EU Paves the Way For Three-Strikes Cut-Off Policy 272
Mark.JUK writes "The European Parliament has surrendered to pressure from Member States (especially France) by abandoning amendment 138, a provision adopted on two occasions by an 88% majority of the plenary assembly, and which aimed to protect citizens' right to Internet access. The move paves the way for an EU wide policy supporting arbitrary restrictions of Internet access. Under the original text any restriction of an individual could only be taken following a prior judicial ruling. The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force Internet providers (ISPs) into disconnecting their customers from the Internet (i.e. such as when 'suspected' of illegal p2p file sharing)."
Ah, that nice French law... (Score:2, Interesting)
To be fair, it got revoked later on, and was voted on honestly. But the first passing of the law was a big sham.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we then have to rise up, put the politicians to the sword, and burn their property, while taking adequate precausions to safeguard the conformerity with the idea that their life and property is sanctosant.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I suggest defenestration instead of putting them to the sword. The former is far more entertaining, if only because you get to say 'defenestrate'.
Re: (Score:2)
But the guillotine is so much more fun! You can play bowling with their heads. Or try talking to them afterwards:
"I called in a strong, sharp voice: "Languille!" I saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contractions I insist advisedly on this peculiarity but with an even movement, quite distinct and normal, such as happens in everyday life, with people awakened or torn from their thoughts.
"Next Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves. I
BREAK THE LAW (Score:2)
It is now the only courageous, moral and ethical stance.
Re: (Score:2)
the idea that their life and property is sanctosant
Is what? You mean sacrosanct?
Re:Ah, that nice French law... (Score:5, Insightful)
It worked great at first. It's just gotten bad lately.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
Personally I think the tree is looking very withered these days.
Re:Ah, that nice French law... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, you and Timothy McVeigh...
Do you really think the US worked better when only landowning whites were allowed to vote, slavery was legal, and the second president signed the alien and sedition acts?
I guess that's all a small price to pay for not getting your internet cut off...
Re:Ah, that nice French law... (Score:5, Interesting)
The early years of the U.S. were not perfect - but it was headed in the right direction - with near-perfection achieved between 1870 and 1930. The three thousand-year-old slavery/serfdom institution had finally been killed off, the Bill of Rights had risen to prominence, and the government was so small most Americans never even noticed it.
But since 1910 it seems we've been going backwards. We are being turning back into serfs with the oligarchs as our master, and no rights as individuals. It's almost exactly the same pattern that happened in Rome from 300-500 A.D... the landlords slowly but surely turned the middle class into a serf class of debtors... and medieval Europe was born.
this will be a problem in the future. (Score:5, Insightful)
This will adversely affect small businesses - why should someone's business be made unviable cos they can't stop their kids downloading a few bits and pieces.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times.
Re:this will be a problem in the future. (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times.
That sound you hear is thousands of bus drivers screaming "DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!!!"
Re:this will be a problem in the future. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:this will be a problem in the future. (Score:5, Insightful)
One would think this idea also violated the EU's Charter of Rights:
Article 11 - "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." "The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected."
One could also argue that blocking the internet interferes with Article 14 - "Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training." Think of the children! They will be cut off from access to online education.
And Articles 47 "Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article." - and 48 - "Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The Three-Strike law is clearly unconstitutional within the EU's dominion.
Re:The geek's sense of entitlement is his downfall (Score:5, Informative)
>>>Then don't go for that third strike.
Do you work for RIAA? You seem to share the same inability to understand basic human rights. No matter. You falsely-presume I'm guilty of strikes one and two. This is what Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Rights is about: The government has to PROVE guilt, not just assume it. The law should be written that FIRST they prove the three strikes are your fault and THEN you get internet cutoff. As currently written they don't have to prove anything - an open invitation for abuse (President Sarkozy could turnoff those he doesn't like, even if they did nothing wrong).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're talking about immunity from prosecution. This isn't prosecution ... it's a lynching.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:this will be a problem in the future. (Score:4, Informative)
People will just setup anonymous free access Wifi everywhere.
I'm guessing you're wrong, and people won't actually do that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh great! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh great! (Score:5, Insightful)
What good are rights when the government can strip them from you whenever it deems necessary?
I don't know which is better: The EU openly taking away your supposed rights or the US taking away your rights and lying about it?
Probably the latter because people love being lied to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at Barak Obama. I've yet to see him significantly and fundamentally reform government, or otherwise to make either the USA or the world a better place. Yet, look at the devotion.
It's Barack, and this isn't devotion, it's people actually liking him. If you want devotion, look at the tards naming every damn thing they can find after Reagan.
Re: (Score:2)
Take that just one step further. Do a bit of reserach. Then see for yourself that the very same financial and political interests funded the elections of all three. In many cases, they supported BOTH the Democrat candidate AND the Republican candidate... why it's almost as though they don't care who wins. Notice that, and the bigger picture is within sight.
Get what we voted for:European election 2009 scors (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats and Socialists are on the "right" in Europe?
Re:Get what we voted for:European election 2009 sc (Score:5, Informative)
Meh, where I live (Spain), the left wing is in bed with the (equivalents of the) *AAs and it's in fact the right wing which is promising to abolish compulsive levies on digital storage media (HDDs, cellphones, flash drives, you name it) if they get elected.
These days I find that "left" vs. "right" means pretty much squat. Just vote for the least evil.
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with liberty and everything to do with profit from a broken business model.
It's akin to taking away your TV set(s) because you get the news faster/cheaper than newspapers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'm missing something obvious or I'm just flat out wrong, but shouldn't that be the other way around? You would forsake liberty (the right to act, unbound) for the sake of freedom (the right to act within the law, ie. to bind). Freedom falls in line with concepts like fraternity or union.
Apply it on MPs and Ministers first (Score:5, Interesting)
If hackers like ParMaster still exist, the best way to ensure this law is repealed is to ensure that MPs and Ministers are caught under this law and disconnected from internet.
Like the immortal Jim Hacker once said: "Not until you face it yourself do you realize what a stupid law you have passed."
Re:Apply it on MPs and Ministers first (Score:5, Insightful)
New rule, passed the next day:
'Internet access for MPs and Ministers cannot be interfered with.'
Re:Apply it on MPs and Ministers first (Score:5, Interesting)
Like the Police raid on a Mayors home that left two family dogs dead [cato-at-liberty.org] over a package of marijuana that was delivered to their home, even though Police were well aware that a drug-smuggling ring was using the home addresses of uninvolved people as the destination for the package delivery. [cato-at-liberty.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Can the Mayor fire the Police Chief?
The police already killed his dogs for no reason, imagine what they'll do to him if he fires the chief!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Answers to question 1: Because they're lazy. Because their kids/family members are lazy. Because they want it now.
Answers to question 2: Who said anything about the media groups complaining about the MP's and Ministers? Unless there's some clause in the law about the statements being made under penalty of perjury, what's to stop someone from falsely accusing the politicians? Even if there was a perjury clause, pay a homeless person $10 (or the equivalent in Euros) to file the complaints. What are the
Unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms.
The government may regulate, restrict and forbid access to it in any arbitrary way just like they may regulate sales of tobacco or speed limits on roads. They don't need a court sentence, they don't even need suspicion. They are allowed to pass a bill that says you need a special government-issued permit to access the Internet and any government clerk may revoke it on discretionary basis, and they aren't breaking any fundamental laws, because there weren't any laws granting you access to the Internet in the first place.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms. The government may regulate, restrict and forbid access to it in any arbitrary way just like they may regulate sales of tobacco or speed limits on roads. They don't need a court sentence, they don't even need suspicion. They are allowed to pass a bill that says you need a special government-issued permit to access the Internet and any government clerk may revoke it on discretionary basis, and they aren't breaking any fundamental laws, because there weren't any laws granting you access to the Internet in the first place.
... because arbitrary power with no due process and little or no burden of proof on the accuser has always worked out so well in the past.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms."
The air is an information medium with no legal rights attached to it as well. When do they start telling us we can't speak, see, or breathe. When internet becomes defacto standard of communication then it becomes part of "human rights or constitution-granted freedom" by definition change. Otherwise laws couldn't be used other than for what they are stated for.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is in Finland: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/14/2229231 [slashdot.org]
Strangely, France is also listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access#Internet_access_as_a_human_right [wikipedia.org] oO
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
constitution-granted freedoms.
Though you may be referring to EU countries... I find it important, from a US perspective, to reinforce the idea that the Constitution was never intended to grant freedom or rights. It was, and should be a limitation on the powers of government.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
France is just the beginning, an experiment. Believe me, RIAA is watching this closely and setting lobbying cash aside for similar laws for YOU.
Re: (Score:2)
France with their Dear Facist Leader, Sarkozy can fuck off.
I'm confused. I thought France was the land of pinko-commie socialists. Can you people please make up your mind and settle on one stereotype? I'd like to know what terms I should use to be a proper American bashing other countries.
Ideally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ideally (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile in real life, governments the world over are in the pockets of the media industry and their slavish public can't take it in the arse fast enough. Sarkozy is just a politician who's more openly "available" for influence than others, but there's plenty more worms in the EU woodwork. The number of politicians I've seen parroting, word for word, the latest anti-customer campaign about how piracy eats up 92% of the global GDP or some such bullshit makes you lose all faith in humani... sorry, in sentient life the world over.
"I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a percentage."
Re: (Score:2)
This seems like the logical conclusion of all this, unless they skip the civil war and go straight to stripping member states of power and consolidating it all in the central government.
Shadenfreude (Score:3, Insightful)
Whenever I see stories of other countries governments and corporations (or is there a difference anymore?) trampling over citizens' rights even worse than is done here in the States, it just gives me this warm glowing feeling inside for some reason.
Re:Shadenfreude (Score:5, Interesting)
It shouldn't. They are playing leap frog. One side of the Atlantic implements an oppressive law, tax, or spy on your own citizens regime, and then the other side of the Atlantic says, see they did it and it was good so we shall do it too and we can do it even better. Repeat over and over and .... BAMMMM ..... you are living in Fascist world.
Both sides of the Atlantic are also passing these same obscene laws because the same multinationals are lobbying, bribing and pressuring politicians the world over to legislate their profitability.
At this point I mostly debate if I lived in a world dominated by Fascist governments or governments which are for all intents and purposes organized crime syndicates, I think a little of both. They are taking vast sums from ordinary people and transferring it to their rich friends and themselves. It boggles the mind that working people in the U.S. are taxed at least 25% income tax and 12.5% payroll taxes(counting the employer half) for 37.5% at a minimum. Billionaire hedge fund operators are taxed at 15%. These same hedge funds manager tax their own clients more than that, over 20% (2% management fees and 20% of profits).
I was watching Frontline on PBS last night on Brookseley Born [wikipedia.org]. A great story. During the Clinton administration she tried to use the authority she had at the obscure Commodities Futures Trading Commission to regulate derivatives. If she had succeeded she might well have prevented at least the AIG part of the recent financial crisis. Instead she was crushed by Alan Greenspan, Phil Graham, Bob Rubin and Larry Summers. Long Term Capital Management collapsed during this period trading derivatives, nearly sparking a major panic, proving Born right and they continued to crush her.
Alan Greenspan supposedly told Born that she was NOT suppose to pursue fraud in derivatives or commodities though it was explicitly in her agencies charter to do just that.
Bob Rubin went on to help lead Citigroup in to complete ruin and billions of tax payer bailouts.
Phil Graham's wife was on the board at Enron, he went to UBS where his Swiss bank ran tax shelters for thousands of wealthy Americans, and was a leading player in the collapse during which he called us all a bunch of whiners.
Larry Summers is now Obama's senior economic adviser.
All four of these people should be run out of every government position, boardroom or any other position of authority because they are a delightful mix of stupid and criminal. Its especially obscene for Larry Summers to be calling the shots on financial matters in the Obama administration. Paul Volcker might actually fix the bankster problem but he has been completely shut out by Summers and Geitner.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a clever plan (Score:2)
EU citizens feel better when they read of US civil rights violations.
US citizens feel better when they read of EU civil rights violations.
Maybe that warm glowing feeling is you getting shafted.
Human Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lisbon Treaty hasnt passed yet completely in all states
Re: (Score:2)
So? The ECHR entered into effect in 1953, 4 years before the Treaty of Rome. It doesn't depend on the EU Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
If internet access is not considered a fundamental right, then it is not protected by the ECHR.
Re: (Score:2)
EU Fail. (Score:4, Insightful)
...a provision adopted on two occasions by an 88% majority of the plenary assembly, and which aimed to protect citizens' right to Internet access.
European democracy, defined: 88% Majority beaten by %0.001 business owners.
88% What the hell?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry if something is adopted by 88% of the people then it should not be allowed to be removed by a smaller subset of people. If older prestige European countries are able to railroad the EU this way then what is the point for other less-prestigious members to stay?
If you think about your statement, you'll realize that its two parts are contradictory.
This was a new provision that was rejected - because each country in the EU has a veto against new laws (roughly speaking). Note that this sort of arrangement was put in place explicitly so that the big countries can't "railroad" the small ones into restrictions they do not wish to adopt... (I.e. if a small country wants to adopt a 3-strikes law, it is now not hindered by EU law; if it doesn't want to adopt one, it does
Re:88% What the hell?! (Score:5, Informative)
Excuse me? 88% of the parliament used to be for the amendment in its previous form (at least in a preliminary way). The amendment was changed, no doubt because of political compromises that the EP is famous of, and it still passed. Your interpretation is just wrong: these are the same people voting, the original amendment just never ended into a vote.
The story has a similarly biased interpretation: The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting their customers from the Internet. This is not true at all: The original amendment would have made sure ISPs could not do that without a ruling, but the current text doesn't give any legal ground for governments because it doesn't really change anything.
There may be some fishy deals behind this, but let's stick to the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me? 88% of the parliament used to be for the amendment in its previous form (at least in a preliminary way). The amendment was changed, no doubt because of political compromises that the EP is famous of, and it still passed. Your interpretation is just wrong: these are the same people voting, the original amendment just never ended into a vote.
The story has a similarly biased interpretation: The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting their customers from the Internet. This is not true at all: The original amendment would have made sure ISPs could not do that without a ruling, but the current text doesn't give any legal ground for governments because it doesn't really change anything.
There may be some fishy deals behind this, but let's stick to the facts.
Since the article only mentions that the amendment was approved twice by the plenary assembly and makes no mention whether the rewritten version was even voted on or not by all the members. It seems extremely dubious to me that it was done in that way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>smaller, financially weaker nations, either play by the arbitrary rules of the EU of they face restrictions/taxation..... of course the stronger factions [France] reserve special privileges for themselves
>>>
Sounds like California. So many U.S. laws can be traced back to California. As CA swings so swings most of the union of states.
Damn French... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how this will affect the recently passed law here in Finland that internet access is a legal right for all citizens. I'm getting pretty tired of France running the show in the EU and getting their ridiculous laws enacted at the EU level.
Re:Damn French... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Damn French... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, using the example of the US Federal Government shows that idea can only work for so long. Now there's absolutely no part of life that the US Feds won't interfere with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> If the individual countries in Europe decided to keep their sovereignty...
"Sovereignty"? Didn't I recently read about discussions in Brussels of how to remove a certain head of state because he had the effrontry not to do as he was told and sign the Lisbon treaty?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Damn French... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the US Federal Government needs to be able to over-ride State laws in some cases, for example, to protect interstate commerce. What needs to happen is a "scope reduction", not a "power reduction." The Feds should still be able to override State laws, but they should be prevented from making any laws *not* relating to interstate commerce, foreign policy, or defense.
The other thing that bugs me is people trying to amend the Constitution without amending the Constitution-- for example, the lawmakers trying to add extreme restrictions on gun ownership without doing things the proper way and repealing the Second Amendment. If you want gun control, fine-- but you have to repeal the amendment first! You can't shoehorn it in alongside!
Re: (Score:2)
Why mutual defence? I'm not sure why the Maastricht treaty added common foreign and security policy to what was previously the European Economic Community.
Re: (Score:2)
If you ask me, I think that your government will likely subsidize the internet access or create local monopolies to make sure everyone is covered and then use those actions to justify intervention along the lines we're all afraid of.
Re:Damn French... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/10/22/01002-20091022ARTFIG00615-le-conseil-constitutionnel-valide-la-loi-hadopi-2-.php [lefigaro.fr] (French article)
Two very bad news in the same day. Believe me, sometimes, it sucks to be French....
On the other hand, I can't wait to see if they will ever manage to have the law just working.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't affect it at all - basically, the EU has removed the requirement that member states protect the right to internet access. They can continue to do so, but they are no longer required to. So, if the government of Finland wants to keep that law, they can.
Greater freedom in Europe? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The evil in goverment is coming from the USA. NWO stuff, aiming at control over all angles of society.
Of course it's for catching terrorists and pedophiles. It is evil and everybody knows.
The copyrightlobby is abusing the sheeple.
Re: (Score:2)
Right... Blame everybody but yourself, classic.
Re: (Score:2)
Those darn French! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oui Oui Mon Amie!
Turnabout is fair play (Score:5, Insightful)
The French President's already demonstrated the vulnerabilities. If they want to put in 3-strikes disconnection based on accusations alone, target the people who approve of it. They've almost certainly done something that'll justify at least an accusation. Once they've got 3 of them, make a huge stink about the law they insisted be passed and demand that they be subject to it.
Old Shin'a'in proverb: "If the enemy is in range, so are you.".
Right : let's vote ! (Score:2, Informative)
I will be very interrested in seeing the trial suites that will be launched if one internet access is cut.
Plus here in France, most of us have multiaccess boxes (DSL bring : internet + TV + phone). Cutting internet means that it would but TV + phone. I don't think this is legal (no consequence). Plus, most ISP provides free wifi access to other customer "boxes". Will they cut also this ? because, if not you will still be able to download ... again, will they cut also the 3G network you can have on your phon
Policy laundering (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong kind of punishment (Score:2, Insightful)
Ignoring the fact that they are punishing people before it is even proven they did anything wrong, why are they taking away internet access?
For most crimes that I know of, you pay a fine or spend some time in jail. Are they taking away internet access because that is what was used to commit their "crime"?
If that's the case, they should chop off your legs the third time you illegally cross a street.
Call for boycott (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a public call for a worldwide boycott of all products coming out the entertainment industry, be it movies, music, tv programs, computer games of all sorts and whatever else.
this boycott shall continue until they all close shop.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a public call for a worldwide boycott of all products coming out the entertainment industry, be it movies, music, tv programs, computer games of all sorts and whatever else. this boycott shall continue until they all close shop.
Genius idea. Let us know how that turns out.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to support the indie artists that are not involved in the BS the rest of the "entertainment industry" is supporting.
Re: (Score:2)
of course...
Re: (Score:2)
Why not a boycott of those actually enacting these laws?
Re: (Score:2)
And don't boycott any software companies that aren't also in traditional media -- this likely isn't their idea. Films will still have theaters, music will still have radio and PA systems, TV will still have over-the-air broadcasts and DVD box sets -- but an awful lot of software is dependent on the internet to run as intended...
Damn Republicans! (Score:2, Insightful)
Nevermind, it's OK then.
Law of unintended consequences (Score:3, Interesting)
This would pave the way to mesh networking. No ISPs. Right now, mesh is in it's infancy. 10 years from now, people will be rolling their own mesh inter-network to get to these resources.
The slashdot summer is very missleading (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the original article (website) you see a small but important editing: governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting!!
No idea what powers the government in the UK might have, in germany no one can cut me from my internet connection without a judges ruling.
Furthermore, if you read the mentioned article then I see no paragraph that suggests that a "EU Paves the Way For Three-Strikes Cut-Off Policy" is happening at all.
The article clearly states: restrictions may only be taken in exceptional circumstances and imposed if they are necessary, appopriate and proportionate within a democratic society. Copyright violations by no means are a danger to society ... unless ruled by a judge otherwise, nor is a cutting of the line in any way appropriated.
So I have the impression that the anti FUD is FUD itselv, very disappointing ;D
angel'o'sphere
Re:The slashdot summer is very missleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Ha, what do you expect, when contributors from Europe are for the most part British europhobes, fed from their tender age by MurdochMedia.
Indeed, what the text says is "a judge can order disconnection, given cause", and this got interpreted as "Big Corporations Have The Right To Arbitrarily Disconnect You, And This Right Was Given To Them By The Evil EU/Big Gvt."
Of course, the second version sells, wayyy better.
cultural protectionism (Score:4, Interesting)
in the usa, the story is purely idiot distributors fighting their irrelevancy in the age of the internet
in europe, there is another potent issue that does not exist in the usa: cultural irrelevancy. the french have been fighting to retain french culture for decades: funding french arts, fighting the emergence of english words into french usage, etc
its all rather silly and absurd from an american perspective: hey france, history spoke, and you lost, and the british won. now everyone speaks english in the world, shut up, get over it, and deal with it
but from the point of view of french national pride, you can see why the fight here is not simple and straightforward as it is in the usa
heck, even if you are danish, or belgian: how the hell are you suppose to preserve danish and belgian culture in the face of the english onslaught? protectionism seems appealing. even if, of course, it really makes no difference. its just nostalgia. resistance is futile
perhaps the canadians know best how to deal with being in the cultural shadow of a dominant neighbor: they send their comedians and actors to the usa where they feed that culture sometimes even better than the americans do. i always wondered why the hell there are so many successful canadian comedians in the usa: is there something fundamentally more absurd about being canadian? (snicker)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, how they failed to pass it, unlike what would have been the case in most government ministerial meeting of any country?
This very example shows that checks and balances, and public input do actually matter in the EU much more than elsewhere.
Politicians try to pass crap on behalf of their sponsors all the time -- and usually, they succeed!
Re: (Score:2)
Legalizing?? That would require it to have been illegal in the first place. Those crazy finns.
By the way, my router supports multiple wireless networks; one of them is unsecured and named "freeinternet", please consider doing the same.