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!!!!!
If hackers like ParMaster still exist, the best way to ensure this law is repealed is to ensure that MPs and Ministers are caught under this law and disconnected from internet.
Like the immortal Jim Hacker once said: "Not until you face it yourself do you realize what a stupid law you have passed."
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
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
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 wonder how this will affect the recently passed law here in Finland that internet access is a legal right for all citizens. I'm getting pretty tired of France running the show in the EU and getting their ridiculous laws enacted at the EU level.
What is the basis of this bias they have against our basic human right to download free porn?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.".
Excuse me? 88% of the parliament used to be for the amendment in its previous form (at least in a preliminary way). The amendment was changed, no doubt because of political compromises that the EP is famous of, and it still passed. Your interpretation is just wrong: these are the same people voting, the original amendment just never ended into a vote.
The story has a similarly biased interpretation: The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting their customers from the Internet. This is not true at all: The original amendment would have made sure ISPs could not do that without a ruling, but the current text doesn't give any legal ground for governments because it doesn't really change anything.
There may be some fishy deals behind this, but let's stick to the facts.
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
Swing to the right for Europe meant dropping 138 was just a matter of time: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/archive/elections2009/en/index_en.html
It shouldn't. They are playing leap frog. One side of the Atlantic implements an oppressive law, tax, or spy on your own citizens regime, and then the other side of the Atlantic says, see they did it and it was good so we shall do it too and we can do it even better. Repeat over and over and .... BAMMMM ..... you are living in Fascist world.
Both sides of the Atlantic are also passing these same obscene laws because the same multinationals are lobbying, bribing and pressuring politicians the world over to legislate their profitability.
At this point I mostly debate if I lived in a world dominated by Fascist governments or governments which are for all intents and purposes organized crime syndicates, I think a little of both. They are taking vast sums from ordinary people and transferring it to their rich friends and themselves. It boggles the mind that working people in the U.S. are taxed at least 25% income tax and 12.5% payroll taxes(counting the employer half) for 37.5% at a minimum. Billionaire hedge fund operators are taxed at 15%. These same hedge funds manager tax their own clients more than that, over 20% (2% management fees and 20% of profits).
I was watching Frontline on PBS last night on Brookseley Born. A great story. During the Clinton administration she tried to use the authority she had at the obscure Commodities Futures Trading Commission to regulate derivatives. If she had succeeded she might well have prevented at least the AIG part of the recent financial crisis. Instead she was crushed by Alan Greenspan, Phil Graham, Bob Rubin and Larry Summers. Long Term Capital Management collapsed during this period trading derivatives, nearly sparking a major panic, proving Born right and they continued to crush her.
Alan Greenspan supposedly told Born that she was NOT suppose to pursue fraud in derivatives or commodities though it was explicitly in her agencies charter to do just that.
Bob Rubin went on to help lead Citigroup in to complete ruin and billions of tax payer bailouts.
Phil Graham's wife was on the board at Enron, he went to UBS where his Swiss bank ran tax shelters for thousands of wealthy Americans, and was a leading player in the collapse during which he called us all a bunch of whiners.
Larry Summers is now Obama's senior economic adviser.
All four of these people should be run out of every government position, boardroom or any other position of authority because they are a delightful mix of stupid and criminal. Its especially obscene for Larry Summers to be calling the shots on financial matters in the Obama administration. Paul Volcker might actually fix the bankster problem but he has been completely shut out by Summers and Geitner.
@de_machina
If you read the original article (website) you see a small but important editing: governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting!!
No idea what powers the government in the UK might have, in germany no one can cut me from my internet connection without a judges ruling.
Furthermore, if you read the mentioned article then I see no paragraph that suggests that a "EU Paves the Way For Three-Strikes Cut-Off Policy" is happening at all.
The article clearly states: restrictions may only be taken in exceptional circumstances and imposed if they are necessary, appopriate and proportionate within a democratic society. Copyright violations by no means are a danger to society ... unless ruled by a judge otherwise, nor is a cutting of the line in any way appropriated.
So I have the impression that the anti FUD is FUD itselv, very disappointing ;D
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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
Meh, where I live (Spain), the left wing is in bed with the (equivalents of the) *AAs and it's in fact the right wing which is promising to abolish compulsive levies on digital storage media (HDDs, cellphones, flash drives, you name it) if they get elected.
These days I find that "left" vs. "right" means pretty much squat. Just vote for the least evil.
The early years of the U.S. were not perfect - but it was headed in the right direction - with near-perfection achieved between 1870 and 1930. The three thousand-year-old slavery/serfdom institution had finally been killed off, the Bill of Rights had risen to prominence, and the government was so small most Americans never even noticed it.
But since 1910 it seems we've been going backwards. We are being turning back into serfs with the oligarchs as our master, and no rights as individuals. It's almost exactly the same pattern that happened in Rome from 300-500 A.D... the landlords slowly but surely turned the middle class into a serf class of debtors... and medieval Europe was born.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>Then don't go for that third strike.
Do you work for RIAA? You seem to share the same inability to understand basic human rights. No matter. You falsely-presume I'm guilty of strikes one and two. This is what Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Rights is about: The government has to PROVE guilt, not just assume it. The law should be written that FIRST they prove the three strikes are your fault and THEN you get internet cutoff. As currently written they don't have to prove anything - an open invitation for abuse (President Sarkozy could turnoff those he doesn't like, even if they did nothing wrong).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall