The commision does not have "all the power". While they have the power to present proposals, the power to approve or deny those proposals are completely in the hands of the European Parliament and the Council (member states).
There have been reports about possible celebrations elsewhere and I'm convinced some are genuine. But the documentary depicting the specific footage I discussed didn't really leave much room for doubt that there was foul play involved (whether intentional or not).
According to the Swiss constitution the population has the last word on what laws to pass, if anyone can gather a certain amount of signatures. This is realized via binding referendum. It appears a truly beautiful system with people really in control as opposed to a small government elite. The same risk of stupid decisions also exists with representative democracy and clueless politicians in the US, EU or elsewhere.
[Disclaimer: I'm not Swiss nor have I lived there.]
In one commonly aired piece of footage (which I think was taken by Reuters), an elderly woman was cheering along with some kids at a market place. A team of journalists at a media watchdog program from SVT managed to find this woman and interview her. She had not, at the point the footage was taken, heard anything about the WTC attack. She later saw herself on video in conjunction with a story about the attack and was very unhappy with what the network had done. I saw this interview myself. Journalists from a media network (I think it was Reuters too) had actually travelled around the area attempting to find cheering crowds (they attested to this) but could not find one. A documentary about this was aired on SVT (Swedish public television) last year or earlier this year (can't quite remember).
This doesn't of course mean that no-one anywhere cheered the attack. It would surprise me if some didn't, much like how some Americans cheer when arabs are killed. But it was still a dishonest thing to do by the networks. Much of the western media used the exact same clip.
You are exactly right. It's a shame so few people take the time to actually read what it's all about.
On a slightly related issue, in Sweden it is actually illegal for journalists to reveal anonymous sources (to law enforcement agencies, for example) -- journalists can be prosecuted for it and it has been known to happen.
And they aren't the onlyone to violate and / or try to sabotage international treaties.
(Not that I'm defending North Korea, it is probably one of the most horrible places to be on this earth.)
The EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights (not the same thing as the European Convention on Human Rights, by the way) prohibits extradition to countries using death penalty unless credible assurances are given that it will not be applied.
As I understand it this system will track all moving objects by utilizing radio waves, not by tracking (via triangulation) the location of specific cell phones.
I don't really any good answers to those questions (which I found interesting), just would like to add a few things about aid.
The EU actually hands out more foreign aid (55 % of the world total) than the US. As an EUian and an advocate of foreign assistance, I have occasionally heard the argument here in Europe as well that we should get our own countries in order before sending money elsewhere. However, I think foreign aid is not only the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective, it's also in our long-term self interest to build a stable world and build new markets (benefits the economy). Also, most western countries are really not that generous -- donating a tiny 0.2 % of their GDP, at most, to foreign assistance (as an aside, the US actually donates the least % of its GDP among the top 20 industrialized nations).
The cost isn't necessarily a big issue. GPRS capable phones (just about any phone available, at least in Europe) can stay online 24h and you won't be charged more than a small flat fee every month up to a certain amount of data, usually some MBs (depending on subscription model).
Software patents also restrict Europeans, contrary to popular belief. This leaves only a few "free" countries and those may not necessarily be more free on the patent issue.
The problem is that getting one or two reprentatives on your side is not likely going to do much good. The real power is on national governmental and European level and it's going to be difficult convince the clueless top politicians why this is not a good idea, after they spend hours being indoctrinated by the commercial interest groups.
While I sympathize with this action, I don't think most westerners, myself included, are willing to trade the EUCP/DMCA for considerably less freedoms in other areas.
I think this is because the public has no interest in these issues, and are totally clueless in addition. Most people would probably instinctively think that this is a great idea.
To the best of my knowledge, file sharing on a large scale has not been tried in Swedish courts -- and the law is rather vague about it. It may well be considered illegal.
Directives are also legally binding -- states do not choose what to implement (but they can of course be creative about the interpretation of the directive, assuming the directive is vague enough).
EU directives, while not actual laws as such, are binding requests for corresponding laws in the member states. A member state ignoring a directive commits a breach of treaty and faces monetary penalty or, in theory, exclusion from the union. I e-mailed a Swedish judge some time ago asking about issues related to this and he confirmed this.
You don't seem very up-to-speed on the EU legal process. It's the council which has to pass laws, always, and it's made up of the government ministers from the member states.
It's not that easy. Freedom of speech isn't absolute anywhere. As an employee of a big company or government anywhere, you can't say anything you like about the company to the press. Well, you could, obviously (unless you signed relevant NDAs), but the company / organization could potentially fire you (subject to local labour laws, etc).
A European senior official who released the book "The Rotten Heart of Europe" was fired by his boss (the European Commision). The European Court of Justice ruled that the commision did not violate his rights and that it was legal under the employment policy. Ethically, it's another issue...
Slashdot Mirror
The commision does not have "all the power". While they have the power to present proposals, the power to approve or deny those proposals are completely in the hands of the European Parliament and the Council (member states).
I don't think Microsoft can, either. It would surprise me greatly if at least half their revenue doesn't come from the EU.
...requires Explorer. I am going to contact customer support about this issue tomorrow.
There have been reports about possible celebrations elsewhere and I'm convinced some are genuine. But the documentary depicting the specific footage I discussed didn't really leave much room for doubt that there was foul play involved (whether intentional or not).
According to the Swiss constitution the population has the last word on what laws to pass, if anyone can gather a certain amount of signatures. This is realized via binding referendum. It appears a truly beautiful system with people really in control as opposed to a small government elite. The same risk of stupid decisions also exists with representative democracy and clueless politicians in the US, EU or elsewhere.
[Disclaimer: I'm not Swiss nor have I lived there.]
Well said!
In one commonly aired piece of footage (which I think was taken by Reuters), an elderly woman was cheering along with some kids at a market place. A team of journalists at a media watchdog program from SVT managed to find this woman and interview her. She had not, at the point the footage was taken, heard anything about the WTC attack. She later saw herself on video in conjunction with a story about the attack and was very unhappy with what the network had done. I saw this interview myself. Journalists from a media network (I think it was Reuters too) had actually travelled around the area attempting to find cheering crowds (they attested to this) but could not find one. A documentary about this was aired on SVT (Swedish public television) last year or earlier this year (can't quite remember).
This doesn't of course mean that no-one anywhere cheered the attack. It would surprise me if some didn't, much like how some Americans cheer when arabs are killed. But it was still a dishonest thing to do by the networks. Much of the western media used the exact same clip.
In addition, it is illegal for authorities to attempt to research from whom a journalist has gotten his/her info.
You are exactly right. It's a shame so few people take the time to actually read what it's all about. On a slightly related issue, in Sweden it is actually illegal for journalists to reveal anonymous sources (to law enforcement agencies, for example) -- journalists can be prosecuted for it and it has been known to happen.
And they aren't the only one to violate and / or try to sabotage international treaties. (Not that I'm defending North Korea, it is probably one of the most horrible places to be on this earth.)
The EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights (not the same thing as the European Convention on Human Rights, by the way) prohibits extradition to countries using death penalty unless credible assurances are given that it will not be applied.
As I understand it this system will track all moving objects by utilizing radio waves, not by tracking (via triangulation) the location of specific cell phones.
I don't really any good answers to those questions (which I found interesting), just would like to add a few things about aid.
The EU actually hands out more foreign aid (55 % of the world total) than the US. As an EUian and an advocate of foreign assistance, I have occasionally heard the argument here in Europe as well that we should get our own countries in order before sending money elsewhere. However, I think foreign aid is not only the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective, it's also in our long-term self interest to build a stable world and build new markets (benefits the economy). Also, most western countries are really not that generous -- donating a tiny 0.2 % of their GDP, at most, to foreign assistance (as an aside, the US actually donates the least % of its GDP among the top 20 industrialized nations).
The cost isn't necessarily a big issue. GPRS capable phones (just about any phone available, at least in Europe) can stay online 24h and you won't be charged more than a small flat fee every month up to a certain amount of data, usually some MBs (depending on subscription model).
Software patents also restrict Europeans, contrary to popular belief. This leaves only a few "free" countries and those may not necessarily be more free on the patent issue.
...needs to look at the European software patent horror gallery. Scary stuff.
Sounds like he was just joking and the quote was taken out of context. I despise Bush almost as much as I despise lack of intellectual honesty.
The problem is that getting one or two reprentatives on your side is not likely going to do much good. The real power is on national governmental and European level and it's going to be difficult convince the clueless top politicians why this is not a good idea, after they spend hours being indoctrinated by the commercial interest groups.
While I sympathize with this action, I don't think most westerners, myself included, are willing to trade the EUCP/DMCA for considerably less freedoms in other areas.
I think this is because the public has no interest in these issues, and are totally clueless in addition. Most people would probably instinctively think that this is a great idea.
To the best of my knowledge, file sharing on a large scale has not been tried in Swedish courts -- and the law is rather vague about it. It may well be considered illegal.
Directives are also legally binding -- states do not choose what to implement (but they can of course be creative about the interpretation of the directive, assuming the directive is vague enough).
EU directives, while not actual laws as such, are binding requests for corresponding laws in the member states. A member state ignoring a directive commits a breach of treaty and faces monetary penalty or, in theory, exclusion from the union. I e-mailed a Swedish judge some time ago asking about issues related to this and he confirmed this.
You don't seem very up-to-speed on the EU legal process. It's the council which has to pass laws, always, and it's made up of the government ministers from the member states.
It's not that easy. Freedom of speech isn't absolute anywhere. As an employee of a big company or government anywhere, you can't say anything you like about the company to the press. Well, you could, obviously (unless you signed relevant NDAs), but the company / organization could potentially fire you (subject to local labour laws, etc).
A European senior official who released the book "The Rotten Heart of Europe" was fired by his boss (the European Commision). The European Court of Justice ruled that the commision did not violate his rights and that it was legal under the employment policy. Ethically, it's another issue...