Techdirt. Stories filed under "filtering"

European Parliament Considers Banning All Pornography, Blocks Emails From EU Citizens Protesting Against Censorship

Glyn Moody — Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:44:19 PST

A few weeks ago we wrote about Iceland's thoroughly daft idea of trying to block porn there. Bad proposals for the Internet always seem to spread, and so it should perhaps come as no surprise that the European Parliament will be considering a similarly unworkable proposal, but in a rather more covert way, as the Pirate Party politician Christian Engström noted on his blog:

Next week in Strasbourg, probably on Tuesday, the European Parliament will be voting on a Report on eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU. To promote gender equality and eliminating gender stereotypes are of course very laudable goals, so my guess would be that unless something happens, the report will be approved by the parliament, possibly by a very large majority.

That would be a good thing, were it not for the following detail: Article 17 of the report says (with emphasis added):
17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism;
There's no definition of "the media", but it's hard to believe that the digital world would somehow be exempt. Of course, banning pornography in this way simply won't work, but it will cause huge collateral damage to freedom of speech online in the EU. As if that weren't bad enough, the way the report wants this put into effect is deeply problematic too: the resolution we will be voting on next week has other things to say about the internet. Article 14 reads (again with my highlighting):
14. Points out that a policy to eliminate stereotypes in the media will of necessity involve action in the digital field; considers that this requires the launching of initiatives coordinated at EU level with a view to developing a genuine culture of equality on the internet; calls on the Commission to draw up in partnership with the parties concerned a charter to which all internet operators will be invited to adhere;
This is quite clearly yet another attempt to get the internet service providers to start policing what citizens do on the internet, not by legislation, but by "self-regulation". This is something we have seen before in a number of different proposals, and which is one of the big threats against information freedom in our society.
This is another example of "voluntary" measures that will in fact by compulsory, since any ISP that refuses to implement them will doubtless find itself responsible instead. As we've noted before, this allows all kinds of dangerous ideas to be implemented in ways that are not subject to judicial review or even challenge.

It's important to note that this is not a law as such, but a report, as Engström explains:

This means that it does not automatically become law even if it is adopted, but is just a way for the European parliament to express its opinion.

But the purpose of these own initiative reports are to serve as the basis for the Commission when it decides to present legislative proposals to the parliament. If this own initiative report is adopted by the parliament, it will strengthen the Commission's position if and when it wants to propose various"self-regulation" schemes in the future.

Equally, if the report is defeated next week, it will weaken later attempts by the Commission to bring in self-regulation. Recognising this, people like Rick Falkvinge have been asking Europeans to write to their representatives to urge them to reject the report, as Techdirt user rudeholm pointed out. But as Engström now reports, emails on these censorship plans are being blocked by the European Parliament's tech department: around noon, these mails suddenly stopped arriving. When we started investigating why this happened so suddenly, we soon found out:

The IT department of the European Parliament is blocking the delivery of the emails on this issue, after some members of the parliament complained about getting emails from citizens.
This is exactly what happened with ACTA, when the Parliamentary authorities decided that all emails on the subject would go straight into the spam folder. It's extraordinary to see how quickly politicians forget that hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to defend their online rights back then, and how unceremoniously dumping their emails in the spam folder only made things worse.

Discussions have been taking place on Twitter around the hashtag #mepblock (disclosure: I've been part of these), and an e-petition has been created, calling on European politicians to drop their censorship and to listen to their constituents as they are supposed to, instead of just ignoring them. There are still a few days before the vote next week, so there's plenty of time for further developments in what looks like becoming an increasingly heated debate.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

RIAA: Google Isn't Trying Hard Enough To Make Piracy Disappear From The Internet

Mike Masnick — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:50:00 PST

When Google first caved in to the legacy entertainment industry's demands to start modifying search results to downrank sites that received a lot of DMCA notices, we quickly warned that the RIAA and MPAA would never think that it was enough, and would continue to whine and complain. Yesterday, we pointed out that the RIAA was bitching and complaining about how many DMCA notices they could submit (which turned out to be a case of the RIAA failing to RTFM). But that was just the prelude for today, when the RIAA would release a "report card" on how Google's new filtering was going. Guess what? They're not happy, and apparently they won't be happy until Google magically makes all infringement disappear (*poof*).

Six months later, we have found no evidence that Google’s policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy. These sites consistently appear at the top of Google’s search results for popular songs or artists.

For everyone else in the world, if they're not satisfied with how the sites they favor rank in Google, they learn a little something about search engine optimization. But, noooooooo, not the RIAA. They think that it is a requirement that Google be tailored to them directly.

Well-known, authorized download sites, such as iTunes, Amazon and eMusic, only appeared in the top ten results for a little more than half of the searches. This means that a site for which Google has received thousands of copyright removal requests was almost 8 times more likely to show up in a search result than an authorized music download site. In other words, whatever Google has done to its search algorithms to change the ranking of infringing sites, it doesn't appear to be working.

Well, that's one interpretation. Another one (the right one) is that whatever the industry itself has done to raise the rankings of those sites by effectively competing in the marketplace "doesn't appear to be working." iTunes, in particular, is locked up in its own little walled garden with few people "linking in" (a big part of how Google determines relevance). Do people still use eMusic any more? The problem seems to be that those other sites just aren't where people look for stuff when they're searching Google for the music. That's not Google's fault.

Of course, what all this continues to demonstrate, beyond the fact that the RIAA will never, ever be satisfied until Google wipes out all infringement with the magic "piracyBgone" button, is that the RIAA still just doesn't understand search. The methodology here is suspect:

For this analysis we performed searches for [artist] [track] mp3 and [artist] [track] download over a period of several weeks starting December 3, 2012

First big mistake: the RIAA simply does not seem to know that Google does not deliver the same results to everyone. That change a while back. They try to tailor specific responses to specific users, based on what those users are searching for. So, if the RIAA is seeing those sites ranked higher, perhaps it says something about where the RIAA is commonly looking for stuff...

Also, here's the thing that the RIAA just doesn't seem to get. Google's entire business and algorithm are built, ground up, around the idea of understanding what people are looking for when they search, and then taking them to that place. The RIAA might not like it, but the simple fact is that when people are searching for [artist] [track] mp3 and [artist] [track] download, chances are they're not looking to buy, but to download for free. So that's what Google is showing them. That's not Google's fault. That's what the person is searching for. Even if Google magically did show them Apple, Amazon and Emusic as the top results for every [artist] [track] mp3 and [artist] [track] download, the people doing those searches wouldn't go there, because they're not looking to buy. If they did a search on "[artist] [track] buy" perhaps there would be different results.

If you actually compare apples to apples, and look at the kinds of sites that people are probably looking for, the RIAA's own "data" seems to suggest that Google is, in fact, demoting sites that receive a lot of takedowns. Note that in those last two categories, sites that have received more than 10,000 DMCA notices appear less frequently than those with closer to 1,000 DMCA notices. The other three categories are red herrings, because those aren't where people are looking for when they do searches on either [artist] [track] mp3 or [artist] [track] download.

Basically, this just reinforces two (completely unsurprising points):

The RIAA will never, ever be satisfied, no matter what Google does. Which again, reinforces the idea that it was probably a bad idea to even cave in in the first place.
The RIAA still doesn't understand how search works, nor does it seem to have any interest in learning. It doesn't understand that every single other website in the world has to work hard to lift themselves up in Google's search rankings. They don't get to specifically call out sites they don't like and automatically force Google to lower their rankings. The RIAA gets a massive headstart on every other site in the world... and they still haven't figured out how to take advantage of this.

Of course, it's not just the RIAA. Musically points out that the RIAA's complaints are only the latest in a long line. The MPAA and BPI have already made similar complaints. And they'll continue to complain, because it gives them an excuse for not doing what they should be doing, which is helping the companies they represent adapt to the internet era. It's much easier to just blame a third party -- especially when doing so without understanding the very fundamentals of how a search engine works.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Mobile Operator 3UK Filtering New Class Of 'Mature Content', Including Political Satire

Glyn Moody — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:51:00 PST

Smartphones have some big advantages: they offer considerable computing power in a highly-portable form, and are available at prices that allow a broad spectrum of users to get online easily. But as we reported last year, there's a big downside, too, one that's all-the-more dangerous for being invisible to most people: overblocking of sites caused by opt-out "child protection filters" applied by some mobile operators to their Internet feed.

Here's yet another worrying example of that problem, this time involving the UK operator 3UK, pointed out by Nick Rothwell. Pride's Purge is a Web site described by its creator Tom Pride as "an irreverent look at UK politics". As he recently discovered, it's also blocked by 3UK's child protection filter. He contacted the company on Twitter, pointing out that Pride's Purge was not a porn site or anything similar, and this is what it replied:

We don't just block adult websites, websites with mature content may also be censored.

So it now seems that there is a category of material called "mature content" that is distinct from "adult content", and that is also blocked by child protection filters, at least on 3UK's network. Worryingly, political satire seems to be regarded as an example of "mature content", and therefore unsuitable for children under 18. In fact, the censorship is even worse, as Pride explains: it's not blocked for just the under-18s. It's blocked for anyone who hasn't proven to [3UK] they are over 18 -- and that means you will have to give your full identity to 3UK before they allow you to enter this site.

Which means 3UK now officially regard political satire as porn -- and are censoring it in exactly the same way.
This very broad, default censorship is disturbing for at least two reasons. First, because many people will be unaware that this kind of "mature content" censorship is taking place at all, and therefore won't ask for it to be stopped. And secondly, even if they are aware, the fact that asking for the filter to be lifted could be seen as tantamount to wanting to access porn -- something that many will understandably be reluctant to have noted down on their Internet access record -- means that they will simply put up with a limited feed. And so the creeping, silent censorship of the mobile Internet not only continues, but probably gets worse in the absence of any significant pushback against it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Church Site Blocked By Mobile Networks, Classified Under 'Alcohol'

Glyn Moody — Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:33:45 PST

Against a background of the UK government teetering on the brink of imposing an opt-out Web filter "for the children", here's yet another example of how automatic categorization of sites for blacklists gets it wrong, as recounted by the UK's Open Rights Group (ORG):

someone used blocked.org.uk to tell us about another church (St. Mark's in Southampton) that is blocked -- this time on [the mobile operator] Vodafone. We have confirmed that it is also blocked by Orange. The site is blocked on O2's highest blocking setting, but not on their 'default safety' service.

Using O2's very handy 'URL checker', we have established that they classify the site as 'alcohol'. It is likely that this is the category that has led to its blocking on other networks, but this is not confirmed.

So why might a church be classed alongside sinful purveyors of alcoholic beverages? ORG has a suspicion: It is likely that the reason for this categorisation is the use of the word 'wine' on the church's website. The church is part of the 'New Wine Network of Churches'. Their website explains that this means they "have the aim of 'Equipping Churches to see Jesus' Kingdom Grow'". Their use of the word 'wine' is not related to selling or the use of alcohol.
Although it seems that the site has now been unblocked, that's only because it was "manually reviewed". As ORG points out: It's yet another example of how internet filters make simple and costly mistakes which often result in 'over-blocking.' Our report from May this year collected more examples of this. Since then we have seen political parties, technology news websites, and more recently a number of maternity health sites all blocked by mobile networks. It can be tricky and slow to get sites removed from block lists (although mobile networks say this is improving).
That last point is important. No system is perfect, and errors will always be made. But what matters is how quickly the mistakes are corrected. Unfortunately, the evidence so far is that not only are such automated filters unreliable when it comes to evaluating sites, but the correction mechanisms are pretty awful too -- a worrying combination.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Australian Government Announces That It Is Dropping Mandatory ISP Filtering...But Still Wants Filtering

Glyn Moody — Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:30:17 PST

Techdirt has been writing about Australia's plans to join the online censorship club for almost three years. Now, in a surprise move pointed out to us on Twitter by @Asher_Wolf, the Australian government has announced that it is dropping the plans -- sort of:

The Federal Government has formally abandoned plans to introduce legislation for mandatory ISP filtering, closing a dark chapter in politics concerning Australia's internet.

However, confusingly, it does still want Australian Net feeds to be filtered: Instead, internet service providers will be directed by the Government and the Australian Federal Police to block "child abuse websites" that feature on an INTERPOL block list.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said in a statement that "Australia's largest ISPs have been issued notices requiring them to block these illegal sites in accordance with their obligations under the Telecommunications Act 1997".
Most people would probably approve of blocking that particular class of sites, but there are some wider issues here. First, it's a little disingenuous of the Australian government to claim that it is dropping plans to censor the Internet, since it plainly still intends to do that, albeit in a specific area. As we know from experience elsewhere, once the apparatus of censorship is in place, there is always pressure to add sites unrelated to the original blocking list.

The other issue is whether this nominal climbdown was part of the plan all along. After all, it's a standard tactic to make totally outrageous initial demands so that anything less seems almost reasonable by comparison. Or perhaps this was Plan B: try to push through ISP filtering as Plan A, and if that fails, drop back to "limited" censorship.

Since it seems unlikely that those who fought against the general censorship plans will be able to muster much support for the idea of not blocking child abuse sites, the key question now is whether it will be possible to stop this approach turning into precisely the kind of ISP filtering that the Australian government claims to have abandoned.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites

Mike Masnick — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:58:00 PDT

If we've learned one thing in watching the RIAA and the MPAA over the years it's that nothing will ever be enough for them in their neverending war against providing people what they want. With Friday's surprise announcement that Google would start filtering searches based on the number of DMCA notices sites got -- something both the RIAA and MPAA have been asking for for ages -- both organizations made it clear that, while they appreciated this step in the right direction, they wanted more.

First, the RIAA's statement:

"Today Google has announced a potentially significant change in its search rankings that can make a meaningful difference to creators: sites that are the subject of large numbers of copyright removal notices may be ranked lower in search results than before. This should result in improved rankings for the licensed music services that pay artists and deliver fans the music they love. This change is an important step in the right direction -- a step we've been urging Google to take for a long time -- and we commend the company for its action.

"As Google itself has acknowledged, this is not the only approach, and of course, the details of implementation will matter. Moreover, there are many more actions that we hope Google will take. But by taking this common-sense step and treating copyright in a way that's consistent with the search firm's approach to other forms of activity on the Internet, Google has signaled a new willingness to value the rights of creators. That is good news indeed. And the online marketplace for the hundreds of licensed digital services embraced by the music business is better today than it was yesterday."

And the MPAA's statement:

"We are optimistic that Google's actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online, and away from the rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites, and other outlaw enterprises that steal the hard work of creators across the globe. We will be watching this development closely -- the devil is always in the details -- and look forward to Google taking further steps to ensure that its services favor legitimate businesses and creators, not thieves.”

Google may think that such moves will quiet down the complaints from legacy companies who don't want to innovate, but they may find that, like feeding trolls, it just brings out even more requests...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Microsoft's 'Threat Management Gateway' Blocks Free Software Foundation Donation Page As 'Gambling'

Mike Masnick — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:03:00 PDT

Via Slashdot, we learn that Microsoft's "Threat Management Gateway" (which some companies apparently use to protect against malicious websites) has classified the website for donations to the Free Software Foundation as "gambling," meaning that it's blocked for many users. This was first discovered by a user on Reddit who received the following notice:

The page you are trying to browse to is categorized as "Gambling"

If you believe you are getting this message by mistake, try contacting your administrator or Helpdesk.

Technical Information (for support personnel)

Error Code: 403 Forbidden. Forefront TMG denied the specified Uniform Resource Locator (URL). (12233)
IP Address: [IP Redacted]
Date: 6/14/2012 6:31:39 PM [GMT]
Server: [server name redacted]
Source: proxy

You can confirm this at Microsoft's site if you type donate.fsf.org in the box. Currently, it shows the following:

What's amazing is the regular FSF page just shows "Technical Information" and "Shareware/Freeware." So it seems that the "Gambling" designation was just added to the donate page. Amazingly, the Reddit user noticed this nearly two weeks ago, and as I type this it's still showing up classified as gambling, though FSF has put in a request to change it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Gov't Considering Requiring A 'Porn License' If You Want To Look At Porn Online

Mike Masnick — Mon, 7 May 2012 11:22:00 PDT

We hear this idea pop up every now and again, and I'd thought by now it had been shown to be pointless enough times that no one would seriously consider it again. Apparently, I was wrong. UK Prime Minister David Cameron is considering requiring adults who want to see porn online to "opt-in" by getting what is effectively a "porn license" to surf the sites deemed naughty by the government. Those in the UK government who actually think this is a smart idea might want to talk to their friends Down Under. Australia has toyed with similar ideas in the past, and they've all gone down in embarrassing flames. There was the filter that blocked educational sites, but left plenty of porn available. And there was the filter that took a teenager all of a half hour to crack.

Both of these highlight the key problems with the plan. Once you go down the path of censoring the internet, suddenly very, very big questions are raised about what gets put on the censorship list. It's easy to say "oh, well, porn is blocked," but something countless people (including judges) have struggled with over the years is how to precisely define porn. It's not nearly as easy as many people think. In nearly every case with filters we see a pattern: perfectly legitimate content that almost no one would consider to be porn gets blocked. And tons and tons of "porn" isn't blocked. Second, people will very, very, very quickly figure out how to get around such blocks.

The other issue, which doesn't come up as often, is the sheer ridiculousness of requiring people to effectively announce to the government that they want to view porn. They describe it as an "opt-in," but as I've said in the past, it's really more of a "porn license." People may have all sorts of reasons for looking at porn, but having to tell your government that you want to look at porn seems like a clear attempt to humiliate people for no reason other than that some in the government don't like the fact that others like porn.

If there's concern about kids viewing porn -- often the "think of the children!" justification that we hear -- there's nothing stopping parents from putting in place their own filters (which are likely to be as effective as any national filters). Why go further and try to block things for everyone?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Huh? Totally Clueless German Court Says ContentID Isn't Good Enough, YouTube Must Block Infringement By Keywords

Mike Masnick — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:45:00 PDT

We've discussed a few times the legal fight in Germany between YouTube and the overbearing collections society GEMA. German law is a bit bizarre in that it has very little regard for secondary liability protections, and often seems to default to blaming third parties for the actions of their users. On top of that, GEMA is incredibly powerful and controlling in Germany. When I was there a few years ago (in part to discuss this case), I had musicians explaining to me that they had "secret websites" because GEMA wouldn't let them offer their own music for free. The GEMA/YouTube dispute centers around the fact that GEMA wants YouTube to pay a fixed fee every time a video that includes a GEMA-covered song is played (and GEMA has actually suggested the fee for each stream should be identical to the cost of a download -- no joke). After suing YouTube/Google, GEMA refused to negotiate, making Germany the only modern country in the world in which a collection society didn't work out a deal with YouTube (and meaning that Google started blocking tons of music videos in Germany).

Unfortunately, the court has now ruled in the case, and the results seem ridiculous. It has said that YouTube is liable when users post videos (third party liability concepts still just don't make sense to German courts). Even more ridiculous, however, is that the court has said that YouTube's famous ContentID system is not enough. Instead, it must also install a keyword-based filter to block GEMA songs from being uploaded. Keyword-filters? Really. We've done this before a bunch of times and it doesn't work. At all. Keyword filters are really stupid ways to deal with these kinds of things. First off, they tend to block all sorts of legitimate content. But, more importantly, users figure out how to get around them in less than an hour. They just start coming up with easy-to-decipher substitutes. Comparing a keyword filter to ContentID is like comparing a human strapping on wings to a modern fighter plane. One of them works and can actually get the job done. One of them just makes you look like an idiot.

The only "concession" the court appears to have given YouTube is that it only expects such filtering to work going forward, rather than having them search the archive. That, of course, is barely a concession at all. If I remember correctly, this particular court, in Hamburg, is somewhat notorious for siding with copyright holders, so I wouldn't be surprised to see an appeal on this case...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Facebook Blocking Stories About Richard O'Dwyer's Fight Against Extradition To The US

Mike Masnick — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:06:00 PDT

Well, this is unfortunate, though Facebook does have a history of somewhat arbitrarily deciding what you can and can't talk about. A few years ago, we noted that it had blocked any link to The Pirate Bay -- even if it had nothing to do with infringing material. A year later, we discovered an even more unfortunate situation, in that it wouldn't allow any mention of Power.com -- a company it was in a legal dispute with. However, it keeps getting worse. We've written multiple times about Richard O'Dwyer's fight to prevent being extradited to the US for running a site, TVshack.net, which links to TV shows -- some of which were infringing. As we noted, there are all sorts of important questions being discussed around this case, both about copyright law and the US's influence over UK courts.

Apparently, Facebook doesn't want you discussing any of that.

The Guardian's James Ball wrote an interesting article about how some UK politicians are fighting to stop the extradition. It's a good article. But, you won't find out about it on Facebook apparently. The story details how Tim Farron, president of the LibDems, in the UK has called the extradition approval "ludicrous" and has asked the government to reconsider.

However, as James Losey discovered, Facebook won't let you post about it -- calling the article "spammy or unsafe." Specifically, it appears that (as with TPB) Facebook is blocking any and all mention of TVShack.net. However, Facebook's spam implementation is so stupidly programmed that it can't figure out that this is a story about TVShack.net in the well-respected Guardian newspaper, and not a direct link to TVShack.net. And, of course, merely linking to TVShack.net isn't against the law, so it's bizarre, obnoxious and stupid for Facebook to be blocking all such links in the first place. Finally, since the US government seized TVshack.net nearly two years ago, I don't think the site is really that unsafe any more, unless you don't trust the government to keep its server clean (which, actually, might be reasonable). Either way, shame on Facebook for hamfisted "filtering" which blocks important and legitimate discussions. Update: Facebook has fixed this particular issue, and now lets people post that story, but it's unclear what the overall rules are.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored

Mike Masnick — Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:15:00 PDT

One of the more bizarre rulings in copyright/file sharing cases was the district court ruling in the IsoHunt search engine case a couple years ago. It's still involved in the appeals process, but the district court is one of the only courts so far to broadly interpret the DMCA's "red flags" rule to mean that general knowledge means you have to block access. The ruling ended up being that IsoHunt basically had to accept a keyword filter from the MPAA and block all access to anything that matched the keywords. As you can imagine, that's leading to significant overblocking of legitimate content.

TorrentFreak has the unfortunate story of filmmaker Brian Taylor, who released a short horror film called "the Bite" via his En Queue Film production studio, and decided to distribute it via isoHunt. However, that's when things went bad:

"I got it going, had downloads start from the US and Europe almost immediately, which made me a very happy guy," Taylor told TorrentFreak.

However, this enthusiasm faded quickly when he tried to access the torrent from a US connection a day later. Instead of a link to the torrent file the filmmaker was welcomed with the following message. “Torrent has been censored, as required by US court.”

They also note that a torrent of public domain music has been blocked by the MPAA (even though the MPAA's filter is about movies, not music). Of course, this is what happens when you force overblocking and the use of technologically stupid filtering methods like keywords. What's amazing is that a court made this same mistake a decade ago with Napster (forcing keyword blocking) and it didn't work then, and doesn't work now. It's amazing that judges who clearly are technologically illiterate find it reasonable to make rules up out of thin air like this one, that not only does little to block any actual infringement, but does plenty to block legitimate uses of tools.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Danish Police Accidentally Censor Over 8,000 Sites As Child Porn... Including Facebook & Google

Mike Masnick — Mon, 5 Mar 2012 07:24:18 PST

Reminiscent of the mooo.com screwup in the US, where Homeland Security's ICE division "accidentally" seized 84,000 sites and plastered them over with a warning graphic about how they'd been seized by the US government for child porn, the Danish police similarly "accidentally" had 8,000 legitimate sites declared as child porn sites that needed to be blocked. Among the sites listed? Google and Facebook. Visitors to those sites, from ISP Siminn were greeted with the following message (translated, of course):

The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police [NITEC], who assist in investigations into crime on the internet, has informed Siminn Denmark A/S, that the internet page which your browser has tried to get in contact with may contain material which could be regarded as child pornography...

Upon the request of The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police, Siminn Denmark A/S has blocked the access to the internet page.

And people wonder why so many people around the world were so concerned about the threat of something like SOPA -- which would make DNS blocking at the ISP level a lot more common.

So how did this "accident" happen?

According to NITEC chief Johnny Lundberg, it began when an employee at the police center decided to move from his own computer to that of a colleague.

“He sat down and was about to make an investigation, and in doing so he placed a list of legitimate sites in the wrong folder,” Lundberg explained. “Before becoming aware of the error, two ISPs retrieved the list of sites.”

It would seem that there's a problem in this process. The fact that just one employee can change the list seems wide open to abuse. And the fact that the list seems somewhat automated beyond that is even more problematic. You know what would solve this problem? A little thing called due process. What a concept.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Government Pressuring Search Engines To Censor Results In Favor Of Copyright Industries

Glyn Moody — Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:39:00 PST

One of the most insidious aspects of recent Internet policy-making is that much of it is taking place behind closed doors, with little or no consultation -- think of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and TPP. But there's another dangerous trend: the rise of "informal" agreements between the copyright industries and Internet service providers.

With the implicit threat that tough legislation will be brought in if voluntary agreements aren't drawn up promptly enough, governments are using this technique to avoid even the minimal scrutiny that consultations on proposed new laws would permit. This allows all kinds of bad ideas to be forced through without any evidence that they will help and without the chance for those affected to present their viewpoints.

James Firth has a disturbing post about a proposed "voluntary" scheme involving search engines in the UK:

We know laws such as the UK's Digital Economy Act and America's SOPA/PIPA met incredible resistance from the tech industry and internet users, and readers of this blog and Open Rights Group supporters are already aware the UK government has switched tack from legislating to encouraging agreements directly between service providers and copyright owners.

What we didn't know until now is the extent that the UK government and in particular Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture, Communications and the Creative Industries, is pressurising search engines to police search results in a way that goes well beyond notice and take-down.

I'm told a consortium of search engines at a meeting on Tuesday were accused of a "retrograde step" after failing to make progress on a proposal by music rights holders for a system to promote "good" music resellers and demote "bad" in the search rankings.

What is being proposed is out-and-out censorship and doctoring of search engine results through the use of blacklists and whitelists: The blacklist is of websites accused of infringement. These sites will never appear in search results. That's the whole site, not just the pages from the site with infringing content. And this is not a court process, it's a notification system allowing studios to tell search engines directly who the bad guys are.

A white-list of "approved" online music and film services will be artificially promoted for music/film oriented searches.
That is, absolute power over search engines' results in these areas would be handed to industries that hardly have a good track record for adopting a proportionate approach to tackling unauthorized downloads. In particular, they are unlikely to lose much sleep over all the legitimate content that will become invisible when sites of borderline legality are removed from search engines' results "just to be on the safe side." And there are no indications that there would be any oversight as to who goes on the lists, or any right of appeal -- making it a purely extra-judicial punishment.

The good news is that the search engines seem to be resisting this move -- for the moment. As Firth writes:

I'm told that whilst search engine providers are both keen to strictly abide by all national laws and also willing to work with content owners to provide easy-to-use notice and take-down systems (under the EU E-Commerce Directive and US DMCA), they are "drawing the line" at doctoring search results to suit one relatively small group of economic interests.

The whitelist is anyway problematic, since it might be seen as collusion in anti-competitive behavior, and incur the wrath of the European Commission. Worryingly, one other suggestion from the copyright industries seems to be more acceptable: cutting off the funding of sites in the same way that SOPA proposed. On funding a meeting was held last Wednesday at the Department for Media, Culture and Sport between rights holders, and advertisers and payment service providers.

I'm told in that meeting a broad consensus was reached to create a blacklist of websites where no advertiser would be allowed to advertise or face expulsion from industry bodies such as the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB).
But even that seems an extremely dangerous step to take because it raises important questions about who will draw up such a blacklist, on what criteria, and how will those placed on it be able to appeal.

That exposes one of the key problems with these "voluntary" agreements: those pushing for them have no interest in striking a balance, or in building in safeguards for those most affected -- it's all about getting a quick-and-dirty fix and to hell with the consequences. That's why legislation, with full consultation from all parties, is a far better way of proceeding. After all, it's why we have a legislative process with checks and balances in the first place -- to craft a solution that is both workable and fair. The new fashion for backroom agreements among a small group of unelected insiders is nothing less than an attack on that process, and hence on democracy itself.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

European Court Of Justice Says ISPs Cannot Be Forced To Be Copyright Cops

Mike Masnick — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:19:56 PST

Last Thursday, as many of us in the US were getting ready for a nice turkey dinner, the European Court of Justice issued a very nice ruling we should all be thankful for, saying that it is against EU law to require an ISP to set up a filtering system to prevent copyright infringement.

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.

We had mentioned this was likely earlier this year, when the Advocate General had recommended such a ruling, and now the court has agreed. The specific case involved a fight between Belgian anti-piracy organization/collection agency SABAM and ISP Scarlet. A Belgian court had ruled that Scarlet had to implement a filter that would magically end infringement, or it would face "periodic penalty." Of course, that's an impossible request. The courts ruling says that a copyright holder can file for an injunction, but it must "respect the limitations" of EU law, including a prohibition on "general monitoring of information" that goes over an ISP's network.

In this regard, the Court finds that the injunction in question would require Scarlet to actively monitor all the data relating to each of its customers in order to prevent any infringement of intellectual-property rights. It follows that the injunction would impose general monitoring, something which is incompatible with the E-Commerce Directive. Moreover, such an injunction would not respect the applicable fundamental rights.

The court also makes a good point. While intellectual property should be respected, nothing in the law says it should be "absolutely protected" in such a way that tramples many other rights. It seems that many supporters of more stringent copyright laws always seem to forget this point. They don't much care about the collateral damage.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Sandia National Labs: DNS Filtering In SOPA/PIPA Won't Stop Piracy, But Will Hurt Online Security

Mike Masnick — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:50:00 PST

We've covered at great length the problems with DNS filtering in SOPA and PROTECT IP (PIPA) and how it will harm internet security. These concerns were first highlighted by a group of folks who are considered to be some of the foremost experts (and original architects) on DNS. The MPAA and other SOPA/PIPA startups have been trying for months to diminish these points, but have yet to find any kind of argument that makes sense. The argument they fall back on is "well, if this law breaks DNSSEC, just change the code and fix it." This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the technoloy. That's not too surprising, coming from the MPAA, frankly. However, now, Sandia National Labs, which is a part of the Department of Energy, has sent a letter to Rep. Zoe Lofgren confirming most of the problems with the idea of DNS filtering, noting that it would make the internet less secure... and would do nothing to actually stop piracy.

It is not likely DNS filtering would be effective in blocking U.S. access to targeted foreign websites....

On the question of DNSSEC, the letter notes that slowing the adoption of DNSSEC would have significant "negative consequences" for US online security. While DNSSEC may not be fully rolled out yet, nearly everyone who understands this stuff knows that it's needed to fix key flaws in DNS. And while it takes time, simply breaking it and waiting for the next generation to rewrite it from scratch would be a mistake. Many years of careful work has gone into DNSSEC. Scrapping it for something else random is not going to help.

At this point, I don't see how any SOPA/PIPA supporters can still claim that the concerns over DNS blocking are unfounded. When you even have a major national lab saying that it's a bad idea, won't work and will be bad for online security... can the MPAA still respond with nothing more detailed than "we disagree" (which was the MPAA's actual statement at the hearing when challenged about the security problems associated with DNS blocking).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

EU Realizes That You Fight Child Porn At The Source... Not By Trying To Hide It

Mike Masnick — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 01:09:00 PST

We've noted recently, that more and more governments are looking to deal with crime online by censoring it via filters, rather than actually going after those responsible. At least some people are finally realizing that this doesn't make much sense. DH's Love Child points us to the news that some EU politicians, in response to an initial plan to require filters to block sites deemed to have child pornography, have decided that a smarter plan is to actually go after the sources of child pornography:

Members of the Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee ruled that complete removal "at source" must be the main aim in tackling child pornography online and that blocking access to websites is acceptable only in exceptional circumstances -- when the host server in a non-E.U. country refuses to cooperate or when procedures take too long.

The original Commission proposal would have made blocking of child porn websites mandatory for all E.U. member states, prompting concern among Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who tend to support Internet freedom.

"The new generation of MEPs has shown it understands the Internet and has courageously rejected populist but ineffective and cosmetic measures in favor of measures aimed at real child protection," said Joe McNamee, of the European digital rights movement EDRi. "This is a huge and implausible success for an army of activists campaigning to protect the democratic, societal and economic value of the Internet," he added

Surprising, but nice to see that not all politicians are so clueless when it comes to dealing with crimes that happen online.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Internet Filtering Blocks All Sorts Of Legit Info

Mike Masnick — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:59:00 PDT

This has been pointed out before, but it's received less attention recently, despite the rise in interest in internet filters: the filters don't work very well. In fact, Mitch Wagner went looking and found all sorts of examples of internet filters in schools blocking all sorts of legit info:

The Canadian National History Society was forced to change the name of its magazine, The Beaver, founded in 1920, because the name of the magazine caused it to be blocked by Internet filters.

One teacher wanted to show students some pictures that would illustrate the effects of atomic testing. "However when I went to bring the wikipedia page up at school during class, it was blocked by our internet filter, BESS. The name of the islands? 'Bikini Atoll,'" said Doug Johnson, quoting the teacher. Johnson, a director of media and technology at a Minnesota school district, put out a call in July for stories about how Internet filtering hobbles education, and got an earful. ("Censorship by Omission")

Johnson also shares a message from another teacher, describing how a school's systems security manager decided to block the social bookmarking site delicous.com. The reason? You can use the site to search for porn....

The problem goes back for years. A filter blocked the Web site of former House Majoirty Leader Richard Armey because it detected the word "dick," according to "Internet Filters, a public policy report," a 2001 study from the Brennan Center of Justice. Other software blocked the Declaration of Independence, Shakespeare’s complete plays, "Moby-Dick," and "Marijuana: Facts for Teens," a brochure published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Again, some of these stories appear to be old ones, which the filtering industry insists have been fixed, but these kinds of filters will always create false positives.

The bigger problem, honestly, is that the filters then lead to complacency. Once the schools have filters in place, it gives officials a false sense that things are "safe." And yet, plenty of bad stuff gets through, while good stuff gets blocked. This isn't to say that filters have no use at all, but it's about time people learned not to rely on them so heavily.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Viacom's Real Intent? To Pretend The DMCA Requires Filtering

Mike Masnick — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:20:00 PDT

We're seeing more and more analysis of the summary judgment motions filed by both sides in the YouTube lawsuit between Google and Viacom. Unfortunately, many sites are basing their analysis on the out of context quotes Viacom pulled out of some emails -- despite the fact that the evidence doesn't actually support what it claims. One particularly laughable analysis was done by a group funded by the entertainment industry, which not only takes those quotes out of context and considers them proof, but then completely misinterprets Google's filing as well. The writer, George Ou, seems to think that the point of Google's filing is to show that since Viacom used YouTube, it shouldn't file a lawsuit. But that's not at all what Google's motion said. The point wasn't that Viacom used YouTube, but that it uploaded all sorts of content in secretive ways -- ways that would make it impossible for Google to know what was and was not infringing. Furthermore, the arguments were about how Viacom set up a complex set of ever changing rules that confused even Viacom's partner in issuing takedowns, and yet expected Google to be able to magically know what Viacom wished taken offline, and what should be left online. Oddly, Ou seems to have missed all of that, despite it being the central point to Google's motion. He also falsely claims that Google is suggesting if Viacom uploaded some content, that means everyone should be able to do so. Google said no such thing. It's merely pointing out that Google is in no position to know what Viacom is authorizing and what it is not -- and according to the law, that means Google need not try to guess.

A much better analysis, that really cuts through the clutter and highlights the key point of the case, is the one by the EFF's Fred von Lohmann, where he notes (as Eric Goldman did) that in a footnote, Viacom admits that it's fine with all of YouTube's actions after May of 2008, when it implemented its own filtering technology. Once you realize that, it becomes clear: Viacom is claiming that the DMCA requires filters. Yet, the DMCA is explicit that this is not true, and always has been. In fact, if I remember correctly, Paramount Pictures top lawyer (Paramount is a Viacom subsidiary) said in a discussion we wrote about last year, that he felt the current DMCA was deficient, in that it had a notice-and-takedown provision, rather than requiring proactive monitoring.

And yet, by Viacom's own (indirect) admission in this lawsuit, it seems to believe that the DMCA requires proactive monitoring:

So what Viacom is asking for here is a radical re-write of the DMCA that, if accepted, would put all kinds of online service providers at risk of huge statutory damages for copyright infringement. Is eBay used to commit copyright infringement every day by some users? Sure. Do people use Microsoft's Bing to find infringing materials? Check. Do online lockering services get used to store infringing materials? Do users send infringing email attachments? How about the "send file" features of every instant messaging system? The only reason these (and many other) online services exist is because the DMCA safe harbors give them rules to follow that are much clearer than the murky standards for "secondary liability." If Viacom is right, then there are no clear rules to follow, except "beg permission from every copyright owner first." And that's a rule that would hobble innovation and competition online.

So please pay careful attention to the actual arguments being made here. No one is saying that copyright infringement should be allowed on YouTube. The only question is whether or not it should be YouTube's responsibility to proactively monitor that content and stop it from being uploaded. The law is pretty clear that this is not required -- and, as Google's filing makes clear, even if it were required, given Viacom's own actions, this would be impossible.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Fun With Stats: Do 80% Of Australians Really Support Gov't Censorship Of The Internet?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:55:00 PST

Ah, the fun you can have with survey data. It's well known that if you get to control how survey questions are worded, you can get large groups of people to support almost anything. Take, for example, what's happening down in Australia with the fight over the government's latest plan (after many previous attempts) to force filters on the entire internet, requiring ISPs to block a secret list of sites the gov't doesn't like. A lot of people are up in arms about this blatant censorship. But supporters of the plan can eagerly point to a recent survey that got 80% of people to say they were in favor of "having a mandatory Government Internet filter that would automatically block all access, in Australia, to overseas websites containing material that is Refused Classification." 80%? That seems really surprising.

But, it shouldn't be if you saw how the question was asked.

SG points us to the news about how that particular question was prefaced by asking people to read the following "definition" of what kinds of content would be blocked:

child sexual abuse
bestiality
sexual violence
gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes; and
detailed instructions on or promotion of crime, violence or use of illegal drugs

You read that list -- especially given what it starts off with -- and who's going to say "no, I want to make sure that's available"? Not that many people. Obviously, they're going to say they support blocking it. But that doesn't really mean they support government censorship. It seems quite likely that what people want is for the government not to focus on useless and expensive censorship campaigns, but to focus that same effort on catching those who are actually breaking the law and stopping them from engaging in the illegal activities. In fact, the very same study found that 91% don't like the fact that the government will be censoring the internet via a secret list. Basically, people don't want government censorship, but that doesn't mean they support the things in the list. It's just that they would prefer the government do something real to stop it, rather than brushing it under a digital rug.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Even If ACTA Doesn't Include Filtering Or Three Strikes, There Are Things To Worry About

Mike Masnick — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:49:00 PST

So after months and months of people asking the USTR to reveal what's in ACTA, Public Knowledge finally got Stan McCoy to confirm that it won't include three strikes or mandatory ISP filtering. While some of the other leaks had indicated that both were on the table at some point, it's good to see the USTR confirm that they're not, though it's still not clear why they won't reveal what is in the document.

Still, that doesn't mean it won't impact US law in potentially dangerous ways. In particular, a lot of what it will try to do is lock in US case law that hasn't been established by Congress, and which other countries have differing opinions on. So, for example, if it locks in contributory liability (something the courts have ruled on, but Congress never included in the law), it will massively hinder Congress' ability to fix this mistake by the courts. As Sherwin Siy, from Public Knowledge noted:

That analysis hints at changes to international norms on "third party liability"--such as contributory infringement, vicarious liability, or inducement of infringement.

These are areas of law that, in the U.S., are defined almost entirely by court decisions, which build in nuances and balance to the application and enforcement of the law. One of the dangers of trying to codify these doctrines into an international agreement is that it can freeze the law as it is currently, preventing the courts from adapting case law to adjust for new developments in business, technology, and culture. There’s also the risk that binding the United States to an international set of standards will actually hamper Congress from enacting needed reforms to our copyright system.

Nor can we so quickly dismiss concerns about filtering and 3 strikes policies--even if the U.S. isn't pushing for legal obligations or mandates, there has been a constant, concerted effort by the largest record labels and movie studios over the past year or more to negotiate their own private 3 strikes agreements with ISPs. Filtering also remains a big topic for content industry lobbyists. Both of these measures, even if not mandated by laws, are often pressed upon ISPs and their customers as "voluntary" agreements, with threats of expensive lawsuits waiting in the margins if they don't comply. Even without mandating these procedures, laws, treaties, and executive agreements like ACTA can give them a great deal of cover by endorsing such "private agreements," adding a veneer of legitimacy to practices that otherwise would raise greater alarm at their impact on privacy, or simply their false positive rate. ACTA's focus on penalties can also incentivize potential plaintiffs to push harder, and for potential defendants to cave.

Indeed, what many people have pointed out is that the really pernicious part of ACTA is in reading between the lines. There are already international agreements on intellectual property that include clear safe harbors and consumer protection. What's notable in the leaked drafts of ACTA is that such things are missing. So even if it doesn't force the US to change the law, it could very much hinder attempts by US to come to its senses and fix the broken parts of the law.

Just as we were discussing problems with the DMCA today, the drafts of ACTA suggest that they will lock in some of the DMCA's worst features, such that the US would be hindered in correcting those mistakes, and, even worse, other countries would be prevented from putting in place better solutions as well, which could be useful in convincing US politicians that the more draconian parts of the DMCA are a mistake. ACTA doesn't need to explicitly change US law today to have a serious impact on US law in constraining Congress from fixing its broken parts. Things like secondary liability, which were entirely decided by the courts, despite not appearing anywhere in the law, are quite problematic -- and ACTA is looking to lock them in, so that Congress couldn't even fix that mistake by the courts. That's a serious problem.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway

Mike Masnick — Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:31:10 PST

It's one thing to speak from a position of ignorance, but admitting it and still then taking a strong position? That's something special. U2's Bono kicked off quite a firestorm by insisting that having ISPs monitor everything was a good way to deal with unauthorized file sharing online, citing China's success with internet censorship (failing to realized that it hasn't been that successful in reality). This resulted in widespread criticism of Bono and it appears that Nirvana's bass player, Krist Novoselic, has stepped up to defend Bono (found via Karl Bode). But what's stunning about Novoselic's "defense" is that he flat out admits he doesn't really understand the details and still defends Bono:

I'll admit that I'm not up to speed on having ISPs regulate copyrighted material, but here's why I agree with Bono on the idea of compensation for content providers

So he doesn't understand the issue, but he supports Bono's position anyway? Yeah, that's reasonable. And the worst part is the end of that sentence. It implies that some people out there don't support compensation of content providers. That's silly. Everyone supports the compensation of content providers -- they just don't support that compensation coming from some sort of involuntary tax put on internet connections. Assuming that being against ISP tracking and payments means that there's no other way for content providers to get paid is simply wrong.

The rest of his post is interesting, but either pulls out some old canards or is self-contradictory. For example, he confuses "value" with "price" by warning that music can't be worth nothing. Yet, at the same time, he goes on and on about how great things like YouTube and Twitter are for promoting his music -- while also wishing they would pay him for promoting his music. He never seems to put two and two together to realize that by promoting music and bands, a fan base is built up that helps an artist make more money -- and YouTube and Twitter are doing this for free. Prior to the internet becoming mainstream, if a musician wanted to communicate with fans, it was an expensive and time consuming direct mail process. Now Twitter has made that free for bands. Before, if a band wanted to get fans to see its videos, it had to hope it could get them on MTV. Even after the internet came about, communicating with fans was still expensive and time consuming, as was posting videos. Twitter and YouTube have made these things much easier, faster and cheaper for bands. And he's complaining?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Dear RIAA: It's Not 'Working Together As A Team' When It's Under Threat Of Regulation

Mike Masnick — Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:12:00 PST

I've been trying not to respond to every RIAA blog post these days, but it's hard to let certain things go when they so rarely make any sense. For example, RIAA President Cary Sherman recently talked up the new regulations that force colleges and universities to "take proactive steps" to stop file sharing. He goes on to make it sound like universities decided to do this in the spirit of "teamwork" with the RIAA, rather than because they risked serious financial consequences under the law for not complying. He also leaves out the fact that tons of colleges and universities are pissed off and complaining about how much time, effort and money they're wasting on this just because Sherman and his friends still don't seem able to embrace modern music business models. Colleges and universities have enough to worry about without the government forcing them to act as the RIAA's police force. If it were truly about teamwork, Cary, you wouldn't have had to spend so much time getting Congress to pass a law to force them to do this.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Malaysia Wants To Filter The Internet, But Swears It Won't Be Used To Stop Political Dissent

Mike Masnick — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:11:22 PDT

Malaysia's government has had something of a love-hate affair with citizens and opposing politicians using blogs and other social media to protest the government -- and has even sent opposition bloggers they don't like to jail. So, you can imagine the concern when the government announced plans to install widespread internet filters modeled on China's fault "Green Dam" software. Not surprisingly, the government officials back the plan insist it won't be used against political targets, but just obscene material. Opponents find that hard to believe. Even if (and it's a big "if") that's the intent of the government, having it be so easy to "accidentally" start blocking opposition sites is probably too tempting for many.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Research Paper Shows How Useless It Is To Require ISPs To Be Copyright Cops

Mike Masnick — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:53:00 PST

A bunch of folks have been sending in the link to Boing Boing's report about a new research paper highlighting just how useless, ineffective and damaging it will be if governments or the entertainment industry force ISPs to start trying to crack down on file sharing. The researchers make a pretty compelling case (though, certainly, I was inclined to agree with them going in) that any such attempt will not do a damn thing to slow down file sharing, but will represent a significant risk of violating users' privacy or disconnecting them from the internet for perfectly innocent actions. So, the next time we hear politicians pushing such a solution, it might be worth sending them a copy of this report -- though, it probably won't do much good if that politician has received enough campaign contributions from the entertainment industry.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Senator Feinstein Trying To Sneak ISP Copyright Filtering Into Broadband Stimulus Bill

Mike Masnick — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:03:39 PST

One of our big fears with the stimulus bill was that with such a huge deal, there would be plenty of small opportunities for lobbyists to slip in absolutely awful language. Well, it's happening. Sen. Feinstein has inserted language into the stimulus bill that would officially "allow network management" for "deterring unlawful activity" including "copyright infringement." Of course, right before "copyright infringement" it also lists "child pornography" because no politician wants to be seen as voting against something that stops child pornography. As Public Knowledge points out, the whole thing doesn't make much sense. Network management tools are different than content filtering tools -- so saying that the use of network management tools is necessary for the sake of content filtering is a red herring. And, if this does involve deep-packet inspection, as is implied by the amendment, it seems like a huge privacy violation, allowing an ISP to spy on everything you do online. Public Knowledge is trying to get out the word that this should not be allowed in the stimulus bill.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story