Please get your facts straight. The only part of that directive (not bill, directive) that allows retaining data is article 15.1
Article 15
Application of certain provisions of Directive 95/46/EC
1. Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of the rights and obligations provided for in Article 5, Article 6, Article 8(1) to (4), and Article 9 of this Directive when such restriction constitutes a necessary measure to safeguard national security, defence, public security, the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic communication system, as referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC.
Nobody has to store anything from the EU. The only thing that the EU says is that countries have the right for themselves to decide what records should be maintained for how long. In fact, the changelog goes as far as to say:
Article 15 - Application of certain provisions of Directive 95/46/EC
Specifies where Member States may restrict provisions of the Directive to safeguard public security and conduct criminal investigations;
Extends provisions of General data protection Directive on legal remedies and proceedings of working party to this Directive.
(Unchanged except for inclusion of new Article 9 in scope of derogation for public security reasons, replacement of 'telecommunication services' by 'electronic communications services' and deletion of committee procedure as their only role in the context of this directive was the amendment of the Annex which has disappeared).
Where Article 9 is about the information that can be obtained through e.g. cellphones about somebodies physical location.
In a not so unified Europe this is the only sensible thing to do. Europe should have a united security policy before adopting any legislation that tries to centralize this, or it might have very unwelcome effects. For instance, because the BRD considers the PKK to be a terrorist organization suddenly everywhere in Europe all countries would have to tap all electonic communications of all suspected PKK members, even if the national security board has decided that that specific organization is not terrorist.
Without me having a vote for the governing body of security services in other EU countries other EU countries should not have a vote in deciding the organizations that my country has to tap.
Re:How fast a computer needed?
on
OpenBSD 3.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes
I run OpenBSD on a 486 with 16 MB RAM, so I would qualify your system as "overkill".
My LAN *IS* the internet
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is a very dubious action of Microsoft. They presume there is a difference between the internet and the LAN, and for starters I am not so sure whether that difference actually exists in all cases. Furthermore, I doubt whether they can actually make that difference even if it exists. Take for example how I search the intranet at Uni.
I usually just hook up to the intranet at Uni with my laptop. But the intranet consists of an indisquishable part of internet, 3 separate/16 networks exclusively for our Uni. I search the network of my University using an internet search engine which has some affiliate program to work for our Uni.
Can anybody enlighten me as to whether the search in Windows XP would phone home my search strings? I am quite happy not using XP at the moment, and news like this makes me think that not upgrading was the right decision.
RETR 5.0-DP1-install.iso
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 5.0-DP1-install.iso (675971072 bytes).
Received 675971072 bytes in 258.6 secs, (25.03 Mbps), transfer succeeded
226 Transfer complete.
And since nobody owns it, individual administrators/companies get to handle it the way they want. Without anybody being able to claim he has a God given right to deliver email to their systems (or even route it through them).
It is not the choice of blacklist maintainers to block you. It is the choice of a mail admin who is fed up with spam to try to block open relays. For that, he informs himself at a blacklist maintainer, but he still makes the decision himself. And currently, the credibility of that information apparently is high enough to warrant him blocking your access.
Personally, I wouldn't use a blacklist that doesn't have a good mechanism for administrators to get themselves of that list. But again, that is my choice. Somebody else may chooce to disallow you access to his system, because it is HIS system.
Microsoft does focus a lot of effort towards securing their products.
I am not sure whether it is better to have many security problems because the vendor doesn't care or because the vendor tries very hard but is unable to do things right. Since I do not believe that the people at MS are stupid there I have trouble believing their claim they are committed to security. In that case they would at the very least be able to fix things reactively.
Secondly, catching potential buffer overflows is so easy that with the proper options even a compiler will filter them out. (MS actually claims they will compile IIS6 with these options set so why didn't they do that with all their products?).
As a result, I don't believe too much about their commitment to security. It is about time that MS gets sued for criminal negligence the next time a buffer overflow is found in their so called "mission critical ready" software. They claim they are avoidable after all.
Why contrast? The interview first goes into depts to explain the differences between Open and Free. Then it continues to debate the benefits and revolutionary properties (?) of Free Software. The article you mention is explicitly about Open Source Software.
Since both articles are about different issues I find contrasting them a little bit difficult at best, and pointless at worst.
Although the article has some strong points, especially the artificially created shortage of goods by protecting them with IP laws, a comparison of Free Software with Marxism is quite far stretched IMHO.
But it is still a very appealing model for me.
Well, if I had a job where I had to read articles like that I would most certainly pick up writing encryption algorithms as a diversion that I can understand.
My German isn't that good, but I believe that the fragment falls keine "Vor- und Freisperrtechniken" installiert sind translates roughly to if no access controls are implemented (please correct me if I am wrong, but Babel Fish is as useless as usual).
Bypassing the technical/political/legal issues (I think we all agree on the feasibility of this proposition) I believe that it is a good thing if a country limits access to sexual oriented online content in accordence with the law IRL. And as I say in accordance with the law IRL this naturally implies that the law should not have any extraterritorial effects.
If the Germans wish to limit uncontrolled daytime access to sexually oriented content located on servers on German territory they have my blessing.
Slashdot Mirror
National governments retain the right to decide for themselves what laws about retention of logfiles they want to have. That is all it says.
Article 15
Application of certain provisions of Directive 95/46/EC
1. Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of the rights and obligations provided for in Article 5, Article 6, Article 8(1) to (4), and Article 9 of this Directive when such restriction constitutes a necessary measure to safeguard national security, defence, public security, the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic communication system, as referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC.
Nobody has to store anything from the EU. The only thing that the EU says is that countries have the right for themselves to decide what records should be maintained for how long. In fact, the changelog goes as far as to say:
Article 15 - Application of certain provisions of Directive 95/46/EC
Specifies where Member States may restrict provisions of the Directive to safeguard public security and conduct criminal investigations;
Extends provisions of General data protection Directive on legal remedies and proceedings of working party to this Directive.
(Unchanged except for inclusion of new Article 9 in scope of derogation for public security reasons, replacement of 'telecommunication services' by 'electronic communications services' and deletion of committee procedure as their only role in the context of this directive was the amendment of the Annex which has disappeared).
Where Article 9 is about the information that can be obtained through e.g. cellphones about somebodies physical location.
In a not so unified Europe this is the only sensible thing to do. Europe should have a united security policy before adopting any legislation that tries to centralize this, or it might have very unwelcome effects. For instance, because the BRD considers the PKK to be a terrorist organization suddenly everywhere in Europe all countries would have to tap all electonic communications of all suspected PKK members, even if the national security board has decided that that specific organization is not terrorist.
Without me having a vote for the governing body of security services in other EU countries other EU countries should not have a vote in deciding the organizations that my country has to tap.
Yes
I run OpenBSD on a 486 with 16 MB RAM, so I would qualify your system as "overkill".
This is a very dubious action of Microsoft. They presume there is a difference between the internet and the LAN, and for starters I am not so sure whether that difference actually exists in all cases. Furthermore, I doubt whether they can actually make that difference even if it exists. Take for example how I search the intranet at Uni. /16 networks exclusively for our Uni. I search the network of my University using an internet search engine which has some affiliate program to work for our Uni.
I usually just hook up to the intranet at Uni with my laptop. But the intranet consists of an indisquishable part of internet, 3 separate
Can anybody enlighten me as to whether the search in Windows XP would phone home my search strings? I am quite happy not using XP at the moment, and news like this makes me think that not upgrading was the right decision.
Cable rules?
RETR 5.0-DP1-install.iso
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 5.0-DP1-install.iso (675971072 bytes).
Received 675971072 bytes in 258.6 secs, (25.03 Mbps), transfer succeeded
226 Transfer complete.
Fiber to the Dormitory rules!!!
And since nobody owns it, individual administrators/companies get to handle it the way they want. Without anybody being able to claim he has a God given right to deliver email to their systems (or even route it through them).
It is not the choice of blacklist maintainers to block you. It is the choice of a mail admin who is fed up with spam to try to block open relays. For that, he informs himself at a blacklist maintainer, but he still makes the decision himself. And currently, the credibility of that information apparently is high enough to warrant him blocking your access.
Personally, I wouldn't use a blacklist that doesn't have a good mechanism for administrators to get themselves of that list. But again, that is my choice. Somebody else may chooce to disallow you access to his system, because it is HIS system.
I am not sure whether it is better to have many security problems because the vendor doesn't care or because the vendor tries very hard but is unable to do things right. Since I do not believe that the people at MS are stupid there I have trouble believing their claim they are committed to security. In that case they would at the very least be able to fix things reactively.
Secondly, catching potential buffer overflows is so easy that with the proper options even a compiler will filter them out. (MS actually claims they will compile IIS6 with these options set so why didn't they do that with all their products?).
As a result, I don't believe too much about their commitment to security. It is about time that MS gets sued for criminal negligence the next time a buffer overflow is found in their so called "mission critical ready" software. They claim they are avoidable after all.
Why contrast? The interview first goes into depts to explain the differences between Open and Free. Then it continues to debate the benefits and revolutionary properties (?) of Free Software. The article you mention is explicitly about Open Source Software.
Since both articles are about different issues I find contrasting them a little bit difficult at best, and pointless at worst.
Although the article has some strong points, especially the artificially created shortage of goods by protecting them with IP laws, a comparison of Free Software with Marxism is quite far stretched IMHO.
But it is still a very appealing model for me.
Well, if I had a job where I had to read articles like that I would most certainly pick up writing encryption algorithms as a diversion that I can understand.
Bypassing the technical/political/legal issues (I think we all agree on the feasibility of this proposition) I believe that it is a good thing if a country limits access to sexual oriented online content in accordence with the law IRL. And as I say in accordance with the law IRL this naturally implies that the law should not have any extraterritorial effects.
If the Germans wish to limit uncontrolled daytime access to sexually oriented content located on servers on German territory they have my blessing.
What does indiantrust.org use ColdFusion for? Might that be creating webforms and webDB access? So why would CF be the wrong choice here?
And if you are serious about the security risks I expect you can back that up.