Actually, looks like point 1 was not taking the full context of the text around it.
1.
Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing that copyright.
It prevents ISPs from protecting the identity of the user once a judicial body has decided the claim is sufficient to move forward. Which is a hell of a difference. I'll edit my first post.
2.
these conditions shall include a requirement for Internet Service Providers to expeditiously remove or disable access to material residing on their networks or systems upon obtaining actual knowledge of the copyright infringement
3.
An Internet Service Provider that removes or disables access to material in good faith under subparagraph (a) shall be exempt from any liability for having done so,
4.
With respect to existing measures, Malaysia shall not be subject to dispute settlement under Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement) regarding its obligations under Article 14.4 (NonDiscriminatory Treatment of Digital Products) and Article 14.11 (Cross-Border Transfer of Information by Electronic Means)
5.
no Party may impose or maintain a technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure that requires a manufacturer or supplier of the product, as a condition of the manufacture, sale, distribution, import or use of the product, to: (a) transfer or provide access to a particular technology, production process, or other information (such as a private key or other secret parameter, algorithm specification or other design detail), that is proprietary to the manufacturer or supplier and relates to the cryptography in the product, to the Party or a person in the Party’s territory;
Section A: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Products that Use
Cryptography
1. This section applies to information and communication technology (ICT) products
that use cryptography. For greater certainty, for purposes of this section, a “product” is a
good and does not include financial instruments.
2. For the purposes of this section:
cryptography means the principles, means or methods for the transformation of data in
order to hide its information content, prevent its undetected modification or prevent its
unauthorized use; and is limited to the transformation of information using one or more
secret parameters (e.g., crypto variables) or associated key management;
encryption means the conversion of data (plaintext) into a form that cannot be easily
understood without subsequent re-conversion (ciphertext) through the use of a
cryptographic algorithm;
cryptographic algorithm or cipher means a mathematical procedure or formula for
combining a key with plaintext to create a ciphertext; and
key means a parameter used in conjunction with a cryptographic algorithm that
determines its operation in such a way that an entity with knowledge of the key can
reproduce or reverse the operation, while an entity without knowledge of the key cannot.
3. With respect to a product that uses cryptography and is designed for commercial
applications, no Party may impose or maintain a technical regulation or conformity
assessment procedure that requires a manufacturer or supplier of the product, as a
condition of the manufacture, sale, distribution, import or use of the product, to:
(a) transfer or provide access to a particular technology, production process,
or other information (such as a private key or other secret parameter,
algorithm specification or other design detail), that is proprietary to the
manufacturer or supplier and relates to the cryptography in the product, to
the Party or a person in the Party’s territory;
(b) partner with a person in its territory; or
(c) use or integrate a particular cryptographic algorithm or cipher,
other than where the manufacture, sale, distribution, import or use of the product is by or
for the government of the Party.
Subject to Legal Review in English, Spanish and French
for Accuracy, Clarity and Consistency
Subject to Authentication of English, Spanish and French Versions
23
4. Paragraph 3 shall not apply to: (a) requirements that a Party adopts or maintains
relating to access to networks that are owned or controlled by the government, including
those of central banks; or (b) measures taken pursuant to supervisory, investigatory or
examination authority relating to financial institutions or markets. For greater certainty,
nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent law enforcement authorities from
requiring service suppliers using encryption they control from providing, pursuant to legal
procedures, unencrypted communications.
So inserting backdoors is not banned, but being forced to insert backdoors or weak algorithms is. Demanding keys that are "proprietary to the manufacturer or supplier" is banned, but the general case isn't. It also bans anyone from demanding to know what crypto is in a product and how it is being used, which is not so good (though they will likely be reverse-engineered anyway).
Huh? I don't see a prohibition om asking about what encryption is used, only on details of proprietary algorithms. And if you'reusing proprietary crypto...
Full text of TPP available. People sifting. A few of the things found already:
Internet service providers must give your name if requested by copyright holders cannot protect the identity of a user if a judiciary instructs to move forward from a copyright claim
ISPs must move quickly to remove material with a copyright claim against it
If your data/material/whatever is pulled down because of a bogus claim, you can't sue service providers
Malaysia gets to keep its heavy internet blocking
Apparently BLOCKS a country's right to demand backdoors into encryption
So I probably have an incorrect definition of what an ISP is then, because I didn't think they actually hosted anything?
edit: The follow up post doesn't really clear that up for me.
Full text of TPP available. People sifting. A few of the things found already:
Internet service providers must give your name if requested by copyright holders cannot protect the identity of a user if a judiciary instructs to move forward from a copyright claim
ISPs must move quickly to remove material with a copyright claim against it
If your data/material/whatever is pulled down because of a bogus claim, you can't sue service providers
Malaysia gets to keep its heavy internet blocking
Apparently BLOCKS a country's right to demand backdoors into encryption
So I probably have an incorrect definition of what an ISP is then, because I didn't think they actually hosted anything?
edit: The follow up post doesn't really clear that up for me.
Full text, ignoring annotations. I've bolded the clauses which may help clarify - 2(c) looks to be referring to online storage which ISPs provide, 2(d) is the hinky one, since it seems to be saying that they can be responsible for blocking sites which contain hyperlinks to copyrighted material, which is like....the Internet.
Article 18.82: Legal Remedies and Safe Harbours
1. The Parties recognise the importance of facilitating the continued development
of legitimate online services operating as intermediaries and, in a manner consistent
with Article 41 of the TRIPS Agreement, providing enforcement procedures that
permit effective action by right holders against copyright infringement covered under
this Chapter that occurs in the online environment. Accordingly, each Party shall
ensure that legal remedies are available for right holders to address such copyright
infringement and shall establish or maintain appropriate safe harbours in respect of
online services that are Internet Service Providers. This framework of legal remedies
and safe harbours shall include:
(a) legal incentives for Internet Service Providers to cooperate with
copyright owners to deter the unauthorised storage and transmission of
copyrighted materials or, in the alternative, to take other action to deter
the unauthorised storage and transmission of copyrighted materials;
and
(b) limitations in its law that have the effect of precluding monetary relief
against Internet Service Providers for copyright infringements that they
do not control, initiate or direct, and that take place through systems or
networks controlled or operated by them or on their behalf.
2. The limitations described in paragraph 1(b) shall include limitations in respect
of the following functions:
(a) transmitting, routing or providing connections for material without
modification of its content or the intermediate and transient
storage of that material done automatically in the course of such a
technical process;
(b) caching carried out through an automated process;
(c) storage, at the direction of a user, of material residing on a system
or network controlled or operated by or for the Internet Service
Provider; and
(d) referring or linking users to an online location by using information
location tools, including hyperlinks and directories.
3. To facilitate effective action to address infringement, each Party shall
prescribe in its law conditions for Internet Service Providers to qualify for the
limitations described in paragraph 1(b), or, alternatively, shall provide for
circumstances under which Internet Service Providers do not qualify for the
limitations described in paragraph 1(b):
(a) With respect to the functions referred to in paragraph 2(c) and
paragraph 2(d), these conditions shall include a requirement for
Internet Service Providers to expeditiously remove or disable access to
material residing on their networks or systems upon obtaining actual
knowledge of the copyright infringement or becoming aware of facts or
circumstances from which the infringement is apparent, such as
through receiving a notice of alleged infringement from the right
holder or a person authorised to act on its behalf,
(b) An Internet Service Provider that removes or disables access to
material in good faith under subparagraph (a) shall be exempt from any
liability for having done so, provided that it takes reasonable steps in
advance or promptly after to notify the person whose material is
removed or disabled.
4. If a system for counter-notices is provided under a Party’s law, and if material
has been removed or access has been disabled in accordance with paragraph 3, that
Party shall require that the Internet Service Provider restores the material subject to a
counter-notice, unless the person giving the original notice seeks judicial relief within
a reasonable period of time.
5. Each Party shall ensure that monetary remedies are available in its legal
system against any person that makes a knowing material misrepresentation in a
notice or counter-notice that causes injury to any interested party as a result of an
Internet Service Provider relying on the misrepresentation.
6. Eligibility for the limitations in paragraph 1 shall not be conditioned on the
Internet Service Provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts
indicating infringing activity.
7. Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in
accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due
process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient
claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service
Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in
cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing
that copyright.
8. The Parties understand that the failure of an Internet Service Provider to
qualify for the limitations in paragraph 1(b) does not itself result in liability. Further,
this Article is without prejudice to the availability of other limitations and exceptions
to copyright, or any other defences under a Party’s legal system.
9. The Parties recognise the importance, in implementing their obligations under
this Article, of taking into account the impacts on right holders and Internet Service
Providers.
Full text of TPP available. People sifting. A few of the things found already:
Internet service providers must give your name if requested by copyright holders cannot protect the identity of a user if a judiciary instructs to move forward from a copyright claim
ISPs must move quickly to remove material with a copyright claim against it
If your data/material/whatever is pulled down because of a bogus claim, you can't sue service providers
Malaysia gets to keep its heavy internet blocking
Apparently BLOCKS a country's right to demand backdoors into encryption
So I probably have an incorrect definition of what an ISP is then, because I didn't think they actually hosted anything?
edit: The follow up post doesn't really clear that up for me.
Forget the industry terms. An Internet Service Provider is literally that. A provider of a service on the internet. A webpage in this context is a service as would practically everything else.
Huh? I don't see a prohibition om asking about what encryption is used, only on details of proprietary algorithms. And if you'reusing proprietary crypto...
Yeah, but virtually anything can be considered a proprietary algorithm specification or design detail when you combine it with usage
Full text of TPP available. People sifting. A few of the things found already:
Internet service providers must give your name if requested by copyright holders cannot protect the identity of a user if a judiciary instructs to move forward from a copyright claim
ISPs must move quickly to remove material with a copyright claim against it
If your data/material/whatever is pulled down because of a bogus claim, you can't sue service providers
Malaysia gets to keep its heavy internet blocking
Apparently BLOCKS a country's right to demand backdoors into encryption
So I probably have an incorrect definition of what an ISP is then, because I didn't think they actually hosted anything?
edit: The follow up post doesn't really clear that up for me.
Full text, ignoring annotations. I've bolded the clauses which may help clarify - 2(c) looks to be referring to online storage which ISPs provide, 2(d) is the hinky one, since it seems to be saying that they can be responsible for blocking sites which contain hyperlinks to copyrighted material, which is like....the Internet.
Article 18.82: Legal Remedies and Safe Harbours
1. The Parties recognise the importance of facilitating the continued development
of legitimate online services operating as intermediaries and, in a manner consistent
with Article 41 of the TRIPS Agreement, providing enforcement procedures that
permit effective action by right holders against copyright infringement covered under
this Chapter that occurs in the online environment. Accordingly, each Party shall
ensure that legal remedies are available for right holders to address such copyright
infringement and shall establish or maintain appropriate safe harbours in respect of
online services that are Internet Service Providers. This framework of legal remedies
and safe harbours shall include:
(a) legal incentives for Internet Service Providers to cooperate with
copyright owners to deter the unauthorised storage and transmission of
copyrighted materials or, in the alternative, to take other action to deter
the unauthorised storage and transmission of copyrighted materials;
and
(b) limitations in its law that have the effect of precluding monetary relief
against Internet Service Providers for copyright infringements that they
do not control, initiate or direct, and that take place through systems or
networks controlled or operated by them or on their behalf.
2. The limitations described in paragraph 1(b) shall include limitations in respect
of the following functions:
(a) transmitting, routing or providing connections for material without
modification of its content or the intermediate and transient
storage of that material done automatically in the course of such a
technical process;
(b) caching carried out through an automated process;
(c) storage, at the direction of a user, of material residing on a system
or network controlled or operated by or for the Internet Service
Provider; and
(d) referring or linking users to an online location by using information
location tools, including hyperlinks and directories.
3. To facilitate effective action to address infringement, each Party shall
prescribe in its law conditions for Internet Service Providers to qualify for the
limitations described in paragraph 1(b), or, alternatively, shall provide for
circumstances under which Internet Service Providers do not qualify for the
limitations described in paragraph 1(b):
(a) With respect to the functions referred to in paragraph 2(c) and
paragraph 2(d), these conditions shall include a requirement for
Internet Service Providers to expeditiously remove or disable access to
material residing on their networks or systems upon obtaining actual
knowledge of the copyright infringement or becoming aware of facts or
circumstances from which the infringement is apparent, such as
through receiving a notice of alleged infringement from the right
holder or a person authorised to act on its behalf,
(b) An Internet Service Provider that removes or disables access to
material in good faith under subparagraph (a) shall be exempt from any
liability for having done so, provided that it takes reasonable steps in
advance or promptly after to notify the person whose material is
removed or disabled.
4. If a system for counter-notices is provided under a Party’s law, and if material
has been removed or access has been disabled in accordance with paragraph 3, that
Party shall require that the Internet Service Provider restores the material subject to a
counter-notice, unless the person giving the original notice seeks judicial relief within
a reasonable period of time.
5. Each Party shall ensure that monetary remedies are available in its legal
system against any person that makes a knowing material misrepresentation in a
notice or counter-notice that causes injury to any interested party as a result of an
Internet Service Provider relying on the misrepresentation.
6. Eligibility for the limitations in paragraph 1 shall not be conditioned on the
Internet Service Provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts
indicating infringing activity.
7. Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in
accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due
process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient
claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service
Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in
cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing
that copyright.
8. The Parties understand that the failure of an Internet Service Provider to
qualify for the limitations in paragraph 1(b) does not itself result in liability. Further,
this Article is without prejudice to the availability of other limitations and exceptions
to copyright, or any other defences under a Party’s legal system.
9. The Parties recognise the importance, in implementing their obligations under
this Article, of taking into account the impacts on right holders and Internet Service
Providers.
So it seems to me that this either does nothing, if it's only material stored on the ISPs own servers (does caching count?), or does everything if they meant preventing access to their user to external websites and hosting sites.
Hopefully it's not the latter, because that's crazy town.
So it's *just* enshrining DMCA as the standard for which other countries will have to apply their stuff. Could be better, could be a lot worse.
Not so sure. I can construct an argument as to why national courts would be advantageous to their citizens and general public good. But I cannot construct such an argument for international courts.
In some cases we can kind of ignore this because it's the only way and the trade deals are otherwise fine. But for IP I think it's a lot easier to extract value from a nation for various reasons.
Basically the DMCA is bad but imagine a court that was determined to enforce it strictly and harshly? That is what we could be getting.
The whole premise of Brave, its raison d'être if you will, is that it automatically blocks programmatic online advertising and tracking cookies by default. Programmatic advertising refers to ads that are placed on websites via automated software. Most websites run a mix of conventional display advertising, which is bought and sold in human-to-human advertising deals, and programmatic advertising.
In theory, much like if you installed Ghostery or Adblock Plus, this results in a faster—and potentially safer, in the case of malvertising—Web browsing experience.
In practice, Brave just sounds like a cash-grab. Brave isn't just a glorified adblocker: after removing ads from a webpage, Brave then inserts its own programmatic ads. It sounds like these ads will be filled by ad networks that work with Brave directly, and Brave will somehow police these ads to make sure they're less invasive/malevolent than the original ads that were stripped out. In exchange, Brave will take a 15 percent cut of the ad revenue. Instead of using tracking cookies that follow you around the Internet, Brave will use your local browsing history to target ads.
Edit: I'm just left wondering how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
The whole premise of Brave, its raison d'être if you will, is that it automatically blocks programmatic online advertising and tracking cookies by default. Programmatic advertising refers to ads that are placed on websites via automated software. Most websites run a mix of conventional display advertising, which is bought and sold in human-to-human advertising deals, and programmatic advertising.
In theory, much like if you installed Ghostery or Adblock Plus, this results in a faster—and potentially safer, in the case of malvertising—Web browsing experience.
In practice, Brave just sounds like a cash-grab. Brave isn't just a glorified adblocker: after removing ads from a webpage, Brave then inserts its own programmatic ads. It sounds like these ads will be filled by ad networks that work with Brave directly, and Brave will somehow police these ads to make sure they're less invasive/malevolent than the original ads that were stripped out. In exchange, Brave will take a 15 percent cut of the ad revenue. Instead of using tracking cookies that follow you around the Internet, Brave will use your local browsing history to target ads.
Edit: I'm just left wondering how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
This might have been a good idea in the pre-Ad-Block days. Hell, the primary reason I got Ad-Block was malicious ads being served up by some sites, in particular Wikia. But it seems like a lot of effort for a user to engage in just to get ads BACK in their browsing experience.
How insane do you have to be to even try to jump in the web browser game these days? What market share is he realistically aiming for, .5%?
.1% of a lot is still something. Also developing markets and hey China might want an official browser with preloaded censorship options!
I have seen a malware version of these already on... family... computers I had to wipe. Basically hijacks a web browser by closing it and opening a new web browser program with injected ads and links and redirects. You would never even know it was a different browser. Even added it's own search results to google smoothly.
Glad on the encryption provision. God knows people have enough trouble keeping things locked without easily exploitable back doors.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
The whole premise of Brave, its raison d'être if you will, is that it automatically blocks programmatic online advertising and tracking cookies by default. Programmatic advertising refers to ads that are placed on websites via automated software. Most websites run a mix of conventional display advertising, which is bought and sold in human-to-human advertising deals, and programmatic advertising.
In theory, much like if you installed Ghostery or Adblock Plus, this results in a faster—and potentially safer, in the case of malvertising—Web browsing experience.
In practice, Brave just sounds like a cash-grab. Brave isn't just a glorified adblocker: after removing ads from a webpage, Brave then inserts its own programmatic ads. It sounds like these ads will be filled by ad networks that work with Brave directly, and Brave will somehow police these ads to make sure they're less invasive/malevolent than the original ads that were stripped out. In exchange, Brave will take a 15 percent cut of the ad revenue. Instead of using tracking cookies that follow you around the Internet, Brave will use your local browsing history to target ads.
Edit: I'm just left wondering how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
It doesn't seem like it now, but give this a few generations and it will be amazing , as layer after layer gets added of removing one type of ad to replace with another, but then removes those ads to replace with another, like some gladiatorial Web Colosseum.
The whole premise of Brave, its raison d'être if you will, is that it automatically blocks programmatic online advertising and tracking cookies by default. Programmatic advertising refers to ads that are placed on websites via automated software. Most websites run a mix of conventional display advertising, which is bought and sold in human-to-human advertising deals, and programmatic advertising.
In theory, much like if you installed Ghostery or Adblock Plus, this results in a faster—and potentially safer, in the case of malvertising—Web browsing experience.
In practice, Brave just sounds like a cash-grab. Brave isn't just a glorified adblocker: after removing ads from a webpage, Brave then inserts its own programmatic ads. It sounds like these ads will be filled by ad networks that work with Brave directly, and Brave will somehow police these ads to make sure they're less invasive/malevolent than the original ads that were stripped out. In exchange, Brave will take a 15 percent cut of the ad revenue. Instead of using tracking cookies that follow you around the Internet, Brave will use your local browsing history to target ads.
Edit: I'm just left wondering how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
It doesn't seem like it now, but give this a few generations and it will be amazing , as layer after layer gets added of removing one type of ad to replace with another, but then removes those ads to replace with another, like some gladiatorial Web Colosseum.
The whole premise of Brave, its raison d'être if you will, is that it automatically blocks programmatic online advertising and tracking cookies by default. Programmatic advertising refers to ads that are placed on websites via automated software. Most websites run a mix of conventional display advertising, which is bought and sold in human-to-human advertising deals, and programmatic advertising.
In theory, much like if you installed Ghostery or Adblock Plus, this results in a faster—and potentially safer, in the case of malvertising—Web browsing experience.
In practice, Brave just sounds like a cash-grab. Brave isn't just a glorified adblocker: after removing ads from a webpage, Brave then inserts its own programmatic ads. It sounds like these ads will be filled by ad networks that work with Brave directly, and Brave will somehow police these ads to make sure they're less invasive/malevolent than the original ads that were stripped out. In exchange, Brave will take a 15 percent cut of the ad revenue. Instead of using tracking cookies that follow you around the Internet, Brave will use your local browsing history to target ads.
Edit: I'm just left wondering how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
It doesn't seem like it now, but give this a few generations and it will be amazing , as layer after layer gets added of removing one type of ad to replace with another, but then removes those ads to replace with another, like some gladiatorial Web Colosseum.
The whole premise of Brave, its raison d'être if you will, is that it automatically blocks programmatic online advertising and tracking cookies by default. Programmatic advertising refers to ads that are placed on websites via automated software. Most websites run a mix of conventional display advertising, which is bought and sold in human-to-human advertising deals, and programmatic advertising.
In theory, much like if you installed Ghostery or Adblock Plus, this results in a faster—and potentially safer, in the case of malvertising—Web browsing experience.
In practice, Brave just sounds like a cash-grab. Brave isn't just a glorified adblocker: after removing ads from a webpage, Brave then inserts its own programmatic ads. It sounds like these ads will be filled by ad networks that work with Brave directly, and Brave will somehow police these ads to make sure they're less invasive/malevolent than the original ads that were stripped out. In exchange, Brave will take a 15 percent cut of the ad revenue. Instead of using tracking cookies that follow you around the Internet, Brave will use your local browsing history to target ads.
Edit: I'm just left wondering how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
It doesn't seem like it now, but give this a few generations and it will be amazing , as layer after layer gets added of removing one type of ad to replace with another, but then removes those ads to replace with another, like some gladiatorial Web Colosseum.
Huh, haven't been in here, so I'm dredging in an old point, but in terms of Malaysia's internet blocking... well, most major porn sites are blocked here, and the government is, shall we say, sensitive to people talking shit about them on the internet these days. They claim that no one should say anything to disturb the peace, but they can have a very loose definition of what that means sometimes. That said, most web sites and social media platforms are available and not particularly restricted.
I'd imagine that the 4th point listed above regarding the TPP wouldn't really make things that much worse, but I have my concerns.
First, Facebook’s Free Basics platform was effectively banned in India. Then, a high-profile member of Facebook’s board of directors, the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, sounded off about the decision to his nearly half-a-million Twitter followers with a stunning comment.
“Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades,” Andreessen wrote. “Why stop now?”
After that, the Internet went nuts.
Andreessen deleted his tweet, apologized, and underscored that he is “100 percent opposed to colonialism” and “100 percent in favor of independence and freedom.” Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, followed up with his own Facebook post to say Andreessen’s comment was “deeply upsetting” to him, and not representative of the way he thinks “at all.”
The kerfuffle elicited a torrent of criticism for Andreessen, but the connection he made—between Facebook’s global expansion and colonialism—is nothing new. Which probably helps explain why Zuckerberg felt the need to step in, and which brings us back to Free Basics. The platform, billed by Facebook as a way to help people connect to the Internet for the first time, offers a stripped-down version of the mobile web that people can use without it counting toward their data-usage limit.
And yes, India was absolutely right in returning the large wooden horse from Facebook.
The whole premise of Brave, its raison d'être if you will, is that it automatically blocks programmatic online advertising and tracking cookies by default. Programmatic advertising refers to ads that are placed on websites via automated software. Most websites run a mix of conventional display advertising, which is bought and sold in human-to-human advertising deals, and programmatic advertising.
In theory, much like if you installed Ghostery or Adblock Plus, this results in a faster—and potentially safer, in the case of malvertising—Web browsing experience.
In practice, Brave just sounds like a cash-grab. Brave isn't just a glorified adblocker: after removing ads from a webpage, Brave then inserts its own programmatic ads. It sounds like these ads will be filled by ad networks that work with Brave directly, and Brave will somehow police these ads to make sure they're less invasive/malevolent than the original ads that were stripped out. In exchange, Brave will take a 15 percent cut of the ad revenue. Instead of using tracking cookies that follow you around the Internet, Brave will use your local browsing history to target ads.
Edit: I'm just left wondering how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
It doesn't seem like it now, but give this a few generations and it will be amazing , as layer after layer gets added of removing one type of ad to replace with another, but then removes those ads to replace with another, like some gladiatorial Web Colosseum.
Last Ad Standing
*loads NoScript*
Then the website doesn't let you use it until you disable your blocker.
So you go in a search for a blocker for that blocker responding to your blocker.
And yes, India was absolutely right in returning the large wooden horse from Facebook.
Here in Swedistan we currently have 3, the cell phone company, going "what's the big deal?" about the criticism for them making Spotify and Tidal not count against your data plan. They've promised that they'd open the option up for more services in the name of fair competition, but that one particular journalist they're probably trying to hate to death that calls them once a month and asks if there are any new services yet and then loudly reports on this says it ain't happened so far.
They're probably extra annoyed at his latest article, comparing the situation to if your power company makes a deal with Electrolux, where Electrolux tools and appliances are free on your power bill and how that totally wouldn't be an unfair advantage.
First, Facebook’s Free Basics platform was effectively banned in India. Then, a high-profile member of Facebook’s board of directors, the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, sounded off about the decision to his nearly half-a-million Twitter followers with a stunning comment.
“Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades,” Andreessen wrote. “Why stop now?”
After that, the Internet went nuts.
Andreessen deleted his tweet, apologized, and underscored that he is “100 percent opposed to colonialism” and “100 percent in favor of independence and freedom.” Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, followed up with his own Facebook post to say Andreessen’s comment was “deeply upsetting” to him, and not representative of the way he thinks “at all.”
The kerfuffle elicited a torrent of criticism for Andreessen, but the connection he made—between Facebook’s global expansion and colonialism—is nothing new. Which probably helps explain why Zuckerberg felt the need to step in, and which brings us back to Free Basics. The platform, billed by Facebook as a way to help people connect to the Internet for the first time, offers a stripped-down version of the mobile web that people can use without it counting toward their data-usage limit.
And yes, India was absolutely right in returning the large wooden horse from Facebook.
Apparently also it only had about a million users, most of which were people who already had internet access, they were just trying to shave some money off their mobile data bill.
And yes, India was absolutely right in returning the large wooden horse from Facebook.
Here in Swedistan we currently have 3, the cell phone company, going "what's the big deal?" about the criticism for them making Spotify and Tidal not count against your data plan. They've promised that they'd open the option up for more services in the name of fair competition, but that one particular journalist they're probably trying to hate to death that calls them once a month and asks if there are any new services yet and then loudly reports on this says it ain't happened so far.
They're probably extra annoyed at his latest article, comparing the situation to if your power company makes a deal with Electrolux, where Electrolux tools and appliances are free on your power bill and how that totally wouldn't be an unfair advantage.
That's a pretty good comparison. I'll have to remember it.
And yes, India was absolutely right in returning the large wooden horse from Facebook.
Here in Swedistan we currently have 3, the cell phone company, going "what's the big deal?" about the criticism for them making Spotify and Tidal not count against your data plan. They've promised that they'd open the option up for more services in the name of fair competition, but that one particular journalist they're probably trying to hate to death that calls them once a month and asks if there are any new services yet and then loudly reports on this says it ain't happened so far.
They're probably extra annoyed at his latest article, comparing the situation to if your power company makes a deal with Electrolux, where Electrolux tools and appliances are free on your power bill and how that totally wouldn't be an unfair advantage.
...And here's an example of why net neutrality is important.
So what are the odds the government will ever start enforcing upgrades to our infrastructure so that everyone can get high speed internet? I know they've given money or tax cuts to Comcast and the like to do this and they haven't followed through, but a situation my parents, who live in a rural area, are going through has made me realize how utterly ridiculous it's become.
Their provider recently lost a class action suit for not providing speeds even remotely close to what they were selling which resulted in them having to give all of their customers in that state service for like $10 a month for a year. They then refused to give them that deal because their lines were rated to give faster speeds (even though they still don't get those faster speeds). They then said they would need to have someone come out and test their speeds (because speedtest.net screenshots were insufficient). The maintenance guy didn't show up and they have to wait another week for him to not show up again.
All that is to give an example to ask, is it time the government takes over the infrastructure upgrades itself and more closely monitors the speeds ISPs are providing?
I'm not even suggesting pushing out the private ISPs (even though the few that I've read of that are ran by municipalities are far superior and cheaper). Just suggesting they do the up drags themselves in the name of public intrest as opposed to continually giving the private sector money and tax cuts when they promise to do it and then don't.
So what are the odds the government will ever start enforcing upgrades to our infrastructure so that everyone can get high speed internet? I know they've given money or tax cuts to Comcast and the like to do this and they haven't followed through, but a situation my parents, who live in a rural area, are going through has made me realize how utterly ridiculous it's become.
Their provider recently lost a class action suit for not providing speeds even remotely close to what they were selling which resulted in them having to give all of their customers in that state service for like $10 a month for a year. They then refused to give them that deal because their lines were rated to give faster speeds (even though they still don't get those faster speeds). They then said they would need to have someone come out and test their speeds (because speedtest.net screenshots were insufficient). The maintenance guy didn't show up and they have to wait another week for him to not show up again.
All that is to give an example to ask, is it time the government takes over the infrastructure upgrades itself and more closely monitors the speeds ISPs are providing?
We did this in Australia. The National Broadband Network was a fibre-to-the-premises fibre network that covered ~90% of Australia (with fixed wireless and satellites filling the rest). In areas it's been deployed, it's reliably delivered 100mbps connections (with 1Gbp/s possible with software updates), which is far beyond the ~6-18mb/s average that the often corroded and decaying copper of the monopoly provider Telstra could provide over ADSL. Private ISPs still existed, but the network infrastructure from the customer's house up to the ISP's own network was run and wholesaled by a government entity (NBNCo).
Then the main conservative party won the election.
The NBN has screeched to a halt. Their big idea was to stop fibre deployment and change to fibre to the node, with street-level being done with that old copper. It's much less reliable, in some cases worse than ADSL(!), and has completely messed up the rollout schedule. Multiple companies have collapsed given lack of work for contractors. Tremendous amounts of money have been given to Telstra to fix their own copper network and then buy it off them. It's now a total quagmire.
And I wonder why I've held more antipathy towards the right as I've grown older rather than less...
This week, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that you can get your cable through devices besides your company’s cable box. The ruling means that instead of having to rent the box from, say, Time Warner or ATT Uverse, you will be able to add that subscription onto your Apple TV, Fire TV, Android TV and Roku boxes. You still have to have a cable subscription, but the massive rental fees will be a thing of the past. What does that really mean? Well, it’s going to give cable companies some competition and hopefully reduce the amount of money you have to spend every month. It’s not a done deal yet, but this is the first step in what is likely inevitable as industry standards change and people are cutting the cord in droves.
So Sanders, Warren, Franken, Markey and Wyden sent a letter to the DoJ and FEC warning against Charter Communications trying to get ahold of Warner and Bright House
Sanders and Democratic Senators Call for Careful Evaluation of Proposed New Charter Deal
Thursday, February 25, 2016
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 – Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) today sent a letter to the Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission urging the agencies to consider the potential harmful effects that could result from the proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks by Charter Communications.
The proposed “New Charter” deal would effectively create a nationwide broadband duopoly, leaving New Charter and Comcast largely in control of nearly two-thirds of the nation’s high-speed broadband homes. The senators also expressed concern about how the amount of debt New Charter will undertake as a result of the deal could negatively impact any commitments it has made to build out its network, including in rural areas.
“Unfortunately, the proposed deal raises serious concerns about the future of this critical marketplace because it would establish a duopoly in the high-speed broadband industry. Comcast and New Charter’s dual dominance of the market could lead to a number of concrete harms to consumers, including higher prices and fewer innovative services,” write the senators in a letter to the Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission. “New Charter must not only prove that this deal would not harm consumers, but they must also demonstrate that it would actually benefit them and promote the public interest.”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has reprimanded employees following several incidents in which the slogan “black lives matter” was crossed out and replaced with “all lives matter” on the walls of the company’s Menlo Park headquarters.
“‘Black lives matter’ doesn’t mean other lives don’t – it’s simply asking that the black community also achieves the justice they deserve,” Zuckerberg wrote in an internal Facebook post obtained by Gizmodo.
Zuckerberg expressed dismay that despite his “clear communication” at a company question and answer session the week before that such behavior was “unacceptable”, employees had continued to change the messages.
“I was already very disappointed by this disrespectful behavior before, but after my communication I now consider this malicious as well,” he wrote.
Posts
1.
It prevents ISPs from protecting the identity of the user once a judicial body has decided the claim is sufficient to move forward. Which is a hell of a difference. I'll edit my first post.
2.
3.
4.
5.
So inserting backdoors is not banned, but being forced to insert backdoors or weak algorithms is. Demanding keys that are "proprietary to the manufacturer or supplier" is banned, but the general case isn't. It also bans anyone from demanding to know what crypto is in a product and how it is being used, which is not so good (though they will likely be reverse-engineered anyway).
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
So I probably have an incorrect definition of what an ISP is then, because I didn't think they actually hosted anything?
edit: The follow up post doesn't really clear that up for me.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Full text, ignoring annotations. I've bolded the clauses which may help clarify - 2(c) looks to be referring to online storage which ISPs provide, 2(d) is the hinky one, since it seems to be saying that they can be responsible for blocking sites which contain hyperlinks to copyrighted material, which is like....the Internet.
Forget the industry terms. An Internet Service Provider is literally that. A provider of a service on the internet. A webpage in this context is a service as would practically everything else.
Yeah, but virtually anything can be considered a proprietary algorithm specification or design detail when you combine it with usage
At any rate, Diffie-Helman is not a proprietary algorithm, for instance.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
So it seems to me that this either does nothing, if it's only material stored on the ISPs own servers (does caching count?), or does everything if they meant preventing access to their user to external websites and hosting sites.
Hopefully it's not the latter, because that's crazy town.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Not so sure. I can construct an argument as to why national courts would be advantageous to their citizens and general public good. But I cannot construct such an argument for international courts.
In some cases we can kind of ignore this because it's the only way and the trade deals are otherwise fine. But for IP I think it's a lot easier to extract value from a nation for various reasons.
Basically the DMCA is bad but imagine a court that was determined to enforce it strictly and harshly? That is what we could be getting.
Edit: I'm just left wondering how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
This might have been a good idea in the pre-Ad-Block days. Hell, the primary reason I got Ad-Block was malicious ads being served up by some sites, in particular Wikia. But it seems like a lot of effort for a user to engage in just to get ads BACK in their browsing experience.
Steam | XBL
.1% of a lot is still something. Also developing markets and hey China might want an official browser with preloaded censorship options!
I have seen a malware version of these already on... family... computers I had to wipe. Basically hijacks a web browser by closing it and opening a new web browser program with injected ads and links and redirects. You would never even know it was a different browser. Even added it's own search results to google smoothly.
Glad on the encryption provision. God knows people have enough trouble keeping things locked without easily exploitable back doors.
It doesn't seem like it now, but give this a few generations and it will be amazing , as layer after layer gets added of removing one type of ad to replace with another, but then removes those ads to replace with another, like some gladiatorial Web Colosseum.
Last Ad Standing
*loads NoScript*
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
And then reads your browsing history to target ads anyway.
Just the type of dumb nonsense I expect from the dude that created javascript.
Barebacking it I see. You saucy devil.
Bare metal more like it.
Security 101: Physical access beats everything.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I'd imagine that the 4th point listed above regarding the TPP wouldn't really make things that much worse, but I have my concerns.
Facebook investors don't take this well.
Internet promptly Internets.
And yes, India was absolutely right in returning the large wooden horse from Facebook.
Then the website doesn't let you use it until you disable your blocker.
So you go in a search for a blocker for that blocker responding to your blocker.
Turtles all the way down.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Well, what is amazing is that Facebook actually thought that courts would surrender their sovereignty.
Here in Swedistan we currently have 3, the cell phone company, going "what's the big deal?" about the criticism for them making Spotify and Tidal not count against your data plan. They've promised that they'd open the option up for more services in the name of fair competition, but that one particular journalist they're probably trying to hate to death that calls them once a month and asks if there are any new services yet and then loudly reports on this says it ain't happened so far.
They're probably extra annoyed at his latest article, comparing the situation to if your power company makes a deal with Electrolux, where Electrolux tools and appliances are free on your power bill and how that totally wouldn't be an unfair advantage.
Apparently also it only had about a million users, most of which were people who already had internet access, they were just trying to shave some money off their mobile data bill.
That's a pretty good comparison. I'll have to remember it.
...And here's an example of why net neutrality is important.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Their provider recently lost a class action suit for not providing speeds even remotely close to what they were selling which resulted in them having to give all of their customers in that state service for like $10 a month for a year. They then refused to give them that deal because their lines were rated to give faster speeds (even though they still don't get those faster speeds). They then said they would need to have someone come out and test their speeds (because speedtest.net screenshots were insufficient). The maintenance guy didn't show up and they have to wait another week for him to not show up again.
All that is to give an example to ask, is it time the government takes over the infrastructure upgrades itself and more closely monitors the speeds ISPs are providing?
We did this in Australia. The National Broadband Network was a fibre-to-the-premises fibre network that covered ~90% of Australia (with fixed wireless and satellites filling the rest). In areas it's been deployed, it's reliably delivered 100mbps connections (with 1Gbp/s possible with software updates), which is far beyond the ~6-18mb/s average that the often corroded and decaying copper of the monopoly provider Telstra could provide over ADSL. Private ISPs still existed, but the network infrastructure from the customer's house up to the ISP's own network was run and wholesaled by a government entity (NBNCo).
Then the main conservative party won the election.
The NBN has screeched to a halt. Their big idea was to stop fibre deployment and change to fibre to the node, with street-level being done with that old copper. It's much less reliable, in some cases worse than ADSL(!), and has completely messed up the rollout schedule. Multiple companies have collapsed given lack of work for contractors. Tremendous amounts of money have been given to Telstra to fix their own copper network and then buy it off them. It's now a total quagmire.
And I wonder why I've held more antipathy towards the right as I've grown older rather than less...
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-and-democratic-senators-call-for-careful-evaluation-of-proposed-new-charter-deal?utm_content=buffer64154&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
http://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016-02-25-TWC-Charter-Letter.pdf