You replied in French, interesting.. <br><br>They first tried a similar approach when trying to get the Swedish FRA (spy) law to get through.. It was noticed from the Swedish blog scene that alerted the press and resulted in the resignation of the defense minister that had tried to push the suggestion through. Unfortunately they managed to put it into law a year later, but it is still extremly critizeced and new outragous suggestions of new government agencies wanting access to the collected traffic pops up...<br>
<br>I hope you will have better luck preventing this law from going through.<br><br><br>// Nicco<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Valentin Villenave <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:v.villenave@gmail.com">v.villenave@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">2009/4/10 Nicolas Sahlqvist <<a href="mailto:nicco77@gmail.com">nicco77@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div class="im">> Unclear, let's revise:<br>
><br>
> It is a temporary victory, they are working on a revised proposal that will<br>
> be voted for on the 28th of April and the main reason why they voted NO is<br>
> related to the last minute addition that the disconnected user would still<br>
> have to pay the monthly Internet provider fee although it is closed down<br>
> since the provider should not suffer as Michel Thiollière so nicely put it.<br>
<br>
</div>Absolutely -- which is why, as I explained in a long post (in French)<br>
on our blog to answer Rick's remark, there's no point in being<br>
optimistic right now.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure that this proposal, that banned Internet users still<br>
would have to pay, led the parliament to vote against the law. It was<br>
more of a plain political trick; I think the left-wing MPs were just<br>
happy to take advantage of the lack of government-related opponents.<br>
It does happen sometimes (particularly when it's late on the evening,<br>
or while, like this time, everybody is out having lunch).<br>
<br>
Actually, the point of knowing whether a banned person would have to<br>
pay or not, has its importance. If it's accepted, the ISP will be<br>
happier than if it's not; and they will probably be more helpful in<br>
the pirates hunt, but on the other hand, making someone pay a company<br>
for a service he doesn't get is hardly compatible with our legal<br>
background. At first, that's what made the National Assembly reject<br>
this point, but then the Senate said "we don't care, let's just do it<br>
anyway". It was indeed kind of rude, but it happens everyday with this<br>
government, and does not usually prevent laws from being voted.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Valentin<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">____________________________________________________<br>
Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>