×

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!

The Great Firewall of Europe

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the yeah-that'll-happen dept.

Censorship 191

Glyn Moody writes "The Presidency of the EU's Law Enforcement Working Party wants to create [PDF] 'a single secure European cyberspace with a certain "virtual Schengen border" and "virtual access points" whereby the Internet Service Providers (ISP) would block illicit contents on the basis of the EU "black-list."' Leaving aside the fact that this won't work for lots of reasons, how seriously can you take anyone talking about 'cyberspace' in 2011?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

191 comments

Not nearly as bad... (2)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#35961866)

how seriously can you take anyone talking about "cyberspace" in 2011?"

Give them time. At least the term "information superhighway" has largely disappeared from public discourse. That term was one of those few political terms so cheesy and clueless that it gave me a Tourette's-like tic every time I heard it...

Re:Not nearly as bad... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35961914)

I kinda like the term cyberspace. Makes me feel like I'm jacking in, not just jacking off.

Re:Not nearly as bad... (4, Funny)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962182)

how seriously can you take anyone talking about "cyberspace" in 2011?"

Let them do it. From what I'm reading, they think the Internet is a place in Germany.

Re:Not nearly as bad... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962248)

That was nearly as funny as the episode of the IT crowd where they labelled a box "The Internet" and the managers believed it.

Re:Not nearly as bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962318)

This Jen, is the Internet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg

Re:Not nearly as bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962324)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg

Re:Not nearly as bad... (1)

wimvds (615170) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962564)

Let them do it. From what I'm reading, they think the Internet is a place in Germany.

Last time I checked Brussels was in Belgium, and I didn't feel the Earth move here today, so I guess it still is...

Re:Not nearly as bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962812)

Let them do it. From what I'm reading, they think the Internet is a place in Germany.

Ünternet? [comicvine.com]

Re:Not nearly as bad... (3, Interesting)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962284)

"Information superhighway" was something coined by Bill Gates in one of his books. The ideas in that book were pretty advanced for the time. He also spoke about the "electronic wallet" (illustrated with Gates' own cheesy drawings), something that took form for us today in the shape of cell phones instead of wallets. He also made clear that the information superhighway was not the internet, but a faster network, that ALSO included internet services. And the ability of interactive "product placement" a la Augmented Reality: watch a movie, see the character's clock... nice, give me more info, computer! And it showed you what it was and how much it costed. The ideas in that book were good, but also scary in the sense that everything was about selling stuff.

You know what's worse than cyberspace and superhighway? "Internet Portal". Something that journalists in my country love to talk about. Any website is a "Portal".

Re:Not nearly as bad... (1)

pigiron (104729) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962300)

Rather than being clueless the term "information superhighway" is still quite apt.

Re:Not nearly as bad... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962438)

But it's not a highway! It's series of tubes! Why, Friday my staff sent out an Internet and I only just it got on Tuesday!

When do you take them seriously? (5, Insightful)

thisissilly (676875) | more than 2 years ago | (#35961888)

You take them seriously when they are in a position of power. With a title like "Presidency of the EU's Law Enforcement Working Party", you better damn well take him seriously, or in the end you are not the one who is going to be laughing.

Nobody expects ... (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962066)

The "Presidency of the EU's Law Enforcement Working Party"

Now, I am familiar with the concepts of "Working" and "Party" . . . I am not sure that they should be combined . . .

Re:Nobody expects ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962798)

The "Presidency of the EU's Law Enforcement Working Party"

Now, I am familiar with the concepts of "Working" and "Party" . . . I am not sure that they should be combined . . .

If that is a joke, it is not funny. If it isn't, I feel sorry for you.

Not party as in political party or as in partey. Party as in a group.

EU's Law Enforcement Working Party is a working group dealing with law enforcement issues (duh!) within the Council of the European Union.

In EU, we use those long, pompous, ridiculous and meaningless titles because UK, Italy, France and all the other "fruity" nations within EU have a long tradition of using long, pompous, ridiculous and meaningless titles. If EU only included Northern and Eastern Europe it would be called something like "utredningsgrupp för brottsbekämpningssamordning" , "Ermittlungsgruppe der Strafverfolgungkoordination" (sorry about my bad German, I won't even try to translate that to any other language) et.c. A name that actually told something about what function the work-group fulfils. If the work-group was part of the US government, you would of course have an witty abbreviation consisting of at least 9 letters, that nobody knew what it stand for, and a "catchy" nickname, something like Operation Sharp Eyed Eagle Team and the group leader would be called Tsar.

Consolidation of power (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962168)

This was the plan all along with the union, and illustrates the danger when power is consolidated and centralized into the hands of the few.

With many small instances of political power, the elite at the top of each pyramid are limited in what they can do, because their pyramids are limited in height (e.g. revenue, and therefore power). With one large instance of political power, the elite are sitting atop a much larger pyramid. The potential for destruction and injustice is much higher -- proportional to the height of their pyramid.

Why must government be limited in what they can do? (And I cringe that I actually have to explain this.) Because history shows that government is the most dangerous, most destructive force that has ever existed. It shows that the people who desire power work for themselves, not the people they hold power over. It also shows that where destructive power exists, destructive power will be employed -- to the benefit of the empowered, not the powerless.

The absolute worst thing that could happen in the history of humanity is a single "world" government coming to power -- the tallest, richest, most powerful pyramid that could ever exist. They would be capable of destruction and injustice on a level we can't even imagine.

Re:Consolidation of power (3, Insightful)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962302)

This was the plan all along with the union, and illustrates the danger when power is consolidated and centralized into the hands of the few.

Well, I've seen quite a few good things that cam from the EU parlament, that couldn't have been done in the same timeframe by all the individual parlaments.

With many small instances of political power, the elite at the top of each pyramid are limited in what they can do, because their pyramids are limited in height (e.g. revenue, and therefore power).

Considering that certain companies have a revenue that surpasses man smaller and medium sized countries and that influence people in almost all countries in the world, I tend to disagree.

On a national level, governments regularily give in the those companies, but on a supernational level (read: EU) they can and do stand up.

The notion that the market will regulate itself is outdated. Companies consolidated to much power and money in the hands of too few people.
In many fields the conumer can not exercise his supposed power anymore and NEEDS support by watchdogs and governments.

The absolut worst thing that could happen is not giving the government enough power to keep multinational companies atleast somewhat in check.

Re:Consolidation of power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962464)

well, while these people are talking about putting up a virtual Schengen border... The French are talking about tearing down the actual Schengen border because they don't want more Tunisians.

And you use the strawman of "quite a few good things" can you name some of them? Because I'm American and it seems readily apparent that the Common Fisheries Policy and Common Ag Policy are pretty dismal failures. The term i've heard used with regards to EU policies is "One size Fits Germany." That certainly seems true with respect to the illegal bailouts and ECB interest rate policies. So it seems that Germany and France did by politics what neither Napoleon nor Hitler could do by force: subjugate Europe. Why else is the EU so afraid of referenda?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100085072/zut-alors-now-france-wants-less-integration/

Re:Consolidation of power (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962428)

Oh dear, no. You're talking about the EU here. This isn't an oligarchy, a plutocracy, a monarchy or a dictatorship.

It's a bureaucracy. USG mark II. The whole point of bureaucracy is not to give power to a few elite figures, but to spread it as widely as possible across a morass of civil servants, departments, committees and working groups. Nobody actually wields power. Everyone shares a tiny portion of it. That's "limited government!"

The system is a good design in the sense that it provides awesome job security and shields almost all government employees from the consequences of bad decisions. It is also a good design in that elections and parliaments are utterly irrelevant, so the people get the illusion of involvement without actually being involved.

However, the system is also a bad design in that it's incredibly expensive, awful at decision making, and basically incompetent. This is a direct result of power sharing, "rule by committee", and shielding from bad decisions. If it were actually operated by oligarchs or a dictator, the system would at least be better at decision making. There would also be no motivation to expand government powers, so we wouldn't see attempts like this one to control "cyberspace".

You're thinking that the people should have power to hold the government to account, but that's based on the delusion that democracy is a good idea. You forget that people are mostly morons, and easily led by the media and their educators. The end result of democracy is that a civil service manages everything that actually matters. The end result of democracy is the EU.

Re:Consolidation of power (2)

lordholm (649770) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962574)

No, this illustrates what happens when a state like Hungary who is at the moment being run into the drain by an enormously authoritarian majority government (the last govt was really crappy as well, but more in terms of being corrupted), runs the Council. In fact, I would not be surprised if this was something that the Hungarian presidency have not synchronized with the rest of the trio.

The problem with the ideas presented is that, 1. it has no support in the Council (just Hungary saying they will try to push this through), 2. it has no support in the Parliament, and 3. it has most likely no support in the Commission in the form that Hungary is trying to push this, and 4. recent verdicts from the EU court that has struck down court mandated blocking.

This clearly demonstrates how dangerous it is to have the member states themselves being in charge of the Council, where a proper elected and directly accountable senate would have been to be preferred instead of a Council formed by the member states' governments. That the Union exist is something necessary and also the centralization of power to Brussels in some areas since the Chinese will otherwise carry out a divide and conquer policy to crush Europe when they have the ability to do so.

Re:Consolidation of power (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962742)

The EU, for all its many faults, provides some big benefits that nobody sees.

The biggest one in my book is that the major countries in Europe no longer try to blow each other to smithereens. This could have happened without the EU, but historically speaking economic crisis led fairly directly to warfare in Europe, as desperate countries tried to capture by force the resources they needed to survive while other countries tried to take advantage of the perceived weakness of the countries in crisis. That in my book means that the EU did a better job of preserving peace than the League of Nations or the UN.

The next on the list would probably be that by using EU membership as a motivator, it's pushed the former Eastern Bloc countries that could very easily have turned into Putin-style regimes to become proper democracies. Read the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to get an idea of the political importance of EU membership, and then consider what Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Belarus, etc could easily have become without it.

It's definitely not the best possible way of governing, but it's doing much better than most everything else that's been tried. And its relative success is a big part of why some African governments have been pushing for similar sorts of organizations among their nations.

Re:Consolidation of power (0)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962860)

Read the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to get an idea of the political importance of EU membership, and then consider what Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Belarus, etc could easily have become without it.

Belarus is exactly the example of what would have happened without it. They've got the looniest tinpot dictatorship on the whole continent.

Re:When do you take them seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962592)

So then, you're implying that when all TECHNICAL attempts at restricting and modifying behavior on electronic systems fail. they will then just literally come to your house, knock on your front door and proceed to beat the hell out of the first person that answers the door, because the particular computer they are aware of as a "problem computer" APPEARS to be in that house.

Re:When do you take them seriously? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962852)

Do you know what a Working Party is? Basically a think-tank of politicians who come up with batshit ideas for the EU Parliament and individual member states to reject. Occasionally one of their ideas is sane enough to implement, but this nonsense won't get anywhere.

This is about as exciting as one of those Daily Mail stories based on some junior civil servant's half baked suggesting in a meeting somewhere. "A SLOP BUCKET FOR EVERY HOME" was my favourite one. Strangely that law was never passed.

EU turning into US? (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#35961896)

This is the kind of story I would expect coming from the US president's office, not the EU president's office. Hopefully this kind of censorship will die, like it died in Australia.

Free, liberated adults should be able to view any site (or book or pamphlet) they desire - without restriction. No government official may overrule that basic natural right of expression.

Re:EU turning into US? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35961924)

If you consider kiddie porn, expression, you might need some help.

Re:EU turning into US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962020)

Kiddie porn is old news; almost as old as terrorism. It didn't work as a scapegoat to create a censorship architecture. The latest reason we absolutely need internet censorship in the EU is illegal online gambling. Get with the program!

Re:EU turning into US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962148)

right on. Fuck these "save the children" people. We SHOULD save the children, but fuck these geeks that use it as an excuse for everything.

Re:EU turning into US? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962094)

>>>If you consider kiddie porn, expression, you might need some help.

You need to be more explicit what you mean by "porn". The US Supreme Court has ruled that:
- child sex is illegal
- child nudity is legal (think nudism and art)
- depictions of adults as children having sex is free speech
- cartoons/drawings of child sex is free speech

Also I don't consider possession of porn to be any more "immoral" than possession of marijuana (a plant given to us by nature), or possession of murder photos. The person who did the killing is the criminal, not the person holding the photos. Same applies to porn.

Of course if you think we should outlaw possession of murder photos/videos, then go ahead. I'll fight you every step of the way. Free speech/expression applies in ALL things, including subjects you find disgusting.

Re:EU turning into US? (1)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962226)

Child porn is illegal in any context. Laws already exist to deal with that. This "initiative" doesnt bring anything new.

Re:EU turning into US? (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962390)

Actually, there are certain contexts in which it is apparently legal. Here in Sweden the royal library houses a copy of every magazine and book published in Sweden since whenever, and among these publications are a number of magazines from the 70s that are basically child porn magazines. They are required by law to keep these magazines while at the same time possession of these magazines is illegal these days (but from what I've understood from an acquaintance who's studied law the law that requires them to keep the magazines takes precedence over the law that makes them illegal).

Re:EU turning into US? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#35961962)

Hopefully this kind of censorship will die, like it died in Australia.

No, censorship will not die. Too many politicians are kept in power by it, too many businesses make their money because of it. The Internet as we know it, the network of unrestricted international communication will die, replaced with a computer network that has succumb to all the greed and problems of "old media."

Most people never took the time to learn about the Internet or their computers, and they will never do anything proactive to evade these firewalls and restore their freedom to communicate. Worse, most people will applaud these moves as fair compromises, necessary, or even a gain for society -- after all, now all that "illicit content" is being blocked.

Re:EU turning into US? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962048)

>>>most people will applaud these moves as fair compromises, necessary, or even a gain for society -- after all, now all that "illicit content" is being blocked.

I don't have a problem blocking illicit content, but it should be a CHOICE available to parents (or religious types), not something to be forced upon every one like the "no nudity on tv" rule. We should not be living in a one-size-fits-all society where everyone is forced to adopt the same restrictions.

Re:EU turning into US? (3, Insightful)

Magada (741361) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962174)

The "people" are not going to do anything. Yes, we are well into the regulation phase that follows the colonization of any frontier.

Think of it as the not-so-wild turn of the century West.

Will the liberty decrease? Surely. Will crime decrease? Yes, most certainly, especially the violent kind (outright theft etc). Will there be a lot more commerce, more money being made and lots more poverty? Hell yea.

It's a great time to be a black hat hacker. You thought the lawless nineties were good? Just you wait, 'cause the golden years of the Internet Mafia are still ahead, boys! There'll be prohibitions and trade barriers enough for everyone to get rich! Movies, music, software, even (or rather, especially) raw data storage and secure communications channels.

'course, there'll be a few european comissioners and europol bigwigs to grease up but then... when was that not true?

Re:EU turning into US? (4, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962336)

Will the liberty decrease? Surely. Will crime decrease? Yes, most certainly, especially the violent kind (outright theft etc).

Actually, crime will necessarily increase, as there will be more laws to be broken in the first place. Also, history has shown pretty consistently that the more government restricts people's choices in life, the more violent they become. It's a sad fact that no one seems to have learned yet.

Cue the people who don't understand the crucial difference between anarchy and minarchy to come in and state that Somalia is a "libertarian paradise".

Re:EU turning into US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962474)

> Yes, most certainly, especially the violent kind (outright theft etc).

Seriously? Violent crimes on the Internet? I do hope this is a big woosh, otherwise I'll have to consider despairing, if such nonsense is said even on slashdot.
I wonder if with the invention of the phone people were afraid of "telephone robbery" (no, not robbery of telephones, that would actually make sense).

Re:EU turning into US? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962762)

> Yes, most certainly, especially the violent kind (outright theft etc).

Seriously? Violent crimes on the Internet? I do hope this is a big woosh, otherwise I'll have to consider despairing, if such nonsense is said even on slashdot.
I wonder if with the invention of the phone people were afraid of "telephone robbery" (no, not robbery of telephones, that would actually make sense).

There is "telephone robbery" (although it's not named that way). It consists of tricking people into calling expensive numbers without recognizing (or even the computer to do so, at the time when modems were common). There are ways to fight this (like the regulation that all those numbers start with a common prefix, and software to detect diallers), but it definitively exists.

However, it didn't exist at the time the telephone was invented.

Re:EU turning into US? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962360)

That's funny. Because here in the US, we feel the same way about our politicians wanting to emulate the EU with regards to their nanny-state laws.

Re:EU turning into US? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962446)

Free, liberated adults should be able to view any site (or book or pamphlet) they desire - without restriction. No government official may overrule that basic natural right of expression.

Isn't it still illegal to sell Nazi memorabilia in France and Germany?

Or has that changed since I was there last?

Re:EU turning into US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962566)

Actually the US believes it owns the internet.

yes, block those illicit contents (-1, Offtopic)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 2 years ago | (#35961908)

While you're at it, herd your sheeps

could of, would of, I could care less, your wrong

void main(int argc, char** argv, char** envp) { printf("hello world"); return; }

etc., etc.

My eyes, they're bleeding. Help me Obiwan, you're my only hope.

Re:yes, block those illicit contents (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962242)

Yeah... you're real gay for throwing code in there. I hope it was an accident. But then you threw a Star Wars reference in so Ima thinkin' you're one of the linux cocksuckers. Groupthink is awesome when you're a hypocrite

Re:yes, block those illicit contents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962260)

could of, would of, I could care less, your wrong

No. You're wrong.

void main(int argc, char** argv, char** envp) { printf("hello world"); return; }

void main? Void?!

Help me Obiwan, you're my only hope.

Sorry, you're beyond hope. Seriously, void main?!

Re:yes, block those illicit contents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962646)

I never did get the Jedi.

Seriously, they're in power, the Sith are nearly extinct, and yet they decide to train someone who the prophecy says will "bring balance to the force" ?

If you're in power and hate the other guys who are almost gone, why would you want to bring balance?

Re:yes, block those illicit contents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962698)

Seriously :P

Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35961912)

Don't be surprised, some politix are still in the middle of the XX century.
Yesterday, in France, at the TV, a deputy told : "Internet is new". From this, it's easy to understand all them bad ideas. It's like doctor evil in the 1st Austin Power film : all them ideas are 20 years old.

seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35961916)

I can take it just about as seriously as a so-called tech site that has a feature article about a product being released in a new color.

for other non euros like myself (1, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#35961928)

who have no bleeping clue what a "schengen border" is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement [wikipedia.org]

Just the thing for lawyers to come up with (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 2 years ago | (#35961936)

Ex-lawyers who noticed that the job of undemocratic dictatorship lackey is a lot easier and pays a lot better.

Note that these people are not democratically elected. Why the hell are these idiots tolerated ? I mean they're no better than Saudi's woman decapitators, or Iran's "why would you think gays exist in Iran"-moronic government, which also "allow elections*".

Morons.

* only on local level

Let me guess the eurocrat thinking here (1, Offtopic)

damburger (981828) | more than 2 years ago | (#35961940)

1) Our economies aren't recovering fast enough
2) The Chinese economy is growing really fast
3) Lets do what the Chinese are doing...
4) ...censor the Interwebs!

The next logical step is for David Cameron to run over protestors at the royal wedding with tanks.

Re:Let me guess the eurocrat thinking here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962082)

On the other hand this censorship might be a good thing.

Where do incorrect political views come from? Ideas like conservatism, economic liberalism, disbelief in global warming, even resistance to the EU? How do these desparately wrong and deeply incorrect ideas remain in circulation?

It's the Internet! People go on the Internet and read things. Some of what they read is wrong, stupid, badly informed or just plain evil... these are, after all, the only explanations for opposition to progressive politics.

Censorship is exactly what's needed to protect people from wrong ideas, so that their minds are only filled with good, progressive thoughts, and when the next election comes up, they will vote the right way. Just like you and me and all the rest of the good people whose minds are unsullied by bad thoughts.

Politics should be a banned topic on all websites except those with a special licence, which can be revoked if their moderators fail to respond to rightwing opinions in the correct way. It's the only way to protect democracy!

Re:Let me guess the eurocrat thinking here (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962250)

Idiot AC

Where do incorrect political views come from? Ideas like conservatism, economic liberalism

From people like David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy. You know, the people running the most powerful countries in the EU. Moron.

disbelief in global warming

That comes from retards like James Delingpole

You really don't sound like you actually understand European politics at all.

Re:Let me guess the eurocrat thinking here (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962952)

I wasn't that AC, but I can only hope that a loud whooosh is a fitting reply.

Re:Let me guess the eurocrat thinking here (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962192)

Damn it, I was going to avoid the wedding at all costs, but now I have to watch just on the off chance that really happens.

Sweet: A virtual maginot line (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35961952)

I would have thought the Frech learned the last time

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man"

Geez. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962072)

Hopefully, in 50-70 years, when kids today are old and in power, they won't be quite as bloody retarded when it comes to new technology.

Re:Geez. (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962472)

If things continue along the same path as today in 50 to 70 years, if they are lucky, they will be trying to re-build the global network from the ashes of world wide destruction.

Re:Geez. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962488)

In 50-70 years we'll have a whole new set of technology to confuse old people.

Different terminology (5, Funny)

Exitar (809068) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962076)

Here in Europe we use the term "cyberspace" to describe what in the US you call "Series of tubes".

Re:Different terminology (1)

surveyork (1505897) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962506)

True, and in France and Spain, common Internet users are "internautes" and "internautas" respectively. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internaute [wikipedia.org] - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internauta [wikipedia.org]

Think about it. Those terms really give you a feeling that you are navigating through the vast sea of the Net. :)

It's really only a matter of time (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962118)

The only thing that surprises me is that we've went so long WITHOUT more government-controlled internet firewalls. I remember telling people back in 1995 that the U.S. government wouldn't tolerate a free internet for very long. I was wrong on the timeframe, but make no mistake, it's coming. The more repressive regimes of the world were the first, but even the "progressive" governments who supposedly champion a free internet will eventually have to own up to their hypocrisy and clamp down.

Don't think it'll happen here (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962272)

The only thing that surprises me is that we've went so long WITHOUT more government-controlled internet firewalls. I remember telling people back in 1995 that the U.S. government wouldn't tolerate a free internet for very long. I was wrong on the timeframe, but make no mistake, it's coming. The more repressive regimes of the world were the first, but even the "progressive" governments who supposedly champion a free internet will eventually have to own up to their hypocrisy and clamp down.

The problem is that some people think "progressive" means open and free and enlightened, when at its core, the whole idea of progressivism is basically nannyism... people as children that need to be cared for, with governments as the benevolent and protecting parents. Well guess what... parents lock the doors, set curfews, and make you eat your vegetables. I honestly don't think this kind of thing will fly in the US, not as long as there's a viable GOP. Our own "Net Neutrality" is never going to happen precisely because too many people fear it'll morph into this kind of nannyism. "For our own good", and all that rot.

Re:Don't think it'll happen here (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962384)

I hope your post is intended as a joke, because the GOP is one of the biggest supporters of an internet crackdown in the U.S. Who do you think has been screaming loudest about banning sites like WikiLeaks? And net neutrality is specifically designed to PROTECT a free internet. Without it, the handful of broadband ISP's in this country will be free to set up not only a national firewall and blacklist, but individual paywalls as well.

Not that the Dems are much better, mind you. But if you really think the GOP is going to protect a free internet, you are a truly deluded individual. The only chance for maintaining a free internet would be the rise of a third party, and that's almost an impossibility in the U.S.

Re:Don't think it'll happen here (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962846)

Not that the Dems are much better, mind you. But if you really think the GOP is going to protect a free internet, you are a truly deluded individual. The only chance for maintaining a free internet would be the rise of a third party, and that's almost an impossibility in the U.S.
No, we(the US) will wind up with a pseudo-neutral internet simply b/c Big Media and Big Telecoms haven't bought each other out and therefore some half ass compromise will keep the polititcians' campaign funds well stocked. The other point the GP post mentioned about a dislike for nanny statism is unfortunately in decline w/ self reliance frequently mistaken for selfishness.

Re:Don't think it'll happen here (2)

torgis (840592) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962550)

Well guess what... parents lock the doors, set curfews, and make you eat your vegetables. I honestly don't think this kind of thing will fly in the US, not as long as there's a viable GOP.

Wait...what? Are you saying that the GOP...the Republican party in the US...is the driving force behind keeping internet communications free and open here in the US?

I don't know what your experience is, and I certainly don't mean to disparage senior citizens here, but I'd be hard pressed to think of a group that is more *out of touch* with technology than the GOP. Have you heard some of the comments regarding technology these guys make on CSPAN or on any of the talking head news shows? It's pretty clear that most of them are taught to parrot a few sound bytes involving cyberspaces and internet superfreeways from some techie staffer, but their understanding of the underlying technologies is abysmal.

When I think of groups that are fighting for the rights of the people in regards to technology, I don't usually picture rich old white guys sitting around a mahogany table, drinking scotch and smoking cigars. Maybe that's just me though.

Re:Don't think it'll happen here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962932)

How the **** can "Don't tread on my Internet" morph into nannyism? That weirds me out. Net neutrality is a bipartisan issue. Someone, somewhere, somehow has been selling an "up is down, tall is short, the sky is green" kind of story, and some people have been buying it. Who has been telling these tall tales?

Re:It's really only a matter of time (2)

torgis (840592) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962466)

The only thing that surprises me is that we've went so long WITHOUT more government-controlled internet firewalls. I remember telling people back in 1995 that the U.S. government wouldn't tolerate a free internet for very long. I was wrong on the timeframe, but make no mistake, it's coming.

You're thinking in internet time, where 16 years is a very, very long time during which new technologies spring up, flourish, die, and are forgotten. However, 16 years in government time is hardly enough to put something really huge into motion, like an all-encompassing firewall. I'd say you were spot on - the great US firewall will eventually be a reality. They'll probably sell it as a way to protect us from our new favorite bogeyman, "The Terrorists."

No doubt, any attempt at a country-wide firewall would be an utter failure and cost tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. But that won't stop them from trying...

Filter the scum off the intertubes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962166)

We must not let the intertubes bring truckloads of filth into the EU. All the contents of the intertubes must go through waste treatment plants that we will build at our borders. This way only crystal clear refreshing content will be carried by the tubes within the EU.

Smut and porn will not be allowed within the... wait... hold on... what do you say? what do you mean? No, that can't be true. They don't make porn in Germany, Netherlands, or Czech Republic.

Re:Filter the scum off the intertubes (1)

torgis (840592) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962572)

We must not let the intertubes bring truckloads of filth into the EU.

No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. It's not a truck that you just dump stuff on to. It's a series of, um, tubes or some such.

They don't make porn in Germany, Netherlands, or Czech Republic.

Technically this is true. Coprophagia != porn.

What for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962274)

I think it is more oriented to protect us than to filter information.
In any case, if the EU Cyberspace contains all the current countries in the Union, namely Romania, Bulgaria and the like, sorry to say that but we already have a few major sources of attacks, spam, pr0n, phishing and any other sort of cr*p you want. So no use trying to set up this thinghy.
It is like wanting to enforce the outside boundaries to the Union. We are experiencing internal problems, immigration, Eastern European mafias, sexual exploitation,... again it is not going to solve much when your enemy is inside.

I don't know what they're talking about (1)

Lanczos (1786578) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962296)

"how seriously can you take anyone talking about "cyberspace" in 2011?"

I use that term all the time!

Signed,
mathemagician11475@aol.com

Re:I don't know what they're talking about (1)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962450)

"how seriously can you take anyone talking about "cyberspace" in 2011?"

I use that term all the time!

Signed, mathemagician11475@aol.com

Me too!

Background (4, Interesting)

mseeger (40923) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962332)

This idea is floating around for some time now. Various reasons have been given for such internet blocks: child porn, illegal gambling, drugs, .... Interestingly, the real reason has rarely been named. If you look where the money for the campaigns come from, at the end you always find the content industry.

I had a talk with some upper echelons of the biggest European Telcos a few months ago. They were complaining about the content industry spending money like water to get somehow internet blocks turned into law. Most Telcos didn't like the idea....

The idea of the content industry is, that once internet blocks are legal, they can be used to shoot down sites like PirateBay.

CU, Martin

talking about "cyberspace" in 2011... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962338)

... even the US government does it (see NSTIC, your very own digital passport for teh intarwebz).

Yurp doesn't have an institutional taboo on censorship so they can more or less openly tout it, instead of doing much the same in a haphazard manner by seizing domains willy nilly. Then again the EU doesn't sit on the keys to the domain name system so they have to think of something different. And everybody knows firewalls are good, right? Right?

Any politician is apparently required to be a complete nitwit, especially on the interconnected tubes thing.

What are the reasons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962388)

I love how the OP's post has a link that might detail all the reasons that blacklists don't work, but the link just goes to his own blog which, of course, simply restates the post and offers no reasons. That's pretty weak.

Next thing you know.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962422)

A European firewall with a black-list so they can control what information comes and goes? Next thing you know they will start banning private firearm ownership. Oh.... wait...

Seductive to the Authoritarian Mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35962436)

'
"We think the governance has opted for ubiquitous law enforcement" ...etc..
"So now they have to run everything." The notion was terribly seductive to the authoritarian mind.
'
I recall a famous Prof of Comp.Sci. writing this 10 years back (ISBN-10: 0812536355), but then he could well have given the first description of Cyberspace.
Forgive us: we are slow on picking things up across here, Old Europe you know...

So in summary... (1)

zevans (101778) | more than 2 years ago | (#35962792)

Europe have looked at Australia, looked at the Australian backlash, and decided "we don't care, let's just propose it anyway, to show how absolutely out of touch we are."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...