Skip Navigation

EU Parliament drops amendment to restrict unlawful p2p disconnections
Friday 23 October 2009 15:27:04 by Sebastien Lahtinen

The EU Parliament has dropped a proposed changed in the Telecoms Package relating to protection of consumers from being cut off for unlawfully sharing files online. Amendment 138 sought to safeguard the rights of individual users against being cut off or having their access restricted.

"Any such measures liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be taken in exceptional circumstances and imposed if they are necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society, and 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.

In particular, any measures may only be adopted as a result of a prior, fair and impartial procedure ensuring inter alia that the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned be fully respected. Furthermore, the right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed."

Amendment 138, as originally proposed

ISPreview quotes Jérémie Zimmermann from La Quadrature du Net, arguing that ministers of national governments "want to be able to regulate the Net without interference from the judiciary, were rushing to kill amendment 138 and put an end to the negotiations." Meanwhile, TheRegister reports that the UK's intelligence services are worried that these plans will result in increased used of encryption, which in turn will make it more difficult for them to intercept and analyse Internet traffic.


Posted by Aqualung over 8 years ago
If our security services were going to play by the rules encryption shouldnt worry them as only the content and not the ip address can be you think they were perhaps going to read the content without a warrant ????
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Content? No. They're generally interested in the metadata..
Posted by otester over 8 years ago
I've been using an encrypted VPN for quite a while now, no reduction in download speeds and a small increase in ping on games hosted in the UK (VPN hosted in EU), no problem when playing on EU servers.

Also the "Big4" still have to take on Usenet, which is very difficult (also offers high level encryption).
Posted by adriandaz over 8 years ago
otester, does that circumvent traffic shaping? :)
Posted by whatever2 over 8 years ago
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the rules then.

You don't always need a warrant, i.e. if one part of the communication party agrees to interception, you don't need one.
And even if you do need one, you don't get a knock at your door telling you about it.

They are interested in everything DF. Encryption is a faster way of getting yourself included in more investigation as you cannot so easily be dismissed.
Posted by Pigmaster over 8 years ago
Dawn -Content? No. They're generally interested in the metadata..

That's what you think. You will be surprised at what GCHQ have stashed away at RAF Oakhanger. Currently 753 Dell Servers all plugged into the Net and monitoring what? Meta Data, yeah all right then if you say so.
Posted by Bryan-Tansley over 8 years ago
Going encrypted:

1235 6458 2999 5411 5545 6689 7124 5685 5322 4557 8965 5253
6478 2459 3568 8566 1245 ....

Ah think I make a typo, can any of you spooks out there help me?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Pigmaster - Quite. Less than 1000 severs is far too few to do anything especially major.
Posted by otester over 7 years ago

Unless your ISP limits HTTPS traffic, if not then no.


With encryption they don't know who to look for, assuming you keep everything encrypted on your computer, you won't have a problem.
Posted by pigfister over 7 years ago
Great shaping law based on the media industry, i see they are beset on stopping fans from purchasing media, well done.

@ adriandaz

you can route all your p2p through an encrypted tunnel or VPN then it bypasses the traffic shaping.
Posted by pigfister over 7 years ago

# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group


# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
Posted by mishminx over 7 years ago
The French have already tweaked their version so that Judges will hand out punishments. Be they fines, disconnection or imprisonment. Now those disconnected, potentially 50,000 in the first year alone, will have to continue to pay for their service as well.
Posted by otester over 7 years ago
In regards to my last comment.


"Unless your ISP limits HTTPS traffic, if not then no."


"Unless your ISP limits HTTPS traffic, it can bypass shaping."
Posted by nikesair over 7 years ago
2009 hot sell nice styles of adidas shoes for men and women in
Posted by Mince1978 over 7 years ago
Sorry folks but isn't this all a little '1984'!! Big Brother sticks his nose in to much these days!! Who gives a monkey's about illegal file sharing!?! The Media always makes a stack load of cash in anycase, and as an example, most film and popstars make an even bigger stack of cash from bloody tv and radio adverts!! I only get a 5gig monthly usage anyway so dont bother with downloads personally. And Broadband is S#*T where i live too! Shouldn't they be concentrating on making services better to the populous first instead of squeezing us all thru bits of kit to search for bad guys!?!
Posted by otester over 7 years ago

Britiains always been the land of crippling taxes and poor service (which is caused by the government).

Why else do you think we've had so many (peasant/lower class)rebellions over the centuries?

And if you think a 1984 style world is bad, the way I see this world going, it will be a lot worse.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
otester? Sorry, you're just proving how little you know about other countries.

Abd if you want to prevent 1984, fine - see D.Brin _The Transparent Society_, 1998: ditch the concept of "privacy in public" and open the cameras.
Posted by otester over 7 years ago

Other countries? I was talking about this ONE.
Posted by otester over 7 years ago
^ By 1984 world I meant other countries seem to be following the same path of globalisation to a point of a one world government.
Posted by herdwick over 7 years ago
Mandy's on the case again
"The UK government has said it will introduce legislation to allow persistent illegal file-sharers to be disconnected from the net."
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
otester - Yes, other countries. Because your claims about taxes and poor services are bluntly laughable for someone who had done some basic research.

The UK has had *remarkably* few peasent revolts compared to most continental European countries as well...
Posted by otester over 7 years ago

You seem to be too quick to criticise without actually making an opposing point.

Did you mean taxes/poor services compared to other countries or you think our taxes/services are fine?
Posted by kamelion over 7 years ago
@Herdwick they have to win the next election yet. As a lifelong labour voter I am in a bit of a quandary at the moment
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
otester - I was quite clear.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.