http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/31/australia_to_licence_websites/
Category Archives: Filtering
RIAA: Google Not Being Transparent About Its Own Copyright Transparency Report
Fact #1: In order to notify Google of an infringement, you first need to find the infringement. But Google places artificial limits on the number of queries that can be made by a copyright owner to identify infringements. These limits significantly decrease the utility of Google’s take down tool given the vast nature of the piracy problem today and the number of titles we are trying to protect. The number of queries they allow is miniscule, especially when you consider that Google handles more than 3 billion searches per day. Yet Google has denied requests to remove this barrier to finding the infringements.
Fact #2: You can’t notify Google about the scope of the problem if it limits the notices it will accept and process through its automated tool. And that is what Google does. On top of the query limitation, Google also limits the number of links we can ask them to remove per day. Google has the resources to allow take downs that would more meaningfully address the piracy problem it recognizes, given that it likely indexes hundreds of millions of links per day. Yet this limitation remains despite requests to remove it.
Fact #3: One needs to consider these numbers and Google’s activities in context. Google says it received requests to remove 1.2 million links from 1000 copyright owners in one month. But consider that Google has identified nearly 5 million new links posted in just the last month in searches for free mp3 downloads of just the top 10 Billboard tracks. The constraints Google has placed on the tools they promote to deter infringement are well below what is necessary to identify and notice infringements on the Billboard top 10, much less the entire catalog of the American creative community.
Googl
Fact #4: Google’s “transparency report” calculates the percentage of a site that is infringing – but this data is flawed and of little value on its own. Specifically, Google claims that the DMCA notices it has received for a site represent less than .1% of the links it had indexed for the domains at the top of this list. But this number is misleading given the constraints imposed by Google on a copyright owner’s ability to find infringements and send notices to Google. If these constraints did not exist, how many more links on these sites might be identified? For example, Google calculates that infringing links account for only .1% of links on filestube, a notorious source of infringing links. For anyone who knows filestube, this seems unlikely, especially given that Google’s data doesn’t include DMCA notices sent directly to the site. Moreover, Google’s methodology fails to account for the percentage of traffic to the infringing portion of the site compared to any potential non-infringing portions. Let’s give copyright owners the ability to access all the pages on a site and take down all the infringing links, and then let’s rationally discuss how to categorize the sites.
Fact #5: Google’s data shows why its interpretation of the DMCA makes it ineffective. Let’s take a step back for a moment. Everyone – including Google – knows that the worst sites are repopulated with links to infringing files of the same content as quickly as links are taken down. For example, in a recent one month period, we sent Google, and the site in question, multiple DMCA notices concerning over 300 separate unauthorized copies of the same musical recording owned by one of our member companies. Yet that song is still available on that site today, and we reached it via a search result link indexed by Google. This highlights the futility of the exercise: if “take down” does not mean “keep down,” then Google’s limitations merely perpetuate the fraud wrought on copyright owners by those who game the system under the DMCA.
Ethiopia Successfully Uses Deep Packet Inspection To Block TOR Network
The Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation, which happens to be the sole telecommunication service provider in Ethiopia, has deployed or begun testing Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) of all Internet traffic. We have previously analyzed the same kind of censorship in China, Iran, and Kazakhstan.
Reports show that Tor stopped working a week ago — even with bridges configured. Websites such as https://gmail.com/, https://facebook.com/, https://twitter.com/, and even https://torproject.org/ continue to work. The graphs below show the effects of this deployment of censorship based on Deep Packet Inspection:


An analysis of data collected by a volunteer shows that they are doing some sort of TLS fingerprinting. The TLS server hello, which is sent by the Tor bridge after the TLS client hello, never reaches the client. We don’t know exactly what they are fingerprinting on, but our guess is that it is either the client hello or the server hello. An illustration can be found in this network flow diagram.
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/ethiopia-introduces-deep-packet-inspection
UK ISP Sky Broadband Blocks Internet Piracy Website The Pirate Bay. Says It Is In Favor Of Copyright Protection
The move follows an April 2012 ruling by the High Court of Justice in London (here), which imposed a court order upon the ISPs that required them to block the website. The Pirate Bay is one of the world’s largest BitTorrent (P2P / File Sharing) trackers but also allows internet copyright infringement (piracy) to take place.
Sky Statement
We have invested billions of pounds in high-quality entertainment for our customers because we know how much our customers value it. It’s therefore important that companies like ours do what they can, alongside the Government and the rest of the media and technology industries, to help protect their copyright. Such protection makes sure that consumers continue to benefit from TV programmes, movies and music both now and in the future. This means taking effective action against online piracy and copyright infringement.
Increasingly content owners are turning to the courts to present evidence of copyright infringement by websites that offer content illegally to users. When they do so, and the court agrees that copyright infringement has occurred, the content owners can seek a court order which compels the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to those sites over their broadband networks.
To date Sky has received court orders to block the following websites that were found to have breached copyright laws:
* Newzbin 2, which Sky blocked on 13 December 2011
* The Pirate Bay, which Sky blocked on 30 May 2012
Dutch Politicians Want To Push Commissioner Kroes To Guarantee Net Neutrality In Europe
The fact that Kroes now only wants Internet Service Providers to be more transparent about their practices and will not take any additional measures probably means that:
1. Kroes realizes that bandwidth management, filtering and blocking measures are needed because the internet infrastructure cannot accommodate just everyone anyway;
2. Differentiation between services and having data distributors pay for access to the infrastructure can be a nice cash cow (content vs infrastructure) much similar to how cable providers are making money.
All of this puts the recent speech of Neelie Kroes in an entirely different perspective:
Now we need to find solutions to make the Internet a place of freedom, openness, and innovation fit for all citizens, not just for the techno avant-garde.
What can freedom online give us?
For one thing, a huge economic boost. An open Internet can power innovation, surge productivity. And can put innovation tools into the hands of ordinary, enterprising people.
That’s why I’m convinced web entrepreneurs are the key to our future growth. And I want to make sure they have the tools to innovate.
Dutch language news article:
http://www.nu.nl/internet/2822881/dwing-netneutraliteit-af-in-europese-regels.html
and:
EU Report Reveals P2P Traffic Interference By ISPs
http://torrentfreak.com/eu-report-reveals-p2p-traffic-interference-by-isps-120530/
Most UK Mobile Broadband Users Could Be Prepared To Swap Providers over Skype Blocks
It Would Cost $37 Billion Per Year to Pre-Screen YouTube Videos – If Humans Need To Do It. Big Data Math?
Because algorithms only enable automated spam, malware, app and advertising takedowns, not takedowns of copyrighted content
Engineer Craig Mansfield has worked out how much it would cost per year to pre-screen all that video for copyright infringements—and the answer is close to that of Google’s annual revenue.
Mansfield calculated that a team of 199,584 judges—or equally qualified individuals—would be required to watch and rule over the video, which in turn would cost $36,829,468,840. For comparison, Google’s revenue for 2011 was $37,905,000,000.
Much more:
http://gizmodo.com/5914188/it-would-cost-37-billion-per-year-to-pre+screen-youtube-videos
Previously:
Last Year Google Rejected 610,000 Websites And Disapproved 134 Million Ads
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/26/last-year-google-rejected-610000-websites-and-disapproved-134-million-ads/
Big Content may not even be looking to eradicate 100% the piracy problem, much like Big Data is not looking to eradicate 100% of the botnet, spam, malware, ‘bad’ apps or illegal advertising problem. It’s about limiting damages…limiting costs due to piracy or other illegal activities online. Technical solutions for online illegallity need to be able to at least achieve that goal.
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/28/much-worse-than-the-loss-of-freely-accessible-pirated-files-is-the-loss-of-freely-accessibly-attractive-websites-in-general/
White House prepares to convene anti-botnet summit: how to help PC users remove the malware from their computers
The White House is planning to convene a cybersecurity summit Wednesday morning to discuss ways to counter botnets, which have emerged as the leading Internet security threat.
Industry representatives are planning to announce a nine-point plan that includes sharing more information about identifying botnets — and how to help their customers remove the malware from their computers.
Much more:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57443380-83/white-house-prepares-to-convene-anti-botnet-summit/
European Commission Pledges to Stiffen ISP Net Neutrality Rules
See also:
Study: A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/30/study-a-view-of-traffic-management-and-other-practices-resulting-in-restrictions-to-the-open-internet-in-europe/
Study: A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe
Findings from BEREC’s and the European Commission’s joint investigation
Commissioner Neelie Kroes:
BEREC has today provided the data I was waiting for. For most Europeans, their Internet access works well most of the time. But these findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard consumers.
For the first time we know that at least 20%, and potentially up to half of EU mobile broadband users have contracts that allow their Internet service provider (ISP) to restrict services like VOIP (e.g. Skype) or peer-to-peer file sharing.
Around 20% of fixed operators (spread across virtually all EU member states) apply restrictions such as to limit peer-to-peer volumes at peak times. This can affect up to 95% of users in a country.
At the same time, in nearly all Member States, most if not all ISPs offer fixed and mobile Internet access services that are not subject to such restrictions. According to the BEREC figures 85% of all fixed ISPs and 76% of all mobile ISPs propose at least one unrestricted offer. So the market is generally providing choice, but in some countries the choices are quite limited in some EU countries.
But are customers really empowered to choose well? Do they realise what they are signing up for? I didn’t read all the pages in my mobile contract and I bet you didn’t either! I believe we all need more transparent information.
Given that BEREC’s findings highlight a problem of effective consumer choice, I will prepare recommendations to generate more real choices and end the net neutrality waiting game in Europe.
First, consumers need clear information on actual, real-life broadband speeds. Not just the speed at 3 am, but the speed at peak times. The upload as well as the download speed. The minimum speed, if applicable. And the speed you’ll get when you’re also watching IPTV as part of your triple-play bundle, or downloading a video on demand via a premium “managed” service. Plus, you should know what those advertised speeds typically allow you to do online
Second, consumers also need clear information on the limits of what they are paying for. Clear, quantified data ceilings are much better than vague “fair use” policies that leave too much discretion to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). They allow low-volume users to look for deals that suit them. And they incentivise ISPs to price data volumes in ways that reflect costs, and so support investment in modernising networks as traditional voice revenues decline.
Third, consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldn’t be marketed as such; perhaps it shouldn’t be marketed as “Internet” at all, at least not without any upfront qualification. Regulators should have that kind of control over how ISPs market the service.
More:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/netneutrality/
See also:
Study: A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe
http://erg.eu.int/doc/consult/bor_12_30_tm-i_snapshot.pdf
Virgin Media flushes pipes clogged by piles of Spotify fans
Capacity to be beefed up after music streams flood tubes
Much more:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/virgin_media_spotify_congestion/
Dutch Operator T-Mobile Refuses To Block The Pirate Bay Website On Mobile Networks
Dutch providers are desperately trying to continue to provide access to The Pirate Bay. They previously tried to argue that changes in IP address and domain name would save them from having to block the torrent website.
Now they’re trying to argue that the judge should have indicated that the verdict applies to mobile networks too…
Dutch language news article:
http://www.nu.nl/internet/2821798/t-mobile-blokkeert-pirate-bay-niet-mobiel.html
Previously:
Judges Are Not Idiots: Change Of Domain Name Or IP Address Will Not Change Illegality Of Websites
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/25/judges-are-not-idiots-change-of-domain-name-or-ip-address-will-not-change-illegality-of-websites/
Jamming Tripoli: Inside Moammar Gadhafi’s Secret Surveillance Network
In 2007, Philippe Vannier, former head of Amesys and current chief executive of Bull, reportedly met with Abdullah Senussi, Libya’s head of intelligence, in Tripoli. A deal was signed that year, and beginning in 2008 Amesys engineers and technicians, many of them former French military personnel, traveled to Libya to set up several data and monitoring centers for the country’s Internal Security service. According to engineers at Libyan Internet provider LTT, two high-bandwidth “mirrors” were installed—one on the country’s main fiber-optic trunk and one inside the DSL switchboard—to copy all Internet traffic and feed it into the Eagle system, which became operational in 2009.
One of the monitoring centers, known as HQ 2, was located on the ground floor of a tan six-story Internal Security building on Sikka Street in Tripoli. The dreaded structure was sometimes called the Heretics House, after the Counter-Heresy Office—Gadhafi’s squad charged with combating Islamists—which was based there. Inside, a sign on an interior door bore the logos of both Amesys and the Libyan government and warned: help keep our classified business secret. don’t discuss classified information out of the hq. Behind it, analysts sat at their terminals and used a web browser to log on to the Eagle system, where they would peruse their latest intercepts or search for new targets to monitor using keywords, phone numbers, or email and IP addresses. The system was capable of collecting email, chat and voice-over-IP conversations, file transfers, and even browsing histories from anyone who used broadband or dialup Internet in Libya. The analysts could call up social-network diagrams for the targets they were hunting, with the links between each suspect showing the frequency and type of communication. Emails of interest were labeled “follow-up” for the security services.
A filing room with shelves of pink folders held thousands of printed-out emails and chat logs, case files with fingerprints and photographs of the targets, and transcripts of phone intercepts faxed to the center. The email intercepts (which are marked “https://eagle/interceptions” at the top, indicating they were printed from the Eagle system) typically contain the IP addresses and port numbers, and sometimes even usernames and passwords. They list everything from mundane conversations about building maintenance to business deals to political discussions among dissidents—a vast catalog of private lives.
In one intercept, a dissident’s search history is described as being “sexual in nature.” In another, dated December 2010, a well-known dissident living in Tripoli, Jamal al-Hajji, writes to a central figure in the then-ongoing Tunisian revolution, Munsif al-Marzouqi, advising him on resistance tactics: “Demonstrations in front of the UN’s offices in French, British, German, and American capitals, in conjunction with hunger strikes, will strengthen the Tunisian street, scare the regime, and limit its assaults.” Later, on January 19, an unnamed woman writes to Hajji, saying, “The revolution will be here very soon, by the will of the people.” At the outbreak of demonstrations in Libya, Hajji would be arrested, tortured, and imprisoned in a tiny cell for seven months.
Amesys, with its Eagle system, was just one of Libya’s partners in repression. A South African firm called VASTech had set up a sophisticated monitoring center in Tripoli that snooped on all inbound and outbound international phone calls, gathering and storing 30 million to 40 million minutes of mobile and landline conversations each month. ZTE Corporation, a Chinese firm whose gear powered much of Libya’s cell phone infrastructure, is believed to have set up a parallel Internet monitoring system for External Security: Photos from the basement of a makeshift surveillance site, obtained from Human Rights Watch, show components of its ZXMT system, comparable to Eagle. American firms likely bear some blame, as well. On February 15, just prior to the revolution, regime officials reportedly met in Barcelona with officials from Narus, a Boeing subsidiary, to discuss Internet-filtering software. And the Human Rights Watch photos also clearly show a manual for a satellite phone monitoring system sold by a subsidiary of L-3 Communications, a defense conglomerate based in New York. (Amesys, VASTech, ZTE and Narus did not respond to multiple interview requests; L-3 declined to comment.)
Much more:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/ff_libya/all/1
Internet security experts at Trend Micro have warned UK ISPs to pay more attention to their abuse departments after it was forced to block Pipex’s (TalkTalk) spam spewing email servers for almost a week
The provider “chose not to man their abuse desk” and did not respond to the warnings.
Apparently all TalkTalk needed to do to get the ban lifted was reply to Trend Micro’s message, which was sent to their abuse desk at abuse@talktalkplc.com (perhaps it got stuck in their spam filter
.. no seriously).
Trend Micro’s Rik Ferguson said:
“Once a Realtime Blackhole List (RBL) listing is made, we require the ISP to take effective action to stop the spam. We monitor this action, and if the investigator sees the spam stop, they will remove the listing.
Because there are multiple people involved with checking an RBL listing, it is exceedingly rare that a mistake is made. In each case of an RBL listing, we have spam-on-hand, and can produce that on request for the ISP. The size of the ISP behind any given IP address is not a factor in our decision to list on the RBL; the fact that we have spam from that address, and that there has been no action to reduce the spam, is.
Because the ISP receives at least two notices from us, we feel that they have adequate time to deal with the problem.”
A TalkTalk spokesperson told ISPreview.co.uk:
“Some Pipex customers may have had difficulty sending emails to NHS and other government agencies after a number of customers’ computers were infected with malicious software and started sending out spam. We have taken measures to tackle the problem and reduced spam messages by 70 per cent since the start of May.”
More:
Much Worse Than The Loss Of Freely Accessible Pirated Files Is The Loss Of Freely Accessibly Attractive Websites In General
Because free websites + free attractive content makes for some good advertising opportunities. No matter whether those websites – or the content they’re providing access to - are legal or illegal.
That’s why there are so many who want the media and the public to believe that website blocking does not work.
In order to make that point, they start by arguing that website blocking is a useless remedy, since it does not address all possible instances of content piracy, and circumvention may still be possible.
But that’s beside the point. Big Content may not even be looking to eradicate 100% the piracy problem, much like Big Data is not looking to eradicate 100% of the botnet, spam, malware, ‘bad’ apps or illegal advertising problem.
It’s about limiting damages…limiting costs due to piracy or other illegal activities online. Technical solutions for online illegallity need to be able to at least achieve that goal.
And it turns out that even badly implemented site blocking remedies are able to achieve that, much like partially successful spam filtering campaigns.
Now imagine if ISPs and other online service providers would be able to make money by fighting piracy. Maybe that would cause even better technological remedies to pop up all of a sudden, not only addressing a significant part of the problem, but perhaps even the majority of it.
Only time will tell…
For the time being we’ll have to keep up with large quantities of propaganda that aims to leave attractive online clusters of (illegal) content intact for as much and as long as possible…
Pirate Bay Alexa Rank In UK Continues To Drop Due To Site Blocking. Pirate Bay Is Now 60th Most Popular Website
The website blocking measures in the UK are now seriously affecting The Pirate Bay’s popularity.
Not too long ago, the Pirate Bay was the 39th most popular website in the UK. Right now the site’s popularity is decreasing and even after only a few weeks of blocking by a limited number of ISPs, the effect is already quite noticeable:

http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries;2/GB
Similar effects in have been observed in The Netherlands too, although only a few ISPs are blocking the site in that country as most of them have refused to do so, regardless of relevant legal verdicts. That situation is expected to change sometime next week.
Previously:
High Court has ruled that several UK ISPs including Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must block The Pirate Bay website
http://vrritti.com/2012/04/30/high-court-has-ruled-that-several-uk-isps-including-sky-everything-everywhere-talktalk-o2-and-virgin-media-must-block-the-pirate-bay-website/
Pirate Bay’s Alexa Rank For UK And NL Continues To Drop After Blocking Measures
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/12/pirate-bays-alexa-rank-for-uk-and-nl-continues-to-drop-after-blocking-measures/
Anonymous hacked into the filtering server used by Reliance Communications and filtered a lot of websites, like Twitter
Last Year Google Rejected 610,000 Websites And Disapproved 134 Million Ads
This is no censorship because Google itself can make money doing this
Ads that are in violation of our ads policies aren’t allowed to be shown on Google and our AdSense partner sites. For many repeat offenders, we ban not just ads but also advertisers who seek to abuse our advertising system to take advantage of people. In the case of ads that are promoting counterfeit goods, we typically ban the advertiser after only one violation. Here are some metrics that give some insight into the scale of the impact we have had over time, showing the numbers of actions we’ve taken against advertiser accounts, sites and ads. You can see that the numbers are growing—and growing faster over time.

We find that there are relatively few malicious players, who make multiple attempts to bypass our defenses to defraud users. As we get better and faster at catching these advertisers, they redouble their efforts and create more accounts at an even faster rate.
Even in this ever-escalating arms race, our efforts are working. One method we use to test the success of our efforts is to ask human raters to tell us how we’re doing. These human raters review a set of sites that are advertised on Google. We use a large set of sites in order to get an accurate statistical reading of our efforts. We also weight the sites in our statistical sample based on the number of times a particular site was displayed so that if a particular site is shown more often, it’s more likely to be in our sample set. By using human raters, we can calibrate our automated systems and ensure that we’re improving our efforts over time. In 2011, we reduced the percentage of bad ads by more than 50 percent compared with 2010. That means the proportion of bad ads that are showing on Google was halved in just a year.
Google’s long-term success is based on people trusting our products. We want to make sure that the ads on Google are safe and trustworthy, and we’re not satisfied until we do.
Posted by David W. Baker, Director of Engineering, Advertising
Judges Are Not Idiots: Change Of Domain Name Or IP Address Will Not Change Illegality Of Websites
Dutch ISPs just lost one of many court cases against BREIN and will now have to block the additional IP addresses or domain names of The Pirate Bay too. Lawyers are nonetheless looking forward to the next ‘circumvention method’ The Pirate Bay will try and use, only to have that method formally declared useless too.
Dutch language news article:
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/110629/brein-wint-ex-parte-verbod-op-nieuw-tpb-adres.html
Previously:
Does A Change Of IP Address Change The Illegallity Of A Website? KPN And Tele2 Seem To Think So
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/23/does-a-change-of-ip-address-change-the-illegallity-of-a-website-kpn-and-tele2-seem-to-think-so/
YouTube Censors SHELL Parody Video. Dutch Blog GeenStijl.nl Decides To Go And Mirror It
Censored video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYjjlKgQRLQ
Mirror: http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/2122561/ec187493/videofuck_.html
Dutch language news article:
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2012/05/shell_val_eens_lekker_dood_met.html
Dutch Justice Department Wants DNS Blockade For Gambling Sites – Even When Such A Blockade Will Have A ‘Limited’ Effectiveness
The department is also contemplating payment blocking. Webwereld.nl is reporting that Fox-IT’s Ronald Prins is of the opinion that DNS blocking will not be an effective solution both in relation to gambling sites and The Pirate Bay.
The Pirate Bay’s Alexa Rank did drop 15 places since the recent (partial) blockade in The Netherlands. The UK Alexa Rank of The Pirate Bay dropped 11 positions since the recent (partial) blockade in that country.
Dutch language news article:
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/110581/justitie-wil-dns-blokkades-voor-goksites.html
See also:
Italian ISP blocking of Pirate Bay leads to significantly fewer visitors – thepiratebay.org is now only the 673rd most visited site in Italy
http://vrritti.com/2011/01/05/italian-isp-blocking-of-pirate-bay-leads-to-significantly-fewer-visitors-thepiratebay-org-is-now-only-the-673th-most-visited-site-in-italy/
Google may not be willing to comment on how much money it makes from pornography online, but the search giant’s UK public policy head Sarah Hunter has unsurprisingly urged caution when it comes to ISPs filtering content over their networks
Speaking at Google’s annual Big Tent event in Watford this morning, Hunter gently tussled with a panel that included TalkTalk’s executive director Andrew Heaney, the Daily Mail‘s Amanda Platell and Index on Censorship’s Kirsty Hughes over how to protect children from smut on the internet.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/23/google_big_tent_smut_debate/
Previously:
When Porn Is Even More Of A Cash Cow Than Piracy: Survey Finds UK Internet Users Oppose Mandatory ISP Adult Site Blocks
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/21/when-porn-is-even-more-of-a-cash-cow-than-piracy-survey-finds-uk-internet-users-oppose-mandatory-isp-adult-site-blocks/
Greek Court Orders ISP Blockades of ‘Pirate’ Music Sites
Following in the footsteps of other courts around Europe, a Greek court has ordered the country’s ISPs to start censoring sites that allegedly infringe copyright. The blockades, which were requested by music rights organizations against two specific sites, will be implemented by DNS record tampering and IP address filtering.
2012 is proving to be momentous year for those looking to censor the Internet on copyright grounds. With nationwide blockades of The Pirate Bay biting in many countries including both the Netherlands and the UK, it was only a question of time before the phenomenon spread further still.
Much more:
http://torrentfreak.com/greek-court-orders-isp-blockades-of-pirate-music-sites-120521/
When Porn Is Even More Of A Cash Cow Than Piracy: Survey Finds UK Internet Users Oppose Mandatory ISP Adult Site Blocks
The results from 728 respondents to our latest monthly survey has revealed that the majority (83.9%) are against proposals designed to force home broadband ISPs into imposing mandatory adult website blocks by default. The introduction of such a system, which could be applied to all internet accounts in the UK, was recommended by the recent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection (Claire Perry MP).
See also the current popularity of sites such as xhamster, livejasmin, pornhub, xvideos and youporn:





Pakistan blocks Twitter over ‘blasphemous’ images, report says
Posting Pictures of Her Terminally Ill Son Got Grieving Mother Banned from Facebook
So, why did Facebook remove them from Heather’s profile? And subsequently, after Heather reposted this pictures and got her friends and family to contact Facebook, she was banned from the site entirely.
Facebook’s community standards page lists nine types of content that may be deemed objectionable and removed: Violence and Threats, Self-Harm, Bullying and Harassment, Hate Speech, Graphic Violence, Nudity and Pornography, Identity and Privacy, Intellectual Property and Phishing and Spam.
Which category Grayson’s photos fall into is anyone’s guess.
See also:
It’s The Algorithm Stupid! Part IV – Humanity becomes redundant
http://vrritti.com/2012/04/15/its-the-algorithm-stupid-part-iv-humanity-becomes-redundant/
Apple really doesn’t want you to jailbreak your iPhone. So much so, that it has reportedly started filtering the term “jailbreak” in the US iTunes store
Site Blocking Measures Appear To Work: The Pirate Bay Changes Its IP Address (But Still In The Same Range)
New IP address: http://194.71.107.80/
The Pirate Bay’s IP Range: 194.71.107.0 – 194.71.107.255
inetnum: 194.71.107.0 – 194.71.107.255
netname: THEPIEATEBAY-NET
descr: The Pirate Bay
country: DE
route: 194.71.107.0/24
descr: The Pirate Bay
origin: AS50066
mnt-by: MNT-STN
source: RIPE # Filtered
The Dutch media report that the Dutch judge has not allowed BREIN to submit new IP addresses so BREIN may have to go back to court for each and every new IP address The Pirate Bay decides to use after a blockade has been implemented.
Dutch language news article:
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/110547/nieuw-ip-adres-pirate-bay-omzeilt-brein-blokkade.html
Meanwhile, The Pirate Bay’s Alexa Rank in the United Kingdom has dropped to the 50th spot, a rapid decline since 12th May 2012 when it was the 42nd most popular site in that country.
People complain about censorship by (enforcement) authorities. But what about algorithms? Facebook censors members after unjustly labeling them spammers
Emile Protalinski:
Facebook temporarily suspended one of its users from commenting on public posts. The punishment was supposed to last a week. It has now been two weeks. This can happen to any Facebook user. Facebook user Rima Regas is being censored by Facebook. The social network put her on time out after apparently getting complaints about public posts she has made. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be an isolated incident.
Last weekend, technical evangelist Robert Scoble saw his comment blocked because Facebook deemed it “irrelevant or inappropriate”. When I inquired about the issue, Facebook told me the block was a false positive caused by an automatic spam filter. I also wrote this:
Facebook’s algorithms for comments made on Subscriber posts are apparently much pickier because anyone can reply to a public Facebook post. To be honest, I only find that slightly more comforting.
In her original Facebook status, Regas said “I don’t see a way to file a complaint or defend myself.” She isn’t the first to realize getting in touch with Facebook is very difficult. In some two years of writing about Facebook, I have received hundreds of complaints about the company’s communication problems, both from members and journalists alike. Regas’ story is just one of many I have written about publicly in order to get Facebook to respond.
Again, my problem with all this is not that Facebook’s reporting systems screwed up or were abused. That is bound to happen with any anti-spam implementation.
The worrying trend here is that Facebook continues to add features like this one without giving users an option to fight back.
See also:
#OccupyWallStreet demonstrates that there are many ways to intentionally, accidentally or unconsciously but automatically disrupt the free flow of information
Events that could occur:
- Spam algorithms blocking e-mails containing certain references;
- Video distribution algorithms arguing that spam, copyright or other policies have been violated and removing content;
- Video distribution algorithms turning off the option to have third parties embed videos on their sites;
- Video distribution algorithms arguing that ‘the user’ has removed content or that his account has been terminated for some reason;
- Trending and ranking algorithms forgetting to trend and rank certain content;
- Content, websites and blogs accidentally being taken down “due to an automated process;”
- Network algorithms stating “The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request. Please try again in 30 seconds. That’s all we know;”
- Algorithms deciding that posted content should only be showing up to the person who posted it;
- Algorithms accidentally polluting search indices with an abundance of irrelevant search results;
- Algorithms stating that there was a content delivery failure for whatever reason;
- Algorithms redirecting internet users from the content the user intended to visit to content that is probably much more to the user’s liking.
Seemingly mundane technical specifications of Internet routers and social-networking software platforms have powerful political implications. In virtual realms, programmers essentially set the laws of physics, or at least the rules of interaction, for their cyberspaces. If it sometimes seems that media pundits treat Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg or Apple’s Steve Jobs as gods, that’s because in a sense they are—sitting on Mount Olympus with the power to hurl digital thunderbolts with a worldwide impact on people.
It’s The Algorithm Stupid! Part IV – Humanity becomes redundant
http://vrritti.com/2012/04/15/its-the-algorithm-stupid-part-iv-humanity-becomes-redundant/
It’s The Algorithm Stupid! Part III
http://vrritti.com/2012/01/01/its-the-algorithm-stupid-part-iii/
It’s the algorithm stupid! Part II
http://vrritti.com/2011/11/23/its-the-algorithm-stupid-part-ii/
It’s the algorithm, stupid! Do algorithms offer the ultimate grounds for exoneration? Can they fail, or only the people writing them?
http://vrritti.com/2011/09/30/its-the-algorithm-stupid-do-algorithms-offer-the-ultimate-grounds-for-exoneration-can-they-fail-or-only-the-people-writing-them/
Pirate Bay’s Alexa Rank For UK And NL Continues To Drop After Blocking Measures
In the UK, The Pirate Bay website – before the blockade – was more popular than the websites of Virgin Media, NatWest and The Sun. That no longer seems to be the case.
back then:

now:

http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries;1/GB
In The Netherlands The Pirate Bay website was the 27th most popular website before the blockade and the name change from thepiratebay.org to thepiratebay.se. It then dropped to the 41st spot and is now the 43rd most popular website in The Netherlands. As such it is no longer more popular than the websites of Microsoft, Apple or Amazon.
back then:

now:

ISP kills off country-ban dodge after just 48 hours
Chief FYX’er Andrew Schick has posted a statement that his company “has a made a decision to withdraw its popular ‘global mode’ service from the market for the time being”.
The service shuts down at 11.59pm on Friday night, New Zealand time.
FYX “sincerely apologises to our customers and the New Zealand internet community for putting a halt to ‘global mode’,” Schick writes, adding that while Kiwi lawyers felt the service was legal it seems a good idea to pull the product for now.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/11/fyx_geo_blocking/
Previously:
New Zealand ISP, FYX, promises to try and avoid geo-blocking regimes that restrict access to certain content
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/10/new-zealand-isp-fyx-promises-to-try-and-avoid-geo-blocking-regimes-that-restrict-access-to-certain-content/
Scholar: regulating Google results would violate First Amendment. Did he tell Google?
Yes, because Google commissioned the paper, presumably to help ward off calls for government regulation of its search results. And as such, Google itself can do with the results whatever it wants. If others want to do something to the results, they’re violating the First Amendment
The new Google-commissioned paper, written by well-known UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and attorney Donald Falk, argues that such regulations would be preempted by the First Amendment. Google’s search engine, they write, “uses sophisticated computerized algorithms, but those algorithms themselves inherently incorporate the search engine company engineers’ judgments about what material users are likely to find responsive to these queries.”
The authors argue that this selection process is no different, constitutionally speaking, from a newspaper editor selecting wire stories to run, a guidebook deciding which attractions to feature, or a parade organizer choosing which floats to include. The courts have ruled that all of these editorial processes are fully protected by the First Amendment.
Moreover, the paper argues, the courts have held that First Amendment rights generally trump antitrust law—something of increasing concern to a dominant company like Google. “Antitrust law cannot be used to require a speaker to include certain material in its speech product,” Volokh and Falk write. They point to a 1945 case in which the courts found the Associated Press had violated antitrust laws, but stressed that its ruling did not “compel AP or its members to permit publication of anything which their ‘reason’ tells them should not be published.” Newspaper editors have the right to decide which stories should be included in their newspapers and which ones make the front page.
This suggests that Google has similarly wide discretion to decide which links and other content will appear, and in which order, in response to any given search query.
Isn’t a newspaper also publishing original stories, opinions and reviews when compared to a “crawl all, copy all” search engine?
New Zealand ISP, FYX, promises to try and avoid geo-blocking regimes that restrict access to certain content
Hopefully it isn’t making use of IP addresses for its internet connectivity. The ISP appears to be making use of the now very popular: “we’ll try and help you circumvent restrictions but we cannot promise success nor endorse any illegal behavior. We only want you to pay us for us letting you know we’re really on your side…”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/10/kiwi_isp_fyx_no_geoblocks_global_mode/
They All Want A Window Of Time Between Notice And Actual Removal. Time Is (Advertising) Money
Because algorithms that enable distribution of files are apparently much easier to write than algorithms that immediately remove copyright infringing files. Algorithms that immediately remove spam or malicious ads appear to be the exception to the rule…
Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft have drawn up a series of “principles” to guide how rights-holders should act when issuing them with requests for the removal of infringing content from search indexes as well as the responsibilities to which search engines themselves should be required to conform.
The plans were published (4-page/43KB PDF) by digital rights campaign group the Open Rights Group (ORG) who obtained details of the proposals via a freedom of information (FOI) request to the government.
Under the plans, search engines would be required to provide a way for rights-holders to inform them that their rankings display links to pirate content. Search engines would have to quickly remove content on receipt of a valid takedown notice.
Rights-holders’ takedown notices would have to be targeted in order to “specifically identify infringing content” and should only issue them to search engines “after assessing their impact on any non-infringing uses and concluding that the takedown would not have an adverse effect on such non-infringing uses”, the search engines’ plans propose.
The Dutch Court has forbidden the Dutch Pirate Party from linking to, operating or listing websites that allow the public to circumvent a local Pirate Bay blockade
Hackers and pirates are doing Big Brother and Big Content a huge favor. Big Data is watching closely
The Court specifically ruled that the Party’s reverse proxy has to remain offline. It was further ordered that Pirate Bay domains and IP-addresses have to be filtered from the Pirate Party’s generic proxy. In addition the Pirate Party can’t link to other websites that allow the public to bypass the blockade. These orders are only valid when paired with an encouragement to circumvent.
Should the Pirate Party fail to comply with the Court’s ruling it faces fines of €5,000 per day to a maximum penalty of €250,000.
http://torrentfreak.com/court-forbids-linking-to-pirate-bay-proxies-120510/
