

UN: Disconnecting File-Sharers Breaches Human Rights - Garbage
http://torrentfreak.com/un-disconnecting-file-sharers-breaches-human-rights-110603/

======
sp332
At least use due process of law, instead of (as HADOPI did) disconnecting
users after they had been merely _accused_ of infringement 3 times. That
effectively makes copyright owners into judge and jury, and forces the ISP to
act as executioner.

------
BoppreH
Maybe I missed something, but how do you disconnect a _person_ from the
internet? One person may have several ways to access the internet, each of
them with their own IP address and even ISP, while someone else shares a
single computer with other family members or is using NAT.

I see no way to enforce such a law unless you jail the person. What were they
thinking?

------
ItsTrueYouKnow
Yeah, but when was the last time any country cared what the UN considered a
breach of human rights?

------
Tangaroa
I suppose they also consider it a breach of human rights to disconnect users
for harassing other users, spamming, DoSing, breaking into the ISP's own
network, wire fraud, and so on. All is as much "free speech" and as equally
illegal as warezing.

~~~
nate_meurer
With some thought, a person might be able to come up with a rational objection
to the rather subdued assertions in the UN's declaration. Your apples-to-
oranges troll doesn't quite qualify.

~~~
Tangaroa
Fuck you, asshole. You would not recognize a rational argument when you saw
one, because you did see one and you called it an "apples-to-oranges troll".
You can't explain how illegal activity which abuses the network is different
from any other illegal activity which abuses the network. All you can do is
insult me. I can insult you too. Fuck you, asshole.

~~~
nate_meurer
Ah, a splendid retort. I'm sorry, I didn't realize who I was talking to!

    
    
      "abuses the network"
    

Yes, that poor network. However, observe that harassment, denial-of-service,
wire fraud, etc, are not primarily illegal because they abuse the "network".
Think a bit, and I bet you can figure out why they are illegal. Think a bit
more, and I bet you can come up with some differences between a DDoS and a
copyright infringement for non-commercial purposes, such that one might be
considered an apple and the other an orange.

That aside, I call you a troll for bringing up the free-speech strawman. Tell
you what; go find me someone who believes that wire fraud or network intrusion
is "free speech", and I will promptly return your testicles (or whatever else
it is you think I have stolen from you) by mail. Some rules: this person
cannot be in prison and cannot be related to you.

One more request -- kindly stop abusing the network with your profanity.

------
Apocryphon
I'm sure the Data Angels are thanking Commissioner Lal for this.

