Christian Engström, Pirat

24 november 2009

The Telecoms Package is ammunition to stop Hadopi

Filed under: English,informationspolitik,Telecoms Package — Christian Engström @ 12:58

Final vote on the Telecoms Package

The Telecoms Package was formally adopted today by the European Parliament, with 510 votes for, 40 against and 24 abstentions.

As I said when I spoke in plenary yesterday, the compromise is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. In particular:

It declares that the French Hadopi law is not acceptable.

To see how, let us look at the adopted compromise text. I have analyzed it earlier in the blog post Landmarks in the Telecoms text, but here is the text again:

Article 1.3a:

3a. Measures taken by Member States regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks shall respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law.

Any of these measures regarding end-user’s access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process. Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.

(emphasis added)

The French Hadopi law does not fulfill these criteria, since it does not include the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned.

The right to be heard is a quite central part of the compromise text, and it was inserted for a reason. The whole purpose of an Hadopi system is to be able to shut off a large number of suspected file shares with as little legal fuss as possible. The system is specifically designed to handle the large number of cases necessary to make getting caught a real risk for ordinary people.

By insisting that any procedure to shut people of from the internet should include the right to be heard prior to any measures being taken, the EU sends a very strong signal to the member states that laws like Hadopi are not acceptable in Europe.

If the French government wants to persist with its Hadopi law, they will have to amend it so that anybody who is accused gets the right to be heard before he is shut off from the internet. Otherwise, it is not in compliance with the Telecoms Package that was adopted by the EU today.

But an EU directive only has effect if the member states follow it. It is now up to activists on the national level to make sure that the governments of their respective countries do.

The EU today provided activists in France, the UK, and all other member states with ammunition to stop three-strikes laws from being passed on the national level. This battle has now moved from Brussels to the capitals of the member states.

Let’s make sure we win there as well.

…………

Andra bloggar om: , , , ,

Advertisements

53 kommentarer

  1. I think Christian Engström is up for the French pirates equivalent of ”Legion of honour” now.

    Kommentar av Jerker Montelius — 24 november 2009 @ 13:18

  2. Dear Christian,
    Hadopi does include the right to be heard. Hadopi has a ‘3-strike’ procedure. D

    uring step 1 the internet subscriber is invited to install a filter on his own connection. At this stage he or she can object which fulfils the ”the right to be heard”.

    During step 2 a certified mail is sent to the inwith similar ernet subscriber information where he or she is asled to comply. At this stage he or she can again object which fulfils the ”the right to be heard”.

    The connection is only suspended at the third stage after the subscriber has had two opportunities to make his or her objections heard.

    Hadopi will survive your compromise text. This does not mean that I support the Hadopi. It only means that your compromise is a failure in view of your goal.

    Kommentar av Serge — 24 november 2009 @ 13:44

  3. Sorry, the text contained some typos. Reposting it.

    Dear Christian,
    Hadopi does include the right to be heard. Hadopi has a ‘3-strike’ procedure.

    During step 1 the internet subscriber is invited to install a filter on his own connection. At this stage he or she can object which fulfils the ”the right to be heard”.

    During step 2 a certified mail is sent to the internet subscriber where he or she is asked to comply. At this stage he or she can again object which fulfils the ”the right to be heard”.

    The connection is only suspended at the third stage after the subscriber has had two opportunities to make his or her objections heard.

    Hadopi will survive your compromise text. This does not mean that I support the Hadopi. It only means that your compromise is a failure in view of your goal.

    Kommentar av Serge — 24 november 2009 @ 13:59

  4. […] ske – men chansen är stor att den i Sverige kommer ske i en domstol. Direktivet hjälper till och stjälpa för Frankrikes Hadapi-lagstiftning och gör att de måste ändra lagen och göra den mera rättsäker genom att den anklagade får […]

    Pingback av Anders S Lindbäck om kunskapssamhället » Telekompaketet klubbat! — 24 november 2009 @ 15:12

  5. @Serge

    The right to be heard is not in the meaning of ”right to be heard by administrative authorities”, but the ”right to be heard” by a judge.

    Kommentar av bipbop — 24 november 2009 @ 15:16

  6. I’m sorry Christian but you’re just plain wrong here.

    The first article of the HADOPI 2 bill (which is now the law in force now in France) states, in Art. L331-21-1 of the Intelectual Property Code:

    « Lorsque les personnes concernées demandent à être entendues, ils les convoquent et les entendent. » (http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069414&idArticle=LEGIARTI000021212098)

    which can be translated by ”When interested people [i.e. those that have been caught by HADOPI] request to be heard, they are summoned and heard [by members of HADOPI]”.

    The right to be heard is respected.

    Moreover, the French Constitutional Council has allowed the ”fast-track” criminal procedure of HADOPI 2 (i.e. by ”ordonnances pénales”, roughly ”criminal orders”, which is a procedure where the judge takes a decision based on written facts brought by the public prosecutor, without any hearing of the defendant), based on the fact that anyone that has been found guilty with this procedure is allowed to challenge it, and in this case, is allowed to have a regular trial.

    Here again, the right to be heard is respected.

    I’m sorry but the comprise you have voted today doe *not* passed your own hadopi test.

    Moreover, by voting for it, you have accepted that a sanction balancing between several fundamental freedoms can be taken by somebody else than judiciary authorities. This is in contradiction with the basic principle of separation of powers. I’m not surprised that the European Parliament has prefered a compromise rather than restatic this basic principle. But a real ”pirate MEP” shouldn’t have done so 😦

    Kommentar av Gibus (Gérald Sédrati-Dinet) — 24 november 2009 @ 15:52

  7. About UK, don’t you think it strange that the Mandelson’s report has just shown up after your beloved compromise was accepted (by conciliation committee)? Do you really believe that this compromise will stop the UK 3-strikes?

    Kommentar av Gibus (Gérald Sédrati-Dinet) — 24 november 2009 @ 15:57

  8. In the end, you can never stop states for punishing criminals. If you want file sharing to be a legal activity you must elect governements that makes it legal.

    This landmark legislation establishes that internet access is an essential right worthy of special legal protection, especially the protection of human rights regulations.

    Whether the current HADOPI legislation is compatible is up to the EU Court to decide. I guess the very first shutdown case would go to the EU court.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 24 november 2009 @ 15:59

  9. @bibop: ”The right to be heard is not in the meaning of ”right to be heard by administrative authorities”, but the ”right to be heard” by a judge”

    Unfortunally, this is not the case, because of the loophole ”A prior fair and impartial procedure […]”. ”procedure” is not legally defined to mean a procedure before a judge and can actually means the investigation procedure by an administrative authority.

    The original amendment 138 was short, simple, with words carefully chosen in order that no ambiguity remains. The compromise is long, subject to interpretation, with a lot of loopholes.

    Kommentar av Gibus (Gérald Sédrati-Dinet) — 24 november 2009 @ 16:03

  10. @Johan Tjäder: you’re right with designing a law to legalise no-commercial file-sharing.

    About a potential first HADOPI shutdown, don’t be worry, this is unlikely to happen even before reaching an EU court. Just because before this, the case has to reach a national court (thanks to the decision of French Constitutional COuncil who has exactly restated original amendement 138), and it is unlikely that a judge will order a shutdown based solely on evidences brought by the HADOPI authority…

    Kommentar av Gibus (Gérald Sédrati-Dinet) — 24 november 2009 @ 16:06

  11. (oops send my message before finishing it) The situation in France is actually quite safe (again, thanks to the decision of French Constitutional Council who has exactly restated original amendement 138). The issue is for other Member States who are not protected anymore by the compromise voted by Christian today.

    Kommentar av Gibus (Gérald Sédrati-Dinet) — 24 november 2009 @ 16:08

  12. @Gibus (#6)

    If the fast-track procedure means shutdown occurs before the accused is heard, then it is a violation of the new article. It will be interesting to see of the fast-track procedure, as you describe here, can stand now that the telecoms package has been adopted.

    Separation of powers is no human right. However, by including the requirement on judicial review you uphold the court’s right to have the final say. If initial proceedings is handled by administrative authorities, so be it. When the police makes an arrest that’s exactly what happens anyway.

    (#11) The French constitutional court is within it’s right to uphold amendment 138, because it is a part of the national legal system. The European parliament is not.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 24 november 2009 @ 17:16

  13. @Gibus
    @Serge
    @all

    The right to be heard has a unique, precise and well-defined meaning according to the general principles of the Community law, since the 90ies. All your objections are born with this very basic misunderstanding of what the right to be heard means, which is different from what HADOPI 2 provides. Article 1.3a is very careful in asserting that every provision described and every measure limiting access to end-users is subject to the general principles of the Community law. Therefore, there can be no other interpretation of what the right to be heard means (see below). Also, ”procedure” is not vague, since it has been clearly defined in the article itself.

    HADOPI 2 has also another problem in its technical implementation in my opinion. Compare the technical implementationwith article 6 of 2002/58/EC AND with the sentence in the trial Tele2 vs. LSG (July 2009), sentence issued by the Austrian Supreme Court after the opinion of the European Court of Justice. Finally, correlate the ePrivacy Directive with article 1.3a of the framework D. Please note that 2002/58/EC is in the Package and that article 6 has not been amended, as far as I can see.

    Obviously art. 8.4h was clearer (but had different problems) but hey… ”you can’t always get what you want”. Anyway, a complete and deep analysis of the article in italian, with consultation with several lawyers, has been available since the 6th of november, as soon as we have it in english (tonight) we’ll spread it.

    ”A number of procedural rights were considered so essential by the ECJ
    that they were declared to be general principles of law. These would
    include the right to a hearing which was considered as a general
    principle in /Transocean Marine Paint Association v. Commission/. This
    case made extensive references to English law in adopting the right to a
    hearing into Community law. Advocate General Warner examined the various
    legal systems of Member States and emphasised the role natural justice
    played in England. He showed that the notion of /audi alteram partem/
    is, in one way or another, also present in most other Member States. The
    Court adhered to Warner’s opinion when it stated that ”a person whose
    interests are perceptibly affected by the decision taken by a public
    authority must be given the opportunity to make his point of view
    known.” This was considered by the Court to be a general rule of
    Community law. This principle was later referred to by the ECJ as ”the
    rights of the defence” and today also covers rights such as that of
    non-self-incrimination and legal representation.”

    Aron Mifsud-Bonnici (1996)

    Kind regards,
    Paolo Brini
    Spokesperson for Movimento ScambioEtico

    Kommentar av Paolo Brini — 24 november 2009 @ 17:29

  14. […] hemsida läs även DN, DN2, SvD och SvD2 Uppdatering: Lena Ek, Karl Sigfrid, Eva-Britt Svensson, Christian Engström och Farmor […]

    Pingback av Riksdagskandidat mot FRA | Oscar Fredriksson (C) — 24 november 2009 @ 17:47

  15. @paolo : I cannot see any definition od ”procedure” in the article itself, can you point us where you’ve seen it?

    Also, there is no doubt that the analysis you’ve reported is fully right. What I’m saying is that the right to be heard, as stated by Mifsud-Bonnici, is respected in HADOPI 2. AFAIK, neither ECJ or ECHR has ever opposed to the ”fast-track” procedure / ”criminal orders”.

    I don’t get your point with art.6 of ePrivacy. The 6th alinea of this article states ”Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 shall apply without prejudice to the possibility for competent bodies to be informed of traffic data in conformity with applicable legislation with a view to settling disputes, in particular interconnection or billing disputes.” HADOPI has respected this by introducing in the 1st version of the law that data retention is authorised for the needs of the HADOPI authority. I’m not sure this is what you meant since I don’t know what is ”sentence in the trial Tele2 vs. LSG (July 2009), sentence issued by the Austrian Supreme Court after the opinion of the European Court of Justice”.

    Kommentar av Gibus (Gérald Sédrati-Dinet) — 24 november 2009 @ 17:50

  16. @paolo : ”you can’t always get what you want”…

    … ”but if you try sometimes, you can just get what you need” 🙂

    and @all

    This is exactly what hapenned for the course of amendment 138. Never forget that this amendment has never been tabled for legal purpose. It is just a re-statement (only a judge can balance different fundamental freedoms and order to restrict one) of EU and international instruments. Amendment 138 was a political weapon.

    I’m criticizing EP in general, and Christian specially, to have surrender on this political weapon.

    Kommentar av Gibus (Gérald Sédrati-Dinet) — 24 november 2009 @ 18:04

  17. @Gibus:

    Article 138 is not just a restatement. It goes beyond, for example, the European convention on Human Rights, have no mention of ”prior” judgment. You are only guaranteed a hearing within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial tribunal.

    It has been rejected twice by the Council. Granted that the Council could have done a better job of explaining itself, so that the matter could have been resolved sooner, but now it is done.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 24 november 2009 @ 18:52

  18. @ Johan,
    Article 6 of the ECHR provides that in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. This means that you can not be sentenced for a crime without a prior trial in a court/tribunal. Amendment 138, but not the compromise, is a restatement of this rule.

    Kommentar av Serge — 24 november 2009 @ 19:04

  19. […] sospechosa de compartir agenda política con la industria audiovisual, habla de la votación en The Telecoms Package is ammunition to stop Hadopi y dice que con la norma recién aprobada en la mano leyes como la francesa Hadopi, que ya tuvo que […]

    Pingback av El Parlamento Europeo aprueba el Paquete de Telecomunicaciones (y no la desconexión de los usuarios) « 1plisplas — 24 november 2009 @ 19:09

  20. @Gibus

    ”I cannot see any definition od ”procedure” in the article itself, can you point us where you’ve seen it?”

    – it must be prior to any measure taken, fair and impartial;
    – it must respect the right to be heard, which means legal representation, hearing and debate, and any opportunity and reasonable time for the defense to study the elements brought by the prosecutors and in general all the rights granted by the ”right to defense”;
    – since it wants to issue measures regarding restrictions to access, it must comply with the general principles of the Community law, in which Convention is included and, with the new TEU after Lisbon, the Charter.

    That said:

    1) What HADOPI 2 provides, according to your very own words, is ””When interested people [i.e. those that have been caught by HADOPI] request to be heard, they are summoned and heard [by members of HADOPI]”, thus violating the right to be heard. Therefore, it’s incompatible with framework directive. Also, it’s not true that the procedure defined in the art. 1.3a, as you say in my opinion wrongly, ”can actually means the investigation procedure by an administrative authority.”

    Furthermore:

    2) How HADOPI can correlate IP addresses with identities of Internet subscribers? It is my understanding that HADOPI will use private companies which will use modified p2p clients to harvest IP; then the companies send those data back to HADOPI, and finally HADOPI asks the relevant ISP to disclose name, address etc. I am sure that french law provides that IP harvesting is legal even when performed by authorized private militias; what I object is that exceptions to article 6 of ePrivacy directive require a magistrate, or anyway are not suitable for administrative bodies. So, according to the directive, HADOPI 2 should first ask to magistrates an act to force providers to disclose information. Here I see incompatibility between HADOPI 2 and EU, because it is my understanding that HADOPI 2 is an administrative body authorized by the government, and NOT by a judge, to request personal data to ISPs. This is what the ECJ put in clear when it gave its answer to Austrian Supreme Court: IP address is an essential traffic data (without it no connection can be provided by ISPs to end-users) so it must be wiped out or anonymized, except when required by a magistrate. Link to the case will be in the analysis I mentioned and give the chance for ISPs to oppose to disclose personal data of their customers.

    3) When obtained without a court order, are those personal data admissible in a fair procedure which complies to the general principles of the Community law? I can’t answer to these questions which deserve attention by french lawyers.

    ”About UK, don’t you think it strange that the Mandelson’s report has just shown up after your beloved compromise was accepted (by conciliation committee)? Do you really believe that this compromise will stop the UK 3-strikes?”

    I think it’s understandable. First of all, if you have seen Pinsent Mason comments, you will have realized that they made a gross mistake in evaluating art. 1.3a. And Pinsent Mason is one of the main legal firms to which copyright industry relies heavily. Secondly, but more important, Mandelson would like to begin to disconnect people, if necessary, in spring 2011. This means that they want to do it BEFORE they are obliged to transpose the directives of the Telecoms Package. In France they have a similar problem: the government may simply ignore the package as long as it is compelled to transpose it (typically, it’s more than 18 months from the first publication…). And keep in mind that, when a gov’t decides it’s convenient, a transposition of a directive may be delayed for a longer time… However, the english 3-strikes have many more incompatibility problems than HADOPI (see for example Monica Horten’s in iptegrity observations), so yes, art. 1.3a will prohibit the procedure suggested at the moment.

    Kind regards,
    Paolo

    Kommentar av Paolo Brini — 24 november 2009 @ 19:22

  21. @Serge (#18)

    Do you see the word ”prior” in Article 6? No? Because it is not there.

    The state has the right to restrict your human rights without any conviction in court within certain limits. And ECHR certainly says nothing about Internet. The connection between Internet and freedom of expression is what was made today by the EU. That is a truly significant step. It doesn’t end here. It begins here.

    I’m sorry to see some people wanting to jeopardize this because of whatever reason. And it’s easy to be critical after the fact.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 24 november 2009 @ 19:32

  22. […] tycker att paketet är ett steg i rätt riktning. Njae? Det måste verkligen ifrågasättas. Engström menar att Telekompaketet ger möjlighet att stoppa den franska Hadopilagen. Jag är tveksam till att det verkligen gör […]

    Pingback av Nu kan EU stänga av fildelare från Internet | Kulturbloggen — 24 november 2009 @ 20:10

  23. @ Paolo
    Right to be heard does not necessarily mean representation, hearing and right to defence. It is different concepts. It is your wishful thinking.

    Kommentar av Serge — 24 november 2009 @ 20:22

  24. @ Johan Tjäder,
    The right to a fair and public hearing relates to a criminal charge, not to a verdict that has been already passed, read the text of article 6.

    Kommentar av Serge — 24 november 2009 @ 20:25

  25. @Serge

    Not necessarily in general, but necessarily in the context of art. 1.3a, where I don’t see why Bonnici’s statements should not be valid: audi alteram parte is now included in the widest rights of the defence.

    Unless you mean that Internet disconnection does not perceptibly affect the interests of a person? I would feel confident to rule out this case, because the access to Internet has been recognized, by the Parliament and by the Commission, as a key instrument to exercise in practice certain fundamental freedom. Once again:

    ”a person whose interests are perceptibly affected by the decision taken by a public authority must be given the opportunity to make his point of view known.” This was considered by the Court to be a general rule of Community law. This principle was later referred to by the ECJ as ”the rights of the defence” and today also covers rights such as that of non-self-incrimination and legal representation.”

    Kind regards,
    Paolo

    Kommentar av Paolo Brini — 24 november 2009 @ 21:27

  26. Sorry for the mistake, the sentence ”audi alteram parte is now included in the widest rights of the defence.” should be read:

    audi alteram part is now INCLUSIVE OF the widest rights of the defence

    Kommentar av Paolo Brini — 24 november 2009 @ 21:39

  27. @paolo 20

    I disagree with some of your legal arguments, but anyway, the debate here just prove one thing: the compromised voted is all but clear and subject to interpretation, contrary to original amendment 138. And most of all, leave alone legality for now, this was not the main aim of this amendment. 3-strikes measures can be challenged legally, no matter what is voted on the telecoms package. But once again, amendment 138 was a political weapon designed to prevent governments to even attempts to propose such legislation. Obviously this is not the case with the compromise voted today.

    Kommentar av Gibus (Gérald Sédrati-Dinet) — 24 november 2009 @ 22:58

  28. Ok, I have no intention of being to harsh on you, as you are not our main enemies in theese issuues. But please explain this:

    28 oktober: ”The important thing here is that the parliament really sticks to its line from the previous reading. The protection of network users’ rights must not be replaced with a compromise. Rule of law is not something to compromise”, says Swedish MEP Christian Engstrom. (link: http://werebuild.eu/wiki/index.php/Pirate_party_press_release_oct_28)

    24 november: ”We in the Swedish Pirate Party support the compromise that was reached on the Telecoms Package. It is not perfect, and it is not everything we wanted. But it is a good step in the right direction.” Christian Engstrom. (link https://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/the-telecoms-package-is-ammunition-to-stop-hadopi/)

    Kommentar av Kalle Larsson — 24 november 2009 @ 23:08

  29. @Gibus

    As I read your explanation of the HADOPI 2 legislation it do not meet the requirements of the telecom directive. You argue that the suspect have had his right to be heard fulfilled since he has the right to be heard at strike 1 and 2 but that is not true. The offense that would trigger the suspension from internet is the same offense that triggers the strike 3 procedure and the suspect have the right to be heard before an action is taken based on that offense. It doesn’t matter that the suspect have been heard at strike 1 and 2 since they are not the ones that trigger the suspension, they are just a prerequisite for initiating the strike 3 procedure.

    Kommentar av Stocken — 24 november 2009 @ 23:25

  30. @Stocken : I’ve also said that HADOPI 2 fulfills the right to be heard, because anybody found guilty with the ”fast track” procedure has the right to oppose to it, and then an usual trial has to take place (and yes this is before the suspension is triggered).

    Kommentar av Gibus (Gérald Sédrati-Dinet) — 25 november 2009 @ 0:20

  31. @Serge (#23):

    Article 6 ECHR does not prevent the state from taking actions in order to prevent further crime, for example by shutting down your internet access.

    The state can certainly detain you to prevent further crime. I guess that would make you feel pretty cut off.

    It’s not the institution HADOPI that is the target here, its the swift procedure envisioned which will now be furnished with procedural safeguards. it may not be a court, but if it’s required to act like a tribunal why bother?

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 25 november 2009 @ 0:45

  32. This is the promised translation of our analysis, I hope it may help in the ongoing discussion.

    http://bit.ly/8yZM08

    Kind regards,
    Paolo

    Kommentar av Paolo Brini — 25 november 2009 @ 1:14

  33. @Kalle Larsson
    The reason why the current reading is viewed as a compromise by the Christian is probably because it doesn’t include any provisions about things like net neutrality and that it doesn’t directly rule out disconnection as a form of penalty. But in almost every other way it seems to stay true to what the Pirate Party has strived for.

    As long as you don’t forget about your ideals and principles I think one needs to be prepared to sometimes be a bit pragmatic when entering politics in order to get something done.

    Kommentar av Tor — 25 november 2009 @ 10:16

  34. […] sospechosa de compartir agenda política con la industria audiovisual, habla de la votación en The Telecoms Package is ammunition to stop Hadopi y dice que con la norma recién aprobada en la mano leyes como la francesa Hadopi, que ya tuvo que […]

    Pingback av Sobre Tecnologia » Blog Archive » El Parlamento Europeo aprueba el Paquete de Telecomunicaciones (y no la desconexión de los usuarios) — 25 november 2009 @ 10:17

  35. […] sospechosa de compartir agenda política con la industria audiovisual, habla de la votación en The Telecoms Package is ammunition to stop Hadopi y dice que con la norma recién aprobada en la mano leyes como la francesa Hadopi, que ya tuvo que […]

    Pingback av El Parlamento Europeo aprueba el Paquete de Telecomunicaciones (y no la desconexión de los usuarios) « RSS2Blogs — 25 november 2009 @ 12:20

  36. @Tor (#32)

    It’s standard practice for the Swedish Left party to vote against any measure when it bears no significance in the outcome. Because that is believed to attract protest voters.

    Let’s not forget that there is a general election coming up in Sweden next year, so anything to keep the Pirate Party from getting seats in the Swedish parliament will be allowed. Any party needs 4 % of the votes to get seats. By keeping 0,1 % of the voters away from the Pirate Party resulting in that it doesn’t clear the 4 % barrier, then it means 1 or 2 kept seats for the Left party. Gaining 0,1 % of the voters for the Left party would mean almost nothing in new seats.

    This is clearly an attempt to dissuade people from casting votes on the Pirate Party next September.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 25 november 2009 @ 13:11

  37. Ok Johan, you distrust us. That´s ok, we´re used to that. But here´s something that you might have a more difficult time with: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/telecoms-package-a-missed-opportunity-for-citizens-rights

    Kalle Larsson MP Left Party Sweden

    Kommentar av Kalle Larsson — 25 november 2009 @ 13:20

  38. @Kalle Larsson:

    Eva-Britt Svensson had a seat in the conciliation committee. I have seen no formal objections whatsoever. Either there is no such objections, or you are bad at communicating.

    Regarding Net neutrality, that has to be clearly defined. Does it, for example, prevent a network operator to offer a premium quality assured voice service as opposed to a free or near low-cost best-effort service? Does it prevent an operator to offer quality assured cable tv replacement?

    Clearly, Net neutrality is one issue that needs to get clearer structure. The US-market has very different characteristics which makes it more vulnerable. I don’t find it an argument to block the entire telecoms package.

    As for the possibility to terminate Internet access contracts from the side of the network operator. That’s is an intriguing idea, which I think must be explored. Yet, it’s not something that makes it necessary to block the entire telecoms package.

    If you see a political achievement with your no-vote yesterday, I don’t share your view on what a political achievement is.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 25 november 2009 @ 13:49

  39. Kalle Larsson,
    For all practical purposes the current reading effectively says that you have the right to a prior judicial decision, although for formal reasons those exact words are not used. So if we instead focus on the other part of that La Quadrature article that you link to – net neutrality – then maybe you can comment on what HAX writes on his blog, namely that the Swedish Left Party did not support the move to widen the discussions that arose around amendment 138 to also include provisions on net neutrality. If that’s true it indeed seems somewhat hypocritical of you to now critize PP for having accepted a compromise that does not include such net neutrality provisions.

    It makes me sad to see that the Left Party, for which I gained a completely new kind of respect after the FRA wiretap affair, now seems to try to take advantage of the situation and point finger at those who just happened to choose a more pragmatic approach but did fight for net neutrality all the way.

    Kommentar av Tor — 25 november 2009 @ 14:46

  40. […] the European Parliament adopted the Telecoms Package. We now have an additional tool that we can use to ensure a free and open […]

    Pingback av Question to the Commission on ACTA « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP — 25 november 2009 @ 15:11

  41. At the very first meeting of the conciliation committee (where both Eva-Britt Svensson and I were members), the issue of the scope of the conciliation was discussed.

    The Pirate Party and the Green group (represented by me and Philippe Lamberts) wanted to open up the scope so that the entire package should be on the table. This would have made it possible to introduce net neutrality into the package.

    Eva-Britt Svensson voted against this. She went along with the rest of the members from the other political groups, and decided to restrict the scope to amendment 138 only.

    Just as Johan Tjäder says above, this is just posturing by the Left Party to attract voters in the Swedish national elections next year.

    Nothing wrong with a political party trying to look good to voters, of course. But it is a pity that they have to do it in such a dishonest way.

    Still, that’s politics, I suppose. At least to the old established parties.

    Kommentar av Christian Engström — 25 november 2009 @ 15:34

  42. […] des Netzes in das Europäische Parlament ein und ist dort Mitglied der Fraktion Grüne/EFA. Seiner Meinung nach, bildet das Telekompaket einen guten Kompromiss und einen Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Ob […]

    Pingback av DIGITALE LINKE — 25 november 2009 @ 17:48

  43. Congratulations Christian, you and the rest of the Pirate Party just lost my vote with that dick move.
    You just showed how you have less balls than an old woman from the left party(how I regret I left it now).

    Maybe you would like to think that you were voted in to prove that the Pirate Party is a new, fresh politicial party, truth is we voted you in so you could protect our net neutrality. You failed, horribly.
    So we’re are we now? You’ve shown us that you are nothing but a spineless coward that can’t take the pressure of global politics.
    KTHXBAI!

    Kommentar av Ernesto — 25 november 2009 @ 18:12

  44. Ernesto, let’s summarize:
    Left Party: did not support broadening the discussions to include the issue of net neutrality. Then votes against the whole telecoms package.
    Pirate Party: tries to push the net neutrality agenda, but only gets support from the Greens, but not from other parties like the Left. Then votes yes to the telecoms since they did what they could in the negotiation phase but didn’t manage to rally enough support for net neutrality.

    Personally I think the Pirate Party comes out looking better.

    Kommentar av Tor — 25 november 2009 @ 20:09

  45. Hello ! A little bit late but here is the Digg link: http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Telecoms_Package_is_ammunition_to_stop_Hadopi

    and my Digg history: http://digg.com/users/sunurb01/history

    Regards, Urban

    Kommentar av Urban Sundström — 25 november 2009 @ 21:10

  46. So, lets see. What real alternatives did we have?

    a) Rejecting the whole package. Would this have stopped HADOPI et al? Nope

    b) The now adopted result. A country MAY cut people of the internet but IF they want to do that then they have to do so in compliance the now established rules. Does it stop all possible versions of three strikes? I think not. Does it stop the worst versions of them we have have heard of in the HADOPI-debate? I think so.

    Thats basically the two options that I see would have been possible. Somepeople argue that there wore more possible outcome, but for the time being I think not. I have heard at least two more I think count as such.

    c) an even stronger wording on when and how one could have been shut of. That was tried but regarded as crossing the boarder of what power the EU has over the national parliaments.

    d) declare that cutting someone of the Internet is unacceptable at all. This also goes beyond EU power.

    So, I think what we got was the best for the time being, IF a nation part of EU wants to cut people of THEN some basic principles must apply. Of course I think it wrong to cut people of the Internet at all, but that is something you must tell you local parliament not to do. Just because the EU has not forbidden it, it doesn’t mean its mandatory. If your government want to create such laws you must protest and campaign to make sure it doesn’t happen.

    In the future I would want to see the EU banning cutting people of the Internet just as it has banned the death penalty. But as I understand it thats not leagaly possible in the EU today, not to speak of the great lack of political will to do so.

    The Pirate Party is a force in the European politics but when I read what some people here writes, in my mind there is these words of Luke Skywalker coming to me; ”you want the impossible”

    Kommentar av Björn Odlund — 26 november 2009 @ 0:41

  47. Perhaps, perhaps not, the compromise will stop HADOPI. However, more importantly the compromise clearly allows the French to protect internet access for themselves. Get rid of Sarkozy and his gang, problem solved.

    Kommentar av Robert Andersson — 26 november 2009 @ 9:56

  48. @Robert 47

    There is no more pb. in France since June 2009, when French Constitutional Council has stated that suspending Internet access needs a prior ruling by judicial authorities, just like originale am. 138.

    The voted compromise does not fullfill this, whatever it is said here, just read the FAQ on EP website: ”When a national judicial or competent administrative authority wants to cut off a user’s access to the internet, a specific procedure must be followed.” (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/background_page/058-63888-306-11-45-909-20091105BKG63887-02-11-2009-2009-false/default_p001c005_en.htm).

    Kommentar av Gibus (Gérald Sédrati-Dinet) — 26 november 2009 @ 10:31

  49. Ernesto, ”Congratulations Christian, you and the rest of the Pirate Party just lost my vote with that dick move.”

    Uhm, you mean you don’t really understand the EP election system. First you vote on the person, then the party a person belongs to, then, if you happen to know ‘fore hand, the group the party belongs to that the person belongs to.

    Pretty darn simple.

    But you, you feel let down by one person, then diss the whole party, no matter the country of origin. I’m sure there’s some logic in there somewhere.

    ”You just showed how you have less balls than an old woman from the left party(how I regret I left it now).”

    Of course, instead he should’ve done your personal biding by voting no, and the majority can go f ’em self.

    By the way, did you take the time to wonder what the majority thought was the right move? Like if they wanted more consumer rights, better net user protection, and net neutrality pending on what the individual country feels like having, or absolutely nothing of the sort?

    Kommentar av ST — 27 november 2009 @ 20:12

  50. In the future I would want to see the EU banning cutting people of the Internet just as it has banned the death penalty. But as I understand it thats not leagaly possible in the EU today, not to speak of the great lack of political will to do so.

    Thats bit curious point of view. If you are against death penaltys then you have to fight for it. If you(!) don´t no one will ever do so. And thats the great, great problem here. The alternative would have been that Christian – one person – vote against and fight for it! It would have been accepted anyway. But all wich are with us here could have a strategic focus on him and us as a party.

    The yes was a strategical fail without need of.

    Regards
    ALOA

    Kommentar av aloa5 — 2 december 2009 @ 14:55

  51. @Björn Odlund (#46) and ALOA (#50)

    EU has not banned the death penalty. Indeed it is not within its powers according to the treaties.

    The death penalty was banned by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 2 december 2009 @ 23:32

  52. […] han conseguido aumentar los derechos de los usuarios de servicios de telecomunicaciones. De hecho, el eurodiputado del partido pirata ha afirmado que “Hubiera sido preferible contar con la autoridad judicial a priori como decía la […]

    Pingback av EL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO APRUEBA EL CORTE DE INTERNET SIN CONTROL JUDICIAL « Identidad Andaluza — 23 december 2009 @ 8:05

  53. […] suspicious of sharing political agenda with the audio-visual industry, speaks about the voting in The Telecoms Package is ammunition to stop Hadopi and says that with the norm newly approved in the hand laws as the French Hadopi, who had to be already […]

    Pingback av Newest technology: The European Parliament approves the Bundle of Telecommunications (and not the disconnection of the users) — 8 januari 2010 @ 15:56


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blogga med WordPress.com.

%d bloggare gillar detta: