EU Commissioner: We Cannot Allow ISP Disconnects 106
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.'"
So when it comes to 3 strikes.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So when it comes to 3 strikes.... (Score:5, Funny)
They expect it too, except when they don't.
Re: (Score:1)
NO ONE ACCEPTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION
Wait, that's still not right. Stupid English language, and you're stupid malaprops and homonyms.
Almost, but rather.. (Score:1)
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.
Re:So when it comes to 3 strikes.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No no, she said no disconnects for countries struggling for democracy. Once a country has something that resembles democracy you knock those fuckin' pirates right off the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So when it comes to 3 strikes.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's ridiculous that things are getting so extreme that pretty soon the only way to escape these burgeoning corporate-controlled police states is to eschew first-world life completely.
Is it possible to live in a first-world manner without the government watching every fucking move you make and violating civil liberties left and right 'for the common good'? Or was that always a pipe dream?
I'm seriously asking myself questions like these every single day, because I don't see how we're going to pull ourselves out of this nightmare. Civil liberties get violated, which leads to civil unrest, which leads to more civil liberties being violated, which leads to more civil unrest...when does it all end? When a bunch of protesters end up on slabs in the morgue? When the only people allowed to communicate on the internet are those with state approval?
It's funny, growing up, I'd always been one of those people that were against the widespread proliferation of guns in the U.S., but believe me, my opinion has changed in recent years. Those privately owned guns are really the only thing preventing the government from steamrolling right over the people of this country, and now I realize the wisdom of that right and how it enables the people to be a real check on the power of their government when the shit hits the fan.
I'm no Kacynski-esque government-fearing anarchist by any stretch, but this kind of nonsense makes me understand their fears in a way I never could before.
Re:So when it comes to 3 strikes.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They have a lot more guns than you.
and bigger guns.
If you have a gun, it just gives them an excuse to kill you right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same could be said for Britain and the American colonies, the US and Vietnam, or the USSR and Afghanistan. The crucial element is the will to prevail.
Looking at your examples, having someone with equally big guns supply some of them to you helps, too.
Re: (Score:1)
True...but I'm betting very few of the people manning those guns would use them against U.S. citizens.
Organizations such as Oath Keepers [wikipedia.org] give me hope that, if it came down to it, the people of this country would remain free through the help of those soldiers. I'm betting the vast majority of our active duty armed services, at least among the enlisted men that would man the front lines, are more Bradley Manning than G.I. Joe these days. Those members of my extended family still actively serving certainly a
Re: (Score:2)
How incredibly naive. "The will to prevail" is a nice thought but doesn't really count for much.
There have been a few successful wars of liberation and these have been successful because the victors were able to amass more guns (US from France) and/or the political calculus changed for the occupier (US, Vietnam and Afghanistan).
The people of Homs, Syria are a good case in point. They have lots of guns and public support and YouTube and members of the military are defecting but the military still has more
Re: (Score:2)
wars of liberation
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
B W A H A H A H A H A H A H A H A H A ! ! !
No, seriously. A human that can read, still believes that crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, "they" don't have more guns. Especially when you define exactly who "they" are.
Are they corporate fat cats? CEOs, corrupt politicians, hedge fund babies, etc? Because they are citizens with the exact same rights to guns as I do (if, perhaps, more capital with which to stockpile)
Are they the US military? As a member of that little club, I don't feel very "they." And I can assure you that disillusionment with the status quo isn't something upon which civilians have a monopoly. We follow orde
Re: (Score:2)
'They' are quite simply psychopaths, now through the use of science readily and infallibly detectable. What real change then simply keep them from positions of power, control and influence. It really is that simple, now getting there will be difficult, as psychopaths will lie, cheat, steal and kill to keep and gain the ego and lust driven positions of power. They absolutely will not go down peacefully, they have killed millions upon millions to get where they are now and they will kill to stay there. They
Re:FTFY (Score:1)
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
That would be the null set, right? (Score:1)
Because if you're summarily going to disconnect someone for what someone SAYS someone did, then you don't have democracy anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Disregard. Posting to remove accidental and incorrect mod.
Re:So when it comes to 3 strikes.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously.. has democracy been redefined to mean "corporate state"?
What would happen if a "democracy" decides to ignore patents for the good of the people like some of the AIDS ravaged countries have done? Are they no longer a democracy?
The worst thing about living in the 21st century is the 1984-like twisting of words by governments to mean anything the heck they want them to me.
Re:So when it comes to 3 strikes.... (Score:5, Informative)
Have you seen the laws that the UK has passed about the London olympics [guardian.co.uk] at the behest of the IOC? Criminalizing "unauthorized association" with the games? That's right, actually making it a criminal offense that the police will try to track down. All to protect the "sponsors", who pay about $800 million of the multi-billion-dollar price tag.
The modern Olympics are a cesspool of corruption hiding under the auspices of Sport.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole point of Sport is to stupefy the population. Ever heard the term "Bread and Circuses"?
When you get right down to it, the "Sport" industry is more harmful than illicit drugs. I've seen people high on drugs build lots of useful and productive things. I've never seen people hooked up to their television do anything but waste oxygen.
Same thing goes for video games.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole point of Sport is to stupefy the population. Ever heard the term "Bread and Circuses"?
F1 in Bahrain? It seems to be having the opposite effect on the local population.....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
>>>Seriously.. has democracy been redefined to mean "corporate state"?
Mussolini defined that as fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
Mussolini used a definition [wikipedia.org] of "corporation" that does not bear much if any relation to the modern meaning of that term in English.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:So when it comes to 3 strikes.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's OK to shut down access to the outside world if you are a bastion of "freedom" and "democracy" just like it's OK to torture, to imprison without trial, and kill without judicial oversight!
USA, USA, USA!
Re: (Score:2)
FUCK YEAH!
That's not what summery says (Score:3)
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 censor
Re: (Score:3)
Like the U.S. the EU guy is just talking about *other* countries preserving freedom, not the ISPs at home where its a-okay to have a "3 strike and you're banned" policy. Typical: Do as we say, not how we act.
Re: (Score:2)
the EU guy?
could you troll more?
IT's a woman named Neelie Kroes. This is not a "do as we say not as we act" this is a "I am directly involved in policies, and this is my statement".
Re: (Score:2)
>>>the EU guy?
>>>could you troll more?
If you are offended by such trivial things, then you need to develop a tougher skin. I certainly meant no offense, anymore than when I see a female friend and say, "Hey dude... what's up?" Take a chill pill.
She didn't say anything about 3 strikes.... (Score:2)
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 tha
Re: (Score:3)
Note the qualification the politician used. In a democracy, it's perfectly okay to censor people apparently. After all, the government "represents the people," right? So anything they do, however despotic, is acceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
> And I am committed to ensuring "No Disconnect" in countries that struggle for democracy.
Sweden is already a democracy, this is only for countries that struggle with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
its a joke based on the politicians quote dude...
No disconnects* (Score:4, Funny)
*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.
The struggle for democracy (Score:3, Informative)
I am committed to ensuring "No Disconnect" in countries that struggle for democracy.
But not, I suppose, in those that have stopped struggling.
FRA, here you are, ECHELON and freedom fries (Score:2)
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 A
Re: (Score:3)
Damn right brother. Email me if you want to join the resistance - don't use the one above, that's not secure. Send it to contact at fbi dot gov.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, and I got an instant reply. But you really want to come over here just to meet me? I mean, we could have communicated over the... hold on a moment, someone's at the door.
Re: (Score:3)
You have one again in the meantime?
I envied you guys when you didn't. At least no new stupid laws could be passed, it must have been heaven.
She's right (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
Re:She's right (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile the British government are pushing laws to record everything everyone does on the Internet at the behest of the EU.
Who cares what the EU SAY, when they DO the opposite?
Re: (Score:3)
We'll not have real democracies in this world until Organized groups, like corporations, lose their citizenship.
Re: (Score:2)
which "he" ? you surely aren't referring to the steely neelie...
Re: (Score:2)
[...] but a widely respected policy like this should prevent draconian knee-jerk bullshit like shutting down social media sites just because a group of miscreants use them for illegal purposes.
Yeah, let's shut down the oxygen because some criminals are using it to breathe with. Let's cut off our noses, damned face!
Re: (Score:2)
The London riots example is not great here. There was a relatively small protest followed by a shower of complete asshats (with no political agenda on show) essentially just trying to burn down London, and steal whatever they could. These morons *were* using social networking sites to organise that violence and that's what the police wanted to stem. That's how a lot of them have been prosecuted for it.
A good government can't always approach things from a freedom standpoint. They are there to maintain a peac
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to applaud your application of logic, and a good situation analysis (that I happen to agree with).
I'm afraid that the only viable method to prevent governmental shutdown of the internet is a loose, ad-hoc, "dark net" that can allow http, sftp, and email traffic. A "pirate box" application on a netbook or tablet would be a great start. Something along the lines of TOR, Bittorrent with magnet links, or Packet Amateur Radio, that works with a distributed DNS system as a self-healing mesh network a
Re: (Score:1)
It's called i2p: http://www.i2p2.de/ [i2p2.de]
Re: (Score:2)
I think there might be plausible situations where certain blackouts might be the better evil.
That sounds like an awfully slippery slope there, especially considering the government is the one making the rules. But then again, I don't really know what you meant by that. Shutting down entire websites because some people are abusing them?
Re: (Score:2)
They are there to maintain a peace and quality of life for people.
Difficult if they don't even guarantee freedom, which is closely tied to the latter and possibly the former.
UK govt did NOT want to "shut down Facebook" (Score:2)
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 wer
Re: (Score:2)
Do bear in mind that England is one of, if not the absolute, world's oldest democracy, with democratic rights dating back 800 years.
It's a pretty shoddy definition of democracy, where only a small percentage of the population gets to vote. I think you better shorten your time span by about 600 years.
Overthrowing a government is fine ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Overthrowing a government is fine ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, using the Internet to overthrow a government is allowed
Only if it's a Western-unfriendly government. Try even protesting around a G8/G20 meeting and see how much cell reception you get.
Re: (Score:2)
Does overthrowing the government cut into the profit of companies? All that changes for them is the ass of the puppet to shove their arm into.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you have always been allowed to question your government (in America since John Adams' Sedition Act), but not allowed to steal stuff from the local store. Granted, the penalty is stiff in your example, but the concept has been the same for centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing Europe with America.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
right. maybe we should make her commissioner for competition
Re: (Score:2)
Erh.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
How about countries that are allegedly already democratic? Like, say, Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland...
It's okay if both wolves agree to oppress the sheep, as long as it was put to a democratic vote. ;)
Typical socialist agenda (Score:2)
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 thi
Re: (Score:2)
True, but in this case it wasn't a U.S. or Canadian official blathering on.
No disconnect.... (Score:1)
Circular definition (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy? (Score:2)
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 believ
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy? No thanks.
And your better idea is?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite fine with the constitutional republic of the United States that I reside in. Not perfect, but works
It works in that the same 10 people that would control your hypthetical 1000 man democracy control this constitutional republic.
"A government of laws, and not of men" - John Adams
The same 10 people decide what the laws are.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm quite fine with the constitutional republic of the United States that I reside in.
Except that the two party system here is broken, and while the people shouldn't have absolute power, they don't have enough.
Despotic governments .... (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)