13 ms·

Like the governance in England where the government decides what you should be watching? Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anythi

Like the governance in England where the government decides what you should be watching? Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Or perhaps they'll adopt the Turkish attitude of jail time for those who speak the truth (if Turkey gets into the EU). How are they better than the American model of Uncle Sam lurking in the background of everyone's lives waiting for the wrong words to be written so the entrapment teams can be sent. Government control of the internet, by any government, will inevitably lead to censorship. Edit: to address comments From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Unit... There is an ongoing program to introduce a broad system of default blocking of certain types of content to all Internet users in the UK. New customers have their Internet access filtered at the ISP level so that certain web sites are blocked

louhike 13y ago
As a french, I'm quite surprised about what you are saying for France. We have a lot of satirical newspapers, TV shows, etc. Where have you seen that?
- davidnu 13y ago
  What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? his material maybe reprehensible but in the US he'd have first amendment protection. Your country also has draconian and stringent liable laws, and I don't want it to have anything to do with Internet governance.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    > What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? Well, what about him? France is not the US, you have hate laws here. Nobody is trying to ban him because he is criticizing the government. That's not parent is saying anyway: Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Last time I checked, the Figaro and le Point (conservative newspapers) were alive and well.
    - davidnu2 13y ago
      Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US. "Hate laws" are censorship. "Hateful" speech is equally protected under the US constitution, and any political movements it might inspire will not be infringed upon by the government. The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor. The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.
      - mercurial 13y ago
        > Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US. Exactly right about what? The original claim is that the French government is trying to muzzle criticism. You then bring up the case of a humorist condemned for his antisemitic views as a supporting example. This doesn't make any sense, unless you're going for some weird conspiracy theory - in which case, I'll believe any conspiracy theory as long as comes with convincing evidence, of which there doesn't seem to be any. > The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor. > The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's. I'm on the fence about it. Besides, even in the US there are limits on freedom of speech.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        >widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries Billionaire Compares Outrage Over Rich In SF To Kristallnacht http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/26/266685819/billionaire-compares-outrage-over-rich-in-s-f-to-kristallnacht http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/26/266685... JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon: Anti-Banking Sentiment 'A Form Of Discrimination' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jamie-dimon-discrimination_n_1232323.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jamie-dimon-discrim...
  - agumonkey 13y ago
    Don't mind this story. It is 10% social pacification[1] and 90% hopeless PR stunt conflating many issues into one for they're barely capable of managing anything else. If they ever spend time on low-hanging things like this they will create more pain for themselves. [1] there were many people diverting his 'jokes' into offensive acts, not by his call but he kept the heater on when asked to tame it down.
  - kubiiii 13y ago
    He'd be somewhat protected, but most certainely under heavy surveillance and most probably on a no fly list because of his friendship with Iran.
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  I'm French and I agree with him. There's no freedom of speech in France or at least it's seriously limited. It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined. There's also offenses against the president and not to forget journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government. France is also the biggest censor of tweets http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28312-la-france-fait-exploser-la-demande-de-censure-sur-twitter.html http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28312-la-france-fait-explos...
  - mercurial 13y ago
    > It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined. Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France? If they are abused in France, I'd appreciate relevant examples. Not Dieudonné, as this unfortunate character has made his bread and butter of antisemitism the last few years. > There's also offenses against the president Fair enough. I'd like to point out, though, that the last person to be condemned for "offense to the head of state" had to pay 30 euros after insulting Nicolas Sarkozy. That's not exactly financial ruin, but I'd like this law to go away entirely. > journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government. Which ones in particular?
    - Zancarius 13y ago
      > Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France? I may regret this, but I'll step out on a limb and say yes. I know nothing of French politics, but I think hate speech laws are counter to the notion of free speech. Either you allow all speech or you allow none. Obviously, France may lack the protections citizens of other countries enjoy, and perhaps supporting such limits on free speech then becomes a matter of personal pride, making it a rather contentious issue. Hate speech laws are almost Orwellian in a sense: Free speech is good, but some speech is baaaaaaad. In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it. Here in the US at least, anti-hate speech proponents tend to use the "fire in a crowded theater" argument time and again as proof of limits on free speech rights, in spite that it's out of context and incorrect [1]. The other problem is that everyone generally agrees that free speech is fine, but there's a certain disagreement on what parts of speech should be considered taboo or outright illegal. The question then, in my mind, isn't whether or not governments should ban certain types of speech. I don't think they should, because it's counter to free speech protections. However, the messier question is whether social sanctions should be imposed upon citizens by non-government actors whenever hateful or potentially offensive speech is used. For instance, should an employer be allowed to fire someone because of public racist remarks? What if that employer is the government? What if the remarks were offensive to the government (think anti-war)? The point to free speech (generally, at least in the US) is that it enables one to say what they wish without government intervention. It doesn't, however, protect them from consequences of their speech imposed against them by other citizens (boycotts, firing, etc.). [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...
- valarauca1 13y ago
  The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations. Law for Trust in the Digital Economy (LCEN) Article 18 grants the French Government the ability to remove any content that may destabilize the public, hurt nation defense, or physically harm persons. That being said currently France is ranked #6 out of all nations in terms of Internet Freedom, due to internet policing while being possible rarely exercised.
  - bausson 13y ago
    >> The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations. Well, in almost every country, police force recruit among the least brilliant. Hatred of differences is what stupid people do. Violence is what stupid people do when given power to do so (intelligent people handed power preferring control over violence). So no big surprise here when it come to police. The government point is more worrying, but I don't remember any incident of that kind under current government.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      The French Government had videos [of Police officers mocking minorities] removed from various news organizations. The italics show the important part in this context, which is not the behavior of the police.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- weddpros 13y ago
  You can read (in french: http://hollande-demission.fr/ http://hollande-demission.fr/) how the government BURNT protesters' banner... and other similar illegal actions, like taking "stealing" their car with no legal ground (they pretend "Hollande démission" is an ad) This group calls for the dismissal (démission) of president Hollande.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    Sounds like a perfectly balanced source of information.
    - weddpros 13y ago
      That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car. He has complained in court against these actions... We'll see how it goes. In the meantime, you can watch his videos, and see the cops take his car (quite objective and balanced source of information :-)
      - mercurial 13y ago
        > That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car. I don't have French TV here (or French newspapers) but judging from the little I can find on the Internet about this character, I'm not convinced much of his activities is particularly newsworthy.
- valtih1978 13y ago
  Learn what "manufacturing consent" and mind control is, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44. The fact that people speak about funny stories about their president as a proof freedom of speech just proves that they have no idea what does it mean.
naich 13y ago
Slightly tinfoil hat rant there. The UK government does not decide what you watch, what they have done is pressure ISPs to provide optional filtering (set up by the ISP), with the default set to on. I don't like this and argue against it. It doesn't help my case when bullshit like this gets thrown about.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  I agree, but your wording is wrong. They provide default filtering, that you can optionally disable.
  - douglasfshearer 13y ago
    Still the wrong wording. ISPs can optionally provide filtering to their users, which is on by default and opt-out. Only the large ISPs have implemented the filtering, and only for new customers. Existing customers have no filtering.
    - stefan_kendall 13y ago
      Government rarely directly commands action. It's usually "pressure" in the form of mafia protection money. "Maybe you implement this filter, maybe we don't break your fuckin' kneecaps."
- toyg 13y ago
  There is also Cleanfeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys... So yes, the government (through a semi-governmental charity) does decide what we cannot watch, even when you disable ISP filters.
Signez 13y ago
> make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. What? I'm sorry but I think you don't know anything about France, french politics, citizens or whatever related to the Hexagon.
- davidnu 13y ago
  You don't have a free speech clause in your constitutions that is above all else (neither does the UK). You ban or at least attempt to ban questionable comedy/satire. You have ridiculous liable laws (so does the UK). You're government mustn't be allowed within a mile (1.60934 km) of an Internet governing body.
  - SEMW 13y ago
    > You don't have a free speech clause in your constitutions that is above all else (neither does the UK) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Conv...
    - davidnu2 13y ago
      First it's not "above all else" seeing that it's "Article 10". Second, the second clause basically negates the first one in its entirety: 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The USA's first amendment of the constitutions includes no such concession nor limitations.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        It.. the order doesn't do anything..
juandopazo 13y ago
From TFA: 'Kroes said: “Some are calling for the International Telecommunications Union to take control of key Internet functions. I agree that governments have a crucial role to play, but top-down approaches are not the right answer. We must strengthen the multi-stakeholder model to preserve the Internet as a fast engine for innovation.”' And the concrete actions they propose have more to do with 'Establishment of a clear timeline for the globalisation of ICANN and the “IANA functions”' and finding ways to resolve conflicts between the laws of different countries. This does not look like government control, just change over the ICANN (a private US non-profit) and the formation of a global advisory group. Can it deviate into government control? Sure. But that doesn't seem to be what is being proposed.
GunlogAlm 13y ago
> in England where the government decides what you should be watching ISPs voluntarily (yes, voluntarily) agreed to ask new customers if they want to block certain categories of content (gambling, violence, adult material, etc.). This is not censorship. At first I could understand some people being ignorant of the situation and assuming it was some Firewall of China for porn, but now it's taking the piss.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  That's true, so I think the "omg big brother" people should calm down a bit. That having been said, this is the first step to softening people up so they'll accept more stringent/imposed censorship down the line, so it's still something we should argue against (but misrepresenting the issue does us no favors, I agree).
- tomp 13y ago
  Nobody is seriously saying that this is censorship. The main worry is that it's a slippery slope that promotes, technically and culturally, censorship in the future.
  - GunlogAlm 13y ago
    Maybe not here, and I suppose my comment was more of a reaction to the people who are completely ignorant of the "porn block", but I've heard people go as far as making comparisons to dictatorial countries. I agree it's a slippery slope and I do oppose it, but the hyperbole and sensationalism from "our" side of the debate does nobody any good.
andyjohnson0 13y ago
"Government control of the internet, by any government, will inevitably lead to censorship." You may be right about that specific point. So what's the alternative? Corporate control? UN? If the net is governed by some form of institution, then that institution will need widespread legitimacy. I'm not saying that the current controllers have that, but a transfer of governance won't happen without it.
- davidnu2 13y ago
  The UN in even worse, Russia, China, and Brazil are lobbying to get control over the Internet via ITU. Current multi-stakeholder model has functioned diligently since the beginning, all these attempts to control the Internet by governments are politically motivated and with the aim of protecting legacy businesses and business models.
  - andyjohnson0 13y ago
    I agree with you on the UN in this instance. But if the current system of governance is so great, how did the net come to be so massively infiltrated by NSA/GCHQ? The problem is that the internet has come to be seen as a political problem by an increasing number of governments, and the current institutions that provide governance (ICANN, ISOC, IANA, IETF, etc) have no political power with which to push back.
    - davidnu3 13y ago
      NSA/GCHQ 'infiltrations' had little to do with TLDs and IP block allocations. Spy agencies did what they did with the help of over-broad court orders and legal justifications, non of the institutions you've listed had anything to do with it, either technically nor administratively (prove me wrong!). These are just red-herring arguments by parties who want to take advantage of this moral panic and claim the they should control more of the Internet so as to protect it, it's opportunism and grandstanding, it has nothing to do with NSA.
      - marcosdumay 13y ago
hipsters_unite 13y ago
To be fair, the GCHQ mass surveillance in the UK arguably contravenes the European Commission charter on human rights, it's just that the UK gov/GCHQ aren't being held accountable.
- waps 13y ago
  The EU commission has several directives MANDATING member states implement internet surveillance. If you think "human rights" means no surveillance ... Where do you even get that idea ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive The EU commission mandates that any ISP and/or Telco stores for 6-24 months the full list of everyone you've contacted, on phone, on the internet. They are proposing, right fucking now, that that information is mandated to include all searches done one the internet (that such is technically not possible - currently - does not bother lawyers, and I think you'll find all EU commissars are lawyers. They'll just force search engines to give them their ssl root keys). Note that they also had a court case against Ireland when it refused to order it's ISPs to spy on everyone, and won. In other words they forced internet surveillance on the one country that wasn't already doing this. Likewise this proposal would enable them to force this on non-member states and you can bet that's exactly what they're looking to do.
  - hipsters_unite 13y ago
    Article 8 & 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Well aware that they are proposing stupid stuff, but surely that's unenforceable? In any case, it's one of those where I'd argue the problem is therefore up to them to reconcile the stupid surveillance laws with their more fundamental principles.
    - waps 13y ago
      In one of our courses on copyright law I heard this from the professor teaching that class : "While yes, there are a lot of exceptions to contract law, I would like to state that only a fool signs a contract he thinks to be unenforceable" Likewise I'd adopt the attitude of not letting laws pass no matter how unenforceable you think they are.
LBarret 13y ago
> Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government Source needed. I live in France and you can say whatever you want about the french, but being silent (online or not) about their government is not one of their sins.

louhike 13y ago

As a french, I'm quite surprised about what you are saying for France. We have a lot of satirical newspapers, TV shows, etc. Where have you seen that?

davidnu 13y ago
What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? his material maybe reprehensible but in the US he'd have first amendment protection. Your country also has draconian and stringent liable laws, and I don't want it to have anything to do with Internet governance.
- mercurial 13y ago
  > What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? Well, what about him? France is not the US, you have hate laws here. Nobody is trying to ban him because he is criticizing the government. That's not parent is saying anyway: Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Last time I checked, the Figaro and le Point (conservative newspapers) were alive and well.
  - davidnu2 13y ago
    Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US. "Hate laws" are censorship. "Hateful" speech is equally protected under the US constitution, and any political movements it might inspire will not be infringed upon by the government. The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor. The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      > Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US. Exactly right about what? The original claim is that the French government is trying to muzzle criticism. You then bring up the case of a humorist condemned for his antisemitic views as a supporting example. This doesn't make any sense, unless you're going for some weird conspiracy theory - in which case, I'll believe any conspiracy theory as long as comes with convincing evidence, of which there doesn't seem to be any. > The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor. > The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's. I'm on the fence about it. Besides, even in the US there are limits on freedom of speech.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      >widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries Billionaire Compares Outrage Over Rich In SF To Kristallnacht http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/26/266685819/billionaire-compares-outrage-over-rich-in-s-f-to-kristallnacht http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/26/266685... JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon: Anti-Banking Sentiment 'A Form Of Discrimination' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jamie-dimon-discrimination_n_1232323.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jamie-dimon-discrim...
- agumonkey 13y ago
  Don't mind this story. It is 10% social pacification[1] and 90% hopeless PR stunt conflating many issues into one for they're barely capable of managing anything else. If they ever spend time on low-hanging things like this they will create more pain for themselves. [1] there were many people diverting his 'jokes' into offensive acts, not by his call but he kept the heater on when asked to tame it down.
- kubiiii 13y ago
  He'd be somewhat protected, but most certainely under heavy surveillance and most probably on a no fly list because of his friendship with Iran.
patrickaljord 13y ago
I'm French and I agree with him. There's no freedom of speech in France or at least it's seriously limited. It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined. There's also offenses against the president and not to forget journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government. France is also the biggest censor of tweets http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28312-la-france-fait-exploser-la-demande-de-censure-sur-twitter.html http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28312-la-france-fait-explos...
- mercurial 13y ago
  > It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined. Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France? If they are abused in France, I'd appreciate relevant examples. Not Dieudonné, as this unfortunate character has made his bread and butter of antisemitism the last few years. > There's also offenses against the president Fair enough. I'd like to point out, though, that the last person to be condemned for "offense to the head of state" had to pay 30 euros after insulting Nicolas Sarkozy. That's not exactly financial ruin, but I'd like this law to go away entirely. > journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government. Which ones in particular?
  - Zancarius 13y ago
    > Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France? I may regret this, but I'll step out on a limb and say yes. I know nothing of French politics, but I think hate speech laws are counter to the notion of free speech. Either you allow all speech or you allow none. Obviously, France may lack the protections citizens of other countries enjoy, and perhaps supporting such limits on free speech then becomes a matter of personal pride, making it a rather contentious issue. Hate speech laws are almost Orwellian in a sense: Free speech is good, but some speech is baaaaaaad. In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it. Here in the US at least, anti-hate speech proponents tend to use the "fire in a crowded theater" argument time and again as proof of limits on free speech rights, in spite that it's out of context and incorrect [1]. The other problem is that everyone generally agrees that free speech is fine, but there's a certain disagreement on what parts of speech should be considered taboo or outright illegal. The question then, in my mind, isn't whether or not governments should ban certain types of speech. I don't think they should, because it's counter to free speech protections. However, the messier question is whether social sanctions should be imposed upon citizens by non-government actors whenever hateful or potentially offensive speech is used. For instance, should an employer be allowed to fire someone because of public racist remarks? What if that employer is the government? What if the remarks were offensive to the government (think anti-war)? The point to free speech (generally, at least in the US) is that it enables one to say what they wish without government intervention. It doesn't, however, protect them from consequences of their speech imposed against them by other citizens (boycotts, firing, etc.). [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...
valarauca1 13y ago
The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations. Law for Trust in the Digital Economy (LCEN) Article 18 grants the French Government the ability to remove any content that may destabilize the public, hurt nation defense, or physically harm persons. That being said currently France is ranked #6 out of all nations in terms of Internet Freedom, due to internet policing while being possible rarely exercised.
- bausson 13y ago
  >> The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations. Well, in almost every country, police force recruit among the least brilliant. Hatred of differences is what stupid people do. Violence is what stupid people do when given power to do so (intelligent people handed power preferring control over violence). So no big surprise here when it come to police. The government point is more worrying, but I don't remember any incident of that kind under current government.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    The French Government had videos [of Police officers mocking minorities] removed from various news organizations. The italics show the important part in this context, which is not the behavior of the police.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
weddpros 13y ago
You can read (in french: http://hollande-demission.fr/ http://hollande-demission.fr/) how the government BURNT protesters' banner... and other similar illegal actions, like taking "stealing" their car with no legal ground (they pretend "Hollande démission" is an ad) This group calls for the dismissal (démission) of president Hollande.
- mercurial 13y ago
  Sounds like a perfectly balanced source of information.
  - weddpros 13y ago
    That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car. He has complained in court against these actions... We'll see how it goes. In the meantime, you can watch his videos, and see the cops take his car (quite objective and balanced source of information :-)
    - mercurial 13y ago
      > That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car. I don't have French TV here (or French newspapers) but judging from the little I can find on the Internet about this character, I'm not convinced much of his activities is particularly newsworthy.
valtih1978 13y ago
Learn what "manufacturing consent" and mind control is, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44. The fact that people speak about funny stories about their president as a proof freedom of speech just proves that they have no idea what does it mean.

naich 13y ago

Slightly tinfoil hat rant there. The UK government does not decide what you watch, what they have done is pressure ISPs to provide optional filtering (set up by the ISP), with the default set to on. I don't like this and argue against it. It doesn't help my case when bullshit like this gets thrown about.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
I agree, but your wording is wrong. They provide default filtering, that you can optionally disable.
- douglasfshearer 13y ago
  Still the wrong wording. ISPs can optionally provide filtering to their users, which is on by default and opt-out. Only the large ISPs have implemented the filtering, and only for new customers. Existing customers have no filtering.
  - stefan_kendall 13y ago
    Government rarely directly commands action. It's usually "pressure" in the form of mafia protection money. "Maybe you implement this filter, maybe we don't break your fuckin' kneecaps."
toyg 13y ago
There is also Cleanfeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys... So yes, the government (through a semi-governmental charity) does decide what we cannot watch, even when you disable ISP filters.

Signez 13y ago

> make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. What? I'm sorry but I think you don't know anything about France, french politics, citizens or whatever related to the Hexagon.

davidnu 13y ago
You don't have a free speech clause in your constitutions that is above all else (neither does the UK). You ban or at least attempt to ban questionable comedy/satire. You have ridiculous liable laws (so does the UK). You're government mustn't be allowed within a mile (1.60934 km) of an Internet governing body.
- SEMW 13y ago
  > You don't have a free speech clause in your constitutions that is above all else (neither does the UK) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Conv...
  - davidnu2 13y ago
    First it's not "above all else" seeing that it's "Article 10". Second, the second clause basically negates the first one in its entirety: 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The USA's first amendment of the constitutions includes no such concession nor limitations.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      It.. the order doesn't do anything..

juandopazo 13y ago

From TFA: 'Kroes said: “Some are calling for the International Telecommunications Union to take control of key Internet functions. I agree that governments have a crucial role to play, but top-down approaches are not the right answer. We must strengthen the multi-stakeholder model to preserve the Internet as a fast engine for innovation.”' And the concrete actions they propose have more to do with 'Establishment of a clear timeline for the globalisation of ICANN and the “IANA functions”' and finding ways to resolve conflicts between the laws of different countries. This does not look like government control, just change over the ICANN (a private US non-profit) and the formation of a global advisory group. Can it deviate into government control? Sure. But that doesn't seem to be what is being proposed.

GunlogAlm 13y ago

> in England where the government decides what you should be watching ISPs voluntarily (yes, voluntarily) agreed to ask new customers if they want to block certain categories of content (gambling, violence, adult material, etc.). This is not censorship. At first I could understand some people being ignorant of the situation and assuming it was some Firewall of China for porn, but now it's taking the piss.

StavrosK 13y ago
That's true, so I think the "omg big brother" people should calm down a bit. That having been said, this is the first step to softening people up so they'll accept more stringent/imposed censorship down the line, so it's still something we should argue against (but misrepresenting the issue does us no favors, I agree).
tomp 13y ago
Nobody is seriously saying that this is censorship. The main worry is that it's a slippery slope that promotes, technically and culturally, censorship in the future.
- GunlogAlm 13y ago
  Maybe not here, and I suppose my comment was more of a reaction to the people who are completely ignorant of the "porn block", but I've heard people go as far as making comparisons to dictatorial countries. I agree it's a slippery slope and I do oppose it, but the hyperbole and sensationalism from "our" side of the debate does nobody any good.

andyjohnson0 13y ago

"Government control of the internet, by any government, will inevitably lead to censorship." You may be right about that specific point. So what's the alternative? Corporate control? UN? If the net is governed by some form of institution, then that institution will need widespread legitimacy. I'm not saying that the current controllers have that, but a transfer of governance won't happen without it.

davidnu2 13y ago
The UN in even worse, Russia, China, and Brazil are lobbying to get control over the Internet via ITU. Current multi-stakeholder model has functioned diligently since the beginning, all these attempts to control the Internet by governments are politically motivated and with the aim of protecting legacy businesses and business models.
- andyjohnson0 13y ago
  I agree with you on the UN in this instance. But if the current system of governance is so great, how did the net come to be so massively infiltrated by NSA/GCHQ? The problem is that the internet has come to be seen as a political problem by an increasing number of governments, and the current institutions that provide governance (ICANN, ISOC, IANA, IETF, etc) have no political power with which to push back.
  - davidnu3 13y ago
    NSA/GCHQ 'infiltrations' had little to do with TLDs and IP block allocations. Spy agencies did what they did with the help of over-broad court orders and legal justifications, non of the institutions you've listed had anything to do with it, either technically nor administratively (prove me wrong!). These are just red-herring arguments by parties who want to take advantage of this moral panic and claim the they should control more of the Internet so as to protect it, it's opportunism and grandstanding, it has nothing to do with NSA.
    - marcosdumay 13y ago

hipsters_unite 13y ago

To be fair, the GCHQ mass surveillance in the UK arguably contravenes the European Commission charter on human rights, it's just that the UK gov/GCHQ aren't being held accountable.

waps 13y ago
The EU commission has several directives MANDATING member states implement internet surveillance. If you think "human rights" means no surveillance ... Where do you even get that idea ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive The EU commission mandates that any ISP and/or Telco stores for 6-24 months the full list of everyone you've contacted, on phone, on the internet. They are proposing, right fucking now, that that information is mandated to include all searches done one the internet (that such is technically not possible - currently - does not bother lawyers, and I think you'll find all EU commissars are lawyers. They'll just force search engines to give them their ssl root keys). Note that they also had a court case against Ireland when it refused to order it's ISPs to spy on everyone, and won. In other words they forced internet surveillance on the one country that wasn't already doing this. Likewise this proposal would enable them to force this on non-member states and you can bet that's exactly what they're looking to do.
- hipsters_unite 13y ago
  Article 8 & 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Well aware that they are proposing stupid stuff, but surely that's unenforceable? In any case, it's one of those where I'd argue the problem is therefore up to them to reconcile the stupid surveillance laws with their more fundamental principles.
  - waps 13y ago
    In one of our courses on copyright law I heard this from the professor teaching that class : "While yes, there are a lot of exceptions to contract law, I would like to state that only a fool signs a contract he thinks to be unenforceable" Likewise I'd adopt the attitude of not letting laws pass no matter how unenforceable you think they are.

LBarret 13y ago

> Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government Source needed. I live in France and you can say whatever you want about the french, but being silent (online or not) about their government is not one of their sins.