|
> The lack of anonymity will then deter users from committing crimes, and make it possible > to punish the guilty. I agree that if something goes wrong, you need to know who is responsible because the society needs to know. The problem is this system could turn into a kind of "management by terror/pressure", a kind of fake freedom: You can do whatever you can, but we will know in a second if you do something bad. Though, I don't think anonymity will decide someone to commit a crime or not, it's just easier. It's not because you can you have to do it. The point is if it happens, we (the society) need to find someone to sustain its structure. > > The law isn't about country-based content filtering. To put it in a nutshell you can > > still do what you want with your internet access and the connections aren't restricted, > > but if they prove you share/download copyrighted content (mostly via P2P, they didn't care > > about streaming), you could be disconnected after 2 warnings. > > Except they do not have to actually prove it. This is the darkest point, they just have to say you did something wrong without tell you why and the guiltiness criteria aren't defined. Plus, how does a newbie could be find guilty to use WEP instead of WPA ? Nouveau! Découvrez le Windows phone Samsung Omnia II disponible chez SFR. Cliquez ici |