[Stulle]

Link64, on 22 February 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

Don't try to compare video surveillance of few public places with IP logging or tracking the path of every person, who has a cell phone. Better compare it to video surveillance of your home if you really need to.

Okay, you convince David that IP logging is not the same as making a list for DNA samples and that an IP is about the same thing for a computer that a license plate is for a car and we got a deal. Shake hands on that?

Oh and add one more point to that list. That the internet is not your home but a public space where privateers interact as much as corporations and other public organizations.

On a more serious note, though, would be okay for you to being under video surveillance up until your houses threshold? So nobody knows what you do but they know where you go? Because - and I might actually be mistaken here - this is about what IP logging is all about... watching who went where to basically check what they did if need arises. I mean, if I know the face (IP) of the culprit I could just run his face through a face recognition software and I will be informed where he moves in, say, the London metro. London is pretty big on public video surveillance, you see? Now wouldn't that be handy to catch the guy who thought a cell phone and 10 cents is plenty of reasons to crush someones skull?

This post has been edited by Stulle: 22 February 2012 - 10:12 PM

[hooligan3000]

dont forgett in england u need no identity card.
they have only the video from u!

[Stulle]

No identity card, true but still official documents of identification. See Wikipedia (yeah, not the most the reliable source but it gives you the gist):

Quote

By 2006 several groups such as No2ID had formed to campaign against ID cards in Britain. The UK Labour government progressively introduced compulsory identity cards for foreign nationals resident in the UK from late 2008. Identity cards for British nationals were introduced in 2009 on a voluntary basis and only workers in certain high-security professions, such as airport workers, were required to have an identity card. Driving licences (particularly the photocard driving licence, introduced in 1998) and passports are now the most widely used ID documents. There are also various PASS-accredited cards, used mainly for proof of age purposes.

So they still have something of you. Although I agree that storing biometric features of all citizens at a central point of failure is not desirable. And before anybody tries to nail me to this, I said single point of failure... distributing the data and storing it for a limited period of time is still reasonable to me with the proper justification which I see available.

[DavidXanatos]

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

and that an IP is about the same thing for a computer that a license plate is for a car

This is not a valid, using a car on state roads is not a fundamental human right, you can get your license revoked, etc.
and i don't mean due to breaking of streat roules, but also due to age or a physical disability, driving a car on public roads is a privileg in our society not a right.
you can drive and break all street rules with no plates on any private ground the owner allows you to.

Using the Internet however is a human right according to the Eu
So IP is about the same thing for a computer that a tattoo social security number on the forehead of every person walking outside his home.

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

On a more serious note, though, would be okay for you to being under video surveillance up until your houses threshold?

No

David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 23 February 2012 - 07:12 AM

[Stulle]

The internet is not a fundamental human right, you do know that, don't you? I think except for Latvia, France a very select few other countries even introduced a right to using it in their constitution. Not even the EU or the UN have. And unless this changes you are utterly wrong and will remain wrong in many of your assumptions. As simple as that. In contrast to that, anybody may use any public road if he pleases. He does not even have a car except for prolly the German motorways. He can even do that free of charge. Something that is not possible with the internet unless you want to commit yet another crime. Being able to walk any road you please, that is a fundamental right in itself.

http://www.nytimes.c...uman-right.html
http://www.guardian....s-a-human-right
http://techcrunch.co...-a-human-right/

From the techcrunch article:

Quote

First, consider what is meant by human right, as differentiated from civil right or privilege. A human right is inalienable, fundamental, and emergent from the fact of existing as a human being. That’s not the same as civil rights (which are granted universally by a governing authority) or privileges, which are not guaranteed in any way. To remove a privilege or civil right is to restrict a person from having the same things others may have; to remove a human right is to prevent them from being a human being.

Actually, I think this is the best article of the three. It sums up the major points I am making... for a while now.

There is a UN report that suggests otherwise but it is merely an interpretation of the situation. De facto there is no entry in the carter of human rights that says "internet is a human right". The freedom of expression merely suggests that it is an important tool to make use of that right. Nothing else, though.

Interestingly enough France contradicts itself in this point. It makes the internet a human right and yet enforces a very strict three strikes law... Irony much?

This post has been edited by Stulle: 23 February 2012 - 09:10 AM

[Link64]

fox88, on 22 February 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

Wasting dollars to get a dime is not what those guys are after.

And that's why we don't need a perfect system, we need one that's just good enough.

fox88, on 22 February 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

Link64, on 22 February 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

With currently RS giving 30KB/s to free users I doubt you get both.

That is what you wrote: 'he'll currently probably go with OCH and that not just because of the speed'. The last part quite clearly tells that there is no doubt on the subject of good speed.
On the other hand, there is no numerical comparison of P2P and OCH speeds neither in my nor in your posts. Making calculations now means you want to deny your own initial statement, does it not?

Note to myself: drink more coffee. But it still might makes sense... in a weird way... see, the first statement was more for the time before MU shutdown, the second includes the development after that .

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Okay, you convince David that IP logging is not the same as making a list for DNA samples and that an IP is about the same thing for a computer that a license plate is for a car and we got a deal. Shake hands on that?

Hmm, I'm not sure... the way the IP logging and cell phone tracking is done at the moment, it is somehow comparable to taking DNA samples of all people in the country just in case someone might commit a crime and you do that before someone actually commit a crime and left his DNA sample there, so you even don't know if it might be useful.

Now since the IP basically allows to identify you in the internet as your DNA does in real world, if we imagine that the internet is a country and the connected devices are it's citizens, logging the IPs of all devices (before any device left any traces of it's IP on some digital crime scene, actually before any crime was commited) could be indeed seen as making a list of DNA samples of all people, and that not just after a crime was commited. Remember also, until now all mass DNA tests were voluntary, collecting IPs is enforced.

As to the license plate... usually it would be for the DSL router in most cases and not any particular computer behind it, but that does not matter. But since the car is a mobile divice, I'd compare the licence plate more to the SIM card of a mobile phone as as your car isn't tracked all the time, I don't see why your mobile phone should be. When you drive too fast and they make picture, OK, keeping records of your exact path, not OK.

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Oh and add one more point to that list. That the internet is not your home but a public space where privateers interact as much as corporations and other public organizations.

Yes, it's a public space and I'm fine with that, that some selected places like metro stations are under video surveillance, when you enter such place you are also informed about it.

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

On a more serious note, though, would be okay for you to being under video surveillance up until your houses threshold? So nobody knows what you do but they know where you go? Because - and I might actually be mistaken here - this is about what IP logging is all about... watching who went where to basically check what they did if need arises.

That's not OK anymore, it's nobody's business when I go out from home and where exactly I go (and that's already tracked for everyone who has a cell phone). I can accept, that the public transport companies like to have their own properties under video surveillance to protect it from damage or at least know who damaged it. Tracking me whereever I go from the moment I leave my home is however not necessary for that.

[Stulle]

Just some hints... first hint: German toll system actually enables the state to theoretically track trucks. They still only use the information to determine how many kilometers were spent driving on motorways. Second hint: laws have to be announces in public which makes anyone following any kind of news quite aware of the measures put in place via a change of laws. Third hint: I did not say tracking you till your door step but I said being under video surveillance. The difference obviously being that if you are on tape in public transportation or other public space there is a theoretic possibility to trace your steps to a certain point and that point might be the door of your apartment block or even the moment you leave the elevator you took to get to your floor. That is just about what IP logging does. Enable the police to follow you to a certain point if need arises.

Also, let me stress again that I am not saying this kind of logging is good if the data is used for just anything. I am saying that there is some justifiable practical need which you apparently fail to acknowledge as does David. I do further think that the state has any right to put a variety of measures into place that allow the police to follow up any unlawful action because that is its purpose, upholding the rule of law. What has to be fought is not the people upholding the law but the unfair laws that are passed for the sole purpose to benefit a small group of people. Laws that allow to sue for ridiculous money over a petty theft, laws that punish theft of any intellectual property harder than crimes that cause harm to the body and psychology of rightful citizens. This does also entail the need to get to an agreement with the people providing the material the masses apparently desire and I think especially in that regard there are some interesting ideas around.

This post has been edited by Stulle: 23 February 2012 - 11:19 AM

[Link64]

Stulle, on 23 February 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

first hint: German toll system actually enables the state to theoretically track trucks. They still only use the information to determine how many kilometers were spent driving on motorways.

The tracking ends when they leave the freeway, after that they can drive where they like and can't be tracked anymore. The path of your cell phone is tracked beasically over the whole country, if we neglect those few areas without connection. So the truck can be used without it's being tracked still on most of the streets, your cell phone cannot be used without it's being tracked.

Stulle, on 23 February 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Second hint: laws have to be announces in public which makes anyone following any kind of news quite aware of the measures put in place via a change of laws.

So much in public as ACTA (and others) would have been, if some people didn't actually bring it to the public?

Stulle, on 23 February 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Third hint: I did not say tracking you till your door step but I said being under video surveillance. The difference obviously being that if you are on tape in public transportation or other public space there is a theoretic possibility to trace your steps to a certain point and that point might be the door of your apartment block or even the moment you leave the elevator you took to get to your floor. That is just about what IP logging does. Enable the police to follow you to a certain point if need arises.

Video surveillance is limited to actually very few areas, in most public places there are no cameras (and I hope it will stay that way). Also I can pretend to be a muslim woman an nobody will see my face (IP). With just servers I connect logging my IP, I'm such a muslim woman, they see there is someone, they can never find out who I am as long as my ISP don't log my IP as well.

I'm not saying the police should not be able to do their job at all, but they can't put everyone under general suspicion for that. Until now, if there was a suspicion, that someone might have commited a crime, a judge would allow to... whatever was necessary, like listening his phone calls. With the EU data retention part of that is done before someone is even under suspicion or a judge had a look at that case.

[Stulle]

You neglect that only the scale differs between video surveillance and IP logging. Video surveillance is just as much puttying anybody under suspicion as is doing a mass DNA test or security checks in an airport or logging IPs. Actually, I quite like the analogy of air travel because it really fits tremendously. In fact, they are even more invasive than IP logging because they actually look inside your bags AND check where you go and where you come from. Yet, if you want to use air travel you are obliged to undergo this scrutiny. The same can be made compulsory for internet usage if it serves a just purpose, for all I care.

On ACTA: The government issue hundreds if not thousands of press releases each year. Some get picked up by the media others don't. Which fault is that? The fault of the media or the fault of the government? Especially considering that the media and the content industry is interwoven to some extent? Why don't you blame them for a change because they are really who decides what gets the attention. Ask yourself why we hear so much about US politics but so little about, say, Japanese politics. Or why we hear so little about Polish or Czech politics and elections compared to the US politics and elections... The media is doing a crappy job but you don't blame it on them, do you now?

And on my first hint again, my point is not the extent but the possibility compared to the usage. You might want to make it about something else but I am making this about being able to track and yet not tracking. Feel free to ignore this clarification, though.

[Link64]

Well, we'll have to accept, that we have little different view on that...

Anyway... we probably will have to live with that, that more and more laws will be made against us on the orders from the industry (like ACTA/SOPA/PIPA), we can try to protest against that, but I doubt they care much if at all about it. All we can achive is a small delay, than they rename it and try again, see H.R. 1981, it's a new name for SOPA/PIPA with added child pornography as argument, if that still won't come thru they'll add terrorism. Same will happen if ACTA won't pass, it's always the same game. And that's the point where this feature request and stuff like freenet come into play, they can make laws how they like, we make sure that they be useless for them.

[fox88]

Link64, on 23 February 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

we probably will have to live with that, that more and more laws will be made against us

That's very biased and one-sided view. When first cars appeared, nobody cared about traffic rules, plates and driver's licenses. Similarly, as internet matures we have more regulations. Not that all the new laws are great, but not really all against us.

[Stulle]

Well said, fox88, well said, indeed! A lot less words than I usually use to get this across, too!

[Link64]

fox88, on 23 February 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Not that all the new laws are great, but not really all against us.

I never said that all of them are against us, I said there are some on the way right now (I named 3 of them) and I'd expect few more to come. There are some really good ones too, I liked specially the one, where EU limited the roaming fees for usage of mobile phones in other countries. That proves they can actually do something good for the people if they like to.

[Stulle]

I already said it in my last discussion with David, protecting the intellectual property is not bad per say. So ACTA has a good point, it's only a pity it got influenced quite this severely by the content industry. As for US laws... well, I can't say much about them but that they could possibly effect the entire internet shows that something is still pretty wrong with the way the internet is engineered.

[fox88]

Link64, on 23 February 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

I never said that all of them are against us

I specifically emphasized against us part, but not all.
It could be reasonably assumed that you would not protest when your rights get enhanced, so we could concentrate on the laws which you think are bad. Then less ambiguous version could be: not all the laws which you disliked are against us.

Link64, on 23 February 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

There are some really good ones too, I liked specially the one, where EU limited the roaming fees for usage of mobile phones in other countries. That proves they can actually do something good for the people if they like to.

That was predictable, as said above.
Though something still bothers me: why you liked it so much, if any fee is a restriction and possibly "human rights violation"?

[Link64]

You must have mixed me up with somebody else, I'm not the one, who talks about human rights violations.

[fox88]

Link64, on 24 February 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

You must have mixed me up with somebody else, I'm not the one, who talks about human rights violations.

In this topic you never wrote 'human rights' by yourself. On the other hand, you have quoted text, containing the term, and then gave your explantions. That probably means: you do take part in the discussion on the human rights.

[DavidXanatos]

Just today 24.02.2012 the German Bundesverfassungsgericht decided that resolving a dynamic IP address to the identity of a person is unconstitutional in Germany.

That is what I said the whole time, and the highest court in Germany just today agreed with my point.

Quote

Unzulässig ist nach dem Beschluss auch die Abfrage von Auskünften über den Inhaber einer sogenannten dynamischen IP-Adresse. Hierbei handelt es sich um die Telekommunikationsnummern, mit denen vor allem Privatpersonen normalerweise im Internet unterwegs sind. Dies bedeute einen Eingriff in das Telekommunikationsgeheimnis, weil die Provider für die Identifizierung einer dynamischen IP-Adresse die Verbindungsdaten ihrer Kunden sichten müssen, so das Gericht.

btw: there si already a Press release form the German pirate party: http://web.piratenpa...eschr%C3%A4nkt-

[Stulle]

Actually, they did not... They noted that there is some need for clarification:

Quote

Auch eine weitere Vorschrift, die unter anderem die Zuordnung dynamischer IP-Adressen ermöglicht, wie sie beim Surfen im Internet verwendet werden, muss dem Beschluss zufolge klarer geregelt werden. Hier liegt nach Auffassung des Gerichts ein Eingriff in das Telekommunikationsgeheimnis vor, weil die Provider für die Identifizierung einer dynamischen IP-Adresse die Verbindungsdaten ihrer Kunden sichten müssen. Dieser Eingriff müsse dann aber auch konkret im Gesetz benannt werden.

They go on:

Quote

ARD-Rechtsexperte Frank Bräutigam machte deutlich, dass die Karlsruher Richter den Zugriff insbesondere den leichten Zugriff auf hochsensible Daten einschränken wollen. Darum verlangten sie höhere Zugriffshürden bei PIN, Passwörtern und IP-Adressen. Dies könnte zum Beispiel erst nach einer richterlichen Anordnung erlaubt werden.

And some reactions are not as definite as yours:

Quote

Nach der ersten Einschätzung des Bundesinnenministeriums halten sich "die Auswirkungen auf die Praxis in engen Grenzen". Ein Ministeriumssprecher betonte, dass die Karlsruher Richter einen großen Teil der umstrittenen Regelungen bestätigt hatten. "Die Strafverfolgungsbehörden sind darauf angewiesen, die hinter einer IP-Adresse stehenden Personen zu ermitteln."

So this is exactly the kind of threshold I see appropriate for storing and retrieving any kind of logging on telecommunication. This actually supports my feeling that I have a good grasp of right and wrong.

Anyway, the source for my quotes: http://www.tagesscha...ikation106.html

Also, it might be nice to actually read the written verdict and not rely on possibly biased voices from the press, party members or ministry spokespersons. But I think the written verdict is still not around, I am under the impression it usually follows a while later.

[Link64]

Stulle, on 24 February 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

And some reactions are not as definite as yours:

Quote

Nach der ersten Einschätzung des Bundesinnenministeriums halten sich "die Auswirkungen auf die Praxis in engen Grenzen". Ein Ministeriumssprecher betonte, dass die Karlsruher Richter einen großen Teil der umstrittenen Regelungen bestätigt hatten. "Die Strafverfolgungsbehörden sind darauf angewiesen, die hinter einer IP-Adresse stehenden Personen zu ermitteln."

The last is BS, the most of the Verfasungsbeschwerde was accepted (see the link I posted below, here quote of #94).

Quote

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist überwiegend zulässig.

Stulle, on 24 February 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

Also, it might be nice to actually read the written verdict and not rely on possibly biased voices from the press, party members or ministry spokespersons. But I think the written verdict is still not around, I am under the impression it usually follows a while later.

There you go: click, however the whole this thing might not apply to the current way, how the lawyers get the names of P2P users in Germany right now, we have a discussion about it in German Subforum.

This post has been edited by Link64: 24 February 2012 - 07:36 PM