An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

FreudianSlippers

KyussBishop wrote: »

Is it possible for an injunction to happen in secret? With an order barring any party from disclosing it publicly? (i.e. a secret blacklist)

Yep: see superinjunctions.

oscarBravo

DavidCollins wrote: »

1. The SI only gets used to force ISPs to block websites that are clearly devoted to piracy.

Which, in turn, raises the interesting technical question of how an ISP "blocks" a website.

For someone who doesn't understand the plumbing of the Internet, you type in a web site address and a page appears in your browser - simples! But when you understand that there's actually quite a lot going on in that seemingly simple transaction, you also understand that preventing it from happening - without collateral damage - isn't all that straightforward.

So if a judge grants an injunction ordering an ISP to block a website, what then? Will the judge specify the technical means by which this should be achieved, and/or the metric by which compliance will be measured (how "blocked" does it have to be)?

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if a judge grants an injunction ordering an ISP to block a website, what then? Will the judge specify the technical means by which this should be achieved, and/or the metric by which compliance will be measured (how "blocked" does it have to be)?

The more important question is "how can a judge order an ISP to block a website?"
It would seem clear from Scarlet Extended that where this involves filtering technology they cannot force ISPs to do this. That caselaw trumps the S.I.

KyussBishop

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yep: see superinjunctions.

Ya that's what I had in mind; can they be put in place here in Ireland though, in this particular context? (blocking websites)

KyussBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which, in turn, raises the interesting technical question of how an ISP "blocks" a website.

For someone who doesn't understand the plumbing of the Internet, you type in a web site address and a page appears in your browser - simples! But when you understand that there's actually quite a lot going on in that seemingly simple transaction, you also understand that preventing it from happening - without collateral damage - isn't all that straightforward.

So if a judge grants an injunction ordering an ISP to block a website, what then? Will the judge specify the technical means by which this should be achieved, and/or the metric by which compliance will be measured (how "blocked" does it have to be)?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The more important question is "how can a judge order an ISP to block a website?"
It would seem clear from Scarlet Extended that where this involves filtering technology they cannot force ISPs to do this. That caselaw trumps the S.I.

You can block a website without filtering packets, so this SI still slips through a crack in the EU court cases that set the precedents regarding active filtering.

Basically, to route a packet of data on the internet, you have to read the destination address of the packet (so consider the destination address non-private info); if you block the IP of a website, this is not packet filtering, it is refusing to route packets to a specific IP address.

Website blocking is like An Post checking the address of a letter (not an invasion of privacy), and refusing to deliver to a particular address, where packet filtering (i.e. 'Deep Packet Inspection') is like An Post opening up the letter and deciding whether or not to deliver based on the contents of the letter (an invasion of privacy).

matrim

KyussBishop wrote: »

You can block a website without filtering packets, so this SI still slips through a crack in the EU court cases that set the precedents regarding active filtering.

Basically, to route a packet of data on the internet, you have to read the destination address of the packet (so consider the destination address non-private info); if you block the IP of a website, this is not packet filtering, it is refusing to route packets to a specific IP address.

At which point the website changes their IP address and then the next person who get's this address is punished because of something that isn't their fault.

allanb49

DavidCollins wrote: »

Allan and I met with Shane Ross this morning. We voiced our concerns and covered many areas in this issue regarding Sean Sherlock's Statutory Instrument and a few related issues.

Overall, I'm very happy with the meeting we had and encouraged for the future. I was also impressed with Shane himself and his response and stance in the issue.

I would recommend many others here to make the best effort they can to meet with their representatives. The difference between exchanging emails and meeting them in person is immesurable. Far greater freedom to discuss various issues and... just better overall.

On Monday i mentioned that companies like Bioware, Popcap, Blizzard could use this as a get out clause as it would stifle Internet based companies or companies that exist mostly online.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/online-games-giant-to-shed-200-cork-jobs-185661.html

Online games giant to shed 200 Cork jobs
By Eoin English
THURSDAY, MARCH 01, 2012
Global online games giant Blizzard Entertainment is to cut 200 jobs from the almost 900-strong workforce at its European customer support centre in Cork.

Blizzard confirmed the Irish losses after announcing plans to axe about 600 jobs worldwide — mostly in customer service — after a global review.

The shock news comes just days after Enterprise Minister Richard Bruton announced 200 pharma jobs and 300 construction jobs in a €300m expansion of drugs giant Lilly’s Kinsale plant.

Blizzard is responsible for some of the world’s biggest-selling games, including blockbuster hits such as Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo.

Its World of Warcraft: Cataclysm expansion, which launched in Dec 2010, sold over 3.3m copies worldwide during its first 24 hours of release and over 4.7m in its first month.

Blizzard president and co-founder Mike Morhaime explained the decision on an online forum yesterday.

"In order to keep making epic game content while serving players effectively, we have to be smart about how we manage our resources," he said.

"This means we sometimes have to make difficult decisions about how to best maintain the health of the company. After evaluating our current organisational needs, we determined that while some areas of our business had been operating at the right levels and could benefit from further growth, other areas had become overstaffed.

"As a result, we need to scale down some of our departments and part with some of our colleagues and friends here at Blizzard."

Blizzard, founded in 1991, is one of the world’s largest developers of video and online games.

It established its European customer support centre at the Blackpool Retail Centre on Cork’s northside in 2007, with the expectation of creating 100 jobs by 2010. The workforce had almost doubled by 2009 as company profits soared.

A spokeswoman for the Cork centre said last night that the company will begin consulting with staff about who will be able to apply for voluntary redundancy.

"For those who are eventually impacted by this, we will help with finding new employment, including in Ireland, if that is their choice," she said.

"We are providing a comprehensive outplacement support programme for our employees with the help of career transition specialists, Harmonics."

The Cork office will continue to offer the same level of customer support in eight EU languages. The company plans to recruit Italian language specialists ahead of the launch later this year of a full Italian version of World of Warcraft.

Just last month, Blizzard were one of a number of gaming companies that attended the Games Ireland conference on the hunt for new staff ranging from game design artists to game product marketers.

At around the same time, the Government’s new jobs action plan identified digital games as a key area where Ireland could expand. The prediction was that job numbers in the sector could double to 2,500 in two years.

dahamsta

I'm a constituent of Sean Sherlock's, and I'm noting here for the record that he won't appear on my ballot card at the next election under any circumstances.

FreudianSlippers

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ya that's what I had in mind; can they be put in place here in Ireland though, in this particular context? (blocking websites)

There's an article I read recently on that subject. Let me see if I can find it and post it.

DavidCollins

dahamsta wrote: »

I'm a constituent of Sean Sherlock's, and I'm noting here for the record that he won't appear on my ballot card at the next election under any circumstances.

Cool, were you talking with him much beforehand?

RangeR

DavidCollins wrote: »

If anyone wants to run for TDs, let us know (though it's not easy). Alternatively keep a keen eye on the ballot paper for the TDs stance when it comes to stuff like copyright and vote accordingly, there are a lot of TDs on our side out there, and the last election showed we're not afraid to vote in independents. Ensure a lot of attention has been brought to the issue beforehand so that TDs can't shirk away giving their stance on the issue.

If all goes well, Ireland will emerge as a more tech savvy nation that knows the price of ignorance when it comes to communications technology and will be the wiser for it.

I would be interested but maybe part of a group rather than a solo effort
What is involved?

RangeR

RangeR wrote: »

In the meantime, I've sent an email to Minister Sherlock. I am not hopeful but took the chance.

I've had no response form the Minister so I sent him another email, co-incidentally on the day he signed the SI into being.

I received a response last night. However, he just sent me the actual wording of the Instrument, not the actual submissions made during the "public consultation".

I've, again, requested the information.

the_syco

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The more important question is "how can a judge order an ISP to block a website?"

Also, which ISPs are they going to tell to block it? Only Eircom, or also UPC, UTV, 3, o2, etc?

FreudianSlippers

the_syco wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The more important question is "how can a judge order an ISP to block a website?"

Also, which ISPs are they going to tell to block it? Only Eircom, or also UPC, UTV, 3, o2, etc?

Depends on against whom they seek an injunction. Likely they will go after everyone that doesn't agree to do it voluntarily.

DavidCollins

RangeR wrote: »

I would be interested but maybe part of a group rather than a solo effort
What is involved?

I'm no expert. There's some info here on the issue. I know it's not easy, you have to do a lot of networking, campaiging, learn a lot about the system, you'll be going against many others etc.

In terms as being part of a group, unless a new political party forms (which is possible), the Green Party have been long been shown to be a strong supporter of digital rights (just look at their response to the SI on their homepage). I don't know what would happen if you contacted them and expressed your thoughts of becomming a TD, but since they're a small party and would want all the help they could get, I'm sure they'd give you some advice for becomming more politically involved.

El Guapo!

I left Sherlock a message through his website last night. It's not the most high brow or well prepared message but it was how I felt last night.

Here's what I sent him:

Mr. Sherlock,
I would just like to say how utterly baffled and disappointed I am at your decision to sign the Irish SOPA into law despite widespread outrage and opposition to this. You and your party blatantly ignored the people who voted you into power. You have betrayed the citizens of Ireland and refused to hear any resonable argument against said law. As a direct result of your actions you have lost a vote from myself, my family, and my friends next time.
This single act has ruined your chances of re-election. To say I am disgusted is an understatement. To treat citizens of this country in this way is unforgivable. I won't hold my breath for any sort of intelligible reply from you other than a stock response that shows you genuinely do not care one iota about your voters. Enjoy your time at Leinster house as it will be short lived.
Yours in Disgust, Dean

And this is exactly word for word what I received back this morning:

Read the copyright consultation doc launched today.

Sean Sherlock TD
Minister of State

dahamsta

He's a charmer and no mistake. Neither he nor his campaigners have ever come to my door for a vote in Cork East, despite my living in 4 seperate houses in the area, so I'll reckon I'll be out campaigning on his behalf at the next election. I hope I don't come off too obnoxious and hurt his campaign. oops

Niall0001

allanb49 wrote: »

On Monday i mentioned that companies like Bioware, Popcap, Blizzard could use this as a get out clause as it would stifle Internet based companies or companies that exist mostly online.

Mind getting into the reasons why again, or posting a link to your comment please?

Bubblefett

I emailed TD Stephen Donnelly becuase he tried to reason with Sherlock in the past and fix the law so that it makes sense.
Got a mail back

"Hello ***,
Thank you for your email concerningSOPA. I will be sure to bring it to Deputy Donnelly's attention.
Best Wishes,
Arielle Jeter

on behalf of
Stephen Donnelly TD"

Hopefully it'll do something, certainly made me feel better mailing him anyway.

matrim

RangeR wrote: »

I've had no response form the Minister so I sent him another email, co-incidentally on the day he signed the SI into being.

I received a response last night. However, he just sent me the actual wording of the Instrument, not the actual submissions made during the "public consultation".

I've, again, requested the information.

I've sent him a couple of emails about the submissions and haven't received anything. It's now nearly 2 weeks since I sent the first one.

However, I have sent a FOI request for them.

oscarBravo

matrim wrote: »

At which point the website changes their IP address and then the next person who get's this address is punished because of something that isn't their fault.

Also, the website is now unblocked. Is the ISP in contempt of court?

KyussBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

matrim wrote:

At which point the website changes their IP address and then the next person who get's this address is punished because of something that isn't their fault.

Also, the website is now unblocked. Is the ISP in contempt of court?

There are issues with that method of blocking, but in 90% of cases a website uses a static IP, and it's easy enough to unblock an IP if the website changes; I don't see a reason the law can't be applied on a per-IP basis (that would make the most sense).

If you are targeting The Pirate Bay, you don't need to block more than the IP, as Eircom have shown (even though there are many ways around that).

matrim

KyussBishop wrote: »

There are issues with that method of blocking, but in 90% of cases a website uses a static IP, and it's easy enough to unblock an IP if the website changes; I don't see a reason the law can't be applied on a per-IP basis (that would make the most sense).

If you are targeting The Pirate Bay, you don't need to block more than the IP, as Eircom have shown (even though there are many ways around that).

Who's in charge of checking that the IP still hosts the copyright material? And do the ISP need court approval to unblock the IP?
Who pays for the unblocking, even if it's trivial it still takes up some peoples time?
Who informs the new person with that IP that it is blocked? If I start a website I won't know if it's blocked by eircom as I don't use eircom.
Do the ISPs then have to check the new IP of the website and block that? And again who pays for this?

KyussBishop

matrim wrote: »

Who's in charge of checking that the IP still hosts the copyright material? And do the ISP need court approval to unblock the IP?
Who pays for the unblocking, even if it's trivial it still takes up some peoples time?
Who informs the new person with that IP that it is blocked? If I start a website I won't know if it's blocked by eircom as I don't use eircom.
Do the ISPs then have to check the new IP of the website and block that? And again who pays for this?

It's pretty easy for an ISP to check if a website is still hosted on a particular IP, and then unblock it, and under this law it is (afaik) the ISP that is liable monetarily.
The grey area is the procedure required to unblock an IP, that doesn't fall foul legally; I don't think that would be a big issue though.

I'm not defending the action of blocking (or saying it is just), only pointing out that this method isn't covered by EU court rulings, and that it is a practical method of blocking for most websites.

Unless a website is specifically and continuously trying to evade the block, the implementation of the block is (mostly) just technicalities, which are unlikely to create legal ambiguity (unless implemented very stupidly).

Niall0001

80,000 No votes in the upcoming referendum, methinks. If they won't listen to us why should we put our trust in them?

matrim

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's pretty easy for an ISP to check if a website is still hosted on a particular IP, and then unblock it, and under this law it is (afaik) the ISP that is liable monetarily.
The grey area is the procedure required to unblock an IP, that doesn't fall foul legally; I don't think that would be a big issue though.

I'm not defending the action of blocking (or saying it is just), only pointing out that this method isn't covered by EU court rulings, and that it is a practical method of blocking for most websites.

It is pretty easy for an ISP to check but why should they have to? And even still every check costs money and time.

And another question is what about shared hosts?

Unless a website is specifically and continuously trying to evade the block, the implementation of the block is (mostly) just technicalities, which are unlikely to create legal ambiguity

Most of the big sites will be trying to continuously avoid blocks. Ireland is a small fish to them but even still some will just to show they can.

Even just the legal challenge of the injunction is enough to put some small ISPs out of business. So if a media company tires to get a second injunction for sites after avoid the first block, any small to medium ISPs have no chance to defend themselves.

(unless implemented very stupidly).

And that's most of the argument against this S.I. It leaves it open to create those sort of stupid implementations. How much does your average judge know about the technical details of implementing an IP block? Or any other form of a block.
(BTW I'm not saying judges can't understand this but it's not their area of expertise and even our quick posts here have shown that there are a lot of things to consider)

FreudianSlippers

Niall0001 wrote: »

80,000 No votes in the upcoming referendum, methinks. If they won't listen to us why should we put our trust in them?

Oh jesus. That's the worst possible thing one could do. Let's not cut off our nose to spite our face

eurokev

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0229/copyright.htm

Bombard this link. Make it their biggest story. Its barely being reported. Iv been keeping a keen eye on this story and have only found out about this now.

We are getting walked all over in this country.

We are truly a nation of f**king pussies.

Come the fcuk on people

KyussBishop

matrim wrote: »

It is pretty easy for an ISP to check but why should they have to? And even still every check costs money and time.

Agreed, that's unfair on ISP's; again, I'm not defending that or any aspect of the actual blocking, just explaining that (in most cases) it is possible technically without adverse effects.

matrim wrote: »

And another question is what about shared hosts?

I don't expect courts to approve any blocks when hosting is shared; most of the high-profile torrent sites are not using shared hosting afaik.

matrim wrote: »

Most of the big sites will be trying to continuously avoid blocks. Ireland is a small fish to them but even still some will just to show they can.

This isn't true though; I don't believe The Pirate Bay (which is the case I'm focusing on most) has done anything to evade the Eircom IP block.

matrim wrote: »

Even just the legal challenge of the injunction is enough to put some small ISPs out of business. So if a media company tires to get a second injunction for sites after avoid the first block, any small to medium ISPs have no chance to defend themselves.

I don't think that's the case, as ISP's that can't afford to challenge the injunction legally will just voluntarily block the site (e.g. Eircom); blocking the site and keeping it blocked will not cost much.

This, however, is one of the worst possible outcomes of this new law, as it creates a chilling effect and de-facto unaccountable censorship.

matrim wrote: »

And that's most of the argument against this S.I. It leaves it open to create those sort of stupid implementations. How much does your average judge know about the technical details of implementing an IP block? Or any other form of a block.
(BTW I'm not saying judges can't understand this but it's not their area of expertise and even our quick posts here have shown that there are a lot of things to consider)

In most cases, it is very simple to block a website, and does not cost much to block and occasionally check that the block is still for the correct website.

I agree with you that there are cases where this basic type of blocking is not practical, e.g. sites with shared hosting and sites which change IP a lot and try to actively evade blocking etc.; these are the cases where there's a risk that a judge might make impractical demands for blocking the websites.

Personally though, I don't think a case like that would succeed; the majority of high-profile websites likely to be the target of an injunction, can probably be blocked sufficiently through basic IP blocking.

oscarBravo

KyussBishop wrote: »

In most cases, it is very simple to block a website, and does not cost much to block and occasionally check that the block is still for the correct website.

It doesn't cost much to block and occasionally check that the block is still for the correct website.

It doesn't cost much to block and occasionally check that the block is still for the ten correct websites.

It doesn't cost much to block and occasionally check that the block is still for the thousand correct websites... does it?

At what point is it acknowledged that the copyright industry is transferring the entire burden of policing websites onto ISPs?

That's leaving aside the intangible cost that is involved in an ISP breaking the Internet. If a customer sends a packet to an IP address and my router is configured to drop that packet, it's doing something other than its job as a router. It's not routing the packet to its destination; it's routing it to a socio-political goal. There's no RFC for that.

And that's still leaving aside the aesthetic and technical objections to stuffing routers' RIBs with bogus routes.

The whole thing stinks.