D G

pt3

pt2

pt1

In 2007 we uncovered that Comcast was systematically slowing down BitTorrent traffic to ease the load on its network.

The Comcast case was the first to ignite a broad discussion about Net Neutrality. It became the setup for the FCC’s Open Internet Order which was released three years later.

This Open Internet Order was the foundation of the Net Neutrality rules the FCC adopted two weeks ago. The big change compared to the earlier attempt is that ISPs can now be regulated as carriers under Title II.

Interestingly, the exact language of the new rules remained secret until three days ago. The broader concepts, including a ban on paid prioritization and blocking were known, but the fine print was kept secret until everything was signed off on.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the full text has quite a few caveats.

When we read the new rules it’s clear that the “copyright loophole” many activists protested against in the past is still there. In short, ISPs can still throttle or block certain types of traffic as long as it’s related to copyright infringement.

In its most recent order the FCC has listed the following rule:

“Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity.”

The FCC argues that copyright infringement hurts the economy, so ISPs are free to take appropriate measures against this type of traffic. This includes the voluntary censoring of pirate sites, something the MPAA and RIAA are currently lobbying for.

“For example, the no-blocking rule should not be invoked to protect copyright infringement, which has adverse consequences for the economy, nor should it protect child pornography. We reiterate that our rules do not alter the copyright laws and are not intended to prohibit or discourage voluntary practices undertaken to address or mitigate the occurrence of copyright infringement,” the FCC explains.

Interestingly, this issue has been pretty much absent from the discussion in recent months. This is curious as many activist groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), protested heavily against the copyright loophole in the past, issuing warnings over massive collateral damage.

“Carving a copyright loophole in net neutrality would leave your lawful activities at the mercy of overbroad copyright filtering schemes, and we already have plenty of experience with copyright enforcers targeting legitimate users by mistake, carelessness, or design,” the EFF wrote at the time.

So why was there little outrage about the copyright loophole this time around? TF contacted EFF staff attorney Kit Walsh who admits that the issue didn’t get much attention, but that it’s certainly problematic.

“The language about ‘lawful’ content and applications creates a serious loophole that seems to leave it up to ISPs to make judgments about what content is lawful or infringes a copyright, subject to challenges after the fact about whether their conduct was ‘reasonable’,” Walsh says.

“It’s one thing to say that ISPs can block subject to a valid court order, quite another to let ISPs make decisions about the lawfulness of content for themselves,” he adds.

According to Walsh the issue is particularly concerning because many ISPs also have their own media properties. This means that their incentive to block copyright infringement may be greater than the incentive to protect fair use material.

For example, although the Net Neutrality rules prescribe no blocking and throttling, ISPs could still block access to The Pirate Bay and other alleged pirate sites as an anti-piracy measure. Throttling BitTorrent traffic in general is also an option, as long as it’s framed as reasonable network management.

A related concern is that ISPs can use privacy invasive technologies such as Deep Packet Inspection to monitor users’ traffic for possible copyright violations. The FCC didn’t include any protections against these practices. Instead, it simply noted that people can use SSL, VPNs and TOR to circumvent it.

“The FCC’s response to concerns about deep packet inspection is that users can just use SSL, VPNs and TOR,” Walsh says.

“Of course SSL, VPNs, and TOR are great tools for Internet users to preserve their privacy, but this approach of leaving users to fend for themselves isn’t a great start for the FCC on protecting the privacy of broadband subscribers,” he adds.

The above makes it clear that Net Neutrality has its limits. The problem remains, however, that it’s still unclear how far ISPs can go under the “copyright” and “network management” loopholes.

Previously, the EFF seriously doubted if it was a good idea at all to give FCC control over the Internet. However, as things stand now they are happy with the new rules, even though they aren’t perfect.

Title II regulation with forbearance was the main goal, and that was achieved. In addition, the EFF is also content with the bright line rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of “lawful” traffic.

“We won a large portion of what we argued for, thanks to a broad coalition of advocates and the voices of four million Americans, but we did not get everything we wanted. We’re clearly better off overall with the order than without, but we’re not going to hesitate to criticize the areas where the FCC gets it wrong,” Walsh says.

Fingers crossed….

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and anonymous VPN services.

Time catching hell for cover that gives Hillary devil horns. Every once in a while the media accidentally gets something right.

I like food that's as close to being alive (or fresh, depending on your perspective) as possible. That's partly because it tastes better but also because it's tingly to see food move when you don't expect it too. This blooming chocolate dessert is a mover, all right. As you pour the cream onto the dish, the chocolate strip opens up like a flower.

Read more...

A massive German police operation this week has led to the what may be the largest-ever Deep Web drugs bust, Wired reports.

7 people were arrested as police raided 38 locations across the country in a move to take down "Shiny Flakes," an online drug-selling operation. The narcotics were sold through Evolution, an illicit online marketplace only accessible through the anonymous Tor network.

There have been Deep Web drug-related busts before. Last month Ross Ulbricht was found guilty of operating the Silk Road, a now-shuttered marketplace which was, at its peak, the largest online market for illegal drugs in the world. (Ulbricht did not sell drugs himself, however.) And in November 2014, a year after Ulbricht was first arrested, international police operation Operation Onymous closed hundreds of deep web websites (including Silk Road 2.0) and made 17 arrests.

However, Deep Dot Web — a Deep Web-focused news site — believes this week's bust constitutes the largest ever seizure.

360 kilograms of narcotics are included in the haul, including marijuana, MDMA, cocaine, MDA, amphetamines, and LSD, with an estimated value of more than $4 million. $340,000-worth of Bitcoin — the digital currency typically used to facilitate Deep Web purchases — was also found, along with another $51,000 in cash, according to Deep Dot Web.

An unidentified 20-year-old man arrested in Leipzig is allegedly the ringleader of Shiny Flakes.

Here's a police photo of the massive haul:

Blocks of hashish were seized, along with blotters of LSD, bags of marijuana and prescription drugs.

Law enforcement also found cocaine, MDMA and MDA.

German police have released a video of the drugs seized:

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's the incredible story behind the guy who was just convicted for creating the 'eBay for drugs'

uhhheeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

The most delicious ramen ever. Walmart has it. Fantastic. Nose ran for 15 minutes after finishing it.

"I did not have typographical relations with anyone..."

Source: Investors

The good news? The latest report by OpenSignal indicates that T-Mobile has the fastest performing LTE network in the United States. The bad news? That same full report (pdf) found that average LTE speeds in the United States dramatically lag behind LTE performance in other countries.

The full study tracked LTE performance in 29 different countries, and found that while the US ranks well in terms of the amount of time that customers are able to connect to LTE networks (read: reliable availability), the country is ranked 25 out of 29 when it comes to LTE speeds.

This same report last year found US LTE offered the second slowest average LTE speeds globally (behind the Philippines). So while the country has seen improvement, being ranked twenty sixth in average LTE speeds isn't exactly something to write home about, and the findings run contrary to the conventional wisdom that while US fixed-networks may be lagging, we're a clear wireless leader.

Back to a specific examination of US carrier performance, T-Mobile logged the fastest LTE network in the States with an average downstream speed of 9.98Mbps overall. That's compared to an average downstream speed of around 6.5 Mbps for AT&T and Verizon. A good portion of the poor US showing is courtesy of Sprint and Cricket, which offered average LTE speeds of 4 Mbps and 2.9 Mbps, respectively.
read comment(s)