I'm afraid you have it all backwards. Ironically, you [the US] are the exception to that rule.
The vast majority of the world uses the European GSM standard, and the US, Korea and Japan used CDMA.
Vodafone Group is the world's largest mobile telecommunications company, and in the American market it used the "native" CDMA-system.
In 1999 Vodafone agreed to merge its U.S. wireless assets with those of Bell Atlantic Corp to form Verizon Wireless.
In all the other markets Vodafone operates it uses GSM. It's American consumers that need to change phones when they go abroad.
However you might have heard about the different frequencies GSM can operate on (800/900/1800/1900), national markets often allocated frequencies differently, but this issue was resolved years ago by multi-frequency phones.
No, that is not accurate and quite frankly an ignorant American idea. In terms of distance and size European countries are similar to states in the US, however it is far from accurate.
European countries are sovereign and have their own languages, cultures, ethnic groups, legal systems, different forms of democracy. A person cannot move from Spain to Sweden and continue living as before.
American states are mere geographic units by comparison, I do realize your states have their own powers, but people move freely between them. A European is more likely to never live outside his own country or culture.
More importantly telecom providers operate in national markets, as opposed to continent-wide systems like in the United States.
A few larger corporations operate in many European markets, but none of them operate in all, far from it. There is no network of similar size to Verizon or AT&T. However each market is better served with smaller but more efficient networks. Of course the same companies operate globally and rival the Americans in revenue and size in that respect.
The EU has a mandate to regulate and improve the market conditions in Europe, but I don't see them making any headway outside. After all can you imagine any corporation voluntarily giving away profits?
We can only hope that some enlightened regulator is inspired to act on behalf of his own citizens thus making it possible for similar agreements. I don't have much hope for African markets, but perhaps in some Asian countries and Latin-America?
You're probably American, and as such it's normal that you travel less outside your own country. Europeans in general travel more frequently to other European countries.
As a European I would never dream of purchasing "international service", not that it exists as a product here, I should not have to. The basic service is not a problem, your phone will work automatically.
When I travel abroad [at least in Europe] I expect to continue using my phone without any interruptions or changes. It works that way too, as every network has some local partner in the foreign country in question. The only issue is with the roaming charges, they can be exorbitant, but at least the EU is looking out for us.
The point is that within the European Union marketplace there is no room [by law] for abusive pricing that treats consumers differently depending on their nationality. The EU's goal is to create one, free market.
Actually the article just mentions "court", as in a Danish court, the EU court is for important cases that cannot be solved by national courts. This is hardly a ground breaking case, freedom of expression and publishing is at the core of Danish and EU law.
The EU is not the federal government of Europe, in any way, it is wrong to imply that this has anything to do with the EU.
I certainly don't agree with you, it's not logical to believe the Church translates everything of interest.
The European Union and its institutions produces an extremely large amount of information. The Vatican may very well be interested in a wide range of subjects the EU is involved in, however it does not need to translate it to Latin(!)
The Catholic Church is more than capable of conducting its business in Italian or any of the other major official languages of the EU. The documents are already available in Italian. It would be a waste for the Church to even attempt to translate all of the information produced by the EU. They're more interested in understanding and influencing decisions in line with their views. This is about politics, not an archive.
Ecclesiastical Latin is used for edicts and papal bulls issued by the Church, not for every piece of information and communication. Since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Church no longer uses Latin as the exclusive language of the Roman liturgies of the Latin Rite. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia has commented that Latin is starting to be replaced by vernacular languages.
Access to official information in your native language is a democratic right [where your language is the official language of said member country of the European Union].
The situation in Europe is a bit more complex, but not quite the way you imagined.
The EU is not a single jurisdiction, in fact quite the contrary. Despite the common misunderstanding the supranational cooperation only extends so far, the EU is not a federal state. The member nations are sovereign and the courts operate in the national language(s).
The EU itself has to offer translations of its documents in all of the official languages of the member nations, however the same does not apply to any of the member states of course. If citizens of foreign nations, including EU member states, are on trial they have the right of course to an interpreter and translations.
As with all international law, also between European nations regardless of the EU, there is always the question of what the langauge of the original contract says. However as you correctly stated we're talking about patents and not contracts here.
The EU only includes 27 of the total 50 European nations.
Yeah, I don't see that happening. Xe Services would have a tough time even getting weapons into Sweden. And their "employees" would raise suspicion before they even enter the country due to the Europe wide travel/immigration information systems (see Schengen) and monitoring.
Nevermind that the functional civil society with police, SWAT, military forces, real security at all airports, air space control with modern fighter jets and so on. Of course they could get some illegal weapons, but that would hardly go unnoticed by local police. There is only so much you can do without getting noticed. Guns, shootings and murder is unusual here.
Even if they succeed in killing their target, how do you expect to escape? Shoot your way out of Europe? They wouldn't get far no matter what. And there's no bribing the prosecution to get out of jail.
There are "different rules" for operating in Western nations and places like Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. Where you can bribe the inefficient, corrupt police, if they actually care to look at all. Where you can ignore whatever borders the nation has, because what air force is going to control it? No, I think they would blink several times before doing anything in the West...
The key complaint is that Google has now become so powerful and leading that consumers believe and trust it. The reality is that Google now has such a huge impact that it is starting to effect markets, and businesses, as such it is in the interest of European consumers that the company be regulated.
We have a number of consumer protection laws that most Americans have not heard of, such as requiring that all products sold with subscriptions must include the full and total price including all fees and such.
Yes, it's much better to bail out the HUGE banks and financial institutions that screwed up your financial system in the first place. Nevermind the 200 minor American banks that have had to close...
Yes, Norway is a part of the European Economic Area, the inner market of the EU, due to the Free Trade Agreement between our nations. However we are very much not members of the EU, strongly opposed in fact, and we have no influence, representation, power or voting rights. We also pay dearly for access to the EU's market to the number of millions of Euros each year.
The fact that Opera and Mozilla's complaints were taken into consideration was purely a matter of law.
Oh, please, your ignorance is greater than mere words can describe. If you're an American your nationalist propaganda brainwashing has worked. Despite your own conceited beliefs the US is not an epitome of justice.
Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that the EU and its institutions takes complaints and prosecutes, naturally, primarily European companies, ignorant people such as yourself that have no knowledge of the relevant history, law or geopolitics, wax eternally on about the few instances of American-owned European businesses that fell foul of European competition laws. Nevermind the realities of the cases, the clearly illegal conduct, and abuses of monopolies.
A complaint to the European Union and its courts will only be decided on its merits alone, we follow the law to the letter, with no regards to the nationality of the owner of the European entity in question (Google's European branches). The primary goal of the EU and its laws is to facilitate trade between and within the member nations of the European Union with specifically no bias or preference for companies, people or goods of any nation. The EU already has to be perfectly impartial to avoid favoring any entity from any European Union member state.
You have no idea what you are talking about and how crucial it is for the EU courts that cases such as these are decided purely on the basis of law(s), in the interest of consumers and unhindered trade. Where Americans talk about legal protections for trade they focus on corporations, while Europeans focus on the consumers rights.
The first time Steve Jobs left Apple the company still managed to survive, but barely, it was a different market after all. Today computers really are for everyone, so I'm not sure if it would have gone the same way.
However I doubt you understand the nature of Apple, its products and customers. Steve Jobs is an icon, but very few customers actually know or care about him. He's not the one that makes Apple products cool and interesting. The designers and marketers make Apple what it is. Steve Jobs is a great leader obviously, but he's not alone, and he has a lot of people on his team.
When he got sick and took leave the company did just fine, the transition was handled flawlessly, and you probably don't even remember it happened. Timothy Cook, executive vice president for worldwide sales and operations, oversaw day-to-day operations.
Apple's board of directors has discussed the issue and they have a list of people of at Apple that could and will replace Steve Jobs the day he leaves. It's no secret.
To conclude; it's not a "cult of personality" as you claimed, if anything the cult is the brand.
Except, now, he can print from the iPad. Software can be upgraded you know.
Why can't you simply accept that he has other needs than you? He's fine by his own admission, at least I don't question his honesty. The only one talking nonsense appears to be you.
Using weasel words like "magic" to subtly insult him and other users of Apple products is hardly neccessary. I guess it says a lot about you and your attitude to people that are different from you. I really don't understand people that get upset or care about any brand of products.
European countries have social security number equivalents. We have actual national registers for all citizens.
They're given at birth or on receiving citizenship, lasts your entire life, are used to vote, marry, register children, register property ownership (in public registers), pay your taxes, reports your salary to the government, used for car/house/life insurance, credit ratings, for all communication with local/national government, police, hospitals and banks. It truly is your identity, it's rarely abused.
Of course each of the 50 different European countries have their own system.
The point of giving someone a prize is that they have accomplished something worthy of it.
No, that is where you are to narrow minded and simplistic. The [Norwegian] Nobel committee has a much wider view of what ultimately leads to peace.
The typical prize is handed out for past accomplishments, and typically many Americans don't understand this aspect of the Nobel Peace prize. I suppose it's a logical trap due to your culture and society, from my point of view you hand out prizes for anything quantifiable.
The Nobel Peace prize has been handed out to a number of controversial figures during the last two decades due to a modern and informed intepretation of the root causes of conflict and war. Where there is war, and a leading figure actively creates peace, it is easy to single out a worthy recipient. However in a modern age of few world consuming wars, more long-lasting conflicts, resolving and preempting conflicts is more interesting.
Where Americans see an unworthy recipient in Barack Obama, for lack of accomplishments, the Norwegian Nobel committee sees the potential to actively aid, lead and pressure the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet, its allies, friends and enemies.
We also cheered his election as a sign that the American people were able to overcome their past in a democratic fashion. In terms of social justice and peace it was a great example to the world as a whole! African nations rejoiced, and perhaps reflected on their own bitter tribal/racial disputes during their elections.
It is not a question of simply influcing the man in question, the nation he leads or his people, but also the people directly opposed to his nation. Where the enemy sees America as the "Great Satan", the prize can project the image of a country, and a leader, with positive sides causing the enemy to question their attitudes.
The committee's hope is that the prize can give the recipients the security, access, influence and opportunity to do great things that leads to increased security, stability and peace! To create peace you have to be the right man, at the right time, and the Nobel prize is the opportunity. The momentum given might not break down the "barriers" immediately, however this should be seen through the lens of the long term perspective. This is just the flap of the butterfly's wings.
To give you another example that you probably didn't understand either; Wangari Maathai of Kenya received the Peace prize for her "contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". She didn't play a role in ending any present conflict, but she understood that conflicts would arise in the future if [we] did not prevent the conditions that would create fertile ground for it. As you sow, so shall you reap.
That is clearly just your [rather meaningless] opinion, and it's not representative of the world's view of the Nobel prizes.
Even the world's most populous nation, China, clearly believes the Nobel Peace prize is meaningful to the point of doing everything in its power to remove the stain on their nation's record!
What is your problem with the prize? Is it that you don't like Kenyan, Muslim heads of state (end of sarcasm)?
You present no arguments why the prizes have no value or worth, yet I can present any number of arguments, cases and quotes. Nobel Peace prize winners have gained the security and access they needed to further their work. From Wangari Maathai in Kenya to the recently released Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma.
It's fascinating to see how IBM, an American "global" corporation, identifies all of these centers using different standards.
Why are the American, Swiss, Japanese and Israeli entities listed using city names, while the Chinese and Indian are organized using country names? Does this speak to some American sphere of influence or common knowledge? Tokyo is obviously easily identifiable as Japanese.
I'm only addressing this because it's fascinating in itself. I would understand the American cities being listed using city names, but why does that "domestic" view apply to Zurich, Tokyo and Hafia? In contrast to China and India those cities are almost within the "domestic" or at least sphere of influence of the US.
Talk about drawing a picture of how IBM/the US views the world.
Well, the regime in Iran does have its way with the Internet offered there, so I wouldn't exactly call it a great day for Afghanistan either. It is news for nerds everywhere that a country is locking down their Internet, it could encourage others to do the same.
On the other hand that might be exactly what the Afghan government wants; a censored Internet. It would suit them as well after all.
I have no hostility towards the nation of Persia, or the Persian people, I greatly admire their country and believe they will regain their rightful place in the world.
I am a [European] lawyer and the Directive is clearly not applicable. The highlighted text explains the addresses:
The first general obligation in the Directive is to provide security of services. The addressees are providers of electronic communications services. This obligation also includes the duty to inform the subscribers whenever there is a particular risk, such as a virus or other malware attack.[5]
The second general obligation is for the confidentiality of information to be maintained.[6] The addressees are Member States, who should prohibit listening, tapping, storage or other kinds of interception or surveillance of communication and “related traffic”, unless the users have given their consent or conditions of Article 15(1) have been fulfilled.
Bah, the industry owns the US government, you rarely hear about cases where people are sued for downloading here in Europe.
One raid gives you the impression that it's somehow a high priority? We don't even have a DMCA! File sharing is a legal right in some European countries, others have various approaches.
The many different European governments are rarely subject to the US kind of lobbying. Each country has it's own government and lobby, they don't have the same strength and resources as the RIAA/MPAA.
Oh, and there is no entertainment industry of similar importance and strength as Hollywood here. There is no reason for our governments to prioritize that industry. It does exist in the US however, doesn't it?
The European Parliament [of the EU] is at least clearly against the American ACTA plans! Your Congress and Senate is filled to the brim with lobbyists and the people who answer to them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid you have it all backwards. Ironically, you [the US] are the exception to that rule.
The vast majority of the world uses the European GSM standard, and the US, Korea and Japan used CDMA.
Vodafone Group is the world's largest mobile telecommunications company, and in the American market it used the "native" CDMA-system.
In 1999 Vodafone agreed to merge its U.S. wireless assets with those of Bell Atlantic Corp to form Verizon Wireless.
In all the other markets Vodafone operates it uses GSM. It's American consumers that need to change phones when they go abroad.
However you might have heard about the different frequencies GSM can operate on (800/900/1800/1900), national markets often allocated frequencies differently, but this issue was resolved years ago by multi-frequency phones.
No, that is not accurate and quite frankly an ignorant American idea. In terms of distance and size European countries are similar to states in the US, however it is far from accurate.
European countries are sovereign and have their own languages, cultures, ethnic groups, legal systems, different forms of democracy. A person cannot move from Spain to Sweden and continue living as before.
American states are mere geographic units by comparison, I do realize your states have their own powers, but people move freely between them. A European is more likely to never live outside his own country or culture.
More importantly telecom providers operate in national markets, as opposed to continent-wide systems like in the United States.
A few larger corporations operate in many European markets, but none of them operate in all, far from it. There is no network of similar size to Verizon or AT&T. However each market is better served with smaller but more efficient networks. Of course the same companies operate globally and rival the Americans in revenue and size in that respect.
The EU has a mandate to regulate and improve the market conditions in Europe, but I don't see them making any headway outside. After all can you imagine any corporation voluntarily giving away profits?
We can only hope that some enlightened regulator is inspired to act on behalf of his own citizens thus making it possible for similar agreements. I don't have much hope for African markets, but perhaps in some Asian countries and Latin-America?
You're probably American, and as such it's normal that you travel less outside your own country. Europeans in general travel more frequently to other European countries.
As a European I would never dream of purchasing "international service", not that it exists as a product here, I should not have to. The basic service is not a problem, your phone will work automatically.
When I travel abroad [at least in Europe] I expect to continue using my phone without any interruptions or changes. It works that way too, as every network has some local partner in the foreign country in question. The only issue is with the roaming charges, they can be exorbitant, but at least the EU is looking out for us.
The point is that within the European Union marketplace there is no room [by law] for abusive pricing that treats consumers differently depending on their nationality. The EU's goal is to create one, free market.
Oh, yes, very amusing.
Actually the article just mentions "court", as in a Danish court, the EU court is for important cases that cannot be solved by national courts. This is hardly a ground breaking case, freedom of expression and publishing is at the core of Danish and EU law.
The EU is not the federal government of Europe, in any way, it is wrong to imply that this has anything to do with the EU.
I certainly don't agree with you, it's not logical to believe the Church translates everything of interest.
The European Union and its institutions produces an extremely large amount of information. The Vatican may very well be interested in a wide range of subjects the EU is involved in, however it does not need to translate it to Latin(!)
The Catholic Church is more than capable of conducting its business in Italian or any of the other major official languages of the EU. The documents are already available in Italian. It would be a waste for the Church to even attempt to translate all of the information produced by the EU. They're more interested in understanding and influencing decisions in line with their views. This is about politics, not an archive.
Ecclesiastical Latin is used for edicts and papal bulls issued by the Church, not for every piece of information and communication. Since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Church no longer uses Latin as the exclusive language of the Roman liturgies of the Latin Rite. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia has commented that Latin is starting to be replaced by vernacular languages.
The Vatican is not a member of the European Union.
Only member nations' languages are official.
The European Union is not synonymous with the continent of Europe.
No, but they key word was democracy.
Access to official information in your native language is a democratic right [where your language is the official language of said member country of the European Union].
The situation in Europe is a bit more complex, but not quite the way you imagined.
The EU is not a single jurisdiction, in fact quite the contrary. Despite the common misunderstanding the supranational cooperation only extends so far, the EU is not a federal state. The member nations are sovereign and the courts operate in the national language(s).
The EU itself has to offer translations of its documents in all of the official languages of the member nations, however the same does not apply to any of the member states of course. If citizens of foreign nations, including EU member states, are on trial they have the right of course to an interpreter and translations.
As with all international law, also between European nations regardless of the EU, there is always the question of what the langauge of the original contract says. However as you correctly stated we're talking about patents and not contracts here.
The EU only includes 27 of the total 50 European nations.
Yeah, I don't see that happening. Xe Services would have a tough time even getting weapons into Sweden. And their "employees" would raise suspicion before they even enter the country due to the Europe wide travel/immigration information systems (see Schengen) and monitoring.
Nevermind that the functional civil society with police, SWAT, military forces, real security at all airports, air space control with modern fighter jets and so on. Of course they could get some illegal weapons, but that would hardly go unnoticed by local police. There is only so much you can do without getting noticed. Guns, shootings and murder is unusual here.
Even if they succeed in killing their target, how do you expect to escape? Shoot your way out of Europe? They wouldn't get far no matter what. And there's no bribing the prosecution to get out of jail.
There are "different rules" for operating in Western nations and places like Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. Where you can bribe the inefficient, corrupt police, if they actually care to look at all. Where you can ignore whatever borders the nation has, because what air force is going to control it? No, I think they would blink several times before doing anything in the West...
Peter Sunde is actually Norwegian and Finnish (family and citizenship), but he does live in Sweden.
With Great Power Comes Great Responsiblity.
The key complaint is that Google has now become so powerful and leading that consumers believe and trust it. The reality is that Google now has such a huge impact that it is starting to effect markets, and businesses, as such it is in the interest of European consumers that the company be regulated.
We have a number of consumer protection laws that most Americans have not heard of, such as requiring that all products sold with subscriptions must include the full and total price including all fees and such.
Yes, it's much better to bail out the HUGE banks and financial institutions that screwed up your financial system in the first place. Nevermind the 200 minor American banks that have had to close...
Yes, Norway is a part of the European Economic Area, the inner market of the EU, due to the Free Trade Agreement between our nations. However we are very much not members of the EU, strongly opposed in fact, and we have no influence, representation, power or voting rights. We also pay dearly for access to the EU's market to the number of millions of Euros each year.
The fact that Opera and Mozilla's complaints were taken into consideration was purely a matter of law.
Oh, please, your ignorance is greater than mere words can describe. If you're an American your nationalist propaganda brainwashing has worked. Despite your own conceited beliefs the US is not an epitome of justice.
Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that the EU and its institutions takes complaints and prosecutes, naturally, primarily European companies, ignorant people such as yourself that have no knowledge of the relevant history, law or geopolitics, wax eternally on about the few instances of American-owned European businesses that fell foul of European competition laws. Nevermind the realities of the cases, the clearly illegal conduct, and abuses of monopolies.
A complaint to the European Union and its courts will only be decided on its merits alone, we follow the law to the letter, with no regards to the nationality of the owner of the European entity in question (Google's European branches). The primary goal of the EU and its laws is to facilitate trade between and within the member nations of the European Union with specifically no bias or preference for companies, people or goods of any nation. The EU already has to be perfectly impartial to avoid favoring any entity from any European Union member state.
You have no idea what you are talking about and how crucial it is for the EU courts that cases such as these are decided purely on the basis of law(s), in the interest of consumers and unhindered trade. Where Americans talk about legal protections for trade they focus on corporations, while Europeans focus on the consumers rights.
The first time Steve Jobs left Apple the company still managed to survive, but barely, it was a different market after all. Today computers really are for everyone, so I'm not sure if it would have gone the same way.
However I doubt you understand the nature of Apple, its products and customers. Steve Jobs is an icon, but very few customers actually know or care about him. He's not the one that makes Apple products cool and interesting. The designers and marketers make Apple what it is. Steve Jobs is a great leader obviously, but he's not alone, and he has a lot of people on his team.
When he got sick and took leave the company did just fine, the transition was handled flawlessly, and you probably don't even remember it happened. Timothy Cook, executive vice president for worldwide sales and operations, oversaw day-to-day operations.
Apple's board of directors has discussed the issue and they have a list of people of at Apple that could and will replace Steve Jobs the day he leaves. It's no secret.
To conclude; it's not a "cult of personality" as you claimed, if anything the cult is the brand.
Except, now, he can print from the iPad. Software can be upgraded you know.
Why can't you simply accept that he has other needs than you? He's fine by his own admission, at least I don't question his honesty. The only one talking nonsense appears to be you.
Using weasel words like "magic" to subtly insult him and other users of Apple products is hardly neccessary. I guess it says a lot about you and your attitude to people that are different from you. I really don't understand people that get upset or care about any brand of products.
European countries have social security number equivalents. We have actual national registers for all citizens.
They're given at birth or on receiving citizenship, lasts your entire life, are used to vote, marry, register children, register property ownership (in public registers), pay your taxes, reports your salary to the government, used for car/house/life insurance, credit ratings, for all communication with local/national government, police, hospitals and banks. It truly is your identity, it's rarely abused.
Of course each of the 50 different European countries have their own system.
No, that is where you are to narrow minded and simplistic. The [Norwegian] Nobel committee has a much wider view of what ultimately leads to peace.
The typical prize is handed out for past accomplishments, and typically many Americans don't understand this aspect of the Nobel Peace prize. I suppose it's a logical trap due to your culture and society, from my point of view you hand out prizes for anything quantifiable.
The Nobel Peace prize has been handed out to a number of controversial figures during the last two decades due to a modern and informed intepretation of the root causes of conflict and war. Where there is war, and a leading figure actively creates peace, it is easy to single out a worthy recipient.
However in a modern age of few world consuming wars, more long-lasting conflicts, resolving and preempting conflicts is more interesting.
Where Americans see an unworthy recipient in Barack Obama, for lack of accomplishments, the Norwegian Nobel committee sees the potential to actively aid, lead and pressure the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet, its allies, friends and enemies.
We also cheered his election as a sign that the American people were able to overcome their past in a democratic fashion. In terms of social justice and peace it was a great example to the world as a whole! African nations rejoiced, and perhaps reflected on their own bitter tribal/racial disputes during their elections.
It is not a question of simply influcing the man in question, the nation he leads or his people, but also the people directly opposed to his nation. Where the enemy sees America as the "Great Satan", the prize can project the image of a country, and a leader, with positive sides causing the enemy to question their attitudes.
The committee's hope is that the prize can give the recipients the security, access, influence and opportunity to do great things that leads to increased security, stability and peace!
To create peace you have to be the right man, at the right time, and the Nobel prize is the opportunity. The momentum given might not break down the "barriers" immediately, however this should be seen through the lens of the long term perspective. This is just the flap of the butterfly's wings.
To give you another example that you probably didn't understand either; Wangari Maathai of Kenya received the Peace prize for her "contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". She didn't play a role in ending any present conflict, but she understood that conflicts would arise in the future if [we] did not prevent the conditions that would create fertile ground for it. As you sow, so shall you reap.
That is clearly just your [rather meaningless] opinion, and it's not representative of the world's view of the Nobel prizes.
Even the world's most populous nation, China, clearly believes the Nobel Peace prize is meaningful to the point of doing everything in its power to remove the stain on their nation's record!
What is your problem with the prize? Is it that you don't like Kenyan, Muslim heads of state (end of sarcasm)?
You present no arguments why the prizes have no value or worth, yet I can present any number of arguments, cases and quotes. Nobel Peace prize winners have gained the security and access they needed to further their work. From Wangari Maathai in Kenya to the recently released Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma.
It's fascinating to see how IBM, an American "global" corporation, identifies all of these centers using different standards.
Why are the American, Swiss, Japanese and Israeli entities listed using city names, while the Chinese and Indian are organized using country names? Does this speak to some American sphere of influence or common knowledge? Tokyo is obviously easily identifiable as Japanese.
I'm only addressing this because it's fascinating in itself. I would understand the American cities being listed using city names, but why does that "domestic" view apply to Zurich, Tokyo and Hafia? In contrast to China and India those cities are almost within the "domestic" or at least sphere of influence of the US.
Talk about drawing a picture of how IBM/the US views the world.
Switzerland is not a member of the EU at all.
Switzerland is party to the EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement) together with Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
EFTA has an agreement with the EU on trade that makes EFTA part of the EU's inner market. However Switzerland is not part of that agreement either.
Well, the regime in Iran does have its way with the Internet offered there, so I wouldn't exactly call it a great day for Afghanistan either. It is news for nerds everywhere that a country is locking down their Internet, it could encourage others to do the same.
On the other hand that might be exactly what the Afghan government wants; a censored Internet. It would suit them as well after all.
I have no hostility towards the nation of Persia, or the Persian people, I greatly admire their country and believe they will regain their rightful place in the world.
I am a [European] lawyer and the Directive is clearly not applicable. The highlighted text explains the addresses:
The first general obligation in the Directive is to provide security of services. The addressees are providers of electronic communications services. This obligation also includes the duty to inform the subscribers whenever there is a particular risk, such as a virus or other malware attack.[5]
The second general obligation is for the confidentiality of information to be maintained.[6] The addressees are Member States, who should prohibit listening, tapping, storage or other kinds of interception or surveillance of communication and “related traffic”, unless the users have given their consent or conditions of Article 15(1) have been fulfilled.
Searching your phone is covered by other laws.
Bah, the industry owns the US government, you rarely hear about cases where people are sued for downloading here in Europe.
One raid gives you the impression that it's somehow a high priority? We don't even have a DMCA! File sharing is a legal right in some European countries, others have various approaches.
The many different European governments are rarely subject to the US kind of lobbying. Each country has it's own government and lobby, they don't have the same strength and resources as the RIAA/MPAA.
Oh, and there is no entertainment industry of similar importance and strength as Hollywood here. There is no reason for our governments to prioritize that industry. It does exist in the US however, doesn't it?
The European Parliament [of the EU] is at least clearly against the American ACTA plans! Your Congress and Senate is filled to the brim with lobbyists and the people who answer to them.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.