Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I've already posted the link where I got my information, Ricky, but here it is again:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04...three_strikes/
This states that there will be no "automatic termination"; the matter will go to a body that's being set up with judicial powers, called the "Haute Autorité", which will have the power to impose fines, injunctions, or temporary suspension of Internet access. May I ask where you got your information that there will be some sort of "automatic" termination of access, because that's not at all in accordance with what I've read.
Happy reading! |
I read it. It does not say anything about the Haute Autorite being a "court" in front of whom evidence will be presented.
So, guess again, Harry. No court .... no evidence. All there needs to be is a suspicion (according to the same article, and I quote) ....
The principle behind the law is simple. Anyone
suspected of illegal downloading of material on the internet will receive two letters: a first and a second warning. The first warning will recommend that the user check to make sure that no one is surfing on the back of an unsecured Wi-Fi connection: but it will also point out that it is the subscriber’s responsibility to make sure their net access is properly safeguarded.
Being hijacked will not be an excuse in the eyes of the law.
Oh, and then there's this bit:
The ultimate decision rests with the Haute Autorité, which may cut off subscribers - but does not have to. This is
because the government does not wish to see businesses and institutions placed in a position where a national enterprise could suddenly find itself deprived of internet access because of the illegal activities of one or two of its managers.
So, it's ok to cut off service to a home-based business because a child does something stupid the parent doesn't know about??
Talk about your double standards ....
___________________________
And .... if you can find one reference to evidence being presented in front of a court ... then I missed something. Giving a body "judicial powers" does not mean that it is a court of law .... it means it can render decisions that have the force of law.
So .... now where was that information that you were going to point me towards?? Just that article?? Thought so .....
I've read it. I'm not really sure you read it with any understanding of what it says.