Re: [ORG-discuss] Any one want to buy a /8
Interesting! Your analysis suggests PSN is not so much a network rather a dated way to gateway third party networks based on a model of each network using incompatible protocols a la 1980s. Using IP should have removed the need for that. So your solution may well be the correct one. Do away with PSN and setup an Internet or at least an IP exchange point to peer government networks. That would solve a lot of hassle and could support v6 and v4 so the choice can be made as convenient to the various parties. Christian Lee Maguire wrote: If Government networks need to renumber v4 then establishing v6 for the backbone infrastructure is likely more straightforward and less costly than a nightmare v4 reconfig. The issue, at least when it came up before. is that PSN is not the government network as such, but mainly a way of connecting non-government suppliers to government departments. (Hundreds of independent entities all using 1918 address space in their own way) i.e. not only do you have to transition “the government” you also have to transition hundreds of different supplier companies... quite possibly at the same time. Given the Olympian feet-dragging the government has dedicated to IPv6 over the last decade I’m sceptical towards the success of a “just do it” approach to transition. Of course, if you get rid of the PSN, this problem goes away... -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, MCMA - @ FirstHand - +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net - -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
Re: [ORG-discuss] Any one want to buy a /8
oh my... I hope that wikipedia is not reflective of the reality. If so that is describing an horrendous dogs dinner. I can see why Francis Maude has had enough and is pointing out how much more now needs to be done. thank you (I think) for the pointer. Christian Lee Maguire wrote: Interesting! Your analysis suggests PSN is not so much a network rather a dated way to gateway third party networks based on a model of each network using incompatible protocols a la 1980s. Using IP should have removed the need for that. Well, it’s an understanding based on third-party description of the issue. PSN dates from 2005 and was always IPv4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Services_Network -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, MCMA - @ FirstHand - +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net - -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
Re: [ORG-discuss] Any one want to buy a /8
1/ HMG should renumber their networks by going to v6. By far simplest and I expect lowest cost solution if you take this in the round. 2/ v4 legacy apps and services / networks can be tunnelled and gatewayed. 3/ The HMG IP net management are examples of true dark nets. Does that make dark nets evil? I don't think so. Time for a little less molestation of the term dark net. 4/ HMG may find they do not own clear title to sell these blocks although receiving a release fee may be appropriate to help manage an HMG transition to v6 and to make the released blocks available for RIPE region and possibly elsewhere as intra RIR transfer policies develop. Christian Lee Maguire wrote: Looks like some one come up with a good idea for raising money for government. Amazed that its taken this long for gds to get round to looking at selling them. https://governmenttechnology.blog.gov.uk/2015/02/19/freeing-up-unused-ip-addresses/ My assumption is that these includes the DWP range that’s actually in use on the PSN but not routed on the internet, and therefore they’d need to commit to changing the PSN before looking into releasing these. Julian Huppert asked a question about this in 2012. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2012-10-15d.121947.h http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/digital-policy/ukgov-not-squatting-on-1bn-unused-ipv4-addresses-3571188/ https://governmenttechnology.blog.gov.uk/2015/01/16/making-the-psn-better/ -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, MCMA - @ FirstHand - +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net - -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
Re: [ORG-discuss] Does new EU VAT legislation conflict with EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
What's to stop both cases being applied simultaneously? Double dipping or dipping plus is endemic in 20th Century regulatory model rights based industries. With content dispersed physically by so many protocols such as torrents and blockchains into the 21st Century how on earth do you tell where the content starts and ends? Will we see VAT and Rights payments being demanded in all countries the content spans including the country of origin? Note I use span not traverse as this is a better description of the disembodied nature of online content using these newer protocols. One reason why I am against VAT being reverse engineered to country of consumption... What on earth does that end up meaning? All this is really doing is encouraging bad and profligate governments in Europe as now they can set whatever VAT rate they like in expectation they won't be undercut by other country's rates. In other words this policy seems to me to push the direction towards closed self serving government behaviour not open. Christian Alan Cox wrote: While I'm strongly in favour of the VAT one being at the consumers location (just the implementation is screwed up) I'm rather less keen on the idea of yet more breakdown of EU single markets by copyright folks, yet from a tax perspective it probably has to work that way. Alan -- Christian de Larrinaga - +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net - -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
Re: [ORG-discuss] data sharing: fraud
m procedures or some other solutions > would need to be found to ensure that was is working is not abandoned. > > Here, as in the rest of the data sharing process, we must find the > balance between flexibility and protection of rights. The document > makes this clear when stating that the current numerous express > gateways on fraud have been designed “to be specific to ensure a > smooth passage through parliament”. We must be careful that the > process does not appear to bypass future democratic controls. > > The successful completion of the pilot period would not simply trigger > the extension of the powers, but also their expansion from pilots into > wider use. Surely this will need to be discussed and agreed. > -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, - @ FirstHand - +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net - -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
Re: [ORG-discuss] IP Bill - the HUBS amendment
Is Liberty and or the Law Society working on those parallel reconstruction arguments? C > William Waites <mailto:wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> > 4 May 2016 at 15:31 > To follow this up, this amendment was debated yesterday (p. 679 > [1]). Apart from a technical point, the Minister for Security was > worried that it would have unintended consequences: that criminals > would seek out small providers to avoid surveillance. > > This argument is of course specious. There are many ways that > criminals can avoid surveillance and this is the case regardless of > whether the provider is large or small. The purpose of the amendment > is to limit the damage the Act does to small providers. > > There is another aspect of this bill that seems to be little > understood: the relationship between the product of bulk interception > not being useable in court on the one hand and the requirement for > data retention on the other. The entire setup appears designed to > facilitate parallel construction: a technique of construction a > separate trail of evidence for use in court by cherry picking specific > data retained by providers in order to conceal the true course of the > investigation. This is deeply problematic because it means we may not > question the conduct of the sercurity services in such criminal > cases. > > We'll be at the Southsider on West Richmond St. in Edinburgh from > about 18:00 as usual, please join us! > > Cheers, > -w > > [1] > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmpublic/InvestigatoryPowers/160503/pm/PBC_Investigatory%20Powers%2016th%20sit%20%28pm%29%203.5.16.pdf > > > William Waites <mailto:wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> > 28 April 2016 at 21:30 > Greetings everyone. > > There are many problems with the new suspicionless spying bill as we > all know very well. Some of you who know me may also know that I am > the network operator of HUBS [1] which is made up of several small > community ISPs in rural Scotland. Whatever else is wrong with the > bill, it is clear that it would be particularly burdensome for these > small providers to have to do data retention and indeed in that > context it even takes on a really insidious aspect of requiring people > to spy on their neighbours for the government, as I outlined in my > evidence to the committee [2]. > > Over the past while, together with Adrian Kennard, who I believe also > subscribes to the org-discuss list, we came up with an amendment which > would go some way towards mitigating at least this aspect of the > bill. It was put onto the agenda today by Joanna Cherry MP QC who is > leading the SNP's response. It can be found on page 49 of [3]. It > says, > > An operator who has not been designated as the operator of an > electronic communications network or service according to section > 34 of the Communications Act 2003; or whose service has fewer than > 50,000 subscribers, shall not be required to comply with a > retention notice under section 78 of this Act. > > This means if you're too small to have a requirement of reporting to > Ofcom (currently a turnover of less than £5 million annually) or have > a small number of subscribers, you're exempt. I am trying to get a > similar exemption into the debate about section 217 which is about > notices for maintenance of technical capabilities. > > So it tries to carve out at least some space for service providers to > operate without being conscripted into spying for the government. > > The committee only has another week to run, and after that the bill > goes back to the house. It is now of vital importance to let MPs know > that there is support for this. Doubly so if your MP is on the > committee [4] or happens to be the Secretary of State for Scotland > [5] or represents a rural constituency. Please write to them and let > them know if you support this. It would be great if ORG could support > this as an organisation as well. > > Best wishes, > -w > > [1] http://hubs.net.uk/ > [2] > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmpublic/investigatorypowers/Memo/IPB53.htm > [3] > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0143/amend/investigatory_day_pbc_0427.pdf > [4] > http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypowers/committees/houseofcommonspublicbillcommitteeontheinvestigatorypowersbill201516.html > [5] http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/david-mundell/1512 > -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, - @ FirstHand - +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net - -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
Re: [ORG-discuss] IPBill / Kickstarting OnionDSL to generate media interest?
Interesting. What would it take to add in Tor nodes to help scale Tor as a byproduct? C Adrian Kennard wrote: > Just to add, and in support of an idea like this, all standard A > broadband connections can be set to L2TP to a remote endpoint so that it > is really simple for someone to set up a private Internet service like > this using our broadband service. The costs are the same as normal. > > Obviously that service needs to do the Tor exit nodes and so on to > provide the degree of privacy, but you don't need to set up a whole ISP > to do this, just a box that does Tor and L2TP somewhere in "the cloud". > > Are there any consumer broadband routers that handle being a tor client? > -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, - @ FirstHand - +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net - -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
[ORG-discuss] Fwd: Government responded to “Repeal the new Surveillance laws (Investigatory Powers Act)”
talk about "not getting it". C Original Message Subject:Government responded to “Repeal the new Surveillance laws (Investigatory Powers Act)” Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 02:36:48 + From: Petitions: UK Government and Parliament <no-re...@petition.parliament.uk> To: ad...@firsthand.net You’re receiving this email because you signed this petition: “Repeal the new Surveillance laws (Investigatory Powers Act)”. To unsubscribe from this petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/28470808/unsubscribe?token=fc3d1eHuYkL7ojLBGAaO ---- Dear Christian de Larrinaga, The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Repeal the new Surveillance laws (Investigatory Powers Act) <https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199>”. Government responded: The Investigatory Powers Act dramatically increases transparency around the use of investigatory powers. It protects both privacy and security and underwent unprecedented scrutiny before becoming law. The Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe. The Investigatory Powers Act transforms the law relating to the use and oversight of Investigatory powers. It strengthens safeguards and introduces world-leading oversight arrangements. The Act does three key things. First, it brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable. Second, it radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so warrants require the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used. Third, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a single new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate. Public scrutiny The Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage. The Bill responded to three independent reports: by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; by the Royal United Services Institute’s Independent Surveillance Review Panel; and by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. All three of those authoritative independent reports agreed a new law was needed. The Government responded to the recommendations of those reports in the form of a draft Bill, published in November 2015. That draft Bill was submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted parallel scrutiny. Between them, those Committees received over 1,500 pages of written submissions and heard oral evidence from the Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The recommendations made by those Committees informed changes to the Bill and the publication of further supporting material. A revised Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March, and completed its passage on 16 November, meeting the timetable for legislation set by Parliament during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Over 1,700 amendments to the Bill were tabled and debated during this time. The Government has adopted an open and consultative approach throughout the passage of this legislation, tabling or accepting a significant number of amendments in both Houses of Parliament in order to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections. These included enhanced protections for trade unions and journalistic and legally privileged material, and the introduction of a threshold to ensure internet connection records cannot be used to investigate minor crimes. Privacy and Oversight The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy. A new overarching ‘privacy clause’ was added to make absolutely clear that the
Re: [ORG-discuss] EU data retention ruling
This is a very clear analysis of the judgement. Thank you > Javier Ruiz <mailto:jav...@openrightsgroup.org> > 21 December 2016 at 13:49 > We have a detailed blog, please distribute > > https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2016/eu-court-slams-uk-data-retention-surveillance-regime > > > > -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, - @ FirstHand - +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net - -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
Re: [ORG-discuss] Brexit White Paper
They probably want this to support that magical customs arrangement they need to save their brexitface. C Alex Haydock via org-discuss wrote: > Do you think that 93a: > > “The UK therefore proposes a digital relationship that covers: > a. digital trade and e-commerce” > > Might mean they’ll somehow incorporate or at least continue to consider the > E-Commerce Directive in its entirety (including Article 15)? > > Alex > >> On 12 Jul 2018, at 13:22, Javier Ruiz wrote: >> >> Thanks Aidan >> >> >> There is little new in the areas we have previously covered: >> >> - digital (very muddled and lacking concrete proposals including for >> telecoms regulation) >> - security (asking for a completely special deal to maintain the status quo >> on Europol, EAW, etc. that has already been rejected) >> - data protection (asking for the ICO to be part of the regulatory framework >> and a special deal beyond adequacy to avoid risks of legal challenges) >> >> Javier >> >>> On 12 Jul 2018, at 13:01, Aidan Skinner Campbell >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The Government has just published it's white paper on Brexit. It's >>> uhm. The digital bit is at least brief. https://assets.publishing.servi >>> ce.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/724982 >>> /The_future_relationship_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Un >>> ion_WEB_VERSION.pdf >>> >>> - Aidan >>> >>> -- >>> Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: >>> https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join >>> >>> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to >>> org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org >>> or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss >> -- >> Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: >> https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join >> >> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to >> org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org >> or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss > -- Christian de Larrinaga @ FirstHand - +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
