backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 46 comment(s) - last by tmouse.. on Nov 10 at 8:37 AM
Final vote within three weeks

The battle for Internet User Rights in Europe has been ongoing for the last two years, as lawmakers across the pond have been working on a new package of telecommunications laws. The "Telecoms Reform Package" is supposed to amend a set of laws passed in 2002, and seeks to unify laws covering the European communications market.

Laws within the package cover a wide range of issues, such as strengthening consumer rights; giving consumers more choice by reinforcing competition between telecoms operators; promoting investment into new communication infrastructures; freeing radio spectrum used by analog broadcasts for wireless broadband services; and making communication networks more reliable and more secure.

It also proposes the establishment of a European Telecom Market Authority known as BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) in order to ensure that important communication services such as broadband internet access, data roaming, and mobile phone usage on planes and ships are regulated consistently across the 27 member states of the European Union.

The consumer rights section is particularly interesting, as it would give Europeans the right to switch telecoms operators within 1 day and the right to transparent and comparable price information.

However, it is the Internet User Rights portion that has garnered the most interest. It guarantees that national authorities will only be able to cut off internet services if they have sufficient proof that a user was downloading illegal copies of movies or music files. Internet users are presumed innocent, and police agencies will have to go through a judge before access is cut off.

Members of the European Parliament had been at odds with representatives from the European Council, which is comprised of the Heads of State of member nations. France in particular has been leading the charge for terminating Internet access for users who share media files.

The European Parliament tried to amend the Telecoms Package twice with the following phrase: "No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent".

Both sides had already reached an agreement in May that the internet is essential for the exercise of fundamental rights such as the right to education, freedom of expression and access to information. Restrictions on a user's Internet access may "only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate, and necessary within a democratic society".

The new agreement between the European Parliament and Council means that the third and final reading of the Telecoms Package is expected in the last week of November. Once passed, internet users may refer to these provisions in court proceedings when their internet access has been terminated inappropriately.


Comments     Threshold


Taking the good with the bad
By ElementZero on 11/5/2009 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
So, sounds like they are working to make their infrastructure less like crap *cough* U.S. *cough* and more like something reliable and competitive like Japan.

Works great unless you are in the UK then where they are looking to destroy the P2P. Basically "Hey! You got great internet! Too bad you won't have anything to use that bandwidth on anymore".

Of course, I could argue that with competitive internet comes cheaper prices comes more money to spend on things like games and movies anyways, in short less piracy...perhaps...




RE: Taking the good with the bad
By mdogs444 on 11/5/2009 3:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize there are plenty of things to use bandwidth on besides illegal file sharing?

Business purposes, video content, medical purposes like transmitting several hundred MB files to other hospital systems, etc.

You're obviously mad that you won't be able to download movies for free before they leave the theater, but I'm sure you'll be able to find something more constructive to do with your free time....like get a job!


RE: Taking the good with the bad
By B3an on 11/9/2009 3:28:52 AM , Rating: 2
P2P does not = illegal.


RE: Taking the good with the bad
By lightfoot on 11/5/2009 3:36:43 PM , Rating: 1
The US has a population density that is one tenth that of Japan. It is much harder to have the same level of infrastructure when you need to lay 10 times the cable on average to serve the same number of customers.

It's easy to have great infrastructure when you stack your people like cordwood.


By stromgald30 on 11/5/2009 4:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
What does that have to do with user rights? It just means the ISPs have to charge users more to recoup the costs of laying more cable. This article doesn't talk about costs, only competition and consumer rights.


By amanojaku on 11/5/2009 2:33:52 PM , Rating: 1
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING? All of your rights are defined by the government, which is why people favor certain governments over overs. You want the right to own a gun? You want the right to do drugs? You want the right to practice your religion? You want the right to earn as much money as you can? You want the right to chew gum? All of these and more are defined by government, and in a democracy the people have a hand in this definition.


By iFX on 11/5/2009 3:54:11 PM , Rating: 4
Instantly rated down by fools.

Here's a civics lesson for you geniuses.

All activity a human is capable of is their natural right. Government constrict those rights through laws. Sometimes governments pass laws which limit their ability to constrict certain rights - in the US we call that the Bill of Rights. However, these rights are not granted by governments.

So, knowing that, which I'm sure even after my explaining you and everyone who rated me down still don't know, whenever a government defines your rights it enables them to constrict them. Better, as the US Bill of Rights demonstrates is for a government to define what IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO CONSTRICT.

Now, back to your WoW, you ignorant fools.


By HotFoot on 11/5/2009 4:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe there's such a thing as a natural right. What we have are natural needs. Given the existence of Governments, we have over time come up with the concept of rights and each and every one of those rights citizens anywhere enjoy has been fought for. The 'natural' state of you do whatever you want to do without interference isn't a right. However close as you get to having the right to do that, that's because someone fought for you to have that activity written as a right.


By heffeque on 11/7/2009 3:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
No such thing as Natural Rights? Have you forgotten the Human Rights? Oh, I forgot that some people don't care about them.


By Totally on 11/8/2009 1:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
The right to do or posses something always has existed before the law defining it comes to pass. Those are natural rights, a curfew example, a new law is passed stating that individuals are allowed to be outside after 6pm. Does this law change anything? no because you always had that right.


By amanojaku on 11/5/2009 4:06:44 PM , Rating: 1
Here's a lesson for you: no one has the right to step on someone else's rights, unless that someone violated another's rights. In plain English, I believe in the right to own weapons, do drugs, have a house that has a crappy lawn, and copy your own CDs and DVDs.

On the other hand, if you use those weapons to harm another person without provocation then you go to prison. If your drug use results in the harm of another, like drunken driving, then you go to prison. If your crappy lawn is in violation of your neighborhood's "aesthetics" contract then you pay a reasonable fine (you signed a contract, after all.) If you pirate something for which you don't have a license then you pay a reasonable fine, ideally equivalent to the cost of the media ($20-$50, etc...) and the legal fees.

The government exists to protect all of our rights. The only way to do that is to define them. If you don't like the definition of those rights you should exercise your political rights. Vote, lobby, run for office, etc...


By TSS on 11/5/2009 5:00:51 PM , Rating: 3
Your natural right is the right to die and that's it. The natural right of all mortal things does not extend beyond that. Your the fool if you belive otherwise.

Human rights are set by humans, always. Nature doesn't care if you or me die or live, or anything in between. Governments do not set rights, Because the strenght of the government depends on the people supporting it.

Proof of this is, for instance, Chavéz (basically a dictator with the support of the people), the US (a very undemocratic 2 party system, but the people accept it)and the french revolution (a dictatorship where the people took power away from it's government).

Governments can limit rights, but only those which society is willing to accept compromising on. Drugs for instance, american society has weed and alcohol in it's culture (40% of americans have tried weed, us dutchies come in at 26%) however, weed is accepted as illigal. While alcohol will not be accepted as illigal (prohibition).

What this comes down to is this: The People define The People's rights, and The People define which rights can be taken away. The bill of rights is no exception.

I've heard people had to turn their guns in to the militairy after hurricane katrina. that's a clear violation of the 2nd amendement, the right to bear arms. Society accepts this violation as there hasn't been that big of a deal made out of it (a documentairy or 2 mentioning it).

So it comes down to the people of a nation and what they define as "right".


By VitalyTheUnknown on 11/5/2009 5:26:58 PM , Rating: 1
It seems like he actually knows WTF he is talking about and you sound like you don't have any decent arguments.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/5/2009 5:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
Really ? I have to come up with a decent argument as to why I think we have more than just the "right to die" ???


By aj28 on 11/5/2009 8:36:35 PM , Rating: 1
Way to pick three words out of his entire long-ass post and argue them entirely out of context.

That said, you really do need to make an argument. In being conceived, you were given life, but not the right to live it as you please. You live within the moral and ethical confines of the people and government which made your conception possible. Point being, whatever country you and to a lesser extent your parents were born in has some monetary stake in your existence. They've invested in you, if through no other means than by building the road your mother was driven to the hospital on the day she gave birth to you.

Because of that investment, the government has every right to tell you what you are and are not allowed to do. Until you've grown up to the point that you can prove your worth, get a job and move elsewhere, you're stuck with that unfortunate reality.

Personally I'm entirely comfortable with that. I trust my government. They've yet to wrong me thusfar, and I have no reason to believe that they'll do so in the coming years. I pay my taxes, I reap the benefits of government investments, and thus I survive. Unless you plan on moving to some uncharted wilderness and surviving out there on your own, I suggest you get used to it.


By Myg on 11/6/2009 8:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
So, if a black child was born in the USA after his parents were taken into salvery from Africa, he would owe the government his existence?


By Myg on 11/6/2009 8:45:08 AM , Rating: 2
slavery; even (darned internet dyslexia).


By TSS on 11/6/2009 10:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody owes their existance to anybody. You didn't ask to be born.

you cannot "owe" something you didn't ask for.


By William Gaatjes on 11/7/2009 7:31:36 AM , Rating: 2
You usually do not ask to die either, unless there is no cure for your suffering and you just want it to end because you are convinced that your life is non existent as it is.

I do not agree with your right to die. It is just something that happens . No rights, and no choice when not taking exceptional cases like euthanasia into account. Maybe one day we discover how to live forever. But i do hope humanity has becomes a lot more wise first.


By SiN on 11/7/2009 1:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
your birth certificate is the deeds to your ownership of the state you live in. American. Eastern. European. Whatever.


By TSS on 11/6/2009 10:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
you have not, as you used "natural right" but failed to define it, thus it isn't an arguement but a statement.

I agrue the definition of that statement is the right to die and nothing else, and provide the arguement that nature doesn't care what happens to both of us, thus we do not have "a right to live". However, as all mortal things die at some point, otherwise they wouldn't be mortal, it is their innate right to die.

you respond by saying i'm broken and bitter (and don't give an arguement). i'll respond by saying your a fool, and give your failure to give arguements....as an arguement.

if we accept my arguement, then your original statement becomes "all humans are capable of is dieing and government constricts that right" which is, of course, false, making the rest of your post, false. as you have failed to provide counter arguements, we have no other choice but to accept it.


By tmouse on 11/6/2009 8:49:05 AM , Rating: 3
That's a very narrow definition of natural. Natural rights are by definition rights that are not granted and cannot be taken away by any group. You confuse a right to life with a right to live as long as you wish, they are quite different. Once you are alive you have a right to life, you do not need permission to be alive (you may, to continue to live but again that is different). Most "rights" are in fact civil rights which are defined by laws, customs and beliefs. These are, in general, permitted by the people who are governed by them. Just because a right can be abridged does not mean it does not exist. Stoics held to a notion that freedom was a right and even under civil laws allowing slavery a person could be a slave in body but free in mind unless they gave up that right. Many governing bodies recognize inalienable rights (note I did not say grant) such as life and liberty. Killing someone does not remove their right to life, it merely violates it and as such many times subjects the violator to punishment. I'll admit the distinction is subtle but that is the nature of philosophy. Civil rights can and do change, natural rights are assumed to be either from a "higher power" or "nature" and are considered to be constant, although there extent can and often is abridged from time to time.


By TSS on 11/6/2009 11:10:51 AM , Rating: 2
The right to life isn't a natural right. Nature wouldn't have blinked me into existance if my parents didnt have sex. My parents did have the right to create life, however, this is a right set by humans.

My example for this would be a news post i read recently (can't remember which country it was from) where they where thinking about forcibly castrating repeated sex offenders. That's humans taking away the right to life of another human.

The right to live is up next. Nature does not give you the right to live. As nature does not care what happens to you. If your neighbour decides to put a bullit in your brain, nature isn't going to magically give you an depleted uranium forehead to protect your right to live. In this case it's your neighbour deciding you no longer have a right to live.

However, nature does care if you die. Every living thing dies. This is nature. even if you live a quiet solitairy life your heart will simply stop beating at some point. your body and mind will decay back to nature.

quote:
Many governing bodies recognize inalienable rights


their not inalienable rights if "many" and not "all" governing bodies recognise that right.

Killing somebody violates there human-given right to live. but not nature's right for you to live since that does not exist.

We aren't that important to nature :) As Q said to picard in the episode "Tapestry":

quote:
"Please! Spare me your egotistical musings on your pivotal role in history. Nothing you do here will cause the Federation to collapse or galaxies to explode. To be blunt, you're not that important."


By hr824 on 11/6/2009 11:56:55 AM , Rating: 1
Wow that's some logic.
You parents had sex because "nature" built the hornys into their brains if it hadn't none of us would be here. Nature has everything to do with your existance.

You die because "nature" decided after you procreate and raise you off spring to the point they can fend for themselves your of no use.

"Nature" has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of rights .

All rights are man made and allways have been. Claiming that there is some kind of Natural right is silly.


By William Gaatjes on 11/7/2009 7:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed.

Life just has to exist. A universe full of energy, that energy sparks and fuels life. No meaning behind it.
For now the universe is perfect for life.
Before there was to much energy.
Afterwards there will be not enough energy and the universe will fade away.

Philosophically speaking :
Unless you are religious afcourse, then the universe is created for a purpose. And many evolved higher lifeforms get the chance to learn the purpose of the universe. Not only on this planet, mind you.


By tmouse on 11/10/2009 8:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
Well it's certainly hard to argue with someone who can quote Star trek as a source of authority for a philosophical discussion.

The right to life I was mentioning is not the religious argument. It merely implies in the "natural state" as long as the basic needs are met life requires no permission to keep going and no one is needed to grant its creation (this is not to say the material is not necessary and can come from one or two individuals). The right is considered a default, not a thing that can be granted. Your parents provided the material they did not grant you life. If that was so, merely denying the permission would be enough to prevent pregnancy. Good luck trying that as a means of birth control. A "right" to life does not imply a right to eternal life, death is considered a natural consequence of life. It is interesting to note I cannot think of any formal declaration of a right to death. I assume most cultures considered life in the realm of the divine and beyond their ability to grant, however death is easy to grant.

Its interesting you anthropomorphize nature. I assume no conscious ability on nature. You state:
quote:
As nature does not care what happens to you

later you say:
quote:
However, nature does care if you die

Are you claiming some connection with an intelligence called nature that has informed you of this? I'm not granting nature any abilities to "care" one way or the other. My point has been without exception cultures have accepted there are default rights that are presumably beyond the human ability to grant (this of course may be changing as science progresses but that is fodder for another discussion). All cultures I can think of have some form of prohibition against killing at least within their own group, this is fundamentally a wise decision to maintain any social structure. Those that have written about their reason to codify this prohibition have unanimously acknowledged a right to life (or to keep living if you prefer) not granted by them but as a consequence of a default condition (be it the fact one is alive or that life is granted by the divine). All have limited this right with various justifications (whether anyone agrees with the reasons or not), killing does seem to be in our nature.

As for the word inalienable, I would suggest you look up the word. In legal and philosophical circles pertaining to rights it refers to the inability to be transferred. You cannot nor can a government transfer life (and no removing someone's heart and putting it in another would not be considered a transfer of life, creating a Frankenstein monster might but I have not heard of a success in that). You're in the vast minority with your feeling that there are no inalienable rights because nothing is universally believed. That is akin to thinking there can be no natural laws if anyone fails to acknowledge them.


By HrilL on 11/6/2009 1:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing a few things. I have the right to live, breath, drink. Water is required to be free at any restaurant in California. I have the right to a trial be it fair or not. I still have the right to it. I have the right to freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights is a list of rights I have that the government can't take from me unless I do something unlawful. Those are considered Natural rights. I have the right to date whom ever I chose if they agree as well. We have many more rights in our country than to just die.

And you don't actually have the right to die. It is illegal to kill yourself and for someone else to kill you. You have the right to die of natural causes though but for most of us young people that won't come for a long while.


By nafhan on 11/5/2009 5:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm curious about who you think should be defining rights. Your version of "rights" tends to not work very well in groups larger than one, which is why law, government, and society exist. Without laws and customs guiding human interaction, we'd be fighting each other with clubs and dragging a mate back to our shack or cave. With luck, you may be able to find a place in the world where no one will impinge on your rights. I recommend the Amazon rain forest or maybe Siberia.


By FastEddieLB on 11/6/2009 2:48:39 AM , Rating: 2
So, by that logic, if I'm capable of murder, I have the natural right to commit it?


By iFX on 11/6/2009 3:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
I can't tell if you're feigning stupidity or are actually that stupid. Think about it long and hard and then throw your computer away.


By Screwballl on 11/5/2009 4:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and in a democracy the people have a hand in this definition.


Yes in a true democracy... but I do not know of any governments that are a democracy anymore. It sounds good when said in speeches but in reality, the US and many other countries are run by a minority elected Oligarchy, not a Republic or Democracy.

quote:
...actual differences between viable political rivals are small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an 'acceptable' and 'respectable' political position, and politicians' careers depend heavily on unelected economic and media elites.


By aj28 on 11/5/2009 8:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
The people have a hand in any democracy. Having a hand has nothing to do with having complete control. If everyone had a say in every decision, we'd be at a loss as a society. Nothing would get done, one way or another, and decisions made would not be contiguous and would thus end in failure no matter how good their intentions.

Know that there are people out there that oppose your views, and no matter how sound your argument, their vote is worth just as much as yours. A true democracy is far from perfect.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/5/2009 4:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING? All of your rights are defined by the government


Sigh.. this attitude is far too wide spread these days.

I'll leave religion out of it, by this statement is wrong. Our founders believed we have certain "inalienable" human rights granted to us by a higher source, and it was not the government's job to grant us rights and tell us how to live. Rather, their job to provide basic services, defense, and infrastructure and a justice system.

Basically, they believed getting out of the peoples way as much as possible and letting us live our lives.

All of our rights are NOT defined by the government. The government is there to enforce and defend our rights. Or, at least, that's what the plan was.


By kattanna on 11/5/2009 5:06:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Or, at least, that's what the plan was


and then they learned they could bribe us using our own tax money


By Reclaimer77 on 11/5/2009 5:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. Jefferson had a great quote about that. I can't remember it word for word, but it basically said " once you have the government making promises with the peoples own money, and a treasury backing it, there is no longer a functioning democracy."

It's really uncanny how 200+ years from then, so much of what the Founders said and predicted is coming true.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 11/5/2009 6:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
Thomas Jefferson was a great man, I especially admire this quote:
Regarding "Miscegenation"

The amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent." - (1814 - Thomas Jefferson)

/sarcasm

The Man who thought for human rights and had not freed his own slaves.

I know it was complicated, but fact is fact, like it or not,
just do not idolize him.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 11/5/2009 7:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
*fought


By Myg on 11/6/2009 8:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
Who knows? Maybe he was right in a manner (if it can be described as that), maybe you should of sent all of them back to Africa with the infinte apologies of the USA and all the resources that they deserve for all their hard, long generations of work. Instead of giving them "rights" and then treating them like dirt in your own terms for generations after?

Maybe then, the world would of been a bit more at peace?

Who knows, who can honestly say?

There is subtle truth in everything, even if it be covered in the most indescribable filth.


By aj28 on 11/5/2009 8:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. We have certain inalienable rights, but not all rights are inalienable. You seem to be stretching that statement further than most of your colleagues stretch the second amendment.


By Boze on 11/5/2009 4:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOKC5MhkAp0

quote:
Folks, I hate to spoil yah fun, but there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up... like the boogeyman.
- George Carlin


By Myg on 11/6/2009 8:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
That guy is terrible; I subscribed to such thoughts when I was a teenager and when I remenis back I generally look like this:

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/1582/original/picar...


By chruschef on 11/5/2009 6:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
in support of what IFX said, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights have nothing to do with the rights of the people. The Constitution defines the rights of government, in a Democratic Republic the people define the government. The preamble to the Constitution clearly states that any rights not deliberated to the federal govt. by the Constitution are given to the people, and the states. if only people would hold our politicians accountable to these standards.


By aj28 on 11/5/2009 8:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
Let me get this straight...

quote:
the US Constitution and Bill of Rights have nothing to do with the rights of the people


...and yet...

quote:
the Constitution clearly states that any rights not deliberated to the federal govt. by the Constitution are given to the people


You seem to be very, very confused. So the rights either belong to the people or to the government, huh? I think you're confusing the right to rule with the right to specific actions and behaviors. For example, if the constitution doesn't grant the government the right to smoke weed (which makes no sense, btw), then that right belongs to the people, right? Wrong. Which is why your statement makes absolutely no sense.

Go read the constitution before you blather on about it. Better yet, ask the president... I think you'd be surprised how much he knows, agree with him or not.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/5/2009 9:43:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Go read the constitution before you blather on about it. Better yet, ask the president... I think you'd be surprised how much he knows


This President !???

AHAHAHAHAHHAHA oh god, that is so funny.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki