Slashdot Mirror

There are two separate limits: If the value of the shipped item is less than 22EUR (excluding shipping), then customs isn't involved at all. If the value of the item is between 22EUR and 150EUR, then you have to pay "Einfuhrumsatzsteuer" (VAT so to speak, currently 19%) on the value of the package (including shipping). Straight from the horse's mouth. If the value of the item is more than 150%, you also have to pay applicable customs fees (depends on the category of the product: database lookup). All limits are in EUR, the exchange rate is fixed once per month and can be looked up here. For the rest of July it's $1.2271 per euro, so to avoid all surcharges, the value must be below $27. (Supposedly customs does not invoice amounts below a certain threshold which is higher than the 19% on 22EUR, so the limit may be a little higher in practice, but don't count on it.)

A note to people sending stuff to the EU: Don't incorrectly classify shipments as "gifts". This only results in shipping delays as customs checks the packages.

In the example, $16.99 device plus $16.95 shipping, you'd end up paying just the $33.94 (ca. 27EUR at the moment). 16.99/1.2271 is less than 22. If you order two (2*$16.99+16.95), the value is more than 22EUR, so it would cost you (50.93/1.2271)*1.19=49.39EUR plus any customs handling fee leveraged by the shipping company. Unless handling surcharges are less than 5EUR, it's cheaper to ship the two items in separate packages.

Btw., $16.95 shipping is a ripoff for a small and light electronic item. I get stuff shipped from China for next to nothing.

So where do you live, exactly?

The Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St Paul with a population of more than 3 million. Two block from me there's a privately owned convince store some of my neighbors work at, with many more small businesses on the same street. Several blocks in the opposite direction there's more small businesses. I'd say the area was Asian however there are also African shops, a cafe, and a German restaurant in walking distance. In a third direction there's more independent businesses. The fourth direction has nothing, the street ends in a "T". My sister has her own business, in accounting, with offices downtown.

However it's not just here with a large population. I moved here from Orlando, FL. There I knew people who owned their own business as well.

And there are a LOT more small businesses in Europe than in the U.S

Citation needed. Looking for myself, I found where the European Commission says "48% of Europeans agree with the statement 'You should not start a business if it might fail', compared with just 19% in the United States". According to the EC Europeans are more risk adverse that Americans not less. Continuing to look I found the article The United States Is the New Europe which says "While the government is hiring, the private sector is losing millions of jobs rather than creating them." It goes on about how Obama wants to make the US more like Europe, and that some of his policies harm small businesses. Continue... Again the EC provides something, Fact and figures about the EUs Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) says that more than 99% of Europe's businesses are SMEs.

Of those the average number of employees is 2, but some have more than 10 employees. A quick calculation says that for every one business that has 10 employees there has to be 10 businesses with only one employee, rounding error.

As for the business travellers--that was exactly my point. They shouldn't be flying at all, but the real reason they are doing it is not because they need to, but because they enjoy it

Some business has to be done face to face, and not via video. There's just too much communications that video misses. People may be just as unlikely to trust video conferencing for business as they would be for tele-surgery or remote surgery.

They want to "network," play golf and socialize ,and basically waste all of our money (whether as investors or customers paying higher prices for products). It's a pretty appalling practice in this day and age!

I knew one person who ran her own business as a web designer and she frequently flew. I find it highly unlikely that she, or most any other business owner, would waste money flying when video works. Fact is is video does not work all the tyme.

Falcon

So where do you live, exactly?

The Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St Paul with a population of more than 3 million. Two block from me there's a privately owned convince store some of my neighbors work at, with many more small businesses on the same street. Several blocks in the opposite direction there's more small businesses. I'd say the area was Asian however there are also African shops, a cafe, and a German restaurant in walking distance. In a third direction there's more independent businesses. The fourth direction has nothing, the street ends in a "T". My sister has her own business, in accounting, with offices downtown.

However it's not just here with a large population. I moved here from Orlando, FL. There I knew people who owned their own business as well.

And there are a LOT more small businesses in Europe than in the U.S

Citation needed. Looking for myself, I found where the European Commission says "48% of Europeans agree with the statement 'You should not start a business if it might fail', compared with just 19% in the United States". According to the EC Europeans are more risk adverse that Americans not less. Continuing to look I found the article The United States Is the New Europe which says "While the government is hiring, the private sector is losing millions of jobs rather than creating them." It goes on about how Obama wants to make the US more like Europe, and that some of his policies harm small businesses. Continue... Again the EC provides something, Fact and figures about the EUs Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) says that more than 99% of Europe's businesses are SMEs.

Of those the average number of employees is 2, but some have more than 10 employees. A quick calculation says that for every one business that has 10 employees there has to be 10 businesses with only one employee, rounding error.

As for the business travellers--that was exactly my point. They shouldn't be flying at all, but the real reason they are doing it is not because they need to, but because they enjoy it

Some business has to be done face to face, and not via video. There's just too much communications that video misses. People may be just as unlikely to trust video conferencing for business as they would be for tele-surgery or remote surgery.

They want to "network," play golf and socialize ,and basically waste all of our money (whether as investors or customers paying higher prices for products). It's a pretty appalling practice in this day and age!

I knew one person who ran her own business as a web designer and she frequently flew. I find it highly unlikely that she, or most any other business owner, would waste money flying when video works. Fact is is video does not work all the tyme.

Falcon

Well, we know at least one thing that could cause temperatures to plunge almost overnight. In fact, it would probably kill off a lot of plant life, and drop CO2 levels as well.

At this point, given what I know about our chances of surviving this crap, I see a new ice age as the best chance of survival for 90% of life on the planet. If we heat up the Earth too much, we're quite possibly headed for another Permian Extinction level event. The amount of hydrogen sulfide that has built up in the ocean since then is surely enough to kill most aerobic life on earth.

Interesting perspective, except that your figures are wrong. Sales tax is high in Europe, but 25% is the maximum, not the common amount.

Gas is expensive indeed, but because of that Europeans have been driving more fuel efficient cars for years. Our densely populated continent is better of this way to keep the air cleaner, but also because we can keep parking lots smaller. And again, you picked the maximum (8USD/gallon)

10-19% unemployment? The average is 10.1 in Europe. And although there are some extremes like Spain at 19.7, a country with fairly high taxes (the Netherlands) is currently at 4.3. So maybe you can say 4.3-19 %. But I would rely on the official average of 10.1 And in the USA it was 9.7 in May.

And 75-99 % unemployment rate among teenagers? I have no idea where you got that from, but in Europe most teenagers are still in school/college. And the only figures I could find are that in most countries the youth unemployment is roughly twice the average, no where near 75%

If you yourself are educated the way you advocate, you in my view are a perfect example why we should encourage youth to go to college! They do teach you to do some research and how to interpret the figures. Don't think I ever saw an episode on that on Discovery.

It must be ok if filthy liberal commie places have a problem with all that stuff.

Just a little bit more info, I found this little piece of legislation:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/crossborder/index_en.htm

If you have no expectation of privacy, why should it matter whether Google uploaded the data to a public site or merely collected and catalogued it?

But if there is an expectation of privacy, the point is that they processed the data rather than discarding it. US privacy law is practically non-existent but the EU has a substantial framework which is reflected in the laws of member states.

FWIW, it may even be illegal in the UK to listen in without permission to signals not from the Broadcast Service (i.e. commercial licensed radio), the Amateur Service and utility stations (e.g. navigation/weather). From the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949), Section 5:

Any person who: [...]
(b) otherwise than under the authority of the Postmaster General or in the course of his duty as a servant of the Crown, either--
(i) uses any wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) which neither the person using the apparatus nor any person on whose behalf he is acting is authorised by the Postmaster General to receive; or
(ii) except in the course of legal proceedings or for the purpose of any report thereof, discloses any information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any such message, being information which would not have come to his knowledge but for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus by him or by another person, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

I'm not sure anyone's ever been prosecuted for (i), probably because it's difficult to define/discern what someone's "intent" is unless they also do (ii). Note this is an entirely separate and much older law than data protection laws, and it is necessary to discern when blanket permission is already given by the "Postmaster General" - e.g. there is explicitly no expectation of privacy on the Amateur Service and every amateur licensee should have learnt this.

You're missing that his declaration about registering all internet searches got adopted by the parliament (it got the required 369 signatures, top declaration here). Thus, the declaration is now no longer just his, but the opinion of the European parliament.

• according to the eu privacy commissioners opinion the searches themselves are part of the traffic, as such they are protected and not to be collected and stored under the data retention directive.
• the Data retention directive is unconstitutional in a number of EU countries, in Sweden it hasn't even been adopted yet, since the government does not want to drive voters to the pirate party, let's see what happens after the elections in autumn.
• it's also important, that the EP rejected the Data retention directive multiple times, only after pressure from the council was it adopted, so extending it will be a hard time for the initiators.

One of the MEPs who started this initiative Mr Motti is an interesting figure. After the vote on the Telecoms package - one of the MEPs who initiated this topic - Mr Motti already foreshadowed his intentions:

"Today, we have indicated our agreement to complete freedom of the internet, to the promotion of an electronic civil society, to the promotion of fundamental freedoms and best practices and to the identification and isolation of all those individuals, in particular, paedophiles and sex offenders"

Also notable is, how much he is is interested in anonymity and blogs:

"Subject: Blogs, freedom of speech and protection of personal dignity Answer(s)The right to freedom of opinion thus becomes a tool with which to harm other people's dignity, including that of children, by hiding behind the anonymity of blogs. This gives rise to a kind of Internet free-for-all, in which citizens do not all enjoy the same rights; it also allows the administrators of blogs defined as 'open', i.e. unmoderated, and the service providers which host them to avoid prosecution for the published content, unlike the editors and publishers of online newspapers."

In another speech Mr Motti also addressed freedom of speech in Italy, i guess this points in the same direction like what is happening currently in Italy regarding google.

On an ironic side note Mr Motti also seems to be highly interested in setting up cameras in kindergartens:

Use of video surveillance systems in childcare centres: "...whether the need to protect the privacy of people exercising a number of key occupations (such as childcare workers and teachers) should be regarded as secondary to the right of babies and children to a serene educational environment?"

and

"...making childcare centres, kindergartens and schools safer for those attending them, installing video cameras..."

It's ironic, how someone fighting pedophilia wants to setup cameras in childcare centers.

all his debates are available, also his parliamentary questions

• according to the eu privacy commissioners opinion the searches themselves are part of the traffic, as such they are protected and not to be collected and stored under the data retention directive.
• the Data retention directive is unconstitutional in a number of EU countries, in Sweden it hasn't even been adopted yet, since the government does not want to drive voters to the pirate party, let's see what happens after the elections in autumn.
• it's also important, that the EP rejected the Data retention directive multiple times, only after pressure from the council was it adopted, so extending it will be a hard time for the initiators.

One of the MEPs who started this initiative Mr Motti is an interesting figure. After the vote on the Telecoms package - one of the MEPs who initiated this topic - Mr Motti already foreshadowed his intentions:

"Today, we have indicated our agreement to complete freedom of the internet, to the promotion of an electronic civil society, to the promotion of fundamental freedoms and best practices and to the identification and isolation of all those individuals, in particular, paedophiles and sex offenders"

Also notable is, how much he is is interested in anonymity and blogs:

"Subject: Blogs, freedom of speech and protection of personal dignity Answer(s)The right to freedom of opinion thus becomes a tool with which to harm other people's dignity, including that of children, by hiding behind the anonymity of blogs. This gives rise to a kind of Internet free-for-all, in which citizens do not all enjoy the same rights; it also allows the administrators of blogs defined as 'open', i.e. unmoderated, and the service providers which host them to avoid prosecution for the published content, unlike the editors and publishers of online newspapers."

In another speech Mr Motti also addressed freedom of speech in Italy, i guess this points in the same direction like what is happening currently in Italy regarding google.

On an ironic side note Mr Motti also seems to be highly interested in setting up cameras in kindergartens:

Use of video surveillance systems in childcare centres: "...whether the need to protect the privacy of people exercising a number of key occupations (such as childcare workers and teachers) should be regarded as secondary to the right of babies and children to a serene educational environment?"

and

"...making childcare centres, kindergartens and schools safer for those attending them, installing video cameras..."

It's ironic, how someone fighting pedophilia wants to setup cameras in childcare centers.

all his debates are available, also his parliamentary questions

Member States shall ensure that the following categories of data are retained under this Directive:
(a) data necessary to trace and identify the source of a communication:
(2) concerning Internet access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
(i) the user ID(s) allocated;
(ii) the user ID and telephone number allocated to any communication entering the public telephone
network;
(iii) the name and address of the subscriber or registered user to whom an Internet Protocol (IP) address, user ID or telephone number was allocated at the time of the communication;

(b) data necessary to identify the destination of a communication:
(2) concerning Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
(i) the user ID or telephone number of the intended recipient(s) of an Internet telephony call;
(ii) the name(s) and address(es) of the subscriber(s) or registered user(s) and user ID of the intended recipient of the communication;

(c) data necessary to identify the date, time and duration of a communication:
(2) concerning Internet access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
(i) the date and time of the log-in and log-off of the Internet access service, based on a certain time zone, together with the IP address, whether dynamic or static, allocated by the Internet access service provider
to a communication, and the user ID of the subscriber or registered user;
(ii) the date and time of the log-in and log-off of the Internet e-mail service or Internet telephony service, based on a certain time zone;

(d) data necessary to identify the type of communication:
(2) concerning Internet e-mail and Internet telephony: the Internet service used;

(e) data necessary to identify users’ communication equipment or what purports to be their equipment:
(3) concerning Internet access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
(i) the calling telephone number for dial-up access;
(ii) the digital subscriber line (DSL) or other end point of the originator of the communication;

2. No data revealing the content of the communication may be retained pursuant to this Directive.

STOP written declaration 29 NOW! This declaration wants every search engine query in the EU to be tracked and watched!

Here's one source -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world-government-data

And while I think of it

EUROSTAT EU statistics - http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/

Just to chip in with the perspective of someone who has been dealing in health care data for the past several years: Most of the analyses of this open data will be done by people and groups with an agenda. Which will be good because they'll be motivated to actually do the analyses, and will be bad because their analyses will be at risk of intended and unintended bias in practice and reporting. Doing good data analysis is hard, as the health care field has learned to its cost. See, eg, Gary Taubes on epidemiology, PLoS Medicine on writing and reporting practices in pharma, Ioannidis on "Why most published research findings are false." (Google the title). Results of open data analysis may be released on the Internet with minimal review or quality control, and misinformation has a prodigious ability to spread and persist. Even those who don't feel qualified to critique the analysis itself can still insist that analysts are open about their intentions and disclose potential conflicts of interest. Those able to do a technical critique should insist that we are told enough about the methods to reproduce the analysis in full.

Uhm, no. The EU does not prevent members from implementing this but it is not required in any way. A lot of EU states don't have this and don't have plans to implement it. If you live in a country where this exists, well that sucks, but don't blame the EU.

Uhm, yes. EU standards dictate that 2 fingerprint scans shall be on the document.
Some other countries however (like the Netherlands, go a step further and store 2 additional fingerprint scans in a central database.
Clickie

Well, duh, would be a bad bad world where your bank doesn't have your history on record. They could just change your balance without anyone noticing. At least the treaty to live-stream it to the USA was killed by the EU parliament.

I don't give a rat's ass if banks log my history, however banks are obliged to share their logs with inteligence agencies, police officials etc. This I don't like.

How many EU citizens can even remember the name who they voted for as their EU member of parliament in the last election?

We don't vote for MEPs, we vote for parties. And yes, everyone I know who has voted can remember in which party they've voted for.
Mine was Bloco de Esquerda, and it's first MEP is Miguel Portas.

Yes, it's probably against the law in most jusridictions to steal cars. Hover, other laws differ from country to country and in the US, where you obviously reside, they differ from state to state, even.

I don't live in the US. And I think it's probably against the law in ALL jurisdictions to steal cars.

Example? Sit onto a bench in central park and drink a beer? Busted! This is perfectly legal in most of Europe. Another example? Drink a beer at the tender age of 17? In most of the US a crime in most of Europe wine and beer can be consumed from 16 up. In Switzerland a 17 year old boy can screw a 15 year old girl (or vice versa) without falling afoul against the law. Something, I would guess, gets you stamped as a felon and a sex offender agains kids for the rest of your life in most states

So, the point you're trying to make is "different places have different laws"? You could just have said "different places have different laws", I don't think anyone would doubt you. Do go on.

There's a whole damn library about privacy legislation throughout the EU.

Those binding directives must be implemented into law in all of the EU countries. You can add Iceland, Norway and Switzerland to the mix. This partially translates to criminal offenses if violated and yes - systematically storing and processing personally identifiable data without permission, reason and safeguards may be a crime depending on circumstances.

So you're saying ... what Google did might be a crime, but might not? Depending on whether it's in that "whole damn library" (hint: one or two network frames is extraordinarily unlikely to contain enough information to "uniquely identify a natural person") and whether they met just the right circumstances? I can accept that too.

You may claim that this is stupid. I for one however rather sip a beer, sitting on a park bench on a sunny day then have my private data (including phone, financial and medical data) splattered around the world and sold to every sleazy marketoid that pays for it.

Your priorities may differ, of course.

I didn't claim any of what you described was stupid. Well, maybe the bit where you think it's only against the law to steal cars in most jurisdictions. And I'm pretty sure none of phone, financial, or medical data came up. I'm not sure what phone, financial, or medical data would be doing unencrypted on someone's open WAP. I know most phone, financial, and medical sites I use which have my details use SSL, so even if I had an open WAP and Google was driving past at just the right time, they wouldn't have got any of it.

What I claimed was stupid was the idea that Google should be in trouble for collecting publicly broadcast data for the purposes of mapping out public AP locations.

Example? Sit onto a bench in central park and drink a beer? Busted! This is perfectly legal in most of Europe. Another example? Drink a beer at the tender age of 17? In most of the US a crime in most of Europe wine and beer can be consumed from 16 up. In Switzerland a 17 year old boy can screw a 15 year old girl (or vice versa) without falling afoul against the law. Something, I would guess, gets you stamped as a felon and a sex offender agains kids for the rest of your life in most states

There's a whole damn library about privacy legislation throughout the EU.

Those binding directives must be implemented into law in all of the EU countries. You can add Iceland, Norway and Switzerland to the mix. This partially translates to criminal offenses if violated and yes - systematically storing and processing personally identifiable data without permission, reason and safeguards may be a crime depending on circumstances.

You may claim that this is stupid. I for one however rather sip a beer, sitting on a park bench on a sunny day then have my private data (including phone, financial and medical data) splattered around the world and sold to every sleazy marketoid that pays for it.

Your priorities may differ, of course.

"I'm still wanting to know how Google violated your 80-year-old Grandmother's privacy, and which laws they broke." (ec.europa.eu) http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/law/index_en.htm. There, now that wasn't too difficult, was it?

So they were all fined a combined 402 million.

As far as I understand, the EU sets fines proportional to the sales over the duration of the sales, with a proportionality constant dependent on how much the infringement hurt the market. Although not many details are published on the EU website so far (EU case on DRAM), the EU has published the guidelines for the fine calculation (Guidelines on the method of setting fines). More details on the settlement decision will follow.

Unless there are clear indications of the opposite, I would assume that the 330m euro was in proportion with the amount of extra profit that the companies made thanks to the cartel; without the cartel, the profits or losses of the companies would probably have been similar.

So they were all fined a combined 402 million.

As far as I understand, the EU sets fines proportional to the sales over the duration of the sales, with a proportionality constant dependent on how much the infringement hurt the market. Although not many details are published on the EU website so far (EU case on DRAM), the EU has published the guidelines for the fine calculation (Guidelines on the method of setting fines). More details on the settlement decision will follow.

Unless there are clear indications of the opposite, I would assume that the 330m euro was in proportion with the amount of extra profit that the companies made thanks to the cartel; without the cartel, the profits or losses of the companies would probably have been similar.

Nations like the US and EU don't want to punish companies too harshly.

The stated aim of fines due to EU competition policy is to "deter companies from setting up or continuing cartels". Think of it in the same regards as the FSF and GPL enforcement - the aim is to bring companies into compliance, not to generate funds by way of punishment. Obviously a fine will also act as a form of punishment - the difference is that the policy is to bring companies into compliance with the law, rather than bring companies to the edge of bankruptcy.

It has a lot to do with the unique nature of the supranational, non-Federal nature of the European Union.

Each nation still retains sovereignty and national justice systems, EU directives have to be implemented within existing national frameworks.

To quote the EU:
"EU directives lay down certain end results that must be achieved in every Member State. National authorities have to adapt their laws to meet these goals, but are free to decide how to do so. Directives may concern one or more Member States, or all of them".

Each nation's police and government will act according to local custom and law. A nation can be more proactive and might interpret the actions of Google in conflict with local laws, while others don't.

Odds are, your old PC was "recycled" in the sense that it went in a dump somewhere in the 3rd world where children picked through the lead laden waste scraping off bits of metal for recycling.

Well, they would be completely illegal, as our law as implemented the EU Directive 2002/95/CE and others, which clearly state they have to recycle and cleanly dispose of dangerous chemicals.
We have a group of companies called Amb3e that advertises how much "clean" they are making the world.

Ah found it!

14 April 2009--case has been dragging on for ages then..

It was so bad because the UK government refused to do something about it that the EU had to step in and overrule them!

Telecoms: Commission launches case against UK over privacy and personal data protection

“Technologies like internet behavioural advertising can be useful for businesses and consumers but they must be used in a way that complies with EU rules. These rules are there to protect the privacy of citizens and must be rigorously enforced by all Member States," said EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding. “We have been following the Phorm case for some time and have concluded that there are problems in the way the UK has implemented parts of EU rules on the confidentiality of communications. I call on the UK authorities to change their national laws and ensure that national authorities are duly empowered and have proper sanctions at their disposal to enforce EU legislation on the confidentiality of communications. This should allow the UK to respond more vigorously to new challenges to ePrivacy and personal data protection such as those that have arisen in the Phorm case. It should also help reassure UK consumers about their privacy and data protection while surfing the internet.”

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_at_en.pdf

You're welcome.

With everyone saying ARM is so efficient how are we to know that Google is not investing in ARM to make more energy efficient ARM based servers?

It's definitely a market that ARM itself is also targeting: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/ict/docs/computing/arm-emre-ozer_en.pdf (see e.g. the EuroCloud project mentioned on slide 3)

Read the relevant EU law here. ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:en:HTML )

It is explicitly stated in the law that "Any contractual terms or agreements concluded with the seller before the lack of conformity is brought to the seller's attention which directly or indirectly waive or restrict the rights resulting from this Directive shall, as provided for by national law, not be binding on the consumer."

Law trumps EULA.

Matress, Shoebox, buy your own safe, bury it, etc.

Carrying large amounts of cash as an individual is a good way to get mugged and/or accused of money laundering or financing of terrorism. See, for example, EU cash controls.

By employer's bank, he means the bank that your employer banks at not that they own a bank.

My fault. The English possessive case is ambiguous that way.

Society managed for years without credit

Society before credit also had commodity money and serfdom.

It is sad that we as a nation have become so dependent upon it.

I agree that one should not depend on credit in most cases. I treat my credit card as if it were a debit card and pay it in full each month. But buying a house is an exception due to the sheer dollar amounts involved.

The coming iPhone however will need to have a Micro-USB Plug, at least for Europe. The EU dictates that all mobile phones need to be equipped with such a socket beginning with this year. See the following memorandum: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=5274&userservice_id=1&request.id=0 (PDF)

hopefully, soon, Europe will also have class-action lawsuits.

The legislation is already under discussion for some time now, except it's called Consumer Collective Redress over here:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/collective_redress_en.htm

In the UK, all electrical goods worth more than a certain value (and some other classes of goods) are automatically garuanteed for one year, as part of the customer's statutory rights

That should be two years now because of the EU Directive on Consumer Rights. The same directive gives a minimum warranty period of two years but UK law extends that to six, except for Scotland where it's five.

Better yet, the onus is on the shop to show that the failure to prove that it was due to your misuse, not you having to prove that it was a poor design or manufacturing defect.

Actually that's only true for the first six months in the UK or three months (as a minimum) for the rest of the EU. After that you have to show that the fault was present when you originally purchased the item. For most classes of "the damn thing just broke!" that's not too hard though.

Here's the full directive; the relevant chapter starts on page 30.

Neither WHOIS information nor IP address block allocation (ARIN's remit) should be private. Neither businesses nor anonymous web sites are entitled to anonymity in most of the developed world. Europe, in fact, is tougher on this than the US. Europe has the European Privacy Directive, but that's for individuals acting in their private capacity. Businesses come under the European Directive on Electronic Commerce.

1. In addition to other information requirements established by Community law, Member States shall ensure that the service provider 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) the details of the service provider, including his electronic mail address, which allow him to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner;

"Service provider" here means web site owner/operator. So even in an area with strong privacy laws, businesses don't have the right to run anonymous web sites.

California has a similar law for sites that accept credit cards. It's a criminal offense in California to accept credit cards from an anonymous web site.

At SiteTruth, our demo search site, we use this requirement to filter out "bottom-feeder" sites from search results. If it looks commercial, and we can't figure out who owns the site after trying about five different approaches, it's down-rated, and we move this down in search results. This puts teeth into fighting "search engine spam".

Sites can put up phony address info, of course, but that's a felony in many jurisdictions. It's generally treated as fraud, and if it's someone else's address, identity theft. That's a line most "bottom feeders" don't want to cross. Also, much such fraud is reported to sites like PhishTank, so there are red flags to check.

If you want to put up a personal site to express your political opinions, fine. But if it's selling something, it can't be anonymous. Deal with it.

Unfortunately, as with most, this idea is not new:

A google search for "satellite early warning tsunami":
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=satellite+early+warning+tsunami&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&safe=active
Comes up with the following results:
http://ec.europa.eu/world/tsunami/other-measures/early_warning.htm
http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TsunamiRWarningSystem.html
http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin124/bul124h_martin_neira.pdf

I'm not picking apart your idea. Just you googleing (How the hell do you spell Googleing? Googling?) skills, I guess.

And, didn't I see a /. story about this a few months ago? Maybe around the time of the last big Tsunami?

- Zotdogg

To add insult to injury, in EU, chinese imports SIMPLY PAY NO TAXES, sinking the local producers in the process.

What utter rubbish. Here is the site on the eu website that will allow you to calculate the duty:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/cgi-bin/tarchap?Lang=EN

It takes a while to figure out how it works, but I just searched for a DVD Recorder (TARIC CODE = 8521900090) and the import duty was 13.9%. Here is the result for non-magnetic tape video recording apparatus:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/cgi-bin/tarduty?Taric=8521900090&SimDate=20100331&Action=1&ProdLine=80&Country=CN/0720&Type=0&Action=1&YesNo=1&Indent=-1&Flag=1&Test=tarduty&Periodic=0&Download=0&Lang=EN&Description=yes

I am sure there is the odd product that is not covered by duty, but you seem to think everything imported to the EU from China pays no duty, that is plainly not true.

To add insult to injury, in EU, chinese imports SIMPLY PAY NO TAXES, sinking the local producers in the process.

What utter rubbish. Here is the site on the eu website that will allow you to calculate the duty:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/cgi-bin/tarchap?Lang=EN

It takes a while to figure out how it works, but I just searched for a DVD Recorder (TARIC CODE = 8521900090) and the import duty was 13.9%. Here is the result for non-magnetic tape video recording apparatus:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/cgi-bin/tarduty?Taric=8521900090&SimDate=20100331&Action=1&ProdLine=80&Country=CN/0720&Type=0&Action=1&YesNo=1&Indent=-1&Flag=1&Test=tarduty&Periodic=0&Download=0&Lang=EN&Description=yes

I am sure there is the odd product that is not covered by duty, but you seem to think everything imported to the EU from China pays no duty, that is plainly not true.

But you're missing all the important, freedom-loving stuff the European Commission does! For example, just a week ago, the Commission made an important clarification to the law on padded waistcoats.

It is of course quite plain that winter jackets "are generally worn over other clothing and ensure a protection against the weather (citation omitted) and, consequently, anoraks (including ski-jackets), wind-cheaters, wind-jackets and similar articles falling within those headings must have long sleeves." But you see, this leaves us with a grievous omission as regards padded waistcoats.

For "padded waistcoats, despite the fact that they have no sleeves at all, should be covered by [the jacket-related] headings because they are worn over all other clothing for protection against the weather, and because of their padding."

Therefore, the Commission has made an important proclamation: "By derogation from the first paragraph those headings shall include padded waistcoats, despite the fact that they have no sleeves."

Apparently the European Digital Agenda Commissioner (2010-2014) is a 70 year old woman who according to her webpage has "an ongoing interest in mental health issues." Seriously? They couldn't find anyone more qualified? How many 70 year old people are there who even know what open source means? I'm not an ageist nor a sexist, but I'm pretty sure about all of my friends would have been more qualified to this particular job.

https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/petition/secured/submit.do?language=EN

if you are living in an Eu member country, Eu member candidate country, or a resident of an Eu member country, or working for a company that has its quarters in an Eu member country, you have the right to petition European Parliament.

This is not your ordinary online petition page - this is an official petition page, petitions of which are each processed by real bureaucrats and acted upon, if you give your credentials correctly. (Name surname and so on). Its serious shit.

As of this moment, the affiliates of american media cartels are flooding Eu parliament members with the falsified and baseless statistics they have been using to fool the senators in united states. Eu parliament members are generally much more informed than u.s. senators, however it is much better not to leave anything to chance.

So, if you fulfill any of the above conditions, you should fill a petition urging European Parliament to side with the people rather than the corporate interests, and you should inform them about the falsified statistics that media cartels are using. If you have any links to the various realistic statistics that were made by independent organizations, you can also forward the information to them. (like the p2p research done in netherlands a while ago).

Eu parliament already basically blocked some draconian items in the acta treaty. they did it with great majority. so they DO listen and heed people. If Eu parliament shoots acta down totally, then there is no way in hell that it can come into being, because since china and russia would never accept and enforce it, (and noone can force them to do so), if you add europe to that it basically makes approx 4/7th of world population.

Go for it. time is now.

The Chinese government *wants* American values, but cafeteria style. They want free exchange of information so long as it is information leaving America and entering China. They don't want information leaving China or worse yet circulating within China. The Chinese government wants America to be open and pursue classical liberal trade policy while it remains closed and pursues mercantilist policies. It wants America to be true to its respect of sovereign nations, but to forget about every individual's sovereignty over his own opinions. It demands the American not interfere in free markets while the Peoples Liberation Army operates businesses and party official parlay their connections into business wealth.

You know, I'm no expert on international relations so this might just be the media doing a number on me, but what you've written here looks remarkably similar to how the US treats the rest of the world.

The US had a unilateral information flow coming from Europe for years until the EU stopped it last year. It still maintains trade embargoes against a variety of countries whilst persuing a policy of protectionism for it's own trade. And the fact that you even have the concept of a "Free speech zone" speaks volumes about the individual's sovereignty over their opinions.

I'm not saying the US is better or worse than China, just that a lot of the things that USians appear to think differentiate them from the Chinese actually don't.

I hate to break it to you but the NHS is the worst of all the western public healthcare systems.

I'll take the Australian, German or French system any day over the abomination that is the NHS.

And I'm sure that you're aware that most states in the US (which of course are as populous and economically large as most European countries) have various forms of public insurance and public public care, so much so that even the "worst case" "victims" the administration keep bringing out to show how awful the current US healthcare system is have all been covered and receiving full treatment in their respective states public systems. Something the administration always conveniently neglect to mention.

The current rigmarole in the United States regarding healthcare is not about public / private, it's about the Federal Government moving into areas that it's does not have the authority to legislate. It's directly comparable to if (when) the European Union decides it's going to "take over" all of its member states discrete healthcare systems and run them from Brussels.

When that happens the EU *certainly* won't choose the UK model, and given how noisy and condescending you Brits have been about the Americans unwillingness to allow complete take over of healthcare by their Federal government don't expect any sympathy when the EU (yes they are talking about it http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/co_operation/mobility/patient_mobility_en.htm) comes to take over yours.

Never mind, I got one:

"Over the period 2004-2007 the final energy consumption in the EU-27 Member States decreased, while electricity end-use consumption in EU-27 continued to grow, but at a lower rate than the economic growth."

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/pdf/EnEff_Report_2009.pdf

So - nice try Mr Trollhat, your bullshit has now been called.

QUOTE from the settlement: "The five main web browsers with the highest usage share, ordered alphabetically [later changed to randomized] according to the vendor's company name, would be prominently displayed, and seven additional web browsers, also ordered alphabetically according to the vendor's company name, would be displayed if the user scrolls sideways." - http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/39530/final_decision_en.pdf

- The top 5 are the most popular.
- The remaining 7 are apparently random.

It appears MS picked those browsers that are least usable (or outdated), and that might explain why SeaMonkey and Netscape 9 were not included even though they are probably the 6th and 7th most popular browsers in EU.

I'm glad the EU politicians wasted a couple million of my dollars on this. Well, not MY dollars, but somebody's dollars (european taxpayers' euros).

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/39530/final_decision_en.pdf

6.3.82.a-d

Next time, do your own research.

Well if you read the actual resolution, you can see that the parliament adds limits to what can be accepted in the negotiations. In particular regarding individual rights, privacy, searches, and so called "threes strikes" legislation. It does urge the commission to continue the negotiations, however.

Firstly, the vote was not against ACTA, it was a resolution to force the Commission to open up the documents (See one of the Pirate Party MEPs blog: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/epic-win-for-transparency-on-acta/ or the official EP website http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/026-70281-067-03-11-903-20100309IPR70280-08-03-2010-2010-false/default_en.htm). The article is very very wrong. The 13 against are listed in the EUPs roll calls.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+PV+20100310+RES-RCV+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

The following are against (by their EU party grouping)
EFD: Agnew, Andreasen, Batten, Bufton, Colman, (The Earl of) Dartmouth, Farage, Nattrass, Nuttall
NI: Bontes, Sinclaire, Stassen, van der Stoep

These are from the UK and the Netherlands. All of them UKIP (British anti-eu party) or PVV (Dutch anti-islam party).

The British MEPs are the following
UKIP: Andreasen, Agnew, Batten, Bufton, Colman, Farage, Nattrass, Nuttall
Previous UKIP (expelled): Sinclare

The Dutch ones the following
PVV: Bontes, Stassen, van der Stoep

I have not bothered to include the ones who abstained their vote.

Firstly, the vote was not against ACTA, it was a resolution to force the Commission to open up the documents (See one of the Pirate Party MEPs blog: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/epic-win-for-transparency-on-acta/ or the official EP website http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/026-70281-067-03-11-903-20100309IPR70280-08-03-2010-2010-false/default_en.htm). The article is very very wrong. The 13 against are listed in the EUPs roll calls.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+PV+20100310+RES-RCV+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

The following are against (by their EU party grouping)
EFD: Agnew, Andreasen, Batten, Bufton, Colman, (The Earl of) Dartmouth, Farage, Nattrass, Nuttall
NI: Bontes, Sinclaire, Stassen, van der Stoep

These are from the UK and the Netherlands. All of them UKIP (British anti-eu party) or PVV (Dutch anti-islam party).

The British MEPs are the following
UKIP: Andreasen, Agnew, Batten, Bufton, Colman, Farage, Nattrass, Nuttall
Previous UKIP (expelled): Sinclare

The Dutch ones the following
PVV: Bontes, Stassen, van der Stoep

I have not bothered to include the ones who abstained their vote.

I don't want to bring the mood down, but this is just a good summary of a bad article. The parliament did not vote against ACTA per se, they voted in favour of resolution RC-B7-0154/2010. Much better summary is the press release from the parliament itself.

In brief, they are mostly pissed off about the secrecy of the negotiations and lack of transparency. The resolution calls on the negotiations being made accessible to the public and the MEPs in a timely manner. So it's not against ACTA, it's against how negotiations are conducted. However, the resolution does also call out against the 3-strike rule and personal searches at EU borders. Regarding warrantless searches, they merely want a "clarification" of clauses that would allow such things.

I don't want to bring the mood down, but this is just a good summary of a bad article. The parliament did not vote against ACTA per se, they voted in favour of resolution RC-B7-0154/2010. Much better summary is the press release from the parliament itself.

In brief, they are mostly pissed off about the secrecy of the negotiations and lack of transparency. The resolution calls on the negotiations being made accessible to the public and the MEPs in a timely manner. So it's not against ACTA, it's against how negotiations are conducted. However, the resolution does also call out against the 3-strike rule and personal searches at EU borders. Regarding warrantless searches, they merely want a "clarification" of clauses that would allow such things.

https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/petition/secured/submit.do?language=EN

if you are a eu citizen, or if you are a eu candidate country's citizen, or if you are working for a company with its headquarters is in eu, you can petition Eu parliament directly.