Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Paves the Way For Three-Strikes Cut-Off Policy

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-internet-for-you dept.

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)."

8 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. this will be a problem in the future. by SkunkPussy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!!!!!
    1. Re:this will be a problem in the future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:this will be a problem in the future. by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. Apply it on MPs and Ministers first by freedom_india · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  3. Damn French... by cbope · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Turnabout is fair play by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.".

  5. Re:88% What the hell?! by koiransuklaa · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. The slashdot summer is very missleading by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.