Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dutch parliament rejects ACTA, prohibits government to sign or ratify.

bof.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: Dutch parliament rejects ACTA, prohibits government to sign or ratify.

#21

Post by joelhaasnoot »

jkn wrote: post #15
maurits wrote: post #10

Two critical notes to the general "holland is fantastic" fuzzy feelings. The Netherlands are European leaders when it comes to wiretapping communications. Its laws gives the intelligence communities extensive powers to tap, filter and store. This was already the case well before 9/11. Secondly, privacy is usually not a political or social issue of any real significance.

The Netherlands recently passed a law on Net neutrality stating that a warrant is required for internet wiretapping: https://www.bof.nl/2012/05/08/netherlands-first-country-in-e... I don't see anything wrong with wiretapping with a warrant. Do people who argue against them also argue against home search warrants?

Little bit ironic BTW, seeing as The Netherlands has one of the highest phone wiretapping rates in the world.

Re: Dutch parliament rejects ACTA, prohibits government to sign or ratify.

#22

Post by gpvos »

nodata wrote: post #8
aerique wrote: post #2

Especially resolution 3 is pertinent: "3. Resolution of Member Verhoeven (21 501-30, No. 288), 29 May 2012 (original Dutch text in PDF) The House of Representatives, - observes that treaties like ACTA lead to a further formalization of copyrights rules on the international level, - observes that such treaties are very difficult to modify and as a result can be an extra impediment for future reforms of copyright law,…

How strong are these "observes" and "requests"? Why not "requires"?

These are motions, which are not binding, and the government can ignore them if it wishes, although it may then have a political problem and parliament might send it home with a "motion of distrust", which the government cannot ignore. However, these motions were very broadly supported: only CDA voted against motion 286; motion 287 was accepted by general acclaim; only VVD voted against motion 288. (CDA and VVD are the two parties currently forming a minority caretaker government.)

Re: Dutch parliament rejects ACTA, prohibits government to sign or ratify.

#23

Post by icoder »

joelhaasnoot wrote: post #21
jkn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Netherlands recently passed a law on Net neutrality stating that a warrant is required for internet wiretapping: https://www.bof.nl/2012/05/08/netherlands-first-country-in-e... I don't see anything wrong with wiretapping with a warrant. Do people who argue against them also argue against home search warrants?

Little bit ironic BTW, seeing as The Netherlands has one of the highest phone wiretapping rates in the world.

True, however the phone wiretapping rates are subject of debate as well.

Phone wiretapping is simply one way a country can decide on by which criminal activities should be traced. Other countries do so in different ways, and comparing them, especially in different jurisdictions is not straightforward.

For civilians that do not exercise criminal activities, wiretapping will be less of an influence on their lives as ACTA or non-net-neutrality would be. On average.

Re: Dutch parliament rejects ACTA, prohibits government to sign or ratify.

#24

Post by ktizo »

jwr wrote: post #9

Thank you, Netherlands! (from the Polish, whose Prime Minister initially thought signing ACTA was a good idea "because everyone else did")

Which is a marginally better excuse than the standard 4 year old's "someone else did it and ran away", but only just.

Re: Dutch parliament rejects ACTA, prohibits government to sign or ratify.

#25

Post by lifeisstillgood »

joelhaasnoot wrote: post #21
jkn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Netherlands recently passed a law on Net neutrality stating that a warrant is required for internet wiretapping: https://www.bof.nl/2012/05/08/netherlands-first-country-in-e... I don't see anything wrong with wiretapping with a warrant. Do people who argue against them also argue against home search warrants?

Little bit ironic BTW, seeing as The Netherlands has one of the highest phone wiretapping rates in the world.

The difficulty here is that NL has a strong oversight on wiretapping - so whereas in the UK, a single wiretap warrant can get other phone numbers on as riders (usually one cop doing a favour for another cop), which makes the UK numbers look smaller, the NL is more open and so has larger looking wiretaps.

Re: Dutch parliament rejects ACTA, prohibits government to sign or ratify.

#26

Post by gglanzani »

icoder wrote: post #19
gglanzani wrote: post #17

And on the other and now the majority of ISP are blocking access to the PirateBay. As much as I like the Netherlands (living here from 2006, I'm Italian), these inconsistencies in their systems are really annoying[^1]. Net neutrality, ACTA rejection on one side, blocking web sites on the other. [^1]: I won't mention the other kind of inconsistencies, but if you really curious about some health care system madness, I…

Really? The ISP-PirateBay blockade was ordered by a judge based on existing legislation. The field of net neutrality, privacy, copyright/piracy is changing and complex: I don't think it is reasonable to expect full consistency now. Tell me which country is consistent, and is so democratically? At least the Dutch have set a course, and in my opinion it is a good one. [I read your blog entry, sorry to hear about your k…

Not saying that other countries are better, just saying that there are still a lot of inconsistencies.

[As for the doctors: for what regards the money, this is what I've heard. Of course there will be nothing official but: I know 2 (!) persons who died of uncured cancer, because Dutch doctors just told them to take pain killers (not kidding). Then I know other 2 (we were close) that had to go to their home countries to get the cancer cured, because here the doctors told them to wait a couple of weeks. Once home their doctors hospitalized them immediately, saying that further delays would have killed them. A PhD student from Russia, also here in the Netherlands, emailed me after reading my blog post, because the same happened to his knee and the doctor didn't want to treat him. My mother-in-law had kidney stones, and what did the doctor say? Drink some warm milk. She had to fight 3 days to be sent to the hospital. I'm here since 2006, but I already met so many people who where shocked by the incompetence of Dutch doctors, that I could write for hours. The entry in my blog reflects some facts happened directly to me or my family.]

Re: Dutch parliament rejects ACTA, prohibits government to sign or ratify.

#27

Post by wwwhizz »

gpvos wrote: post #22
nodata wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How strong are these "observes" and "requests"? Why not "requires"?

These are motions, which are not binding, and the government can ignore them if it wishes, although it may then have a political problem and parliament might send it home with a "motion of distrust", which the government cannot ignore. However, these motions were very broadly supported: only CDA voted against motion 286; motion 287 was accepted by general acclaim; only VVD voted against motion 288. (CDA and VVD are t…

Strictly speaking, there is no law dictating the government has to leave when receiving a "motion of distrust", although it never happened they did not.

Re: Dutch parliament rejects ACTA, prohibits government to sign or ratify.

#29

Post by adavies42 »

wwwhizz wrote: post #27
gpvos wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are motions, which are not binding, and the government can ignore them if it wishes, although it may then have a political problem and parliament might send it home with a "motion of distrust", which the government cannot ignore. However, these motions were very broadly supported: only CDA voted against motion 286; motion 287 was accepted by general acclaim; only VVD voted against motion 288. (CDA and VVD are t…

Strictly speaking, there is no law dictating the government has to leave when receiving a "motion of distrust", although it never happened they did not.

is that in theory where the queen steps in?

Re: Dutch parliament rejects ACTA, prohibits government to sign or ratify.

#30

Post by gaius »

maurits wrote: post #10

Two critical notes to the general "holland is fantastic" fuzzy feelings. The Netherlands are European leaders when it comes to wiretapping communications. Its laws gives the intelligence communities extensive powers to tap, filter and store. This was already the case well before 9/11. Secondly, privacy is usually not a political or social issue of any real significance.

The Dutch are historically Calvinists. That's why there are so few shutters on windows in Amsterdam, of if there are they have been added to buildings later. The cultural belief of "having nothing to hide" runs deep.
Post reply on HN