An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Spacedog

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

...Scarlet Extended is adhered to in Belgium....

Wow, I gotta ask, don't you ever tire of being wrong.

Here is a screenshot of the 'protections' of the Scarlet judgement from the perspective of a belgacom customer (taken 4mins ago)...



honestly, there is no talking to you.

FreudianSlippers

ISPs cannot be forced to implement these measures; there is nothing stopping them from doing so voluntarily.


There's nothing wrong with what I said. Not my fault you don't have the facility to understand what is written. Care to allow the conversation to continue or do you not tire of being wrong? If Belgium does not adhere to the ECJ judgment then they are in violation of EU laws.

PS: where else was I wrong btw? That's right... nowhere, you're on about nonsense.

EDIT: Also, I forgive your lack of knowledge of legal issues - but judging on your previous post history I think you should understand the difference between DNS blocking and DNS filtering. The latter of which is now incompatible with EU law.

Spacedog

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

ISPs cannot be forced to implement these measures; there is nothing stopping them from doing so voluntarily.

FreudianSlippers

Blocked; not filtered. ISPs cannot be forced to implement measures to filter DNS.


Game, set, match. Thanks for playing.

Spacedog

:rolleyes: are you Sean Sherlock? because you have as much of a clue as to what you're talking about.

Please don't make me zoom the picture of the of the filtered DNS for a 3rd time.

here, do yourself a favour...

FreudianSlippers

I think that you need to understand that even if the ISP is still doing it, it doesn't mean it's actually in line with Scarlet Extended - this could still be challenged to the ECJ (re: blocking).

A cursory read of a translation of the cited decision seems to mesh with what is later said is Scarlet (SABAM), but it is odd the courts didn't refer it to the ECJ as well.

FreudianSlippers

Spacedog wrote: »

:rolleyes: are you Sean Sherlock? because you have as much of a clue as to what you're talking about.

Please don't make me zoom the picture of the of the filtered DNS for a 3rd time.

Please do. I only see the word blocked; you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Spacedog wrote: »

here, do yourself a favour...

Better yet, do yourself one.


There is nothing in Scarlet about blocking websites when taking into account the balance of the individual rights. It does prohibit forcing ISPs to filter DNS.

FreudianSlippers

Maybe if I set it out as if I was trying to tell my cat so he'd understand I'll get somewhere.

The Scarlet Extended decision is clear that it is contrary to EU law for copyright holders to seek or be granted injunctions FORCING ISPs to implement FILTERING systems to monitor and control internet traffic.
There is nothing in the Scarlet decision or any other ECJ decision that prevents ISPs from BLOCKING websites that it feels violate national or international copyright law.

Spacedog

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It does prohibit forcing ISPs to filter DNS.

does it?...





















































sigh.

KyussBishop

Some possible future developments which may affect people online:

Rabbitte set to examine 'difficult' area of online defamation

Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte said today that he hopes online media will be covered by the Defamation Act in the future.

Addressing a conference on media diversity in Dublin, Pat Rabbitte said our defamation laws have yet to come to terms with the rise and proliferation of new media.

The Press Council, which regulates the print media, is investigating whether some sectors of the online media will volunteer to come under the auspices of the Defamation Act.

"The protection of the Defamation Act is given to members of the council," said the Minister.

"Of course, that hasn't happened with the online media, and I think they're looking at whether you can identify segments of online media that might willingly subscribe to the protections of the Press Council, and membership of the Press Council.

"It’s very complex, and there's no point in pretending otherwise, it is very difficult, but it's a face of modern life."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/rabbitte-set-to-examine-difficult-area-of-online-defamation-538803.html

Now this is not a bad thing, it could be perfectly well and good, just need to figure out the exact details of how the law will be changed (have sent him an email asking).

In light of the last couple of weeks, think this kind of stuff requires extra scrutiny going forward.

DavidCollins wrote: »

On a final note, I went to the protest on my way home from something. It was a little extremist for my taste, and apparently Socialist and Anarchist leaflets were being handed out. I really wish we could have made a more reasonable, presentable display, to show them that we were regular people protesting a serious issue. It would have made us a lot harder to ignore.

Wasn't at this myself, but it really annoys me the way some groups try to 'hijack' or even just highly advertise themselves at protests like that; tends to delegitimize protests, reducing its effectiveness (and peoples future willingness to protest) for their own selfish agenda/gain. Must be some way of counteracting that.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Have you read SABAM? I would disagree with this wholeheartedly. It prevents ISPs from having to implement further measures to filter.

EU law precludes the imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an internet service provider to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files
Such an injunction does not comply with the prohibition on imposing a general monitoring obligation on such a provider, or with the requirement to strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the right to intellectual property, and, on the other, the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information

Unfortunately, while that does cover Deep Packet Inspection, I don't believe it covers blocking of specific websites (e.g. IP blocking); I'm quite sure you can still seek injunction of specific websites, just not e.g. filtering of copyrighted material in realtime.

Whether or not it applies to DNS is another (quite debatable) matter; I don't see why an ISP couldn't just modify their own DNS records to redirect the website, that's not filtering packets.

FreudianSlippers

KyussBishop wrote: »

Unfortunately, while that does cover Deep Packet Inspection, I don't believe it covers blocking of specific websites (e.g. IP blocking); I'm quite sure you can still seek injunction of specific websites, just not e.g. filtering of copyrighted material in realtime.

Whether or not it applies to DNS is another (quite debatable) matter; I don't see why an ISP couldn't just modify their own DNS records to redirect the website, that's not filtering packets.

Exactly, you get it at least

The decision to block websites is still covered (at the moment) in only national legislation. Effectively, the courts must conduct a balance exercise to determine whether or not the site should be blocked.

From Scarlet:

the protection of the fundamental right to property, which includes the rights linked to intellectual property, must be balanced against the protection of other fundamental rights...in the context of measures adopted to protect copyright holders, national authorities and courts must strike a fair balance between the protection of copyright and the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals who are affected by such measures.

It is a good start for the case against blocking generally, but it hasn't been tested (blocking that is) at the European level yet. That's what Spacedog doesn't want to / can't understand in relation to the difference between filtering and blocking of sites (only the former being adjudicated on at the European level). ISPs cannot be forced by injunction to implement filtering of DNS; they can be told to block sites in breach of copyright legislation.
Whether or not they should be allowed to is a different story IMO.

Spacedog

KyussBishop wrote: »

Wasn't at this myself, but it really annoys me the way some groups try to 'hijack' or even just highly advertise themselves at protests like that; tends to delegitimize protests, reducing its effectiveness (and peoples future willingness to protest) for their own selfish agenda/gain. Must be some way of counteracting that.

That's like saying "I don't bother to vote, but I hate what the government are always up to."

Spacedog

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

ISPs cannot be forced by injunction to implement filtering of DNS; they can be told to block sites in breach of copyright legislation.

*head explodes*

FreudianSlippers

Spacedog wrote: »

*head explodes*

“EU law precludes the imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an internet service provider to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files.”

... the Charter of Fundamental Rights accepts that the exercise of the rights and freedoms which it guarantees may be restricted, on condition, inter alia, that any such restriction is 'in accordance with the law' ... the legal basis for any restriction on the exercise of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights must meet requirements concerning 'the quality of the law' at issue. Thus, a restriction on the rights and freedoms of internet users such as that at issue would be permissible only if it were adopted on a national legal basis which was accessible, clear and predictable.

If you really cannot understand the difference between filtering and blocking then I have to just ignore you and write you off.

johnnydenims

It seems to me the legislation is vague for a reason, if you know you are the intended target you can take measures to avoid or prevent prosecution. However if the legislation does not clearly identify the responsible party in the event of a copyright infringement then ISP,s , website hosts, and end users all have to err on the side of caution for fear of prosecution.This might be why some sites have been blocked or content from sites removed. Its like telling people a rocket will be launched and could land anywhere.

KyussBishop

Spacedog wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

Wasn't at this myself, but it really annoys me the way some groups try to 'hijack' or even just highly advertise themselves at protests like that; tends to delegitimize protests, reducing its effectiveness (and peoples future willingness to protest) for their own selfish agenda/gain. Must be some way of counteracting that.

That's like saying "I don't bother to vote, but I hate what the government are always up to."

How is it like that? I've seen such groups at a protest I was at, at the Israeli embassy, around the time the IDF boarded, shot at and murdered people on the Mavi Marmara.

I don't like people trying to hijack or advertise themselves at a protest, for their own agenda (in such a way that it delegitmizes a protest, or discourages people from protesting), what is wrong with my opinion there?

dahamsta

Good riddance.

johnnydenims

input from an ISP owner or someone from the tech or legal dept of an ISP provider would be ideal. if a tier 1 ISP network has a contract with an internet content provider surely this is a conflict of interest, as prioritizing traffic from that content provider would be financially beneficial to tier 1 ISP network . sorry if this is getting off topic but you have to wonder why this legislation is being pushed through

southsiderosie

Can everyone just take a deep breath? The snide badgering and tit-for-tat are destroying the thread.

Also, please remember that you are posting in the Politics forum - before you hit reply, please consider if your post actually adds to the discussion and is not just an attempt at point-scoring and/or one-upmanship.

Cheers,

SSR

Tobyglen

Heisenberg. wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nonsense, I have seen him speak & he is an incredibly bright person & polar opposite to the typical FF politican like Ned & Kevin O'Keefe who are more interested in finding out your parents names etc. He has managed to capture the younger vote & the stats prove it.

Don't let the truth get in the way of swaying your argument.

johnnydenims

Tobyglen wrote: »

Nonsense, I have seen him speak & he is an incredibly bright person & polar opposite to the typical FF politican like Ned & Kevin O'Keefe who are more interested in finding out your parents names etc. He has managed to capture the younger vote & the stats prove it.

Don't let the truth get in the way of swaying your argument.

whats your opinion on the sopa legislation

bedrock#1

KyussBishop wrote: »

Wasn't at this myself, but it really annoys me the way some groups try to 'hijack' or even just highly advertise themselves at protests like that; tends to delegitimize protests, reducing its effectiveness (and peoples future willingness to protest) for their own selfish agenda/gain. Must be some way of counteracting that.

I was at the protest - it is true that there were socialists and anarchists spreading 'malicious' newsletters and information leaflets :eek: - but they seem to be the only ones who are bothered to show up to these types of events.

I like to think people are capable of deciding whether or no to subscribe to their points of view. On the other hand they are the only groups giving a genuine alternative to what is a stagnant and elitist political system -

There is no culture of protest in this country - 'we' are incapable of getting up off our couches or from behind our keyboards to actually fulfil our democratic duty of keeping our government in check. This is an important point which is highly relevant not only to ACTA/Irish SOPA but everything that has transpired over the last number of years.

Democracy does secure rights for those who participate in it but it also comes with a set of duties as well. This fact is lost on most 'citizens' in this country. If even half the people who thanked the OP showed up I'm sure the demographics of the protest would not have been so skewed in favour of what are fondly referred on this site to as 'the loonies on the left'.

So in response to your musing - the way to counter it is show up yourself, bring friends, family - ask them to bring friends and family - exercise your democratic right to protest and fulfil your democratic duty at the same time! No one is asking you to subscribe to the ideological groups present at the protests - you have that option.

It seems that in this country we are game when it comes to scorn for the traditional centrist parties FF and FG and the champagne socialists of Labour but when it comes to having the balls to try something else we shirk the responsibility and continue along the same conservative path which only leads to more centrist policies - paid for by ____________ (insert corporate interest here)

Scofflaw

bedrock#1 wrote:

There is no culture of protest in this country - 'we' are incapable of getting up off our couches or from behind our keyboards to actually fulfil our democratic duty of keeping our government in check. This is an important point which is highly relevant not only to ACTA/Irish SOPA but everything that has transpired over the last number of years.

I don't think that's the case at all. On the contrary, I think we have a reasonably healthy culture of protest, but a very limited public understanding of/interest in some issues - either that, or we have a rural/urban divide in terms of protesting culture.

I expect to see plenty of protests in respect of the septic tank charges and the household tax - they won't generally be by demonstrations and marches, though, they'll be by non-registration and non-payment. And they work - the previous government rowed back on the medical cards issue and the provisional licence issue, and the current one is reducing the septic tank registration fee.

It might be the case, I'm afraid, that the more complex and abstruse issues don't interest many - or even worse, have tacit support from many people. I suspect that the digitally literate discount the idea that the politicians might just be reflecting the attitudes of the majority, and may well be wrong to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bedrock#1

Scofflaw wrote: »

It might be the case, I'm afraid, that the more complex and abstruse issues don't interest many - or even worse, have tacit support from many people. I suspect that the digitally literate discount the idea that the politicians might just be reflecting the attitudes of the majority, and may well be wrong to do so.

Which makes it even more imperative that the digitally literate among us are able to bypass the traditional media who have so far been very quiet on this issue and make as loud a noise as possible. Thousands of people marching down O'Connell St. will garner more attention and hopefully by extension bring the issue to wider attention than it is at present.

I do accept that we may protest in other forms but when the need arises for a change in tack we don't seem to rise to the occasion. The Medical Card issue was reinforced by the fact old people in wheelchairs and on walking frames managed to protest in the traditional sense. I am not discounting the power of non payment of the household charge or the septic tank levy (though I think the point has been missed on this one) which is great to be sure.

There were enormous protests in Poland last week opposing this yet there wasn't an iota of coverage from our media. If we are to oppose this censorship of vital issues we have to make a noise - there is very little facility to protest these issues regarding the internet other than through the internet, contacting TDs and visible public demonstrations - relying on the internet to inform those who are not internet savvy is not an option - it needs wider coverage so the only alternative is to make a noise so loud it can't be ignored.

The fact that only certain sections of society turn up to these protests automatically discredits them in the eyes of the rest of the population - it's a catch 22 - people won't show up because of the fringe groups - which in turn makes only the fringe groups visible on the issue - which in turn discourages anyone else from joining the protest by dismissing it as "the loony left". If more ordinary people showed up they would have put the fringe groups in the minority and actually made some difference, instead we are having this conversation.

AntiRip

Segment about ISPs reaction to this is on air soon on the last word on TodayFM

missingtime

AntiRip wrote: »

Segment about ISPs reaction to this is on air soon on the last word on TodayFM

I heard this I felt it was a bit one sided...

The guy from Aslan was on complaining about the isp's not tracking people downloading his tracks.

fenris

missingtime wrote: »

The guy from Aslan was on complaining about the isp's not tracking people downloading his tracks.

How hard can it be to find both of them and arrange for appropriate musical taste corrective therapy!

nearyj

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2dF-IsH0I

Hey folks,

Apologies if this has already been posted.

Above is an articulate description of the Sopa/PIPA Acts, what it is, in what vested interest it aspires to protect and the effects it will have. Hopefully, the video will add to the discussion.

AntiRip

nearyj wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2dF-IsH0I

Hey folks,

Apologies if this has already been posted.

Above is an articulate description of the Sopa/PIPA Acts, what it is, in what vested interest it aspires to protect and the effects it will have. Hopefully, the video will add to the discussion.

Great video.

Amirani

Stephen Donnelly, Independent TD wrote:

I have just come from a 'debate' in the Dáil with Sean Sherlock on the SOPA-Ireland legislation which he is signing. Deputy Catherine Murphy & I submitted amendments which went some way to controlling the damage which may be caused by this legislation, as voiced by over 77,000 people in a petition, by the owners of Irish online companies, by credible copyright lawyers and by the association representing Internet Service Providers in Ireland (whose members include Google).

Not a single letter will be changed in the Government's proposal. Worse, Sean confirmed at the end of the debate that he had already stated clearly before the debate that nothing would be changed. I don't know which I'm more frustrated about - the fact that potentially damaging legislation will now be introduced, which will not achieve the intended objectives of clamping down on copyright abuses, or that our parliamentary democracy has been shown so clearly to be the sham so many told me it was when I first decided to run for election.

Ridiculous state of affairs, it really is.