Slashdot Mirror
EU Paves the Way For Three-Strikes Cut-Off Policy
Mark.JUK writes "The European Parliament has surrendered to pressure from Member States (especially France) by abandoning amendment 138, a provision adopted on two occasions by an 88% majority of the plenary assembly, and which aimed to protect citizens' right to Internet access. The move paves the way for an EU wide policy supporting arbitrary restrictions of Internet access. Under the original text any restriction of an individual could only be taken following a prior judicial ruling. The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force Internet providers (ISPs) into disconnecting their customers from the Internet (i.e. such as when 'suspected' of illegal p2p file sharing)."
This will adversely affect small businesses - why should someone's business be made unviable cos they can't stop their kids downloading a few bits and pieces.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
I believe that this goes against pretty much any nation of EUs constitutions. You are innocent until proven guilty. France with their Dear Facist Leader, Sarkozy can fuck off.
In an ideal world this would be too big of a strain on EU relations and member states would start pulling out until it's just France. What would be left? FU.
My webcomic
Whenever I see stories of other countries governments and corporations (or is there a difference anymore?) trampling over citizens' rights even worse than is done here in the States, it just gives me this warm glowing feeling inside for some reason.
Hey what about articles 5, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
ilovegeorgebush
...a provision adopted on two occasions by an 88% majority of the plenary assembly, and which aimed to protect citizens' right to Internet access.
European democracy, defined: 88% Majority beaten by %0.001 business owners.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I'm sorry if something is adopted by 88% of the people then it should not be allowed to be removed by a smaller subset of people. If older prestige European countries are able to railroad the EU this way then what is the point for other less-prestigious members to stay?
The French President's already demonstrated the vulnerabilities. If they want to put in 3-strikes disconnection based on accusations alone, target the people who approve of it. They've almost certainly done something that'll justify at least an accusation. Once they've got 3 of them, make a huge stink about the law they insisted be passed and demand that they be subject to it.
Old Shin'a'in proverb: "If the enemy is in range, so are you.".
New rule, passed the next day:
'Internet access for MPs and Ministers cannot be interfered with.'
'Sensible' is a curse word.
What good are rights when the government can strip them from you whenever it deems necessary?
I don't know which is better: The EU openly taking away your supposed rights or the US taking away your rights and lying about it?
Probably the latter because people love being lied to.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Ignoring the fact that they are punishing people before it is even proven they did anything wrong, why are they taking away internet access?
For most crimes that I know of, you pay a fine or spend some time in jail. Are they taking away internet access because that is what was used to commit their "crime"?
If that's the case, they should chop off your legs the third time you illegally cross a street.
This is a public call for a worldwide boycott of all products coming out the entertainment industry, be it movies, music, tv programs, computer games of all sorts and whatever else.
this boycott shall continue until they all close shop.
Always trying to keep the man down! Censorship, holding back rights, they.. wait.. what? This is from the "Enlightened Europeans"!?
Nevermind, it's OK then.
Of course, using the example of the US Federal Government shows that idea can only work for so long. Now there's absolutely no part of life that the US Feds won't interfere with.
Comment of the year
> If the individual countries in Europe decided to keep their sovereignty...
"Sovereignty"? Didn't I recently read about discussions in Brussels of how to remove a certain head of state because he had the effrontry not to do as he was told and sign the Lisbon treaty?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
It worked great at first. It's just gotten bad lately.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
Personally I think the tree is looking very withered these days.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Ha, what do you expect, when contributors from Europe are for the most part British europhobes, fed from their tender age by MurdochMedia.
Indeed, what the text says is "a judge can order disconnection, given cause", and this got interpreted as "Big Corporations Have The Right To Arbitrarily Disconnect You, And This Right Was Given To Them By The Evil EU/Big Gvt."
Of course, the second version sells, wayyy better.
Yeah, you and Timothy McVeigh...
Do you really think the US worked better when only landowning whites were allowed to vote, slavery was legal, and the second president signed the alien and sedition acts?
I guess that's all a small price to pay for not getting your internet cut off...
The problem is that the US Federal Government needs to be able to over-ride State laws in some cases, for example, to protect interstate commerce. What needs to happen is a "scope reduction", not a "power reduction." The Feds should still be able to override State laws, but they should be prevented from making any laws *not* relating to interstate commerce, foreign policy, or defense.
The other thing that bugs me is people trying to amend the Constitution without amending the Constitution-- for example, the lawmakers trying to add extreme restrictions on gun ownership without doing things the proper way and repealing the Second Amendment. If you want gun control, fine-- but you have to repeal the amendment first! You can't shoehorn it in alongside!
Comment of the year
Look at Barak Obama. I've yet to see him significantly and fundamentally reform government, or otherwise to make either the USA or the world a better place. Yet, look at the devotion.
It's Barack, and this isn't devotion, it's people actually liking him. If you want devotion, look at the tards naming every damn thing they can find after Reagan.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
[troll]
there is no such thing as an American culture therefore there is nothing we should be protected against :muhaha (yeah I am french)
Quoted from "In the Beginning was the Command Line" by Neal Stephenson :
"The only real problem is that anyone who has no culture, other than this global monoculture, is completely screwed. Anyone who grows up watching TV, never sees any religion or philosophy, is raised in an atmosphere of moral relativism, learns about civics from watching bimbo eruptions on network TV news, and attends a university where postmodernists vie to outdo each other in demolishing traditional notions of truth and quality, is going to come out into the world as one pretty feckless human being. And--again--perhaps the goal of all this is to make us feckless so we won't nuke each other.
On the other hand, if you are raised within some specific culture, you end up with a basic set of tools that you can use to think about and understand the world. You might use those tools to reject the culture you were raised in, but at least you've got some tools."
[/troll]
back on the story I dont see a link between the bs your spouting and the amendment being dropped
just for the fun of it: (troll hat back on)
"in europe, there is another potent issue that does not exist in the usa: cultural irrelevancy. the french have been fighting to retain french culture for decades: funding french arts, fighting the emergence of english words into french usage, etc" hello ? who doesnt support its own economy ? do you think we still would be first touristic destination if we dropped our cultural identity ? and for what ?(cultural irrelevancy my ass, as if culture could ever be irrelevant) and please we do not need to fight to retain our culture, it sustain itself on its own pretty good imo
"now everyone speaks english in the world" seriously ?? are you that stupid ?? or do you suffer from the common misconception world == USA ?
"how the hell are you suppose to preserve danish and belgian culture in the face of the english onslaught?" you are kidding me right ? Crap on TV is just that: crap, not an ONSLAUGHT. And no , nobody speaks english in belgium (as a first language anyway) and danish speak well danish ..
"from the point of view of french national pride" we may be pridefull but at least we dont need buy off Nobel committees to get Nobel prizes :D. As if a warmonger state like the usa could ever get it..
There are two principles at work here. 1. EU decides more and more over time and the member states gradually lose power. 2. The individuals right to internet access.
This is a good decision just because it leaves power with the member states. It doesn't matter for the functioning of the EU what laws the individual member states have in this area, therefore no EU-law should be written about it. If a law within the EU is against someone human rights, there is a separate way of correcting that, in the confusingly named in the Council of Europe that has the The European Court of Human Rights. This court is not part of the EU system even if their charter of human rights is referred to in the EU-treaties.
The European Court of Human Rights is a court that convict the 47 member states (among them France and UK) when they have written a law that infringes on the citizens human rights. The laws related from France and UK are most likely to be struck down by The European Court of Human Rights. Therefore the Member States are doing the right thing when not interfering in this area.