Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Apr 2012 13:39 UTC
Legal "The Opinion shows that the lack of precision of the Agreement about the measures to be deployed to tackle infringements of intellectual property rights on the Internet may have unacceptable side effects on fundamental rights of individuals, if they are not implemented properly. It underlines that many of the measures to strengthen IP enforcement online could involve the large scale monitoring of users' behaviour and of their electronic communications. These measures are highly intrusive to the private sphere of individuals, and should only be implemented if they are necessary and proportionate to the aim of enforcing IP rights." Paint, red, scout. You know the drill by now. How does this surprise anyone at this point?
Thread beginning with comment 515625
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: 1984
by Doc Pain on Wed 25th Apr 2012 04:03 UTC in reply to "1984"
Doc Pain
Member since:

It is so sad. Basically every person is under general suspicion being a content pirate, child molester or terrorist.

The intention of defeating the guilty ones in order to protect the innocent ones has a long tradition in oppressing the innocent ones, while the guilty ones still carry on with their business, unimpressed by the "measures taken" as most of them aren't that stupid to stumble into the "prepared nets" which did cost a lot of tax payers' money, but don't really work.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn´t seem to apply in the most countries anymore (maybe never had in certain ones).

I think this concept is "on display" only to show how superior western "democracies" are in relation to other countries (called "villain regimes" as needed). It has nothing to do with the reality of protection and prosecution concepts or the (applied) law in general.

We in germany have even a law for the GEMA which specifies that you are using GEMA protected material until you can prove otherwise (Guilty until proven innocent).

Oh, it's even worse. The advocates of broadcast fees (see GEZ for details) are argumenting with the possibility to do something (watch TV, listen to radio). It's mandatory for you to pay fees because you could do something, even though you actually do not do it. You pay fees for PCs (as you could use them to watch TV or listen to radion programs), even if you're using them for CAD or connected with a CNC machine.

Regarding GEMA: There's also a "GEMA share" in every CD recorder and photocopier (maybe even printer) because you could reproduce some material. You can't even refuse to pay it as it is already included in the price (like the VAT).

You are guilty, except you have enough money that can buy you a different status. In that case, you may even be a content pirate, a child molester and a terrorist at the same time, and you'll be invited to parties of the "upper class" and the "elites of economy, politics and finance" to receive more money.

The article mentiones several european "higher level laws and agreements", such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the Data Protection Directive. Those do not automatically become local law (in a EU member's country). Even though they should apply without any transformation, this is not the fact in reality. In some cases, it's even worse if the Charter specifies a certain right, local law grants it, but its existance is denied in reality, and you are not able to enforce your right (except you have enough money to fight your way through the legal system up to the EHCR). This states that governments to not care for the content of the international agreements (subject to international law) which they signed on behalf of the people who "elected" them, when they have the ability to create their own rules (subject to constitutional law) which defines enough exceptions. This implies that even if something is forbidden by the Charter, it may be done in "exceptions", and it's not a problem to construct them as needed to stay in control.

Note one thing: Everything that is possible will be done, no matter if it's allowed, no matter if we will recognize it. Mass surveillance of people is the present. It's nothing to argue about its upcoming and possible forms in the future. What do you think tax money is "invested" to build data centers for "big storage"? ISPs store data, mobile operators store data, the state stores data. Who are you? When did you make phone call, where, to whom did you talk, what did you talk? What did you buy online? Which web pages did you visit? What did you download? What did you upload? Everything neatly stored for further use. What use? We don't know yet, but it's good we have all your data. What, wait, that's against EU rights? They don't apply here, we only do criminal investigations to prevent crime... precrime, and that's good for you! We know what's good for you. Don't mind, we'll care for your rights. Now don't ask anymore, just go there and clickityclick.

BB watch you.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: 1984
by Gestahlt on Wed 25th Apr 2012 18:35 in reply to "RE: 1984"
Gestahlt Member since:

I can´t agree on that text more.

It makes me as person feel uncomfortable and i rather live in an different enviroment but not much choice there.

I saw the internet grow and it saddens me that it became the place it is today. . I mean mass surveilance is really something that should not be done. No matter what. This is an unacceptable intrusion in ones intimity. There are so many possibilites you can do with the computing power nowadays and it is imho wasted by mining too much personal data. The energy needed to do it too.

Well, on the other hand, it has certain uses, but the abuse is the easier and more practiced one... ah it doesnt really matter since we are all sheep (or maybe lemmings).

Reply Parent Score: 1