In a press conference on monday the European Commission denied a request by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, to reject an amendment voted on by the European Parliament in September's Telecoms Package vote:
"The amendment on a new regulatory framework for telecommunications stated “no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a priori ruling by the judicial authorities."
The amendment in question (138) is one we asked you to write to your MEPs about prior to September's plenary in the European Parliament. You can read more on the story from the European Voice , the Commission's statement is available to read, while the press conference is available on Youtube.
In other news the UK government has answered an epetition to the Prime Minister seeking "to not force internet service providers to act ... for the RIAA and be treated like a common courier.” The Prime Minister's response does not go much further beyond the position already stated in the Government's current consultation.
Robert M Jones:
Oct 09, 2008 at 10:39 AM
I'm puzzled. This petition repeats the earlier October 2007 ISPA position about DPI, that it was unreasonable and illegal - "Service providers say what the government wants them to do would be like asking the Royal Mail to monitor the contents of every envelope posted."
Yet since the introduction of DPI covertly by BT Retail in 2006 and 2007, then openly in September 2008, to facilitate Phorm's OIX/Webwise system, the ISPA have never retracted their statement nor disciplined BT Retail for inroducing it. In fact they won't even talk about it when we ask them.
It now DOES appear that ISP's can open the envelopes, and inspect the contents, and not only discipline you on the basis of a third party report from the music industry, but also ISPA members CAN and DO intercept every packet of data I send over my internet connection, and although it was thought to be illegal by the ISPA in October 2007, in September 2008 the authorities (DBERR, ICO, Home Office, City of London police) are turning a blind eye to such illegal activity.
How come filesharing is prosecuted with the full weight of the law (to benefit large corporations) but illegal interception of internet communications is winked at (to benefit large corporations). Oh, I see...