indeed... well stated Andre. This SWITCH / "legal process" needs still
*alot* of fine-tuning.
Cheers JIm
On 12.08.2012 19:12, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 10.08.2012 16:27, Serge Droz wrote:
Hello Swinogers,
you may have read our press release yesterday:
http://www.switch.ch/about/news/2012/malware-080812.html
In the latest "PandaLabs Quarterly Report" Switzerland is judged as the
"Least infected" country. While one always has to read such number with
care, we still feel it indicates that Swiss ISPs do a good job.
We've been sending out reports about infected systems since about a
year, and the response was positive. Most people did put in the
additional effort to support their customers fixing the problems.
Thus a big "Thank you" to all who take security serious..
Despite the results in cleaning up *websites* I still feel uneasy about
this completely extra-judicial domain takedown process. A domain is at
least as important as a specially assigned phone number. When BAKOM
want's to deactivate such a phone number because of alleged abuse it
has to issue an official order (Verfügung) which can be appealed in legal
court. Then court then may, or may not, issue a stay on the order until
things are further analysed or sorted out.
Here SWITCH is the accuser and executioner in union. On top of that it
will only re-establish the domain when SWITCH is satisfied that its demands
are fulfilled. There is no appeals process, no legal court, no 3rd party
review, simply nothing. And ".ch" Domains are a Swiss federal resource
in law.
It seems we haven't hit the edge cases yet where there is disagreement on
whether something actually is malware or malicious enough between SWITCH
and a domain holder.
I'm waiting for the day "megarapiddownload.ch" (made that up) is considered
illicit for the purpose of a domain disable procedure. What then? IFPI
throwing a party?
_______________________________________________
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
