Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

France Passes Harsh Three-Strikes Legislation, Again

Soulskill posted about 5 years ago | from the back-for-a-second-at-bat dept.

Government 207

shrik writes "After having it struck down as 'unconstitutional' by the Conseil Constitutionnel once, Sarkozy's controversial 'three-strikes' law (known as HADOPI) was once again passed by the French National Assembly, this time allowing for a judge to order the disconnection (without requiring the presence of the accused party!), thus placating some of the administrative concerns. Opponents say they will 'challenge the law again in front of the Constitutional Council because it deprives the accused of being able to defend themselves properly.' Coverage at Ars also points out a provision that says, 'all Internet users must keep their connections 'secure' and are responsible for what happens on them.'"

cancel ×

207 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Vive la (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29438769)

Fuckers

Re:Vive la (1)

Toutatis (652446) | about 5 years ago | (#29440259)

I think that Internet in France will be full of people like you: Anonymous Cowards [wikipedia.org] .

Oh no! (5, Funny)

should_be_linear (779431) | about 5 years ago | (#29438807)

all Internet users must keep their connections "secure" and are responsible for what happens on them

Windows users..... RUN!

We all have broken the law (4, Insightful)

xzvf (924443) | about 5 years ago | (#29438997)

Legislatures all over the world pass laws that can't be enforced universally. They are trolling their constituents and trying to look busy to justify having a full time job. The problem is you get huge law books with thousands of obscure laws that have never been tested in court. The police, and by extension the state, can arrest anyone and find a law to justify it. While it might not stick in court yet, being arrested will generally cost you a great deal of money and embarrassment, many employers will fire you with no recourse, it can be used as justification for seizing assets in some cases, etc... Our only protections are the state's lack of interest in us as individuals, or aggressive protesting by the mob if we are visible enough.

Re:We all have broken the law (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 5 years ago | (#29439147)

Our only protections are the state's lack of interest in us as individuals, or aggressive protesting by the mob if we are visible enough.

Soapbox, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order.

Re:We all have broken the law (4, Funny)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | about 5 years ago | (#29439369)

I personally would use the soap and ammo boxes as long range weapons, the ballot box as my preferred melee weapon and the jury box I'd probably class as a weapon of mass destruction. Bloody heavy things though and not that easy to find and carry and to be honest I still prefer the old torch and Molotov for most of my "angry mob" duties, but I admire your attempt to innovate.

Re:We all have broken the law (1)

multisync (218450) | about 5 years ago | (#29439551)

Soapbox, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order.

Short of pluggin people fulla lead, the summary provides a possible solution to this law:

'all Internet users must keep their connections 'secure' and are responsible for what happens on them.'

I wonder how secure the Internet connections owned by the members of the French National Assembly are. Maybe a tracker could be set up on Sarkozy's Minitel terminal.

Re:We all have broken the law (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | about 5 years ago | (#29439849)

Too bad that it's kinda hard to use the last box in most of Europe...

Re:We all have broken the law (2, Informative)

InEnacWeTrust (1638615) | about 5 years ago | (#29439307)

This is a very US-centric vision that may be applicable to the US (I wouldn't know). But this article is about a franch low: - France uses a very different legal system, where laws most often don't have to be "tested in court" - Being arrested for nothing and released afterwards cannot cost you your job Now this law is indeed unapplicable but that has nothing to do with the legal system itself (at least, not the french one).

Re:We all have broken the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439357)

In what country is it legal to fire someone for being arrested, or even convicted of, a crime?
The latter can be used in hiring decisions, but not firing decisions, while the former can't be used in either, as far as I am aware.

Re:Oh no! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439009)

It also raises the question of whether an organisation becomes responsible for any piracy which occurs as a result of a thirdparty sneaking onto their network. Say, the French government being responsible if a bunch of hackers start downloading pirated material using their network. Wouldn't a judge be obliged to cut that network off immediately?

Re:Oh no! (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | about 5 years ago | (#29439061)

What about wireless routers? Does grandma get thrown in jail because her wireless router was not secured and allowed someone else to download music?

Re:Oh no! (1)

MrMr (219533) | about 5 years ago | (#29439157)

At what age do you suggest the law should no longer apply?

Re:Oh no! (2, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | about 5 years ago | (#29439293)

My completely humble suggestion that has absolutely nothing to do with my age would be 27 ;)

Re:Oh no! (2, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 5 years ago | (#29439507)

At what age do you suggest the law should no longer apply?

A few decades after you're dead, perhaps. Just like copyrights.

Re:Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439627)

I'm french, and I can tell you:
Yes, that's EXACTLY what's gonna happen with this law!!!!

And if grandma can prove that she didn't downloaded music herself, then she still get a one-month internet cut and a have to pay a fine.
If she tries to go to another internet providers while her connexion is down, there is another fine!!!!!

Short answer: yes (2, Insightful)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | about 5 years ago | (#29439881)

Long answer: this is the death of non-corporate backed hotspots.

Thankfully this piece of shit is 99% guaranteed to be blocked by the Constitutional Council.

But it's typical of Sarkoleon's governance. The media coverage of this whole thing has been almost as sickening as that of Fox wrt Obama's health care plan: unashamedly ignorant propaganda, ridiculous talking points, and Godwin galore. Did you know that opponents of the law were Nazi collaborators? That's what the head of a local Mafiaa repeated on the media, without being challenged much. That's particularly offensive considering that the most prominent opponents have names such as Bloche or Zimmerman.

"Troll", but quite right (3, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 5 years ago | (#29439423)

You've been marked troll, but you're quite right. The idea that the an average windows user can keep a PC secure, keep their wireless network secure, etc. is right up there with expecting the poor to get a fair trial in court. Admin is a day-in-day-out job of constant vigilence and few missteps -- by a professional-level definition of misstep. The average user probably makes their PC vulnerable in about 5 different ways for every new day they use it.

Re:Oh no! (2, Informative)

loutr (626763) | about 5 years ago | (#29439873)

I'm french, and have been following this law with attention (and disgust).

They threw in this provision because they'll prosecute people based on IP adresses collected on BT trackers and filesharing programs by private firms. When opponents of the law pointed out that it's trivial to gain access to a private wifi network, the ministry of culture decided to patch the law with this provision.

The "funny" thing is that in order to prove you've secured your network, you'll have to buy and install a non-free, windows-only spyware which will monitor your network. No words yet on the technical details of this program.

Linux Adpption should be up (0, Flamebait)

fwarren (579763) | about 5 years ago | (#29438813)

I know if I had to secure my Internet connection I would have to switch to Linux. Not that Linux is perfect. I just know that I can't secure a windows computer that is used for browsing the Internet.

Re:Linux Adpption should be up (0, Troll)

linca (314351) | about 5 years ago | (#29438883)

The thing is, you have to "secure" your connection by installing government mandated software... That will only be available for windows, probably.

Re:Linux Adpption should be up (1)

think_nix (1467471) | about 5 years ago | (#29438967)

are you serious ? I didn't rtfa but do you have a source on this ? Stuff like this scares the hell out of me. You see France starts then rest of Europe wants to follow suit. Government mandated software ? Not on my box , reminds me of the trojan the german government is trying to push on all their citizens.

Re:Linux Adpption should be up (2, Informative)

linca (314351) | about 5 years ago | (#29439003)

Well, you don't have to have the software installed - but these software logs will be the only ones that will be easily used as proof that your computer was downloading stuff...

Re:Linux Adpption should be up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439057)

Yeah the source was all the french media a few month ago when the first part of the law was passed.
Of course, nobody ever mentioned any windows vs. everybody else in this debate, but it was clearly said that a private company would asked to provide a software program to the general public that would allow you to prove that you're not guilty. There was a uge tantrum of course "since when do we have to prove we're not guilty, the other side shall instead prove we ARE guilty". But this tantrum was to no avail and the law was passed anyway.

The program is supposed to be non intrusive, easy to install, available for the masses ... that reads MS windows to ..., no, not me but to the average member of parliement.

Re:Linux Adpption should be up (2, Informative)

linca (314351) | about 5 years ago | (#29439121)

For those that believe this is trollish, see that [neteco.com] pair [pcinpact.com] of links documenting the point...

Re:Linux Adpption should be up (1)

NoYob (1630681) | about 5 years ago | (#29439073)

I haven't gotten an infection on my Windows XP box in years. How?
  1. Browse with a user's account. Don't browse with an admin account.
  2. use Firefox or anything BUT IE.
  3. Virus scanner.
  4. Don't browse porn sites.
  5. Google and others are great at warning about sites that are sources of infections.

Of course, it is quite entertaining when I am on my Linux box and a Windows looking "Warning" comes up saying the my "C:" drive is infected and that I need to run the "anti-virus" that has popped up.

Re:Linux Adpption should be up (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 5 years ago | (#29439155)

Don't browse porn sites without noscript

Fixed that for you ;)

Re:Linux Adpption should be up (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#29439835)

I'm pretty much in the same boat. My Windows box has gone for years without an infection, and without running active virus protection (I do weekly on-demand scans to ensure that it's clean, but nothing running in the background).

Windows is a dangerous thing in the hands of a novice, but if you're used to computers (which MOST people who would be willing to install and run Linux are), it's feasible to surf on a Windows machine without hosing it up.

And in reality, the primary concern about the matter here is securing your wireless network. IE, setting up WPA or the like. That's going to be an issue primarily focused on your router and knowing how to set it up.

Re:Linux Adpption should be up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439149)

I think most people would rather spend the extra money to get a mac and osx rather than use that server OS that's nowhere near ready for desktop

Re:Linux Adpption should be up (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 5 years ago | (#29439459)

I know if I had to secure my Internet connection

Uhh, it might not be law, but you do realise that you're on a network will millions of other people, and that you have a responsibility to do your part in keeping everyone safe from hackers, identity theft, spam, etc. right?

If you don't realise that your system is insecure, that's one thing. But knowing it's insecure, that something needs to be changed, and not changing or hiring someone to take steps to help you, is just irresponsible.

personal Responsibility (1)

Marthisdil (606679) | about 5 years ago | (#29438833)

As soon as people start accepting it for all things they have control over, the better the world will be.

Already done? (3, Interesting)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 5 years ago | (#29438839)

I know this is taking place in France, but in North America hasn't the RIAA already prosecuted people without notifying them they were being prosecuted?

Re:Already done? (1)

zwei2stein (782480) | about 5 years ago | (#29439215)

That was private company suing people by using bended law.

We are talking government agency doing prosecution in France and government-supervised and enforced internet disconnection as punishment backed by law that was crafted only to support their actions. Only hope here is that it will be like all governments agencies - bureaucratic hell that does not manage to do anything, because otherwise, they can quite a lot of power in their hands.

Re:Already done? (1)

teh kurisu (701097) | about 5 years ago | (#29439589)

How is being sued by a private company without your knowledge any better than what is being proposed here? In both cases the actual punishment is handed out by a court, and in both cases it is 'backed by law'.

Private companies work better than governments when you have a choice over which private company you use. Unfortunately you can't choose which private company you would like to be sued by.

Re:Already done? (1)

zwei2stein (782480) | about 5 years ago | (#29440185)

Government agency is more powerful, and does not need to bother with suing you, it can be investigator-judge-jury-executioner mix.

If you have to pay fine for something (say, overdue taxes; errors in tax form), government agency does not have to bother with convicting you of your misconduct, they do simply send you "you are guilty of X, pay Y.". Count and suing happens only when you attempt to defend yourself and resist.

Private company has to sue you and has to win first. Govt agency does not have to. Unless you are to be jailed, they can issue fines and command your isp without bothering with courts.

Worked for traffic cops, would work for 'net traffic' cops. Default is guilty unless you defend yourself.

Deep shit, man... deep shit...

Re:Already done? (1)

RIAA Associate (1627985) | about 5 years ago | (#29439951)

No, Sir.

im fed up with (3, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about 5 years ago | (#29438841)

every government trying to legislate safety and functionality into the internet. Hire competent engineers, pay them a fair salary, do not expect kickbacks, this system of interconnected computers and servers is a wonderful thing and it seems every time i turn around, another bureaucrat is trying to murder it in the name of re-election and approval ratings. the internet is for all mankind, but fatbodies in armani suits for some reason forget this.

to france: stop letting your government divert from the real issues. get back on track with employment and reform.

Political Laundering (1)

Smegly (1607157) | about 5 years ago | (#29438951)

...is one of the reasons it keeps happening.

Essential Reading:

"...Member States often use European Union to achieve what can be spelled as âoepolitical launderingâ. The âoeTelecoms Packageâ gives a perfect example of such a deceptive maneuver, aimed at legalizing an european-wide "graduated response" against citizens, and stretching it even deeper as usual. How does it work?..."

How French Presidency Hides a Political Laundering Inside EU Telecoms Package [laquadrature.net]

Re:im fed up with (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 5 years ago | (#29439223)

Im fed up with every government trying to legislate safety and functionality

Fixed that for you. You had three extra words on the end of that sentence..

Re:im fed up with (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439393)

to france: stop letting your government divert from the real issues. get back on track with employment and reform.

I beg to differ. These ARE real issues. If we value a free internet, we need to make sure that these issues stay on the political agenda, and that people are made more aware of them.

Re:im fed up with (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 5 years ago | (#29439483)

Yeah, we are very sorry about the president we got here. It is our turn to have a small Bush. In the case of the present law, it is not just incompetence. There is a very real opposition against internet as a news reporting device. There has been a take over of the government on many news outlets but news website are the last place where they do not manage to weight and pressure people into not speaking about things they want kept hidden. Some people begin to talk about "Sarkozy's jigsaw", where the great picture is a nation only informed through government-sanctionned mediums.

How many people have been falsely accused? (0, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#29438855)

I've seen many instances of people getting busted for child porn on their hard drives. I've seen many stories of people getting busted for illegally uploading copyrighted material. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.

But I ain't never seen nobody get arrested for shenanigans someone else pulled on their network.

Re:How many people have been falsely accused? (1)

think_nix (1467471) | about 5 years ago | (#29438993)

Just wait until this really goes through pisses some people off and they find some "strange material" on Sarkozy's HDD or traffic through his internet connection.

That's fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29438869)

1. They struck out the old Three Strikes law (Strike one).
2. They passed this new Three strikes law, which will get struck down (for fear of french revolution) (Strike two)
3. They will try to pass one more Three Strikes law, strike it out (at the demand of the E.U.) (Strike three)
4. YEERRRR OUT!

I wonder if there's a provision (5, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | about 5 years ago | (#29438877)

I wonder if they included a provision that excludes French National Assembly members from the three strikes.

Given enough time any connection can be compromised and if France's script kiddies are like all the others I wouldn't put it past them to pwn a couple of assembly member's connections. Since you are responsible for what happens on your connection...

Re:I wonder if there's a provision (2, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | about 5 years ago | (#29439371)

And the what will happen, indeed... Script kiddie will be found and prosecuted, politician unharmed (on contrary, getting easy sympathy/hero points for being insidiously attacked by some basement dweller that is pissed off because he can not get his dose of hentai. Word terrorist will be passed along and will not be off mark - point of terrorism is to inspire 'terror' to pressure opposition to change their politics. And this would fit perfectly, now wouldn't it.). Lets face it, for doing something as dumb as malicious and ultimately pointless, he would well deserve some rl implications. What about voting? Entering politics? Where is France Pirate Party when you need one? Where is population support against this law?

Most parliament implementations have politicians immune to prosecution so that they are harder to blackmail or persecution. It also helps with driving drunk and surely will help with someone tries to frame them of some crime because they do not like law that got passed. Basically, it will be serving its purpose.

Re:I wonder if there's a provision (1)

Tom (822) | about 5 years ago | (#29439583)

Since most of the politicians who think they absolutely must regulate that lawless space, the Intartubes know next to nothing about it - what do you think the chances are that they'd even notice ?

Heck, what's the chances they even have a net connection at home?

Merde! (3, Interesting)

Wowsers (1151731) | about 5 years ago | (#29438881)

If at first you don't succeed, bribe and bribe again.

How will this pass the European Unions "right to free speech" when you have no internet connection to communicate with anyone? Oh silly me, it's the French we're talking about, they never did give a cr@p about European laws unless it was in their favour.

Re:Merde! (2, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | about 5 years ago | (#29438957)

While i agree that this is bad, you are talking shit, "free speech" doesn't guarantee you an internet connection any more than it guarantees you a phone.

Re:Merde! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#29439017)

Actually, it might in the EU. There are provisions requiring citizens to have access to news sources. These have been used in the past to mean that laws depriving citizens of access to the radio or TV news are illegal and could probably be used to prevent disconnection of the Internet. You can have fun if you cite the relevant clauses to the TV licensing people in the UK; they don't want a test case that might rule the TV license illegal, so if you mention it to them as the reason you don't have a TV license, they leave you alone (I've not tried this personally, because I don't have a TV, but someone I know has and hasn't paid the license or been hassled about it for several years).

Re:Merde! (1)

linca (314351) | about 5 years ago | (#29439033)

Well, that's pretty much the reason the Constitutional Court (equivalent to US Supreme court, except it rules directly on laws rather than trials) struck it down the first time - an internet connection is necessary enough for Free Speech that you need a trial with a judge to be deprived of it.

Re:Merde! (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#29439903)

"Free speech" doesn't guarantee you a phone or a network connection, but it most assuredly SHOULD prevent the government from having such devices or services forcibly removed from your possession so that you can no longer communicate with them.

Sad trend (5, Interesting)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 5 years ago | (#29438893)

I LIKE leaving my wrouter unpassworded. I have a resource that costs me nothing it makes good sense to share. My neighbours do the same and are on a different ISP. The result? Near 0 downtime. But it seems this will be legislated away. It depresses me that since I got cable almost 10years ago my speed and capacity has dropped, reliability has dropped massively and is going to take another hit. Capitalism works very well on small individual items but clearly cannot deal with massive projects. Oh well at least its not as bad as cellphones...

Re:Sad trend (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#29439065)

Maybe someone should send the story that was on Idle a few days ago about Asutralian children getting lost in a storm drain to the French parliament. They couldn't get a mobile phone signal, but they managed to let people know they were lost down there because they went under a house with an unsecured wireless access point. Clearly the legislators who voted for this bill want children to die in storm drains! Won't somebody please think of the children!

Re:Sad trend (1)

rundgren (550942) | about 5 years ago | (#29439275)

While I think your "capitalism cannot deal with massive projects" statement is false, I have to agree on sharing the connection: I happily leave my wifi unencrypted and unprotected. Use it all you want, neighbours!

Re:Sad trend (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about 5 years ago | (#29439285)

Capitalism works very well on small individual items but clearly cannot deal with massive projects.

What does this have to do with capitalism? It's a government action not something having to deal with private ownership of capital. It just bugs me how so many government actions are blamed on private entities. Especially when the solution to the alleged "capitalist" or "corporatist" harm is more government action or regulation. That's fighting fire by throwing some gasoline on.

Re:Sad trend (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 years ago | (#29439463)

I got cable almost 10years ago my speed and capacity has dropped, reliability has dropped massively and is going to take another hit
Funny I got Cable almost 10 years ago too... And my reliability and speed has increased massively. I Get about 20Mbs Down and 1Mbs Up. (even though it has been consistent for the past 10 years)
Perhaps it is because there are about 3 or 4 different DSL companies competing for my business in my area so they are sure to offer as good service as possible. Capitalism does work, When the businesses stay out of government (A democrat idea) and government stays out of business (a republican idea) .

Re:Sad trend (0, Flamebait)

teh kurisu (701097) | about 5 years ago | (#29439641)

Why not just swap WPA keys with your neighbours?

Re:Sad trend (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 years ago | (#29439759)

It depresses me that since I got cable almost 10years ago my speed and capacity has dropped, reliability has dropped massively and is going to take another hit.

Did you sometime in the last ten years move from a very high-tech country to some third world country? Ten years ago I was on 64kbps ISDN. Now I'm on 20Mbit cable and yes, I do hit 2.2 MB/s in actual downloads. In another ten years I expect to be on fiber or next gen cable with 100-1000Mbit somewhere.

Don't get too worked up (5, Informative)

Silentknyght (1042778) | about 5 years ago | (#29438905)

It passed, but with a 285-225 vote, there's noticeably significant opposition. And that's just the lower house; it still has to go to a "parliamentary commission of seven senators and seven members of the lower house to pen a final draft that's acceptable to both houses". And that's if it's not blocked by another constitutional appeal.

So, just typical politicking bullshit you'd see across the pond over here, or really anywhere, nowadays, so that Jack can say he was for it and accuse Jane of being against it, to further some hatespeech... er, campaigning. I can't get too worked up until it's actually for real; there's just too much of this nonsense nowadays.

dont they have somehting better to do? (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | about 5 years ago | (#29438949)

like fo rreal , rapists , murderers and other real crime that hurts people?
LIKE OMG the sheer stupidity and why such a hard on to destroy your youth in EVERY country.

WHO THE FRAKING HELL DOES THIS TO KIDS

Re:dont they have somehting better to do? (1)

think_nix (1467471) | about 5 years ago | (#29439069)

probably not since Sarkozy gets kickbacks from the french entertainment industry.

Re:dont they have somehting better to do? (1)

digitig (1056110) | about 5 years ago | (#29439163)

like fo rreal , rapists , murderers and other real crime that hurts people?

I think you'll find that laws are already in place to deal with such crimes.

3 strikes on 3 strikes (5, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | about 5 years ago | (#29438959)

All countries should have a law that prevents their governments from being allowed to repeatedly reattempt to pass a law the got turned down once already. Especially when the law has already been found to be unconstitutional.

Re:3 strikes on 3 strikes (2, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | about 5 years ago | (#29439187)

Exactly how do you think such a law could ever get on the statutes?

Re:3 strikes on 3 strikes (0)

InEnacWeTrust (1638615) | about 5 years ago | (#29439415)

All countries should have a law that prevents their governments from being allowed to repeatedly reattempt to pass a law the got turned down once already. Especially when the law has already been found to be unconstitutional.

How then could we reverse a law that seems OK in any given generation but that cannot be applied/understood 50 years later ? Or a law that just became plain stupid because of the normal evolution of society ? Gun control in the US seems the perfect exemple of this. The whole world perfectly understands that having guns & ammo in your home (sorry, should I say "arms") in not the way a society should be run and murders make the headlines because they're very uncommon. Yet the US cannot make themselves change their constitution.. (sorry for the change of subject)

Re:3 strikes on 3 strikes (3, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | about 5 years ago | (#29439901)

well have a time limit. So you can only submit a law for (re)consideration say once every 3 years.

Re:3 strikes on 3 strikes (1)

Tom (822) | about 5 years ago | (#29439511)

Yeah, too bad our modern democracies haven't implemented an idea that's almost 2500 years old. The ancient greek Graphe Paranomon [wikipedia.org] . In short: The penalty for repeatedly introducing unconstitutional laws would be the end of your political career.

Three strikes sounds about right in that context.

Re:3 strikes on 3 strikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439895)

This is a bad idea. For one, times do change, and an inappropriate law at one time might be appropriate later. For another, all they'd do is add an exception to the law for whatever they were trying to pass. It would be futile.

The way for bad laws proposed multiple times to be stopped is quite simple: an interested citizenry that will actively oppose the law each and every time.

New law is NOT necessary (1, Interesting)

rqqrtnb (753156) | about 5 years ago | (#29438969)

Copyright holders already have legal processes to follow: DMCA takedown notices (sent under penalty of perjury) and civil lawsuits. If they don't choose to use them, tough.

They frequently bleat that it's expensive. It is, but mainly for the people they accuse, who can't afford to defend it.

They frequently bleat that it's difficult to prove. That's hardly an excuse to make accusation the only burden of proof required, is it?

I know that sounds appealing (4, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | about 5 years ago | (#29438987)

Coverage at Ars also points out a provision that says, 'all Internet users must keep their connections "secure" and are responsible for what happens on them.

That sounds great, especially to those of us who have to deal with the Great Unwashed Masses PC problems, but most users are doing good to find the power switch. Making them responsible for what happens to the internals of their PC without their knowledge in a rapidly evolving threat landscape that even security professionals struggle with at times is blaming the victim. It's not their fault Windows is a highly porkable product.

They're teaching young people how to use computers in school but, with few exceptions, they're not teaching them how to use them safely. In many schools it would be the blind leading the blind in security education. Most teachers don't know enough about PC security to make any relevant contribution to solving the bigger problem. Ultimately, it's like trying to fight a fully involved house fire with a garden hose.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I am glad that it's someone else being heavy-handed and dickish for a change.

Re:I know that sounds appealing (1)

Tom (822) | about 5 years ago | (#29439433)

That sounds great, especially to those of us who have to deal with the Great Unwashed Masses PC problems, but most users are doing good to find the power switch.

So?

Most drivers are doing good remembering which of the controls does what. Nevertheless, cars in general are pretty safe (airbags, ABS, seat belts, etc.) and safe driving is one of the things that you get hammered in at every opportunity. It also has some laws and controls (speed limits, etc.) that many of us hate at times, but we generally agree that they're a solid idea and things would be much worse without.

Enforcing some security in home computers might make it more likely that people spend a few more bucks on a more secure PC, which in turn will give manufacturers some incentive to do something about it.

Might work, might not. I think it's worth a try.

Re:I know that sounds appealing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29440019)

I don't want airbags or seat belts in my computer =( I definitely don't want a speed limit on the internet.

Secure? (4, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 years ago | (#29438995)

So saying that a connection must be secure immediately raises the question: how secure?

Are they responsible if a neighbor guesses a WEP password and downloads kiddie porn?

Are they responsible if they have a fully patched Windows box, with virus checking, but get compromised by a virus missed by those safeguards and become part of a botnet?

If a criminal breaks into the house while they're on vacation and makes a bunch of purchases with fraudulent credit card numbers, are they still responsible?

Re:Secure? (2, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 years ago | (#29439081)

Correction. I read the Ars article, and the trouble you can get into is regarding copyright violations that occur on your connection.

So all of my examples in the parent post should be modified to talk about copyright infringement as the illegal activity.

Fuckin government (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439041)

To my French Government: Stop Microsoft's monopole, don't allow computers' manufacturers selling MS Windows on every PC, that's not legal but that what they do and it's the hell to ask for a refund.
They're all ignorants !

Re:Fuckin government (2, Funny)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | about 5 years ago | (#29439143)

Stop Microsoft's monopole

Down with Microsoft's evil magnets! Dipole magnets for everybody!

My analogy... (5, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | about 5 years ago | (#29439063)

So the copyright industry wants you kicked off the net for three mere accusations of copyright infringement. That could be as little as three songs. The songs sell for a buck on Amazon and iTunes. So for a mere three bucks the copyright industry wants you banned from the net for eternity.

Let's imagine a different law. Let's imagine that the banking industry gets fed up with people stealing pens out of their lobbies. These pens are expensive, a buck each. Imagine that a law is enacted stating that any person merely accused by a bank of stealing three pens is banned from the entire banking industry for the rest of his or her life.

Does anyone think such a law has any chance to be passed? Does anyone seriously think that such a law makes sense? Of course it would not and of course it does not. But in the crazy world of copyrights, people actually take the proposed three strikes law seriously.

Re:My analogy... (1)

InEnacWeTrust (1638615) | about 5 years ago | (#29439575)

This analogy is far-fetched. You could imagine something more realistic : Let's imagine the banking industry being fed up with people being indepted. Imagine a low is enacted stating that any person accused of having their bank account below zero three time is banned from the entire banking industry for one year... As it a chance to be passed ?... who knows

Re:My analogy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439853)

That's not for the rest of your life.

Three violations (accusation of 3 violations) => one year without Internet and/or (at max) 300kâ plus 3 years in prison.

Source (in French) : http://www.clubic.com/actualite-299768-vote-hadopi-2-assemblee-nationale.html

This is not unsurprising. (1)

tjstork (137384) | about 5 years ago | (#29439067)

As your friendly conservative I must insist everyone stop picking on France!

France has always had a huge tradition of strong copyright law that in their mind, protects the artist. They foisted the Bern convention on the world and would probably make it so that the artist and his family would have copyrights for all eternity if they could. It's entirely different set of values that drives this. Even though the piece of it may not seem logical, we need to be culturally aware. We as American (and the British obviously) are based on anglo-saxon legal values, but France is not.

And who's going to teach them? (1)

gsergiu (585096) | about 5 years ago | (#29439087)

"They have to keep their connection secure". Hmm...And how are they (the normal Joe Six-pack) supposed to do that? How do they know to make it secure? Will somebody offer training courses? Will somebody issue a certificate: "You are allowed to connect to the internet"? I would love to see that happening but the chances are obviously slim. I would love the OEMs to be responsible for training their customer: "You sir, if you wanna buy this shiny new computer, and want to connect it to the internet, must present a proof that you are capable of securing your connection". But, obviously, this won't happen :(.

ohh... payback (1)

Gridpoet (634171) | about 5 years ago | (#29439117)

It seems like all some shady person would have to do is target all the officials responsible for horrible legislation like this and make sure there computers are compromised and download tons of illegal files...

 

Re:ohh... payback (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 5 years ago | (#29439709)

So what? Those officials don't use the Internet like us: they have secretaries and other employees who browse the net and answer emails on their behalf. Cut off their private computers, they probably won't even notice.

I wonder how... (2, Interesting)

Demonantis (1340557) | about 5 years ago | (#29439139)

...long this will be humored by the courts. Basically, the politicians are passing the most restrictive rules possible for consumers they can think of then tune them back until the courts let it pass. Why don't they just think up what would be considered fair in a free society then see what happens from there. I am not France, but would be interest to find out if this is how French society allows all its laws to be created.

Re:I wonder how... (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | about 5 years ago | (#29439177)

*from france. Sorry for the grammar error.

Conservatives never learn (3, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | about 5 years ago | (#29439169)

You don't treat the symptom, you treat the cause. Otherwise you may as well be jerking off. What causes crime? Poverty, lack of prospects for a future, and ignorance. You may deter one individual from committing more crimes by putting him in jail for life but that does nothing to dissuade the one after him and the one after that. Yes, there will always be the bad seeds, the one no amount of opportunity and guidance will help. But there will be fewer of them than what we have now if we address the causes.

Want to know how to set the drug problems straight in this country? Legalize and regulate the shit. Those who are hooked on the hard shit like heroin will get their maintenance dose from a government clinic for free. Those who aren't yet hooked will find it harder to score in the first place as the street supply dries up. And pot? For fuck's sake, give the growers licenses and let them operate like micro-breweries. Keep big business out of it, don't let their marketing departments start trying to manipulate public demand. Can you imagine how much peace would be had in Mexico if illicit drug money from the US dried up? Hell, just imagine knowing your flat won't get broken into by a junkie looking for shit to fence.

Politicians don't have the fucking stones to put forward this kind of legislation.

Re:Conservatives never learn (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 years ago | (#29439297)

Can you imagine how much peace would be had in Mexico if illicit drug money from the US dried up?

I'm just trying to imagine what the thousands upon thousands of people working drug-related jobs would do instead. We've seen thousands of soldiers defecting to the drug lords at once, and the like.

Re:Conservatives never learn (3, Insightful)

Mornedhel (961946) | about 5 years ago | (#29439419)

What causes crime? Poverty, lack of prospects for a future, and ignorance.

Setting aside for now the issue of whether downloading copyrighted material is a crime, etc. etc., do you really think that *poverty, lack of prospects for a future, and ignorance* is what drives leechers to download bluray rips ?!

Re:Conservatives never learn (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29440071)

The first one has obvious implications; Poverty.

While most of your people who pirate aren't exactly "impoverished", (actually, working poor to middle class mostly) they DO have a very limited economy for purchasing luxury goods.

What causes a person to suffer the ill effects of poverty, is a physical need, or want, for various goods and services (Such as food, water, electricity, clothing, etc.) without the required resources to obtain them all. This gives incentive to get those resources through less legal means. This is how poverty incites crime.

If we use the same metric to gauge internet piracy, we see artificial scarcity between artificially imposed monopolies vying for each other for the consumer's dollar; all using social engineering tactics to dazzle and goad the consumer into purchasing their products. This is seen in everything from children's toy commercials to buying music and games.

The cumulative result of all this conflicting social engineering is a consumer who is pressured not only by mainstream media, but by other consumers who have had their behavior influenced by such means, and has a social status-quo obligation to satisfy in order to fit in, and avoid ostracism. However, he may not have enough resources to accomplish this goal, and much like the impoverished, is driven to seek less than reputable solutions on the sly.

If shoplifting is the recourse of the blue-collar world, software piracy is the recourse of the white-collar world.

I would propose that a LOT of software piracy would dry up in a few short years if there was massive advertising reform legislation, and legislation against uncontrolled social engineering projects.

Re:Conservatives never learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439673)

>What causes crime? Poverty, lack of prospects for a future, and ignorance.

What? you mean like Enron, or Madoff, or Pfizer? Or George W? Or where you talking about banks and bankers like say icesave?

>Politicians don't have the fucking stones to put forward this kind of legislation.

No, I think that comes under "lack of prospects for the future"
Hey, ok, there's certainly something to what you're saying!

Re:Conservatives never learn (3, Interesting)

eulernet (1132389) | about 5 years ago | (#29439811)

No, piracy is widespread because it's easier to download than going to a shop to buy a real product.

As long as the pirated product is equivalent to a real product (and in some cases, it's worse due to the protection), I don't see why I should buy a product, except encouraging its creators.

Politicians don't have the fucking stones to put forward this kind of legislation.

No, the politicians know very well from where the money comes.
They are elected by people, but they can punish them as long as they can get a few bucks for themselves.
Politicians have renounced to care for their voters, and this is especially true for the french president.

I'm a french guy, and I can only notice that Sarkozy just runs for himself, as most of the french society now.

He dreams about the 'american model', where only money matters, where there is no social insurance and where the employees can be fired without notice.

So I can have Windows Zombies unhooked in France? (1)

Qbertino (265505) | about 5 years ago | (#29439253)

So I can have Windows Zombies unhooked in France?
Great. Used correctly this law could raise the bar for internet security and security awarenes on behalf of the end-user.

Nobody cares about French law (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 5 years ago | (#29439431)

European Convention of Human Rights, Section 1 [hri.org]

Article 6.1
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Article 6.2
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Article 6.3
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

IANAL, but it you'd have an extremely difficult time proving 6.3(a) to the ECtHR if the guy didn't even know he was to turn up to court (Everyone sends read receipts, of course). The rest is just farce; An evidentiary hearing is not a trial, and as such innocense must be presumed under 6.2

Re:Nobody cares about French law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439711)

Everyone charged with a criminal offense...

Illegal downloading is not a crime, hence your argument is irrelevant

French endarkenment (1)

ath1901 (1570281) | about 5 years ago | (#29439491)

It's ironic that france of all countries wants to introduce these laws. The french enlightenment and french thinkers shaped our modern view of how government should be kept from abusing it's powers (like Montesquieu's tripartite form of government). The idea was that all power should be shared so no single person or authority could abuse it.

With the Hadopi laws, the spirit of the tripartite system is basically side stepped. It only takes a single court to both judge and execute a punishment without the defendent even knowing he's accused of anything. Wow... It's rather funny really... unless you're french.

Why is anyone surprised? (1)

Thaelon (250687) | about 5 years ago | (#29439521)

They're just doing what their employers want them to, jeez.

Slaves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29439689)

If you ever needed evidence that governments act in the best interests of private third parties, and not the people, this is it.

But you're all impotent. Enjoy your slavery.

Gentlemen, start up your encryptors... (1)

noidentity (188756) | about 5 years ago | (#29439799)

Coverage at Ars also points out a provision that says, 'all Internet users must keep their connections 'secure' and are responsible for what happens on them.'

In other words, we should always use encryption, and be sure it has no backdoors for untrusted entities like governments? Sounds good to me!

The next step is clear... (1)

knarf (34928) | about 5 years ago | (#29440199)

Someone, somewhere will create something which messes up the logs made by this spy-software which is supposed to be used as proof of innocence. It will prove everybody is guilty of the most heinous crimes like downloading Britney 24x365 or images of Sarko standing next to tall women. Good luck prosecuting that...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>