Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
I fully agree with this statement, reason why I was pointing out that a lawyer opinion would be welcome. I'm pretty sure that every people reading this topic on SwiNOG is not sure that such a request is fully supported by a law. Now, I am not sure that some customers will recourse because one website is blocked from a couple of ISPs. But even, it remains an ethical question for the ISP to decide if they just carry bits and bytes (as the Swiss post carry letters) without worrying what these bytes are coding (as the Swiss post does; as of today they do not filter your mail to drop invoices and ads for delivering only personal letters and postcards). 2009/2/17 Tonnerre Lombard tonne...@bsdprojects.net Salut, Yann, In my opinion it is not clear so far whether or not it is legal at all for an ISP to block web sites. I think that blindly doing so - especially by a dubious court order - might give customers a legal right to recourse. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
You're assuming that the biggest ISPs will apply the filtering at the entrance of their network, which is not necesseraly true. They can also decide to filter closer to their access equipments. This would mean that peerings with other ISPs or BGP-tiered enterprises would be unfiltered. Depending where the filtering is applied, professional access could also be prevented to be filtered. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
DNS filtering is also the solution that is the easiest to go around... :-) Either chose a foreign DNS, or chose to fully resolve the names by yourself... But I'm sure this is the easiest and cheapest way to proceed. 2009/2/17 Xaver Aerni xae...@pop.ch When the ISP block it only by DNS Filtering??? I think to block 1 side is a DNS Filtering the easyest and fastest way. Greetings Xaver ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
If this case would have happened in countries like China, we would have called this censorship... People would have claimed about freedom, and so on... But we are in Switzerland... and in Switzerland, this is only a legal behaviour to protect against diffamation... No comment... ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
It would also be interesting to have a lawyer opinion concerning this kind of orders from some judges (cantonaux / kantonale). If such a decision should be applied over all the ISPs in Switzerland, should it not be ordered (if the law permit it) by a Swiss judge and not a Vaud, nor a Zürich one ? Unfortunatelly, I'm a techie and not a lawyer to know who can ask such things. But anyway, in the present case I think instead of willing to block traffic to the website, if it really contains contestable content, the complain should be done against the author and actions should be taken to close the website. This would: 1) imply less third-party costs (probably it would imply more costs for the authorities to make the website closed, if it is located outside of Switzerland) 2) will achieve the ultimate target (making the content unavailable). Avoiding traffic to the offending website is just a workaround, as anybody with a little technical knowledge can use an anonymizer or a proxy to reach that content. But my main opinion remains: I am totally against censorship. If words are offending, find the author and prosecute him. At the same time, ensure the illegal words are removed (if I am against censorship, I am not against respect of the people) without applying oversized measures such as restricting access to a whole website. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
In this topic, Andreas and Roger you are asking who should pay to implement these measures... I'm sad to tell you that YOU probably will have to pay for that. Despite your hope, I am pretty sure that (if a law making that appliable does exist) nobody except you (and at the end your customers if you increase your service price) will pay for such a blocking system. Even if it can seem unfair, in fact it works like that: - Some cantons voted for banning smoke in public places (restaurants, bars, ...) except in one dedicated and closed aread (called fumoir in French). The restaurant managers will pay for the needed changes to become compliant. They will not receive money from the authorities to do so. - In our work activity, we also have legal requirements. As ISPs we have the obligation to keep historical data about IP address allocation for our customers, we have to keep some records about e-mail that are sent from our mail exchange relays, ... Once again, the ISPs financed these modifications / changes / upgrades to comply the law. This is the way it works in Switzerland: Politicians (and/or citizens when a subject is voted by them) decide the laws. Other key players assume the financial charge for it. I am not saying this is a bad idea (I agree with this way to do! (*)), however I consider that the investments should be reasonable and they should have proved their effectiveness. In the present case, this is the main problem: blocking the access to some web content (in addition to the problem of censorship I already expressed in previous posts) is not effective: 1) the simple use of a relay/proxy/anonymizer would permit to defeat this protection; 2) if ISPs are concerned with this measure, enterprise would not be permitting to access the offending content from an office workplace! (*) I mentionned above I agree with the way consisting of political deputies (or citizens) making a decision, and involved actors to finance the required changes. Let me explain why. I still believe we are living in a very democratical country where individuals and companies have their own responsabilities and obligations. Everybody must take the needed measures to comply with the law without expecting any compensation. IMHO this has the advantage to make everybody playing an active role in the final decision about a law. Most of the laws follow a consult phase (phase de consultation in French); other laws are voted by the citizens. If you're not happy with a project law, you can inform (lobbying with the deputies / advertise the citizens) the decision makers about the problems you will face (inadequate price / effectiveness ratio for instance) but at the same time also announce that this correspond to a form of censorship. At the end, you don't make the decision and you can win or lose. But democracy is more or less respected. If the Authorities would have to finance such a decision (such as the hardware + implementation of a censorship solution), your role would be lowered much more. Your voice would count for peanuts. That Authorities would tell you: Shut up, we decide, we pay, your financial and ethical opinions do not matter. Once again, my questions about the present topic are: - Is there an existing law permitting to mandate ISPs to block access to a given content? If yes, who can decide of such blocking (a canton court or a Swiss court)? - Why was this decision to block access from the ISP taken, instead of making the hosting provider removing the offending content? The first solution is technically known to be uneffective as workarounds exist and can be used by people with only a little technical knowledge or by users having a web access from an enterprise. - Ethically, I consider this way to proceed as a form of censorship: blocking access to a published content match my definition of censorship (we decide what is good for you or we filter for your well-being, take care you prove G. Orwell right). Removing (and not simply restricting access) an offending content is a legal decision that can (and must) be taken, if that content is considered as illegal. This does not shoke me. Even if the result (for the Swiss web users) is the more or less same (it will not have access to that content), the taken action is totally different. In one case, this is filtering for some world citizens, in the second case, this is global removal of the content. An analogy can be made with publishing world: If a book containing offending someone (physical or moral person) content is written, the courts can decide to forbid the publisher to destroy all the books (and possibly if this is too late, to forbid the bookstores to sell it and to return the remaining ones to the publisher). But never the court will say the bookstores to use a black marker to strike through the offending lines or to tear out the offending pages. Last remark: Definition of offending content is out of scope of this e-mail. Just understand that for me an offending
Re: [swinog] WG: login banner
I think this would be interesting for all of us. So why not keep the discussion open and here ? 2009/1/29 Christa Pfister m...@c-pfister.ch There can be legal requirements in different contexts, such as adult content, data protection issues, copyright protected content etc. I often draft disclaimers and legal wording for websites, so contact me offlist for any specific questions. You needn't even become my client to discuss a few basis issues... Christa ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] List policy discussion (was: Check out my Facebook profile)
I would prefer to condamn the responsible person to offer a free beer to the participants of the upcoming SwiNOG meetings... (or Vodka if you prefer ;-)) But we are starting to be off-topic... 2008/9/24 Stanislav Sinyagin [EMAIL PROTECTED] after three warnings, ban the person forever :) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Skype
People starts to understand why the call prices are not the same between the two services. Reliability is also one factor that has its price... But I would not be as definitive as Xaver, probably the issue is not related to the modern computer systems but to the service provider itself (young Skype vs old old Telco). Xaver Aerni a écrit : I love the verry old Swisscom Relay Telefonzentale. (ratter... ratter... ratter...) This are working and working and working. The modern Computersystem. was going down everytime... - Original Message - From: Stanislav Sinyagin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [swinog] Skype time to start a new VoIP company? :) --- Xaver Aerni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Skype has a bigger Problem. Today morning at 8 h UTC it was worked 1 hour later it was down again... And the MSG on the homepage wasn't well. Greetings Xaver - Original Message - From: Roman Hochuli [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [swinog] Skype Does anyone know what happend to skype today? http://heartbeat.skype.com/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
