Securing views Berg

In connection with the telecom directive has been talk of switching off from the Internet. France has already adopted the Hadopi 2 . I'm not French speakers at a level where I can take advantage of this in their original languages, but gets some of the summaries from such DN. The article talks about two warnings and then refer this matter to court, to consider how it should be able to sentence a person to stop. They talk also about compulsive would install filters on their computer. I take this as a basis for the subsequent exposition.

I have several blog posts previously gone through the practical implications of IPRED. There are two totally different rule complexes, but there are some fundamental similarities. In the case IPRED law is relatively clear but when I tried to illustrate is that it lacks a relevant connection to reality and those who do not want to be caught can be in several very simple ways of avoiding this through. Similarly, one can of course judge a person not to take advantage of the Internet, but it works in practice? The answer is a resounding NO! Authorities can ban you, but there is no practical means to either implement restrictions or to monitor compliance with it, even if the good memories with roots in the hacker world almost certainly remember Kevin Mitnick , who to my knowledge was the first person convicted not having access to any technology. He sat in jail, however, which certainly makes it "somewhat easier" to secure compliance.

1) You can borrow access by anyone else, where you borrow from being aware of this

Will there be an offense to lease one from the Internet blocked person with Internet access? If not, then it is perfectly safe to share their access. Customers of FON is a special case here: If I have a blow dryer router, how can I know that my FON router is not accessed by anyone who is internet blocked?

2) You can borrow Internet access by the person who is unaware of this

WLAN access is nowadays everywhere to find open networks do not require the need to move very far. Since IPRED law also allows it to share files safely run with open WLAN so IRPED actually counteracts the effects of an Internet shutdown because my prediction here is that we will see more and more open network in order to frustrate the preservation of evidence for the copyright industry.

3) You can buy access through one of the numerous ways available to access the Internet without having to state their name

- Internet cafes. How many of those checking identity of all their customers?

- Library (The argument for having computers available freely on Bbibliotek are fun to cross-referencing with the arguments why this is a bad idea to block people from the Internet).

- Mobile internet on prepaid basis (Tele2 offers like this as a variant of this business under the brand Comviq - buy a USB stick and start surfing)

4) You can access for free when you buy other services

- There is virtually no mobile sold the last 10 years that is not also going to use that access to the Internet, either directly via cell phone or mobile modem via cable, infrared or Bluetooth. Should the mobile operator block the ability to access the Internet for this category, or you must by definition also be blocked from the right to buy a cell phone if you want it?

This was a few of the practical arguments why the whole concept of disconnection from the Internet is absurd!

Generally, one usually also say that it is extremely counterproductive to introduce legislation which compliance can not be checked because it erodes confidence in the justice system!

There is of course a number of theoretical arguments as well;

- Democracy - It goes without saying that in a free and democratic way, take advantage of government information and participate in public debate.

- In no other case we have a general opinion of the ban. There are certain things that are criminalized to say and be convicted of anything said, hate speech, revealing state secrets and other crimes there, but previously has not proposed to coat the repeat offenders here with a general opinion of the ban also respect other opinions and information than those who are guilty. No one thinks the idea to ban convicted neo-Nazis to hold a lecture on lace making, music's development during the 1800's, courses on the saxophone or the opportunity to work as a graphic designer or something else that all citizens are entitled. That's because the law in a free and democratic society judge by actions. Convicted letter bomber does not prohibit sending postcards, people who sexually harassed someone on the phone can keep their phone and people who urinated publicly must not forcibly a colostomy bag, which prevents further crime.

- The Internet is a means, a function. Internet communication and information, it is speech, newspapers, telephone, mail, fax, travel guides, advertising and much more all at once. Removing the possibility of the Internet is to cripple a person beyond all rhyme or reason. There is an isolation cell in freedom. There is NO offense where it is a proportionate penalty. NOTHING!

The Internet is an essential part of freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is part of what we call the Constitution. is, we can not block the internet for some, but also accept that we deny individuals freedom of expression. It is DEEP and FUNDAMENTALS TOTAL wrong in a democratic society.