Maybe, but this is actually a pretty easy one to beat.
There are two versions put forward with only a few sentences difference. The committee that will decide is pretty small. I'm sure they get enough interest they'll go for the strictly worded one.
Major European Parliament vote on the internet on 18 March
- Thread starter joeyjojo
- Start date
Maybe, but this is actually a pretty easy one to beat.
There are two versions put forward with only a few sentences difference. The committee that will decide is pretty small. I'm sure they get enough interest they'll go for the strictly worded one.
Wrote a letter to my MP, for all the good it wont do.
As explained, the public don't care. We no longer care enough about anything.
People spy on your every day lives, so what.
Food packaging is shrinking and prices stay the same, so what.
Benefits create a dependant underclass who will always keep the status quo, so what.
Give the banks billions and they waste it within 4? years, so what.
Average person cant afford a house, so what.
Education is getting worse, so what.
NHS is getting worse, so what.
Taxes increase and nothing changes, so what.
Petrol, gas, electric and water all increase above acceptable limits, so what.
More people are in debt then have ever been, so what.
More people are single parents then ever, so what.
I could go on and on, but as I've said. People don't care any more.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
While I dont disagree with you freefaller -
The problem is that are we right to allow this government to decide what is right and wrong on the internet? a lot of what they do does not even match up to what the public want or see.
That will be taken to the extreme if they get there censorship hands on the internet.
Want to ban E-cigs? Sure ban E-cigs then ban all information regarding them on the internet via censorship to stop any opposition in its tracks.
Controlling the freedom of information on the internet will strangle society as the internet is the one place you can get none biased information on anything easily. Information that is not tainted by the mainstream media, instead of getting partially censored news about Syria I could get information from people right at the source as an example.
I guess I am looking at the extreme end of censorship but it all starts with something small.
Sorry for the bad grammar guys posting from my phone :O.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I read a particular stupid scare story in The Sun today (don't worry, I didn't buy it, it was lying around in the work canteen). It was a list of clearly abhorrent things that the internet has now 'made accessible' to 'everyone'.
One of these was a website that offered the contract killing of a high ranking cop of your choice for £80k.
Now....Ignoring the fact that the internet has been around for decades and not a single high ranking cop has been killed in the country by a hitman (could be proved wrong but that's something that would hit the news big style), it's a pretty silly argument.
Anyone that has £80k to throw around on a grudge, is probably pretty wealthy (thus excluding 99.9% of the population) and if they want a police officer killed it's highly likely they are involved with very high level crime. Thus, I'd suggest millionaire criminals don't really need the world wide web to find hitmen.
One of these was a website that offered the contract killing of a high ranking cop of your choice for £80k.
Now....Ignoring the fact that the internet has been around for decades and not a single high ranking cop has been killed in the country by a hitman (could be proved wrong but that's something that would hit the news big style), it's a pretty silly argument.
Anyone that has £80k to throw around on a grudge, is probably pretty wealthy (thus excluding 99.9% of the population) and if they want a police officer killed it's highly likely they are involved with very high level crime. Thus, I'd suggest millionaire criminals don't really need the world wide web to find hitmen.
Selfish society. "I'm alright jack!" "I wasn't deprived until they told me."
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,822
- Location
- Falling...
They decide certain laws already, extending it to the internet within that country is probably within their remit? I'm not advocating it, I'm just trying to stir a debate for my own cogitation really.
Some sites are already blocked by ISPs - torrents and such like.
Things like TOR will keep existing allowing people to access whatever they want. I'm all for making illicit activities more difficult online freeing up bandwidth for legitimate users like myself and others to profit from the internet, as well as businesses and so on.
That will be taken to the extreme if they get there censorship hands on the internet.
I agree that freedom of expression shouldn't be strangled - but where do we draw the line? I'm all for people expressing themselves like that idiot Brand, who we can then all ridicule online at his limp protestations and vacuous arguments, but do we want people to perform "art" with under age children? Or show animals being beaten to death? Show "snuff" movies? Personally, I don't want to see any of that, and I wouldn't care if that sort of thing were to be made nigh on impossible to access, and possibly prosecutable.
I don't think that sort of thing enriches human lives or society - if anything that morbid fascination I think can cause more harm than good and detaches people from being human and a decent human being and realising what the sanctity of life and the lives they enjoy really is.
I completely get what you're saying. I'm not saying I support this action, but at the same time, my instant knee jerk isn't to go harping onto the MEPs as it is not something I feel particularly strongly about. My internet usage has declined, other than this forum, and doing information gathering and research, that's all I need - none of the items of interest would be affected by censorship - ultimately my world is tiny, and the leviathan that is the internet means that whatever happens or doesn't happen on there will affect me regardless of censorship or not.
Mrs Fords Email address is:
[email protected]
This is like DLC for the internet.
How long till we have a "breakaway" internet service without all the commercialist **** which has ruined it over the years?
Want to host your own website with gameplay videos? NO CHANCE. PAY PAY PAY, TAX TAX TAX.
[email protected]
This is like DLC for the internet.
How long till we have a "breakaway" internet service without all the commercialist **** which has ruined it over the years?
Want to host your own website with gameplay videos? NO CHANCE. PAY PAY PAY, TAX TAX TAX.
Last edited:
On a serious note, is the even possible? To break the internet up in the manor you suggest? Could a group of open source geeks create there own internet and open it to the public?
They could but that would rely on ISPs allowing access to it in this hypothetical.
I would imagine it to be possible. Somthing along the lines of Adblock at the ISP level but instead of targeting javascript filled divs they target file extensions.
For example blocking all types of video file until you pay up wouldn't be too hard to impliment I imagine. Would stop proxies working as well on that basis.
Could probably bypass it with various types of torrents or if its a zipped file but then why not just block p2p and zip until you've paid up as well.
I would imagine it to be possible. Somthing along the lines of Adblock at the ISP level but instead of targeting javascript filled divs they target file extensions.
For example blocking all types of video file until you pay up wouldn't be too hard to impliment I imagine. Would stop proxies working as well on that basis.
Could probably bypass it with various types of torrents or if its a zipped file but then why not just block p2p and zip until you've paid up as well.
I suggest reading Tubes by Andrew Blum. It's a very casual and interesting read about the physical structure of the internet.
The internet is built on individual router owners connecting to one another. Over time this has led to the formation of huge internet exchanges in certain places (London, Frankfurt, New York, etc.). But the principle of net neutrality is that every bit is treated the same as every other one. The principal if you own such a router is: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". I.e. redirect any and all traffic passing through from others without bias, but make sure what you send out follows the rules.
Amazingly, net neutrality isn't anywhere in the law, which is partly what this legislation was meant to sort out. However it has a few small problems in the wording. Look at the "goals" section of savetheinternet.eu, and the comparison table at http://piphone.lqdn.fr/campaign/call2/NetNeutrality-ITRE-nov_13/7186
Having separate "internets", whether because of "specialised services" e.g. video streaming, or "open source" efforts, would be a terrible outcome, which is why we need to get these bits of wording sorted out.
Thinking that the freephone thing not working was temporary I tried again today but no luck. Pretty disappointing as I'd rather have an immediate response.
Instead I sent an email to each of the UK MEPs on the ITRE committee (taken from this list http://www.savetheinternet.eu/f/ITRE.csv):
Giles CHICHESTER [email protected]
Vicky FORD [email protected]
Nick GRIFFIN [email protected] (yes, that Nick Griffin
)
Fiona HALL [email protected]
Roger HELMER [email protected]
Sajjad KARIM [email protected]
Peter SKINNER [email protected]
Alyn SMITH [email protected]
I asked each of them what they thought about the below amendments (sent as attachments), and how they plan to vote.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/access.3cdn.net/d28b31cbd5922a1aa9_q9m6b5qh2.pdf
http://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/0801-EDRi-NN-amendments.pdf
I doubt any of them will get back before tomorrow but you never know.
Instead I sent an email to each of the UK MEPs on the ITRE committee (taken from this list http://www.savetheinternet.eu/f/ITRE.csv):
Giles CHICHESTER [email protected]
Vicky FORD [email protected]
Nick GRIFFIN [email protected] (yes, that Nick Griffin
)Fiona HALL [email protected]
Roger HELMER [email protected]
Sajjad KARIM [email protected]
Peter SKINNER [email protected]
Alyn SMITH [email protected]
I asked each of them what they thought about the below amendments (sent as attachments), and how they plan to vote.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/access.3cdn.net/d28b31cbd5922a1aa9_q9m6b5qh2.pdf
http://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/0801-EDRi-NN-amendments.pdf
I doubt any of them will get back before tomorrow but you never know.
The 'majority of users subsidising the bandwidth demands of a tiny minority' problem has nothing to do with net neutrality. It is perfectly ok for ISPs to tailor packages based on download speed and the amount of data downloaded/uploaded. What they shouldn't be able to do is discriminate between content.
ITRE didn't put any of the amendments in 
https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014...gle-market-a-false-promise-for-net-neutrality
Apparently the whole point of the legislation is to promote "specialised services" after all.
Definitely still worth contacting your MEPs.
https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014...gle-market-a-false-promise-for-net-neutrality
Apparently the whole point of the legislation is to promote "specialised services" after all.
Definitely still worth contacting your MEPs.
Last edited:
Ironically the Farcebook link gives "This content is currently unavailable" Oh the ironing!
Mot surprising, the EU is amazing at consumer rights. We would be far behind where we are without the EU. Although I don't know why all the headlines are calling it nets neutrality. As that isn't what's covered.
Ironically the Farcebook link gives "This content is currently unavailable" Oh the ironing!
Hmm, I can see it, maybe you need to have "liked" Avaaz?
Everyone should be able to see it at the top of https://www.facebook.com/Avaaz
The majority of the proposal as you say is about the wider telecoms industry, but with several clauses which were very vague and opened the door to violating net neutrality.
Last edited: