michiexile: (Default)
Whaddaya know. The EU actually does make somethings halfways decent. The latest is the BEUC - the EU Consumer rights organisation - that has launched a website and a campaign to act as counterweight and lobbying entity against the rampant DRM overkill and privacy violations and other bullshit that's going on in the hands of the media companies right now. This is direly needed - the big media throw unreal amounts of effort and money on getting EU legislation to grant them the most preposterous rights (can you say Outlaw-the-shift-button?) - it's about time that someone with at least a little Ooomph steps in and guards the people.
michiexile: (Default)
APB har fått undantag från PuL för att få lagra IP-adresser för att använda i civilrättsmål och brottsmål. Det kan vara mycket väl värt under närmaste året att komma ihåg villkoren under vilka Datainspektionen delade ut detta undantag - jag är knappast den ende som misstänker att APB kan tänkas vilja tänja på gränserna en aning. DI anför specifikt tre argument mot att ge tillståndet:
* Integritetsintrång
* Omfattande behandling av personuppgifter
* Risk för att varningsbrev skickas till oskyldiga.

Därtill kommer fem argument för tillstånd:
* APB har i uppdrag av sina medlemmar att tillvarata dessas intressen vid brott mot upphovsrätten
* Personuppgifterna sänds endast till berörd ISP eller polis/domstol
* APB vill bara ha personuppgifter om folk som redan deltar i fildelningsnätverk o.dyl. - och som därmed implicit redan publicerat dessa uppgifter
* APB identifierar inte på egen hand person bakom personuppgiften.

DI säger uttryckligen i beslutet att det kommer att återkallas om APBs behandling bryter mot endera villkoren i beslutet (vari ingår att APB betonar att beträffade privatpersoner KOMMER att underrättas via sina ISPer om registreringen!) eller mot resterande paragrafer i PuL.

Beslutet finns i sin helhet på http://www.datainspektionen.se/pdf/beslut/antipiratbyran_undantag.pdf

Det kan vara värt att notera, också, att Direct Connect är den enda fildelningen som nämns uttryckligen - DI har således vad det verkar inte gett tillstånd att samla adresser annorstädes.

Intressant detalj är också att APB i sin ansökan skriver att användaren kommer att vara informerad - senast vid delgivningen av förundersökningsprotokollet. Den här detaljen nämns inte igen senare i beslutsmotiveringarna, och är väl en källa till oro: bör inte normalt en misstänkt på något sätt vara inblandad i att han/hon är föremål för en polisiär förundersökning?

Trevligt nog, huruvida, rapporteras att svenska ISPer vägrar agera APBs lakejer vad gäller att skicka ut brev och ha sig. Verkar således som att APB får svårigheter med förutsättningarna för undantaget! :)
michiexile: (Oh! My! God!)
Today on /. news about wardriving being brought to trial was reported. In general, it's actually a quite agreeable thing happening - unintentionally insecure hotspots and access points definitely can help criminal activity by working as an anonymizer. The trails will lead to the owner of the access point, but not necessarily further.

However, embedded in the article, a few comments arrive about connection sharing. Including the following quote:
"It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft," said Kena Lewis, spokeswoman for Bright House Networks in Orlando. "Just because a crime may be undetectable doesn't make it right."

This, my dear friends, is one of the more pungent parts of the war tactics employed by BSA, RIAA, MPAA. By labeling piracy as theft, and indicating loss of profit as the commodity being stolen, the debate opens up for the same argument to be used by almost anyone. The argument given by Lewis falls not very short of claiming that a new internet connection should be acquired for each network card using it. Imagine your ISP telling you that you no longer are allowed to NAT to enable internet access for your family members in addition to yourself. Imagine your ISP telling you that your laptop and your desktop are not allowed to run on the same connection, and billing you twice for double the amount of MAC adresses.

Unthinkable, you say?

Unethical, you say?

When BSA & *AA started pushing hard, I didn't think their arguments would be taken up by other industries either. Or rather, I hoped they wouldn't. There even is some validity to claiming that excessive copying of licensed data should be curbed in order to guarantee some sort of profit for the originator of the data - the extent of this is in much need of the ongoing debate. But Lewis claims that a service rendered may not be shared - more specifically, she explicitly requests the ability to control exactly who uses the rented data transfer line.

Seriously. Get your dirty ISP fingers the f**k out of my NAT, my router, my at home WiFi, my selected neighbours with connection sharing.

Just as seriously. Get your bloody routers shipped with MAC filtering. If you WANT to open up, you should have to work for it. The normal way SHOULD be to individually grant access to those you want to share your wireless connection with, not the other way around.

The only way to get the private connections halfway secure is to ship GOOD default settings. Holding people liable for connection sharing due to some sort of flawed lost-profits argument is NOT a way to this end.


michiexile: (Default)

June 2014

1 234567
2223242526 2728


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 04:15 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios