Slashdot Mirror

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/businesses/intellectual_property/l26049_en.htm

Schmidt is insistent that Google has the right to know who their users are. On the other hand, Google doesn't do proper due diligence on their customers, the ones who buy ads. That just cost them a $500 million fine to the Department of Justice for running phony pharmaceutical ads. (Those supposed "Canadian pharmacies" often aren't real pharmacies at all, and many are not in Canada. DOJ went after Google because an investigation into some Mexican drug dealer was also running an offshore pharmacy.)

Because of Google's "we don't care who you are" policy about advertisers, Google has become the advertising system for a wide range of scams: typosquatting, adware, ads for free stuff that's not free, ads for counterfeit software, and mortgage modification scams. Prof. Benjamin Edelman at the Harvard Business School estimates that Google makes about $25 million a year from ads for spyware and adware, about $6 million a year from ads for "credit repair" scams, and about $100 million a year by allowing competing trademarks as search keywords (that last is being litigated.)

Most of those scams depend on advertiser anonymity. Business aren't entitled to privacy. Even in the European Union, which has privacy rights for individuals, businesses don't get that right. The European Directive on Electronic Commerce is very clear about that. Google has the right to demand proof of business identity from advertisers, and to demand that the advertiser disclose the actual name and address from which the business is conducted on their web site. Google doesn't do this, which makes Google the scammer's friend, and in some cases, as they just discovered expensively, an accomplice to criminal activity.

Google claimed to the DOJ that they cleaned up their act on drug ads. Let's see. Search for "no prescription diet pills". See a Google ad for "Phentremine 37.5 mg HCL - As low as $30. Free Shipping. www.phentreminediet.com No subscriptions, or hidden cost.". There it is, right at the top of the page, in prime position, a drug ad run by Google. This is a fake drug scam site. It's a form of drug typosquatting; the real drug is spelled "phentermine". The site has a Google Checkout seal (which may be fake) and a BBBonline seal (which is fake). Yet Google is running that ad.

Prof. Edelman says it better than I can: "I have long doubted Google's claims of innocence. For one, Google has an obvious incentive to allow deceptive and unlawful ads: each extra ad means extra revenue -- an ad in lieu of white space, or an extra competitor encouraging other advertisers to bid that much higher. Furthermore, unlawful and deceptive ads have been widespread; I found dozens in just a few hours of work. Meanwhile, it's hard to reconcile Google's engineering strength -- capably indexing billions of pages and tabulating billions of links -- with the company's supposed inability to identify new advertisements mentioning or targeting a few dozen terms known to deceive consumers. From these facts, I could only suspect what the DOJ investigation now confirms: Unlawful ads persist at Google not just because advertisers seek to be listed, but also because Google intentionally lets them stay and even offers them special assistance."

As a citizen of the EU, I know that EU has a lot of flaws. The economic policies, the subsidies, etc... However, so far both the legislative branches and the courts have been simply awesome when it comes to not giving in to the lobbying of multinational companies (...) I'm rather optimistic about this.

This is because you never heard about the Laval and Viking cases, where the European Justice Court interpreted UE directive written by the parliament so wrongly that it reversed what UE parliement meant.

US is not a democracy. Sometimes it produces good things, sometimes it does not, and we have no control at all on this

As I point out occasionally, many, if not most, of the problems with web spam, phishing, etc. on the web are because Google doesn't verify the identity of the business behind a web site.

Businesses don't have any right to anonymity. Even in Europe. In the European Union, businesses come under the European Directive on Electronic Commerce.: "Member States shall ensure that the service provider (defined as "any natural or legal person providing an information society service" i.e. a web site) shall render easily, directly and permanently accessible to the recipients of the service and competent authorities, at least the following information: (a) the name of the service provider; (b) the geographic address at which the service provider is established ... (c) his electronic mail address...". The European Privacy Directive is only for individuals. If the search end of Google took a hard line on that, search would be much less spammy. Currently, they can't even keep totally fake business locations out of Google Places. Yes, "Illusory Laptop Repair is still in Google Places, right in the middle of the railroad crossing. So are so many phony business locations that it's been covered at length in the New York Times. Legitimate local businesses are screaming about this; customers try to find them and end up calling some outsourced lead-generation service, thinking it's a local company.

Google wants to use Google+ for "crowdsourcing" recommendations. They used to use Citysearch and Yelp for that, but those became too polluted with fake recommendations. The trouble with "crowdsourcing" is that crowds can be sourced. You can buy "likes", "recommendations", and "+1"s in bulk on any of the black hat SEO forums.

Recommendation systems only work in three situations - when the number of reviewers is huge compared to the number of items being reviewed, as with movies, when the reviewer is known to have bought the product, as with eBay and Amazon, and when the reviewer's identity is verified and their reputation is known. Google seems to be trying for #3. To make that work, they have to tighten the screws on "Google+" users. Tightening the screws on businesses would be more productive.

No, he just compared it to an inefficient distribution (a roof with panels on the south and the north side).

As was pointed out in other comments there are 20 cells on the tree and, most probably, 10 cells on each side of the roof. Had he really compared to 20 cells in a flat panel array, he would have found that the tree distribution is less efficient than the flat panel.

By the way, there is an optimum inclination (vertical angle) of a photovoltaic module, which in Europe is between 30 and 50 (depending on the latitude and the height), see this map (pdf, 11 Mb).

I nevertheless admire the idea and the work of the young boy. As an adult I'm sure he would have spotted the error in the result, unlike the jury and the submitter of the story.

They don't care how much it will cost. They are a business and will pass that cost onto the consumer.

Unless not all ISPs are injuncted, in which case those who are so injuncted are at a competitive disadvantage if they are forced to incur costs - passing costs on to the consumer only works if all competitors are in the same situation.

Similarly, for an injunction to be granted under s97A, it must be "fair and proportionate and must not be excessively costly"- see, for example, L'Oreal v. eBay , at paragraph 139, although see paragraphs 135 - 144 more generally.

Do you read things before you sign up? And why should they ask for ID before legally required too, you want them to go beyond what the law requires?

Have you read the very same link you sent? Where does it say that while my ID is verified I won't be able to have access to my money? According to that very page, the UK law doesn't require that they limit access to my money.

Show me the regulation that says that they get to keep any money?

You agreed to their terms when you setup the account, including this bit:
"""
4.3. Moneybookers reserves the right to suspend, at any time and at its sole discretion, the Merchant Account (or certain functionalities thereof such as uploading, receiving, sending and/or withdrawing funds) if transactions are made which Moneybookers in its sole discretion deems to be (i) made in breach of this Agreement or (ii) are suspicious with regards to money laundering, terrorism financing, fraud or other illegal activities. Moneybookers will make reasonable efforts to inform the Merchant of any measure unless Moneybookers is prohibited from doing so by law or under an order from a competent court or authority.
"""

If you asked them to transfer money over the required ID theshold and don't provide ID, then it's suspicious with regards to money laundering - after all that's why the ID requirements exist.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006R1781:en:NOT

Where, please? Because I read it and can't find it. In fact, that document says that it's the information of the payer, not the payee, that should be available - and if it isn't, it can either be requested or the transaction be denied. So no, moneybookers doesn't have to keep the money.

It is your account. You are the payer. Hence without your ID they can't process it.

When they money came into you account you were the payee, hence why they didn't need your ID then.

Do you read things before you sign up? And why should they ask for ID before legally required too, you want them to go beyond what the law requires?

Have you read the very same link you sent? Where does it say that while my ID is verified I won't be able to have access to my money? According to that very page, the UK law doesn't require that they limit access to my money.

Show me the regulation that says that they get to keep any money?

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006R1781:en:NOT

Where, please? Because I read it and can't find it. In fact, that document says that it's the information of the payer, not the payee, that should be available - and if it isn't, it can either be requested or the transaction be denied. So no, moneybookers doesn't have to keep the money.

You are complaining that they are "stealing" your money even though you haven't given them proof of who you are.

If they want proof of ID, then they should ask for it up front - not when they have money and I have no option. Of course they won't return the money to the sender either.

http://www.moneybookers.com/app/help.pl?s=laundering

Do you read things before you sign up? And why should they ask for ID before legally required too, you want them to go beyond what the law requires?

Unlike PayPal, who you would also be sending your ID to, at a random address, Moneybookers is regulated.

Show me the regulation that says that they get to keep any money?

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006R1781:en:NOT

Your money is sitting in that account because you are a retard, not because they are thieves.

They are thieves. They won't give me my money and they won't give it to the person that sent it. And they demand that I send them a photocopy of a document that can be used to open bank accounts (real ones), apply to loans, and lot of other things. If you think I'm being a retard for not sending them that document, then will, go fuck yourself and send them yours.

They can't give you your money because doing so without documenting your identity is against the law. They can't give it to the person who sent it because that would also be against the law if they don't have your ID on record. They aren't thieves because they haven't kept the money for themselves, it is sitting there waiting for someone to provide the identification the law requires in order to transfer it.

And yes that ID is just what you would need to open a bank account. Which is obvious, since the bank wants the same ID for the exact same reason - the same laws apply to them.

If you are in the EU, there is currently a public EU consultation on open access (deadline 09 September). This was also mentioned on German heise.de earlier this week.

But let's ballpark these at $3/W.
In sunny Scotland, I pay $.25/kWh of power.

A 1kW panel produces around 900kWh/year of electricity.
( http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php)

At current prices, this 1kW panel would produce $225/year, or payback (neglecting interest!!!) in 6 years.

I love PV, and I have a 5 kW system to prove it, but misleading analyses like this one are a disservice.

Your hypothetical 1kW system costs $3000 at your own hypothetical $3/W. Generating $225/year would pay off in 13.3 years, not 6 but it's important to include interest, because at 5%, that changes your amortized payoff time to 22 years.

"Payback time" is a poor way to assess an investment, anyway--better to use annualized ROI, like we use for practically every other investment vehicle. Mine works out to about a (tax-free) 9% annual return. Yours works out to 7.5% (or a lot less, depending on how you account for the interest for the first 30 years). I don't know about your tax structure.

Well...
A fairly small bit of googling will get you readily assembled panels for $1.50/W. http://www.sunelec.com/solar-panels-c-5.html

Admittedly, these require actually mounting on the roof, and grid-tie inverters.
But let's ballpark these at $3/W.
In sunny Scotland, I pay $.25/kWh of power.

A 1kW panel produces around 900kWh/year of electricity.
( http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php)

At current prices, this 1kW panel would produce $225/year, or payback (neglecting interest!!!) in 6 years.
And I've just got notice that bills are going up 10%.

For 'solar laminates' - these are the bare glass panels with solar cells on which need a frame made, the cost is around $1/W, so payback can be lots sooner in some cases.

(this assumes that I can simply backfeed the meter. In the UK as it stands, you cannot do this)
For places with lower electricity prices, payback is questionable.

The approach outlined here seems very reasonable to me. Personal data breach legislation was rushed into the reform package for telecommunications services in Europe, because it was better than waiting for the review of the data protection directive, where it properly sits. However, it means that regulation is vertical - affecting only telecoms service provision - rather than horizontal, which would affect all providers. Since directive 95/46/EC - on data protection - is horizontal, it would make sense to insert the provisions into that directive, and remove them from directive 2002/58/EC - the directive of privacy and electronic communications..

For those who care, the measures are contained within directive 2009/136/EC (the relevant measures here are in Art. 2), but are amendments to Art. 4 of ePrivacy directive (above). However, as befits a directive forming part of the telecommunications package, the subject of the regulation are "provider[s] of a publicly available electronic communications service".

"Electronic communications service" is defined in Art. 2 of directive 2002/18/EC, as:

"a service normally provided for remuneration which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks, including telecommunications services and transmission services in networks used for broadcasting, but exclude services providing, or exercising editorial control over, content transmitted using electronic communications networks and services; it does not include information society services, as defined in Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC, which do not consist wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks"

I highlighted the reference to information society services, since this represents a substantial carve-out - this means that websites on online services which gather personal data, and which might suffer from data breaches, are not within the scope of the breach notification. When play.com suffered a breach, for example, it was not obliged under the breach notification to make any statement. It strikes me as odd - although understandable, given the context - that website operators, which are likely to generate huge swathes of personal data, should not be within scope. Something which a change from vertical regulation to horizontal regulation would hopefully remedy.

The approach outlined here seems very reasonable to me. Personal data breach legislation was rushed into the reform package for telecommunications services in Europe, because it was better than waiting for the review of the data protection directive, where it properly sits. However, it means that regulation is vertical - affecting only telecoms service provision - rather than horizontal, which would affect all providers. Since directive 95/46/EC - on data protection - is horizontal, it would make sense to insert the provisions into that directive, and remove them from directive 2002/58/EC - the directive of privacy and electronic communications..

For those who care, the measures are contained within directive 2009/136/EC (the relevant measures here are in Art. 2), but are amendments to Art. 4 of ePrivacy directive (above). However, as befits a directive forming part of the telecommunications package, the subject of the regulation are "provider[s] of a publicly available electronic communications service".

"Electronic communications service" is defined in Art. 2 of directive 2002/18/EC, as:

"a service normally provided for remuneration which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks, including telecommunications services and transmission services in networks used for broadcasting, but exclude services providing, or exercising editorial control over, content transmitted using electronic communications networks and services; it does not include information society services, as defined in Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC, which do not consist wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks"

I highlighted the reference to information society services, since this represents a substantial carve-out - this means that websites on online services which gather personal data, and which might suffer from data breaches, are not within the scope of the breach notification. When play.com suffered a breach, for example, it was not obliged under the breach notification to make any statement. It strikes me as odd - although understandable, given the context - that website operators, which are likely to generate huge swathes of personal data, should not be within scope. Something which a change from vertical regulation to horizontal regulation would hopefully remedy.

The approach outlined here seems very reasonable to me. Personal data breach legislation was rushed into the reform package for telecommunications services in Europe, because it was better than waiting for the review of the data protection directive, where it properly sits. However, it means that regulation is vertical - affecting only telecoms service provision - rather than horizontal, which would affect all providers. Since directive 95/46/EC - on data protection - is horizontal, it would make sense to insert the provisions into that directive, and remove them from directive 2002/58/EC - the directive of privacy and electronic communications..

For those who care, the measures are contained within directive 2009/136/EC (the relevant measures here are in Art. 2), but are amendments to Art. 4 of ePrivacy directive (above). However, as befits a directive forming part of the telecommunications package, the subject of the regulation are "provider[s] of a publicly available electronic communications service".

"Electronic communications service" is defined in Art. 2 of directive 2002/18/EC, as:

"a service normally provided for remuneration which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks, including telecommunications services and transmission services in networks used for broadcasting, but exclude services providing, or exercising editorial control over, content transmitted using electronic communications networks and services; it does not include information society services, as defined in Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC, which do not consist wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks"

I highlighted the reference to information society services, since this represents a substantial carve-out - this means that websites on online services which gather personal data, and which might suffer from data breaches, are not within the scope of the breach notification. When play.com suffered a breach, for example, it was not obliged under the breach notification to make any statement. It strikes me as odd - although understandable, given the context - that website operators, which are likely to generate huge swathes of personal data, should not be within scope. Something which a change from vertical regulation to horizontal regulation would hopefully remedy.

The approach outlined here seems very reasonable to me. Personal data breach legislation was rushed into the reform package for telecommunications services in Europe, because it was better than waiting for the review of the data protection directive, where it properly sits. However, it means that regulation is vertical - affecting only telecoms service provision - rather than horizontal, which would affect all providers. Since directive 95/46/EC - on data protection - is horizontal, it would make sense to insert the provisions into that directive, and remove them from directive 2002/58/EC - the directive of privacy and electronic communications..

For those who care, the measures are contained within directive 2009/136/EC (the relevant measures here are in Art. 2), but are amendments to Art. 4 of ePrivacy directive (above). However, as befits a directive forming part of the telecommunications package, the subject of the regulation are "provider[s] of a publicly available electronic communications service".

"Electronic communications service" is defined in Art. 2 of directive 2002/18/EC, as:

"a service normally provided for remuneration which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks, including telecommunications services and transmission services in networks used for broadcasting, but exclude services providing, or exercising editorial control over, content transmitted using electronic communications networks and services; it does not include information society services, as defined in Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC, which do not consist wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks"

I highlighted the reference to information society services, since this represents a substantial carve-out - this means that websites on online services which gather personal data, and which might suffer from data breaches, are not within the scope of the breach notification. When play.com suffered a breach, for example, it was not obliged under the breach notification to make any statement. It strikes me as odd - although understandable, given the context - that website operators, which are likely to generate huge swathes of personal data, should not be within scope. Something which a change from vertical regulation to horizontal regulation would hopefully remedy.

Is that so much worse than the US using the CIA and NSA to wiretap and bug foreign companies to steal trade secrets for US companies? (search for "Published cases")

How would you know?

I agree, UK media sucks bad, I know how the EU works because I went out of my way to find out, Wikipedia was useless - it does not document the workings of EU governance well.

Media doesn't cover the EU because British people are apathetic about real politics much like Americans - they'd rather be talking about football or 'stars in their eyes'. Hundreds of years of political struggle seem to be going down the drain because people are too lazy to think for themselves and have succumbed to the corporate message of greed is good.

http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/basicfacts/index_en.htm#leg

European chocolate is "real" chocolate.

not all European chocolate is "real" chocolate... we have some of that crappy vegelate as it is derisively named made here in England, the standards were fought over quite vociferously and in the end it meets them through a "loophole" in the regulations

(13) The derogation provided for in Directive 73/241/EEC allowing the United Kingdom and Ireland to authorise the use on their territory of the name "milk chocolate" to designate "milk chocolate with high milk content" should be maintained; however, the English name "milk chocolate with high milk content" should be replaced with the name "family milk chocolate".

.

Cadbury's milk chocolate is not a high cocoa content and most Easter Egg chocolate in UK is low solids as well... and as for Hershey's... our Asda supermarkets have been selling it... (their parent company is Walmart after all)... I tried some and found only the plain bars were edible... the milk and white bars were bleuch... the texture in the mouth was disgusting...

I'm reading those things principles and it doesn't look like the Patriot act is complicating anything.

Those principles state unauthorized access. A NSA letter, warrant, or any other access granted by the patriot act would by default be authorized by law in the same way that a UK court warrant would be authorized by law.

Either there is a lot of misconception running around with this, or I'm missing something very important that simply was not listed in those principles.

In fact, after some further examination, it appears the original directive gives exemptions specifically for the patriot acts and laws like it.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:EN:HTML
Check out article 13

Oups, forget the reference: Consolidated version of the Commission Regulation No 1275/2008 of 17 December 2008.

You have pump storage in Scotland right? How much? A week? OK, so how much power do you want to use? Once you know that kind of thing you can use this tool to estimate: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php

OK, how about Europol? That's the 2009 report. Interesting stuff starts around page 14 where they start with the charts that break down events, arrests, etc by type of terrorist group. There's reports from earlier years too, but nothing quite as nice as the 25 year breakdown in the FBI report.

Also, contrast the life of the average Frenchman to ours. They live longer, have more free time, have medical and JOBS.

Not so sure about jobs, French unemploment rate is at 9.7% which is about average for the Euro zone with 9.4% (pdf). Europe as a whole is just as screwed as the US, some countries like Germany are doing okay (6.1%) while others like Spain (20.7%) are completely screwed.

Anyway, I've found unemployment rates to lie quite a lot. Look at the US data, sure, compared to last year the unemployment rate is down from 9.6% to 9.1% but the participation rate is also down from 64.9% to 64.2%. So in reality less people work today (58.4%) compared to a year ago (58.7%), even though unemployment has "dropped". Of course there can be slight demographic changes too but the majority of those are people that have completely dropped out of the job market. The real number of people who'd like to work is probably a lot higher.

I'm not a person who generally subscribes to FUD

Sorry to tell you, but you just fell for it in both of those cases. The first one is kind of a wierd one. The person claiming to have linked GMOs to those things actually claimed to have linked glyphosate (not the GMO itself), an herbicide that some GMOs are resistant to, with, well, everything. This guy basically claimed that glyphosate somehow spontaniously created a fungal life form the size of a virus that caused pretty much every known disease in both animals and plants. Think about that for a few seconds. Spontanious generation, smallest eukaryote ever, ability to infect everything...if exprodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, then there better be something pretty good behind that one. But that guy hasn't released his data. He's getting his 15 minutes of fame, but no one can review his work. This hasn't stopped the anti-GMO people from trumpeting it as gospel, but from a scientific standpoint, his claims are meaningless.

As for the second one, like the first, that one was big news in the popular media, not so much among scientists. A few weeks ago I spoke with a fairly well known plant molecular biologist who had never even heard of that one. What should it tell you that something like that has made so little impact? Yeah, nothing good. The sources I read about that did review it, the French High Concil on Biotechnology, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand, and European Food Safety Authority didn't think too highly of it. Basically the study was some wierd statistics based on Monsanto's own data, and in the end they concluded that Monsanto's studies were insufficient to make any conclusions, while at the same time concluding based on the data that they were dangerous. Uh, what?

Basically, every time there's one of those 'GMOs gonna get you' stories out there, they never, at least that I know of, have much to them. The analogy I like to use is the vaccines-autism case. You are going to hear anti-vax nonsense for years to come, despite the fact that the science on it is very clear. To me, someone in plant science, this GMO thing is no different. You are going to hear GMOs associated with every health problem there is until the day you die. But if you look at it really good, there actually isn't much strong evidence to suggest that there is or will be and health problem with them. Of course I supposed it might happen, but without evidence to suggest that, you could make the same non-falsifiable statement about anything. And hey, if you really feel strongly about it that buying organic gives you peace of mind that whatever, that's cool to. But I would hope it isn't something you really lose any sleep over. I've heard of cases of mothers struggling to make ends meet, wondering if they should sacrifices even more to buy expensive non-GMO food, and that, I think, is just horrible, horrible that people (and by people I mean organic lobby groups like the Organic Consumer's Association) choose to use fear as a marketing tool. If you're that worried, call up the agricultural extension office of you're local land grant university. You really can't trust Monsanto, but those guys you can trust, and they're there to help you.

And I just realized I just replied to two of your posts on this. Oops.

I've heard it from a couple of customers too ("oh you have to fix it, it's guided by the EU regulations"), but obviously managers POV was - your warranty is with the manufacturer.

The relevant paper seems to be: 31999L0044 Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees

And contains this:

1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.

3. Unless proved otherwise, any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

As the EU just provides the outlines, not the exact implementation, details might of course varry from country to country. There is also a page on Implied Warranty on Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem to contain anything specific to the UK.

• US mobile phone users don't have a SIM card, therefore they are tied hands and feet to their mobile carrier unless they buy a new phone, and they think this is normal (monopolized market).
• Mobile phone users in the rest of the world have a SIM card, therefore they can (with a bit of bother and sharp nails) switch carriers if the carrier does something obnoxious. They don't know why US mobile phone users complain so much, because with a free market (most of the world) it's just not such an issue.
• Additionally, in Europe:

  Portability Since 2000, all subscribers to fixed telephony services have the possibility to keep their telephone number if they change from one operator to another, while remaining at the same location. Portability of so-called non-geographic numbers is also possible both in case of a change of operator and a change of address. Since 2003 the same Directive has required that similar number portability should also be available for all mobile service subscribers. Number portability has helped to stimulate competition and innovative pricing in the mobile sector.

So the only thing needed for the Americans is switch to "SIM-carded" phones (and get a law through that they can for a small fee get to keep their phone number when switching carriers).
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding it.

That has no technological meaning, unless your ISP is doing something beyond bizarre with a PC-server as a software routing platform and 10 megabit ethernet hubs, or maybe you mean a proxy server with two (or at least one) wifi interfaces instead of wired networks.

Ok, s/broadcasting/transmitting/.

With respect to service level analysis, line problem troubleshooting, billing by the byte or peak meg rate?. I think you mean disclosure to 3rd parties, well, thats complicated, even giving protocol analysis traces to vendors like Cisco in a trouble ticket is "questionable" although everyone does it if necessary to repair a service impacting bug.

They don't need to record the content of the packets to bill by the byte of peak mega rate; they just need to record the number of bytes in the packet and/or the number of packets per second. Possibly the IP information too (some ISP here used to have different caps for national/international connections). Never the actual content.

The EU's ePrivacy directive, for example, is very strict on what is allowed to be recorded and for what purposes.

This is not THE EU, that is European Commission TRADE negotiators trying to lie, bent the rules and circumvent the European Parliament. Trade people are special personal and totally ruthless. Oh, and by the way, here is the phone number of Pedro Velasco-Martins and here are the other guys. Pedro Velasco-Martins here explains why they do ACTA.

This is not THE EU, that is European Commission TRADE negotiators trying to lie, bent the rules and circumvent the European Parliament. Trade people are special personal and totally ruthless. Oh, and by the way, here is the phone number of Pedro Velasco-Martins and here are the other guys. Pedro Velasco-Martins here explains why they do ACTA.

May 1, 2011

By Ante

In January 2011, prominent European academics issued an âoeOpinion of European Academics on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreementâ (ACTA). The academics invite the European institutions, in particular the European Parliament, and the national legislators and governments to withhold consent of ACTA, âoeâ¦as long as significant deviations from the EU acquis or serious concerns on fundamental rights, data protection, and a fair balance of interests are not properly addressedâ.

In April 2011, the European Commissionâ(TM)s services put on-line comments to the European Academicsâ(TM) Opinion on ACTA. The Commission denies ACTA is incompatible with EU law.

The Commission fails to make its point in a convincing way. The Commission shows a lack of basic reading skills, does not address points raised by the academics and fails to reason in a logical way. Regarding the border measures, the Commission actually agrees with the academics. The Parliament should ask the European Court of Justice an opinion on ACTA.

It is too much work to address all the flaws in the Commissionâ(TM)s notes. I will give some examples.

ACTAâ(TM)s damages are higher than EU lawâ(TM)s damages

The academics wrote: âoeSome of the factors mentioned at the end of the provision are not provided for in art. 13.1 Directive 2004/48. These factors should not be adopted in European law since they are not appropriate to measure the damage. âoeThe value of the infringed good or service, measured by the market price, [or] the suggested retail priceâ, as indicated in art. 9.1 ACTA, does not reflect the economic loss suffered by the right holder.â

The Commission states: âoeThere is no conflict between article 9 of ACTA and article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC. Both provisions refer to ways in which courts can come to the determination of fair damages for the injured party.â

Damages in EU law are based on economic loss suffered by the right holder. The academics show that ACTA goes beyond that. The Commission just calls them both âoefairâ, and sees no difference. This is like saying: âoebig cars and small cars are both nice cars, so there is no difference.â But with cars and with damages, it is not only important both are cars or damages, the size is relevant as well. ACTA exceeds the level of damages in EU law. The Commission does not address the size aspect raised by the academics.

Bringing different things under the same category does not make them the same. Fines and death penalty are both deterrent, they are not the same.

Going beyond economic loss suffered by the right holder is not âoefairâ. It disproportionally hurts for instance startup companies in conflict with major patent holders. The Commission and ACTA advocate seeing damages based on retail price as âoefairâ. Unbalanced enforcement measures may heighten market entrance risks for innovators. Startup companies are often confronted with patent minefields. Even a mere allegation of infringement may easily lead to market exclusion. Startup companies often do not have enough resources to litigate. ACTA is biased against startup companies, the heightened damages hurt innovation.

The Commission states: âoeThe examples given in article 9.1 of ACTA and highlighted by the authors of the Opinion are not mandatory for the ACTA Parties (cf. the provision says âoemay includeâ).â

But this âoemayâ in article 9.1, is permissive towards the rights holders, it refers to âoeany legitimate measure of value the right holder submitsâ. Article 9.1 is not permissive towards the ACTA parti

This is of coursed based on an EU directive. Not sure why Sweden was singled out.

Because we plan to kidnap Julian Assange and lose him on a small island in the Baltic sea where the only female inhabitants are sheep?

Seriously, it might be because we have decent media coverage of these things. This is just one in a series of daft technological decisions coming from the EU, and journalists in .se are used to covering them. (And Slashdot readers in .se are used to submitting the results here.)

This is of coursed based on an EU directive. Not sure why Sweden was singled out.

Doesn't make it less stipid, but you know... maybe tone down the hyperbole a bit.

If you think you're up for years of unappreciated work and if you can write (a difficult skill) and can work hard even when your supervisor doesn't have a good idea what you're up to anymore, consider applying for PhD scholarship position in a country where the Uni pays *you* to advance science instead of you paying for the privilege.
You'll have to study the language seriously as well of course, since you'll have to assist courses to first-years students.
This is what a quick googling found: http://ec.europa.eu/education/eu-usa/doc1156_en.htm see if it helps...

"Absolute, utter rubbish. Inter-EU migration is lower in most western EU countries than in the UK, but that is not because it is restricted in any way."

Ever heard about the deportation of Romanian gypsies? Ever seen German immigration law?

http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/jobseeker/work-permits/index_en.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Free_movement_issues

"With their accession to the EU, free movement of people between all 25 states should apply. However, due to concerns of mass migration from the new eastern members to the old EU-15, some transitional restrictions were put in place. Mobility within the EU-15 (including Cyprus) and within the new states (minus Cyprus) functioned as normal (although the new states had the right to impose restrictions on travel between them). Between the old and new states, transitional restrictions up to 2011 could be put in place, ..."

" In Austria, to be employed the worker needs to have been employed for more than a year in his home country prior to accession. Germany had bilateral quotas which remained in force."

Not just in Germany; it was pushed on all of the EU by France (iirc) via Directive 2001/84/EC "on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art". It's a good example of how "intellectual property", far from being some form of property actually breaks the basic principles of copyright law.

What's particularly scary about the UK implementation (I haven't really studied the directive itself) is that the money is taken by the auction house without the artist being involved, and "held" for them there. The right can't even be waived; so (unlike the rest of copyright) there's nothing you can do to avoid it.

Don't forget that we, the people, are the ones who gave you your €1/4m wages and easy life. And while you're at it, you know the anthem that you stand up for at the start of meetings?
From Europa.eu:
"The melody comes from the Ninth Symphony composed in 1823 by Ludwig Van Beethoven.
For the final movement of this symphony, Beethoven set to music the "Ode to Joy" written in 1785 by Friedrich von Schiller. This poem expresses Schiller's idealistic vision of the human race becoming brothers - a vision Beethoven shared.
In 1972, the Council of Europe (the same body that designed the European flag) adopted Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" theme as its own anthem."

Imagine how many fewer meetings (and less wages) you'd have if you extended copyright.

That's the wrong term. The life+70 is for most works, but in the EU there is a different term for sound recordings and similar things - the idea being that you can make a sound recording of something already out of copyright and it will still be protected, but it should have a lesser protection than the music itself.

Across the EU this is currently "harmonised" at 50 years (not life+50, only 50 years), but the plan is to increase it to 70 or 95 years. Under current law, sound recordings from the 60s are beginning to fall out of copyright. Looking down Wikipedia's list of 1960s music groups it isn't hard to see why this extension is being pushed for. If anything, current artists are going to lose out on this (it isn't like they'll get a 40% pay rise overnight...) as it will encourage the major studios to reinvest in their existing works (that they own the copyright to) rather than investing in new material.

For anyone interested in doing something about this issue, it is currently before JURI (the EP's legal affairs committee) and you can find a list of its members here. Please do email or write to them.

coal power plants are not clean

for gods sake, I neer said hey are "clean" ofc they are not clean.
But the bullshit mainly posted from american posters comparing coal with nuclear simply wrong.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/emissions-co2-so2-nox-intensity-1/assessment

This is quote you made. Did you even read it?

Did you even look at the figures? It completely supports my point. And you use it to try to contradict me, sorry, that makes no sense.

Most simple stuff, like SOx is down to about 25% of the 1990 values (which is already far less than then 1975 values).
The current values of SOx cause no acid rain ... and cause no tree dying. No idea from where you got that idea and your picture.

Uranium, like some posters claimed (and depending how you look at it, they are right), is not exhausted in ANY german plant. Arsen is so low, and mercury and others that they are not even reported anymore. You know, there is a level that is allowed and at there is a much lower treshhold, from which on you have to report your emissions. The few plants I was able to check did not report any Mercury or Arsen exhaust the last 5 or more years.

Again I ask. where, where in the name of god are you getting your ideas about coal power from?
because they seem to be fantasy.

No, I assume it is a matter of standpoint. People say: coal is as bad or even worth than nuclear. I say no, and bring some points.

You conclude: aos thinks coal is completely clean.

But I never said that. Then you bring some regulations with numbers and show the USA numbers are more strict than the german ones. (I could not find any further source to support you in this, but it might be true)

I *know* however that the plants I visited, don't cause any "dust" or "flight ashes" pollution at all. Well, here again, I might be wrong and they only manage to capture 95% of the dirt.

Anyway, they main point people make is: on coal more people die than on nuclear. Then they say: you have to count in mining, but they dont' count in uranium mining and transport.

And I point out: all majour sources agree: coal plant exhaust pollution (with Arsen, Mercury etc.) is so low it does no harm (USA sources and european sources, several posters on /. gave them).

Then you again bring USA publishings which claim otherwise, a few 100,000 deaths per year (on mercury and arsine from coal plants).

Then I say: sorry, that cant really be true except if the USA has far worth pollution standards than EU.

So ... perhaps you/we should start to look very close which time range we look on? When the coal plants caused high death rates with no limits set to their exhaust (and tons of dirt get expelled from a singel plant in a year) it can not be that coal plants cause majour harm *now*, when all the limits got lowered considerably, or?

How can it be, that according to the figures you post a US plant has more strict levels than an EU one. But the US plant emits mercury in the dozens of tons rate, while a EU one does 1 or 2 or up to 4 * kilograms*?

The big picture of all the single sides you quote simply does not add up.

angel'o'sphere

"The acid rain problem is solved since 25 years"

no.
no it has not.

this is from 2006 .
not 25 years ago.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/en08-emissions-co2-so2-and/emissions-co2-so2-and-nox

Yes coal plants have improved from 25 years ago. they put out far less sulphur dioxide.
but they still put out a lot of crap in addition to CO2.
And that report doesn't even go into the metals.
coal power plants are not clean.
They never were and still are not.

Again I ask. where, where in the name of god are you getting your ideas about coal power from?
because they seem to be fantasy.

I guess now you're going to insist that in the last 6 years coal has become perfectly clean?

Well then perhaps we could use the "Emissions (CO2, SO2, NOx) intensity of public conventional thermal power electricity and heat production (ENER 008) - Assessment published Jan 2011"

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/emissions-co2-so2-nox-intensity-1/assessment

or perhaps coal has cleaned up it's act in the last 2 months?

face it.
Whoever has been telling you that nothing comes out of the chimney of a coal plant except CO2 is either a liar or merely horribly misinformed.

"The acid rain problem is solved since 25 years"

no.
no it has not.

this is from 2006 .
not 25 years ago.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/en08-emissions-co2-so2-and/emissions-co2-so2-and-nox

Yes coal plants have improved from 25 years ago. they put out far less sulphur dioxide.
but they still put out a lot of crap in addition to CO2.
And that report doesn't even go into the metals.
coal power plants are not clean.
They never were and still are not.

Again I ask. where, where in the name of god are you getting your ideas about coal power from?
because they seem to be fantasy.

I guess now you're going to insist that in the last 6 years coal has become perfectly clean?

Well then perhaps we could use the "Emissions (CO2, SO2, NOx) intensity of public conventional thermal power electricity and heat production (ENER 008) - Assessment published Jan 2011"

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/emissions-co2-so2-nox-intensity-1/assessment

or perhaps coal has cleaned up it's act in the last 2 months?

face it.
Whoever has been telling you that nothing comes out of the chimney of a coal plant except CO2 is either a liar or merely horribly misinformed.

The European Commission disagree with you as they use the term "ban" in their news release: http://ec.europa.eu/news/energy/090901_en.htm

There are quite a few places which did secede from the EU (and its various forms over the decades). I don't think anybody here considered it to be a reason for war...

As time went on, the procedure was actually explicitly codified in highest laws of the EU, very recently (and when it wasn't, it evidently didn't harm wishes to leave); also how to implement smaller changes - say, limit the scope of EU laws.

If some place, their people want to leave - they can. Y'know, voicing an opinion in so called "referendum" / voting.

(plus the membership can be largely suspended by a decision of the Community (except the state in question) if one of its members fails to uphold founding principles of the EU (TITLE I—Common provisions, Article 2))

Some are arguing that allowing cookies in the browser is basically equivalent to giving your consent.

That sounds to me like implicit consent, while the EU requires explicit consent. Though I suppose asking permission once per site is enough - not every single visit. And after receiving such explicit permission the site may store a cookie on your computer indicating that they have that permission already.

Well, earlier today, I pasted this in my address bar:

javascript:void(document.cookie = "reminder=Don't forget:\n\tCover page for TPS report.");

Just now I pasted this in my address bar:

javascript: alert( document.cookie );

(Not a moment too soon -- I almost sent that report with the old cover sheet.)

That message was sent to every website I visited today. I know damn well they don't have my explicit permission to read the cookie headers that my browser sends them -- Especially not when they contain such important trade secrets. I'll report all the sites in my history post haste! In fact, YOU don't have explicit consent to be reading my notes either! I never gave you explicit consent, so I'm afraid I'll have to report you as well.

Hmm, I'm not sure, but I think that since I'm self employed part-time I might be in violation too! I didn't update the Cookie Consent Clause of my Explicit Permissions Form to specify that my company has the explicit permission to track my thoughts throughout the day using text files & "magic-cookies".

I sure hope I don't get fined, I can never go back to the yellow sticky squares... not after that time they didn't get my explicit permission to record the doodles I made of my manager, and nearly got me fired by way of an unauthorized 3rd party doodle disclosure!

(When I complained Post-It admitted that paper and pens normally only have implied consent to record and redisplay information to anyone within reading / writing distance, and explicit consent is required in the EU. However the EULA on the shrink wrap that I thew away said that by opening the package I forfeit my right to consider marks made with my hands as information...)

In addition to the issue with death penalty crimes, Sweden also can't legally turn him over to the US without the UK's approval anyway, under European Union laws (Various extradition rules under the European Arrest Warrant acts).

FTFY. If Sweden puts him on a flight to the USA then it wouldn't do a whole lot of good if the UK complained about it -- which on current showing they'd be unlikely to do anyway.

In addition to the issue with death penalty crimes, Sweden also can't turn him over to the US without the UK's approval anyway, under European Union laws (Various extradition rules under the European Arrest Warrant acts).

If the UK wouldn't extradite him to the US directly, there's really no reason to believe that Sweden would somehow have the power to do anything, since the UK has a veto on any surrender of him to a third party (at least, a non-EU third party) by Sweden.

Wikipedia's article about TRIPS, the copyright treaty negotiated in Uruguay, doesn't mention anything beyond the life+50 of Berne. Go ahead and follow the WP article's citations if you remember differently. As I understand it, treaty requirements for life+70 come out of largely Bush-era bilateral treaties between the United States and other countries.

I can't find any of my old links from when I used to actually pay attention to this, but I could find some related links.

This link here sums it up pretty well It was the Uruguay Round table agreements of 1993 that is credited for the EU's Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) (Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection) which eventually was replaced with the Directive 2006/116/EC

The Copyright extension act in the US was passed in 1996-98 or so It was introduced after the 1993 round table. To assume they were unrelated would be a tragic mistake in understanding it all for the purpose of changing it.

there's no "international court" or body of "international law." (probably you know this, but many people reading the phrase "international copyright laws" get confused).

Here are some bodies and courts of international law: 1,2, 3,4.

I think I just made a law troll post.

The fact remains, however, that Microsoft's Office products are the de facto standards based on what people know and use on a daily basis.

Neelie Kroes: "I know a smart business decision when I see one - choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed."
Read the whole speech here: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/317&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Does that mean it would still be worse than Mac OS X, which was ranked #1?

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/sip_bench2_results/ranking_tables.pdf