EU proposing yet another set of anti-freedom laws

Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/EU proposing yet another set of anti-freedom laws

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/meps-want-torpedo-free-internet-july-7th

It seems that every new law in relation to human rights, privacy and freedom is taking us in the wrong direction. And these laws get proposed so often, and they get almost every time through. Only with a massive campaign the people can rarely prevent them.

Do you have the same story on a non-propaganda site? My eyes glazed over before I even finished the first sentence because I could already tell they were building up to telling me where to sign, who to complain to and where to mail the anthrax to. I would actually like to read the story, and I might very well have the same attitude as whoever wrote the stuff on that site, but I can't stand reading preachy writing.

Don't worry about it. Somewhat ironically we're protected from the incompetence of politicians, by the incompetence of politicians. Even if it were technically possible to monitor all traffic on the Internet, the absurd amount of storage, processing power and man hours needed to process and cross reference that amount of information makes it logistically impossible.

Even if it were practically possible, it would very soon be obsolete. The open architecture of the Internet is the only reason for it's success. Any locked down, government or privately monitored service would soon share the fate of CompuServe, Prodigy and similar propriety services. If China can't kill the Internet, what chance is the EU going to have? They can't even agree on a common currency!

They can't even agree on a common currency!


they should slide it in via the back door over here in in-ger-aaaand
no matter what the euro is against other currencies it should always be 1 euro to £1 (you might get $3 to a euro and $2 to £1 but thats irelevant)
if something costs 10 euros you know its going to be £10 without having to faff with exchange rates or anything daft, the only difference is you have to pay a bit extra to get it changed, but if your hole in the wall or credit card work abroad you arnt going to be stung by a last minute change in rates

then when were all used to the idea they can start subtly chaning the notes

I agree wih flameduck on this.

Thanks for the info, Nawi. Indeed another worrying precedent.

I can't stand reading preachy writing
So anyone who proposes some kind of action to protect their rights is preachy? Anthrax? They're terrorists, too? (Okay, I know the anthrax thing was a bit was tongue in cheek)

About a quarter of the article was a direct quote from 'Squaring the net' which is a fairly balanced ratio, IMO. If you want to read the original documents, I'm sure you will be able to find them, but with 800 amendments on 5 directives and the use of subtle rhetoric and cross-referencing, I fear your eyes may glaze over before you finish the first sentence.

So anyone who proposes some kind of action to protect their rights is preachy?

Compared to a news report, yes, of course. If someone has an agenda, they're coverage isn't going to be unbiased. When I have an agenda, my comments certainly aren't unbiased. Biased coverage is fine for what it is, but when something interests me, I'd prefer to read a neutral account first so that I can figure out my own agenda. From subsequent replies, it doesn't look as though this is new though.

when something interests me, I'd prefer to read a neutral account first so that I can figure out my own agenda
A fair point. Unfortunately, very little 'news' out there is unbiased these days, even in the mainstream media.

Was there ever a time when mainstream media was unbiased? For example, more than 80% of German newspaper publishing houses belonged to one single person: Axel Springer. That's not really a solid foundation for unbiased news reports. And the big German political parties hold large shares on TV stations through investment companies - how much space for aggressive press coverage does that leave? It won't be much different in other countries.

And as we all know, it also does not matter who is the elected leader of a country: The money of a few billionaires fuels the 'lobby engine' and makes sure that only the laws in their favor are passed.

Democracy is only an illusion, created to keep us quiet.

But... "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their People."

In Sweden they've just pushed through a new law that gives the state the right to listen in on any electronic communication between Sweden and the outside world, including phones, mobiles, mail, web page accessing, chat and more. The law is called the FAR law or something like it. Just like this one they pushed it through late, and it doesn't seem the politicians really understand how it would work. Considering the age of most politicians, they did not grow up with computers and many of them are computer illiterate.

On the bright side there has been lots of protests in Sweden about the new law and people and the media are not at all happy with it.

They say these laws are to protect people against terrorism, when the last act of terrorism in Sweden took place 30 years ago when a plane was hijacked (and none got hurt). You actually have to go back to 1908 to find a terrorist act in Sweden where someone actually got hurt. How about spending the money on something that might actually save lives, like cancer research and hospitals.

That said, these laws are not likely to stop terrorists at all, as they are very likely to use strong encryption as well as other methods to hide all their communication.

The law is called the FAR law or something like it.


FRA, also known as Lex Orwell.

A fair point. Unfortunately, very little 'news' out there is unbiased these days, even in the mainstream media.


Yeah, it's almost better to read an overtly biased account, so you don't forget that it's biased.

Anthrax? They're terrorists, too?
No. They're a heavy metal band from the 80's.

For example, more than 80% of German newspaper publishing houses belonged to one single person: Axel Springer. That's not really a solid foundation for unbiased news reports.
Considering that almost everything else is owned by Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner, I'm thinking that's actually pretty good.

Ah.. the sound of euro's blabbering on about their conspiracy theories.

None here in the USA (eeek!)

Talking of conspiracy check this out;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7487060.stm
George W Bush, who let Microsoft off the hook for the second US conviction, was invited to Microsoft headquarters to solicit funds for the 2000 election. In the UK, Microsoft established a major office in Gordon Brown's constituency.
I hadn't heard this one yet.
Is this true?!? :/

More sources:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9611/ISPs+to+Ban+P2P+with+New+European+Telecom+Package%3F
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.13/telecom-package-internet
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/03/0310203
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/07/02/write-to-your-mep-say-no-to-3-strikes-through-the-backdoor/

Is this true?!? :/
Well no. While it is true that Microsoft contributed to George Bush's presidential campaign, it was technically his appointed Attorney General, John Ashcroft who let Microsoft off the hook.

Being the devils advocate, I think the illegal copying has gone off the scale and if the RIAA & MPAA ( and their EU equivalents ) would be a more effective prosecuting pirates we would not need this sort of stupid legislature which harms us all.

You reap what you sow.

Personally I buy my software as its what i believe to be right thing to do, but i wouldnt give a friend a huge peice of mind if i found his PC full of warez either. Illegal copying has always been there since the dawn of copyright. People will use software/media and pay for it if they are honest people. Bringing more control in will just mean misery for everyone, slower connections and the pirates will just find another way like they always have.
(It kind of reminds me of one time at school the teacher kept the whole class from lunch until someone owned up to putting gum on her chair. Everyone suffered until someone pointed a finger, but the next kid who did it was simply more careful than his predecessor.)

People that use copies probably wouldnt use the product anyway if they had to pay, so not only does the company loose the sale, but also possible word of mouth endorsement as well. Its quite possible in the case of software like 3D studio, piracy has actually HELPED that software become industry standard. People who use it seriously and in the way it was designed (eg the movie/anim/game industries) would definetely have to purchase it. One reason that its attractive to them is the fact that theres an already trained workforce of talent out there who have used it since they passed around the "Mr Blobby" disks in the schoolyard.

Yes it is a nightmare for developers and its illegal etc, but i think a lot of it is propaganda on both sides, it cant all be bad or good. I think this depends on the product, its intended market and the kind of userbase it attracts as to exactly how much piracy hurts the industry.

As for me i will try it, and buy it if i use it, delete it if i dont.

it was technically his appointed Attorney General, John Ashcroft who let Microsoft off the hook.
The cogs of justice :$

lol, ironically, in relation to the top post, Spain is giving human rights to apes now...

I predict they are giving apes some rights that humans happen to have. For example, animals should have the right not to feel constant pain, and humans have this right too.

Personally I buy my software as its what i believe to be right thing to do,
Personally I'm going to start stealing mine, so I won't have to put up with the ridiculously draconian copy protection EA and their ilk force upon me, ironically to prevent me from stealing their software. I can only install Mass Effect 3 times? WTF? Does it come with a free hard drive? Morons!

For example, animals should have the right not to feel constant pain
Why?

Why?

That is besides the point.

Why? Erm, because it's cruel? Because it's usually humans who are causing animal constant pain? Why? Eh?

That is besides the point.
Not really. You shouldn't just give animals rights because humans have them. What's next? Protecting plants from cruel and unusual punishment? Ensuring that minerals get a fair trial? Rights don't come for free, they come with a responsibility, and animals (and politicians, but I digress) are not capable of understanding these responsibilities.

Erm, because it's cruel?
Surely that's subjective? Would you trade a little discomfort for security, if it meant you wouldn't have to fight for your life every second?

Because it's usually humans who are causing animal constant pain?
Really? Nature isn't exactly Disneyland you know. Humans usually protect animals from their natural predators. How long do you think a poodle would survive if it had to fend for itself?

>>How long do you think a poodle would survive if it had to fend for itself? <<

Poodle never existed naturally on the first place as well as many other dog races...killing is not something humans are excluded from, neither animals..major difference is only that humans are capable to kill for pleasure or fun...anumald doesnt doing such morbid things..kill to feed..no entertainment in that..its BIG difference..

How do you know that if an animal did not *need* to kill to feed, that it would not kill for fun?

whatever happened to good old fashioned common sense ...

I am shocked that nobody has commented on the law that passed in Texas back in 2007:

Story:

http://cw33.trb.com/news/kdaf-062608-computerspelpina,0,486476.story

Actual law:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB02833F.htm

Additional stories:

http://www.ij.org/first_amendment/tx_computer_repair/6_26_08pr.html

http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2008/06/27/TopStories/Computer.Repair.Technicians.May.Be.Acting.Illegally-3386027.shtml

Not really. You shouldn't just give animals rights because humans have them. What's next? Protecting plants from cruel and unusual punishment? Ensuring that minerals get a fair trial? Rights don't come for free, they come with a responsibility, and animals (and politicians, but I digress) are not capable of understanding these responsibilities.

Good job of not understanding what I wrote. I wasn't trying to justify animal rights, I was trying to clarify another post by making an example. I may not even believe in animal rights. Gosh.

the middle link of duffers was just too mumbo jumboed to read (and they had alot that was struck through)

but not being able to fix a pc in texas without being a PI?
so that means the only people available for three years whilst all IT technicians take PI exams are normal PI's

how many PI's can fix pc's?

i know magnum cant (he killed his bosses mainfraim keymashing in frustration with a video game that looked like dragons lairs dirk)

NO politics please.