Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Nov 2011 11:15 UTC
Legal While the US is still pondering SOPA, we just got some absolutely fantastic news out of Europe. The European Court of Justice, the highest court in the European Union, has just ruled that P2P filters installed by ISPs violate the European Directive on electronic commerce as well as fundamental rights [full ruling]. This is a hugely important ruling that effectively protects all member states of the European Union from ever being subjected to ISP filtering and spying.
Thread beginning with comment 498132
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Thu 24th Nov 2011 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Seems to me that the ruling system this judgment is about is one where the ISP would monitor ALL traffic and figure out what traffic is copyrighted.

The court says that :
1) Puting such a traffic monitoring in place is kind of costly and significantly impact the way the ISP is running its business.
2) Your ip address and the website you visit are personal informations. Therefore, monitoring them and (possibly) sending the ones that look suspicious to the content firms seems like a big violation of privacy.

Now, the UK judgment you are refering to seems to be about blocking a single website. Which is technically very easy to setup (by IP/DNS, even if it is kind of inneficient because the site will just change server) and doesn't involve monitoring ALL the traffic. So neither of the two court arguments would apply.

So I think they are two different cases.

Yeah the UK judgement is about blocking a single website. In fact it's so poorly executed that not only does using the I work around it, but using SSL (HTTPS as opposed to regular HTTP) works around it too.

As for the EU judgement, I'll have to go back and re-read it (shamefully I just skimmed the article - which shows now by how epically I've missed the point)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Laurence
by static666 on Fri 25th Nov 2011 12:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Laurence"
static666 Member since:
2006-06-09

Deep packet filtering? Really?

I'm always amused by this corporate gibberish. Cisco, Juniper and other network vendors are just looking forward to big profits from a complete internets overhaul. And goverments are buying into that because of lack of expertise and basic understanding. The only practical way to filter atm is L3-L4, DNS or routing blackholes. Which can easily be defeated by using standard P2P or SSL. State-of-the-art L7 filtering by Cisco and others is so naive, as to filter only plain unobfuscated bittorrent and old crap no one uses anymore (Gnutella, Napster, etc.)

I doubt true deep packet filtering as in what they want it to be (not what it really is) can really happen anytime soon, especially with the current developments of tens-of-Gb scale optical access networks.

Good thing EU guys are sensible enough.

Edited 2011-11-25 12:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

DetunizedGravity Member since:
2009-06-17

Well yes, DPI, really.

You'd be right to say that it is definitely not reasonable to even consider searching all electronics communications in, say, the U.S.A. through which most worldwide Internet traffic transits. At least not to compare it with an hypothetic database of all protected content. It just doesn't make sense. Too much volume, not enough centralization.

That doesn't mean that it NEVER makes sense, though...

I believe that today technologies allow deploying DPI on a global scale in smaller, less democratic countries, where bandwith is sparse and all traffic is centralized through a small number of govt controlled access points. This is real, not hypothetical (cf. Lybia, Syria, maybe Tunisia...). Even if the bandwidth is too high, DPI still remains useful when you're not blindly searching everyone's communications.

As for traffic encryption... Let media keep on shouting "piracy", "pedopornography", "terrorism" loud enough and often enough and in a few years from now everyone using cryptography for anything else than online banking/payments will look suspect. Cryptography used to be forbidden because it was considered as a weapon. I wouldn't be surprised if some politicians started walking that path again.

So to put it bluntly, because the RIAA and friends are being too greedy today, we're all letting laws pass that will transform our "democracies" in Lybia-look-alike for our grandchildren. That's a bit of a shortcut, but that's true nonetheless.

I wouldn't have expected the EU institutions to lead the way to reason, here, but at least the judiciary seems less brain dead than the Commission. Note that another ruling of the same kind is expected quite soon. It was asked the very same question, but applied to hosting services. I do hope for the same kind of answer.

Reply Parent Score: 2