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

European Commission proposes a reform to the way the Internet is managed and run

europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: European Commission proposes a reform to the way the Internet is managed and run

#71

Post by polymatter »

davidnu2 wrote: post #40
SEMW wrote: post #28

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…

* They aren't like Asmiov laws. The order doesn't matter. In either the Articles or the order of the Constitution. They are numbered more for convenience than anything else.

* There are similar restrictions on the US 1st Amendment. Crying "fire" in a theater is the common example. I note that the 1st Amendment didn't protect Manning for very similar reasons. The EU law is just being more explicit.

Re: European Commission proposes a reform to the way the Internet is managed and run

#72

Post by andyjohnson0 »

davidnu2 wrote: post #50
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Government control of the internet, by any government, will inevitably lead to censorship." You may be right about that specific point. So what's the alternative? Corporate control? UN? If the net is governed by some form of institution, then that institution will need widespread legitimacy. I'm not saying that the current controllers have that, but a transfer of governance won't happen without it.

The UN in even worse, Russia, China, and Brazil are lobbying to get control over the Internet via ITU. Current multi-stakeholder model has functioned diligently since the beginning, all these attempts to control the Internet by governments are politically motivated and with the aim of protecting legacy businesses and business models.

I agree with you on the UN in this instance. But if the current system of governance is so great, how did the net come to be so massively infiltrated by NSA/GCHQ?

The problem is that the internet has come to be seen as a political problem by an increasing number of governments, and the current institutions that provide governance (ICANN, ISOC, IANA, IETF, etc) have no political power with which to push back.

Re: European Commission proposes a reform to the way the Internet is managed and run

#73

Post by riffraff »

davidnu2 wrote: post #40
SEMW wrote: post #28

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…

you are aware that "amendment" means "correction"?

That means it's the first bugfix of the constitution. There are 7 articles and a preamble before that, each of which has many sections.

Re: European Commission proposes a reform to the way the Internet is managed and run

#74

Post by stefan_kendall »

douglasfshearer wrote: post #57
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but your wording is wrong. They provide default filtering, that you can optionally disable.

Still the wrong wording. ISPs can optionally provide filtering to their users, which is on by default and opt-out. Only the large ISPs have implemented the filtering, and only for new customers. Existing customers have no filtering.

Government rarely directly commands action. It's usually "pressure" in the form of mafia protection money.

"Maybe you implement this filter, maybe we don't break your fuckin' kneecaps."

Re: European Commission proposes a reform to the way the Internet is managed and run

#75

Post by fidotron »

psykovsky wrote: post #65
fidotron wrote: post #51

These noises are inevitable and will grow. 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 th…

You realize you kind of described Namecoin? The future is now?

Yeah, I think namecoin is likely to be closer to the future, however, I still think the whole system would be more robust if it acknowledged that, for example, China and the US could run conflicting DNS systems and that this is perfectly OK, largely because this way we'd be forced to accept the reality of the situation instead of living in the silly illusion we have today.

The whole PKI setup needs to be rebooted as well, and I really can't believe anyone that understands how that works considers it to be a good idea.

Re: European Commission proposes a reform to the way the Internet is managed and run

#76

Post by toyg »

naich wrote: post #15
forgotAgain wrote: post #9

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.

There is also Cleanfeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...

So yes, the government (through a semi-governmental charity) does decide what we cannot watch, even when you disable ISP filters.

Re: European Commission proposes a reform to the way the Internet is managed and run

#77

Post by valtih1978 »

louhike wrote: post #11
forgotAgain wrote: post #9

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…

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?

Learn what "manufacturing consent" and mind control is, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44. The fact that people speak about funny stories about their president as a proof freedom of speech just proves that they have no idea what does it mean.

Re: European Commission proposes a reform to the way the Internet is managed and run

#78

Post by davidnu3 »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #72
davidnu2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UN in even worse, Russia, China, and Brazil are lobbying to get control over the Internet via ITU. Current multi-stakeholder model has functioned diligently since the beginning, all these attempts to control the Internet by governments are politically motivated and with the aim of protecting legacy businesses and business models.

I agree with you on the UN in this instance. But if the current system of governance is so great, how did the net come to be so massively infiltrated by NSA/GCHQ? The problem is that the internet has come to be seen as a political problem by an increasing number of governments, and the current institutions that provide governance (ICANN, ISOC, IANA, IETF, etc) have no political power with which to push back.

NSA/GCHQ 'infiltrations' had little to do with TLDs and IP block allocations.

Spy agencies did what they did with the help of over-broad court orders and legal justifications, non of the institutions you've listed had anything to do with it, either technically nor administratively (prove me wrong!).

These are just red-herring arguments by parties who want to take advantage of this moral panic and claim the they should control more of the Internet so as to protect it, it's opportunism and grandstanding, it has nothing to do with NSA.

Re: European Commission proposes a reform to the way the Internet is managed and run

#79

Post by mercurial »

davidnu2 wrote: post #70
mercurial wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? 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 Poin…

Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US. "Hate laws" are censorship. "Hateful" speech is equally protected under the US constitution, and any political movements it might inspire will not be infringed upon by the government. The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversarie…

> Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US.

Exactly right about what? The original claim is that the French government is trying to muzzle criticism. You then bring up the case of a humorist condemned for his antisemitic views as a supporting example. This doesn't make any sense, unless you're going for some weird conspiracy theory - in which case, I'll believe any conspiracy theory as long as comes with convincing evidence, of which there doesn't seem to be any.

> The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor.

> The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.

I'm on the fence about it. Besides, even in the US there are limits on freedom of speech.

Re: European Commission proposes a reform to the way the Internet is managed and run

#80

Post by bausson »

valarauca1 wrote: post #20
louhike wrote: post #11

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?

The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations. Law for Trust in the Digital Economy (LCEN) Article 18 grants the French Government the ability to remove any content that may destabilize the public, hurt nation defense, or physically harm persons. That being said currently France is ranked #6 out of all nations in terms of Internet Freedom, due to intern…

>> The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations.

Well, in almost every country, police force recruit among the least brilliant. Hatred of differences is what stupid people do. Violence is what stupid people do when given power to do so (intelligent people handed power preferring control over violence). So no big surprise here when it come to police.

The government point is more worrying, but I don't remember any incident of that kind under current government.

Post reply on HN