[pp.int.general] Telecoms package, ACTA and other monsters

[Félix Robles]

Would have been illegal to add that they would need a court ourder
(authorization of a judge) to cut off internet?

If the answer is no, why didn't they add that?

And if the answer is yes, why didn't they change the law so it's illegal to
cut off internet whatsoever?

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Nicolas Sahlqvist <nicco77 at gmail.com>wrote:

> The main problem with the telecom package was that it was too specific so
> could not be approved so I guess the official explanation is true, but only
> time will tell.
>
> You can read more about it on Christian's blog in English, in particular
> look at point 4:
>
> "Although the word ”court” is not used, the wording very strongly suggests
> that some sort of court should be involved."
>
> http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/landmarks-in-the-telecoms-text/
>
>
> - Nicolas
>
>
> 2009/11/6 Félix Robles <redeadlink at gmail.com>
>
>> And is that explanation true?
>>
>>
>> And, anyway, if that explanation was true, why would they support a law
>> that allows the administration (A) the power to cut off internet without (B)
>> the authorization of a judge anyway? How is possible to determine to cut off
>> or not a internet connection without spying the communications? Have they
>> thought about that?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Christian Hufgard <
>> pp at christian-hufgard.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Félix Robles wrote:
>>> > Well, I'm a simple member of the Spanish Pirate Party and we have
>>> already
>>> > stated that we are against on the Swedish Piratepartiet's stand on
>>> > theTelecoms Package. I'm not representing my whole party now (perhaps,
>>> > maybe, another person will be designated for that later) but *I
>>> personally
>>> > ask*:
>>> >
>>> > Why? *Why did the swedish Piratepartiet agree* with the Telecoms
>>> Package
>>> > when it allows* to cut off internet without the previous authorization
>>> of
>>> > a judge*? Can any swedish member of the Piratpartiet explain it??
>>>
>>> The official explanation is, that the EU has not the right to order the
>>> authorization of a judge...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091106/aaf71f95/attachment.htm>