Aren't 3-letter TLDs reserved for gTLDs?
That would explain why not .LDN...
130 posts • joined 16 Sep 2009
That would explain why not .LDN...
They were collecting data about individuals which we don't need to worry about because it isn't data about individuals. Simples.
Where the hell does the Ja / Nein in the headline come from? The MEP in charge is Catalan and from the biggest political party in the Parliament. The MEP following the dossier for the second biggest party in the parliament is Greek.
Typical British prejudice Ja - related in any way to what is currently going on... nein.
Three committees voted on Opinions last week - completely unreported - while the first draft from the Civil Liberties Committee, which hasn't yet been voted on, is the sole focus of your article.
C minus. Could do better.
"Once illegal activity was confirmed by analysts"
Remember the old days when illegal activity was confirmed by impartial judges?
... that he was given a funeral that echoed his life.
"The EC's vice president only tabled the proposed regulations in January 2012, yet she is hoping to the whole thing wrapped up in 2014."
...""The European Commission says no to roaming premiums, yes to net neutrality, yes to investment, yes to new jobs. Fixing the telecoms sector is no longer about this one sector but about supporting the sustainable development of all sectors," Kroes said.
Do you really want to take everything Kroes says as fact? Where's the analysis? Where are the alternative views? Where's the criticism of her half-baked NN proposals, for example?
They're getting the end of net neutrality in return, they're not that upset.
any chance you could give us an article that is based on research?
Hahn/Cock's half hour of fame?
Your "bootnote" would suggest the former.
"Tripathi's case showed the dangers of crowdsourcing investigations of this type, "
No shit, sherlock!
Yes it is... just not in absolutely all cases.
If you're using them, you've only got yourself to blame.
If bureaucrats like in the ITU were in charge of protecting us from spam, we'd never eat anything else!
.... used to work as a lobbyist for the music industry!
I look forward to an equivalent article on this... anomaly.
... on hysterical child protection nonsense... it is a very solid business model.
... as we in the West are always right, it goes without saying that it is "their" attitude that needs to change.
"most fixed ISPs use the Internet Watch Foundation to block the worse of the worst, "
No, they "block" (solving unproven problems for unclear motives) *anything* that the IWF says may be illegal under UK law. Not "worst of the worst"... just anything the non-judicial IWF fears may be illegal.
"Teens with internet-enabled phones will have more sex with fewer condoms,"
Good lord, I've only ever used one at a time... even before I had a smart phone.
I put something on the Interwebz and somebody found it!
PS - F**k off and stop reading this!
For the Germans, I mean...
... when a war criminal turns up.
And I didn't say who I am referring to, so you have no right to censor my comment.
"The German organisation was also embarrassed last week when it emerged that party executive Julia Schramm’s publisher Random House is using DCMA takedown notices against those who pirate her book."
That was a publicity stunt... *obviously*
It is so restrictive as to be almost unusable, exactly how you'd like it, unfortunately.
Any source for that claim?
You're missing the fact that there are no ratifications.
...which renders the use, outside any legally recognised structure, illegal. Simples.
This is wrong, for starters - http://gigaom.com/europe/orange-censors-all-blogs/
"Google, which undoubtedly makes plenty of cash from porn sites, has previously warned against such a heavy-handed approach to filtering content over ISP networks in the UK."
How about Google, who has vast experience of Internet restrictions in China?
Can someone please write a memo and share it with everyone in El Reg, this is getting tedious.
"Google may not be willing to comment on how much money it makes from pornography online, but the search giant's UK public policy head Sarah Hunter has unsurprisingly urged caution when it comes to ISPs filtering content over their networks."
That's a very good point! The problem is that it's not always obvious from the headline - the fact that it was comparatively obvious this time doesn't mean that it is always obvious.
... I knew that it was one of El Reg's two "shock jocks'.
Could the Reg possibly mark the shock jock articles with a [sh1t] tag, so that we can avoid wasting our time by opening them?
Old days: Censorship / police control. N.EUspeak: Security.
... where another set of officials said that the Regulation goes too far, right?
Working group on*information exchange* and data protection. Coming from the policing side of the Council, these guys are traditionally... unfriendly to privacy concerns - information exchange and data protection are not easy bedfellows.. Their reaction is therefore not altogether surprising.
I wonder if I could do a pact with the devil that each time I see a sensible article by this author, I will age by 50 years. I'd live forever.
... nobody else can enter the market if it is regulated in this way.
...even though this doesn't work in France, doesn't work in Italy, doesn't bloody work.
I mean... if it is okay for UK police to shut down .uk sites, could we complain if they shut down .com or .net domains?
"It looks like Hague might be taking the arguments on board, kicking off the cyber-security conference with a speech railing against net censorship."
You don't understand... when THEY restrict access to content, it's bad censorship"... when WE restrict access to content, it's "good government". Small but crucial difference.
When did the ITU last make progress on anything?