Archives for the tag “ NetNeutrality ”

Stéphane Thibault >_

sthibault bookmarked a link:

« Those policies would be activated by GPS, and Wi-Fi or mobile base-stations, which would ring-fence (“geofence”) around a building, a protest, or a sensitive area to prevent phone cameras from taking pictures or recording video. »

Stéphane Thibault >_

« Those policies would be activated by GPS, and Wi-Fi or mobile base-stations, which would ring-fence (“geofence”) around a building, a protest, or a sensitive area to prevent phone cameras from taking pictures or recording video. »

Stéphane Thibault >_

sthibault bookmarked a link:

Internet Brands bought Wikitravel.org in 2006, plastered it with ads and neglected it. After years, the Wikitravel community finally decided to fork under CC by-sa and move to Wikimedia. Internet Brands is now suing two of the unpaid volunteers for wanting to leave. The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking a declaratory judgement (PDF) that you can actually fork a free-content project without permission. Internet Brands has a track record of scorched-earth litigation tactics.

Stéphane Thibault >_

sthibault bookmarked a link:

According to British daily The Telegraph, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has warned that plans to monitor individuals’ use of the internet would result in Britain losing its reputation as an upholder of web freedom. The plans, by Home Secretary Theresa May, would force British ISPs and other service providers to keep records of every phone call, email and website visit in Britain. Sir Tim has told the Times: ‘In Britain, like in the US, there has been a series of Bills that would give government very strong powers to, for example, collect data. I am worried about that.’ Sir Tim has also warned that the UK may wind up slipping down the list of countries with the most Internet freedom, if the proposed data-snooping laws pass parliament. The draft bill extends the type of data that internet service providers must store for at least 12 months. Providers would also be required to keep details of a much wider set of data, including use of social network sites, webmail and voice calls over the internet

Stéphane Thibault >_

sthibault bookmarked a link:

One of the major unanswered questions about Bill C-30, the lawful access/online surveillance bill, is who will pay for the costs associated with responding to law enforcement demands for subscriber information (“look ups”) and installation of surveillance equipment (“hook ups”). Christopher Parsons has an excellent post that takes a shot at estimating some of the costs. I recently obtained documents from Public Safety under the Access to Information Act that indicates that the government doesn’t really have its own answer. As of December 2011, the issue was still the subject of internal debate with Public Safety working with the RCMP and CSIS to develop a fee schedule for the costs.

The document is particularly interesting because it places the spotlight on how the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) would like to handle the issue. In 2009, the CACP proposed several possibilities, including the creation of new public safety tax that would appear on monthly customer bills.

Stéphane Thibault >_

sthibault bookmarked a link:

The “Vigilante” Provision

Another dangerous provision in PIPA and SOPA that hasn’t received a lot of attention is the “vigilante” provision, which would grant broad immunity to all service providers if they overblock innocent users or block sites voluntarily with no judicial oversight at all. The standard for immunity is incredibly low and the potential for abuse is off the charts. Intermediaries only need to act “in good faith” and base their decision “on credible evidence” to receive immunity.