Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] in anticipation of Stockholm Internet Forum...

Andre Rebentisch arebentisch at lxdesystems.com
Sat Apr 14 16:23:55 PDT 2012


Am 14.04.2012 09:51, schrieb Fabio Pietrosanti (naif):
>> In other words, Sweden does monitor all traffic.
> 
> Almost all countries have capabilities to monitor internet traffic at
> borders.

Indeed, though "capabilities" would not imply they actually do.

I am sorry for my choice of words bc it is also difficult to determine
what "monitoring" means to an institution, e.g. "printing emails
forwarded to them".

> It seems to me that Sweden is so civil that even the intelligence need
> to ask a court order to do so.

The main advantage of a court order is that we get a formal (classified)
track record of the actual cases and statistics. Parliament scrutiny is
a useful device. It is helpful to assess intelligence performance, and
make services more efficient. You need external checks and balances,
otherwise technocratic bodies get lazy and useless.

Prior Court Order: Throughout Europe the EU Telecoms Package rules
should apply. In the reform process some insisted on the prior court
order principle. The objective and motivation from my colleagues (who
wrote the related amendment) was to prevent automated net filtering (as
demanded by the content industries and AT&T).

The driving force for traffic monitoring is not the Levithan in Europe,
but content interests. Italy is very advanced in media industry driven
ISP filtering. They tried it earlier than the other member states via
voluntary agreements.

See also Sabam vs. Netlog.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=119512&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=157508

Best,
André




More information about the liberationtech mailing list