Talk:Discussion space for Internet NZ monitoring framework/
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Draft Internet Freedom Checklist||2||19:16, 30 January 2013|
Here is an updated version of the Internet Freedom Checklist. Please read it over and use this space to post your comments, suggestions, changes, etc.
Perhaps we could discuss the updated checklist in the context of the new Mega site (not unlike dropbox):
Kim DotCom is quoted as tweeting: “If you use #Mega, you say YES to Internet Freedom.”
But many say Mega is using privacy as the reason to offer a service which automatically encrypts all content, but the purpose of the automatic encryption is primarily to provide them with excuses to not proactively co-operate with copyright holders.
Interesting input from Susan Chalmers at InternetNZ: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10860260
"She said the design of the service appeared to ring-fence Dotcom from knowledge of the content of the files on the Mega service - a key component for any agency attempting to prove secondary copyright violation.She said the Megaupload case and Dotcom had helped produce new case studies which defined enforcement and jurisdiction."
Meanwhile techies have poked holes in the encryption used by Mega, and this from their Terms of Service:
8. Our service may automatically delete a piece of data you upload or give someone else access to where it determines that that data is an exact duplicate of original data already on our service. In that case, you will access that original data.
Using encryption as a defense makes regulating online service/content providers more difficult. What responsibility do they bear for tracking links to encrpyted content that breaks copyright? How might legislators infringe on human rights in an attempt to hold service providers like Mega responsible?
Also this case, in which the Court of Human Rights has, for the first time in a judgment on the merits, clarified that a conviction based on copyright law for illegally reproducing or publicly communicating copyright protected material can be regarded as an interference with the right of freedom of expression and information under Article 10 of the European Convention. Such interference must be in accordance with the three conditions enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention.