Slashdot Mirror
Europe Moves To Track Phone and Net Use
An anonymous reader writes with a NYTimes piece on the early moves by European governments to implement an EU data retention directive. The governments of Germany and the Netherlands are initially proposing much more stringent programs than the EU directive requires. For example, the German proposal "would essentially prohibit using false information to create an e-mail account, making the standard Internet practice of creating accounts with pseudonyms illegal." The Times notes that, early days as it is, nevertheless some people involved in the issue are "concerned about a shift in policy in Europe, which has long been a defender of individuals' privacy rights."
Mankind has demonstrated, again and again, that if something can be done then it will, eventually, be done. Whatever justification is supplied for these directives the bottom line is: the bottom line. Information (eg. network logs) creates data. Data can be made to say anything. There is money to be made in making data say what the people with money want it to say. If justice is ever enforced it is a secondary consequence. The primary goal is always to allocate money to promote someone's bottom line.
The common users in Europe will simply need to accept that there are now new sets of standards by which authorities can meddle in the affairs of the public. Either initiate a revolution or adjust behavior accordingly.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
I think finding ways around this is all well and good, but the question is why is our society moving so intently towards a system when the citizens NEED to do it, in order to feel safe.
I have said on several occasions, that we will find ourselves in trouble, when technology finally allows for constant surveillance of every member of society everywhere, all the time. Given historical and current precedents, it's logical to assume that once such capacity exists, it will be rapidly implemented.
I have this cold chill down my spine, telling me that perhaps Hitler was right about the 1000-year-Reich, but was just off by a few decades. After all, total surveillance will finally allow the government to fulfill what seems to be its chief purpose anyway - maintaining the status quo indefinitely.
Pro corporate and pro-fascist extremists want to make the EU into the same ultra-right regime in place in the US.
They had a problem though, National constitions and common law throughout much of Europe is simply too "liberal" to allow this.
The solution, of course, is to make a new "supranational" government for europe which is designed from the ground up to be accountable only to the moneyed elite like Rupert Murdoch.
The solution for the people is to either resign themselves to the institution of a new tyrrany, or to pull their support for the EC and let them sit and sputter.
If i were european, i'd go for the latter.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I find the monitoring of citizens location during every moment of a cell phone call to be a bit more frightening than not being able to use false data to register an email address. Why'd the pseudonym get bigger billing, as it were?
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
That's ridiculous. I don't trust any free e-mail service provider with my information. In fact, I never provide real information unless I have to make a payment or something. I just don't trust Hotmail, Yahoo, Google, or any website with any real information.
There's the million-dollar phrase. I wonder if these EU legislators really understand how the Internet works. Those who wish to use emails, telephones, etc. for nefarious purposes will find a work-around. In the end, this legislation will only punish the grandmothers, kids, e-novices, and clueless users who simply tried to sign up for a junk email account. Joe Terrorist will be using encrypted communications and the like - stuff that already requires a team of specialists to track. So even if this legislation passes, you'll still need special enforcement units to track the real bad guys - exactly where we are now. Sounds like a lot of time, money, and hassle for a false sense of security.
Well.. the EU parliament is elected and the EU Commission is appointed from elected officials in each country. The EU is not in itself a government - it only has the power granted to it by the member states, so if it's trying to make more restrictive laws it's because *your* elected government wants them to.
Note also that it's the EU that successfully blocked software patents despite lots of lobbying from vested interests (well, the commission - remember, your government - wanted them, and the parliament - directly elected - sad get lost.. multiple times).
It's got a long way to go before it's nearly as sold out as the US system is.
You see, when you have 27 member states that have a veto right on nearly everything the name of the game is haggling and compromise. It works like this: Member state A wants X that member state B is reluctant to agree upon. A then rallies member state C and D to put forward a preposterous proposal Y that shocks member states A, E, F and G. Then the negotiations begin and imagine that, member state A is willing to give up Y if it gets X. B is now under pressure from A, C, D, E, F and G to agree to X.
This is more likely a play for reducing fishing quotas or something similar. It is important to remember that the stated proposals are seldom what they seem to be and are always preposterous. Even if a proposed bill is vaguely on-topic, it starts with an extreme suggestion in order to allow a compromise solution. It's just the way it is played and it actually works very well.
The down side is of course that people not familiar with how things work in Brussels tend to get upset over the first batch of radical proposals.