This is democratic erosion and why United States founding documents are singular in their importance.
Such censorship is passed by elected legislators, interpreted by an independent judiciary, and subject to appeal (which NordVPN has already begun). From a procedural standpoint, that is democracy. But it ignores liberty, proportionality and limits on power.
Democratic erosion is how governments today expand surveillance, blocking and platform obligations while still technically obeying democratic rules
I think this is a misunderstanding:
> This is democratic erosion and why United States founding documents are singular in their importance.
Founding documents don't do shit. What one needs is a culture which is perpetually hostile towards power. All problems of power are social problems. No law, founding document, principle is going to prevent people from doing stuff if they want to do it.
You also need the formal mechanisms by which rule of law is upheld, protected against mob rule, and has a feedback loop in which course correction is possible. A culture hostile to power isn't stable without stable principles and a leviathan by which those principles persist, which is the whole point of the American experiment. The founding documents laid out a system intended to address the problems of the era, persist into the future, and adapt to the needs of each generation while protecting and maximizing the liberty of each individual.
If all you've got is uniform hostility to power, you've lost the plot and won't ever get past small scale tribalism.
I think its reasonable to argue that the founding documents have become subverted by changes in the political structure of society. From this point of view a too rigid adherence to the founding documents is just as problematic as a too weak one. In the end, it is the citizens which make the difference, not the structures. Any structure put into place will face relentless pressure from those who want power and citizens must be ready to present relentless counter-pressure.
Yeah, for France just compare reactions to these measures to the marching in the streets and general striking behavior you get from austerity measures, and the subsequent backpedaling by authorities. I can only conclude the average person there either just isn’t aware of this, doesn’t understand the implications, or doesn’t value these sorts of digital access erosions in the same way.
The U.S. constitution doesn't do much on its own, though. Sure, you might be able to win a case because of it, but there is no saying how much time you'll spend in prison or how much money you'll spend on lawyers before winning.
Like a sibling comment said: you need a culture that rejects this stuff and punishes it quickly.
> From a procedural standpoint, that is democracy.
Actually, that is democracy, full stop!
Elected representatives vote new laws, and people react according to their interest.
with a pinch of smark, I dare to add:
1. civilised people know that a compromise between personal freedom and societal good has to be defined; discussions have been going for ages concerning where the limit should be, not about whether it should exist.
2. you don't need to be that smart to realize that private remote communications did hardly exist before modern technology; as such, bashing any such law as if was infringing on human rights is ridiculous at best.
As an American, I know that right now my words ring hollow - but the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting.
We should all be tolerant societies, and the problem with tolerance is that you never have to tolerate speech you like.
"Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever. The right of citizens to privacy is enshrined in the constitution of virtually every democracy. Sure there are some allowances that have to be made for common law vs civil law regimes, but if the right to privacy is routinely being violated that is a problem.
> the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting.
We do have free speech in Blighty thank you very much. Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police).
If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country.
> Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police).
Not quite sure what you're referring to here, you can speak out all you want on political matters in the US. -Especially- in the context of criticizing the president.
> "Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever.
Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations. In this sense, the only private communication that ever existed was from mouth to ear.
Today's technology enables actual privacy any anonimity online, and any good and bad deeds can be hidden behind the screen, and nobody should be offended, nor surprised, that civilised societies may want to have a say in the matter.
>Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations. In this sense, the only private communication that ever existed was from mouth to ear.
Good point, if regrettable. Even unlicensed encryption/ciphers have been made illegal by governments as wide ranging as Italy (15th c), France (16th c), Britain (18th c) and the US (WWI)
You have too much faith in a 250 year old document. In the last ~5 years we've seen this Supreme Court, despite their alleged "textualist" or "originalist" philosophy, just completley invent things out of thin air. Three examples spring to mind:
1. The "major questions doctrine". This is simply the idea that if the impact of legislation that is passed by Congress and signed by the president is "large" then the Supreme Court gets to overrule the other two branches of government because they want to. Where is that in the Constitution?
2. The "history and traditions text". This is simply the idea that if the political actors on the bench can find (or, in some cses, invent) something that happenned or was "normal" 250 years ago then it is legal precedent. That doesn't seem to apply to abortion however. Benjamin Franklin published instructions on at-home abortions [1]. How is that not "history and tradition"?
3. The court completely invented presidential immunity out of thin air in a country that rebelled against a monarch.
"What's good for companies and their owners?" tends to be a pretty good predictor for what our Supreme Court does.
What we're seeing in France and elsewhere is the dying breath of neoliberalism. Companies are successfully using the courts worldwide to erode individual rights in the interests of profits. The Constitution doesn't protect you from this. The EU's defenses against this sort of thing seem to be eroding, if they existed at all.
> 1. The "major questions doctrine". This is simply the idea that if the impact of legislation that is passed by Congress and signed by the president is "large" then the Supreme Court gets to overrule the other two branches of government because they want to. Where is that in the Constitution?
That is a wildly inaccurate take on the "major questions doctrine". You are actually describing SCOTUS power to determine if laws are "constitutional", which was decided (by SCOTUS) in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison).
It might be a fair-enough interpretation. For major issues, what's ambiguously said (or unsaid) by Congress can be specifically said (or unsaid) by the Courts.
Point #2 is related, as it also connected to a requirement to interpret "intent", which is a
tricky thing even at the best of times.
As for point #3, I can't comment. I don't quite understand Roberts' logic about official vs. discretionary, but I feel it has something to do with original framers' intent also.
Why do individual European countries seem so obsessed with blocking Pirate sites? I assume the majority of IPs being pirated are likely from outside their own country, so the harm is negligible to the individual country's internal revenue streams, no?
In Czech Republic you are automatically assumed to be a pirate and thus paying fee from size of empty memory device (USB, SD, HDD, ..) by GB. So lot of people will justify piracy by "I have already paid for it".
Czechia also doesn't have a major entertainment revenue the same way France does. Ligue 1 generates around $3B a year in revenue, while Chance Liga is in the $10M-50M, and most Czech language media remains owned and distributed by state-owned CT, so rights have already been paid. And private sector CME/Nova (formerly owned by Ronald Lauder of "let's invade Greenland" fame and now owned by Petr Kellner's family) and Prima (owned by oligarch Ivan Zach) are used by their owners as political tools.
> Why do individual European countries seem so obsessed with blocking Pirate sites?
Ask the Disney Cooperation.
A facetious, but true, remark that describes the influence the large American media companies can have in combating piracy over here. Sir should recall the pressure the USA put on Sweden to close down the Pirate Bay; a Swedish site running in Sweden.
Media & Entertainment Services are overrepresented in a number of European countries like Italy, Spain, and France. Tier 1 Football/Soccer is a massive revenue generator, and one of the most pirated products globally.
> I assume the majority of IPs being pirated are likely from outside their own country
Ever heard of Ligue 1, home to teams like PSG, Olympique de Marseille, Olympique Lyonnais, and AS Monaco, and superstars like Mbappe, Dembélé, and Hakimi? French viewers also watch Spanish, Italian, Belgian, German, and English football/soccer as well.
> Specifically, the VPNs argued that their “no-log” policy means they do not track user IP addresses or geolocate their users. Therefore, a court order to block access only for French users would violate their contractual obligations.
> For now, however, the targeted VPN providers have to find a way to implement the blocking order.
I'm curious about this point. What solution do they have if they want geolocalisation without giving up on privacy ?
"All VPN providers, except ProtonVPN, appeared in court to argue a defense. They raised various arguments, with the “no-log” defense from Surfshark and NordVPN standing out."
Proton is relocating their servers out of Switzerland and into Germany over privacy concerns. They are now facing the possibility of the same privacy concerns in EU countries. Ironically, the safest place to host a private VPN service may actually be USA given the way privacy-related things in the EU are going.
The EU member states are still sovereign, though. This French court ruling doesn't really affect the prospects of certain kinds of privacy in Germany. I think the parent might have been referring to the fact they didn't raise a no-log argument, thus implying they do log. But I don't think that makes much sense either.
To be fair, it is ridiculous to advocate that the solution to a broken system is circumventing the laws. Fix for the problems for copyright and intellectual property systems can't be "heroic" VPN companies.
Kim Dotcom become filthy rich by selling access to copyrighted materials and turned into folk hero of the alt-right. He was selling other peoples work per the kilobyte when kids were persecuted for copyright infringement, videos taken down for using a few second of music or a clip from another video . That is not a fair system.
vpn, piracy sites, government-level blocking, etc. is all pretty damn on-topic for hacker news.
the "wrong" types of political content, for this site, are the ones that have nothing to do with technology of any kind, and spark no curiosity otherwise.
That article says that Cloudflare is fighting Spain about the censorship.
ISP-level censorship is extremely rare in the US. Copyright and piracy is almost always handled by domain seizure ordered by a court, not ISP-level blocking (as is common in the EU).
Reminder to Americans with a strong sense of American exceptionalism (which is rather incredible given...{gestures broadly at everything happening in the US}): Sovereign states can apply whatever laws they want. They are not beholden to JD Vance, Elon Musk, or Donald "Conman" Trump. They do not care what Americans think about this.
Such censorship is passed by elected legislators, interpreted by an independent judiciary, and subject to appeal (which NordVPN has already begun). From a procedural standpoint, that is democracy. But it ignores liberty, proportionality and limits on power.
Democratic erosion is how governments today expand surveillance, blocking and platform obligations while still technically obeying democratic rules
Founding documents don't do shit. What one needs is a culture which is perpetually hostile towards power. All problems of power are social problems. No law, founding document, principle is going to prevent people from doing stuff if they want to do it.
If all you've got is uniform hostility to power, you've lost the plot and won't ever get past small scale tribalism.
What is the evidence of that? I see a lot of people wanting a) more centralized power and b) who controls it
Like a sibling comment said: you need a culture that rejects this stuff and punishes it quickly.
>there is no saying how much time you'll spend in prison or how much money you'll spend on lawyers before winning.
Sixth and eighth amendments.
Actually, that is democracy, full stop!
Elected representatives vote new laws, and people react according to their interest.
with a pinch of smark, I dare to add:
1. civilised people know that a compromise between personal freedom and societal good has to be defined; discussions have been going for ages concerning where the limit should be, not about whether it should exist.
2. you don't need to be that smart to realize that private remote communications did hardly exist before modern technology; as such, bashing any such law as if was infringing on human rights is ridiculous at best.
We should all be tolerant societies, and the problem with tolerance is that you never have to tolerate speech you like.
"Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever. The right of citizens to privacy is enshrined in the constitution of virtually every democracy. Sure there are some allowances that have to be made for common law vs civil law regimes, but if the right to privacy is routinely being violated that is a problem.
We do have free speech in Blighty thank you very much. Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police).
If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country.
Not quite sure what you're referring to here, you can speak out all you want on political matters in the US. -Especially- in the context of criticizing the president.
Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations. In this sense, the only private communication that ever existed was from mouth to ear.
Today's technology enables actual privacy any anonimity online, and any good and bad deeds can be hidden behind the screen, and nobody should be offended, nor surprised, that civilised societies may want to have a say in the matter.
Good point, if regrettable. Even unlicensed encryption/ciphers have been made illegal by governments as wide ranging as Italy (15th c), France (16th c), Britain (18th c) and the US (WWI)
I don't remember any discussions about that. It's always a statement 'to protect the children' or 'fight piracy'.
Both of which make a lot of sense.
And the contrarian view is always expressed as a matter of "privacy", as if remote privacy had ever existed before a couple decades ago.
Laws must be discussed based on their intentions and their expected result. Inventing dogmas doesn't help societal advancement.
1. The "major questions doctrine". This is simply the idea that if the impact of legislation that is passed by Congress and signed by the president is "large" then the Supreme Court gets to overrule the other two branches of government because they want to. Where is that in the Constitution?
2. The "history and traditions text". This is simply the idea that if the political actors on the bench can find (or, in some cses, invent) something that happenned or was "normal" 250 years ago then it is legal precedent. That doesn't seem to apply to abortion however. Benjamin Franklin published instructions on at-home abortions [1]. How is that not "history and tradition"?
3. The court completely invented presidential immunity out of thin air in a country that rebelled against a monarch.
"What's good for companies and their owners?" tends to be a pretty good predictor for what our Supreme Court does.
What we're seeing in France and elsewhere is the dying breath of neoliberalism. Companies are successfully using the courts worldwide to erode individual rights in the interests of profits. The Constitution doesn't protect you from this. The EU's defenses against this sort of thing seem to be eroding, if they existed at all.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-frank...
That is a wildly inaccurate take on the "major questions doctrine". You are actually describing SCOTUS power to determine if laws are "constitutional", which was decided (by SCOTUS) in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison).
2 and 3 are well-made points.
Point #2 is related, as it also connected to a requirement to interpret "intent", which is a tricky thing even at the best of times.
As for point #3, I can't comment. I don't quite understand Roberts' logic about official vs. discretionary, but I feel it has something to do with original framers' intent also.
Seems like most EU countries have this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
Ask the Disney Cooperation.
A facetious, but true, remark that describes the influence the large American media companies can have in combating piracy over here. Sir should recall the pressure the USA put on Sweden to close down the Pirate Bay; a Swedish site running in Sweden.
> I assume the majority of IPs being pirated are likely from outside their own country
Ever heard of Ligue 1, home to teams like PSG, Olympique de Marseille, Olympique Lyonnais, and AS Monaco, and superstars like Mbappe, Dembélé, and Hakimi? French viewers also watch Spanish, Italian, Belgian, German, and English football/soccer as well.
I'm curious about this point. What solution do they have if they want geolocalisation without giving up on privacy ?
"All VPN providers, except ProtonVPN, appeared in court to argue a defense. They raised various arguments, with the “no-log” defense from Surfshark and NordVPN standing out."
Why, because American companies are never forced to do things because of copyright and/or law enforcement?
Kim Dotcom become filthy rich by selling access to copyrighted materials and turned into folk hero of the alt-right. He was selling other peoples work per the kilobyte when kids were persecuted for copyright infringement, videos taken down for using a few second of music or a clip from another video . That is not a fair system.
The American Revolution would like a word.
I will not be surprised if they come for DHT bootstrap nodes/addresses soon.
the "wrong" types of political content, for this site, are the ones that have nothing to do with technology of any kind, and spark no curiosity otherwise.
Cory Doctorow was talking about it recently. https://youtu.be/3C1Gnxhfok0?si=OzjYwL16yLzQUwuY
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/wireStory/spanish-soccer...
ISP-level censorship is extremely rare in the US. Copyright and piracy is almost always handled by domain seizure ordered by a court, not ISP-level blocking (as is common in the EU).