[pp.int.general] La Quadrature du Net: Amendment 138 dead by lack of courage of the Parliament
Nicolas Sahlqvist
nicco77 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 17:36:33 CET 2009
Your link did not seem to work, but after some searching I found one that
did:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/289289-1
- Nicolas
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Glenn Kerbein <
glenn.kerbein at pirate-party.us> wrote:
> I think that you're misinterpreting what the document is stipulating. Al
> Franken, during a summit with the Future of Music Coalition, elaborated
> on the subject (as did Mike Mills of REM):
>
> http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/10/05/HP/A/23996/The+Future+of+Music+Policy+Summit+2009.aspx
> . It's 50 minutes long, but it's a great watch.
> However, the inverse is being pushed through congress (mostly by
> Republican Senators). The inappropriately named "Internet freedom act"
> [S.1836] would prohibit the FCC from proposing regulations on ISPs to
> /not/ favor one type or source of traffic over another. The law must be
> upheld, and the FCC is making that clear: illicit activity (like willful
> copyright infringement) must not be sanctioned.
>
>
> Nicolas Sahlqvist wrote:
> > I did a further analyze of the US standpoint towards net neutrality and
> > in the 2nd FCC document I found a interesting playing with the word
> > "lawful":
> >
> > "-The draft nondiscrimination principle would require that, subject to
> > reasonable
> > network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must
> > treat
> > lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory
> manner."
> >
> > "– Prevent unlawful transfers of content
> > (copyright infringement)"
> >
> > http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/fcc-presentation.pdf?tag=col1;post-26475
> >
> > We (PPUS etc.) could argue that checking if something is "lawful" or not
> > requires breaking net neutrality and privacy.
> >
> >
> > - Nicolas
> > PPI / PPSE member
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Nicolas Sahlqvist <nicco77 at gmail.com
> > <mailto:nicco77 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, trying to get back to topic, it seems like US are more open in
> > there ideas towards net neutrality:
> >
> > http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=26475
> >
> > And the spokes (MI5 etc.) does not seem to be interested in
> > Political ideas of shutting down internet connections etc. since
> > that would even make their work harder, people tend to enable
> > encryption then..
> >
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6885923.ece
> >
> > So there are some bright light at the tunnel it seems with support
> > from the strangest places.
> >
> >
> > - Nicolas
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Nicolas Sahlqvist
> > <nicco77 at gmail.com <mailto:nicco77 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Ahh, OpenEurope (the think-tank) has a 40 pages report I missed
> > to link here:
> >
> > http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/howtheeuiswatchingyou.pdf
> >
> > Seems interesting, need to read it through..
> >
> >
> > - Nicolas
> > PPI / PPSE member
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Nicolas Sahlqvist
> > <nicco77 at gmail.com <mailto:nicco77 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > A UK think-thank has a somewhat gloomier picture:
> >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6440812/Lisbon-Treaty-will-usher-in-European-surveillance-state.html
> >
> > I am sure the other governments follows UK's example..
> >
> >
> > - Nicolas
> > PPI / PPSE member
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Amelia Andersdotter
> > <teirdes at gmail.com <mailto:teirdes at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2009/10/23 Nicolas Sahlqvist <nicco77 at gmail.com
> > <mailto:nicco77 at gmail.com>>
> >
> > Does the treaty of Lisbon have any effect on this?
> >
> >
> >
> > For the UK in particular, the EU at large has meant a
> > massive influx of legislation. Up until the early 1990s
> > the UK government passed about 18 legislative acts per
> > year, after 1997 more than a thousand.
> >
> > But this is because of the clash between
> > Napoleonic/Germanic law and the Common Law systems:
> > Common Law is based on case law, whereas the rest of
> > Europe relies on legislative acts (that are of course
> > also interpreted in case law).
> >
> > The Lisbon Treaty will likely force the UK to continue
> > passing legislative acts, unless they give directives
> > direct effect (presumably) in UK courts. However,
> > legislative acts aren't necessarily a bad thing: for
> > one, it is easier for me as a citizen to look of the
> > state regulations on sewers than try to locate
> > sewer-related case law in the official journal of the
> > high court.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - Nicolas
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:22 AM, El Tres
> > <pirat at eltres.de <mailto:pirat at eltres.de>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 23.10.2009 um 00:16 schrieb Eric Priezkalns
> > <eric.priezkalns at pirateparty.org.uk
> > <mailto:eric.priezkalns at pirateparty.org.uk>>:
> >
> >
> > [UK] A constitution may exist, even if it
> > is unwritten. Such a constitution may be
> > stronger than one written on a piece of
> > paper, but where people don't do what the
> > words on the paper say.
> >
> >
> > Hear, Hear!
> >
> > El Tres
> >
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> > <mailto:
> 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
> > <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> >
> >
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amelia Andersdotter
> > Kommunikationansvarig UPF
> > Lissabon-MEP
> > +46 738436779
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> > <mailto: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
>
> --
> Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein
> United States Pirate Party
> "Burn, Hollywood, Burn"
> http://www.pirate-party.us/
> ____________________________________________________
> 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/20091027/e230ca17/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the pp.international.general
mailing list