Slashdot Mirror

While Israel is a sovereign nation, it is also a signatory to a number of human rights conventions... They've voluntarily given themselves restrictions on what laws they can make and how they apply them.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Article 12 says:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

http://www.hri.org/docs/UDHR48.html

Inside your home is the only place where you have an expectation of privacy

Complete and utter bullshit. European Convention on Human Rights.

The treaty is not the central issue here, it is far more complicated than that.

First of all you have to be a lawyer, understand European legal systems (not Anglo-American "Common Law") and know EU law to really discuss this. I happen to qualify :)

Even if the EU wanted to impose a three strike law it would have to overcome a number of obstacles. I believe it could be argued that it would be in conflict with the constitutions of several of the EU member nations. You see as the EU is NOT a federal government, the individual nations still have sovereignty and national constitutions.

More interestingly the European Convention on Human Rights, a central treaty to *ALL* European countries both inside and outside the EU, spell out fundamental rights that neither the EU or individual nations can ignore.

The question has already been raised if such legislation as the proposed "three strikes" law would be in conflict with several fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, access to information and possibly other rights from enterprise to education.

In many European nations the courts have deliberated and expanded what we consider basic and necessary to function in a modern society. A law that denies people such a "basic" right to communicate, educate, trade/work and participate in public discussions would probably be in conflict with the ECHR [to be determined by the *non-EU* European Court of Human Rights]

European Convention of Human Rights, Section 1

Article 6.1
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Article 6.2
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Article 6.3
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

IANAL, but it you'd have an extremely difficult time proving 6.3(a) to the ECtHR if the guy didn't even know he was to turn up to court (Everyone sends read receipts, of course). The rest is just farce; An evidentiary hearing is not a trial, and as such innocense must be presumed under 6.2

P.S. The Europeasn court of human rights can fuck off, all they care about is criminal scum.

THe ECHR only enforces a treaty. It's a very simple treaty with little legaleese mostly written by Churchill's lawyers after WW2. Which of it's articles do you object to?

ARTICLE 10: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression ... The exercise of these freedoms may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law...

This wouldn't affect existing recordings anyway even if it was enacted into law!

If you introduce a new law, it can't be applied to anything that was done before the law was introduced; and if you introduce a new punishment for an offence, anyone who was sentenced to the old punishment can't be given the new one. That's article 11 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights makes similar provisions and is enshrined in UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998.

A copyright term extension could only be applied to brand-new copyrights. Existing copyrights would not be affected. The holders knew -- and presumably agreed to -- the terms when they created their creative works.

Article Ten of the European Convention of Human Rights explicilty grants it. (and article nine is essentially freedom of religion). http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html The ECHR specifically supersedes any existing national laws that it may conflict.

Actually the French do have the right to a fair trial and freedom of speech. See http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

This case is setting up an interesting collision between Belgium's domestic legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), comparable to (...although differing in detail ...) the collision between state and federal law in the USA.

This is a good thing. Ideally, of course, anti-racists or anti-anti-Islamicists would simply find a way to outtalk or otherwise pursuade racists, using reason, logic et cetera. But in the real world, it's normal and human to take shortcuts, especially where local fears are inflamed by famous crimes committed by Islamic immigrants.

The ECHR has been helpful in comparable matters. For example, in previous cases involving torture in the U.K., the local nation's actions which were engendered by local fears were overruled by the calmer, broader view of the larger E.U.. That's one of the benefits of a multilevel polity; locals get inflamed by local fears, while larger groups are not so emotionally involved.

The most obviously relevant ECHR law in this Flemish matter:

ARTICLE 10:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

This language gives plenty of room to argue, e.g. whether podcasting is broadcasting, and whether banning anti-Islamic speech is "necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security".

I don't know the answer that the Council of Europe will fnally provide, but the ECHR is probably the most important legal battleground.

Article 10
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Nope. Not until the UK adopts something resembling the 1st amendment.

Actually [IANAL but am studying to become one :], I think article 10 of The European Convention on Human Rights applies better here, the European Court of Human Rights has more power than the UN in these matters.

# Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
# The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

More info here and some judgements and decisions here. Also, I'm not sure, but I think that the European Court of Justice (part of the EU) can use the ECHR treaty in it's rulings.

Atricle 8

Well said. Most of the EU member states have enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into law. Article 10 of this convention sets out the right to free expression (although qualified in section 2 to include responsibilities).

Your well thought out expression gives me some confort that not all Americans subscribe to the foolishly jingoistic notion that the American construction of liberty is the only valid one.

As a European, I rarely feel myself groaning under the oppressive weight of our democracies, nor do I feel the oxygen of liberty suddenly fill my lungs during my many visits to the USA. It's perfectly possible (indeed admirable) to take pride in your country and culture without sneering at the achievements of others, whose efforts and results may reflect a history of which one is not aware.

--Ng

It goes even further than the US DMCA, in that it EXPLICITLY makes publishing information (not just code) for circumventing copy protection illegal. Guess without a 1st amendment, they didn't have to pussyfoot around.

Darn. I guess we'll just have to fall back on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights instead. That's the one guaranteeing freedom of expression, yada yada.

There is an exemption they'd probably argue for, where they can make it illegal to distribute information that would be used in the commission of crimes, but the burden of proof seems to be pretty much with them. You could (morally and legally) make an argument against distributing cracking software with that exemption. OTOH, they'd have to risk a very serious court case to try to stop things like academic study and the disclosure of vulnerabilities in software to sysadmins for security purposes.

Yeah...um, why don't you go ahead and give me the oil export numbers for Afghanistan then. Just the simple stuff, you know, millions of barrels exported per year, etc.

Oh that's right, there are no oil exports from Afghanistan. Maybe there's some other dark government secret you can dig up for me.

Alright, you got it, ooo you got me. There are no oil exports from Afghanistan yet. But they have been planned for quite a long time.

And mostly plans have been made to move both natural gas and oil through the region from former Soviet republics. But since I am nothing but an idiot conspiracy theorist, you might not want to read the documents from the Department of Energy like I have said in other posts.

From the Department of Energy website:

In February 1998, the Taliban announced plans to revive the Afghan National Oil Company, which was abolished by the Soviet Union after it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Oil exploration and development work as well as plans to build a 10,000-bbl/d refinery were halted after the 1979 Soviet invasion.

The Soviets had estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at up to 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in the 1970s. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s.


In January 1998, the Taliban signed an agreement that would allow a proposed 890-mile, $2-billion, 1.9-billion-cubic-feet-per-day natural gas pipeline project led by Unocal to proceed. The proposed pipeline would have transported natural gas from Turkmenistan's 45-Tcf Dauletabad natural gas field to Pakistan, and most likely would have run from Dauletabad south to the Afghan border and through Herat and Qandahar in Afghanistan, to Quetta, Pakistan


Besides the gas pipeline, Unocal also had considered building a 1,000-mile, 1-million barrel-per-day (bbl/d) capacity oil pipeline that would link Chardzou, Turkmenistan to Pakistan's Arabian Sea Coast via Afghanistan. Since the Chardzou refinery is already linked to Russia's Western Siberian oil fields, this line could provide a possible alternative export route for regional oil production from the Caspian Sea. The $2.5-billion pipeline is known as the Central Asian Oil Pipeline Project. For a variety of reasons, including high political risk and security concerns, however, financing for this project remains highly uncertain

Pumping Oil Out Of Central Asia

The Geopolitics of Oil In Central Asia

Caspian Sea Oil and Gas Production

The oil behind Bush and Son's campaigns

Consortium formed to build Central Asia gas pipeline

So why dont you go ahead and read those little ditties I dug up for you as you requested and remember: its easy to use a search engine, so why not try and use one before copping some sort of attitude about me being some wacko who is full of shit.

I quote you:

Maybe there's some other dark government secret you can dig up for me.

It aint dark, its right at your fingertips.

Of course, people actually downloading the whole human genome probable wouldn't worry about this, but couldn't they use a better compression format than .zip? I bet using bzip2 or rar would shave a couple of hundred MBs off of that 753MB file. Also, the differences in compression techniques would be interesting to see on a large group of files mainly consisting of G, A, C, and T. -- demiurge You find a file that appears important and obliterate it from memory!!! Score one for the downtrodden hacker!

• G -- 00
• A -- 01
• T -- 10
• C -- 11

This would only work for the .fa files, but .fa files can contain "N"s also. If you just want to browse the Genome, look through the pieces directory. .

Because of this, at the end of the day, all British citizens are SUBJECTS, not equal citizens of the state

One of the dumbest yet most persistent myths on Earth. British citizens are citizens -- if you don't believe me, check page 3 of a British passport, where Her Britannic Majesty's Foreign Secretary kindly explains the difference between a British Citizen (having the right of abode in the United Kingdom), a British National (having the right to a British passport), a British Dependent Territories Citizen, a British Protected Person, a British National (Overseas), a British Overseas Citizen (mainly Falklanders and Gibraltarians) and a British subject. British subjects are not the same as British Citizens, and British Citizens are very definitely citizens.

In the UK, you are not guaranteed the right to free speech. There is no genesis document like our Constitution that explicitly says that you are allowed to express your opinion due to it being a right granted to you as a human being.

Now that's fucking funny, because I seem to remember that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ratified by the UK and enforceable in UK courts, with appeal to the European Court of Human Rights) guarantees me exactly that freedom. Ah yes, I remember rightly. I often rmember these things correctly, due to not being a fucking moron.

It helps that, unlike you, I'm not lumbering under the myth that everything has to be like the US Constitution, and that only "genesis documents" (for crying out loud) can confer "inalienable rights".

Why, Oh Lord, must it be the case that the loudest defenders of free speech are those who have fucking nothing to say? Why do you care about free speech? You've clearly never had an original thought in your life. No government in history has ever put people in prison for mindlessly parroting the party line. You're completely safe.

montoya

The enforcement of EU laws in individual member states has yet to be tested. We'll see.

The UK has lost a number of cases in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
It had to change its laws every time.

From http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html :

The European Convention on Human Rights

ROME, 4 November 1950

ARTICLE 9

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. this article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.