Slashdot Mirror
EU Commissioner: We Cannot Allow ISP Disconnects
Fluffeh writes "The EU Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, has been making some interesting comments about privacy, copyright and many aspects of the digital age. Going so far as to quote the Free Software Foundation and Yochai Benkler, she says: 'Openness is also complex because sometimes it's unclear what it means. ... In the Arab Spring, many brave activists successfully used the open Internet to coordinate peaceful protests. In response, despotic governments sought to control or close down Internet access; and also used ICT tools as a tool of surveillance and repression. We cannot allow democratic voices to be silenced in that way. And I am committed to ensuring "No Disconnect" in countries that struggle for democracy. We must help such activists get around arbitrary disruptions to their basic freedoms.'"
Democracy for all....expect accused pirates?
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
*Unless you commit copyright infringement. Then we will cut off your internet and make sure that you are so in debt that you can't support yourself ever again.
I am committed to ensuring "No Disconnect" in countries that struggle for democracy.
But not, I suppose, in those that have stopped struggling.
In the Arab Spring, many brave activists successfully used the open Internet to coordinate peaceful protests. In response, despotic governments sought to control or close down Internet access; and also used ICT tools as a tool of surveillance and repression
And in EU, there is a directive that makes it mandatory to save 2 years of mobile phone calls, email, google searches, HTTP access logs and GPS position of the phone at the start/end times for answered and unanswered phone calls.
What EU says is "bad" in Arab countries is law in Europe.
Breivik was right.
Democracy and internet for all... except if you download something in a "developed" country, whatever that may mean. Lately I feel a good revolution might do us "westerners" some good.
The only thing I have to do now is convince my country is struggling for democracy if I ever run into problems.
And this being belgium, it will not be hard to convince them my government is having trouble.
Once a country has something that resembles democracy you crush those fuckin' pirates right off the Internet with the iron fist of righteousness, so that no one else dares to threaten your position of power and control
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Europe and the US can't lecture 3rd world countries (and China) about democracy, openness, and freedom when they're cutting out all three.
What was really funny was the way the UK govt. wanted to shut down Facebook and Twitter because they thought that contributed to the recent riots. What's even more funny is how Iran's state news services called it an uprising, and not riots. Britain just lost all moral right to lecture anybody after that. (Of course, Iran had its own riots/uprising propelled by social media. Same thing.)
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Apparently, using the Internet to overthrow a government is allowed, but downloading a MP3 file will get you 10 years and a $250,000 fine!
The soon to be former EU Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, has been making some interesting comments about privacy, copyright and many aspects of the digital age.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So one could argue any disconnect in the US would be unconstitutional as it would limit free speech.
Yeah, yeah, nice that you vow you won't accept a disconnect policy in countries that struggle to get a democracy.
How about countries that are allegedly already democratic? Like, say, Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Because if you're summarily going to disconnect someone for what someone SAYS someone did, then you don't have democracy anyway.
1. Tell the misbehavers that they "can't do that", whatetver it is, and proceed to explain how beneficial it is to 'behave'.
2. Threaten to reprimand these misbehavers.
3. Lament your inability to actually change their behavior.
Seriously, if the EU thinks that less-than-tolerant nations need to be compelled to leave their Internet connections up so that the revolutionaries in and out of that nation can use it to overthrow these nations' incumbent powers, well, let me know how that works out for ya.
Now, if this sincere, decent, but naive person proposed that the EU start floating balloons on the borders of any nation that did cut off its Internet links, with a long-range WiFi-type Internet router on each, and parachute in little tiny baby adapters for laptops etc, and even a few microcell gizmos to let the smartphones keepp keeping on, well, they they will find out just how tolerant these oppressors are.
But let's not get bogged down in taking action. Much better to lament the sad state of freedom in this world.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
BUT, but, only for countries who struggle for democracies. And if you happen to already have democracy, then i am sorry, but the rule becomes: YES, DISCONNECT.
Compaqt: "the UK govt. wanted to shut down Facebook and Twitter"
We did? Nope.
The suggestion was that all mobile internet access should be turned off *only* for the TX towers covering a riot zone, in order to prevent rioters encouraging more people to join the riot. If the Riot Act has been read then everyone outdoors in the area has to leave by law, therefore there would be nobody legally present to use their cellphone in the street anyway (metropolitain cell towers cover a couple of blocks, at best; we weren't talking about turning off 3G for a whole city).
The suggestion was discounted for a variety of reasons, one of which was that the most likely riot areas (high streets / downtown shopping precincts) were saturated in free WiFi hotspots so blocking GPRS/UTMS would probably not be effective. The Internet treats censorship as damage, and all that.
Do bear in mind that England is one of, if not the absolute, world's oldest democracy, with democratic rights dating back 800 years. British women had the vote two years earlier than those in the USA.
The policy was suggested by democratically elected representatives, not by faceless bureaucrats or dictators. The suggestion was discussed by other democratically elected representatives, and rejected by the consensus of those democratically elected representatives.
Democracy would therefore seem to be working very well here.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
As in most of the EU and USA? We're struggling to keep from going back to feudalism, when your liege lord can arbitrarily take your possessions, home, livelihood, and cut you off from communication. Except instead of a king or whoever, you have RIAA, MPAA, wall street, bankers and government taking away your right to own the things you pay for and have free speech.
You watch any of these shows where they have "People of Royal Blood" and "the commoners", like Game of Thrones, Robin Hood, Downton Abby even... (I almost rage quit Game of Thrones twice because of the Lanisters, but even the Starks aren't much better in their attitudes toward the people who serve them.) You see that these Royals are worse parasites on the system than any lazy welfare case that just uses food stamp money for booze while their kids starve. (Not everyone on welfare is lazy, many are victims of the greedy Royals we have in our society)
Countries that have an internet disconnect are by definition struggling with democracy.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
who is this marxist? how dare he stand for the rights of the people that elected him to office?
had this been america, we'd whip out the palm grease and start fueling vacation jets until this chicanery was put to rest.
thank goodness we've annexed most of europe under the FBI world police some time ago, or this yahoo would truly be a threat to freedom(c).
Good people go to bed earlier.
Meanwhile the police were sending flowers to old ladies and helping crippled orphans across the road..?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson
There is more to a democracy than the right to vote, such as the right to understand what we are voting for. We are not allowed to see or discuss most aspects of our government (ACTA). Most contracts are awarded behind closed doors. Politicians can say whatever they please and are not bound by their words. Laws are hidden with in ambiguous statements which curtail the freedom of expression such as "think of the children". Every year we move further away from the definition of democracy and I strongly believe that we no longer live in a democracy, if we ever had.
Her words remind me of the saying "Do as I say not as I do."
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Why is it that we can travel to the moon, but we can't come up with a better way to govern ourselves? Democracy/Despotism, surely there are some other ways to govern ourselves?
I'm tired of this shit. Please, please come up with something better before I die.
Please consider that "decreto Pisanu" (former interior minister decree) since 2005 mandates an id record to be kept for at least 5 years for every human using the net and phones in Italy. This comprise no anon wifi in all the country, id must be shown when you buy a telephone sim or you sign up for adsl
It is also legal to manipulate the neutrality of the net in order to shut down sites (the pirate bay is shut down from Italy) or differentiate between services (vodafone here CAN stop free voip legally) or to unilateraly change terms of contract in a pejorative way for the customer.
So what's all the noise about foreign nations with such disregard (or mislead) of internal democracy agenda?
Why to make us talk about other ones privacy instead of ourselves?
"in countries that struggle for democracy"
Does this suggest that he doesn't support countries already "democratic"?
Have gnu, will travel.
You're not even talking about the same event! Ian Tomlinson died two years before the 2011 London riots at an EU Summit protest. The police there messed up. Way too much violence. The officer who contributed to his heath is facing manslaughter charges (goes to court in June) and the entire method of protest management (kettling, here) has been given serious scrutiny.
But what does this have to do with what we're talking about? Please try to stay on topic!
Don't forget the NSA's secret AT&T monitoring closets.
The US government is quick to call out other governments for the same actions the US government is also doing in secret. Then they claim child porn or terrorism as the magic blanket justification. If you are not OK with your personal freedoms being stripped and big brother monitoring everything you do and you try to stand up for your rights. The government claims that is proof you must be a child pornographer and terrorist. To be a good citizen you must be a good little sheep and fall in line with what ever the government wants. After all they know whats best and need to perpetuate the global security theater with fear and paranoia mongering to maintain funding. If a demonstration is looking to peaceful or an inconvenient challenge to the government they just plant a few agitators to start trouble. That provides an excuse discredit the demonstrators and justifies sending in the storm troopers to bust heads.
After all if you have nothing to hide you should not mind having every aspect of you life scrutinized monitored and recorded. That is why in Illinois it illegal to photograph or video tape a police officer. The police never have anything to hide except when they do. If it has to be agents the law record the police in Illinois they must have to hide everything they do.
Now they are going to mandate big brother tracking boxes in all passenger vehicles.
I actually couldn't help but wonder what the commissioner would think about convicted hackers being forced off the internet (like Kevin Mitnick) based on the fear that they could wreak havoc. Similarly, Kevin Trudeau was blocked from promoting certain products on TV (which could be considered a part of one's fundamental freedom of speech) because of his numerous false claims about products he was selling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau). While I agree with internet freedom and I oppose kicking off large swaths of the population in order to (attempt to) shut-down uprisings and riots, I did have to wonder if there's really anything wrong with banning people or, preferably, forcing them onto a slow-speed internet, if they commit crimes on the internet (though such bans should be short-lived, since I don't think anyone should have a lifetime ban). Similarly, we deny the second amendment (the right to bear arms, which is a "fundamental freedom") to convicted felons, as well. The idea that cutting off whole sections society from parts of the internet (which we all agree is bad) is similar to kicking off individual people for repeated infractions of the law seems like a very questionable leap in my mind.
I realize, of course, that pirates won't like my comment because they'd like to ensure that no penalty against them is ever permitted.
Seriously, it wasn't that long ago I heard Danish politicians promise that disconnect from the internet wasn't on the table, during their recent discussions of how to reduce internet piracy. AFAIK the politician argued that internet was essential for doing business and communicating with both public and private sector.
:)
I know Danish politicians doesn't rule the EU, but chill. Just, because someone says they'll fight internet censorship in countries where people are oppressed, doesn't mean they think censorship is okay in the EU.
Just because she didn't discuss a subject you apparently care more about, doesn't imply she has taken a stand on that subject! My guess she might very likely be against censorship in any way shape or form.
- People who quote FSF typically are
If you want to be paranoid, at least be happy that the "digital aganda" is going to focus on stopping internet censorship in countries where it's a serious problem. She could also have announced that she wanted to fight piracy, patents or kill baby seals, but she DIDN'T.
Where does she says that ISP disconnection and censorship in the EU is okay? She doesn't!
In fact I don't see much support for it, and I certainly don't see it related to this discussion.
It's just a little scary how people would rather do paranoid rants about laws that will never be, because a politician doesn't disputes such laws at every possible chance she gets!
Note: She did NOT talk pro internet disconnects.
In fact she said that the digital agenda is to stop internet disconnects, and naturally that doesn't make sense in the EU, because there's no legally enforced internet disconnects in the EU.
All this is just a carefully crafted headline, with a summary that disappoints because you'd hoped for something else, which gets you thinking and talking about 3 strike laws. Totally unrelated...
So let's acknowledge that this a positive story, and give credit for deciding to fight internet censorship.
...that way it makes it easier when the EU sues countries and companies for billions of Euros in order to fund the union...
I can't decide which one is funnier, this or the parent.