EU Telecom Deal Finished — No Three Strikes 109
a_n_d_e_r_s writes "The battle was hard, but the final text of the agreement ensures that people in the EU are not disconnected from the Internet without a chance to get a fair and impartial hearing beforehand. The important part is: 'Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.' This means that if someone is accused of copyright infringement, they can't just be disconnected from Internet. It lets the accused get a chance to disagree and take it to court first. The urgency clause means that a computer can be disconnected if it is part of an ongoing DDoS attack. Next, this has to be implemented into the EU nations' own laws, so the final ruling on how this will be implemented is not out yet. But, overall, it looks like a great success in stopping informal three-strikes disconnections."
No great victory (Score:1, Interesting)
I thought the whole idea was internet being an inalienable right that no one can take away from you?
How's this the major victory?
Re:No great victory (Score:4, Interesting)
Three Strikes without due-process was one of the major faults of this bill, tho' comparatively still a minor "smokescreen" to the real issue. Three Strikes was leaked from the secret negotiations, to attract the bulk of protest and citizen lobbying while the real doozy was held in reserve; "global DMCA".
What's the status of those provisions? I wouldn't celebrate too soon.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the whole idea was internet being an inalienable right that no one can take away from you?
So is freedom, but the government can still imprison you if you violate the law. The problem wasn't that you could have your Internet connection cut, but that it could happen completely outside the regular justice system and contrary to the principles of the justice system, especially presumption of innocence.
Impartial? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who decides what "a prior fair and impartial procedure" is?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
...and all religious people are so crooked and twisted that they need to be screwed into their pants every morning.
Fixed it.
Re:Impartial? (Score:5, Informative)
The European Court of Human Rights [coe.int].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who decides what "a prior fair and impartial procedure" is?
If you keep disagreeing with the judges: The European Court For Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Re:Impartial? (Score:5, Informative)
- The member states, when they pass the laws intended to implement this.
- The member states courts, when ruling and setting precedent on those laws.
- The European Court, should someone challenge whether the implementation is within the bounds of the directive.
Telecom Deal Still Up for Grabs-3Strikes Possible! (Score:3, Informative)
"However, the text only speaks of "a prior fair and impartial procedure" instead of a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, guaranteed by the original "amendment 138", and contains loopholes and ambiguities. The invalidation of freedom-killer measures such as "three strikes policies" will now depend on interpretation by the European Court of Justice and national courts. Moreover, the text only relates to measures taken by Member States and thereby fails to bar telecom operators and entertainment industries from knocking down the founding principle of Net neutrality."
Re: (Score:2)
In other words you're presumed guilty, and your internet cutoff immediately, without trial.
Why the hell do we Americans, Europeans, and Australians put-up with this bullshit? Why aren't we rising-up and terminating with extreme prejudice our governmental employees?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I have every confidence in the entertainment industry finding a Tory to continue his efforts.
Re:Impartial? (Score:5, Funny)
According to my law guidebook "a prior fair and impartial procedure" involves an adversarial legal setup with two legal teams. Each team drains its client's bank account as fast as money transfer technology makes possible and the first client to go bankrupt loses the case.
Re: (Score:2)
hmm, i wonder if ruthless.com will work in wine...
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... That would make it a very successful strategy, to use a dummy as your lawyer: A blowup doll, Bush, your dog, or just do it yourself.
As long as it's free, of course. Just bleed them dry by creating huge and expensive delays, or forcing the lawyers to bill them for reading thousands of pages of random shit. ^^
Anyone care to invent a pledge generator that can spit out 1000-page speeches?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a poison pill in that idea in some countries have barratry laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry [wikipedia.org] and losers pays. So while it is possible to play the I have more money to spend on lawyers than you do upon an individual basis, attempting to do it on a mass scale will inevitably blow up in your face, and result in a bunch of successful appeals and massive Punitive damages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages [wikipedia.org], which is of course why the RIAA et al did not play lets sue everyone in Austr
ACTA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ACTA (Score:5, Interesting)
Now what happens if ACTA gets signed? According to yesterdays article [slashdot.org], ACTA may be requiring some form of n-strikes law. Maybe this will prompt the european negotiators to remove the language from ACTA. Naaaaaa, that would be too sensible...
From the article,
A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. and The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.
I think this pretty much makes ACTA, as we know it (and you have to keep in mind that no-one around here knows the exact text of the treaty) invalid and impossible to sign if it has the rumored provisions.
Re:the right to... (Score:2)
Nah.
It's becoming apparent that copyright industries trump any rights organizations. You have the right to be made fun of in a juicy revue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think ACTA will trump European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom.
Basic premise in the EU is Human Rights>Corporations which is not always the case but hopefully this time.
manipulation? (Score:1, Insightful)
What about setting up people to censor them? Disconnecting shouldn't even be an option. Internet access is to integral to ones communication and freedom of speech. And it can punish others who might not have offended (like other users of that computer). Stupid law and a big loss in my book.
Re:manipulation? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wonder how they think to go about cutting off someone's Internet access, too. I access the Internet through various networks, most of them not on my name. Most of these networks are used by multiple people. I am sure the situation is similar for many other people.
This raises two important questions:
1. How does one go about proving that a specific individual committed copyright infringement?
2. How does one cut off that person's Internet access, without cutting off various networks that are used by a lot of people beside that individual?
Of course, they might just disconnect every network that is found to be infringing ... but then they can pretty much just shut down the entire Internet right away. I don't think that's really the intent of this directive, but even if it is, I guarantee you that it's not going to fly.
Re: (Score:2)
1. How does one go about proving that a specific individual committed copyright infringement?
That presumes the RIAA/MPAA give a fig about collateral damage. So far the evidence is that they don't, much.
We have to keep hammering back at attempts to short-circuit all attempts to punish people in groups, of course. Convenience on the part of the plaintiff is not an acceptable reason to violate such a universal legal convention, one underpinned by the lessons of WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
What they really mean by "cutting off your Internet access" is "terminating your residential ISP account".
Re: (Score:1)
My residential broadband connection is used by other people as well, so if I am accused of some heinous and socially reprehensible crime such as using P2P (by the way, have 'they' figured out that bit torrent streams don't necessarily equate to copyright infringement?) and my internet connection is cut off or throttled, then that is disproportionate as it affects other people who are innocent of using d
a "great success?" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a great success. Instead, it appears to be the beginning of a failed policy. Let's hope that internet access is eventually considered to be a fundamental human right, because with our growing dependence on technology, it should be.
Re:a "great success?" (Score:5, Insightful)
If the intention is to assert further unreasonable power over a population that isn't likely to do anything about it, then all policies fitting that description (Internet-related or not) have been a resounding success. They're more successful still when each generation grows up conditioned to it because it's "just the way things are" with little appreciation for how they came to be that way. Then it's so much easier to add just a tiny extra restriction here and there, which doesn't seem so bad at the time, except that anyone who takes a long view would quickly realize that over time these things add up to a tremendous transfer of power away from the people.
It's only a failure if reasonable honest government that truly represents the people was ever the goal.
But I thought that 3 Strikes had been kept (Score:5, Informative)
A plan by the European Parliament to restrict the power of national governments to disconnect illegal filesharers has been dumped to win agreement on new telecoms competition laws.
Long-running negotiations over the EU Telecoms Package were completed last night when MEPs agreed to drop amendments that would have made internet access a fundamental right.
After months of negotiations, the agreed package now demands only "appropriate, proportionate and necessary" measures can be taken to enforce copyright. There must be a possibility of judicial review for those disconnected, but not automatic court oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
France Hadopi laws - the 3 strikes law - are not conforming to the new legislation from EU so they have to be changed. Citizens can no longer be accused 3 times and see their connection cut. Instead they will, when they are accused, have a chance to be heard in a fair and presumed innocent until otherwise proven hearing where they have the right to be heard.
The provisions will not prevent everyones Internet connection to be cut - but it prevent people from getting it cut without a fair hearing. France have
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What's been done is that the three strikes part has been removed from the EU directive. However, previously there was language in that directive that would forbid any country from implementing a 3 strikes law on their own (remember, the EU passes some laws, but member countries can still pass their own)
The removal of this text now makes it possible for member countries to implement their own three strikes laws.
Court System Strain (Score:4, Interesting)
If they have to have a hearing for each case, won't this seriously bog down the court system?
Will the industry then be limited to going after only the biggest offenders?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they have to have a hearing for each case, won't this seriously bog down the court system?
Tough tooties. If 90% of your population is criminalized as a result of legislation you pass, perhaps you should reconsider that legislation? But that isn't what will happen. The people this law was written for (the content holders) will kick and scream until the government agrees to 'streamline' the process. And we'll be right back to DMCA or 3 strikes style laws.
Re:Court System Strain (Score:5, Funny)
Tough tooties. If 90% of your population is criminalized as a result of legislation you pass, perhaps you should reconsider that legislation? But that isn't what will happen. The people this law was written for (the content holders) will kick and scream until the government agrees to 'streamline' the process. And we'll be right back to DMCA or 3 strikes style laws.
Sounds remarkably like the behaviour of a 2 year old.
And what happens when a 2 year old gets their own way all the time? That's right, they become spokesmen for the world's recording and movie industry.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't guarantee you a court hearing before they disconnect you: just a "procedure". That could be a brief review by a bureaucrat who has already made up his mind. You get to appeal to a court, but only after you lose at the "procedure" level.
Re: (Score:2)
If they have to have a hearing for each case, won't this seriously bog down the court system?
Will the industry then be limited to going after only the biggest offenders?
No, they'll just keep using blackmail and extortion, the same way they do now.
Electricity (Score:2, Insightful)
Just wandering, are there any other comparable situations where this is done,
if I get busted 3 times for growing mariuana, do they cut off the electricity ? or water ?
The only thing I can think of is a driving licence, but in that case, lives can be in danger... so it's not really the same thing.
Well, thank you EU, good luck rest of world fighting this nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't the original 3-strikes laws for drug convictions, mandating prison time for the 3rd offense?
Probably worse than having your electricity shut off.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the first such laws were for felonies - after the third felony (murder, armed robbery, rape, etc.) you got life in prison.
It should be clear to some what is going on when it takes getting convicted three times of such crimes to put someone away for 20+ years. Because at a state level, "life" isn't until you die in prison. It is a lot closer to 20 years or so.
Even so, some folks really got tired of dealing with revolving door prisons and some guy convicted of a fifth armed robbery.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that was what people expected, but in CA, what happens is that people get locked away for life for 3 minor crimes (for example, shoplifting [threestrikes.org] and other minor offenses [facts1.com]).
Re: (Score:2)
if I get busted 3 times for growing mariuana, do they cut off the electricity ? or water ?
You won't care, you'll be in prison anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wandering
How are you posting to slashdot if you're wandering?
I wish you guys would stop relying on your spell checkers. Wandering is a completely different thing than wondering, and it takes a second to decode it. A mispeling that a spel cheker will catch isn't nearlly so badd.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Electricity (Score:5, Insightful)
You can get water from a stream, collect if from your roof, or buy it in little plastic bottles. You can heat your home by burning wood. You don't need piped water or electricity any more or less than you need the Internet. They are all luxuries. However, piped water and electricity have become so ubiquitous, and so important for normal everyday tasks that they aren't really considered luxuries, they are considered basic necessities. Some people consider the Internet in the same light. That is the view the gp was basing his argument on.
You haven't refuted it. All you've done is to essentially state, "I consider water and electricity to be necessities, but not the Internet." Which is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but you haven't really shown why water and electricity piped from a central utility are necessities, and you certainly haven't shown that the Internet isn't, so all you have done is presented your own opinion unsupported by any facts.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
</sacrasm>
Re: (Score:2)
Simple
Lack of internet only kills you in a figurative sense.
Lack of water will LITERALLY kill you.
Re: (Score:1)
You can get water from a stream, collect if from your roof, or buy it in little plastic bottles. You can heat your home by burning wood. You don't need piped water or electricity any more or less than you need the Internet. They are all luxuries. However, piped water and electricity have become so ubiquitous, and so important for normal everyday tasks that they aren't really considered luxuries, they are considered basic necessities. Some people consider the Internet in the same light. That is the view the gp was basing his argument on.
You haven't refuted it. All you've done is to essentially state, "I consider water and electricity to be necessities, but not the Internet." Which is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but you haven't really shown why water and electricity piped from a central utility are necessities, and you certainly haven't shown that the Internet isn't, so all you have done is presented your own opinion unsupported by any facts.
Piped water is not considered a luxury in Britain, you cannot have your water supply cut-off even if you just plain refuse to pay your water bill. Gas, electricity and telecommunications can all be cut-off because they are not necessary.
Re:Electricity (Score:5, Insightful)
You are different from other people. For instance, some people live off the grid and do not have municipal electricity or water. Their lives would not change at all without these things, as they don't have them to begin with.
Some people, such as software developers or website owners, depend on the Internet as much as you depend on municipal utilities. More so, in fact, because you have options. You can heat your house by burning wood, or using propane delivered by truck. You can dig a well for water. There is no alternative to the Internet.
You may think people who use the Internet 'have no life,' as you said, but some people actually use the Internet for their livelihood. It is their life and you have no standing to judge them.
In 'this century' (It's the twenty first century! did you know that?) some people depend on the Internet as much as people in the last century depended on municipal electricity and water. They depend on the Internet for their 'current mode of life.'
Now, in order to prove you are more than just an angry prick who has just had his ass handed to him in a debate, perhaps you could back up your ad hominems? How am I 'overly optimistic?' How, exactly, is my argument 'baseless' or 'hypothetical?'
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I will probably be down modded into the ground becuase I don't think that a home internet connection is required for MOST people (we all know there are always exceptions) to maintain thier livihood and this is slashdot, and anything slightly anti-internet people are going to troll me and mod me down. My mistake.
I don't think the majority of people depend on thier home internet connection for thier livihood. Get me soem numbers if you have
Re:Electricity (Score:4, Interesting)
A discussion, hmmmm? Well, lets' dissect your posts for some clue as to why you've been treated the way you were.
In your original post, you said: "I think the difference is that you don't need the internet to live a normal life." You haven't qualified that by stating 'for most people' as you finally did after being slapped down, twice.
You went on to say, "Infact it usually contributes to leading an abnormal life or even not having a life to start with. " This is not self deprecating humor. You made no attempt to show this applies to you. Perhaps you wrote that with all intention of being humorous, perhaps you were just being a dick, the point is, we don't know your intention because it wasn't made clear, all we have to go on are your words, and your words are derogatory, not humorous.
Finally, you say, "Water is needed to drink and bathe and electricty is needed for at least heating homes." which is simply a non sequiter. We weren't talking about water and electricity, we were talking about municipal water and electricity.
You weren't modded down for being anti-Internet. You were modded down because, a.) you presented a poorly constructed argument unsupported by facts, and b.) you sounded, intentionally or not, like a condescending asshole.
Let me remind you that I didn't call you a prick, or a condescending asshole. I said you could prove you weren't a prick. And I said you sounded like a condescending asshole. See the difference?
Finally, let's demolish the smoking rubble that is all that is left of your argument, to whit, your statement, "I don't think the majority of people depend on thier home internet connection for thier livihood. Get me soem numbers if you have proof, otherwise you are just talking out of your ass like me. Those that do, should have a buisness type account and really should not be doing illegal things with it."
It doesn't matter if there are (currently) a majority of people who depend on the Internet. The question is, are there any? Yes, I think we both agree there are. So, shutting off their Internet would have at least the same impact as shutting off your electricity.
We can't simply make exceptions for people who's job depends on the Internet. That is not fair or equitable. It is not fair to say, "Well, business users shouldn't be doing bad things on the Internet anyway," as you did. How do we know they were? This whole thing is very extra-judicial, anyone could be falsely accused and have very little recourse to defend themselves, and no options for rebuilding their lives after their Internet connections were permanently shut off.
In short, it appears that you support and defend this three strikes legislation, and do not think of a permanent injunction barring people from using the Internet as any sort of cruel and unusual punishment because only dweebs and weirdos with no life use the Internet. That is why you were modded down, and why I was modded up for refuting your specious reasoning.
Re: (Score:1)
I forgive you and take pity upon your soul. I hope you have a nice day and resolve your anger issues. Please understand I won't reply anymore. I hope that makes you feel better too.
Re:Electricity (Score:4, Funny)
You can pull the holier than thou act all you like, but you were the one that started the insults, so it rings a bit false. Allow me to remind you:
"Let me know when you join us in this century and come back from the land of overly optimistic baseless hypotheticals."
I said nothing remotely insulting before that point. So, I also forgive you and hope you resolve your girlish passive aggressive tendencies, princess.
Re: (Score:1)
Some people count on the internet at home to make a living - so you can buy water/electricity.
Well played. The noobs think they got something. (Score:5, Insightful)
This compromise was reached with the votes of the Pirate Party member of the EU parliament, who touts it as "more than they had hoped for". He doesn't realize that they got nothing. Here's how three-strikes will be implemented: Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Did you pay without going to trial? Why? People will get a notification of copyright infringement, another one and a third one. Each comes with an explanation that they have the right to contest the notification. They will not contest it. After the third strike, their internet access will be cut off, and they will again have the guaranteed, irrevocable right to a fair trial before that happens. All it takes is for them to say "I didn't do it." But just like traffic violations, few will contest the charges and therefore it will be possible to actually do these trials. No more "they can't put us all in jail". The entertainment industry is only up against the few who dare to use their right to a fair trial. The rest gets the "just" punishment without so much as a hearing, and it will be perfectly in line with this "victory" for the civil liberties groups.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
This is exactly what is going to happen.
Re:Well played. The noobs think they got something (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't contest speeding tickets, because it is not cost effective for most minor offenses. In my country, one has to take a whole day off work to fight a ticket and it's cheaper to just pay the damn thing plus the insurance hit.
Losing my right to an internet connection has a value to me that is much higher than a day of work. I would be guaranteed to take the trial option, and I suspect most people feel similarly.
Re:Well played. The noobs think they got something (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, in Poland they have a backlog of overdue payments for traffic tickets as long as 5 years, and they keep the queue progressing as if nothing happened, calling people to court for 5 years old traffic offenses.
Differing opinion. (Score:3, Interesting)
I hear your point, but I beg to differ.
1/ I understand the fair hearing clause is sufficient to invalidate the horrible HADOPI law in France. In fact, I suspect it was put in there specifically for this purpose. The Sarkozy government tried to make Internet access termination automatic by hammering it into the same simplified, no-hearing judiciary subsystem that handles traffic fines, and this clause explicitly disallows that.
2/ The clause of due respect for presumption of innocence means that the onus will
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read his blog [wordpress.com] (in swedish), you will know that he knows the fight isn't yet over, and that the compromise isn't the best possible solution.
But compare with what the Council of Ministers wanted before the compromise: They wanted to be able to cut off people from the net without any evidence of illegal activity, only accusations. Without any judicial intervention, and presuming that people are guilty until they prove their innocence (if possible).
This is the first major international political vic
Re: (Score:1)
I think most people are missing the point. Yes, you'll obviously contest the one that denies you internet, but if you don't contest the two before it the system essentially becomes a one strike system with the two previous counts being used as evidence to make it seem more likely that you also committed the third offense.
Just legalize downloading already (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously, does anyone techy wait for programs they want to watch to be broadcasted in their country? Everyone techy (and more of the young are techy), at least that I know, watches what they want, when they want. Some old stuff I watch I don't think you can even legally get hold of! Streaming cuts it for some, but not myself as I like to watch in my media player of choice, streaming doesn't fit into my net use and I'm damned if I'll download it again to watch it again.
Re: (Score:2)
jabjoe == Troll? Really??? All he did was express his opinion. I disagree with his viewpoint, but I don't think he's a troll.
European Council (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the European Council (Swede's take note, this includes our own infrastructure minister, from a party that officially claims to be supporting our rights but in practice has done the opposite) even argued for suspending the right to a fair trial indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the entire system. How can these people be allowed to reign free? We need to realize that the council consists of our own governments and hold them responsible for whatever the council does. The council is not a democratic institution, they conduct negotiations in secret, they advocate draconian measures, they frequently force the European Parliament, the only elected body of the EU, to bend down to it's will. We need to get rid of these people NOW! They are a very dangerous bunch of people.
Even with this wording, some, including many parliaments, will interpret the text as not requiring a court hearing, and implement it as such.
Re:European Council (Score:4, Informative)
The council is not a democratic institution, they conduct negotiations in secret, they advocate draconian measures, they frequently force the European Parliament, the only elected body of the EU, to bend down to it's will. We need to get rid of these people NOW! They are a very dangerous bunch of people.
The European Council is indeed a democratic institution: it's comprised of the heads of state or government of the member states, all of whom are elected (in the case of monarchies, the Prime Minister sits on the Council).
The European Commission is the non-democratic farce comprised of appointed, unelected bureaucrats who do things like try and push through software patents in a fisheries bill and ignore demands made by our elected representatives in the European Parliament.
I think you may have got the two confused.
Re: (Score:2)
I know the council consists of our own governments.
The main reason they are not a democratic institution however is the severe lack of transparency and the utterly non-democratic laws.
I am also of the opinion that they are much to far removed from the people to have any deciding power. I can't speak for all governments, but the Swedish government does not vote in parliament, it can propose laws, but it cannot vote on them, this is left to the elected body, the parliament.
The commission is also not very demo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The European Council is indeed a democratic institution: it's comprised of the heads of state or government of the member states, all of whom are elected (in the case of monarchies, the Prime Minister sits on the Council).
That's not good enough. You know as well as I do that heads of state tend to be pretty disconnected from the people - in countries like the UK, with our electoral system, they're in no real danger of even losing their seat, as they're likely to be in a very safe seat. They can get away w
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed, I have for a long time bitched about the council and how impossible it is for it to fall in its whole, since that would mean that the member-states' governments would all fall at the same time.
I hear a lot of complaints of the commission, but the commission has fallen when it lost its parliamentary support and the commission rules at the parliaments approval. The council however, are not accountable as such, have the right to make law (the commission do not have that right, they are just implementin
Re: (Score:2)
If you do that (have a directly-elected Senate or Commission or Council), then the European Union will end-up looking like our United States, and your local UK or French or German government will merely be a puppet of the centralized power. As is the case when the U.S. forces all 50 states to ban gay marriage, or drop speed limits to 55, or install a three-strike law.
I would advise you to avoid that route. It has not worked well for us.
I would rather have half of the legislative body consist of State gov
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> How can these people be allowed to reign free?
The Rome treaty.
I understand the balance of power will be shifting back in favor of the Parliament when the Lisbon treaty goes into effect.
So elect your representatives wisely, good folks.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the balance of power will be shifting back in favor of the Parliament when the Lisbon treaty goes into effect.
In that case, it will be interesting to see what the fisheries ministers all get to sign before 1 December :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. While the parliament get some more areas of responsibility, it does not get to be free of the council "co-decision" procedure, and the council gets more power as well. The parliament will bend over backwards to satisfy the council just as it always has, and the council will continue to push draconian laws and will continue with their policy of complete non-transparency.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How can these people be allowed to reign free?
They can't in the long run as long as democracy works.
Christian Engström was elected into the EU-Parliament because of the actions of the Swedish government.
And next year the Swedish government is going to loose their power, according to the polls. Their demolition of citizen's rights is probably one of the main reasons. And with a bit of luck, the Pirate Party is going to enter the Swedish parliament next year.
win for cops and intelligence agencies (Score:2, Interesting)
-
This is a win for intelligence agencies and other organizations who want to be able to inspect every packet. This decision has reduced the likelihood we will get real privacy by the development of encrypted anonymizing p2p systems.
This is not a victory (Score:5, Insightful)
They asked for everything including the kitchen sink.
They got everything except the kitchen sink, and you're trumpeting this as a success of rights?
This was the plan all along. Ask for everything settle for half. Except they got about 80% of what they wanted and they gave up nothing in exchange.
Treaties (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't treaties like ACTA trump national laws?
Only to the extent that they become national laws. In many jurisdictions treaties do not have any effect inside the country until the government enacts enabling legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Since ACTA is still being written, my guess is it will be updated to use loopholes in this. It would be a pretty big blow to them if every country in the EU refused to sign it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't treaties like ACTA trump national laws?
All depends what your national laws say about treaties.
Communication is a privilege, not a right (Score:2, Insightful)
As the old rule goes: (Score:2)
The urgency clause means that a computer can be disconnected if it is part of an ongoing DDoS attack.
Or "That rule would never be used. It's only there for extreme emergencies. Don't worry!"
To which I answer with a quote:
“Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.”
cf: DMCA, Patriot Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act (UK), Enabling Act (W