have done is grant the same access the CALEA law gives the US Government to other countries. Other countries have taken this authority and used it for espionage. Thus these companies statements that "We didn't build a back door for India" then is correct. They built it for the U.S. Government.

...which is probably not correct; the EU, for example, has a council resolution concerning requiring capabilities for "lawful interception of communications" and I suspect the Member States have implemented laws for that. I.e., they built it for all countries that require lawful interception capabilities, which probably covers most countries in which they sell mobile phones.

There was no "mandate". Only a memorandum of understanding, wishful thinking and moonbeams.
check out: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/rtte/files/chargers/chargers_mou_en.pdf

It's not VAT. VAT, as you point out is just a percentage of the price (so importing assembled goods you'd pay more VAT).

It's Customs duty:

Customs duty is a tax charged on importation of goods produced outside the European Union (EU). [...]

Customs Duty is charged as a percentage of the total value of the goods - that is the sterling equivalent of the price paid abroad.

To work out the percentage, each type of product is given a 'commodity code'. This tells you what the Customs Duty rate percentage is for that particular product, based on whether it's being imported or exported.

There are around 14,000 different classifications. The duty rate percentage for each may vary according to the country the goods come from. The average percentage is between 5 and 9 per cent, but it can be as low as 0 per cent or as high as 85 per cent.

To find out the Customs Duty rate for a product you can contact HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) VAT Helpline or the Customs, International Trade & Excise enquiries.

The UK customs duty appears to be based on the EU TARIC, so the choice of rates on particular goods may not be up to the UK (alone) to decide.

The TARIC database is online at http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/taric/taric_consultation.jsp?Lang=en#

An assembled Rasberry Pi is probaly an "8471":

SECTION XVI MACHINERY AND MECHANICAL APPLIANCES; ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT; PARTS THEREOF; SOUND RECORDERS AND REPRODUCERS, TELEVISION IMAGE AND SOUND RECORDERS AND REPRODUCERS, AND PARTS AND ACCESSORIES OF SUCH ARTICLES

CHAPTER 84 NUCLEAR REACTORS, BOILERS, MACHINERY AND MECHANICAL APPLIANCES; PARTS THEREOF

8471 Automatic data-processing machines and units thereof; magnetic or optical readers, machines for transcribing data onto data media in coded form and machines for processing such data, not elsewhere specified or included

I'm not sure where components are - it's a real mish-mash.

Actually, it does.

I think this will be in violation of

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

especially Article 7

but apparently nobody cares about what is legal anyway

further reading to be found here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31995L0046

I think you are very optimistic, politicians don't have to believe the law in question will actually work, hehe :)

There is no game of "whack-a-mole" if they, the politicians, are not the one's playing. The people in charge of policing and executing this law on the other hand have no say.

What you should keep in mind is that unlike the US Congress and administration, European Union member states are subject to strict control by their peers and the [superior] European courts (the central EU treaties and the separate Human Rights Conventions). So called sovereign countries such as Spain are subject to a supra-national system of law equivalent to "federal" government. In the end I believe these laws will fail in some manner, if they are brought before the The Court of Justice of the European Union.

The linked page describes the procedures in short. To quote a relevant paragraph: "The Commission can start these proceedings if it believes that a member country is failing to fulfil its obligations under EU law. These proceedings may also be started by another EU country". The European Commission is the EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole (as opposed to the interests of individual countries).

No, you are very wrong. The ECHR is not an EU court, it is part of the Council of Europe. It decides in cases of citizens against states subject to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is the court of last resort for such cases.

The member countries of the European Union are subject to the The Court of Justice of the European Union. Violations of EU treaties and law is brought before this court. Justice is far quicker and harsher in this court.

I know that if I'm ever suing someone for piracy, I'll be sure to list their ISP as a co-defendant.

In the US, the ISP would rely on the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, implemented by the DMCA as s512 of Title 17 USC - in particular, s512(a):

(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. - A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if -

(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;

(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;

(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;

(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and

(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

"Service provider" is defined (s512(k)(1)(A) as:

As used in subsection (a), the term ''service provider'' means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

Whether this meets the US definition of "common carrier," I'm afraid I do not know - but a DSL access provider and the like would be aiming to rely on this to exempt them from liability for whatever the user might do.

In Europe, there is similar legislation - directive 2000/31/EC, Article 12:

1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:

(a) does not initiate the transmission;

(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and

(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

2. The acts of transmission and of provision of access referred to in paragraph 1 include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the communication network, and provided that the information is not stored for any period longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.

3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

That's not to say that no remedy is possible, though - injunctions are flavour of the month at t

Tho years of guarantee on consumer goods is not just an Italian law, it is a European Union directive.

After having read the full report in question it becomes somewhat clearer, they didn't just fill out forms, they interviewed people and held workshops with the key players.

To quote the report:
"awareness regarding cyber security aspects is either at a very low level or even non-existent in the maritime sector, this observation being applicable at all layers, including government bodies, port authorities and maritime companies.".

My understanding is that this report is focused on what governments and the EU specifically can do to help, build and support for better security. In recent years the EU and other bodies have created and implemented security related regulation including provisions relating to safety and physical security concepts.

Now, it's time to look at what the EU and its members should and can do to secure related information systems. Self-regulatory and co-regulatory organisational models around maritime cyber security aspects are virtually non-existent within the EU Member States, according to the report (page 19).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/romania-management-idUSL6E7NC1ZR20111212

CEE MONEY-Help wanted: emerging EU state needs good CEOs

Dec 12 (Reuters) - For two decades, Romania's inefficient state companies have undermined the country's economy through graft, mismanagement, disadvantageous business deals and budget-sapping losses. ...

---

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20111213IPR33945/html/Parliament-endorses-EU-wide-protection-for-crime-victims

Qualified by "EU". (I didn't exclude it specifically, I took it as read that all qualifiers were out.)

Parliament endorses European Protection Order for crime victims
Crime victims who are granted protection from their aggressors in one EU Member State will be able to get similar protection if they move to another, under new rules adopted by Parliament on Tuesday. The European Protection Order aims to protect victims of, for instance, gender violence, harassment, abduction, stalking or attempted murder. Member States will have three years to transpose this directive into national law.

Measures to protect crime victims from aggressors already exist in all EU Member States but at present they cease to apply if the victim moves to another country. The European Protection Order (EPO) directive, already agreed with national governments, will enable anyone protected under criminal law in one EU state to apply for similar protection if they move to another.

Hardly! The fact they use "EU Member State" twice in the quote before "EU state" makes this particularly weak...

----

http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/asylum/asylum_criteria_en.htm

The "Dublin" Regulation â" Which EU State is responsible for examining an asylum application?

Knowing which State is responsible for an asylum claim avoids asylum seekers being transferred from one EU State to another, with none accepting responsibility, as well as multiple or simultaneous applications by the same person in different EU States (a phenomenon known as âasylum shoppingâ(TM)). ...

Again, there is a qualifier. EU. And it is capitalised.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/romania-management-idUSL6E7NC1ZR20111212

CEE MONEY-Help wanted: emerging EU state needs good CEOs

Dec 12 (Reuters) - For two decades, Romania's inefficient state companies have undermined the country's economy through graft, mismanagement, disadvantageous business deals and budget-sapping losses. ...

---

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20111213IPR33945/html/Parliament-endorses-EU-wide-protection-for-crime-victims

Qualified by "EU". (I didn't exclude it specifically, I took it as read that all qualifiers were out.)

Parliament endorses European Protection Order for crime victims
Crime victims who are granted protection from their aggressors in one EU Member State will be able to get similar protection if they move to another, under new rules adopted by Parliament on Tuesday. The European Protection Order aims to protect victims of, for instance, gender violence, harassment, abduction, stalking or attempted murder. Member States will have three years to transpose this directive into national law.

Measures to protect crime victims from aggressors already exist in all EU Member States but at present they cease to apply if the victim moves to another country. The European Protection Order (EPO) directive, already agreed with national governments, will enable anyone protected under criminal law in one EU state to apply for similar protection if they move to another.

Hardly! The fact they use "EU Member State" twice in the quote before "EU state" makes this particularly weak...

----

http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/asylum/asylum_criteria_en.htm

The "Dublin" Regulation â" Which EU State is responsible for examining an asylum application?

Knowing which State is responsible for an asylum claim avoids asylum seekers being transferred from one EU State to another, with none accepting responsibility, as well as multiple or simultaneous applications by the same person in different EU States (a phenomenon known as âasylum shoppingâ(TM)). ...

Again, there is a qualifier. EU. And it is capitalised.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/romania-management-idUSL6E7NC1ZR20111212

CEE MONEY-Help wanted: emerging EU state needs good CEOs

Dec 12 (Reuters) - For two decades, Romania's inefficient state companies have undermined the country's economy through graft, mismanagement, disadvantageous business deals and budget-sapping losses. ...

---

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20111213IPR33945/html/Parliament-endorses-EU-wide-protection-for-crime-victims

Parliament endorses European Protection Order for crime victims
Crime victims who are granted protection from their aggressors in one EU Member State will be able to get similar protection if they move to another, under new rules adopted by Parliament on Tuesday. The European Protection Order aims to protect victims of, for instance, gender violence, harassment, abduction, stalking or attempted murder. Member States will have three years to transpose this directive into national law.

Measures to protect crime victims from aggressors already exist in all EU Member States but at present they cease to apply if the victim moves to another country. The European Protection Order (EPO) directive, already agreed with national governments, will enable anyone protected under criminal law in one EU state to apply for similar protection if they move to another.

----

http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/asylum/asylum_criteria_en.htm

The "Dublin" Regulation â" Which EU State is responsible for examining an asylum application?

Knowing which State is responsible for an asylum claim avoids asylum seekers being transferred from one EU State to another, with none accepting responsibility, as well as multiple or simultaneous applications by the same person in different EU States (a phenomenon known as âasylum shoppingâ(TM)). ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/romania-management-idUSL6E7NC1ZR20111212

CEE MONEY-Help wanted: emerging EU state needs good CEOs

Dec 12 (Reuters) - For two decades, Romania's inefficient state companies have undermined the country's economy through graft, mismanagement, disadvantageous business deals and budget-sapping losses. ...

---

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20111213IPR33945/html/Parliament-endorses-EU-wide-protection-for-crime-victims

Parliament endorses European Protection Order for crime victims
Crime victims who are granted protection from their aggressors in one EU Member State will be able to get similar protection if they move to another, under new rules adopted by Parliament on Tuesday. The European Protection Order aims to protect victims of, for instance, gender violence, harassment, abduction, stalking or attempted murder. Member States will have three years to transpose this directive into national law.

Measures to protect crime victims from aggressors already exist in all EU Member States but at present they cease to apply if the victim moves to another country. The European Protection Order (EPO) directive, already agreed with national governments, will enable anyone protected under criminal law in one EU state to apply for similar protection if they move to another.

----

http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/asylum/asylum_criteria_en.htm

The "Dublin" Regulation â" Which EU State is responsible for examining an asylum application?

Knowing which State is responsible for an asylum claim avoids asylum seekers being transferred from one EU State to another, with none accepting responsibility, as well as multiple or simultaneous applications by the same person in different EU States (a phenomenon known as âasylum shoppingâ(TM)). ...

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2001-0264+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

TLDR: English-speaking nations around the world have conspired to use their signals intelligence capability (ECHELON) to engage in industrial espionage and pass trade secrets on to their own corporations.

Here is the "community design" we are talking about:
http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/design/data/000181607-0001
Essencially:
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/6268/00018160700011source.jpg

Here is Motorola Xoom, tell me it doesn't "infridge":
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2168/xoomtabletinterfacescre.jpg

Here is Asus Transformer Prime (it's notable, because first Asus Transformer is mentioned in the shocking Dusseldorf judgjement as an example of "not infridging") tell me it doesn't infrindge:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5830/asustransformerprimetf2.jpg

Heck, here is Samsung Photo Frame, tell me it doesn't "infringe":
http://1.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung-ipad-photo-frame.jpg

Furthermore, having a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal.

Actually, according to the EU it is.

Actually, no. Please stop talking out of your ass.

they're tying all their products together

"Tying" in legal sense is forcing to buy product A to get product B - if Google demanded to buy an enterprise gmail account to use Google Ads, that would be tying. Please provide examples of Google doing this.

presumably ignoring their own pagerank system

You keep using that "presumably" as if it was "actually". Could you please deliver a proof for pagerank abuse in this case?

All in all, you sound like you just hate Google and know a few competition law related words, but not their meanings.

EU started out with the goals of guaranteeing food security for Europe with agricultural programs to stabilize prices, and also to boost international trade by harmonizing safety and export legislation.

No. I hope you're American, because at least you have a reason to be clueless about the reason behind the existence of the EU. If you're british..... well, I hope the US won't save your ass next time the continent decides to blow up again.

Here's how the EU got started: http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/1945-1959/index_en.htm The start of the EU was a steel and coal industry treaty. It's purpose? To keep countries from trying to monopolize steel and coal to build the best armies. In short, the EU has its roots in a very simple idea: the only way to prevent Europe from being engulfed in another massive war is to economically integrate everybody. France won't start a war with Germany for the same reason you don't shoot your foot (on purpose, at least).

That is why everyone is up in a fucking tizzy over the possible breakup of the Euro, and consequently the EU. There WILL be another war in Europe in our lifetime if that happens. There might be one if the EU sticks around, but it's far less likely.