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!

Dutch Hotels Must Register As ISPs

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the please-report-to-your-cubbyhole dept.

Government 152

hankwang writes "The Dutch telecommunications authority OPTA has announced that Dutch hotels must register as internet providers (original version, in Dutch) because that is what they formally are, according to Dutch laws. It is well possible that once hotels are officially internet providers, they will also have to abide by the European regulations on data retention and make efforts to link email headers and other data traffic to individual hotel guests. Could this also happen in other European countries? This is probably not likely to lead to a more widespread adoption of free WiFi services in hotels."

cancel ×

152 comments

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

Not fully correct (4, Informative)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879100)

The OPTA has said that they are not sure yet if the hotels are ISP's. They are still investigating this and I think that is the reason they have send some letters out. In order to get a trial so it will become clear what an ISP is. In the Netherlands everyone who offers public access to internet or other telecomservices has to deal with the OPTA. It's also the organisation that puts fines on spamming etc. Our telecom watchhound in short.

Re:Not fully correct (2, Insightful)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879202)

I'm sure the hotels could fight the ruling. They have many things going for them such as....they're a hotel damnit. How fucking stupid is this? I assume no other ISP in the country provides living quarters and a complimentary breakfast bar. Not to mention the internet service does not originate with them. They are simply a bulk account of the TRUE ISP. I thought they only dreamed up stupid shit like that in the USA.

Re:Not fully correct (2, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879258)

The OPTA has said that they are not sure yet if the hotels are ISP's.

I'm sure the hotels could fight the ruling.

What about all the other places that provide some form of WIFI? Cafe's? Libraries? Surely a cafe owner doesn't have to go through the same messing about that an ISP would? How would they afford all the tech know-how to be able to keep logs and bits of everyone who wanders into their business and asks for a latte while holding a laptop?

Re:Not fully correct (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879314)

How would they afford all the tech know-how to be able to keep logs and bits of everyone who wanders into their business and asks for a latte while holding a laptop?

By making users pay for it? e.g. no more free WiFi?

Unless of course there's a clause which says that if hotels provide free internet access then they are not ISPs - since they are not charging for internet access.

In which case it's not so bad news for the users, but not so good for those providing systems to hotels for "expensive internet" (like a previous employer of mine).

The hotels can say it's not free but part of the r (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879440)

The hotels can say it's not free but part of the room rate / hotel resort fee.

Timothy this title is misleading. (3, Informative)

Barryke (772876) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880304)

hankwang and timothy! Article title is misleading.

"Dutch Hotels Must Register As ISPs" is wrong (they do not) and should read "Dutch OPTA sues Hotels for being an ISP".
It is the OPTA that is test-trialing 10 large hotels to find out (by ruling) whether they are (or not are) ISP's.

"OPTA checks whether market parties comply with the law in order to protect consumers." - http://www.opta.nl/en/about-opta/ [www.opta.nl]

In what way exactly this move protects consumers i am not sure, but i reckon the OPTA wants to break down some vague holes in the law behind some ISP's might hide themselves.

Re:Not fully correct (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879458)

Stick to the persnicketiness of the law. Hotels simply need to say they are not providing internet services their ISP is providing internet services via remote hardware. So it simply means ISPs need to slightly alter their provision of services to hotels. Perhaps a remote monitored and controlled router at Hotels.

Of course everyone knows what it is all about, monitoring the populaces use of internet services, can't have naughty executives, holiday makers and foreigners looking at stuff they shouldn't be at hotels. So all about reporting and records and installing monitoring devices in hotels before suspects even arrive (suspects being everyone that is not them, them of course being the professionally paranoid).

Re:Not fully correct (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880932)

And now when there are protocols like SMTPS and also TLS on SMTP as well as IMAPS and POP3S the loggings will only provide information that a certain IP was connected to a specific mail server and no indication at all of what the mail headers were.

Those of us working in tech also knows that the precision of the logs may not be the best. Clocks between servers may drift unless NTP is used (and not everyone configures that), logging info for DHCP may be incomplete, and many network cards offers the ability to change the MAC address rendering the ability to match a certain client with a certain action a bit tricky.

And if the hotels are going to have to register themselves as ISP:s will they also need to be telecom operators? Hotels have provided phone service to their guests for decades now.

Re:Not fully correct (2, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880828)

What about all the other places that provide some form of WIFI? Cafe's? Libraries? Surely a cafe owner doesn't have to go through the same messing about that an ISP would?

Maybe that is exactly what they are after. Proper ISPs are already required to retain a bunch of info and data about their clients so that internet wiretaps can be traced back to individual subscribers. But what use is that if any criminal can grab a netbook and wander into a hotel or bar to go online anonymously? My guess is that if this notion holds up in court, hotels will be required to hand out individual Wifi access keys rather than provide a single one to all of its guests. What other point would there be in requiring the hotel to retain internet traffic that is already retained at the hotel's ISP?

And what about bars, cafe... perhaps they will outlaw public WiFi at some point. I don't think they actually will go that far, but it would not surprise me in the least, and I am certain a proposal to that effect will comet to table in parliament at some point in the near future. Remember, this is the Netherlands, a country that does more wiretapping than the rest of Europe combined. A country that now allows city mayors to issue search warrants without aproval from a judge and even without any prior suspicion of criminal activity. A country that is slowly making sure that we are never anonymous anywhere.

Dutch people have a deep, deep trust in their government. Perhaps it is because that same government "allows" us more freedoms than most other countries enjoy. When the government then asks "Papieren bitte!", most people shrug and state "I have nothing to hide". But it takes a good many turns of the thumbscrews before you'll feel the clamps squeezing your thumbs, and a few more turns before it starts to hurt. But by then it's too late to pull your thumb out of the device.

Re:Not fully correct (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879298)

Sure they can... and I think that is what the OPTA wants. Normally this organization is very in favor of consumers etc. Nothing bad to say about them really. So that's why I think the OPTA noticed a flaw in the law and wants to hear a court ruling about it. Not to 'punish' the hotels. I really believe they just want to know for sure what an ISP is for the Dutch law. Looking forward to see this evolve though. Could go either way.

Re:Not fully correct (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880416)

Not to mention the internet service does not originate with them. They are simply a bulk account of the TRUE ISP.

That's exactly what I thought. Hotels don't have their own peering connection, do they? They're simply a customer of an ISP, and that ISP needs to do all the required data retention crap already.

Speaking of data retention, do they really log my email? Time to figure out how to encrypt my IMAP communication. (Maybe it's encrypted already, but I'd like to be sure.)

Re:Not fully correct (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880650)

"Not to mention the internet service does not originate with them."

So define the internet and where does it originate, then ?

Re:Not fully correct (3, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879210)

This is probably not likely to lead to a more widespread adoption of free WiFi services in hotels.

Now, since when is it in the core competence of a hotel to provide IT services?

Never.

Sure, have it available, provide it as a service to guests, but the hotels themselves don't offer the service, they outsource. Just like they do with the water, telephones, power, and everything else. If you actually LOOK at the default home page that your average hotel provides, you'll find a logo in the corner someplace indicating who the real service provider is. Hint: it's never the hotel unless it's some ratty shathole where the owner tries to save a few bucks by buying a couple of routers at the local Best Buy and sneaking a consumer DSL line.

In any real sense, this will have almost no effect on hotels with 3 or more stars. It might have some impact on the cheap independents.

Re:Not fully correct (2, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879232)

On the other hand, in my experience, the hotels with the DSL line and a Netgear base station tend to have more reliable service (albeit slower) than those unholy captive-portal-based services.

some hotels use cable likey the same one that tv c (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879274)

some hotels use cable likey the same one that tv comes from.

Re:Not fully correct (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879292)

You are spot on, of course.
Its not even a fringe competency, any more than stocking the mini-bar makes them competent bar tenders.

The problem here is that hotels, especially those with wifi have no method of determining which room is actually talking on a wifi router at any given time, without issuing individual passwords for each user, perhaps each device. Big chains may have that, but most small ones hang a router on each floor and call it good.

The article speaks to "pen register" data, not necessarily content, but the mere fact they don't seem worried about that suggests they have compromised SSL a long time ago.

Why do governments thing they have to snoop into every email and listen to every word between citizens? Why do we keep electing these fools?

Re:Not fully correct (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879518)

Why do we keep electing these fools?

Because people who are not fools have better things to do with their time.

Re:Not fully correct (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880116)

And I would add that I don't know if it is the same there, here in the USA we get a choice of "corporate ass kissing big brother loving rich asshole" A or B, so voting on anything more than the local level has pretty much become a joke. Hell they don't even pretend to give a shit about the average folks anymore, see the crazy DMCA and copyright laws or the repubs standing up and demanding continued tax breaks for the top 3%, which have been making out like bandits for ages. News flash for those repubs that are always talking about "the golden years" ala the 50s? IIRC the tax rate on the top was something like 70%+. It is actually simple math folks...too much in the hands of too few leads to broken markets via price fixing and cartels, it leads to broken laws via bribery, it leads to broken justice based on "he who has the most gold wins". I bet if we went back to those 70%+ tax rates on the top we wouldn't see so much market rigging and bubble blowing, because the incentive to hoard wealth simply wouldn't be there.

As for TFA, it is kinda sad that so many governments are looking at Big Brother as a fricking how to book. Just remember next time they say they need some intrusion to "protect you from (insert terrorists or kiddie fiddlers)" it is TOTAL bullshit. Laws will ALWAYS be abused, full stop. That is why we must ALWAYS fight abuses any way we can, even when the one being abused is from a bunch we don't like, because laws used on bad guys today WILL be used on dissenters tomorrow.

Re:Not fully correct (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879810)

The problem here is that hotels, especially those with wifi have no method of determining which room is actually talking on a wifi router at any given time, without issuing individual passwords for each user, perhaps each device. Big chains may have that, but most small ones hang a router on each floor and call it good.

Actually, some hotels do issue passwords, in the form of having to enter your username (room number) and password (last name of guest in that room) before allowing access.

Re:Not fully correct (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879936)

101-Smith: Fail.
102-Smith: Fail
...

Re:Not fully correct (2, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880576)

but the hotels themselves don't offer the service, they outsource

Just because you outsource does not mean you don't have any responsibility anymore. It could well be that they can sue the outsource partner if they get fined, but they will get fined.

And isn't it terrible that the more expensive hotels would have no effect, while the bed&breakfast places and youth hostels will go belly-up because they can't afford it and customers still demand it?

The hotels (and other places that offer Internet connections, like railways, bars and your local hacker) will then need to start paying for the cost of having all this data gathering. That will mean no more free Internet at any place and all this because some terrorist might rape some children.

Re:Not fully correct (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879362)

In the Netherlands everyone who offers public access

      But hotel wi-fi is for HOTEL GUESTS, not the "public".

Re:Not fully correct (2, Interesting)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879434)

That is the argument the hotels are using now indeed. Don't have to convince me ;) Just being the messenger here :D

Re:Not fully correct (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879404)

In Italian hotels, even free users are given a unique login / password combination, such that all data they generate can be tracked back to them.

The Dutch doesn't seem like such a huge step.

Re:Not fully correct (1)

kainosnous (1753770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879470)

I think that you've summed it up. The purpose for any of this comes down to the government wanting more. In this case, I think it's the government wanting more control of personal data. Of course, it could just be for more money in the way of an ISP fee. IMHO, the government should stay out of such things entirely.

Re:Not fully correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879876)

In Italy we have a post 9/11 law that needs everyone with a free wi-fi to gather information (id card) of every connected person. Hotels, pubs, libraries, etc. are all affected.

Re:Not fully correct (4, Informative)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879854)

Parent is correct, article summary is very imprecise ... slow news day?

Someone, not mentioned explicitely in the article, complained to the OPTA, saying that hotels should be considered ISPs. OPTA considered the wording of the laws they are enforcing and said ' yeah, they might be right ' and has now summoned a few hotels to register as ISP's, to see where this leads.

Obviously, the law is poorly worded and this is a side effect nobody foresaw or intended. This will be probably be fixed, if even necessary.

Please stop with all the efforts to make every little hickup in the law system armaggedon for freedom, please. It's cheap and sensationalist.

Re:Not fully correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33880982)

Parent is correct, article summary is very imprecise ... slow news day?

No. Look at the editor.

Re:Not fully correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33881000)

Parent is correct, article summary is very imprecise ... slow news day?

No, Slashdot...

Great ! (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879124)

Now, after so many years, I can finally register as an ISP just because I provide a free access point. I already have a data retention scheme in place, only for statistical purposes of course.

OH SHIIIIIIIIITTTTTTT!!!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879178)

I have had such an easy ride and I knew it would some day end.

No doubt the US State Dept and DoD Agencies and CIA will be going through BUT CHECKS on the next round of ops.

Aaarrrrgggghhhh .... that hurts! Could you use a little vassiline!

--Toodles

Free country? (2, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879186)

I remember things like this whenever someone criticizes the US and suggests that I move to a free country. Netherlands has often been on that supposed list of "free countries."

Re:Free country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879358)

Must be a short list.

For King and Country (1, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879386)

Hmm, the Netherlands, UK, Denmark, North Korea, Swaziland, Lesotho and a few other coconut states are dictorships with medieval style kings/queens. There may be elections once in a while, but that is just for show...

Re:For King and Country (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879474)

You have no clue.... seriously. That is complete and utter bullshit what you are saying there. How do I know? I live in the Netherlands. Dictatorship... lol :')

Re:For King and Country (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880430)

Hmm, the Netherlands, UK, Denmark, North Korea, Swaziland, Lesotho and a few other coconut states are dictorships with medieval style kings/queens. There may be elections once in a while, but that is just for show...

You have no clue.... seriously. That is complete and utter bullshit what you are saying there. How do I know? I live in the Netherlands. Dictatorship... lol :')

I believe that the parent made a joke.

Joke:
# a humorous anecdote or remark intended to provoke laughter; "he told a very funny joke"; "he knows a million gags"; "thanks for the laugh"; "he laughed unpleasantly at his own jest"; "even a schoolboy's jape is supposed to have some ascertainable point"
# jest: activity characterized by good humor
# tell a joke; speak humorously; "He often jokes even when he appears serious"
# antic: a ludicrous or grotesque act done for fun and amusement
# act in a funny or teasing way
# a triviality not to be taken seriously; "I regarded his campaign for mayor as a joke"

Source: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I think that the coconuts gave it away. There are no coconut trees in the Netherlands.

Re:For King and Country (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880480)

Actually, there are... on Bonaire and St. Maarten. Parent was trolling IMO has been modded up again since.

Re:For King and Country (1)

toQDuj (806112) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880516)

True, you don't even have a functioning government, let alone a dictatorship

Re:For King and Country (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880700)

Hey but tomorrow we'll have a... well.. tomorrow we will officially have a new government. Let's leave it at that. Lol.

Re:For King and Country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879600)

Haha, what?
You can say a lot about detoriating freedoms here, but not that we have a medieval style monarchy. The queen has no power.

Re:For King and Country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879624)

I second the "Haha, what?" by the other AC.

Flaming is never productive. Last time I checked if they were actually

medieval style kings/queens

you wouldn't be stupid enough to make that comment unless you'd be taken out by a guy with a pointy stick on a horse.

It's science, something of which you are completely and utterly devoid of...

Re:Free country? (1, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879460)

Anytime you deal with people, any societal superstructure such as a country, will have downsides and upsides. Europe has never respected freedom of speech to the level the US does, otoh, they are better in healthcare and the like, imo.

As with anything, it depends what you want in life. Some days, I'd like to move to Antarctica.

Re:Free country? (1)

lemmis_86 (1135345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879558)

Anyone joining the EU is signing off their freedom... Here in Finland, we're not even allowed to have parks with certain wooden-fabrics due to EU regulations, so 5 parks in my home-town have been demolished! EU is nothing but a dictator.

Re:Free country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879664)

Those regulations are usually only for newly built things. The reason they where torn down an rebuilt, rests purly in your city council's hands.

Re:Free country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879682)

Anyone joining the EU sign off some powers to Brussles, in order to gain freedom from Chinese, American, Russian and Indian influence.

It is really that simple, either you join the Union or you will over the next years sell your country to foreign interests.

Re:Free country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879750)

>It is really that simple, either you join the Union (i.e. sell your country to foreign interests) or you will over the next years sell your country to foreign interests.

FTFY

Re:Free country? (1, Troll)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879572)

I always thought these things were to ensure that companies get the same freedom (that is, they are restricted the same amount by government). If ISPs get lots of regulations, then it's only fair that hotels offering WiFi be burdened the same way. It's like when the school bully is only picking on some of the kids, and they argue that he should pick on everyone equally to be fairer.

Re:Free country? (1)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879880)

Well, feel free to stay at home then.

Re:Free country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879888)

I remember things like this whenever someone criticizes the US and suggests that I move to a free country. Netherlands has often been on that supposed list of "free countries."

Behind door number 1: having hotels register as ISPs, which would put them at an inconvenience, and probably increase prices on either Internet access at the hotels or the room prices

Behind door number 2: US health insurance

You choose.

Re:Free country? (3, Interesting)

Barryke (772876) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880250)

Mind that:
Option 2 is already implemented. (and i refer to the old US health insurance: its horror when compared to how free countries support their citizens health)
Option 1 is merely a "test trial" thrown against ten large hotels because OPTA has its job to do.

On this situation:
I view this as a protest against a bad law on what makes someone an internet provider. Perhaps a chess move in something that doesn't aim to make Hotels an ISP, but to make it so actual ISP's can't hide behind the same walls (like holes in a vague law) as hotels do. I can't ever imagine hotels beng labeled as ISP's, and i believe everyone (including OPTA and the Hotels) would enjoy knowing what they're supposed to do and what not.

Disclaimer; i am dutch.

Re:Free country? (3, Interesting)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880764)

I am not sure if they do the same in other EU countries, but in Denmark we just ignore the data retention regulation. It is common for apartments blocks to have their own intranet with shared internet essentially making them ISPs. When the regulation came out a few years ago there was a large panic on how to possibly abide by it. Fortunately all the large ISPs prepared the systems to do it, but never implemented them, the official stanze is: We are not going to implement these systems until forced to, and with no one else following the regulations, no one wants to be the first.

Re:Free country? (0, Offtopic)

Tharsis (7591) | more than 3 years ago | (#33881014)

Could you please explain which particular set of freedoms are required to make a country "free"?
Every country needs restrictions on freedom, otherwise everybody could do anything, there'd be no crime.
Whether you can live with those restrictions mostly depends on you and your values.
But don't forget that a lot of restrictions are desirable. Would you care to live in country where you are allowed to steal?

You can't throw "freedom" around without explaining what you actually mean. Freedom means different things in different cultures.

Clearly the answer is more government intervention (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879200)

After all, isn't it trendy to hate on libertarians these days?

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879394)

There are a whole lot of conservatives who hate freedom calling themselves Libertarians. They want to control the lives of others. Who they can and can't marry, what women choose to do with their bodies, what others can and can't choose to smoke, etc. These people call themselves Libertarians yet what they really want is for the government to step in and take more control.
There are people calling themselves Libertarians would love to control and censor stuff on the internet.

Of course to the Tea Party and other Libertarian movements hate Liberals. They hate freedom and they want to control the internet to censor things according to their moral viewpoint. Libertarian is a dirty word. Its usage in the USA often refers to something that's the complete opposite to the traditional meaning of the word.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (2, Interesting)

kainosnous (1753770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879528)

I'm amazed how little your comment resembles reality. Libertarians, and also the TEA party crowd (though they are not exactly the same) favor a smaller government all the way around. Sure, there are some who, for instance, hate recreational drug use. However, as they favor less government, they don't want the government to restrict it. On the other hand, on the left leaning side, some might not like people to have firearms, and yet they also don't want government regulation there.

The Libertairians and the TEA party voters don't agree on how to wield the mighty arm of the law, they agree that it should be weakened. They believe that instead these things should be decided on a state, or community level, but not on the national level. They certainly wouldn't push for the regulations you speak of, and controling communications is right out.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879598)

I'm amazed how little your comment resembles reality. Libertarians, and also the TEA party crowd (though they are not exactly the same) favor a smaller government all the way around. Sure, there are some who, for instance, hate recreational drug use. However, as they favor less government, they don't want the government to restrict it. On the other hand, on the left leaning side, some might not like people to have firearms, and yet they also don't want government regulation there.

The Libertairians and the TEA party voters don't agree on how to wield the mighty arm of the law, they agree that it should be weakened. They believe that instead these things should be decided on a state, or community level, but not on the national level. They certainly wouldn't push for the regulations you speak of, and controling communications is right out.

Just looking at your comment history. Quite a few gems in there.
This one about you wanting hollywood movies to have no immorality and have biblically themed messages is hilarious.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1806598&cid=33775058 [slashdot.org]

Now i'm not saying you in particular feel the need to push your viewpoint on others but there are plenty of Libertarians who do. They want to control the internet so that it fits their idea of morality. This has become the new meaning of Libertarianism. It's the opposite of what it should mean and it's unfortunate but the fact is Libertarianism, thanks to the religious right, is now an ideology that wants to control the lives of others. Your typical religious censorship nuts are quite representative of the Libertarian movement.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879676)

That's the crux of the thing, isn't it? People shout at the top of their voice how they are in favor of freedom, but when quizzed it turns it they want freedom so they can do whatever they damn well please, and the filthy gays/gun-nuts/pornographers/fundies/whatever can rot in hell.

And to get back to the article, we're talking the Netherlands, where the Freedom Party wants to ensure freedom by changing the first article of our constitution to explicitly state we're a Judeo-Christian nation and kicking all the muslims out of the country. Freedom...to be a good god-fearing christian, that is.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (0, Troll)

kainosnous (1753770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879732)

Seeing as how I've actually been to TEA party rallies and support Libertarian ideas, and have not come across a single example of a libertarian push for government control of anything, I must ask you to cite your sources. Ron Paul is a great example (though technically, he is a Republican). He is opposed to abortion, etc., but instead of making a law to ban them, he simply proposed one that would cause the Supreme Court to be unable to hear such cases one way or the other.

There are nut jobs on all sides. I tend to tune out anything that Jesse Ventura has to say though he appears at some rallies. Also, there are some laws that even Libertarians support, such as laws against murder, and perhaps laws to enforce voluntary contracts. Keep in mind that many people are quite against things which they support being legal. There are many who would allow flag burning to be legal, yet never tolerate it on their own lawn.

Now i'm not saying you in particular feel the need to push your viewpoint on others but there are plenty of Libertarians who do. They want to control the internet so that it fits their idea of morality.

So, please cite your sources, particularly on the matter of Libertarian support for control of the internet. If you speak the truth, perhaps there are "plenty of Libertarians" that I need to not support.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879928)

Seeing as how I've actually been to TEA party rallies and support Libertarian ideas, and have not come across a single example of a libertarian push for government control of anything, I must ask you to cite your sources.

Tea Party protests FOR government intervention to stop the rebulding of a mosque at ground zero.

Brooklyn Tea Party founder John Press, who rallied against the Ground Zero Mosque in recent weeks, again raised the spectre of foreign domination. "The Mosque is founded by a very scary people and the US Constitution does not guarantee the right of a foreign nation to build a mosque in our country," he said. It's unclear if Mr. Press had merely forgotten the First Amendment, but one member of his protest group did recall the constitutional barrier on government suppression of religion -- he just chose to ignore it.

Link [ittefaq.com]

Mark Williams, chairman of the Tea Party Express, blogged about the 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center planned at Park Place and Broadway, calling it a monument to the 9/11 terrorists. "The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god,"

Link [nydailynews.com]

Example 2: Tea Party anti-abortionists that WANT government to legislate against abortion.
Link [flickr.com]

Example 3: Tea Party WANTS laws to differentiate Gay and Lesbians.

Montana Tea Party Leader Endorses Violence Toward Gay People

Link [change.org]

In other words the Tea Party is nothing more than religious conservatives trying to control our lives. The Libertarian Party used to be run by Ron Paul who helped kick start the tea party movement. The two are clearly intrinsically linked. Libertarian has come to mean the opposite of its original definition thanks to people trying to play double-speak.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879964)

So, please cite your sources, particularly on the matter of Libertarian support for control of the internet

You don't really need them to answer this, you should know the answer. S/he's probably confused about what the movement actually means, and is blinded by the rhetoric spewed forth on these forums regarding Net Neutrality. Something such as:

You are Libertarian. You think you should be able to do whatever you wish, like control the Internet through NN by letting yourself and your rich cronies control what content I am allowed to receive through my computer. This is the opposite of the true meaning of Libertarianism, you should be ashamed.

The biggest point being, that they think "it is the opposite of Libertarianism." Well, they're right. It is, and it's why Libertarians don't believe in that stuff.

I've been a registered Libertarian since 2002. Until recently, we've enjoyed relative obscurity because everyone else (especially Democrat Liberals who call themselves such even though they don't know the meaning of THAT word) has been too busy complaining about a president who decided it was a good idea to oust one of the World's most evil men. Now they have their buddy in the Oval Office and they have decided that now is the time to focus attention on the coming threat. Those of us who are sick and tired of bureaucratic waste and hope to improve the inherent qualities of our country, rather than enable everyone to simply continue their life-long mooching off the haves.

And this correlation between Libertarians and the Religious Right is utter nonsense. While I'm sure there are Libertarians who have religious views (a recent interview on PBS Newshour mentioned that in a study, something like 1% of respondents said they were Atheist or Agnostic) they are not the same Temperance Movement type of people you might remember from your days during previous centuries. I am an Agnostic and a Libertarian. I don't particularly like people (especially family and friends) telling me that I "need to find God." I'm a fucking Agnostic you moron, I've already decided that I won't "find God" because it is simply outside the scope of my comprehension.

Now, all of you Demicans and Republocrats can continue on with your self-serving discussion.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (2, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879632)

Unfortunately, while he was probably just trolling, a lot of people genuinely believe that the TEAbaggers are either small-l or big-L libertarians. It's hard to say who has the worst marketing department between the Libertarian Party, the North Koreans, and NAMBLA.

For the record, here's how you tell the difference: the L/libertarians were the ones bitching about government overreach during the last administration. The Tea Partiers are the ones who were perfectly content until a President of the Wrong Color was elected.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879674)

Unfortunately, while he was probably just trolling, a lot of people genuinely believe that the TEAbaggers are either small-l or big-L libertarians. It's hard to say who has the worst marketing department between the Libertarian Party, the North Koreans, and NAMBLA.

For the record, here's how you tell the difference: the L/libertarians were the ones bitching about government overreach during the last administration. The Tea Partiers are the ones who were perfectly content until a President of the Wrong Color was elected.

The former head of the Libertarian party is behind the Tea Party.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/reinventing-the-revolution/?pagemode=print [nytimes.com]

It isn't bad marketing. It's brilliant marketing. There are people who think the Libertarian movement actually means freedom when in fact it's simply another word to refer to the Tea Party. You know, the same people who love religious censorship and control over what you can and can't do in your personal life.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879816)

I object, i voted against and disliked Bush because he wasn't a conservative, just like i voted against and dislike Obama because he isn't a conservative. Your sweeping generalizations are indicative of the far left.

In short. Fuck you, sir.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879838)

"The Tea Partiers are the ones who were perfectly content until a President of the Wrong Party/Religion/Political Assosiations was elected."

Fixed that for you. You are correct. Real Libertarians were complaining when George W. Bush was in office enacting the "Patriot Act". I don't really know of any Tea Partiers who dislike Obama because he's black, though.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33880078)

... Libertarians, and also the TEA party ...

How exactly is this Insightful and not Off Topic?

(Ironically, this comment is most definitely off topic. Consider it a meta-comment.)

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 3 years ago | (#33881056)

i dont think "Libertairians" think that devolving government to the local level is desirable they want a very small number of key competencies delivered by government (normaly things like defence) and I suspect that a real libertarian would do away with the individual "states" ability to do anything.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (1, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879444)

After all, isn't it trendy to hate on libertarians these days?

Libertarians stand for privatized oppression. Most other parties stand for government-supplied oppression. Does anyone actually stand for freedom nowadays?

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879620)

Anarchists. Unfortunately, starting a political party tends to go against their beliefs.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880460)

The word "libertarian" comes from 19th century libertarian socialism, which was later called anarchism. It's a part of the socialist movement that rejected Marx's state socialism for being dictatorial and oppressive. They also rejected capitalist liberalism for creating privilege, injustice, and in the end also oppression.

I honestly think we should take another look at anarchism/libertarian socialism.

Re:Clearly the answer is more government intervent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879450)

It isn't our fault they are fucking retarded.

I wonder... (1)

citoxE (1799926) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879206)

I wonder if this will lead to more broader implications once the Mafiaa can't DMCA ISPs into compliance.

WHAT? (2, Interesting)

tsa (15680) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879224)

I read this yesterday on nu.nl and I think it's completely ridiculous. The hotels (and my hospital I found out yesterday, and McDonalds and many many other places) can offer WiFi because they have a deal with a provider. Isn't that enough? I thought the Opta was there for the consumer but now I am not so sure anymore.

Re:WHAT? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879456)

Very nice post. I really enjoy the reading. I come here from the google while searching for some good article.Thanks
Air jordans [sneaker-trade.com]
Michael jordan shoes [sneaker-trade.com]
coach handbags [www.discou...chhandbags]
air jordan 11 [sneaker-trade.com]
air jordan shoes [sneaker-trade.com]
air jordan [sneaker-trade.com]
brand handbags [sneaker-trade.com]
NFL jerseys [sneaker-trade.com]
brand sunglasses [sneaker-trade.com]

Re:WHAT? (2, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879660)

I read this yesterday on nu.nl and I think it's completely ridiculous.

Me too.

The hotels (and my hospital I found out yesterday, and McDonalds and many many other places) can offer WiFi because they have a deal with a provider. Isn't that enough?

(tongue-in-cheeck.. or only half-of? Not quite sure yetmyself, but I reckon that's the position of govs in the near future)
No, it is definitely NOT enough: if you provide transport-service you are an ISP (you do provide some Internet service; nobody says somebody is an ISP if and only if only if it provides email or Web hosting on top of transport services).
This means every person (organisation or not) that can act as a point-of-control-and-prevention will be, sonner or later, forced to assume all the obligations of an ISP (responsible how their property/service is used - or abused). As the time passes, for govs and such it is more the control and less about taking care of their citizens.
If one sees as common-sensical [arstechnica.com] that consumers (in the Joe Average category) which let their WiFi router opened are responsible for any nastinies carried over their connection (.e.g. downloaded/uploaded copyrighed music or KP, even if potentially only by piggybacking/wardriving [arstechnica.com] ), I don't see why HotSpot providers [eweekeurope.co.uk] should not.

Re:WHAT? (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880032)

It depends on the contract you have with the provider. If I were a hotel or restaurant and I would want to offer WiFi services I would outsource all of it to a provider. I pay a monthly fee and let them install the hardware and make sure everything works, so that I can concentrate on my core business. Then if something happens to the WiFi it's the provider's problem, not mine. If Opta doesn't agree with that we take it to court.

Re:WHAT? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880180)

It depends on the contract you have with the provider.

If the ISP accepts the outsourcing and the full responsibility for what transits it's network(thus running a "point of presence" in the hotel), I imagine that what you suggest could work... but for sure the ISP's fees won't be small... it's like they'll expect the hotel to pay for N customers, N being the number of rooms even when the rooms are vacant (imagine a block of flats, each appartment having Internet. It doesn't matter for an ISP if the family in one apartment goes in vacation and the respective connection is not used).

If however, the hotel owns the internal network, then it is probably bound by the contract with the ISP to take responsibility for anything illegal is originated in their network - as a consumer/end-user, I know I am bound. This is also the reason why I don't let my WiFi router opened: I can agree withing the family to a way of life, I can't control however the wardriver.

In other news.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879306)

Hotels were also found to be cable TV providers, telephone service providers, cell phone service providers, water and electric utility providers, furnishing distributors, and food and beverage distributors and must meet all the requirements and responsibilities of each of those industries.

Re:In other news.. (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879638)

Very true news. But someone cannot track me back for the exact water I extracted out of a faucet at 11:00pm to swallow an Advil. Rather they knew water was consumed, perhaps, but not for what purpose. The internet is different because this is a two way flow of information. AC you have a valid point in saying why the legislation likely had ground due to those other industries.

cheers

Re:In other news.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879886)

Not to mention provider of experiences so for foreign visitors they must abide by the local tourism board who gets to decide more or less everything...

Utility Provider (1)

ilo.v (1445373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879332)

Of course this makes sense. Didn't you realize that this is the same logic used to justify the long standing practice of classifying hotels as power, water, and sewage utilities, as well as TV broadcasters, farmers, ranchers, etc. What is the difference?

Retention of E-mail headers? (5, Insightful)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879532)

The majority of the guests are not going to use the borrow the SMTP server that the hotel uses.

They are typically going to HTTPS to some webmail account.

Good luck getting the headers out of that.

If the hotel has a NAT-ted network, what are they supposed to log? Which 192.168.x.y address had a particular evil-doing port number at a particular time, and match that t a guest?

Europeans are going daft.

Re:Retention of E-mail headers? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879670)

If the result of the law is they are not allowed to have a NAT'ed "network", then I am all for that.

It will help root out yet another place where end-to-end connectivity has been broken by braindead many-to-one port-restricted cone NAT setups.

Re:Retention of E-mail headers? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880550)

They may well apply MAC filtering and tie that in with the NAT IP. Yeah, we know they can be spoofed, but does the PHB on an expenses-paid junket care about that?

Re:Retention of E-mail headers? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880612)

They are typically going to HTTPS to some webmail account. Good luck getting the headers out of that.

They will know that you connected to https://webmail.example.nl/ [example.nl] and can now go to that provider demanding the data. Not sure if they already are around of getting that data by default or are still working on that.

If the hotel has a NAT-ted network, what are they supposed to log?

It starts with the MAC adress, then also the remote IP and if possible the email address. This could mean that customers must get a (free or payed for) ode to be able to connect.

There are ways around it, but then this is not intended for those that are they say it is intended for. This is just because they can. Law enforcement wants more trail of everything. They would love it if everybody would be trackable all the time every time, so their task (prevent and solve crimes) will become much easier with a higher success rate.

On the other side there should be the people interested in the privacy of their person and nit just at home, but everywhere. That is out of the window, because you are a child molester if you oppose to any of this.
1984 seems to be the way most people WANT to live.

WIFI access point = ISP? (1)

rcpitt (711863) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879726)

OK - so at what point will anyone who purchases a WIFI access point have to register it and themselves - and keep logs forever and have a license to operate, etc?

How about anything that can route?

Linux?

At what point is this absurdity going to end?

Third party provider to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879820)

I tend not to think of the Netherlands as one of the ridiculous countries, extending power and surveillence capabilities by any means possible, and this is probably just a case of some bureaucrat getting ahead of himself.

Regardless, the worst thing that could happen would be that hotels would have to, on paper, outsource the Internet supply to a real ISP, maybe to an existing hotspot provider. Many hotels have some kind of custom WiFi setup to cover the whole hotel, and may require a login or a token to make use of it already. If they wanted to push the obligations to the ISP, the ISP could terminate the private IPs and either authenticate themselves or receive some AAA logs. This is supposing that the Netherlands has a requirement to be able to track down an individual IP/traffic stream to a user (maybe not even in real time, although tapping a particular users and/or household's Internet is a common enough request in terrorism cases).

What this could mean for hotels is an extra cost as they are required to use more than the basic services of an upstream ISP rather than just plugging in a consumer cable or ADSL service.

Of course, if registering as an ISP is a single-form-and-€100 job in the Netherlands (it sure as hell isn't in Australia), then they could continue to use their black box solutions modified to have some additional data retention if required (maybe uploading to a central server). It would do away with the currently-rare practice of unauthenticated Internet access, unfortunately.

This is the Netherlands, not the US, so I kind of assume that sanity will prevail and it will either fall flat on its face, or a suitable compromise will be found.

Hotspot Wirelesses will have to change (2, Interesting)

GC (19160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879828)

I happen to be typing this from a Dutch Hotel.

This particular one has free wireless, and there is no way to identify a particular system accessing the net to a room. In fact, without staying here I could still probably sit in the car park or hotel lobby and access the internet from there. There's even a PC in the lobby with anonymous access from it.

Granted it does use a "Hotspot" login page (just need to check a checkbox and click login), so I suppose that could be modified to have someone provide a room number or PIN etc...

Changing the way things work though will invariably be a pain though, especially if you need to access the Internet over the weekends and the authentication system breaks down or something else goes wrong... (as seems to be quite common with the systems in many hotels). Reception tend to look at you with rather blank faces when this happens, and it usually isn't fixed until a weekday.

Stupid, stupid, stupid... (1)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879904)

The data retention system is never ever going to prevent any terrorism. Real dangerous terrorists would never communicate over the open Internet, and amateurs that might are not really dangerous; they are more likely to either blow themselves up by accident or be unable to manufacture even the simplest explosive that works.

Re:Stupid, stupid, stupid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33879996)

These things aren't about terrorists. They are there to keep the general populace in line. To provide a sense of power to politicians and corporations, who see the Internet as a danger to their superiority.

And won't work in the cases the authorities want (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 3 years ago | (#33879988)

For me, when I'm at a hotel I don't use tappable/monitorable e-mail. I'm either using secure IMAP to my own server, running a client on my home machine remotely via X11-over-SSH, or using my own WebMail server (or a Google one) via HTTPS with a check of the certificate. I assume that any time I'm on a "free wi-fi" network there may be proxy servers handling all unencrypted traffic (and potentially trying to MITM SSL traffic), so I avoid running anything across the network that I don't want the general public to see.

More likely (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880012)

Hotels offer free wifi since guests demand it. If red tape turns up which turns them into an ISP I don't see it necessarily stopping them from offering wifi. Instead some enterprising company will sell an ISP in a box, which will be a glorified NAS / router with extra logging /audit trail.

Re:More likely (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880230)

Building one as we speak. Thank you very much!

Terribly worded statement (1)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880052)

"This is probably not likely to lead to a more widespread adoption of free WiFi services in hotels." Here's a much better one - "This may lead to less free WiFi services in hotels."

This will probably happen in Finland too.. (1)

sakari (194257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880322)

Since the introduction of the Lex Nokia in Finland [wordpress.com] , which enables the ISPs to monitor the headers of e-mails (and other stuff) going through their pipes, this doesn't sound very surprising. I'm predicting that we will have similar laws here in Finland too, for Hotels and also Office buildings too, then later on extended to actual houses which share the same connection. This is their way of gaining control of the Internet.

If this happens, I'll be on the streets. Hope to see you there too. Stand up for your rights as a citizen of Earth! But in a peaceful way

This was nearly the case in the UK... (1)

cardpuncher (713057) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880330)

Early drafts of the Digital Economy Bill would have had all ISPs liable for data retention and, more onerously, require they could identify individual subscribers in the event of complaints about "illegal" downloading. Inability to comply would have meant the ISP taking full liability for their users actions. This would have been the end of collective Internet provision in a whole range of settings (hotels, cafes, managed business premises,...) where the costs of compliance would outweigh the revenue generated.

In its late stages, the bill was changed to exempt all but the larger ISPs from its provisions. Which is equally absurd because if you don't want your data retained and do want to download the latest Hollywood yawnfest then you sign up with one of the smaller ISPs.

Having hotels police the Internet is not really different to requiring them to have an old lady sitting on each landing noting the movement of people in and out of their rooms, a common practice in Eastern Europe back in the Cold War days.

Same as it is in many countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33880500)

That's the case with many other countries' laws. You are a internet service provider because you provide internet service. Period. If ISPs in your country have certain requirements, you have to fulfill them. Instead of stating the obvious, maybe the authorities should think about relaxing certain requirements for ISPs. Laws made 20 years ago may be partially obsolete.

Who will profit? (1)

vvpt (1077009) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880508)

There is probably more then meets the eye here. The telecom regulator (OPTA) came into action after a complaint from a telco. It is not know what the complain is about but probably something about unfair competition ("we have to register as an ISP and the hotels get a free ride"). Currently OPTA is investigating if hotel wifi is a "public electronic communicationsnetwork". If they conclude hotel wifi falls into that definition then hotels (but also Starbucks and McDonalds) have to fulfill all obligations under the Dutch Telecommunications Act. And those are making the network ready for wiretapping and data retention. And that is not limited to responding to a wiretap warrant. They'll have to adjust their network so that they can execute the wiretap according to specs in the regulation. Those specs also require security measures for the wiretap equipment, screened personnel to handle warrants, etc. In the end hotels will conclude that this is costly and complicated. That is when the telco steps in (remember, they complained to the regulator). They can offer hotspots with all wiretap and data retention obligations already implemented. Profit! Hotels can of course easily fix the problem - if open wifi turns out to fall within that definition in the law - by requiring a password for wifi access. After that it's not pubic wifi anymore.

With the same reasoning... (2, Insightful)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880638)

Hotels also supply customers with electricity, water and often tv over cable network. They dispose of their customers trash and relay messages left for their customers. So they should have to register as power distributor, waterworks, cable network company, postal company and waste disposal contractor, right?

Simple, really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33880964)

Either you are an ISP and abide by applicable legislation, or you take responsibility for the traffic on your network. So if somebody publishes something copyrighted through your router, you get to decide: either you claim you're an ISP and the authorities subpoena your logs or you claim you're a private citizen and have to defend yourself in court.

This will have analogous implications to libraries, schools and private companies as well.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>