this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2024
141 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37720 readers
330 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
141
Top EU Court Says There’s No Right To Online Anonymity, Because Copyright Is More Important (www.techdirt.com)
submitted 5 months ago by UngodlyAudrey@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kissaki@beehaw.org 27 points 5 months ago (2 children)

From the article-linked ruling press release - what it means in practice, what this was about:

In order to protect works covered by copyright or related rights against offences committed on the internet, a French decree introduced two personal data processing operations. The first operation consists of the collection, by rightholder organisations, of IP addresses which appear to have been used on peer-to-peer websites to commit such offences and the referral of those IP addresses to the Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur internet (High Authority for the dissemination of works and the protection of rights on the Internet) (Hadopi) 1. The second operation, carried out by the internet access providers at Hadopi’s request, consists, inter alia, of matching the IP address with the civil identity data of its holder. Those data processing operations enable Hadopi to initiate a procedure against the persons identified, combining educational and punitive measures, which may lead to a referral to the public prosecution service in the most serious cases.

I find the ruling press release is much more understandable (and much more informative) than the OP-linked article.

[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 14 points 5 months ago

Definitely; OP's linked article doesn't have any quotes that refer to copyright, while this one of yours adds a lot of context that was otherwise missing. There's a world of difference between allowing retention of IP addresses and creating a cleaning house for IPs suspected of distributing works.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The second operation, carried out by the internet access providers at Hadopi’s request, consists, inter alia, of matching the IP address with the civil identity data of its holder.

Which just opens more questions: How long are ISPs allowed/required to store customer IPs, and then what happens if I have an open wifi: Can they just assume that I did it or declare me responsible anyway, that is, is it possible for a private individual to enjoy ISP privileges?

[–] wizzim@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago

Yes if I remember the Hadopi correctly, your are responsible for securing your access point and liable for any use made out of it.

Le décret sur la négligence caractérisée a été publié au JO le 26 juin. Il instaure l'obligation de sécuriser sa connexion, sans en préciser les moyens, sous peine d'une amende salée et d'une coupure Internet en cas de délit de téléchargement illégal.

[–] Kissaki@beehaw.org 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If you read more of the ruling, the ruling allows EU nations to impose requirements on ISPs. So the storage duration would be up to national law. (Which of course one may call into question bring before court on whether they are too long.)

The question of whether you are liable as a provider of open access is an independent question. Yes, it becomes more relevant if you as a provider can't bet on anonymity anymore. But it's independent.

Looking at DE Wikipedia, looks like previous EU court rulings were dismissing being held accountable, but there's still one open. German law freed it in 2018. No mention of EU specifically in this article, so maybe it's national concern - at least until the EU court makes a ruling.