Slashdot Mirror
Positive Rights News From Europe
Various readers are sending in good news from Europe on the rights front. First, at the EU level, Mark.J brings word that the European Parliament has canned a number of controversial amendments to its updated Telecoms Package, which could have resulted in ISPs being forced to disconnect customers for involvement in illegal file-sharing of copyrighted material. Next, SplatMan_DK writes from Denmark on a recent ruling by the Danish High Court that means that Danes are still innocent until proven guilty in copyright cases, even if their IP address has been confirmed as the origin of P2P traffic involving copyrighted music. Finally, from Sweden, an update on the draconian so-called Lex Orwell, which would have effectively resulted in the routine wiretapping of the entire nation. Eric Blair sends a link on an agreement reached between the Swedish parliament and the sitting government on a new form for the controversial signals intelligence law. Supposedly, the sting has been taken out of the law: only the department of defense and the cabinet may request data, and they'll have to get court approval for it.
Eric Blair was a visionary, but he is dead now.
So the gradual encroachment of governmental power over the rights of citizens is slowed yet again.
But doesn't the mere fact that the government has the power to limit itself signal that such limitations are arbitrary and subject only to the whims and needs of those in power? While "protecting the children" may not be as crucial as personal privacy to some European people, isn't it just a matter of time until the priorities become reversed and the erosion of rights will again begin in earnest?
How can a government be the arbiter of rights unless it has the power to take them away?
Generally when you talk about positive rights, it means the government must provide something. Negative rights prevent the government from doing something. The US Bill of Rights is generally considered to be all negative rights. So, it is clearer to refrain from using those adjectives when talking about rights unless you are describing how they affect the government, as opposed to whether they are good or bad.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Give it some time and then they will try and take away our privacy again. The only good thing with politics are the younger ones who look back in time on the greatest and do not fall into the lobbyist pit. I dont mind politicans taking money from lobbyists or anyone, as long as they do whats right for the nation and its people, rather than for some shitty corporation.
Although it is nice to see positive news, you must remember that Europe is not one country. It is many countries and what is legal in one can be very illegal in another.
As if you start comparing laws in Israel, China and Japan, just because it is all Asia.
Just so you are aware of it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
without having RTFA, I thought either a) it was April 1 and no one told me, or b) I need to up my anti-seizure meds.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
Being considered innocent until proven guilty is not a positive right it is a negative right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Thanks to the EU, it's now an alliance with internal tradiing advantages and collective leadership. In English, we call this a confederacy (no necessary relation to the Confederate States of America).
If Israel, Iran and Iraq started their own trade agreement, we might refer to the mid-East in the same way.
Anti-Globalism, Traditionalism, and FreeBSD.
And members are bound by treaty to abide by its rules.
Also, water wet. Fire hot. Pain hurts.
The "critics" who are now stating that the law is now acceptable to all critics are mainly members and supporters of the current government who in many cases voted for the original law because they didn't want to go against the party line (of their party Folkpartiet).
Now they feel that they can "compromise" and seem like they're against the original law while still not going against the party. If you check the websites of Piratpartiet (The pirate party) and StoppaFRAlagen.nu then you'll see that they, the chief critics of the law, are still against the revised law.
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Supposedly, the sting has been taken out of the law: only the department of defense and the cabinet may request data, and they'll have to get court approval for it.
I'm not so sure I agree thats taking the sting out of it - I mean, isn't the expectation of due process before having your rights infringed a given?
Its great that they are requiring due process, but I'd still prefer my own government didn't have the ability to make these requests at will. Court approval is likely to be a rubber stamp sort of step, with all requests getting approved. And in light of that, I could see requests for data being abused to fuel political motivations when convenient.
Overclockers
I'm glad to hear that, for a while longer at least, some people aren't going to be allowed to turn this entire planet into one big prison for it's citizens.
Whatever else you may think of intellectual property legislation, it has little if anything to do with common sense. They are highly technical and hotly-contested areas of law. You may not like it, but people on all sides of each of these issues have valid and reasoned points of view.
/. code for "finally, someone in power has adopted my point of view."
I don't know much about Danish copyright law, but whining "innocent until proven guilty" is sort of incongruous in a forum whose mantra is often "copyright infringement isn't criminal!" If it isn't criminal (and it isn't), why apply criminal standards of proof? In U.S. tort law, if a claimant can demonstrate that a wrong has been inflicted on him, and there are several possible defendants, the burden of proof shifts to each defendant to prove that he wasn't the one that committed the wrong. Danish courts have apparently determined this isn't the standard to be applied in terms of copyright violations. This isn't common sense--I suspect it's actually a very complex legal question.
Ditto on the three strikes law. Cutting off copyright violators at the source may seem draconian, but it's not as if the lights would go out the first time you download a song. The article is a little spare, but I suspect the volume of infringing content would have to be pretty significant to warrant an investigation leading to a warning, followed by a temporary supension, with complete access being cut off if after these first two measures you elect to continue infringing on someone else's right. Yes, you have a property and contractual right to your internet service. How far does the law need to go in allowing you to use that right to abuse someone else's?
Honestly, "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" seems to be
i may wet myself. all these positive news of late - first, bush adm. threatening veto for copyright cops bill, doj blasting it, then thompson getting screwed, then this. oh boy - whats going on.
Read radical news here
"an agreement reached between the Swedish parliament and the sitting government"
What, no standing ovation?
BTW: you can add the victory in an italian court that has removed the DNS ban of the Pirate Bay, placing a prevedent on the matter.
More details on: http://punto-informatico.it/2417079/PI/Brevi/italia-sblocca-accesso-the-pirate-bay.aspx
if you are confident with italian language.
It is this sort of semantic ambiguity that that powers much humor. On the flip side, there is a radio advert I frequently hear about a cancer treatment center. Within the monologue, the protagonist says:
"I'll have an oncologist for the rest of my life at Saint Vincent's..."
One could perceive a macabre irony when one realizes the survival rates of various neoplastic disorders coloring the phrase rest of my life.
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
When the referenced site says that even the staunchest critics are now happy with the law, it is just not true.
The problem is still that the Swedish authorities will not just get the permission from this new special court to investigate "issues".
The Swedish government require that all ISP's provide the Swedish state with a copy of every single packet that crosses the Swedish border. They will not need permission from the special court to collect our traffic.
The Swedish surveillance law has been reduced to nothing, according to public statements by the government.
This means that the opposition might get weaker, allowing the law to be passed. When that has happened, it will only be a matter of time before the government tries to strengthen the law again.
They don't want to spend money on an ineffective system.
Particles, stuff that matters.