Dutch Legislature Accidentally Votes For Internet Filtering
tulcod writes "The Dutch government has accidentally passed an exception to a law on net neutrality, (Google translation of original in Dutch) enabling ISPs to filter internet traffic based on 'ideological motives.' The PvdA (labor party) accidentally voted for this exception to the Telecomwet (telecommunications law), which, on its own, does not allow such filtering. PvdA intends to repair their mistake."
But how the hell do you accidentally vote on a piece of legislation?
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
In other news, Congress accidentally approves arts funding.
Did the parliament hold a tequila party that got out of hand?
Relative to most other nations of the world, Holland is relatively well-run, and the Dutch are as capable of fixing such problems as anyone else.
Could the Dutch have an advantage that is somewhat a geographic accident, in that since the Middle Ages they have benefited from having an excellent source of Omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D from herring? But the Dutch may have contributed to their own fortune by preparing and consuming herring in a manner that preserves nutrients. Note that under the section in Wikipedia describing pickled herring are listed several Northern European countries that are doing well and other groups with noted individuals of exceptional intelligence.
ha ha.
Have a look at the drug use statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_lifetime_cannabis_use_by_country) and tell me whose country has a problem with cannabis use...
Here in the Netherlands, there currently are a few (right-wing Christian) ISPs that filter internet access at the request of their clients. Some of these ISPs do this by providing filtering software that the customer can install locally, others do the filtering on proxy servers at the ISP. The net neutrality law makes the second option illegal, despite this filtering being done at the client's request.
The amendment in question would repair this, allowing clients to request a filter. Some parties (PvdA, GL) see this amendment as a loophole. I don't see how, though.
I just read the law in question (Dutch citizen here), and it is not half as ignorant as it is portrayed to be.
First of all, it gives the end user and NO ONE ELSE the possibility to have their own, and no one else's IP traffic filtered for stuff they do not want to see. Second of all, the end user has to take action (contact their ISP) to get this to happen, and to specify what they want filtered. Third of all, it excludes filtering which is aimed at leading to financial gain for ISP's: the "I'll filter out your local greengrocer because Walmart pays me to" kind of crap everyone is -rightly- afraid of.
A loophole to disable net neutrality? I don't see how. Being opt-in, it is less invasive than the law that requires nudie magazines to be stacked above the field of vision of minors at the newsstands.
In fact, you could say this is a law that helps the (fundamentalist Christian, 'cause they're who started this) technophobes/modernophobes to get their content filtered before it hits the browser, opt-in and by your personal specifications. Adblocking and parental filter, ISP-side.
Whether or not one should exclude part of the world's reality from one's possible field of vision is, of course, a different and academic discussion because everyone tries to ignore what they do not want to see. I, for one, am really glad I can use adblocking&co. But I'll make my own choices on what to block and what not, thankyouverymuch, and I don't trust any ISP to do that along the rules I set for them.
Of course, a political party voting for something they did not read is ridiculous. But Dutch politicians -especially the Social Democrats- have a history of doing just that, and in general try to twist the truth so that it seems they had no other choice. This time round, at least they admitted to their stupidity. But in the words of their political leader Job Cohen: "We are all amateurs". Also, the fundamentalist Christians have a habit of hiding horrible proposals in seemingly innocent wordings somewhere in little add-ons in laws concerning a totally different subject, in the hope no-one notices. Apparently, that works -even when the law in question deals with a similar subject.