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!

EU Paves the Way For Three-Strikes Cut-Off Policy

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the no-internet-for-you dept.

The Internet 272

Mark.JUK writes "The European Parliament has surrendered to pressure from Member States (especially France) by abandoning amendment 138, a provision adopted on two occasions by an 88% majority of the plenary assembly, and which aimed to protect citizens' right to Internet access. The move paves the way for an EU wide policy supporting arbitrary restrictions of Internet access. Under the original text any restriction of an individual could only be taken following a prior judicial ruling. The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force Internet providers (ISPs) into disconnecting their customers from the Internet (i.e. such as when 'suspected' of illegal p2p file sharing)."

cancel ×

272 comments

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

Ah, that nice French law... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29836539)

That nice French law which got pushed through late at night when most members of the parliament had already left the building...
To be fair, it got revoked later on, and was voted on honestly. But the first passing of the law was a big sham.

Re:Ah, that nice French law... (0, Offtopic)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836613)

America seems like a good place to live

Re:Ah, that nice French law... (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836823)

I guess we then have to rise up, put the politicians to the sword, and burn their property, while taking adequate precausions to safeguard the conformerity with the idea that their life and property is sanctosant.

Re:Ah, that nice French law... (2, Funny)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837325)

I suggest defenestration instead of putting them to the sword. The former is far more entertaining, if only because you get to say 'defenestrate'.

Re:Ah, that nice French law... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837679)

But the guillotine is so much more fun! You can play bowling with their heads. Or try talking to them afterwards:

"I called in a strong, sharp voice: "Languille!" I saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contractions I insist advisedly on this peculiarity but with an even movement, quite distinct and normal, such as happens in everyday life, with people awakened or torn from their thoughts.

"Next Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves. I was not, then, dealing with the sort of vague dull look without any expression, that can be observed any day in dying people to whom one speaks: I was dealing with undeniably living eyes which were looking at me. After several seconds, the eyelids closed again."

Re:Ah, that nice French law... (1)

cnvandev (1538055) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837617)

Didn't we try that already with that "United States" thing? I heard it didn't go so well.

Re:Ah, that nice French law... (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837811)

It worked great at first. It's just gotten bad lately.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Personally I think the tree is looking very withered these days.

this will be a problem in the future. (5, Insightful)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836543)

This will adversely affect small businesses - why should someone's business be made unviable cos they can't stop their kids downloading a few bits and pieces.

Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times.

Re:this will be a problem in the future. (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836903)

Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times.

That sound you hear is thousands of bus drivers screaming "DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!!!"

Re:this will be a problem in the future. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837011)

It effects them in other ways as well. If a larger business doesn't wish to compete with a smaller, home-based business, all they need to do is accuse them thrree times of copyright infringement. This could also be used to crush all but the ruling political party, prohibit free speech, and eliminate anything the government or large corporations don't want people to hear about. This is great for aspiring dictators, who can now rise to power without changing a single law or firing a single bullet.

Re:this will be a problem in the future. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837673)

...This could also be used to crush all but the ruling political party...

Wouldn't this be a viable method for demonstrating the ignorance of the law? Just accuse the party in control of the legislative branch enough to cause their major ISPs to drop them.... They would eventually change to law to a more reasonable standard, or better yet, retire it.

Re:this will be a problem in the future. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837829)

Nope. You know all that immunity shit that Berlusconi has (or maybe hasn't, but probably does)? Well French politicians have that too.

Re:this will be a problem in the future. (2, Insightful)

Pogue Mahone (265053) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837921)

You're talking about immunity from prosecution. This isn't prosecution ... it's a lynching.

Re:this will be a problem in the future. (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837165)

sigged.

Re:this will be a problem in the future. (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837387)

This will be uncontrollable. People will just setup anonymous free access Wifi everywhere. Police are busy enough with real crimes, there won't be a way to enforce such a stupidity. Maybe they can create the Internet police, but with what money?

Re:this will be a problem in the future. (3, Informative)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837465)

People will just setup anonymous free access Wifi everywhere.

I'm guessing you're wrong, and people won't actually do that.

Oh great! (2, Interesting)

RhapsodyGuru (1250396) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836549)

Oh well... as they always say... one must forsake freedom for the sake of preserving liberty.

Re:Oh great! (4, Insightful)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836971)

What good are rights when the government can strip them from you whenever it deems necessary?

I don't know which is better: The EU openly taking away your supposed rights or the US taking away your rights and lying about it?

Probably the latter because people love being lied to.

Re:Oh great! (1, Troll)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837443)

Probably the latter because people love being lied to.

Only because they are not honest people themselves, or not honest enough. So they know the politicians are lying to them, in fact they expect it. Then those people feel flattered that the politicians think they are so important that they bend even the truth to say whatever they want to hear. Weak and compromised people have a desperate need to feel important or significant, to feel like they are somebody. So when they vote for liars, they are getting something in exchange for it whether they are aware of it or not.

Look at Barak Obama. I've yet to see him significantly and fundamentally reform government, or otherwise to make either the USA or the world a better place. Yet, look at the devotion. Many people don't just think he's a decent guy, or a good President, or agree with his politics. They take it a step further and they make something of a savior out of him. This is a mistake whether it's a Democrat or a Republican or anyone else. This is a mistake even if the President really is a great guy who really does do a lot of good.

So why do they do it? Because he gives them a sense of worth. The same sense of worth that they would find within themselves, that no one would ever have to give to them, if they were healthy and whole and valued things that truly matter. Instead they are compromised, fearful, panicky, petty, selfish, less-than-honest, and capricious. They are much more impressed by slick marketing than adherence to sound principle. They are empty and don't feel that their lives have deep and significant meaning beyond the issue-of-the-week. Though they superficially look ordinary and "normal" enough, this society that was once composed of strong, independent, tough-minded, freedom-loving people has decayed into just the sort of rabble that demands a charismatic leader. And that's a real shame.

Re:Oh great! (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837467)

This has nothing to do with liberty and everything to do with profit from a broken business model.

It's akin to taking away your TV set(s) because you get the news faster/cheaper than newspapers.

Apply it on MPs and Ministers first (5, Interesting)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836553)

If hackers like ParMaster still exist, the best way to ensure this law is repealed is to ensure that MPs and Ministers are caught under this law and disconnected from internet.
Like the immortal Jim Hacker once said: "Not until you face it yourself do you realize what a stupid law you have passed."

Re:Apply it on MPs and Ministers first (4, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836881)

New rule, passed the next day:

'Internet access for MPs and Ministers cannot be interfered with.'

Re:Apply it on MPs and Ministers first (4, Interesting)

mikael (484) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836897)

Re:Apply it on MPs and Ministers first (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837151)

Can the Mayor fire the Police Chief?

Re:Apply it on MPs and Ministers first (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837621)

Can the Mayor fire the Police Chief?

The police already killed his dogs for no reason, imagine what they'll do to him if he fires the chief!

Re:Apply it on MPs and Ministers first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837707)

Yes, if it's the City Police Chief. In this case, it was apparently a County Police Chief; maybe the town's too small to have its own police? The County Police Chief "retired" shortly after the incident anyway. Sadly, I believe the sheriff is still around.

Re:Apply it on MPs and Ministers first (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837411)

If hackers like ParMaster still exist, the best way to ensure this law is repealed is to ensure that MPs and Ministers are caught under this law and disconnected from internet.

Firstly, why would an MP d/l stuff when they can just stick on expenses and have the rest of us pay for it? Secondly, why would a media group want to piss off the guys who just enacted their new favourite weapon?

Re:Apply it on MPs and Ministers first (1)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837639)

Answers to question 1: Because they're lazy. Because their kids/family members are lazy. Because they want it now.

Answers to question 2: Who said anything about the media groups complaining about the MP's and Ministers? Unless there's some clause in the law about the statements being made under penalty of perjury, what's to stop someone from falsely accusing the politicians? Even if there was a perjury clause, pay a homeless person $10 (or the equivalent in Euros) to file the complaints. What are they going to do, throw them in jail and give them 3 square meals a day? Oh, the horror!

The right to fast internet and network neutrality (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29836561)

Any government big enough to give you everything, is big enough to take everything away.

Unconstitutional (4, Insightful)

Handbrewer (817519) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836571)

I believe that this goes against pretty much any nation of EUs constitutions. You are innocent until proven guilty. France with their Dear Facist Leader, Sarkozy can fuck off.

Re:Unconstitutional (3, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836737)

The problem is access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms.
The government may regulate, restrict and forbid access to it in any arbitrary way just like they may regulate sales of tobacco or speed limits on roads. They don't need a court sentence, they don't even need suspicion. They are allowed to pass a bill that says you need a special government-issued permit to access the Internet and any government clerk may revoke it on discretionary basis, and they aren't breaking any fundamental laws, because there weren't any laws granting you access to the Internet in the first place.

Re:Unconstitutional (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836991)

The problem is access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms. The government may regulate, restrict and forbid access to it in any arbitrary way just like they may regulate sales of tobacco or speed limits on roads. They don't need a court sentence, they don't even need suspicion. They are allowed to pass a bill that says you need a special government-issued permit to access the Internet and any government clerk may revoke it on discretionary basis, and they aren't breaking any fundamental laws, because there weren't any laws granting you access to the Internet in the first place.

... because arbitrary power with no due process and little or no burden of proof on the accuser has always worked out so well in the past.

Re:Unconstitutional (3, Insightful)

celle (906675) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837067)

"access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms."

The air is an information medium with no legal rights attached to it as well. When do they start telling us we can't speak, see, or breathe. When internet becomes defacto standard of communication then it becomes part of "human rights or constitution-granted freedom" by definition change. Otherwise laws couldn't be used other than for what they are stated for.

Re:Unconstitutional (3, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837825)

That depends on where you live [wikipedia.org] . In some places, the internet is a human right. Although I would guess that the law was put in place specifically to prevent the EU from enforcing laws that would cut off people from internet access.

Re:Unconstitutional (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837869)

I'm quite sure freedom of initiative is a right on most european countries. Freedom of speech is also so. Now, how come the govenrment can forbid people from contracting access to a comunication media again?

Re:Unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837925)

The government may regulate, restrict and forbid access to it in any arbitrary way just like they may regulate sales of tobacco or speed limits on roads.

Freedom of expression is a universal human right, as is access to public resources (eg, the French Government Website).

there weren't any laws granting you access to the Internet in the first place.

Not good enough. Rights precede government. Indeed, government is only organized as a means to aid in the protection and the settling of disputes with regard to rights. Again, the right to express oneself and the right to use of public resources.

Europeans have small penises (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29836875)

But they still suck a lot.

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29836573)

now we can lock out sarkozy :-P

Ideally (4, Insightful)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836579)

In an ideal world this would be too big of a strain on EU relations and member states would start pulling out until it's just France. What would be left? FU.

Re:Ideally (4, Insightful)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837175)

Meanwhile in real life, governments the world over are in the pockets of the media industry and their slavish public can't take it in the arse fast enough. Sarkozy is just a politician who's more openly "available" for influence than others, but there's plenty more worms in the EU woodwork. The number of politicians I've seen parroting, word for word, the latest anti-customer campaign about how piracy eats up 92% of the global GDP or some such bullshit makes you lose all faith in humani... sorry, in sentient life the world over.

"I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a percentage."

Re:Ideally (1)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837839)

...and then the EU turns into the USA of the mid 1800s.
This seems like the logical conclusion of all this, unless they skip the civil war and go straight to stripping member states of power and consolidating it all in the central government.

Won't last (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29836589)

They are fighting against the tide here. These provisions won't last long when the courts start hearing cases brought by people cut off from the internets.

Shadenfreude (2, Insightful)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836595)

Whenever I see stories of other countries governments and corporations (or is there a difference anymore?) trampling over citizens' rights even worse than is done here in the States, it just gives me this warm glowing feeling inside for some reason.

Re:Shadenfreude (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29836675)

It should give you a sinking feeling. The copyright extension in the 1980's was a response to the Universal Copyright Convention's and Berne Convention's recommendations. The U.S. government follows suit with other countries when laws are in the best interest of the big businesses with the most lobbying dollars.

Re:Shadenfreude (4, Interesting)

demachina (71715) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837223)

It shouldn't. They are playing leap frog. One side of the Atlantic implements an oppressive law, tax, or spy on your own citizens regime, and then the other side of the Atlantic says, see they did it and it was good so we shall do it too and we can do it even better. Repeat over and over and .... BAMMMM ..... you are living in Fascist world.

Both sides of the Atlantic are also passing these same obscene laws because the same multinationals are lobbying, bribing and pressuring politicians the world over to legislate their profitability.

At this point I mostly debate if I lived in a world dominated by Fascist governments or governments which are for all intents and purposes organized crime syndicates, I think a little of both. They are taking vast sums from ordinary people and transferring it to their rich friends and themselves. It boggles the mind that working people in the U.S. are taxed at least 25% income tax and 12.5% payroll taxes(counting the employer half) for 37.5% at a minimum. Billionaire hedge fund operators are taxed at 15%. These same hedge funds manager tax their own clients more than that, over 20% (2% management fees and 20% of profits).

I was watching Frontline on PBS last night on Brookseley Born [wikipedia.org] . A great story. During the Clinton administration she tried to use the authority she had at the obscure Commodities Futures Trading Commission to regulate derivatives. If she had succeeded she might well have prevented at least the AIG part of the recent financial crisis. Instead she was crushed by Alan Greenspan, Phil Graham, Bob Rubin and Larry Summers. Long Term Capital Management collapsed during this period trading derivatives, nearly sparking a major panic, proving Born right and they continued to crush her.

Alan Greenspan supposedly told Born that she was NOT suppose to pursue fraud in derivatives or commodities though it was explicitly in her agencies charter to do just that.

Bob Rubin went on to help lead Citigroup in to complete ruin and billions of tax payer bailouts.

Phil Graham's wife was on the board at Enron, he went to UBS where his Swiss bank ran tax shelters for thousands of wealthy Americans, and was a leading player in the collapse during which he called us all a bunch of whiners.

Larry Summers is now Obama's senior economic adviser.

All four of these people should be run out of every government position, boardroom or any other position of authority because they are a delightful mix of stupid and criminal. Its especially obscene for Larry Summers to be calling the shots on financial matters in the Obama administration. Paul Volcker might actually fix the bankster problem but he has been completely shut out by Summers and Geitner.

It is a clever plan (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837729)

EU citizens feel better when they read of US civil rights violations.

US citizens feel better when they read of EU civil rights violations.

Maybe that warm glowing feeling is you getting shafted.

Human Rights? (4, Insightful)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836657)

Hey what about articles 5, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Re:Human Rights? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836827)

Those are just pieces of paper. Perhaps we should welcome the EU to the same road the US is walking down.

Re:Human Rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837321)

The EU is quite a ways further down than the US is. The US at least has a history of following their piece of paper.

Re:Human Rights? (1)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837471)

Lisbon Treaty hasnt passed yet completely in all states

Re:Human Rights? (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837627)

So? The ECHR entered into effect in 1953, 4 years before the Treaty of Rome. It doesn't depend on the EU Constitution.

Re:Human Rights? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837565)

If internet access is not considered a fundamental right, then it is not protected by the ECHR.

Re:Human Rights? (1)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837687)

Hence my quote of article 8 regarding privacy. IANAL though, and certainly no expert on the EU or ECHR (clearly).

EU Fail. (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836665)

...a provision adopted on two occasions by an 88% majority of the plenary assembly, and which aimed to protect citizens' right to Internet access.

European democracy, defined: 88% Majority beaten by %0.001 business owners.

88% What the hell?! (2, Insightful)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836669)

I'm sorry if something is adopted by 88% of the people then it should not be allowed to be removed by a smaller subset of people. If older prestige European countries are able to railroad the EU this way then what is the point for other less-prestigious members to stay?

Re:88% What the hell?! (1)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836921)

I'm sorry if something is adopted by 88% of the people then it should not be allowed to be removed by a smaller subset of people. If older prestige European countries are able to railroad the EU this way then what is the point for other less-prestigious members to stay?

If you think about your statement, you'll realize that its two parts are contradictory.

This was a new provision that was rejected - because each country in the EU has a veto against new laws (roughly speaking). Note that this sort of arrangement was put in place explicitly so that the big countries can't "railroad" the small ones into restrictions they do not wish to adopt... (I.e. if a small country wants to adopt a 3-strikes law, it is now not hindered by EU law; if it doesn't want to adopt one, it doesn't have to.)

Re:88% What the hell?! (5, Informative)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836969)

Excuse me? 88% of the parliament used to be for the amendment in its previous form (at least in a preliminary way). The amendment was changed, no doubt because of political compromises that the EP is famous of, and it still passed. Your interpretation is just wrong: these are the same people voting, the original amendment just never ended into a vote.

The story has a similarly biased interpretation: The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting their customers from the Internet. This is not true at all: The original amendment would have made sure ISPs could not do that without a ruling, but the current text doesn't give any legal ground for governments because it doesn't really change anything.

There may be some fishy deals behind this, but let's stick to the facts.

Re:88% What the hell?! (1)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837429)

Excuse me? 88% of the parliament used to be for the amendment in its previous form (at least in a preliminary way). The amendment was changed, no doubt because of political compromises that the EP is famous of, and it still passed. Your interpretation is just wrong: these are the same people voting, the original amendment just never ended into a vote.

The story has a similarly biased interpretation: The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting their customers from the Internet. This is not true at all: The original amendment would have made sure ISPs could not do that without a ruling, but the current text doesn't give any legal ground for governments because it doesn't really change anything.

There may be some fishy deals behind this, but let's stick to the facts.

Since the article only mentions that the amendment was approved twice by the plenary assembly and makes no mention whether the rewritten version was even voted on or not by all the members. It seems extremely dubious to me that it was done in that way.

Re:88% What the hell?! (1, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836985)

If older prestige European countries are able to railroad the EU this way then what is the point for other less-prestigious members to stay?

"Hey... That's a pretty nice economy you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it." /sad but true

Re:88% What the hell?! (2, Informative)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837101)

Basically smaller, financially weaker nations, either play by the arbitrary rules of the EU of they face restrictions/taxation on trade and other sort of petty punishments. And of course the stronger factions reserve special privileges for themselves; allowing crap like this to happen.

Damn French... (5, Interesting)

cbope (130292) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836689)

I wonder how this will affect the recently passed law here in Finland that internet access is a legal right for all citizens. I'm getting pretty tired of France running the show in the EU and getting their ridiculous laws enacted at the EU level.

Re:Damn French... (3, Interesting)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837045)

Which is why the EU should have been designed like the US federal government was originally designed - very limited powers and existing only to provide mutual defence and make it easier to conduct business between the different states / countries. It was foolish of them to let the EU be able to completely trump individual governments laws on issues not regarding the economy or military.

Re:Damn French... (4, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837195)

Of course, using the example of the US Federal Government shows that idea can only work for so long. Now there's absolutely no part of life that the US Feds won't interfere with.

Re:Damn French... (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837259)

Only because citizens in the US decided that it "wasn't cool" to care about intellectual things. If the individual countries in Europe decided to keep their soverignty, they could make it work better. The key is to not allow the collective government the ability to tax, then it cannot offer bribes.

Re:Damn French... (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837517)

> If the individual countries in Europe decided to keep their sovereignty...

"Sovereignty"? Didn't I recently read about discussions in Brussels of how to remove a certain head of state because he had the effrontry not to do as he was told and sign the Lisbon treaty?

Re:Damn French... (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837785)

Why mutual defence? I'm not sure why the Maastricht treaty added common foreign and security policy to what was previously the European Economic Community.

Re:Damn French... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837957)

It was foolish of them to let the EU be able to completely trump individual governments laws on issues not regarding the economy or military.

It was foolish of us to let the EU be able to completely trump individual governments laws on issues not regarding the economy or military.
They weren't foolish, they did precisely what they meant to.

Re:Damn French... (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837177)

If you ask me, I think that your government will likely subsidize the internet access or create local monopolies to make sure everyone is covered and then use those actions to justify intervention along the lines we're all afraid of.

Re:Damn French... (4, Informative)

david.negrier (1199497) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837301)

In other news... The 3-strikes law is definitely adopted in France, after the "Conseil constitutionnel" (an equivalent of the Supreme Court) validated the law:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/10/22/01002-20091022ARTFIG00615-le-conseil-constitutionnel-valide-la-loi-hadopi-2-.php [lefigaro.fr] (French article)

Two very bad news in the same day. Believe me, sometimes, it sucks to be French....

On the other hand, I can't wait to see if they will ever manage to have the law just working.

Re:Damn French... (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837587)

Won't affect it at all - basically, the EU has removed the requirement that member states protect the right to internet access. They can continue to do so, but they are no longer required to. So, if the government of Finland wants to keep that law, they can.

Greater freedom in Europe? (1, Interesting)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836761)

While we have plenty of bad things going on in the US, the frequency that we hear stories like this (or spying on the public, arresting kids for climbing trees, etc) from the EU really amazes me that there are people who try to claim that you have more freedom in Europe than in the US.

Re:Greater freedom in Europe? (1)

anonieuweling (536832) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836873)

We still have but the export of ideas from the US is making the rights and liberties decay over here.
The evil in goverment is coming from the USA. NWO stuff, aiming at control over all angles of society.
Of course it's for catching terrorists and pedophiles. It is evil and everybody knows.
The copyrightlobby is abusing the sheeple.

Re:Greater freedom in Europe? (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836925)

Right... Blame everybody but yourself, classic.

Re:Greater freedom in Europe? (1)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837681)

Don't be ridiculous, America wasn't even discovered when elected representatives were running around in fear giving up liberties to their dictator here in Europe. This has been going back and forth for millennia and mankind is just too stupid to permanently break the cycle.

Finland legalizing use of unsecured wireless net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29836801)

Finland is considering to legalize unauthorized use of unsecured wireless networks. Wonder how such a policy would work in combination with a three strikes rule :)

We need a new file sharing system (1)

2Y9D57 (988210) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836815)

The shitbags that we elect to supposedly represent us are once again bowing down before their corporate masters and sucking their dicks. However, we should celebrate this for the good news it undoubtedly is. Actions like this will ensure that our software wizards are truly motivated to design and implement a new system for file sharing that is proof against government interference.

Those darn French! (4, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836833)

What is the basis of this bias they have against our basic human right to download free porn?

Re:Those darn French! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837033)

Oui Oui Mon Amie!

Re:Those darn French! (1)

TechMouse (1096513) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837857)

If I was a cynic, I might think it has something to do with the fact that Sarkozy's wife is, amongst other things, a singer / songwriter. http://en.wikipedia.org/Carla_Bruni [wikipedia.org]

Turnabout is fair play (5, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836865)

The French President's already demonstrated the vulnerabilities. If they want to put in 3-strikes disconnection based on accusations alone, target the people who approve of it. They've almost certainly done something that'll justify at least an accusation. Once they've got 3 of them, make a huge stink about the law they insisted be passed and demand that they be subject to it.

Old Shin'a'in proverb: "If the enemy is in range, so are you.".

Right : let's vote ! (2, Informative)

testman123 (1111753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837185)

I will be very interrested in seeing the trial suites that will be launched if one internet access is cut.

Plus here in France, most of us have multiaccess boxes (DSL bring : internet + TV + phone). Cutting internet means that it would but TV + phone. I don't think this is legal (no consequence). Plus, most ISP provides free wifi access to other customer "boxes". Will they cut also this ? because, if not you will still be able to download ... again, will they cut also the 3G network you can have on your phone as well ...

Again, this is a stupid law brought by politicians that does not even daily use a computer and that are all lawyer :( Even Sarkozy himself is a lawyer my friend :( They are only doing this to "improve" their incomes.

But the interresting point about a law, is that the next parliament can remove/break/anihilate it easilly ... so if French citizen are not happy, they just have to vote correctly the next time ;-)

Never forget & vote accordingly !

Re:Turnabout is fair play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837363)

This!
I hope it passes and someone screws over the whole of the French government by framing them.
Of course, the likeliness of this happening is low since the government are "lyk, da governmant man, dey take no shit from any1!"

I'm getting a bit sick of the French government.
I say boot them the fuck out of the EU.

Policy laundering (3, Informative)

tomtomtom (580791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836963)

Seems to me like a pretty classic case of France engaging in policy laundering [wikipedia.org] after this law was overturned by its own constitutional court.

Wrong kind of punishment (2, Insightful)

Mister Fright (1559681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837111)

Ignoring the fact that they are punishing people before it is even proven they did anything wrong, why are they taking away internet access?

For most crimes that I know of, you pay a fine or spend some time in jail. Are they taking away internet access because that is what was used to commit their "crime"?

If that's the case, they should chop off your legs the third time you illegally cross a street.

Call for boycott (2, Insightful)

sxpert (139117) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837119)

This is a public call for a worldwide boycott of all products coming out the entertainment industry, be it movies, music, tv programs, computer games of all sorts and whatever else.
this boycott shall continue until they all close shop.

Re:Call for boycott (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837183)

This is a public call for a worldwide boycott of all products coming out the entertainment industry, be it movies, music, tv programs, computer games of all sorts and whatever else. this boycott shall continue until they all close shop.

Genius idea. Let us know how that turns out.

Re:Call for boycott (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837247)

Don't forget to support the indie artists that are not involved in the BS the rest of the "entertainment industry" is supporting.

Re:Call for boycott (1)

sxpert (139117) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837439)

of course...

Re:Call for boycott (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837271)

Why not a boycott of those actually enacting these laws?

Re:Call for boycott (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837481)

The unforeseen boycott could be ISP's losing a very large percentage of their customers if this was strictly enforced.

Damn Republicans! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837139)

Always trying to keep the man down! Censorship, holding back rights, they.. wait.. what? This is from the "Enlightened Europeans"!?

Nevermind, it's OK then.

only a matter of time for the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837569)

There have already been some moves to push for HADOPI laws in the USA. Just wait and watch. The same thing will happen here. It's inevitable.

Law of unintended consequences (2, Interesting)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837747)

This would pave the way to mesh networking. No ISPs. Right now, mesh is in it's infancy. 10 years from now, people will be rolling their own mesh inter-network to get to these resources.

The slashdot summer is very missleading (5, Informative)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837799)

If you read the original article (website) you see a small but important editing: governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting!!

No idea what powers the government in the UK might have, in germany no one can cut me from my internet connection without a judges ruling.

Furthermore, if you read the mentioned article then I see no paragraph that suggests that a "EU Paves the Way For Three-Strikes Cut-Off Policy" is happening at all.

The article clearly states: restrictions may only be taken in exceptional circumstances and imposed if they are necessary, appopriate and proportionate within a democratic society. Copyright violations by no means are a danger to society ... unless ruled by a judge otherwise, nor is a cutting of the line in any way appropriated.

So I have the impression that the anti FUD is FUD itselv, very disappointing ;D

angel'o'sphere

I blame the Irish (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837947)

The Irish rolled over on the Lisbon treaty after they got thrown a crumb about abortion ... and now the bastard Brussels bureaucrats think they can do as they like. Coincidence? Mais non, my dear 'Astingz.

Remember when they tried to sneak software patents in on page 637 paragraph 4 subsection B(2) of a bill about fishing net sizes? You can't trust the fuckers, half are mad, half are corrupt and half are both.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?