An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

FreudianSlippers · 15-08-2012 7:23am

matrim wrote: »

Just a quick note. I requested them and it was FreudianSlippers who scanned them.

I haven't actually had a chance to read them yet. Hopefully I'll get around to it later this week.

Sorry it took so long. Work has been crazy and I have been in and out of the country like mad.

blubloblu · 15-08-2012 2:43pm

Not sure if people have been following the news, the Data Protection Commissioner has lodged a Supreme Court appeal following Justice Peter Charleton's quashing of its order against three-strikes.

They've also asked the Supreme Court to refer some issues to the European Court of Justice, which could get interesting.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0803/1224321373384.html

expectationlost · 17-08-2012 6:39am

the submissions to the CRC were published a few weeks ago http://www.djei.ie/press/2012/20120730.htm

again if these were automatically published why were the SI submissions not

RUCKING FETARD · 25-11-2012 12:41am

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20160...-internet.html

Control of the Internet must be stopped from falling into the hands of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the European Parliament has warned.

The European Union’s elected representatives loudly called for negotiators to block attempts by the ITU to gain ultimate control over the Internet at a conference in Dubai next month.

The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) will attempt to revise international telecommunication regulations, which have not been updated since 1988. A resolution approved by an overwhelming majority of Members of the European Parliament on Thursday warned that some of the proposals presented ahead of WCIT could result in the ITU itself becoming “the ruling power of the Internet,” something the parliament is determined to prevent.

“The ITU, or any other single international institution, is not the appropriate body to assert regulatory authority over the Internet,” said the resolution, drawn up by Dutch parliamentarian Marietje Schaake.

The Parliament also said that it is concerned that some of the ITU reform proposals would set up charging mechanisms, which could seriously threaten the open and competitive nature of the Internet by driving up prices and hurting innovation.

Meanwhile search giant Google has invited users to “pledge your support for the free and open Internet,” warning that governments working behind closed doors in Dubai should not direct its future.

A free and open world depends on a free and open web.

http://techpp.com/2012/11/21/google-take-action/

Underneath the surface, it seems that some governments from the 42 attending want to take advantage of this situation and discuss, why not enforce, some censorship rules in their countries and to all those that comply. While censorship illegal downloads for the hottest movie is an adequate move, Google advises that terrible things may be questioned here, ones that may affect innovation itself.

WCIT-12: Conference Overview

expectationlost · 25-11-2012 2:42pm

why is the ITU controlling it worse then anyone else?

KyussBishop · 25-11-2012 3:02pm

In my (very brief) understanding, it basically puts regulation of the Internet under control of an international UN-type group with most countries as members, where a very sizable number of influential countries in that group have domestic policies which censor or otherwise restrict the Internet, and with this they'd then be in a position to (potentially) collaboratively screw up the entire Internet.

expectationlost · 25-11-2012 5:06pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

In my (very brief) understanding, it basically puts regulation of the Internet under control of an international UN-type group with most countries as members, where a very sizable number of influential countries in that group have domestic policies which censor or otherwise restrict the Internet, and with this they'd then be in a position to (potentially) collaboratively screw up the entire Internet.

how is that worse then the present situation, where as i understand it various US agencies control it, but can the same things not happen.

KyussBishop · 25-11-2012 11:48pm

It's kind of "the evil we know" type of situation; as bad as the US is, they're not nearly as bad as an international agency, stuffed with countries that engage in widespread censorship and privacy invasions.

RUCKING FETARD · 26-11-2012 12:57am

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/who-owns-internet2.htm

There are several organizations that oversee the Internet's infrastructure and protocols. They are:
The Internet Society: A nonprofit organization that develops Internet standards, policies and education.

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF): An international organization with an open membership policy that has several working groups. Each working group concentrates on a specific topic, such as Internet security. Collectively, these working groups try to maintain the Internet's architecture and stability.

The Internet Architecture Board (IAB): An IETF committee, the IAB's mission is to oversee the design of Internet protocols and standards.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN): A private nonprofit corporation, ICANN manages the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). ICANN is responsible for making sure that every domain name links to the correct IP address.

This explains it bit better.

China, Russia, Iran and Arab countries want to able to eavesdrop on whats coming in/out, routed through their countries and from where and block as they see fit.

EU telcos defend UN Internet takeover plans

A trade association of 41 European telephone companies (ETNO) responded last week to mounting concerns over its controversial proposal to turn Internet traffic management over to the International Telecommunications Union, a regulatory body of the United Nations.

Under settlement-free peering, networks do not meter or charge each other for exchanged traffic. According to the Internet Society (PDF), settlement-free peering remains the most common type of interconnection among networks.

Instead, ETNO's proposal would require the governments of 193 signatory countries to establish and enforce a new "sending party network pays" (SPNP) model for Internet traffic. That approach would effectively tax high-volume Internet content providers -- most of which are non-EU companies -- to respond to information requests from local customers.

implementing the ETNO proposal would likely discourage content providers from responding to information requests from users in developing nations, who may not generate sufficient revenue through ads and other sources to offset the new tax.

If it was expensive enough you could see American sites refuse access to european users even, maybe.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552769-38/russians-back-down-from-leaked-u.n-internet-proposal/

oscarBravo · 26-11-2012 1:16am

expectationlost wrote: »

how is that worse then the present situation, where as i understand it various US agencies control it, but can the same things not happen.

"Various US agencies" don't control the Internet. It's controlled by the IETF, which is a largely ad-hoc organisation, as well as the Internet Society.

When you ask the question "what's wrong with the ITU controlling the Internet?", you should translate it into locally relevant terms: "how would I feel about the Irish government (specifically the Department of Communications) and Comreg controlling the Internet in Ireland?"

If that question doesn't send a shiver down your spine, then you don't understand what's at stake.

expectationlost · 26-11-2012 3:24pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Various US agencies" don't control the Internet. It's controlled by the IETF, which is a largely ad-hoc organisation, as well as the Internet Society.

When you ask the question "what's wrong with the ITU controlling the Internet?", you should translate it into locally relevant terms: "how would I feel about the Irish government (specifically the Department of Communications) and Comreg controlling the Internet in Ireland?"

If that question doesn't send a shiver down your spine, then you don't understand what's at stake.

ietf
All participants and managers are volunteers, though their work is usually funded by their employers or sponsors; for instance, the current chairperson is funded by VeriSign and the U.S. government's National Security Agency

the US engages in widespread censorship and privacy invasions.

oscarBravo · 26-11-2012 3:33pm

expectationlost wrote: »

ietf
All participants and managers are volunteers, though their work is usually funded by their employers or sponsors; for instance, the current chairperson is funded by VeriSign and the U.S. government's National Security Agency

the US engages in widespread censorship and privacy invasions.

...which doesn't mean the IETF does so. If you consider the IETF to be no different from the ITU in this regard, please explain why you think so.

expectationlost · 29-11-2012 12:22am

UN Internet Meeting About Who Pays, Not Who Rules
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6709/135/

BENDERS LINKS · 08-12-2012 1:51am

Record labels sue Digiweb, UPC, Imagine, Vodafone and 3 to block The Pirate Bay

Irish-based ISPs UPC, Digiweb, Imagine, Vodafone and 3 have been hit with a new legal action by big four record labels EMI, Sony, Warner and Universal it emerged this afternoon.
In a case that will be held on 17 December the labels are seeking an injunction compelling the ISPs to block controversial torrent sharing site The Pirate Bay.

BENDERS LINKS · 12-12-2012 1:50am

Russia backtracks on internet governance proposals

Russian-backed proposals calling for 193 countries to be given "equal rights to manage the internet" have been pulled at a UN conference in Dubai.

The US had threatened to block the suggested additions to an international communications treaty.

It wants the treaty to make minimal reference to the internet, warning to do otherwise risks state interference.

Russia and its partners are now redrafting their document and are expected to submit it later.

AntiRip · 18-12-2012 3:51pm

BENDERS LINKS wrote: »

Record labels sue Digiweb, UPC, Imagine, Vodafone and 3 to block The Pirate Bay

Why are they wasting their time on this,seriously. It's doesn't matter at all if they block tpb with tpb own proxy and all the workarounds. I nearly wish they would do it and shut up and let us get on with it.

Heard there was an Australian ISP iiNet that walked out of court and told the studios it was their own fault for not fixing their model of distribution. People want to get their shows when released in the states not 6 months later. They had a very good point really.

CramCycle · 18-12-2012 4:03pm

AntiRip wrote: »

Heard there was an Australian ISP iiNet that walked out of court and told the studios it was their own fault for not fixing their model of distribution. People want to get their shows when released in the states not 6 months later. They had a very good point really.

Off Topic but the main reason for this, in their eyes, is that foreign markets will pay more for the shows once they have shown to be a success in America, obv. doesn't matter once they get to season 2 unless the network involved get a deal for a certain price regardless of popularity. Foreign stations will pay for them as filler without proof of popularity but they won't leave/put them in the good slots (which would lead to increased popularity, DVD sales, merchandise) without this proof. I realise they do early screenings to obtain demographics but smaller stations in smaller countries want the proof that people will watch it, not the stats from a focus group/pilot screening.

Could be wrong though.

briany · 18-12-2012 7:23pm

AntiRip wrote: »

Why are they wasting their time on this,seriously. It's doesn't matter at all if they block tpb with tpb own proxy and all the workarounds. I nearly wish they would do it and shut up and let us get on with it.

I worry that the whole business of getting TPB is simply a way of getting the foot in the door, set legal precedents, establish protocol and while users feel clever being able to circumvent feeble restrictions currently in place, there may come a time when it allows a blanket block of not only sites, but proxies and other known workarounds. Not just to TPB but other sites and not necessarily infringing ones either so discussion of how stupid such blocks are could prove chillingly incorrect in the future and the internet would become a worse place for it overall.

expectationlost · 18-12-2012 9:37pm

the important bit of info from the court case via simon mcgarr who sat in court It was mentioned that the

Plaintiffs had a list of 260 websites they had identified as being objectionable.

http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2012/12/17/emi-records-ireland-and-ors-v-upc-and-ors-court-report/

18-12-2012 9:42pm

expectationlost wrote: »

the important bit of info from the court case via simon mcgarr who sat in court It was mentioned that the http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2012/12/17/emi-records-ireland-and-ors-v-upc-and-ors-court-report/

260 websites!? WTF?

Would love to see the list.