51–60 of 119 posts
The root problem is the load of nonsense that was peddled about the net being resilient to nuclear war etc. When really it's too centralized. The killer transition that needs to occur is to move DNS from being authoritative to being a matter of opinion. (Rather like having multiple got repos instead of a central SVN server). This would solve a lot of problems, but prevent the US from projecting a lot of soft power around.
Like the governance in England where the government decides what you should be watching? Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Or perhaps they'll adopt the Turkish attitude of jail time for those who speak the truth (if Turkey gets into the EU). How are they better than the American model of Uncle Sam lurking in the background of everyone's liv…
To be fair, the GCHQ mass surveillance in the UK arguably contravenes the European Commission charter on human rights, it's just that the UK gov/GCHQ aren't being held accountable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
The EU commission mandates that any ISP and/or Telco stores for 6-24 months the full list of everyone you've contacted, on phone, on the internet.
They are proposing, right fucking now, that that information is mandated to include all searches done one the internet (that such is technically not possible - currently - does not bother lawyers, and I think you'll find all EU commissars are lawyers. They'll just force search engines to give them their ssl root keys).
Note that they also had a court case against Ireland when it refused to order it's ISPs to spy on everyone, and won. In other words they forced internet surveillance on the one country that wasn't already doing this.
Likewise this proposal would enable them to force this on non-member states and you can bet that's exactly what they're looking to do.
Like the governance in England where the government decides what you should be watching? Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Or perhaps they'll adopt the Turkish attitude of jail time for those who speak the truth (if Turkey gets into the EU). How are they better than the American model of Uncle Sam lurking in the background of everyone's liv…
Slightly tinfoil hat rant there. The UK government does not decide what you watch, what they have done is pressure ISPs to provide optional filtering (set up by the ISP), with the default set to on. I don't like this and argue against it. It doesn't help my case when bullshit like this gets thrown about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don't have a free speech clause in your constitutions that is above all else (neither does the UK) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Conv...
First it's not "above all else" seeing that it's "Article 10". Second, the second clause basically negates the first one in its entirety: 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial…
As a Brit, my knowledge of US law is limited, but that seems pretty clearly false. The exceptions and limitations are set out in case law rather than in the text of the amendment (as they are in A.10), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_excep... lists the main ones (Miller v. California, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, etc.). The areas covered seem at a glance to be broadly similar to those in A.10(2).
I think it's probably true that exceptions to the US 1st amendment are narrower than those to A.10 -- the US does indeed have fairly strong free speech protection -- but that's a long way from saying there aren't any!
(I don't think I'd want free speech to be an unqualified right, either. Many of the limitations in the US and EU seem broadly sensible - obvious example: there are good consequentialist reasons for restricting the distribution of child pornography).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slightly tinfoil hat rant there. The UK government does not decide what you watch, what they have done is pressure ISPs to provide optional filtering (set up by the ISP), with the default set to on. I don't like this and argue against it. It doesn't help my case when bullshit like this gets thrown about.
I agree, but your wording is wrong. They provide default filtering, that you can optionally disable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want governments to decide market winners and losers?! the fact that US companies are successful in Europe and Europeans are less so is partly due to the fact that they don't suffer from the backwards economic views you're currently displaying.
And partly because US companies often get secret assistance from their government. The EU is better at creating a level playing field for open competition than the US.
Your economic woes are all your fault, own up to them and start changing things, ignorantly blaming others won't get you anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a french, I'm quite surprised about what you are saying for France. We have a lot of satirical newspapers, TV shows, etc. Where have you seen that?
What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? his material maybe reprehensible but in the US he'd have first amendment protection. Your country also has draconian and stringent liable laws, and I don't want it to have anything to do with Internet governance.
Well, what about him? France is not the US, you have hate laws here. Nobody is trying to ban him because he is criticizing the government.
That's not parent is saying anyway: Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Last time I checked, the Figaro and le Point (conservative newspapers) were alive and well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a french, I'm quite surprised about what you are saying for France. We have a lot of satirical newspapers, TV shows, etc. Where have you seen that?
You can read (in french: http://hollande-demission.fr/ ) how the government BURNT protesters' banner... and other similar illegal actions, like taking "stealing" their car with no legal ground (they pretend "Hollande démission" is an ad) This group calls for the dismissal (démission) of president Hollande.