Hallo Pascal
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2009 15:35 schrieb Pascal Gloor:
> Dear SwiNOGers,
>
> I'm working on some 'project' which could help in this case. I found
> a lawyer who's ready to support me for free. However, there's a
> little budget I cannot afford on my own. I cant explain exactly why
>
Dear SwiNOGers,
I'm working on some 'project' which could help in this case. I found
a lawyer who's ready to support me for free. However, there's a
little budget I cannot afford on my own. I cant explain exactly why
on a public list (we have experienced some difficulties with that in
the
Dear SwiNOGers,
I'm working on some 'project' which could help in this case. I found a
lawyer who's ready to support me for free. However, there's a little
budget I cannot afford on my own. I cant explain exactly why on a
public list (we have experienced some difficulties with that in the
Andreas Fink wrote:
> The german text says despite the recurs of Cyberlink, it stays in force:
>
> "Der Rekurs hat keine aufschiebende Wirkung aauf die
> Untersuchungshandlungen ; der angefochtene
> Entscheid ist trotz des Rekurses Rechtskräftig, es sei denn der
> Untersu
ed to use a new (and even larger)
list of ISPs than one year
before. Case Nr etc. is still the same...
cheers,
michel
- Original Message -
From: robert.guentensper...@swisscom.com
To: swi...@swinog.ch
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [swinog] Post from
The citation below refers to an Article in the applicable Strafprozessordnung
which states that a "Rekurs" does not have "aufschiebende Wirkung" IN
PRINCIPLE. Yet in this case, the judge ordered that "aufschiebende Wirkung" IS
granted. The actual decision in a "Verfügung" is always contained in
we've of course received this... (at least i had this on my desk)
-steven
robert.guentensper...@swisscom.com schrieb:
> Funny “Verfügung”.
>
> But what about Swisscom and sunrise and maybe others?
>
> Are those not ISP??
>
>
>
> Just a stupid question…
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Günti
>
>
On 18.02.2009, at 16:38, > wrote:
Funny “Verfügung”.
But what about Swisscom and sunrise and maybe others?
Are those not ISP??
Just a stupid question…
Cheers,
Günti
Actually a good question. The list shows a carrier operators in it
which is in the wholesale voice but for sure is not an
liable for contents of the newspaper.
We could make a test
Greetings
Xaver
- Original Message -
From: robert.guentensper...@swisscom.com
To: swi...@swinog.ch
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
Funny "Verf
Funny "Verfügung".
But what about Swisscom and sunrise and maybe others?
Are those not ISP??
Just a stupid question...
Cheers,
Günti
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
On 18.02.2009, at 13:45, Pascal Gloor wrote:
I've uploaded the scan of the request to our webserver:
http://www.bebbicell.ch/PE03.018380.pdf
Thanks Andreas for sharing this information (since, somehow, we
didn't receive it).
Question for you Christa. The order is suspended, does it mean
right
> As one can read in your PDF on page 1 (in French) and page 3 (in
> German), the order is suspended until a decision is made regarding the
> appeal from Cyberlink.
>
which will lead to a new recurse maybe :)
> My understanding (IANAL) is that this means there will be a statement
> from
my first email with the same content was heldoff bei the ML for an
moderator review.. so maybe it will show up a second time.
right
> As one can read in your PDF on page 1 (in French) and page 3 (in
> German), the order is suspended until a decision is made regarding the
> appeal from Cyberli
I've uploaded the scan of the request to our webserver:
http://www.bebbicell.ch/PE03.018380.pdf
Thanks Andreas for sharing this information (since, somehow, we didn't
receive it).
Question for you Christa. The order is suspended, does it mean that
blocking those websites becomes now illega
e treated
confidentially (Anwaltsgeheimnis).
Regards,
Christa
Von: swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch im Auftrag von Alexandre Suter
Gesendet: Mi 18.02.2009 12:41
An: swi...@swinog.ch
Betreff: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
Andreas Fink wrote:
> I've upload
Andreas Fink wrote:
> I've uploaded the scan of the request to our webserver:
>
>
> http://www.bebbicell.ch/PE03.018380.pdf
As one can read in your PDF on page 1 (in French) and page 3 (in
German), the order is suspended until a decision is made regarding the
appeal from Cyberlink.
My understan
I've uploaded the scan of the request to our webserver:
http://www.bebbicell.ch/PE03.018380.pdf
Andreas Fink
Fink Consulting GmbH
Global Networks Schweiz AG
BebbiCell AG
IceCell ehf
---
Tel: +41-61-330 Fax: +41-61-331 Mob
56 PM
To: Matthias Leisi
Cc: swi...@swinog.ch
Subject: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
There is one commercial solution out there I have heard about,
netclean Whitebox.
only problem?
blind on one eye.
Quote:
"The NetClean WhiteBox does not currently support IPV6"
Source
There is one commercial solution out there I have heard about,
netclean Whitebox.
only problem?
blind on one eye.
Quote:
"The NetClean WhiteBox does not currently support IPV6"
Source of Quote?
http://adminblog.ch/2009/01/ipv6-traffic-existiert/
lg
silvan
Am 17.02.2009 um 23:44 schrieb M
Oliver Bollisger schrieb:
> but what is the best method? blocking ip traffic to the site can also
> mean to block legitimate traffic to a shared hosting server!?
Filter the traffic for specific IPs/networks/etc (eg by playing some BGP
games) through transparent proxies and redirect "forbidden" t
Xaver Aerni wrote:
> IP Block is the Problem, you are Blocking more sites as the to block...
> I think a Server has 100 Sites if you block the IP all 100 Sites are
> blocked. You have a big Problem you must block a Site Xy and the UBS.Com
> or an other bigger Firm is on the same server.
In other w
Message -
From: Oliver Bolliger
To: Xaver Aerni
Cc: swi...@swinog.ch
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
this is not the right way to block access to a site as i can setup my own dns
or use foreign nameservers
but what is
e...@gmail.com>
To: <mailto:swi...@swinog.ch> <mailto:swi...@swinog.ch>
swi...@swinog.ch<mailto:swi...@swinog.ch>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
You're assuming that the biggest ISPs will apply the filtering at the
DNS filtering is also the solution that is the easiest to go around... :-)
Either chose a foreign DNS, or chose to fully resolve the names by
yourself...
But I'm sure this is the easiest and cheapest way to proceed.
2009/2/17 Xaver Aerni
> When the ISP block it only by DNS Filtering???
> I thi
When the ISP block it only by DNS Filtering???
I think to block 1 side is a DNS Filtering the easyest and fastest way.
Greetings
Xaver
- Original Message -
From: Yann Gauteron
To: swi...@swinog.ch
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton
You're assuming that the biggest ISPs will apply the filtering at the
entrance of their network, which is not necesseraly true. They can also
decide to filter closer to their access equipments. This would mean that
peerings with other ISPs or BGP-tiered enterprises would be unfiltered.
Depending w
PM
Subject: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
a lot of them are getting the feed from cablecom allready filtered i think.
Roger
>
> I have the problem with this (sorry i must say) of the swiss romande...
> The most blocking of pages
> are the same law on the blocking page. I do
> This is for me a verry bigproblematic.
> I think when we are going this way. we are nearer on china linke USA.
>
> Greetings
> X.Aerni
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Yann Gauteron
> To: swi...@swinog.ch
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17,
i...@swinog.ch
Betreff: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
I fully agree with this statement, reason why I was pointing out that a lawyer
opinion would be welcome.
I'm pretty sure that every people reading this topic on SwiNOG is not sure that
such a request is fully supported by a law.
nn Gauteron
To: swi...@swinog.ch
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
I fully agree with this statement, reason why I was pointing out that a
lawyer opinion would be welcome.
I'm pretty sure that every people reading this topic on Sw
I fully agree with this statement, reason why I was pointing out that a
lawyer opinion would be welcome.
I'm pretty sure that every people reading this topic on SwiNOG is not sure
that such a request is fully supported by a law.
Now, I am not sure that some customers will recourse because one web
winog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch]
Im Auftrag von Yann Gauteron
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009 07:22
An: swi...@swinog.ch
Betreff: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
In this topic, Andreas and Roger you are asking who should pay to implement
these measures...
I'm sad to tell you that YO
Salut, Yann,
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:37:38 +0100, Yann Gauteron wrote:
> But my main opinion remains: I am totally against censorship. If
> words are offending, find the author and prosecute him. At the same
> time, ensure the illegal words are removed (if I am against
> censorship, I am not agains
In this topic, Andreas and Roger you are asking who should pay to implement
these measures...
I'm sad to tell you that YOU probably will have to pay for that. Despite
your hope, I am pretty sure that (if a law making that appliable does exist)
nobody except you (and at the end your customers if yo
Im wondering why this guy taking a big risk in creating those pages
somebody must have triggered that sickness.
I wonder as well how much affraid and fearfull somebody is to try to shut this
pages down.
And in this Cat and Mouse game all ISP have to getting involved ?
If the justice running out of
It would also be interesting to have a lawyer opinion concerning this kind
of orders from some judges (cantonaux / kantonale). If such a decision
should be applied over all the ISPs in Switzerland, should it not be ordered
(if the law permit it) by a Swiss judge and not a Vaud, nor a Zürich one ?
Andreas Fink wrote:
> I have answered the judge the following in german. I think he's
> stepping totally over the fence.
We [1] received two letters recently, one in the second half of December
iirc, which said that we had to block access to a bunch of websites, and
a second one yesterday, which
Its about the same content I believe. But very questionable legal
wording from the judge.
And I found it very questionable to involve all ISP's into the case as
part of the order without hearing them and without giving them the
right to oppose.
This means we MUST SPEAK or we have silently ac
-boun...@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch
] Im Auftrag von Andreas Fink
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Februar 2009 16:09
An: swi...@swinog.ch
Betreff: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
Hello Collegues,
Today I got a document sent to us because we are listed as ISP. You
probably have all receiv
One Interesting Part for me:
Searching for this "Dossier" @Google gives one Link:
http://www.quickline.com/Support/Pages/KantonWaadt.aspx
just my 5c.. ;-)
Andreas Fink wrote:
> I have answered the judge the following in german. I think he's stepping
> totally over the fence.
>
>
> --S
Mike Kellenberger schrieb:
> Let's discuss it some more and we'll make news on heise.de once again
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Schweizer-Richterin-verlangt-Website-Sperrung-von-Providern--/meldung/33051
> :-)
I submitted it to symlink.ch. ISPs can't take over responsibility for
the behavio
ar 2009 17:02
An: Andreas Fink
Cc: swi...@swinog.ch
Betreff: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
Same same, but different...?
http://www.mail-archive.com/swi...@swinog.ch/msg00847.html
Kind regards,
Viktor
Andreas Fink wrote:
> Hello Collegues,
>
> Today I got a document sent to us be
Same same, but different...?
http://www.mail-archive.com/swi...@swinog.ch/msg00847.html
Kind regards,
Viktor
Andreas Fink wrote:
> Hello Collegues,
>
> Today I got a document sent to us because we are listed as ISP. You
> probably have all received it as well.
> Its a case of a Party A against
Tel +41 52 235 0700
>> http://www.escapenet.ch Skype mikek70atwork
>>
>> *Von:* swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch
>> <mailto:swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch>
>> [mailto:swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch] *Im Auftrag von *A
-boun...@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch
] Im Auftrag von Andreas Fink
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Februar 2009 16:09
An: swi...@swinog.ch
Betreff: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
Hello Collegues,
Today I got a document sent to us because we are listed as ISP. You
probably have all receiv
von *Andreas Fink
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 16. Februar 2009 16:09
> *An:* swi...@swinog.ch
> *Betreff:* [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
>
> Hello Collegues,
>
> Today I got a document sent to us because we are listed as ISP. You
> probably have all received it as well.
>
Mike Kellenberger schrieb:
>
> just thinking about this again: why don't they force the site operator
> to take down the site? Would be much easier…
>
>
>
He's already mirrored it on various servers outside of Switzerland.
Stupid detail: some of the URLs you have to DNS-lame-delegate are
actual
If this case would have happened in countries like China, we would have
called this censorship... People would have claimed about freedom, and so
on...
But we are in Switzerland... and in Switzerland, this is only a legal
behaviour to protect against diffamation...
No comment...
_
009 16:09
An: swi...@swinog.ch
Betreff: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
Hello Collegues,
Today I got a document sent to us because we are listed as ISP. You probably
have all received it as well.
Its a case of a Party A against "unknown" who has said something wrong/bad
about Party A.
ikek70atwork
Von: swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch] Im
Auftrag von Andreas Fink
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Februar 2009 16:09
An: swi...@swinog.ch
Betreff: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
Hello Collegues,
Today I got a document sent to us because we a
Hello Collegues,
Today I got a document sent to us because we are listed as ISP. You
probably have all received it as well.
Its a case of a Party A against "unknown" who has said something wrong/
bad about Party A. (Ehrverletzung/Verleumdung etc.)
While I can understand that Party A tries to
51 matches
Mail list logo
