http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,134159-c,internetlegalissues/article.html
Note that this is based on their interpretation of EU law.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,134159-c,internetlegalissues/article.html
Note that this is based on their interpretation of EU law.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Does that mean they block Fedora Core? (via BitTorrent)
I guess it is easy. Just zero route their gouvernement, so
they wont see anything illegal 
Cheers
Peter and Karin
and a hearty 'good luck' to them... 
I suppose someone could point the
Belgian's over to the Panamanians (who tried to block VoIP, thanks C&W
PTT for that 'fun'). Hurray, more clue- legislation... On the good side I
suppose it's nice to see 'phonographs' being protected along with them new
fangled CeeDees and DeeVeeDees. With a penalty of only 3400 USD/day after
6 months it's going to take a while before it's cost effective to comply
(given a decent DPI solution is still hundreds of thousands of
dollars/gigabit)... Oh, and how does this all work with the 'current' crop
of BitTorrent clients that encrypt all transmissions?
Probably not the end of the interweb, just the end of sanity for some poor
ISP lawyer types in belgium
-Chris
In article <20070705222812.E6693766064@berkshire.machshav.com> you write:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,134159-c,internetlegalissues/article.html
Note that this is based on their interpretation of EU law.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
"The court has confirmed that the ISPs have both a legal responsibility and
the technical means to tackle piracy. This is a decision that we hope will
set the mold for government policy and for courts in other countries in
Europe and around the world," IFPI Chairman and CEO John Kennedy said in a
statement.
Someone has succeeded in pulling the wool over the court's
eyes if it has been convinced that there is a technical
mechanism to do this. A ISP does not have access to enough
information to determine this. The same file can be both
legally and illegally copied over the same network. What
determines the legality is the standing of the parties doing
the copying not the actual content. Even content that is
illegal to possess may still be legally transmitted when
such content is evidence.
There is only one technological fix that will be 100%
effective and that is to shutdown the network. There is
absolutely no way that a ISP can determine is any file
transfer is illegal or not.
This means no HTTP, no SMTP, no anything.
Mark
Mark Andrews wrote:
Someone has succeeded in pulling the wool over the court's
eyes if it has been convinced that there is a technical
mechanism to do this. A ISP does not have access to enough
information to determine this. The same file can be both
legally and illegally copied over the same network. What
determines the legality is the standing of the parties doing
the copying not the actual content. Even content that is
illegal to possess may still be legally transmitted when
such content is evidence.There is only one technological fix that will be 100%
effective and that is to shutdown the network. There is
absolutely no way that a ISP can determine is any file
transfer is illegal or not.This means no HTTP, no SMTP, no anything.
Mark
It is actually fairly easy, just restandardize the Evil bit as the Illegal Bit.
All network transfers of illegal content must set the Illegal bit and all Belgian ISP's must drop packets with the Illegal bit set.
Problem solved.
Does anyone have an english language translation of the eleven methods
proposed by the "expert" to implement this order?
I don't think it is going to be pratical, especially since the NSA hasn't
solved the problem of covert channels in decades. But maybe this "expert"
has come up with something novel. Or maybe not.
But I'd like to see what was proposed before passing judgement on it.
I'd bet there are penalties if content is transferred though so,
relying on the 'illegal content users/sharers' to 'do the right thing'
isn't likely to get you where you want to be...
>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,134159-c,internetlegalissues/article.html
>>
>> Note that this is based on their interpretation of EU law.
>
> and a hearty 'good luck' to them...
> Belgian's over to the Panamanians (who tried to block VoIP, thanks C&W
> PTT for that 'fun'). Hurray, more clue- legislation...Does anyone have an english language translation of the eleven methods
proposed by the "expert" to implement this order?
it'd be interesting, perhaps someone can pry the translation out of a
nanog-belgian-speaker for a beer or 3?
I don't think it is going to be pratical, especially since the NSA hasn't
solved the problem of covert channels in decades. But maybe this "expert"
has come up with something novel. Or maybe not.But I'd like to see what was proposed before passing judgement on it.
sure.
The PCWorld article mentions some “Audible Magic” solution as one them.
Google finds:
http://www.audiblemagic.com/solutions/isps.asp
Including a product called “CopySense”, which has the following features:
- Log and analyze the P2P load on your network
- Limit P2P traffic to only use an allocated portion of bandwidth
- Filter P2P traffic:
o Block all P2P file transfers, or…
o Block only transfers containing copyrighted content, and/or…
o Block transfers containing illegal child pornography, and/or…
o Block transfers containing other pornographic or offensive content - Filter WWW traffic:
o Block known malicious websites, and/or…
o Block illegal sites containing child pornography, and/or…
o Block other pornographic or offensive sites
I wonder if they did a proof of concept at all, or if they just read the glossies…
Surely you jest? they, of course, did a full scale mock up on their E1
connected lab in belgium. Perish the thought that they may have attempted
anything less. Best of all, this 'test' was probably conducted by a
paid-for consultant to the belgian gov't, probably at the equivalent 4-500
USD/hr
The State-of-PA folks 'back-when' did their proof-of-concept testing in a
lab connected via T1... their legislation was equally as clue-
Thus spake Nathan Ward
The PCWorld article mentions some "Audible Magic" solution
as one them.Google finds: http://www.audiblemagic.com/solutions/isps.asp
Including a product called "CopySense", which has the following
features:
...
I wonder if they did a proof of concept at all, or if they just read
the glossies..
I knew it was going to be either them or SafeMedia...
http://www.eff.org/share/audible_magic.php
http://www.eff.org/share/?f=audible_magic2.html
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005189.php
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1146
These guys are great at marketing their snake oil to the technically ignorant...
S
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
If any Belgian govt officials are reading this via their Echelon feed
I'd be willing to test this whateveritis for a couple of months for $500
an hour.
We (Internet Storm Center) are getting scattered reports of Yahoo being
down, and problems with Verizon's networks. Anybody else seeing this?
Marc
We have started receiving some reports related to yahoo as well. We're seeing some latency it would appear at the Level3 hand-off to yahoo.
13 * 70 ms 77 ms ge-0-3-0-69.bbr2.sanjose1.level3.net [4.68.18.2]
14 * 78 ms 71 ms so-14-0.hsa4.sanjose1.level3.net [4.68.114.158]
15 487 ms 449 ms 459 ms hanaro.hsa4.level3.net [4.79.60.22]
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * 586 ms * te-8-1.bas-a2.sp1.yahoo.com [209.131.32.19]
19 * 570 ms * f1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com [209.131.36.158]
20 * * 591 ms f1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com [209.131.36.158]
Trace complete.
Mike
and 'verizon' means dsl/fios in this discussion? (cause yahoo looks up to
me, atleast finance.yahoo)
I saw similar up until about 5 mins ago. All seems well now.
-Jim P.
remember too that www.yahoo.com looks to be akamaized as well so, for
instance when I query: 198.6.1.5 and 198.6.1.1 I get different results,
one in DFW and one in 'washington' (looks like ashburn).
So 'which yahoo' maybe as well would be helpful.
We (Internet Storm Center) are getting scattered reports of
Yahoo being
down, and problems with Verizon's networks. Anybody else seeing this?Marc
--
Marc Sachs
SANS ISC{The handlers@sans.org email address is an alias for a mailing list of
approximately 35 volunteer incident handlers. You may receive
responses from
other individuals on that list. Please include the
handlers@sans.org address
in any replies so that everyone is kept "in the loop".}
For what its worth, I lost my Yahoo IM connection several times in the
9AM-10AM EST hour.
Eric
Thanks, everybody. Got lots of confirmations that there was a problem but
no pinpoint on what the specific issue was. Yahoo seems to be reachable
now.
(One of our earlier reports said that "Verizon" was having network issues,
but they did not say "which Verizon". Sorry, Chris! )
Marc
It’s worth nothing, much like the original post.