from the be-responsible-for-your-own-security dept.
Net neutrality is a hot topic, apparently.
When BEREC, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, launched a six week public consultation on the issue this June, they sure as heck didn't expect 481,547 responses. Somewhat miraculously, they managed to sift, analyze and classify through all of them in another 6 weeks. That's 16,051 requests, and a couple of paragraphs, for the mathematically challenged amongst you, per day. Which makes for a first observation: European holidays aren't what they're presumed to be, anymore.
Second observation: the turd of an end product is a whopping mere 45 pages, which you will no doubt be delighted to read in a jiffy.
And third, final observation: something funny on page 20 [para 78]:
By way of example, ISPs should not block, slow down, alter, restrict, interfere with, degrade or discriminate advertising when providing an IAS, unless the conditions of the exceptions a), b) or c) are met in a specific case.
To give some context: at least one telecom provider in the EU is toying with the idea of attracting customers by doing the ad-blocking for them. This little para does block this as a general business practice. There is, however, a small opening though, in exception (b) mentioned (grey area, Article 3(3) (b), page 21):
(b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, of services provided via that network, and of the terminal equipment of end-users;
If malware can be associated with a particular ad provider, the published guidelines allow blocking of all its ads from the telecom provider's network.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Absolutely.Geek on Thursday September 01 2016, @03:55AM
If it is allowed that ad networks that serve up malware are blocked at the ISP level; it will force ad network providers to look much harder at what they are serving up....
But then again I'm sure that it will be too difficult to actually vet all content; so they will obviously try for a solution where the correct people are paid some money to sweep any malware occurrences under the carpet.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @05:20AM
China censors the internet, nerds scream, "THAT'S JUST EVIL!"
Europe censors the internet, nerds say, "Cool, thanks!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @07:11AM
At least they are fucking. Unlike you.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday September 01 2016, @07:13AM
China censors the internet, nerds scream, "THAT'S JUST EVIL!"
Europe removes the need for adblockers, nerds say, "Cool, thanks!"
ftfy
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @08:29AM
Look, asshole, an ISP does not get to censor my content. When I detect an ISP is modifying my content in any way, I cancel my service and go elsewhere. I have before, and I will again.
I choose which ads I want to block. Absolutely no one makes that choice for me. Not ever.
Also, FUCK. YOU.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @02:42PM
Please be on the lookout for an ad that says "By Felicia". The rest of us won't see it due to our real ad blockers (and not our faux outrage ad blockers that, ironically, don't block faux outrage).
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 01 2016, @05:15PM
A possibly interesting point lost in the noise of douchiness. Alas...
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday September 01 2016, @07:47AM
Second observation: the turd of an end product is a whopping mere 45 pages
First, you should decide which way you're going to go with your exaggeration.
which you will no doubt be delighted to read in a jiffy.
Bloody hell. It's 45 pages. That's nothing. You should be astonished that it's not 45 volumes.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by quietus on Thursday September 01 2016, @07:13PM
Duly noted -- I'll throw in a triffle and grand total, next time.
(at your service, for your eyes only, mi cojones son ti cojones etcetera)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday September 01 2016, @09:29AM
The exceptions that state when an ISP can interfere with traffic - these are interesting. Quick summary:
(a) To comply with EU or national legislation. So a government may require an ISP to censor. This includes not only legislation but also court orders and "public authorities vested with relevant powers".
(b) To preserve the integrity and security of the network, services and end-user terminal equipment. This specifically "distribution of malicious software", so this is a clear invitation to filter out known sources of malware.
(c) Preventing network congestion "in exceptional cases, and for no longer than necessary". Fair enough: a bit overly general, but they do emphasize the temporary nature of any such measures.
The one that bothers me the most is (a). European governments generally take the attitude that censorship is a good thing, if it promotes a more peaceful society. That leaves the door wide open for governments to abuse their power and quash the opinions of their citizens. Do it carefully (like Twitter is currently doing [breitbart.com]), and people may not even realize that they are being censored.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @09:50AM
Interesting, since ads seem to have become the primary source of malicious software, they could argue that blocking ads meets condition b) ?
(I seriously wish I could figure out why adblock plus does not work on my phone, I've stumbled across one of those "you've been infected, click here to start scanning your phone" scams twice while surfing seemingly non dodgy sites in the past week.)
(Score: 2) by shrewdsheep on Thursday September 01 2016, @11:47AM
It appears to me that the article is only relevant to http-traffic which should become less and less relevant in the future. I do surf with adblock only, so cannot judge but are ads still served via http?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @12:30PM
I don't even want upstream ad-blocking. I'd rather have more control over the what and when. I assume upstream ad blocking would mean using the ISP's site or some Windows/iPhone-only app of theirs to manage the settings, which would probably be more tedious for my use case than the sort of spot exceptions I can make in every browser or adblock extension.
But why make a law about this? Let the market play it out. I don't see how having it/not having it is really that big of a problem for the fate of communities or nations.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @02:45PM
I assume upstream ad blocking would mean using the ISP's site or some Windows/iPhone-only app of theirs to manage the settings
I don't think they'll ever give you the option of "settings". This is an intermediate step in providing "ad tolls" for those advertisers who are willing to pay extra to be delivered to these ISPs' customers.
That's a nice ad you've got there ... be a shame if something happened to it on the way to a browser."