31 Jul
2011
31 Jul
'11
9:38 p.m.
I know there is a lot of discussion on this topic going around at the
moment. I was just wondering if the site-blocking will be enforced on our
VPS's, is Bitfolk the kind of ISP they are going for? Do bitfolk have to now
monitor our connection packets? I'm aware that they say they are going for
compyright-infringing sites...but it seems like a slippery slope down to me
(where does it stop, YouTube has plenty of fan videos) and I'm sure a lot of
you are with me on the issue of freedom of speech, i'm fairly sure before
long we will have the "Great Firewall Of Britain"
Thank you,
Daniel
1 Aug
1 Aug
8:56 a.m.
Hi,
On 31/07/11 22:38, Daniel Case wrote:
I know there is a lot of discussion on this topic
going around at the
moment. I was just wondering if the site-blocking will be enforced on
our VPS's, is Bitfolk the kind of ISP they are going for? Do bitfolk
have to now monitor our connection packets? I'm aware that they say
they are going for compyright-infringing sites...but it seems like a
slippery slope down to me (where does it stop, YouTube has plenty of
fan videos) and I'm sure a lot of you are with me on the issue of
freedom of speech, i'm fairly sure before long we will have the "Great
Firewall Of Britain"
Since Bitfolk isn't an ISP (they don't supply Internet connections to
either business or residential premises) I would hope the new rules
won't apply to them. I would be surprised if any kind of filtering
(including the older IWF blocklist) was implemented.
Please will Andy, or someone else in the know, make a statement on what
filtering, throttling or other traffic control is currently implemented
or is anticipated?
Thanks,
Paul.
9:05 a.m.
Hi Daniel,
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:38:47PM +0100, Daniel Case wrote:
I know there is a lot of discussion on this topic
going around at
the moment.
There was a thread on this list about the (then) Digital Economy
Bill.
It started with:
http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/message/20100408.124614.28f03d86.en.html
and it ended up at:
http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/message/20100528.132726.b0d5bdea.en.html
which basically explains that BitFolk is way too small to have
obligations under the Digital Economy Act. I don't believe anything
has changed in that regard.
I was just wondering if the site-blocking will be
enforced on our
VPS's, is Bitfolk the kind of ISP they are going for? Do bitfolk
have to now monitor our connection packets?
By "site-blocking" and "monitor connection packets" I assume
you're
now talking about the recent judgement against BT that will force
them to block connections to the Newzbin 2 web site:
http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2011/07/28/will-newzbin-be-blocked/
Firstly, implementation of Cleanfeed is not currently legally
required in UK. The government is keen for large ISPs to implement
something like it and Cleanfeed is what BT came up with to satisfy
their original request. They are now ordered to use it to also
block Newzbin 2 despite the fact that they know that it will be
ineffective in this regard.
So, the pressure is on large access ISPs (the kind of companies that
sell you home Internet access, the so-called "last mile") to
implement Cleanfeed. Even this would only bring blocking of alleged
child abuse material as it is currently only BT which is ordered to
block anything else.
BitFolk has no interest in implementing Cleanfeed and it seems
likely that the government would approach more companies in the
access market before focusing on hosting companies, let alone very
small hosting companies.
Therefore Cleanfeed and the ordered blocking of Newzbin 2 has no
impact on BitFolk and its service in the near future.
Secondly, if the rights holders wish to extend the blocking of sites
like Newzbin 2 then at the moment they need to obtain a court order
for each site against each individual ISP - this is not a blanket
law that has been passed, as yet.
There's still a long way to go even for this single specific site
and single specific provider. BT are going to come back to court
later this year to explain how they interpret their obligations
under this order. Presumably some time later they will actually
start doing the blocking they've been ordered to, but by then
everything may have changed.
As the URL above indicates, it's very easy to technically avoid or
even damage Cleanfeed. By the time that BT are ready to implement
what was ordered, it may be entirely ineffective; the rights holders
may see sense and try a different strategy.
This is going to develop over time, and it's just speculation as to
exactly how it will end up. It's also not just restricted to the UK.
All over the world, rights holders are asking for similar measures
to be implemented.
What I can promise is that BitFolk will always be as open as
possible, legally, about any filtering or monitoring that we're
required to deploy. On a practical note though, I expect it will be
big news when _any_ hosting company is forced to do something like
this as the focus will be on access providers for some time to come.
Cheers,
Andy
--
"I'm /extremely/ miffed about today's events and in my quest to try to make
you understand the level of my unhappiness, I'm likely to use an awful lot
of what we would call /violent sexual imagery/ and I just wanted to check
that neither of you would be terribly offended by that." — Malcolm Tucker
9:42 a.m.
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 09:56:00AM +0100, Paul Stimpson wrote:
Please will Andy, or someone else in the know, make a
statement on what
filtering, throttling or other traffic control is currently implemented
No kind of monitoring, filtering, throttling or traffic control is
currently legally required of UK Internet service providers. What is
implemented at BitFolk is done for operational reasons and is
described here:
https://bitfolk.com/policy/dpa.html
under "Customer data".
At the moment the only form of monitoring taking place on customer
network traffic is measuring the rate of outbound SSH connections
(TCP port 22 SYN).
Note that it's entirely possible for there to be specific court
ordered monitoring in place which a service provider is ordered to
not discuss.
or is anticipated?
We'll have to see how/if the "BT vs. rights owners of the world"
case turns into legislation. That seems the most likely route for
new legislation at the moment.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
3 Aug
3 Aug
1:39 p.m.
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 09:42:55AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
[...]
Note that it's entirely possible for there to be specific court
ordered monitoring in place which a service provider is ordered to
not discuss.
[...]
Would a canary such as that employed by rsync.net work or fall foul of
some part of some act?
http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
Cheers,
--
Iain Lane [ iain(a)orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer [ laney(a)debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer [ laney(a)ubuntu.com ]
PhD student [ ial(a)cs.nott.ac.uk ]
2:33 p.m.
Hi Iain,
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 02:39:14PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
Would a canary such as that employed by rsync.net work
or fall foul of
some part of some act?
http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
I became aware of the rsync.net canary in 2009 and towards the end
of 2010 I sought a legal opinion as to its usefulness in UK law,
with a view to possibly making use of it.
The answer I got was:
a) there probably isn't a means for English law to force you to update
the canary, *but*;
b) there doesn't appear to be any guarantee that failing to update
the canary would not be considered breaching any "do not reveal"
clauses of any court orders that had already been received.
At most serious it would likely be down to a judge's opinion.
e.g. a judge *may* decide, "the court order clearly says that the
fact you've been served a court order must not be revealed. You
chose to stop updating your canary with the express purpose of
alerting the subject that an order may affect them, therefore you're
going to be prosecuted."
Now, if I were to make a promise such as that contained within the
rsync.net canary and then were served with a court order, I would
have to take legal advice as to my risks given the particulars of
the order. By this time it would be too late for me to withdraw the
canary without having the same effect as not updating the canary.
If the advice was that I risked being prosecuted, I'd be risking the
service of every customer for the sake of whoever was under
investigation. Or I could continue updating the canary, and safely
lie to customers.
For this reason at this time I'm of the opinion that it's safer not
to make promises (in the form of a canary like rsync.net's) that
either cannot be kept or risk the entire business in keeping them.
The law is heavily based on intent and tricks like the rsync.net
canary can't be relied upon to get around that. Should rsync.net's
canary survive an actual court order that has a non-disclosure
clause then that would be interesting (although still may not set a
precedent in English law).
I would also be very interested in any other service provider
operating under English law who is making use of such a canary, so
we can compare notes.
Cheers,
Andy
5 Aug
5 Aug
12:23 p.m.
Hi,
On 03/08/11 15:33, Andy Smith wrote:
b) there doesn't appear to be any guarantee that
failing to update
the canary would not be considered breaching any "do not reveal"
clauses of any court orders that had already been received.
At most serious it would likely be down to a judge's opinion.
e.g. a judge *may* decide, "the court order clearly says that the
fact you've been served a court order must not be revealed. You
chose to stop updating your canary with the express purpose of
alerting the subject that an order may affect them, therefore you're
going to be prosecuted."
I remember my father telling me that in the old days if you had an AA
badge on the grille of your car and you passed an AA officer coming the
other way he would salute you. If there was a speed trap and you were
headed towards it he wouldn't salute. To the best of my knowledge, no AA
mechanic was ever prosecuted for not saluting.
Wikipedia says on the subject:
AA patrols on bicycles warned motorists of police
speed traps ahead.
In 1910 in legal test case ('Betts -v- Stevens') involving an AA
patrolman and a potentially speeding motorist, the Chief Justice
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chief_Justice_of_England_and_Wales>, Lord
Alverston
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Webster,_1st_Viscount_Alverstone>,
ruled that where a patrolman signals to a speeding driver to slow down
and thereby avoid a speed-trap, then that person would have committed
the offence of 'obstructing an officer in the course of his duty'
under the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Crimes_Amendment_Act_1885>.^[4]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Automobile_Association#cite_note-3>
^[5]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Automobile_Association#cite_note-4>
Subsequently the organisation developed a coded warning system, which
was used until the 1960s, whereby a patrolman would always salute the
driver of a passing car which showed a visible AA Badge unless there
was a speed trap nearby, on the understanding that their officers
could not be prosecuted for failing to salute.^[6]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Automobile_Association#cite_note-5>
The AA Handbook included the following message many times "It cannot
be too strongly emphasized that when a patrol fails to salute, the
member should stop and ask the reason why, as it is certain that the
patrol has something of importance to communicate.^[2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Automobile_Association#cite_note-AA1926-1>
Footnote [6] points to a Daily Mail article which sounds a bit less sure
and says:
The Automobile Association was founded in 1905 to beat 'unfair' police
speed-traps - for which its famous salute was a secret weapon, and
originally owned by its members.
The famous salute harks back to the pioneering days of early motoring
when speed limits were less than ten miles an hour. AA officers on
bicycles would point out hidden police speed traps to motorists.
This led to prosecutions for obstructing the police, so the AA salute
was developed. If an officer did not salute a member it was a signal
that a trap was nearby. Police were scarcely able to prosecute AA men
for not saluting. The AA discontinued the salute in the 1960s.
I wonder if this sets any precedent that can be applied? Probably not...
Cheers,
Paul.
4658
days inactive
4663
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andy Smith -
Daniel Case -
Iain Lane -
Paul Stimpson