An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Ciaran500 · 28-01-2012 11:22am

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not cheap but it's quite doable.

Will it get much cheaper in the future?

oscarBravo · 28-01-2012 11:26am

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Will it get much cheaper in the future?

Probably not much. Cisco routers are the de facto backbone of the Internet, and they're still pretty damned pricey. Something as niche as this isn't likely to drop significantly in price.

And it's still a cost to me (and therefore to my customers) with no corresponding benefit other than to a third party; it still raises privacy concerns; and it still won't work.

eta: I guess you were talking about fibre, duh. Yes, it will get cheaper. It's where we'll all be eventually, but that "eventually" means different things in different countries.

FreudianSlippers · 28-01-2012 11:50am

oscarBravo wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me, perhaps, how exactly an ISP would monitor their network for "illegal" use; and/or how they can differentiate between legal and illegal downloading (I'm pretty sure they cannot IIRC).

We can't.

Let me explain a little bit about the "deep packet inspection" idea that's being bandied about. When you send information to or from the Internet, it is sent as a series of chunks of maybe a couple of hundred kilobits each. In order to get each packet to its destination, our routers glance at the IP header, which contains the source and destination IP address, and make a forwarding decision based on that. For example, we will send outbound traffic (uploads, or HTTP requests, for example) directly to a Google or Microsoft router; or perhaps we'll hand it off to Cogent and ask them to deliver it across the Atlantic for us. Conversely, inbound traffic gets routed to the specific customer.

We don't look past those headers to make routing decisions. But - in theory - our router could look deeper into an IP packet and see that it contains a TCP packet, which in turn contains a HTTP request, which in turn contains the URL being requested (or whatever). Obviously this would take vastly more processing power than simply looking at the destination IP address, which is always located 32 bytes into the IP packet.

The theory is that we could look into each packet, determine that it's a BitTorrent packet, and further that it contains an illegal file transfer, and therefore block the packet.

In practice, looking at any given packet tells you very little. Even a simple web page will be broken across a number of packets, and looking at each one in isolation is like hearing two words from a conversation and trying to determine their meaning out of context.

So the theory goes further that you keep track of the conversations, and monitor the state of each connection. This requires not only looking deep within each packet; it requires keeping detailed tables in memory and looking up each packet against that table to correlate them, and it requires that the device doing this inspection understand the protocols being spoken.

I just looked at a graph, and at 10pm we were forwarding twenty five thousand of these packets per second through our edge router - and we're a relatively small ISP. We have a pretty chunky (and bloody expensive) Cisco router slogging through all that traffic, and it needs some clever electronics and a chunk of memory just to make the forwarding decisions based on the destination IP address.

Think about that for a second, and think about the processing power and memory that would be required to perform deep packet inspection and connection tracking on all of those packets without adding latency to our customer traffic.

Now think about the fact that, if we were to implement such a system, we would be - in effect - snooping on every single message that passes in or out of our system. We would, basically, be reading our customers' mail. The privacy implications are unpleasant.

Further, think about the fact that if any of those connections are encrypted, all the DPI process is going to see is effectively white noise.

It's hypothetically possible, in the same way that it's hypothetically possible to send a manned mission to Venus. The problem is that it's a colossal burden on an ISP, and even with that, it's an exercise in futility.

I suppose my main line of thinking would be do the ISPs have to make or add any additional filtering systems to their current operation in order to implement the SOPA "process" (if I can call it that) from their point of view.

Definitely. We don't have the equipment to do it, and even if we were required to install it (which I don't think we can be, thanks to Scarlet) it wouldn't solve the problem and would negatively impact on our customers.

Any proposed injunctive relief is more likely to take the form of a graduated response, which raises a fresh set of questions about due process. The systems that the studios use basically work by joining the torrent swarm (or equivalent network), requesting a copyrighted file, and keeping track of whoever seeds it.

Thank you, that perfectly answers my question. You may expect a PM from me next week too!

Phony Scott · 28-01-2012 12:24pm

Does this mean we'll be doing all our illegal downloading through IRC again? :pac:

nesf · 28-01-2012 12:42pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

We can't.

Let me explain a little bit about the "deep packet inspection" idea that's being bandied about. When you send information to or from the Internet, it is sent as a series of chunks of maybe a couple of hundred kilobits each. In order to get each packet to its destination, our routers glance at the IP header, which contains the source and destination IP address, and make a forwarding decision based on that. For example, we will send outbound traffic (uploads, or HTTP requests, for example) directly to a Google or Microsoft router; or perhaps we'll hand it off to Cogent and ask them to deliver it across the Atlantic for us. Conversely, inbound traffic gets routed to the specific customer.

We don't look past those headers to make routing decisions. But - in theory - our router could look deeper into an IP packet and see that it contains a TCP packet, which in turn contains a HTTP request, which in turn contains the URL being requested (or whatever). Obviously this would take vastly more processing power than simply looking at the destination IP address, which is always located 32 bytes into the IP packet.

The theory is that we could look into each packet, determine that it's a BitTorrent packet, and further that it contains an illegal file transfer, and therefore block the packet.

In practice, looking at any given packet tells you very little. Even a simple web page will be broken across a number of packets, and looking at each one in isolation is like hearing two words from a conversation and trying to determine their meaning out of context.

So the theory goes further that you keep track of the conversations, and monitor the state of each connection. This requires not only looking deep within each packet; it requires keeping detailed tables in memory and looking up each packet against that table to correlate them, and it requires that the device doing this inspection understand the protocols being spoken.

I just looked at a graph, and at 10pm we were forwarding twenty five thousand of these packets per second through our edge router - and we're a relatively small ISP. We have a pretty chunky (and bloody expensive) Cisco router slogging through all that traffic, and it needs some clever electronics and a chunk of memory just to make the forwarding decisions based on the destination IP address.

Think about that for a second, and think about the processing power and memory that would be required to perform deep packet inspection and connection tracking on all of those packets without adding latency to our customer traffic.

Now think about the fact that, if we were to implement such a system, we would be - in effect - snooping on every single message that passes in or out of our system. We would, basically, be reading our customers' mail. The privacy implications are unpleasant.

Further, think about the fact that if any of those connections are encrypted, all the DPI process is going to see is effectively white noise.

It's hypothetically possible, in the same way that it's hypothetically possible to send a manned mission to Venus. The problem is that it's a colossal burden on an ISP, and even with that, it's an exercise in futility. Definitely. We don't have the equipment to do it, and even if we were required to install it (which I don't think we can be, thanks to Scarlet) it wouldn't solve the problem and would negatively impact on our customers.

Any proposed injunctive relief is more likely to take the form of a graduated response, which raises a fresh set of questions about due process. The systems that the studios use basically work by joining the torrent swarm (or equivalent network), requesting a copyrighted file, and keeping track of whoever seeds it.

And can't I just use VPN and encryption (or similar) to render the above useless anyway even if you set up the equipment?

Ciaran500 · 28-01-2012 1:08pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

eta: I guess you were talking about fibre, duh. Yes, it will get cheaper. It's where we'll all be eventually, but that "eventually" means different things in different countries.

Nah, you got it right. Was just wondering as processing power and storage got cheaper year on year would deep packet inspection become much more viable.

oscarBravo · 28-01-2012 1:30pm

nesf wrote: »

And can't I just use VPN and encryption (or similar) to render the above useless anyway even if you set up the equipment?

Yes. Even with sophisticated and expensive DPI equipment, we can't see into encrypted transmissions, whether they be SSL websites or encrypted torrents.

This is a socio-legal problem. Trying to fix it with technological solutions can't and won't work.

Citizen_Kane · 28-01-2012 1:37pm

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Nah, you got it right. Was just wondering as processing power and storage got cheaper year on year would deep packet inspection become much more viable.

Even if EMI was paying ISP's to implement this this technology (which I suspect they may do), this needs to be buried as an 'option to solving the problem'.

If a private interest was trying to impose similar measures on the telephone system, a far broader spectrum of the country would be marching on Leincster House.

DeVore · 28-01-2012 1:39pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. Even with sophisticated and expensive DPI equipment, we can't see into encrypted transmissions, whether they be SSL websites or encrypted torrents.

This is a socio-legal problem. Trying to fix it with technological solutions can't and won't work.

Today is the first day I have thought about allow multiple thanks for a post. Cos I'd thank that many times if I could.

This is not a technical problem and none of the technical "solutions" will work. Stop trying to use tech to fix a nontechnical problem.

OB point about costs is also well made. Will Big Content pay our costs for protecting their IP? That's a service, shouldn't they pay us?

nesf · 28-01-2012 1:44pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. Even with sophisticated and expensive DPI equipment, we can't see into encrypted transmissions, whether they be SSL websites or encrypted torrents.

This is a socio-legal problem. Trying to fix it with technological solutions can't and won't work.

Yeah, and they can't feasibly block VPNs because so many people working from home/away from the office need to use them and have a justifiable requirement for encryption, as well as there being serious privacy issues to disallowing encryption of your web traffic.

This is just all so pointless, the technically proficient people already know about all this stuff and it really won't take long for others to figure out what a VPN or encrypted torrent is if they bring in DPI. It's like only setting up drink driving checkpoints on motorways and saying you'll never set them up on country roads.

Citizen_Kane · 28-01-2012 2:27pm

We need to argue all sides, so here goes:

'Piracy' is good.

It is an essential component of democratic social revolution. 'Illegal' downloading opens up the full spectrum of the worlds cultural wealth to the whole world. Cultural media such as music and film which may be banned or just not commercially available in your region is, for the first time in history, available to the masses.

Commercial gatekeepers of culture, such as EMI, are no longer relevant. Yes, they still regulate income to many artists, but more and more artists are using the free distribution network of the internet to share their work with the public for free. They make money through commercial, creative commons, licensing and the loyalty of fans who attend concerts, buy merchandise and donate.

Culture is booming. Artists are creating content of artistic and cultural merit. A more educated, broader, inquisitive public is eating it up with new ears, new eyes and new ideas.

If the likes of EMI are allowed to succeed, the internet will become something akin to what we already have - radio and television.

Do I 'Illegally' download content? - YES
Could I get this content 'legally' - Sometimes
Is this content accessible and reasonably priced through commercial channels? - NO
Does a representative share of money spent go to the artists - I doubt it.

Read EMI vs UPC and you will note that €10 million was spent on marketing Cold Play's Viva la something or other. There are PLENTY of local artists with more cultural merit who just want to get their music heard, but don't have €10 million, only the internet and filesharing.

ocallagh · 28-01-2012 2:31pm

At the same time as governments are working (in the interest of corporate bodies) to restrict the information the public can use and share, corporate bodies are working to vastly increase the amount of personal data they can legally collect and share!

From March 1st, Google's new privacy policy. They will collect every little bit of data about you (including email, name, home address, location data, phone numbers etc) and make this data accessible to any google service whether you have signed up to it or not. They'll even gather data about how you interact with 3rd party sites through analytics and google ads. Google is too big to be classed as one company. Data protection should reside with the service, not with a company that owns half the planet!

Both sides are taking things too far. As others have said, it can't be solved by technology. By forcing people into a corner they're just going to make this problem worse.

DeVore · 28-01-2012 2:55pm

If this law is passed, I'm seriously considering filing for an injunction against Google. We'll lose, but thats ok.

ResearchWill, you up for that??

Citizen_Kane · 28-01-2012 3:24pm

ocallagh wrote: »

At the same time as governments are working (in the interest of corporate bodies) to restrict the information the public can use and share, corporate bodies are working to vastly increase the amount of personal data they can legally collect and share!

From March 1st, Google's new privacy policy. They will collect every little bit of data about you (including email, name, home address, location data, phone numbers etc) and make this data accessible to any google service whether you have signed up to it or not. They'll even gather data about how you interact with 3rd party sites through analytics and google ads. Google is too big to be classed as one company. Data protection should reside with the service, not with a company that owns half the planet!

Both sides are taking things too far. As others have said, it can't be solved by technology. By forcing people into a corner they're just going to make this problem worse.

Irish SOPA, SOPA, PIPA ACTA are a storm in a teacup compared to the issues you are now raising. Here is an link to an article you may appreciate:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/01/the-importance-of-anonymity-on-the-web/

For the benefit of a 'Future Shocked', alarmed, general public this thread should probably not try to explore these larger issues at this time.

WistfulSoul · 28-01-2012 4:10pm

The Irish Times political commentator Noel Whelan, has a rather prominent ( and one sided ) piece supporting Minister Sherlock's
well intentioned fumblings in today's paper.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310864388.html

While the offline comment about Sherlock’s plans has been more restrained, it has not been helped by the fact that many of those contributing are either technologically or legally illiterate as to what he is proposing, while many of those more expert in the area are advocates for almost unbridled freedom on the web

Given Mr.Whelan's usual musings revolve around constitutency boundaries, electoral systems and the Dáil chamber proceedings, his timing
( and article location beside the main Editorial ) is curious.

In contrast a much more nuanced piece by technology witer Karlin Lillington in Friday's paper, languished in the technology section of
the business supplement.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0127/1224310799439.html

Mr.Whelan's main inference seems to be that people objecting to this extra-democratic legislative 'correction' are either:

1. Ignorant
or
2. Informed but objecting due to some political agenda

This opinion piece is, in my view, a generally unhelpful and imbalanced one which due to its writers 'credibility' may have
a disproportionate effect on our technophobic body politic.

Arfan · 28-01-2012 4:12pm

Hi everyone. This is a pretty dense thread so I'll be brief.

I was recently in contact with my local representative and am trying to provide them with as much advice on this issue as possible so they can see why there needs to be a wider debate.

I would welcome any information, questions, or feelings from businesses and people with a technical or legal background that I can present to them. Feel free to PM me anything you feel a TD should know about Minister Sherlock's proposal.

Also I didn't see this anywhere. A transcript of the Topical Issue Debate where Catherine Murphy and Derek Keating raised the issue of the proposal with Minister Sherlock.

MOH · 28-01-2012 4:39pm

WistfulSoul wrote: »

The Irish Times political commentator Noel Whelan, has a rather prominent ( and one sided ) piece supporting Minister Sherlock's
well intentioned fumblings in today's paper.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310864388.html

Given Mr.Whelan's usual musings revolve around constitutency boundaries, electoral systems and the Dáil chamber proceedings, his timing
( and article location beside the main Editorial ) is curious.

In contrast a much more nuanced piece by technology witer Karlin Lillington in Friday's paper, languished in the technology section of
the business supplement.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0127/1224310799439.html

Mr.Whelan's main inference seems to be that people objecting to this extra-democratic legislative 'correction' are either:

1. Ignorant
or
2. Informed but objecting due to some political agenda

This opinion piece is, in my view, a generally unhelpful and imbalanced one which due to its writers 'credibility' may have
a disproportionate effect on our technophobic body politic.

That is an unbelievable article. The fact that he reduces himself to sniping such as "RTÉ reported that only a handful of those opposed to Sherlock’s draft regulation disturbed themselves enough to turn up for a Kildare Street rally on Thursday" says it all. This really only started gaining traction on Thursday, and a lot of people have real jobs which would preclude them attending.

I'd suggest that if the IT opened the article up to comments, they could verify for themselves the number of unique Irish-based IP addresses that the resulting complaints came from.

nyarlothothep · 28-01-2012 4:53pm

Citizen_Kane wrote: »

Irish SOPA, SOPA, PIPA ACTA are a storm in a teacup compared to the issues you are now raising. Here is an link to an article you may appreciate:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/01/the-importance-of-anonymity-on-the-web/

For the benefit of a 'Future Shocked', alarmed, general public this thread should probably not try to explore these larger issues at this time.

I read that article and found it disturbing. I wonder why there is such a strong authoritarian drag on human societies? I've heard the phrase power corrupts often enough times but I find the answer unsatisfactory, as it doesn't account for the types of personalities that populate the halls of power and which may influence it. Or is it that only a certain type of person gets to such positions of influence through a filtering system so that we always end up with the same domineering assholes who want to impose their political/social beliefs on everyone else? Or is it just greed and protecting your own interests or an emergent effect whereby you have to please your shareholders/backers/supporters at any cost to maintain your position in life? What is this human need to control other humans? I find it quite primitive.

Citizen_Kane · 28-01-2012 5:24pm

WistfulSoul wrote: »

The Irish Times political commentator Noel Whelan, has a rather prominent ( and one sided ) piece supporting Minister Sherlock's
well intentioned fumblings in today's paper.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310864388.html

Given Mr.Whelan's usual musings revolve around constitutency boundaries, electoral systems and the Dáil chamber proceedings, his timing
( and article location beside the main Editorial ) is curious.

In contrast a much more nuanced piece by technology witer Karlin Lillington in Friday's paper, languished in the technology section of
the business supplement.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0127/1224310799439.html

Mr.Whelan's main inference seems to be that people objecting to this extra-democratic legislative 'correction' are either:

1. Ignorant
or
2. Informed but objecting due to some political agenda

This opinion piece is, in my view, a generally unhelpful and imbalanced one which due to its writers 'credibility' may have
a disproportionate effect on our technophobic body politic.

Here is my letter to the editor of the Irish Times:

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the Irish Times's two sided coverage of this matter.
Reference:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0128/1224310864388.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0127/1224310799439.html

Our world is changing at a very rapid pace. The initial basis of this SI was in 2009 when EMI sought injuncture against UPC to allow them broader legal reign to protect their copyrights. Sean Sherlock's SI is directly related to this case, which he claims is the Irish Governments duty under EU legislation to enact.

Since 2009 many things have happened.

EU courts have subsequentlymade decisions which protect the rights of ISP's, such as UPC, from being responsible for monitoring data which moves through their infrastructure.

SOPA and PIPA in the US which sought similar controls through different mechanisms were halted by democratic, online action.

ACTA, which seeks similar measures as the SI, was signed by Ireland and others in Japan. It awaits European parliament debate and approval.

French MEP and ACTA rapporteur, Kadir Arif ,resigns in protest and disgust regarding the lack of transparency and undemocratic proceedings surrounding the signing of ACTA.

The social, cultural and legal debate surrounding the issue of copyright and freedom of communication is burning red-hot at the moment globally. The last time the relevancy of information laws and freedom were under so much question was at the enlightenment.

Sean Sherlock's SI is like an ignorant child king blundering into a conversation and making an unilateral decision which can leave Ireland in the digital stone age once the global dust has settled.

Regards,

********

If enough people get the attention of the editor, maybe this thing can get mainstream press attention.

freeze4real · 28-01-2012 6:22pm

In regards to watching movies on the internet from sites other than youtube/google bideo could someone clarify this.

Citizen_Kane wrote: »

Presently, you as an average internet user, have nothing to be concerned about if you are not actively seeking out pirated material and distributing it as a business. The problem is that by the very nature of the internet, much of the content you use or share infringes on somebodys copyright. For example if you post a youtube link of a RTE news item on your facebook page - you are infringing copyright.

Sean Sherlocks SI, if passed, will allow copyright holders to not only take you to court, but also allow them to take your ISP (eg. UPC, Eircom, etc) to court and have them disconnect your internet.

You have no reason to be afraid now. The internet is still free, but please sign the petition and contact your TD's regarding the upcoming legislation.

I dont know that gullible one can be to sign this LAW, this is shocking the mere fact that he's a young lad makes it disgusting.

We have to stop this nonsense, this ludicrous, stupid ACT IMHO, have they thought about the costs involved in doing so.

Whats funny is that the whole infringement began with the likes the American tv networks promoting it on the Internets CBS and so through Cnet.

freeze4real · 28-01-2012 6:24pm

Has sean sherlock signed it or not ?

meglome · 28-01-2012 6:30pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. Even with sophisticated and expensive DPI equipment, we can't see into encrypted transmissions, whether they be SSL websites or encrypted torrents.

This is a socio-legal problem. Trying to fix it with technological solutions can't and won't work.

Exactly right. In the main when I fileshare/download I try to use encrypted connections so they won't be throttled etc.

I was delighted to see Netflix available in Ireland until I saw the poor choice of content. I cannot comprehend why we don't have access to several of these services by now (other than the obvious idiocy of the media companies).

I appreciate politicians will have to do unpopular things but this is just wrong. Sean Sherlock should remember the difference unpopular and just plain wrong when he's seeking re-election. I for one won't forget when the time comes.

johnnydenims · 28-01-2012 6:49pm

filesharing was always going to be a pandoras box, instead of making technology the culprit we need to have reasonable alternatives from within the music, movie, gaming and software industries why should the ISP,s bear the bulk of the burden for illegal filesharing and copyright infringement

GarIT · 28-01-2012 6:58pm

freeze4real wrote: »

Has sean sherlock signed it or not ?

No, shortly after a 10 minute debate with Cathrine Murphy and another Fine Gael TD Sean Sherlock agreed to put off signing it untill after Tuesday to allow for a full debate of the issue on Tuesday.

The Sparrow · 28-01-2012 7:01pm

WistfulSoul wrote: »

The Irish Times political commentator Noel Whelan, has a rather prominent ( and one sided ) piece supporting Minister Sherlock's
well intentioned fumblings in today's paper.

Hell of a day for the Irish Times today. This article suggests that the majority of people against this new law are ignorant of the legal matters surrounding as if you have to be a member of Mensa to understand legal arguments made by the pro lobby.

And I saw another editorial from today's Irish Times arguing that Enda Kenny was right and that the people did in fact cause the current economic crisis. So to summarise, according to The Irish Times today, people against this law are too stupid to understand it and, by the way just for good measure, the economic crisis is actually all our fault.

I'm glad that I haven't bought The Irish Times since the Kate Fitzgerald fiasco before Christmas.

infowars.com · 28-01-2012 7:27pm

check this video out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq1MB9CGdHs i posted it on facebook but they took it down

freeze4real · 28-01-2012 8:10pm

infowars.com wrote: »

check this video out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq1MB9CGdHs i posted it on facebook but they took it down

ACTA is illuminati in disguise.

Ciaran500 · 28-01-2012 8:42pm

freeze4real wrote: »

ACTA is illuminati in disguise.

A draconian IP law is a secret all powerful government in disguise? Lets not drag the conspiracy theories in here, it will drag the discussion completely away from anything important.

stephen97 · 28-01-2012 8:50pm

DeVore wrote: »

Boards.ie and Copyright
Since our inception, Boards has had a policy against copyright breaching Bittorrent links. We've been here for 12 years now and that's been our policy long before anyone came and made us adopt it.

We do not support piracy.

We also do not support bad law.

More than 2 Million different people use Boards every month. We reach a lot of people and a lot of people use us to communicate with each other.

We employ two full-time staff to respond to take down notices. That is a cost we bear to protect other people's copyright. A cost we do not see recouped from the rights holders.

We are not slack about this issue.

Proposed New Law
Minister Seán Sherlock has proposed a new law which is best explained here: http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/reader-irelands-sopa-a-faq/
It will be enacted by a single stroke of his pen.

Why are we opposed to this law?
1. It is vague in the extreme. There are no details of what is considered a transgression. It isn't clear if the site targeted will even be informed of the proceedings.

2. The mere threat that allowing a user to post content could land the service in court will ensure that no service allows it. The implications are no more social media for Ireland, who the hell is going to take that risk?? This scares us greatly but will TERRIFY the likes of Google, Twitter, Facebook. Of course we have to stay here and live with it. They and their thousands of jobs, don't.

3. Its not fair. This is akin to letting Bank of Ireland take proceedings against the National Toll Roads Ltd when a getaway-driver uses the M50. Pretty soon, no one will want to build roads.

4. It kills innovation and scares away foreign investment. Boards might have the clout and money to fight some of these injunctions. Smaller operators simply won’t.

5. This wont even work. This will take the pirates 10 minutes to circumvent and I can demonstrate that easily if anyone wants to see.

Bad Law
This is the very definition of bad law. It punishes those who are trying to do what is right while doing nothing to stop the criminals. It seems to follow the headless chicken logic of "Something must be done!!! This is something, therefore we must do this!!"

Why is this being pushed through on the signature of one man without proper consultation with the industry and with the people of Ireland (over 45,000 of whom have already signed a petition against this)?

It won’t work, its vastly over powered and punishes the wrong people. It’s bad law and I'm asking Minister Sherlock to reconsider it.

If you wish to contact Minister Sherlock yourself, you can do so via his website: http://www.seansherlock.ie/contact-me/

Tom Murphy
Founder. Director.
tom .at. boards.ie
@devore

In china the govenment controls what people can and cannot access, if this new law is passed, very soon ireland will become the new china

Wibbs · 28-01-2012 8:59pm

No it won't become the "New China" which is hyperbole for it's own sake I reckon. This sorta stuff is more subtle than that, which IMH makes it worse in many ways. It won't be so obvious so the vast majority of non technical web users out there likely won't notice their freedoms being curtailed. It'll just become acceptable background noise and that's the danger. No conspiracy required either. Again it doesn't need one. It's so loosely defined and up to the courts to resolve into something approaching clarity that it's ripe for abuse. It doesn't even need to be applied, the fear of it's application will likely worry people(portals/providers) enough to over police themselves. Especially small sites or startups. Even more so if one site or IP testcase is brought to court and loses. Concerning alright.

Dyr · 28-01-2012 9:19pm

So how many people who are blaming sherlock for this sorry state of affairs are the same people who were in favour of giving the EU the power to dictate legislation to this country? I think some people might need to take a long hard look at their posting history before they get on their high horses here.

Spacedog · 28-01-2012 9:24pm

infowars.com wrote: »

check this video out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq1MB9CGdHs i posted it on facebook but they took it down

great vid, I'm not on facebook, but it sounds like censorship is well and truely implemented already if they remove a creative commons licensed video.

Ciaran500 · 28-01-2012 9:35pm

Spacedog wrote: »

great vid, I'm not on facebook, but it sounds like censorship is well and truely implemented already if they remove a creative commons licensed video.

Its a private service provided by a private company, they can remove what ever they want, its what you agree to when you sign up. But TBH I have a very hard time believing they removed that video just cause of its content.

quietsailor · 28-01-2012 9:40pm

DeVore wrote: »

If this law is passed, I'm seriously considering filing for an injunction against Google. We'll lose, but thats ok.

ResearchWill, you up for that??

I can't offer much but are you going to be looking for contributions - I'd be glad to help

Quiet you · 28-01-2012 10:14pm

Right so, I signed the petition a few days ago and have finally finished emailing the relevant ministers and such.

I even threatened them with voting for FF in the next election.

DeVore · 28-01-2012 11:19pm

For the people saying Big Content will be reasonable...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/26/google-bing-illegal-music?newsfeed=true

Think what they will do with this new law...

timesnap · 28-01-2012 11:41pm

This idea is insane and against all the reasons the internet became popular.

not meaning to be flippant at all but would it be a good idea to stop using google as a search engine in protest?

i know it is best for results but it has gotten way too big for its boots imo.

googles European HQ is based in Ireland,would it scare the minister away from signing if he was left the name of being the man who drove google out of Ireland?

worth thinking about to boycott google,Earth,gmail etc for a week to drive the message home that it we will not accept it.

DeVore · 29-01-2012 12:11am

Google are no more in favour of this then we are. They stand to suffer too.. the problem here is the lack of control on getting injunctions which gives the copyright lobbyist a huge stick to beat everyone with...

freeze4real · 29-01-2012 12:28am

This ACTA is depressing and disgusting. Totally lack of privacy.

Will be going to the debate of tuesday. I'd love to have a go at him to see how this benefits Ireland.

Youtube/google wont be affected that much they have the best of the best lawyers in the world to battle any lawsuits.

If this ridiculous law gets passed can anyone imagine how using the internet would be like as of someone is watching you back.

Daftendirekt · 29-01-2012 12:35am

These articles were shamelessly stolen from the ACTA thread (copyright infringement :eek:), but I think they're worth a read:

Swiss government reaches some interesting conclusions about file sharing. Includes a link to the study, but it isn't in English.

Dutch government reach similar conclusions.

And an alternative perspective on the problem of piracy.

I'm not a piracy advocate by any means, but I'm really get tired of all the hysteria over it. Some legislation is necessary, sure, but it should be based on good, sound, ethical principles rather being shaped arbitrarily by the short-sightedness of lobbyists and politicians.

To quote the third article:

Julian Sanchez wrote:

As a rough analogy, since antipiracy crusaders are fond of equating filesharing with shoplifting: suppose the CEO of Wal-Mart came to Congress demanding a $50 million program to deploy FBI agents to frisk suspicious-looking teens in towns near Wal-Marts. A lawmaker might, without for one instant doubting that shoplifiting is a bad thing, question whether this is really the optimal use of federal law enforcement resources. The CEO indignantly points out that shoplifting kills one million adorable towheaded orphans each year. The proof is right here in this study by the Wal-Mart Institute for Anti-Shoplifting Studies. The study sources this dramatic claim to a newspaper article, which quotes the CEO of Wal-Mart asserting (on the basis of private data you can't see) that shoplifting kills hundreds of orphans annually. And as a footnote explains, it seemed prudent to round up to a million. I wish this were just a joke, but as readers of my previous post will recognize, that's literally about the level of evidence we're dealing with here.

freeze4real · 29-01-2012 12:40am

Daftendirekt wrote: »

These articles were shamelessly stolen from the ACTA thread (copyright infringement :eek:), but I think they're worth a read:

Swiss government reaches some interesting conclusions about file sharing. Includes a link to the study, but it isn't in English.

Dutch government reach similar conclusions.

And an alternative perspective on the problem of piracy.

I'm not a piracy advocate by any means, but I'm really get tired of all the hysteria over it. Some legislation is necessary, sure, but it should be based on good, sound, ethical principles rather being shaped arbitrarily by the short-sightedness of lobbyists and politicians.

To quote the third article:

That's it if its get passed i am moving to Switzerland/Holland.

I am beginning to question that guys motive for deciding to sign this law,

Anyone with brains know how dangerous its plus the economics disadvantages to Ireland and the ISP providers.

what annoying is that these so called minister studied economics and yet he bent of introducing these piece of ****.

I fail and will not understand this and I will question his motives.

we must fight these.

UNITED AS ONE OR DIVIDED WE FALL.

token56 · 29-01-2012 12:41am

One good thing that has come from this I think is to show that the internet can give the ordinary people both power and knowledge. It's wonderful to see how quickly news of things like this can spread and it has become much harder for even little SI's like this to slip by the public eye. In addition knowledge regarding how to get in contact with TD's for example and the power to coordinate mass contact to put pressure on them.

While this SI is does not directly stop us from continuing doing these things and does not directly allow for censorship etc, it is certainly a step closer rather than further away, and that should be a cause for concern alone.

Potchumkin · 29-01-2012 12:46am

Thank you Boards. I have added my name to the petition. I am glad to see that normal service returns after the notification. Good policy.
SOPA need to get their act together. Altruism requires a greater degree of sophistication in the cut-throat environment of present day instant communication.

DeVore · 29-01-2012 12:51am

As shown by the Irish times today and RTE recently, we're one of the last few places where reasoned back-and-forth debate can happen. Everything else is spun.

Daftendirekt · 29-01-2012 12:52am

token56 wrote: »

One good thing that has come from this I think is to show that the internet can give the ordinary people both power and knowledge. It's wonderful to see how quickly news of things like this can spread and it has become much harder for even little SI's like this to slip by the public eye. In addition knowledge regarding how to get in contact with TD's for example and the power to coordinate mass contact to put pressure on them.

Indeed. Given the lack of knowledge our TDs seem to have on the subject, I get the impression Sherlock was really expecting to just slip this under the radar. Now it seems his phone's been ringing off the hook, he's being snowed under with Email (as well as others in the Dáil), and even had Anonymous turn their attention toward Irish government websites.

Not bad going!

View · 29-01-2012 1:02am

freeze4real wrote: »

That's it if its get passed i am moving to Switzerland/Holland.

Both Switzerland and the Netherlands have signed up to ACTA so you'll have the same situation there.

Daftendirekt · 29-01-2012 1:32am

View wrote: »

Both Switzerland and the Netherlands have signed up to ACTA so you'll have the same situation there.

I think with regards to ACTA, a lot of the more unpleasant stuff we've been hearing comes from an earlier draft. I haven't read the text itself yet, but there's a summary on reddit.

If what that's saying is accurate, ACTA itself won't force any new IP laws on the signatories, but will grant a standardised set of powers to deal with copyright infringement.

Not saying it's good, just that the simple act of signing up to ACTA might not necessarily be as significant as it's being made out to be.

thebman · 29-01-2012 3:02am

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I think with regards to ACTA, a lot of the more unpleasant stuff we've been hearing comes from an earlier draft. I haven't read the text itself yet, but there's a summary on reddit.

If what that's saying is accurate, ACTA itself won't force any new IP laws on the signatories, but will grant a standardised set of powers to deal with copyright infringement.

Not saying it's good, just that the simple act of signing up to ACTA might not necessarily be as significant as it's being made out to be.

Any new restrictions aren't welcome. All the things these people are lobbying against area already against the law. They just have problems finding them and prosecuting them. Why should they be allowed infringe on anyone elses privacy or rights just to help them get the money they are owed in an easier fashion?

It is ridiculous to say the least.

timesnap · 29-01-2012 4:21am

DeVore wrote: »

Google are no more in favour of this then we are. They stand to suffer too.. the problem here is the lack of control on getting injunctions which gives the copyright lobbyist a huge stick to beat everyone with...

Devore read my post again,i did not suggest that google were to blame.merely that we boycott google for a week in order that the minister does not even consider signing............. use a hugh stick, ie google to stop the minister.
i am fairly sure he would come under less than subtle pressure if google said they were going to leave Ireland due to this.

jay-me · 29-01-2012 8:22am

freeze4real wrote: »

That's it if its get passed i am moving to Switzerland/Holland.

I am beginning to question that guys motive for deciding to sign this law,

Anyone with brains know how dangerous its plus the economics disadvantages to Ireland and the ISP providers.

what annoying is that these so called minister studied economics and yet he bent of introducing these piece of ****.

I fail and will not understand this and I will question his motives.

we must fight these.

UNITED AS ONE OR DIVIDED WE FALL.

His motives are that the rest of Europe signed it along with USA, Canada, japan etc etc. And their motives are that if there is no piracy there will be more sales and thus more taxes.

An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Comments