Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
* "Knowingly providing hyperlinks on websites to terrorist content
must be defined by law as illegal just like the terrorist content itself"
* "Governments must disseminate lists of illegal, terrorist websites"
*
"The Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (art 1.2) should be
explained that providing Internet services is included in providing economics
instruments to Al Qaeda (and other terrorist persons and organisations
designated by the EU) and therefore an illegal act"
* "On Voice over IP
services it must be possible to flag users for terrorist activity."
*
"Internet companies must allow only real, common names."
* "Social media
companies must allow only real pictures of users."
* "At the European
level a browser or operating system based reporting button must be
developed."
* "Governments will start drafting legislation that will make
offering... a system [to monitor Internet activity] to Internet users obligatory
for browser or operating systems...as a condition of selling their products in
this country or the European Union."
Cyrus Farivar, ars technica[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
PUBLIC [.DOC]
http://www.cleanitproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/CLEAN-IT-DRAFT-DOCUMENT-
066Pub.doc
PRIVATE [.PDF]
http://www.edri.org/files/cleanIT_sept2012.pdf [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Idiots, all of them.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
'Leak' all sorts of lunacies and see, from the reactions, what you can actually
get away with.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
Having accepted that the war against smut is unwinnable,
the poobahs have found something else to hang their flag on.
It's sad that the human need to explain the unexplainable
should lead to suppression of explanations.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
>>"We really didn’t expect that people would publish
a document that clearly says ‘not for publication’—that
really surprised us," he said. "I don’t know if it’s naive.
Why can’t I trust people?"<< But Klaas.
Interesting dilemma, if everybody could be trusted,
there would be no need for documents like this.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|