Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Web Hosting Banned In France
An anonymous reader writes,"French free Webhosting services are now not so free anymore (In French!). In fact the French National Assembly has decided that anyone wanting to host some Web pages on a server has to identify himself. If this is not done, it's the server administrator who is responsible for any contents of the pages ... The immediate consequence for this is that free Web hosting services in France, like altern.org or multimania.com, won't be able to continue.
"
What if some US legislators think it's a good idea and try to pass it as law? If that should happen it will become increasingly difficult for other countries to remain havens of anonymity.
Precedents can be dangerous. It doesn't matter if there are workarounds.
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Can't you guys read the whole thing before going ballistic???
So, for the laymen, this has not happenned yet, and if it does, it will be challenged in the European court.
--
Umm, there's no way the french government to block people from using US and other countries free servers. In other words, this is just another great law that will be a huge pain in the butt and do nothing positive for the French.
It's nice to no that we in the USA are not the only ones being governed by idiots.
Click here to read too much about my personal life
I think you think to highly of your country. It was just a few months ago that the US department of Justice proposed eliminating Anonymity on the Internet. Now, I'm not sure exactly what this entailed (since there isn't really any true anonymity on the net other then IP spoofing). Mostly likely email, but it could probably be read to include websites as well. It?s a widely known fact that just about anyone 'inside the beltway' doesn?t know jack about the 'information cyber web'
Yes, the US does have a constitution that protects the rights of its citizens (god, I almost said users). But from where I'm standing, it looks like there being eaten away to serve corporate, and law enforcement desires. This is the same Nation that passed laws saying that copyrights should be extended 90 years after the author's death (and you can bet they'll be extended again by the time Mickey mouse's © is up). This is a nation who's FBI who wants wiretapping technology built into routers, and the ability to wiretap international satellite phone.
To be honest, it doesn?t really seem like America is that far from the nightmares of Orwell and Gibson. And a lot of western/European countries are following their lead.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
The law started well. It was first designed to solve the altern.org vs. Estelle "Bimbo" Halliday scandal. So it started well. But then ... as the law was being passed in the parliament, some zealot deputy or senator ammended with delirious requirements. Somehow, as that usually happens, those went unnoticed and passed.
But there is worse than what Valentin points out in his small blurb. Here's a fucking insane part of it: you may get 6 months of jail and/or $100k of fines if you misidentify yourself on a bulletin board. Now isn't that insane? Or just plain ridiculous.
Plus that's the kind of law the Scientology will loooooove. They'll be able to get the name and addresses of their opponent, they won't have to spend money researching them to send their hordes of drone picketing outside their home with "XX is a pedophile" signs.
Anyway, everything is not lost, the law might be challenged before the constitutional council. But I'm extremely disappointed by the weak coverage in the press.
Making changes to the TOS "demanding" that users include contact info isn't enough, because if the users DON'T, then BigHostingCompany is responsible for the content. To the French, it is "your problem" if the people hosting on your server didn't put the identification, because YOU are responsible for their content.
Prediction: Mass exodus of web servers, a la Australian and p0rn sites.
Actually, napster IS enabling something.
To you and I, it adds nothing for us. We already already highly proficient at moving data around the internet ( and other ways ) and can do it much more efficiently.
Napster enables those who don't have these skills to do it anyway. You only have to look at the fact that SO many people use napster now to see that it is true. Napster provides a user interface to people that they can comprehend and use to share mp3.
And as to an 'underground'.. you are bang on. We don't NEED the web. we can do many other things, in different ways.
Slashdot claims, in a headline, that "anonymous hosting is banned."
Read the little blurb, and it says that not at all. It says that if a webpage does not clearly identify the page owner, any content on it becomes the responsibility of the webmaster.
So either A) the page owner puts up identification, so it's no longer anonymous, or B) the hosting service takes on all responsibility, thus rendering it directly liable for anything that gets posted. B) is, IMHO, not terribly likely.
Granted, the law might not state "anonymous webpages are illegal", but the effect is the same. No more anonymous hosting within the boundaries of France.
Makes sense to me. If child pornography is illegal, and someone posts it up on an anonymous webserver, anonymously, *someone* needs to be held responsible for getting rid of the content.
Illegal content is still illegal. And was illegal before this. Sensible AUPs would disallow illegal content.
What's so wrong with that? Unless the French government is really pushy, sounds to me like it'll only become a problem for webmasters who have users that post illegal content.
"Why do you want to be anonymous if you don't have anything to hide?"
What about commentary on political or social issues? If someone is trying to express an opinion without prejudicing an audience either for or against the expresser, they need anonymity. If someone is trying to avoid flames (or sometimes physical threat), they need anonymity. If someone is blowing the whistle on corruption in business or government, they might also need anonymity.
Ideally, no one would be anonymous. Because ideally, no one would have need to be so.
However, it also seems that many people misunderstand the notion of "personal freedom". The original notion of personal freedom, as advocated by Locke and others, state that with freedom come a set of responsibilities. The fundamental aspect of these responsibilities deal with not depriving others of their freedoms as well. Therefore, governments attempt to produce laws that are "fair", striking a set of codes that, together, attempt to create a balance between freedom and responsibility.
It all works in an ideal world, but we all know that we do not live in an ideal world. Citizens of democracy have a right to know what the legislations their governments attempt to impose upon them, and an obligation to not blindly reelect those officials who deprive these basic rights in a callous manner.
Now, I hate the french as much as any fashionable American, but you have to admit, they did hook us up in the Revolutionary War.
There is a substantial difference between forcing webmasters to remove illegal content on a web site when it has been discovered and making them ciminally liable for not knowing who it was that posted the material.
The article states the penalty is a prison term of 6 months: Good lord, some poor smuck newbie sys admin gets his web site cracked by script kiddies posting warez in an obscure sub-directory and for that he gets a criminal record and 6 months in jail?
Arguing such a scenario was not the intent of the law plays foolishly into the hands of those who would use it to crush your voice of dissension.
This is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to restrict content to government sanctionned distribution channels. More is the shame that a Socialist party would be the channel for such an egrerious afront to individual freedoms.
I'm sick and tired of people raising the specter of pornography everytime they want to take away my freedom.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Slashdot claims, in a headline, that "anonymous hosting is banned."
Read the little blurb, and it says that not at all. It says that if a webpage does not clearly identify the page owner, any content on it becomes the responsibility of the webmaster.
It basically ramps up the responsibilities of those who own the machine.
Makes sense to me. If child pornography is illegal, and someone posts it up on an anonymous webserver, anonymously, *someone* needs to be held responsible for getting rid of the content.
What's so wrong with that? Unless the French government is really pushy, sounds to me like it'll only become a problem for webmasters who have users that post illegal content.
Those web hosting services *can* continue, right? They'll just probably be modifying the TOS to enforce their users to supply names and contact info.
Anonymous Coward comments are, in a sense, anonymous webhosting.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Sounds dumb to me for another reason. They are going to kill the ISPs and thus Internet industary in France. ISPs have to prove the identity's of all persons having a web page. So if they can't they get fined or jailed. So what do the ISP's do instead, remove all pages. If someone in France wants a page they have to goto another country (Hopefully the USA, since I am resident of that country and it would make our economy stronger).
No ISPs? Then French will leave France and work in other countries when it comes to eCommerce, they Next Big Thing.
Linux O Muerte!
Anonymity has always been outlawed in France, this is the summary of a bill before the french national assembly to codify a law banning all anonymity on any internet service physically on french territory.
As this article points out, the law is not yet final, but one more vote will make it final. The bill was unopposed by the clueless elected officials, because it merely confirms the internet must follow existing french law.
The new law will require all web hosting services to verify the identity of every person putting a web page on their servers, and must turn over that identity to any person who ask for it, including any cop or government official, as well as any private citizen. There is no requirement to publish the web authors information on the web page, merely to maintain a copy and to give it out when asked. It also says that if the web site owner can't or won't turn over the identity of a user, then its 6 months in prison.
The immediate downside of this law if it passes is that altern.org will have to kick off all users, and only let back on those who can prove their identity in one of the ways acceptable to the french government (carte d'identity, permis conduire (driving permit), or passport, as well as proof of residency of a current phone or electricity bill).
As Valentin points out, if this law passes in france, then it could quite well become law in all parts of the EU. That is frightening, but might happen.
The uncertain thing is what happens to people in other countries using french web hosting services and cant travel to france to prove their identity. As the law is currently written, french web hosting can only allow identified users on french soil, and all others must be kicked off.
ahhh, c'est les francais
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Anyone remember how this case got started?
This all came about over a copyright fight because model Estelle Hallyday did not like that nude photos of her had been scanned from a magazine and posted to free website AlternB.
One VERY important note from the original case is that the plaintiffs did not even TRY to identify the poster of the "offending" material. They specifically targeted the ISP. In fact, it seems that it would have been quite trivial to identify the owner of the pages.
Article from March, 1999 in Wired News
The implications of this decision are FAR worse than a cursory examination would reveal.
The National Assembly passes law requiring Web site authors to identify themselves
under penalty of imprisonment.
Summary:
Web site authors must identify themselves to their hoster before any public
communication can be made, under penalty of imprisonment.
In the absence of an identification, the hoster is responsible for the site's
contents and is liable for up to six months in prison.
Yesterday, March 22, the national assembly approved an amendment dealing with
the responsibilities of Web site hosters.
This law follows from the vote of
the Senate on January 19 which required Web hosters to disclose the
identity of any author to a third party under penalty of six months in prison.
All Web sites whose authors are unknown are the legal responsibility
of the hoster. In order to free myself from this responsibility I would
have to obtain the identities of each of altern.org's 48,000 users!
Of course, the e-commerce industry will be happy. What could be better than
requiring customers to reveal their identities, leaving you the possibility
of commercial exploitation?
The goal of this law seems to be to enact self-censorship on the level of the
Web hoster, and on the level of the author who, after giving up his identity
under penalty of imprisonment, has no insurance that his personal identity will
not be used for unfair profit.
This vote, however, is not definitive. A third and last reading must take
place. But it will be a question of reconciling differences in the texts
put forth by the assembly and by the Senate, so the law could conceivably
get worse.
As far as the future of altern.org is concerned, contrary to what I said
yesterday before reading the law's exact text, I can continue to host
sites as long as I accept my new role as watchdog.
[Note: I, the translator, take no responsibility for discrepancies
between the translation and its original version on altern.org.]
kugano
Who the heck do the french think they are? Have they ever heard of the Bill of Rights? Don't they realize that we have rights in America that they have to respect. If they don't, we'll have to take them to court. Those Supreme Court guys have this funny tendancy to uphold the constitution.
French people piss me off.
-----
The new orange petal fuckers is coming for you and he has a big belt buckle.