>If they incur costs from implementing the site blocks, ISPs will be able to request compensation from the government.
So, deep packet inspection and SSL decryption is mandated at all ISPs?
Nah, that would never be abused!
France has moved to implement the Internet-blocking regime that became law in October 2014 as part of a suite of anti-terrorism legislation. The 2014 law allowed administrative orders blocking sites hosting child pornography content, or advocating acts of terrorism. The law has now been gazetted, here, meaning it can now be …
When will these so called politicians etc etc learn that the so called blocks will not stop anyone doing anything. All one needs to do is use a VPN. France Telecom at Rennes spent weeks trying to see what I did to make THEIR system that they could not get to work. In the end I had to "offer" them a targetted virri.
They actually routed my internet connection thru Rennes instead of thru the regular places like Aubervilliers, etc.
They stopped and routed me normally then, no apology, no response, just a swift rerouting to where it should go.
I always use a non ISP DNS server, and I suggest you do as well. Use OpenDNS as your DNS server and the likes of Free, France Telecom etc cannot see what you are doing!
NEVER ever use the ISP server, we found for example that France Telecom were reading my rubbish emails when the engineer said to me that I did not send any emails or get many!
So please, do get OpenDNS, and DO get a VPN
I also add files to emails and if for example it is a .png, and its is to my daughter, I change it to a .pillock file or a .plx. The recipient then just changes it back to what it should be.
'Blocked sites will have a redirect, so users trying to access those sites will be “directed to an information page of the Interior Ministry” which will explain why sites are blocked, and offering information about remedies (if a site is incorrectly blocked).'
But either the Interior ministry will forget they need to put up the explication page, or the server will fall over as soon as traffic gets redirected to it, or they will fail to tell the ISPs where to find the page to redirect to.
Greenpeace is definitely on their list given past actions by their foreign security services. I know it's on the FBI's watchlist. Speaking of that Greenpeace should put the France on a terrorist watchlist! France blew up one of their ships.
[One of the first things I did after putting away the uniform was join Greenpeace and the ACLU. Bet that raised some eyebrows given my clearances. I dropped membership 'cause they have zero intellect when it comes to nuclear power.]
"France initially denied responsibility, but two French agents were captured and charged with arson, conspiracy to commit arson, willful damage, and murder. As the truth came out the resulting scandal resulted in the resignation of the French Defence Minister Charles Hernu."
- Wikipedia, re the Rainbow Warrior bombing.
"It'll still be okay to depict Mohammed being gang raped. I guess that isn't considered terrorism"
Yes, that's fine. No - it's not terrorism. No one gets killed by the depiction. Or terrorised. Well except maybe by Muslims who don't like it that hold no regard for civilised norms.
"unless you happen to be a devout Muslim, who also happen to make up 23% of the world's population."
Christians make up about 32% of the world population if we want to quote meaningless numbers. Religion is no excuse for being a barbarian better suited to the Middle Ages. It is only a sign of being a gullible idiot imo. After all, Islam was just a direct copy of much of early Christianity by one guy - who just recycled it and spiced it up a bit. In between indulging his tastes as a paedophile...
'Religion is no excuse for being a barbarian better suited to the Middle Ages'
Actually that is exactly what religion is. A barbaric anachronism.
Any movement or organization that discourages critical thinking and encourages mindless subservience is a thing that should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Who knows, the UK's rules are just stupid... no reason to think that Frances will be any better.
In theory a 16 year old could be thrown in jail for having indecent images of themselves!
An 18 year old man could be jailed for having images of his 17 year old live-in girlfriend whom he has sex with regularly. The whole range of laws need repealing and rewriting...
That law always struck me as weird.
You can have sex with your 16-year-old girlfriend, but having a photo of a 17-year-old naked? NOPE!
Then, if we take this into consideration:
A 17-year-old girl takes a photo of herself naked. Wham, she's guilty of "making CP."
Yet let's say she turns 18 the next day and takes another photo of herself naked.
If we put those two images side by side, nobody else is going to be able to tell the difference. Except one is "illegal," the other isnt...
So, once again we respond to an attack on personal freedoms with an attack on personal freedoms. Always so successful.
When will people finally learn that the way to deal with the crazy isn't to pretend it doesn't exist? Stopping people saying things doesn't stop them thinking them. It's a good thing to hear people shouting about beheading infidels or whatever the particular stick they have stuck up their ass is.
Nothing is achieved by suppressing the shouting if the underlying sentiment remains. Trying to keep people from talking about it doesn't make it go away, it just simmers, until suddenly it's springing up unexpected from somewhere and the next thing you know some poor bastards are getting shot in the street.
Perhaps the ones talking about overthrowing the state have legitimate grievances (and if they don't now - start suppressing their right to speech and they soon will) Perhaps they're just nutters. To be honest I don't actually care, because the solution to the problem they present is the same either way:
Listen to them. Know who they are. Know what they want.
Then you decide if you need to either arrest them or possibly - just possibly - stop doing whatever godawful shit it is you're doing that is winding them up in the first place.
Either way, trying to keep them quiet is _never_ the answer.
> So, once again we respond to an attack on personal freedoms with an attack on personal freedoms. Always so successful.
If you are referring to the shootings in Paris a few weeks ago, this law has been written and approved a long time ago. It just came into force today following publication on the official gazette.
I haven't looked at the text of the law at all so I should reserve comment, but anything concocting "terrorism" and "child pornography" together does not exactly push my hopes too high.
This post has been deleted by its author
>>And how long will it be before that definition include anything that is critical of the current administration<<
In the UK, you are a trrst if you protest against government policy by means of an illegal act. Also, if you by get a bunch of vehicles together on the road, that can then at the discretion of a senior cop, be deemed an illegal gathering under the travellers and ravers laws. Now consider a biker demo where a bunch of motorbikes go in convoy to protest something and voila .. protesting bikers are trrsts !!