France Used Non-Existent Benefits to Push New BillAdded: Saturday, January 8th, 2011
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
The new French surveillance legislation named LOPPSI 2 emerged in the news recently when the bill has re-entered political debate. The country’s Interior Minister appeared to be out in the media announcing that the benefits of the new bill include dealing cell phone theft. Meanwhile, the observers point to one problem – it doesn’t exist in the bill in the first place. Besides, blocking stolen phones can be done right now.
In fact, LOPPSI 2 is a French bill that would allow police to upload malware to alleged criminals (and file-sharers) without a court order and the user knowledge. When the legislation was first proposed in 2009, it raised some eyebrows, at least. Of course, many people were quick to blast the law, saying that the bill goes way too far.
Recently, the bill emerged again with the Interior Minister recently going in to the media to sell the benefits of the legislation. He announced his intention to take a few measures, among which there is change in the phones system. Until now they could only block the SIM card on the stolen phone, while now they would be able to lock the phone. The Interior Minister explained that it would become much less attractive to steal a phone. That is what happened twenty years ago with the car radios, when they found techniques to discourage the theft.
In other words, the proposed legislation would make stealing phones less attractive since the companies are then able to lock down the phone and block the SIM card. However, the critics point at the problem with this comment: the legislation, in its current form, doesn’t include any mention of the theft of portable phones. Other pointed out that the SIM cards blocking is already possible. In short, even if an amendment related to phones system was introduced in to the bill, there would be no added benefit on this front.
Honestly, it is quite hard to defend this style of selling a bill to the public. Indeed, the attempts to convince people in non-existent benefits is, at least, showing a sense of general ignorance to legislation you helped to create. Some of the critics even call it “pushing a direct lie out in to the public”. The Minister, who is going to sell the bill to the public based on benefits, would better sell it on benefits that are actually included into the law. Meanwhile, it still remains to be seen what effect the law will have on the surveillance debate in the country.
January 8th ,2011Posted by:
Saturday, January 8th, 2011
|sounds like they use the US tactics of making statements about benefits and things that are not real just to get what they want.|
kind of like the republicans, saying they want to make sure 911 first responders get medical coverage but then wont sign the bill unless the top 1 percent of the country keeps a 4 percent tax break.
that 4 percent on the US richest would have been more than enough to pay their medical bills.
but like always, the republicans want everyone to pay that cant afford it.
Most Popular Stories