it will be interesting to see the reaction from those guys on that reply ,-))

-steven

Andreas Fink wrote:

I have answered the judge the following in german. I think he's stepping totally over the fence.

------SNIP----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basel, 16. Februar 2009

Dossier N° PE03.018380-YNT

Sehr geerte Damen und Herren,

Nehmen Sie zur Kentniss das ihr Schreiben von 11. Februar 2009 für uns keinerlei Relevanz hat. Als Internet Provider sind wir nicht verpflichtet die Verbindungen unserer Kunden ins Internet zu Zensurieren. Des weiteren verfügen wir nicht über die technischen Möglichkeiten dies zu tun und haben auch keine entsprechenden Absichten dies je zu tun. Auch wurde uns das Recht auf Anhörung verwehrt und jegliche Rekursmöglichkeit ausgeräumt was sicher nicht im Sinne der Rechtssprechung ist.

Falls Sie trotzdem darauf beharren das wir diese Seiten sperren sollen, weisen wir Sie darauf hin das dies nur unter dem Vorbehalt der vollständigen Vorausbezahlung sämtlicher Kosten geschene würde. Wir gehen davon aus das die Kosten für eine entsprechende Infrastruktur sich in der Grössenordnung von mehreren hundert tausend Franken liegt.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

Andreas Fink

Geschäftsführer BebbiCell AG

---

On 16.02.2009, at 16:18, Mike Kellenberger wrote:

...

What about making the site URL public so as many people as possible can set up a mirror before the filter for original site is installed? Just to show how the Web works and that site filters are no good at all…

Besides, Google/Archive.org and others will have a copy as well…

Regards,

Mike

-- Mike Kellenberger mike.kellenberger@escapenet.ch mailto:mike.kellenberger@escapenet.ch Escapenet - the Web Company Tel +41 52 235 0700 http://www.escapenet.ch Skype mikek70atwork

*Von:* swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch] *Im Auftrag von *Andreas Fink *Gesendet:* Montag, 16. Februar 2009 16:09 *An:* swinog@swinog.ch mailto:swinog@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. (Ehrverletzung/Verleumdung etc.)

While I can understand that Party A tries to get their right to get things wrong written about them is being changed to correct, the ISP's of Switzerland are now out of a sudden involved in this as they are "in charge of blocking" the corresponding site.

Also what upset's me most is the sentence that this is the status of a "Verfügung" from a "Untersuchungsrichter" and there is no legal way to oppose ("gegen die vorliegende Verügung keine Rechtsmittel möglich sind"). This might be true for the immediately accused as they had their chance to answer but for us "other 3rd party" ISP's it can not hold true as we have never heard of this case ever before and we have not been involved in this case before.

I would suggest the ISP community of Switzerland stands up united against such ridiculous practice of judges who have no clue how the internet works:

I see two possible ways

a) All ISP's send an INvoice to the Party A for the installment of the filters. They have caused this work so they are liable for the cost. Its not our fault.

b) all ISP's object in written to the decision of being in this case and oppose.

or both.

What are your oppinions?

Andreas Fink

Fink Consulting GmbH Global Networks Schweiz AG BebbiCell AG IceCell ehf

---

Tel: +41-61-6666330 Fax: +41-61-6666331 Mobile: +41-79-2457333 Address: Clarastrasse 3, 4058 Basel, Switzerland E-Mail: andreas@fink.org mailto:andreas@fink.org www.finkconsulting.com http://www.finkconsulting.com www.global-networks.ch http://www.global-networks.ch www.bebbicell.ch

http://www.bebbicell.ch

ICQ: 8239353 MSN: msn1@gni.ch mailto:msn1@gni.ch AIM: smsrelay Skype: andreasfink Yahoo: finkconsulting SMS: +41792457333

http://a-fink.blogspot.com/ A developers view about iPhone SDK

---

swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch mailto:swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

---

---

swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

I have answered the judge the following in german. I think he's stepping totally over the fence.

------ SNIP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basel, 16. Februar 2009

Dossier N° PE03.018380-YNT

Sehr geerte Damen und Herren,

Nehmen Sie zur Kentniss das ihr Schreiben von 11. Februar 2009 für uns keinerlei Relevanz hat. Als Internet Provider sind wir nicht verpflichtet die Verbindungen unserer Kunden ins Internet zu Zensurieren. Des weiteren verfügen wir nicht über die technischen Möglichkeiten dies zu tun und haben auch keine entsprechenden Absichten dies je zu tun. Auch wurde uns das Recht auf Anhörung verwehrt und jegliche Rekursmöglichkeit ausgeräumt was sicher nicht im Sinne der Rechtssprechung ist.

Falls Sie trotzdem darauf beharren das wir diese Seiten sperren sollen, weisen wir Sie darauf hin das dies nur unter dem Vorbehalt der vollständigen Vorausbezahlung sämtlicher Kosten geschene würde. Wir gehen davon aus das die Kosten für eine entsprechende Infrastruktur sich in der Grössenordnung von mehreren hundert tausend Franken liegt.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

Andreas Fink

Geschäftsführer BebbiCell AG

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 16.02.2009, at 16:18, Mike Kellenberger wrote:

What about making the site URL public so as many people as possible can set up a mirror before the filter for original site is installed? Just to show how the Web works and that site filters are no good at all…

Besides, Google/Archive.org and others will have a copy as well…

Regards,

Mike

-- Mike Kellenberger mike.kellenberger@escapenet.ch Escapenet - the Web Company Tel +41 52 235 0700 http://www.escapenet.ch Skype mikek70atwork

Von: swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch ] Im Auftrag von Andreas Fink Gesendet: Montag, 16. Februar 2009 16:09 An: swinog@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. (Ehrverletzung/Verleumdung etc.)

While I can understand that Party A tries to get their right to get things wrong written about them is being changed to correct, the ISP's of Switzerland are now out of a sudden involved in this as they are "in charge of blocking" the corresponding site.

Also what upset's me most is the sentence that this is the status of a "Verfügung" from a "Untersuchungsrichter" and there is no legal way to oppose ("gegen die vorliegende Verügung keine Rechtsmittel möglich sind"). This might be true for the immediately accused as they had their chance to answer but for us "other 3rd party" ISP's it can not hold true as we have never heard of this case ever before and we have not been involved in this case before.

I would suggest the ISP community of Switzerland stands up united against such ridiculous practice of judges who have no clue how the internet works:

I see two possible ways

a) All ISP's send an INvoice to the Party A for the installment of the filters. They have caused this work so they are liable for the cost. Its not our fault.

b) all ISP's object in written to the decision of being in this case and oppose.

or both.

What are your oppinions?

Andreas Fink

Fink Consulting GmbH Global Networks Schweiz AG BebbiCell AG IceCell ehf

---

Tel: +41-61-6666330 Fax: +41-61-6666331 Mobile: +41-79-2457333 Address: Clarastrasse 3, 4058 Basel, Switzerland E-Mail: andreas@fink.org www.finkconsulting.com www.global-networks.ch www.bebbicell.ch

---

ICQ: 8239353 MSN: msn1@gni.ch AIM: smsrelay Skype: andreasfink Yahoo: finkconsulting SMS: +41792457333

http://a-fink.blogspot.com/ A developers view about iPhone SDK

---

swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

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 ?

Unfortunatelly, I'm a techie and not a lawyer to know who can ask such things. But anyway, in the present case I think instead of willing to block traffic to the website, if it really contains contestable content, the complain should be done against the author and actions should be taken to close the website.

This would: 1) imply less third-party costs (probably it would imply more costs for the authorities to make the website closed, if it is located outside of Switzerland) 2) will achieve the ultimate target (making the content unavailable). Avoiding traffic to the offending website is just a workaround, as anybody with a little technical knowledge can use an anonymizer or a proxy to reach that content.

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 against respect of the people) without applying oversized measures such as restricting access to a whole website.

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 you increase your service price) will pay for such a blocking system. Even if it can seem unfair, in fact it works like that: - Some cantons voted for banning smoke in public places (restaurants, bars, ...) except in one dedicated and closed aread (called "fumoir" in French). The restaurant managers will pay for the needed changes to become compliant. They will not receive money from the authorities to do so. - In our work activity, we also have legal requirements. As ISPs we have the obligation to keep historical data about IP address allocation for our customers, we have to keep some records about e-mail that are sent from our mail exchange relays, ... Once again, the ISPs financed these modifications / changes / upgrades to comply the law. This is the way it works in Switzerland: Politicians (and/or citizens when a subject is voted by them) decide the laws. Other key players assume the financial charge for it. I am not saying this is a bad idea (I agree with this way to do! (*)), however I consider that the investments should be reasonable and they should have proved their effectiveness. In the present case, this is the main problem: blocking the access to some web content (in addition to the problem of censorship I already expressed in previous posts) is not effective: 1) the simple use of a relay/proxy/anonymizer would permit to defeat this "protection"; 2) if ISPs are concerned with this measure, enterprise would not be permitting to access the offending content from an office workplace!

(*) I mentionned above I agree with the way consisting of political deputies (or citizens) making a decision, and involved actors to finance the required changes. Let me explain why. I still believe we are living in a very democratical country where individuals and companies have their own responsabilities and obligations. Everybody must take the needed measures to comply with the law without expecting any compensation. IMHO this has the advantage to make everybody playing an active role in the final decision about a law. Most of the laws follow a consult phase ("phase de consultation" in French); other laws are voted by the citizens. If you're not happy with a project law, you can inform (lobbying with the deputies / advertise the citizens) the decision makers about the problems you will face (inadequate price / effectiveness ratio for instance) but at the same time also announce that this correspond to a form of censorship. At the end, you don't make the decision and you can win or lose. But democracy is more or less respected. If the Authorities would have to finance such a decision (such as the hardware + implementation of a censorship solution), your role would be lowered much more. Your voice would count for peanuts. That Authorities would tell you: Shut up, we decide, we pay, your financial and ethical opinions do not matter.

Once again, my questions about the present topic are: - Is there an existing law permitting to mandate ISPs to block access to a given content? If yes, who can decide of such blocking (a canton court or a Swiss court)? - Why was this decision to block access from the ISP taken, instead of making the hosting provider removing the offending content? The first solution is technically known to be uneffective as workarounds exist and can be used by people with only a little technical knowledge or by users having a web access from an enterprise. - Ethically, I consider this way to proceed as a form of censorship: blocking access to a published content match my definition of censorship ("we decide what is good for you" or "we filter for your well-being", take care you prove G. Orwell right). Removing (and not simply restricting access) an offending content is a legal decision that can (and must) be taken, if that content is considered as illegal. This does not shoke me. Even if the result (for the Swiss web users) is the more or less same (it will not have access to that content), the taken action is totally different. In one case, this is filtering for some world citizens, in the second case, this is global removal of the content. An analogy can be made with publishing world: If a book containing offending someone (physical or moral person) content is written, the courts can decide to forbid the publisher to destroy all the books (and possibly if this is too late, to forbid the bookstores to sell it and to return the remaining ones to the publisher). But never the court will say the bookstores to use a black marker to strike through the offending lines or to tear out the offending pages.

Last remark: Definition of offending content is out of scope of this e-mail. Just understand that for me an offending content is something that is against the law (for instance: pedophilia content, libellous texts, ...).

If my memory serves well: one of the guy writing the (rather harsh) pages agains judge had..her (foreigner) wife (deported | casted out)* of switzerland.

So, "unjustifiable" sound uninformed: you can understand better the whole issue with this information in hand.

I remember having Mme Juge Françoise Dessaules or some close lastname, on the phone, on the begginning of this issue, it was in 1998 (!), there was no legal framework for her request, I was suprised of their (the judges) reaction when reading the rather lousy written, worded, pages, those few pages had a big impact in their head while not of significant relevance for anyone looking for good quality information.

(* had to look in the translation dictionnary for this)

regards.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Norbert Bollow nb@bollow.ch wrote:

roger@mgz.ch wrote:

...

Im wondering why this guy taking a big risk in creating those pages somebody must have triggered that sickness.

I looked into this a bit back in August last year, seeking to understand what got those guys so upset. IMO the actions of those guys in creating those pages, and protesting in other (at least in part also illegal) ways, are unjustifiable.

However that does not at all justify that judge's decision to push Switzerland onto the slippery slope of censorship.

...

there are open points, how to finance the equipment.

*If* that court order turns ends up being binding, my understanding is that the equipment will have to be financed just like all other equipment that is required for operating an ISP in accordance with the needs of the customers and the requirements of the law.

...

How to handle an finance an ISP get sued by an client for censorship ?

If the ISP blocks *only* websites for which a court order to block them has been served on the ISP, it should be possible to get any complaint dismissed very inexpensively by pointing to that court order.

This implies IMO that ISPs should avoid IP-based blocking. I would suggest to configure, in the nameservers which you make available to your customers, false authoritative DNS responses for any domains that you're required to block. Point them to a page which instructs visitors to direct any enquiries regarding the reasons for the block to the court which ordered the block, quoting the case number.

Of course this is easy to circumvent for any knowledgable person, but it fulfils the requirement, and it's cheap and relatively transparent.

...

Is the commanding Court legitimated to force all swiss ISP to follow this order ?

This is unclear to me as well.

Another question is this: What happens when one of those domain names expires and someone else registers it and uses it for some quite honorable purpose? That (now-suspended) court order does not appear to foresee any way in which the censorship order could be challenged at a later time on the grounds that the censorship demand no longer has any legal basis.

...

what does SIUG say to that topic ? there sems to be no activity at all.

I have a few hours ago put up copies of the two recent court orders (without the lists of ISP contact person names, which IMO raise some privacy concerns) together with a very minimal comment up on siug.ch

If you're interested in seeing SIUG take further action, such as publishing a position statement that explains why such censorship is a bad idea, or organizing public events (e.g. a podium discussion) on this topic, well, you're welcome to volunteer to do the necessary work, or pay someone to do it. :-)

Best regards Norbert Bollow, president of SIUG _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Andreas Fink afink@list.fink.org wrote:

One point to discuss is however that the judge says its impossible to take the site down because its hosted in USA. This is ridiculous argument to me. They have agreements with USA to follow up on crime (Rechtshilfeverfahren). It might be a lot of paperwork and it might be boring and time consuming, but is that OUR problem if their agreements with USA are slow and difficult?

Actually the judge claims that it is impossible to use a Rechtshilfeverfahren because the site's content is (in his professional opinion) legal under US law. It only has been decided to be illegal under Swiss law. (It is clearly his personal opinion that this is a shortcoming of US law.)

No its not. Secondly, apparently they know very well who owns that website and who has put it up as it happened before. The easiest would be to take that guy to take it down himself. But that has not even been attempted it seems.

Actually, this has been attempted (the story has been going on for quite some time). The persons in charge of the sites have reacted by moving them to US based hosting.

It appears that these are people who willingly accept the toughest penalty available under Swiss law (prison) rather than comply. It is not possible to (legally) "take that guy to take it down himself."

To me it sounds like the judge has no experience in the internet and the police often refers to some "training session" where the police guys get told how to use tools like "whois". Those training sessions don't make police officers experts in the internet.

I completely agree.

Now there's only one way to tackle this problem. WE, as experts in the field, have to get involved. We must teach them, we must help politicians take the right decision. Otherwise we will be put into the line of fire and we can only loose.

Yes, absolutely. Are you volunteering to work on this?

...

...

there are open points, how to finance the equipment.

*If* that court order turns ends up being binding, my understanding is that the equipment will have to be financed just like all other equipment that is required for operating an ISP in accordance with the needs of the customers and the requirements of the law.

I agree if this is in the law that everyone has to do it that will apply to everyone.

If a court order however picks a few ISP's only and orders it to them,

If I've counted correctly, the order of Dec 19, 2008, was addressed to 178 companies. That's IMO more than "a few ISPs only".

then we should be able to reclaim the costs as its not required by everyone and those ISP's are totally uninvolved. Why would Swisscom and Sunrise not be forced to do this?

The (in the judge's opinion) "leading" ISPs were already compelled to block the sites by an earlier court order. This is just a "mop up" operation to also address the other ISPs.

I'm sure that any and all omissions of ISPs (i.e. ISPs not addressed by either court order) are unintentional.

...

This implies IMO that ISPs should avoid IP-based blocking. I would suggest to configure, in the nameservers which you make available to your customers, false authoritative DNS responses for any domains that you're required to block. Point them to a page which instructs visitors to direct any enquiries regarding the reasons for the block to the court which ordered the block, quoting the case number.

What about an ISP who doesn't run his own DNS servers and leaves that to the customers?

I think that in that kind of situation, complying with the order might easily turn out to be more expensive than the maximum fine for non-compliance. I would suggest to get advice from a lawyer before taking any decision.

...

Of course this is easy to circumvent for any knowledgable person, but it fulfils the requirement, and it's cheap and relatively transparent.

And ridiculous too.

Yes, absolutely. Like the order is totally ridiculous too:

Ordering a politically-motivated website to be blocked will, if anything, only have the effect of increasing the number of people who read its contents and wonder if maybe there might be some truth to the matter.

...

...

Is the commanding Court legitimated to force all swiss ISP to follow this order ?

This is unclear to me as well.

This is very important to know

Is it important enough to you that you would be willing to fund a lawyer or team of lawyers to research this question?

...

Another question is this: What happens when one of those domain names expires and someone else registers it and uses it for some quite honorable purpose? That (now-suspended) court order does not appear to foresee any way in which the censorship order could be challenged at a later time on the grounds that the censorship demand no longer has any legal basis.

Blocking a domain name is not blocking the page.

Sure, but note that that particular court order is based on domain names, not URIs. (I'm not sure that that judge even understands the difference.)

think of

www.hotmail.com/mybadguyshomepage/blabla.html ?

IMO it's important to avoid making technical investments that support this kind of more fine-grained blocking (without being explicitly ordered to do so), so that if/when a court order comes which demands that kind of thing, it will be possible to truthfully argue in opposition that doing so would be unreasonably expensive and/or intrusive.

To summarize: we MUST react or we might let further such cases come in daily.

I would suggest to not take legal or public action right now (it's not like a lot can be done right now, since the deadline for opposing that order has long passed), but rather prepare so that we will be able to react quickly and decisively, in a coordinated manner, if/when a second case comes -- even if the next order also comes at a very inconvenient time like over Christmas.

BTW, back in August last year I communicated with a journalist who cares about this kind of issue, and got the feedback that the situation would become newsworthy if there was "an outcry among ISPs".

Greetings, Norbert

I think we should pay this domain. After we could receive a lot of money from our Staat... Greetings Xaver ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Fink" afink@list.fink.org To: "Norbert Bollow" nb@bollow.ch Cc: vorstand@siug.ch; swinog@swinog.ch Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [swinog] SIUG position Re: Post from Canton de Vaud

...

Another question is this: What happens when one of those domain names expires and someone else registers it and uses it for some quite honorable purpose? That (now-suspended) court order does not appear to foresee any way in which the censorship order could be challenged at a later time on the grounds that the censorship demand no longer has any legal basis.

this already happened:

www.freejustice.de is on the list of sites to block and currently available to buy from a domain grabber. So one of our lawyers could pick it up and offer legal consultation or other legitimate use ;-)

---

swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

its exactly the same case as

http://vaud.init7.net/swinog_medienmitteilung_20030502.txt

I wonder why this can happen again as it has been decided at that time already.

On 19.02.2009, at 18:26, roger@mgz.ch wrote:

i was doing a simple search in google to find references to swissjustice different webdesigner, but allways referencing to swissjustice. i think the pages where from before he dived in the darkness. So he needed an webdesigner which is willing to hide as well. He is not so good designer obviously

interessting is the c9c.net page what they offer for service.

and then : http://www.zivilcourage.ch/web/selbst.php http://www.kinderklau.ch/web/kinder.php http://www.kinderohnerechte.ch/web/selbst.php

His name es all over those pages

to show just a few ...

Roger

---

swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

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 website is blocked from a couple of ISPs. But even, it remains an ethical question for the ISP to decide if they just carry bits and bytes (as the Swiss post carry letters) without worrying what these bytes are coding (as the Swiss post does; as of today they do not filter your mail to drop invoices and ads for delivering only personal letters and postcards).

2009/2/17 Tonnerre Lombard tonnerre@bsdprojects.net

Salut, Yann, In my opinion it is not clear so far whether or not it is legal at all for an ISP to block web sites. I think that blindly doing so - especially by a dubious court order - might give customers a legal right to recourse.

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 don't sure if a voud law could send this letter to an ISP in Zuerich... Normaly the must write to the "Statsanwaltschaft Zürich" and they must send this letter. 2nd Problem they have only written to the DSL ISP... and Cablecom... Other Cable ISP musn't block it. In Switzerland we 1/3 of the costumer has cable Internet... and 1/2 of this are not CC Clients... We habve GGA Maur Sasag, divers "Gemeindewerke", WVZ, RKO Cablenetswiss etc.

With this letter this Networkes musn't block any page... (I have looked the list on www.heisse.de)

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: swinog@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 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 website is blocked from 
a couple of ISPs. But even, it remains an ethical question for the ISP to decide if they just 
carry bits and bytes (as the Swiss post carry letters) without worrying what these bytes are 
coding (as the Swiss post does; as of today they do not filter your mail to drop invoices and 
ads for delivering only personal letters and postcards).

2009/2/17 Tonnerre Lombard <tonnerre@bsdprojects.net>
Salut, Yann,
In my opinion it is not clear so far whether or not it is legal at all
for an ISP to block web sites. I think that blindly doing so -
especially by a dubious court order - might give customers a legal
right to recourse.

---

swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

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 where the filtering is applied, professional access could also be prevented to be filtered.

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 xaerni@pop.ch

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

because those sites are not hosted in CH...

-steven

Mike Kellenberger wrote:

just thinking about this again: why don't they force the site operator to take down the site? Would be much easier…

Regards,

Mike

--

Mike Kellenberger mike.kellenberger@escapenet.ch mailto:mike.kellenberger@escapenet.ch

Escapenet - the Web Company Tel +41 52 235 0700

http://www.escapenet.ch Skype mikek70atwork

*Von:* swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch] *Im Auftrag von *Andreas Fink *Gesendet:* Montag, 16. Februar 2009 16:09 *An:* swinog@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. (Ehrverletzung/Verleumdung etc.)

While I can understand that Party A tries to get their right to get things wrong written about them is being changed to correct, the ISP's of Switzerland are now out of a sudden involved in this as they are "in charge of blocking" the corresponding site.

Also what upset's me most is the sentence that this is the status of a "Verfügung" from a "Untersuchungsrichter" and there is no legal way to oppose ("gegen die vorliegende Verügung keine Rechtsmittel möglich sind"). This might be true for the immediately accused as they had their chance to answer but for us "other 3rd party" ISP's it can not hold true as we have never heard of this case ever before and we have not been involved in this case before.

I would suggest the ISP community of Switzerland stands up united against such ridiculous practice of judges who have no clue how the internet works:

I see two possible ways

a) All ISP's send an INvoice to the Party A for the installment of the filters. They have caused this work so they are liable for the cost. Its not our fault.

b) all ISP's object in written to the decision of being in this case and oppose.

or both.

What are your oppinions?

Andreas Fink

Fink Consulting GmbH

Global Networks Schweiz AG

BebbiCell AG

IceCell ehf

---

Tel: +41-61-6666330 Fax: +41-61-6666331 Mobile: +41-79-2457333

Address: Clarastrasse 3, 4058 Basel, Switzerland

E-Mail: andreas@fink.org mailto:andreas@fink.org

www.finkconsulting.com http://www.finkconsulting.com www.global-networks.ch www.bebbicell.ch

---

ICQ: 8239353 MSN: msn1@gni.ch mailto:msn1@gni.ch AIM: smsrelay Skype: andreasfink

Yahoo: finkconsulting SMS: +41792457333

http://a-fink.blogspot.com/ A developers view about iPhone SDK

---

---

swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

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... :-)

I submitted it to symlink.ch. ISPs can't take over responsibility for the behaviour of people somewhere at the other end of the world!

Regards Peter

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 on a public list (we have experienced some difficulties with that in the past ;)). I'm ready to explain the case in details to any person who's willing to support me financially in this case. To be clear and transparent, I need about 800CHF.

Feel free to call me or email me about details if you're ready to support me for at least 100CHF.

Ich wäre evt. bereit mich zu beteiligen. Kannst du mir sagen um was es genau geht, bzw. was Du machen willst?

Liebe Grüsse, Peter