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 Legislature Accidentally Votes For Internet Filtering

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the never-attribute-to-malice-etc dept.

Censorship 143

tulcod writes "The Dutch government has accidentally passed an exception to a law on net neutrality, (Google translation of original in Dutch) enabling ISPs to filter internet traffic based on 'ideological motives.' The PvdA (labor party) accidentally voted for this exception to the Telecomwet (telecommunications law), which, on its own, does not allow such filtering. PvdA intends to repair their mistake."

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

Only passing laws (1)

dotgain (630123) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524592)

Stop taking it so seriously.

Does it bother the freaky deaky Dutch? (1)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#36526402)

Exactly! They are only passing laws. If the Dutch are content with it, who cares?

I can't read Dutch... (4, Insightful)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524594)

But how the hell do you accidentally vote on a piece of legislation?

Re:I can't read Dutch... (3, Insightful)

Yo Grark (465041) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524628)

Have you met most of congress?

- Yo Grark

Re:I can't read Dutch... (2)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524650)

Most of Congress's incompetence is feigned to hide the overt corruption, they don't accidentally pass something, they just claim they did and then don't try to reverse it. At least here they said "oops" and are planning on reversing their accident.

But again, how can you accidentally vote it through? "All those in favor of opposing the anti-net neutrality prevention exemption act say 'eh?'"

Re:I can't read Dutch... (5, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524680)

Actually, their ignorance is real, the motivations behind said ignorance are of course malicious. Senators purposely don't read the legislation, they rely on their aides to do it for them(and of course their aides run it by their big donors to get 'input' on the law). Then if their aides say yes they vote for the thing. If they get called out on a certain provision later, they will claim, honestly, that they hadn't read that particular provision. And since the American electorate doesn't punish politicians for ignorance(see Sarah Palin and to a lesser extent George Bush), all is forgiven.

Thats one thing I never understood about humans, esp. Americans, the result of the action doesn't seem to be nearly as important as the motive. See the outrage and panic over "terrorists", when more Americans die in car crashes EVERY MONTH as died on September 11th. Americans don't seem to care about that because very few people who cause car crashes actually intended to crash......

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524826)

It also certainly don't help that reading bills which are basically diffs and manually matching it against a copy of the law don't help (as one who read a bill once). I read a suggestion to use a version control system for the law, with it's machine-readable diffs, which would make the job much easier.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524848)

I doubt that would help much, it may for a while until the writers of said legislation wise up and get more creative with the language of the bills.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524870)

Of course, I'd fix the campaign donation problem first, but...

Re:I can't read Dutch... (2)

Zencyde (850968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36526836)

I've thought about the version control, too. Modern government really should be leveraging ideas from other fields. Particularly ones that have been bred and grown in its inception. Computer science and much of engineering should be looked into for ideas that can be reapplied. Official legal discussion forums would be cool so the government could get a vibe on what's popular, for instance. I imagine like normal forums, it would primarily be full of legal buffs.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524858)

/. should just come clean and rename "Overrated" to "I disagree"

I've seen similar statements repeated. However, I haven't heard a good response for what to do with someone if, say, you've already moderated and don't want to undo the other good moderation you've done and someone posts "2+2=5". You could post "2+2=4, and here are cites" but you'd undo the moderation already done. Or you could mod them down because they are wrong. Not "I disagree with your opinion" but factually wrong. Does it matter if someone else already replied with the correct answer with cites?

See the outrage and panic over "terrorists", when more Americans die in car crashes EVERY MONTH as died on September 11th. Americans don't seem to care about that because very few people who cause car crashes actually intended to crash......

And sadly, when people try to fix it, they make it worse. They put in road humps, lower speed limits, and otherwise screw up traffic, making traffic more dense and increasing the chances of crashing. If only people could look at anything with actual risk analysis, whether terrorists or crashing. But humans do not inherently possess risk analysis skills. We are genetically programmed with bad risk analysis (better for survival when risk analysis can't be done, but severely broken when we are capable of determining actual risk).

It's not just that, it's the lotto, lightning, falls in the shower, etc. The more common something is, the less we pay attention to it, when that's exactly the opposite of rational. So the ludicrous overreaction to terrorism is natural and to be expected. The government perverting and abusing that violate the Constitution is also predictable and to be expected.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524958)

People often vote for parties rather than the individual concerned, which is an unfortunately flaw in many democracies. You get one vote which counts both for your local candidate and the national government.

People also vote against the candidate they don't want, rather than for the one they think would be best. I have done that in the past, voted for someone I didn't particularly like because that was the best way to keep the guy I really didn't like out. In the UK we had the chance to fix that by bringing in the Alternative Vote system, but in a referendum it was rejected because, ironically, people voted against the main proponent of it rather than for the thing they actually wanted. Arguably the same thing happened in Italy with the nuclear power referendum where people voted against Berlusconi.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525204)

In BC Canada they tossed something very similar to AV even through the person bringing it was very popular at the time. At some point AV/STV/whatever proponents need to realize that the average voter just doesn't like the idea because it's too complicated.

Less confusing would be if the lead candidate gets less than 50 percent of the vote there is a runoff vote later.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

samjam (256347) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525258)

In our case it is because the "no to av" were a bunch of liars; I'll give you an example:

They claimed that "Australia uses AV and they want to get rid of it"

The fact was that Australia had a form of AV that required the voter to rank ALL candidates, which was annoying. The Australians wanted to move to the UK-proposed style of AV where you had the choice of ranking other candidates but were not required to do so.

To interpret and present "Australia prefers UK-style AV" as "Australia wants to get rid of AV" is highly dishonest.

Then there is rubbish like "We'll have to spend millions on voting machines which we would otherwise spend on hospitals (honest!)" which ignores the inherant cost of running a democracy and the fact that voting machines weren't required.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36526298)

Don't forget those in the NO camp said the AV system in Australia meant it was mandatory to vote. When that wasn't the case, it was just a separate rule in Australia for voting. It didn't mean voting would become mandatory here as well.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525464)

Ranking candidates by preference with 1, 2, 3 is "too complicated"?

Re:I can't read Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36526296)

It was probably the 7, 8, 9 bit which was the problem.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525014)

Thats one thing I never understood about humans, esp. Americans, the result of the action doesn't seem to be nearly as important as the motive.

Except you can lose in court for killing someone through negligence, but I don't think I heard of a court case where someone sued someone for trying to kill them but instead making them a millionaire.

I guess you're talking about the perception of people instead of the working of the legal system though? In which case, yes. Humans deem "intent" to be a vital component for establishing "guilt", although negligence, willful or otherwise, can in extreme circumstances be used to establish guilt among humans.

Why? Because despite the saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", people don't really want to fault someone for trying to do something "good" that results in something "evil". Because we like seeing hard workers who keep trying to make things "better" and would rather not curb their enthusiasm. Because the greatest "sin" in our society is to hurt someone's "self-esteem" or to be "rude".

Well, fuck em. Tell people the truth about how much they've fucked things up if they fuck it up and if they stop doing their disaster prone works, all the better. I'd rather have a real "villain" doing "evil deeds" instead of a "hero" bringing about those same deeds while "doing good." At least with a "villain" you have someone you can fight against. With a "hero", even if they do "evil" as long as they're labeled a "hero", attacking them is akin to becoming "evil" even if you're trying to stop their "careless evil".

Let those who are "good" do "good" and those who are "evil" do "evil". For those who are "good" but do "evil", either make them stop or properly relabel them as "evil". Same goes for those who are "evil".

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525242)

Take a look at the volume of legislation that congress passes. When you're passing something like 500 pages of laws per day, there's no way any of them can have actually read it (although, somehow, you are expected to because ignorance of the law is not a defence). I'd love it if someone slipped a sentence in to a law that said that anyone who voted for it was to be summarily executed, with the only valid defence being that they could list every law that they had voted for. It would probably pass without anyone reading that clause, and the next congress would be a lot more careful about voting for things without reading them.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36526922)

And since the American electorate doesn't punish politicians for ignorance(see Sarah Palin and to a lesser extent George Bush), all is forgiven.

"âoeBut we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." -- Nancy Pelosi.

Much better reference for your point....

Re:I can't read Dutch... (3, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524738)

Looking at the video is was more like "All those in favor of #55? Okay. All those in favor of #56? Okay. All those in favor of #57? Okay. Wait, no, we didn't mean to vote for that last one, please reverse it".
It's still pretty stupid though.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

remmy1978 (307916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36526802)

It did go something like that. As votes go, this one was a bit more disorganised than what we are used to...

That said, I think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. The Netherlands is one of the first countries in the world where net neutrality is becoming a law. This after telecom companies speculated that they wanted to charge extra for certain types of traffic (Skype, What's app, etc.) as they were starting to see their income fall when people would use those tools on their smartphones instead of making regular calls or sendings SMS text messages. They also speculated that traffic to google or youtube might be charged at a premium, etc.

The 'accident' that happened on this vote was that an amendment made by a small conservative Christian party was also voted in. This amendment allows an ISP to offer filtering to their customers provided that this happens both at the customers initiative and that the ISP is not allowed to charge *less* for it than an unfiltered connection. This so the telco's can't use it as an excuse to provide cheap filtered plans and expensive unfiltered plans.

I don't see anything wrong with that proposal. If a customer wants to have a filter for "Oh, think about the children!" reasons, let them. It's for a niche market and niche ISP's that want this. It doesn't make it possible to circumvent net neutrality for commercial reasons.

Some votes are tricky (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36526880)

Imagine how difficult it would be to reverse the vote, if they had "accidentally" voted themselves a pay increase or immunity from expense audits...

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524992)

I imagine most of congress hasn't met most of congress. Slightly over half of congress is 268 people. If they all just shook hands, there would be 35,778 handshakes.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

cheaphomemadeacid (881971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525008)

how many congresses do you know who actually bother fixing their mistakes?

Re:I can read Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524662)

not too hard actually. All legislation is voted about in a big session where all members are present. they quickly succeed each other and are only called by the name of who made it. Also it was not the actual law but only one of many extensions to the law

Re:I can't read Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524682)

But how the hell do you accidentally vote on a piece of legislation?

Coffe shops.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524688)

The same way you accidentally blow up buildings and then accidentally make profits from the tragedy.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524734)

Best happening of that, that I know of, was Rhode Island passing a law to make it easier to prosecute street walkers, accidentally made the actual act of prostitution legal. True story. Don't do it on the street, but if you do it inside a brothel, you're ok (although this loophole was recently closed after a few decades).

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

agendi (684385) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524842)

The cheque from the lobby group clears after the vote so you have to go back and "un-oopsie".

Re:I can't read Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524920)

I don't think like an NPC, but how the hell can one buy this "by accident" lie?

Re:I can't read Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525050)

You don't think like a Non-Playable Character? Wow! That's astounding!

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524930)

But how the hell do you accidentally vote on a piece of legislation?

The same way they usually accidentally get a girl pregnant. Only what they usually do to the girl, they do to the citizens, and instead of paying they get paid for it.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524946)

Happens all the time. They have no idea what they're doing, they're just doing what they're being told by their friends/bosses. A lot of stuff like "hey, today we vote for/against every law" was admitted by members of the parliament here in Romania.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524986)

The actual voting is a reeling off of numbered and sub-claused amendments. They actually vote on something like amendment 3 sub a. Then amendment 2 is included in amendment 4 sub b, and will be voted on later. After amendment 3 b. Easy mistake to make.

Parliamentary mores require the party in favor of the amendment to stand by the formal process of the vote. The side who made the mistake stresses the intention of the vote.

's the same everywhere.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (4, Informative)

fearlezz (594718) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525020)

But how the hell do you accidentally vote on a piece of legislation?
They were running down a list.
"Who agrees to point 1, please raise your hands. Okay. Who agrees to point 2, please raise your hands." Somewhere around item 8, the labour party mistakenly thought they were agreeing to another point. And just one second after the chairwoman had counted, the party corrected. But then it was too late, because "rules are rules".

However, the article above is a little misleading. The law proposed does not allow every single ISP to block whatever THEY like for "network maintenance reasons". It allows people with certain beliefs to use specialized providers like to keep them away from pornography and other things that their religious beliefs forbid. So it's not a type of censorship that this law could allow, but this law is supposed to enable end users to say "please filter my internet to keep my conscience clear". The choice of the end user him-/herself.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

Colde (307840) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525118)

Actually, this has happened in the danish parliament as well a few times.

Since nobody can be experts on all subjects the danish representatives usually follow the spokesperson on the topic of the legislation thats being voted for. If they accidentally hit the wrong button the voting machine, the rest might follow.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (1)

eugene2k (1213062) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525214)

Well, it appears you are not the only one who can't read dutch

Re:I can't read Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525318)

But how the hell do you accidentally vote on a piece of legislation?

Members of parliament where later seen on irc saying: "Ooops! I accidentally the whole legislation."

Re:I can't read Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525632)

They obviously didn't read the bill.

Re:I can't read Dutch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36526168)

They accidentally voted FOR instead of AGAINST a subamendment to the proposed new Telecom law. The Labor Party represeantative / spokesman for the subject lost track of the amendment numbers and accidentally instructed his fellow party representatives wrong.

Typical! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524614)

What do you expect from a nation of clog wearing dike tenders!

Re:Typical! (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524664)

What do you expect from a nation of clog wearing dike tenders!

Rule 34 should apply here.

i accidentally the whole thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524638)

/. i accidentally the whole thing
what do now

This is new low (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524640)

Congress doesn't even know what they are voting for, America is the dumbest....oh wait this happen in the Netherlands...n/m.

This is... (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524720)

This is your parliament.

This is your parliament on pot. Sizzle sizzle sizzle.

Any question?

Re:This is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524764)

Drugs don't make you stupid, you were born that way...

Re:This is... (3, Interesting)

Matje (183300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524804)

ha ha.

Have a look at the drug use statistics ( and tell me whose country has a problem with cannabis use...

Re:This is... (1)

Crash42 (116408) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525098)

Ha ha good one !!!

but please remember that 73% of all statistics are made up.

Re:This is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525396)

Ha ha

Not only that, it's even worse. 95% of all perfectly correct statistics are completely ignored!

Re:This is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525130)

Papua New Guinea?

Papua New Guinea 29.5%
Micronesia 29.1%
Ghana 21.5%
Zambia 17.7%
Canada 16.8% ....
USA 12.6% ...
Singapore 0.004% (bummer dude)

Re:This is... (1)

Frans Faase (648933) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525404)

It would be more interesting to have some data about usages per head of the country. In the Netherlands cannabis can be bought legally in small quantaties for personal use. In some other countries it is illegale. For some reason teenagers are drawn to things that are illegale. So, it could well be that in the United States the largest percentage of people who used cannabis used it just for a few times, while in the Netherlands there is a much larger group of regular users.

Re:This is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525480)

Like this?

Re:This is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524820)

If they were on pot, they would do better!

this is not right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524730)

there are a few basic skills that should be present in any person leading a country.

reading, and counting should be a given.

also situational awareness to apply these l337 skills is a must for any politician.

and no, you cant say, sorry we didnt vote the way we should have because we were too stoned at the time.

this just goes to show what you get when you vote for liberinarian neocon republiciods

How do you legislate by accident? (3, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524756)

Did the parliament hold a tequila party that got out of hand?

Re:How do you legislate by accident? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525328)

nah, the yearly parliament barbeque is only next week.

(not kidding)

Accidentally ? Fix it then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524758)

They will fix it then, I assume. Otherwise I won't believe it was an accident.

Re:Accidentally ? Fix it then. (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 3 years ago | (#36526290)

They are fixing it.

Dutch advantage of herring? (2)

joneshenry (9497) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524772)

Relative to most other nations of the world, Holland is relatively well-run, and the Dutch are as capable of fixing such problems as anyone else.

Could the Dutch have an advantage that is somewhat a geographic accident, in that since the Middle Ages they have benefited from having an excellent source of Omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D from herring [] ? But the Dutch may have contributed to their own fortune by preparing and consuming herring in a manner that preserves nutrients [] . Note that under the section in Wikipedia describing pickled herring are listed several Northern European countries that are doing well and other groups with noted individuals of exceptional intelligence.

Re:Dutch advantage of herring? (1)

plankrwf (929870) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524850)


And I do not like herring, that does not bode well for my intelligence then.
On the other side, it should not be difficult to find groups with noted individuals of exceptional intelligence who do NOT like herring.
(Anyone caring to actually read the wikipedia article? I know, I know, it is against /. tradition, but it IS for a good cause, at least I think so ;-0).

Re:Dutch advantage of herring? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525132)

I always thought we invented the herring-eating to make foreigners look foolish when they try our quaint culture.

Re:Dutch advantage of herring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525268)

Are they that bad?

Re:Dutch advantage of herring? (5, Interesting)

SigILL (6475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525506)

Also, since the middle ages we've been under pretty much constant thread of the sea washing away our country. The waterschappen (water boards), which are responsible for keeping our feet (and sometimes our heads) dry, are the oldest democratic institutions here, some dating back to the 13th century.

The geography of the Netherlands is so that you cannot keep just your bit of land dry. Thus on occasion even lords and cities that were otherwise formally at war had to cooperate to keep the dykes maintained and the water out. This has created a deep democratic tradition and a strong respect for engineering in the Dutch civic mind. For example, the Deltawet, the system of laws describing how the major dykes are to be maintained, isn't based on some ideology or pork-barrel system as it would be in some other countries, but on statistical models and sound engineering.

Does the current state of knowledge tell us that the dykes are too low? Shucks, we'll have to heighten them then. Well, lets get started, otherwise it won't get done before the storm season is upon us again. And don't worry about the cost much, these things usually pay for themselves in one night [] .

tl;dr: We have to have good governance. Otherwise, the dykes fail and we die. Literally.

Re:Dutch advantage of herring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36526126)

As opposed to the Germans, who didn't have the advantage of eating herring and thus failed to produce any significant science and culture? Good point.

A mixup and immediate corrective action (1)

Matje (183300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524786)

After reading the article and watching the video: what seemed to have happened is that the Labour party voted in favor by accident (some sort of mix up apparently), this was recognized immediately and the further procedure was halted until the error could be repaired. So nothing to see here, move along...

Re:A mixup and immediate corrective action (1)

xSander (1227106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524940)

It's still a delay and an opportunity for the telecom companies to lobby and have it shot down.

Labour Party, hah. More like Sleeping-on-the-job party. They need to drink more tea or switch to coffee.*

* Reference to the leader of the party, Job Cohen, who once said he'd rather drink tea with the parents of the Moroccan kids who were (and are) a nuisance in Amsterdam, where he was mayor, than to actually do something about them. That phrase is haunting him.

Re:A mixup and immediate corrective action (1)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525380)

And the internet does a collective *facepalm*

Regardless of the idiot in Labour who was responsible, the real surprise is that the ruling liberal party voted in favour of this filtering. It was probably a carrot for the christians who they need to stay in power, but still...

Politicians: Ignorant, stupid, malicious. Pick 3.

No immediate corrective action (1)

Frans Faase (648933) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525374)

I got the impression that it could not be corrected after the vote was taken and the president of the House declared the amendement to be accepted. I also understand that according to the procedures, there is no way to redo the vote. The only way to correct the mistake is to stop the bill in the Senate or create a new bill that would correct the mistake.

The procedure was also not immediately halted. According to the regulations it is not possible to halt a voting for this kind of reason. There was some discussion among the representatives of the different parties. The Laybor party was not asking the procedure to be halted, but requisted for a break to have a private meeting with the members of the party. Some of the parties stated that it was very exceptional to request for such a break during voting. Other parties argued that such a break had been allowed on a previous occasion. Finally the president of the House decided to grand a break and delay the voting to continue today.

Re:No immediate corrective action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36526014)

The PVDA will have an amendment ready on Thursday: original Dutch article []

Dutch Legislature Accidentally Internet Filtering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36524898)

Is this a joke?

It's comforting, really (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524916)

It's comforting to know that the USA is not the only government in the world with completely inept lawmakers.

( we're going to ignore the fact that we, the public, continue to give them our blessings to be complete and utter morons by virtue of our votes )

PVDA, not whole government. (1)

Barryke (772876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525474)

completely inept lawmakers.

Its the PVDA, not the entire government.
Its also the PVDA had the latest government disintegrate, by stepping out of the government. It basicly sayed "we are not working anymore" to all its voters. Its mindboggling.

They never had my vote and now they'll never wil. They are almost as ridiculous as the PVV is, biggest difference is the PVDA acts ridiculous by accident.

Re:PVDA, not whole government. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525648)

I happened to be watching the voting as it happened, and though it was an utter fail from the PvdA, in their defense the entire procedure was chaotic. I really hope the way things happened are not regular procedures.

One interesting thing is that they actually did revote on another issue, because the chair counting the votes was not paying attention and got confused... she even said something like 'I am really not having my day today, sorry', but she did not allow a revote on this issue.

Why? (4, Interesting)

hackertourist (2202674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36524972)

Here in the Netherlands, there currently are a few (right-wing Christian) ISPs that filter internet access at the request of their clients. Some of these ISPs do this by providing filtering software that the customer can install locally, others do the filtering on proxy servers at the ISP. The net neutrality law makes the second option illegal, despite this filtering being done at the client's request.

The amendment in question would repair this, allowing clients to request a filter. Some parties (PvdA, GL) see this amendment as a loophole. I don't see how, though.

Re:Why? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525112)

Join my ISP.

£7000000 a year for unfiltered access.
But we only charge £10 a year if you want our "family-safe" version.

Instantaneous filtering of every customer, completely legitimately, at the customer's own "request".

Re:Why? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525190)

Yeah. At that ISP. Somehow I see that ISP being out-competed rather quickly.

Re:Why? (1)

Omegium (576650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525454)

Although competition on the ISP's here in the Netherlands is better than in the US (as far as I can tell from stories online), it is far from perfect. We have three mobile internet providers, and a lot of other brands using their networks. If all three providers decide to implement mandatory filtering in some way, consumers cannot choose. There are provisions in this filtering law that consumers cannot get a financial advantage if the choose for filtering, but the providers probably can find some loophole somewhere.

Re:Why? (1)

AVee (557523) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525768)

Which is why the amendment explicitly states that an ISP must offer unfiltered access under the exacts same conditions. They can make you pay extra for the filter, but they can never make you pay extra to loose the filter. Despite all the wining about the amendment from the PVDA (and others) I really can't see how this creates a loophole. (And if it does, they should fix the loophole instead of depriving customers of options.)

Re:Why? (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525346)

I don't really have a problem with ISPs filtering at the request of their customers. The details of the amendment determine just how much of a loophole it really is. If the ISPs offer subscriptions that filter evil Youtube content at a lower rate than subscriptions that allow access to Youtube, then it's a loophole that can be used by ISPs to filter by type of content. If, on the other hand, the filtered subscription has to be equal or higher in cost to unfiltered subscriptions, then it's not so much of a loophole. I'm not sure if it would matter much if the ISP also has to invent a plausible ideological reason why someone might want that content filtered.

Re:Why? (2)

will_die (586523) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525408)

That that is why you have a bunch of people in the USA not wanting a net neutrality law.
In addition to services like this ISP is providing, my current ISP does email filtering for SPAM. According to the various bills being proposed that would be illegal.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525510)

Filtering at the ISP level (on the ISP side) is a dangerous precedent. It moves them from the "dumb pipe" role to "netnanny" (then to "content police", followed by "MAFIAA thug").
I see the progression as: Opt-In followed by Opt-Out followed by Mandatory.

Though, without knowing the ISP landscape of the Netherlands, it's hard to say....
Do ISP's hold geographic monopolies (as they do in the US)? Meaning you'd only have access to one or two ISPs in your town.

Why can't this just as easily be done by an independent 3rd party?
Change your DNS, install proxy software, buy a router/firewall...all these work without ISP meddling and have been available for some time.

Re:Why? (1)

hackertourist (2202674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525586)

In most of the country (>90% would be my guess, can't find hard numbers on short notice) you have at least two networks (cable and ADSL). ADSL is offered by multiple ISPs (the owner of the last mile wiring is required to allow other ISPs to offer connections). Quite a few ADSL providers are storefronts for a few companies, though.
This may be the case for cable as well, not sure about that. There are no geographic monopolies. Smaller, independent ISPs still exist.

Filtering can be (and is) done by third-parties. Several solutions are available. The one ISP that would be affected by this ruling is linked to a very conservative church. They used to use whitelist filtering (i.e. no site is available unless it's expressly approved). That's no longer viable, but they still have pretty strict filtering. They have a few thousand subscribers, iirc.

Re:Why? (1)

bibh_sl427 (514692) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525520)

The problem with this right-wing Christian party is that in principle it favors a Christian, Calvinist theocracy, and refer to Romans 13. This scary aspect is always downplayed, but it is there alright. If they try smuggle a loophole into general legislation which is pro net neutrality, one has to be extra vigilant. The Dutch Labor party was not.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525550)

Well, there are a few problems.
Firstly, it would be a loophole that could be abused for non-ideological purposes. Since the "ideologicality" of a filter is purely subjective, chances are that it would be used (although perhaps to a lesser scale) for the same purposes as "classic" net non-neutrality.
Secondly, to maintain a healthy democracy one does not wish for people to walk around with shutters in front of their eyes. It's hard enough getting people to read the things they need to know as it is.
Thirdly, a situation could occur where all or most affordable ISPs do some filtering of some sort and net-neutrality effectively doesn't exist any more. A situation like this already exists in the U.S. with respect to cable channels (but at least you can change the channel). I think it wouldn't be long before you cannot get a normal net connection for a reasonable price, but you have to choose between a Christian, Socialist or Conservative Internet.
Fourth, internet filtering keeps certain crimes out of the public eye. Organisations representing people who were abused in their childhood argue that internet filters make it too easy to pretend certain crimes don't exist, while doing little to harm proliferation of material among the criminals. Instead, we should go after the criminals, lock them up and take down their sites.

In all the hubbub the biggest news regarding the ideology amendment is forgotten. The PvdA (labour) party voted like they did by accident, but meanwhile the VVD (supposed liberals) willingly approved. It's a scandal, and we probably won't hear anything about that ever since everyone is laughing at the PvdA.
By the way, even though this is the biggest political news item in the Dutch press (for the moment, tomorrow it will be all about Greece again) the PvdA website seems to pretend that none of this ever happened.

The REAL shocking part (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525082)

The shocking part of this news is not hat Labour accidntally voted for, it's that the (supposedly) _libereral_ VVD voted for the motion on purpose, thus selling out it's principles to the (theocratic, anti-liberal) SGP, who's votes they need since the VVD runs a minority cabinet.

THAT is the shocking news. Not some cockup.

Re:The REAL shocking part (1)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525188)

is "THAT" an acronym as well ?

Re:The REAL shocking part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525740)

THeologists Against Truth. Surprised you did not know THAT, dear sir.

Re:The REAL shocking part (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525560)

The real shock is that the vvd (liberals) voted for network neutrality at all. Liberals are for freedom, but mainly this is freedom for the companies to do as they want, not freedom for consumers to use products as they like.

network neutrality limits the freedom of the isp and increases the freedom of consumers.

That the vvd voted for SGP (church party) is no suprise, since they knew that it would not get a majority. (excep for this accident). It would have gotten them brownie points without any action needed.

That is the way politics work in a multi party country. You have to give something to get other things. No winner takes it all like in a 2 party country.

Re:The REAL shocking part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525790)

Note that the Dutch word "liberaal" does not mean "liberal", but rather "proponent of classical liberalism", although in recent times it seems to have blurred into a more general notion of "right-wing".

fixing possible loopholes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525440)

In my opinion, all that needs to be added to the amendment to fix the loopholes is a clause that says that any customer must be able to toggle the filter at any time without any additional costs. This prevents ISPs from offering filtered subscriptions at a reduced price.

Article summary is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525526)

They did not 'pass an exception to a law'. They accidentally voted for an amendment to a /proposed law/, the law itself still has to be voted on. That vote is now postponed to give the PvdA a chance to rectify their mistake. This definitely has no impact on the actual law, it will just postpone the final vote a little bit.

For those people wondering how this can happen: they have to vote for/against a lot of amendments and other small things in pretty rapid succession. One single person usually registers the vote for the entire party, so that it is not necessary to do a real count for every single vote. Apparently, most people don't pay attention all the time, and so some mistakes happen. Search, and you'll find more examples of this.

Politicians... (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525544)

they can only be trusted with bribery and rape...

hurmuph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525592)

Typical of the labor party to screw up the only part of their political views i agree on.
The supposedly liberal large party VVD actually *wants* the filtering.

Politics never cease to amaze me in this country.

In the US Congress/Senate (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 3 years ago | (#36525624)

... riders get added at the last minute all the time, resulting in stuff getting passed that has nothing to do with the original bill. Don't know how the Dutch government works, but I could see this happening if it's similar. Nice tactic by the legislatures to try and sneak things in. Not saying this is what happened. Could just have been overlooked.

Idiotic mistake, but little consequences (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525684)

I just read the law in question (Dutch citizen here), and it is not half as ignorant as it is portrayed to be.
First of all, it gives the end user and NO ONE ELSE the possibility to have their own, and no one else's IP traffic filtered for stuff they do not want to see. Second of all, the end user has to take action (contact their ISP) to get this to happen, and to specify what they want filtered. Third of all, it excludes filtering which is aimed at leading to financial gain for ISP's: the "I'll filter out your local greengrocer because Walmart pays me to" kind of crap everyone is -rightly- afraid of.
A loophole to disable net neutrality? I don't see how. Being opt-in, it is less invasive than the law that requires nudie magazines to be stacked above the field of vision of minors at the newsstands.
In fact, you could say this is a law that helps the (fundamentalist Christian, 'cause they're who started this) technophobes/modernophobes to get their content filtered before it hits the browser, opt-in and by your personal specifications. Adblocking and parental filter, ISP-side.
Whether or not one should exclude part of the world's reality from one's possible field of vision is, of course, a different and academic discussion because everyone tries to ignore what they do not want to see. I, for one, am really glad I can use adblocking&co. But I'll make my own choices on what to block and what not, thankyouverymuch, and I don't trust any ISP to do that along the rules I set for them.

Of course, a political party voting for something they did not read is ridiculous. But Dutch politicians -especially the Social Democrats- have a history of doing just that, and in general try to twist the truth so that it seems they had no other choice. This time round, at least they admitted to their stupidity. But in the words of their political leader Job Cohen: "We are all amateurs". Also, the fundamentalist Christians have a habit of hiding horrible proposals in seemingly innocent wordings somewhere in little add-ons in laws concerning a totally different subject, in the hope no-one notices. Apparently, that works -even when the law in question deals with a similar subject.

I thought only US congress didn't read the bills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36525756)

It's nice to see it's not just the U.S. congress who vote on bills without actually knowing the content or what the outcome of a "for" or "against" vote actually does.

I've found the titles of bills have little or nothing to do with the actual content of the bill is, but it usually makes good political fodder when a congressman votes against the "Sweet, cute bunny rabbit bill" and pundits will point at him and say "HE HATES BUNNY RABBITS" even though the bill contained legislation for building a giant swimming pool in a senators back yard and moving a major portion of the Federal Government into another senator's state.

Oops, sorry guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36526738)

I think I accidentally the law.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?