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)."

Comments

this will be a problem in the future.

[SkunkPussy]

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.

Re:this will be a problem in the future.

[interkin3tic]

Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times.

That sound you hear is thousands of bus drivers screaming "DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!!!"

Re:this will be a problem in the future.

[Anonymous Coward]

It effects them in other ways as well. If a larger business doesn't wish to compete with a smaller, home-based business, all they need to do is accuse them thrree times of copyright infringement. This could also be used to crush all but the ruling political party, prohibit free speech, and eliminate anything the government or large corporations don't want people to hear about. This is great for aspiring dictators, who can now rise to power without changing a single law or firing a single bullet.

Re:this will be a problem in the future.

[commodore64_love]

One would think this idea also violated the EU's Charter of Rights:

Article 11 - "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." "The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected."

One could also argue that blocking the internet interferes with Article 14 - "Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training." Think of the children! They will be cut off from access to online education.

And Articles 47 "Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article." - and 48 - "Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

The Three-Strike law is clearly unconstitutional within the EU's dominion.

Unconstitutional

[Handbrewer]

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.

Re:Unconstitutional

[SharpFang]

The problem is access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms.
The government may regulate, restrict and forbid access to it in any arbitrary way just like they may regulate sales of tobacco or speed limits on roads. They don't need a court sentence, they don't even need suspicion. They are allowed to pass a bill that says you need a special government-issued permit to access the Internet and any government clerk may revoke it on discretionary basis, and they aren't breaking any fundamental laws, because there weren't any laws granting you access to the Internet in the first place.

Re:Unconstitutional

[causality]

The problem is access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms. The government may regulate, restrict and forbid access to it in any arbitrary way just like they may regulate sales of tobacco or speed limits on roads. They don't need a court sentence, they don't even need suspicion. They are allowed to pass a bill that says you need a special government-issued permit to access the Internet and any government clerk may revoke it on discretionary basis, and they aren't breaking any fundamental laws, because there weren't any laws granting you access to the Internet in the first place.

... because arbitrary power with no due process and little or no burden of proof on the accuser has always worked out so well in the past.

Re:Unconstitutional

[celle]

"access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms."

The air is an information medium with no legal rights attached to it as well. When do they start telling us we can't speak, see, or breathe. When internet becomes defacto standard of communication then it becomes part of "human rights or constitution-granted freedom" by definition change. Otherwise laws couldn't be used other than for what they are stated for.

Re:Unconstitutional

[aaandre]

France is just the beginning, an experiment. Believe me, RIAA is watching this closely and setting lobbying cash aside for similar laws for YOU.

Re:Unconstitutional

[Dragonslicer]

"Constitutionally-protected freedoms" would be a better term for it. In the US (and I believe analogously in the EU), while the federal government isn't supposed to be allowed to do anything not explicitly listed in the Constitution, individual states are forbidden from doing anything that violates the federal constitution. Listing a freedom in the constitution shouldn't be taken to mean that anything not listed isn't a right of the people, but that more local governments (states, member nations, cities, etc.) cannot do anything to restrict that freedom.

Ideally

[T Murphy]

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.

Re:Ideally

[MrNemesis]

Meanwhile in real life, governments the world over are in the pockets of the media industry and their slavish public can't take it in the arse fast enough. Sarkozy is just a politician who's more openly "available" for influence than others, but there's plenty more worms in the EU woodwork. The number of politicians I've seen parroting, word for word, the latest anti-customer campaign about how piracy eats up 92% of the global GDP or some such bullshit makes you lose all faith in humani... sorry, in sentient life the world over.

"I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a percentage."

Human Rights?

[ilovegeorgebush]

Hey what about articles 5, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

EU Fail.

[girlintraining]

...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.

Turnabout is fair play

[Todd Knarr]

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.".

Re:Apply it on MPs and Ministers first

[Daniel_Staal]

New rule, passed the next day:

'Internet access for MPs and Ministers cannot be interfered with.'

Re:Oh great!

[megamerican]

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.

Re:Damn French...

[Blakey Rat]

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.

Re:Ah, that nice French law...

[MBGMorden]

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.

Re:The slashdot summer is very missleading

[SomeKDEUser]

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.

Re:Ah, that nice French law...

[AndersOSU]

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...

Re:Damn French...

[Blakey Rat]

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!