macbroadcast´s blog


Germany Is Not Allowed To Talk In Hangout Air

Just heard about it:

Source

 

How low can you go? Who is to blame for that.
The new big thing is going on without Germany…again. “Hangouts on Air” are not available in Germany.

F**k who? Germany or Google?

Not only that you can’t start a HoA from a Germany IP, no can’t even join one. It’s ridiculous. This situation is not acceptable. While some say the “Rundfunkmedienstaatsvertrag” (Interstate Broadcasting Agreement), a law in Germany, is too blame, I doubt it. This law would probably violate the constitution and get ousted by the BVerfG, if it really would reach for having a public hangout.

Even if this law would possibly be interfere, I would have demand Google to do it anyway and possibly giving the responsibility to their users. If the Germans can’t technically make actions against a malicious law, then the Internet is doomed once and for all. It’s a localnet then.
All Google needed to do imho, would have been stating there is no support in other countries, and users need to act according to local laws. So then everyone could go against that in court, if one gets sued by whoever want to sue a private person for having a hangout in public. I’m quite sure such a case would have no substance in court.
But this way, Germans can’t do anything. Is Germany still a free country? I mean Saudi Arabia and the UAE are allowed to have Hangouts on Air, and Germany not? Really?

Google, lawyers, politicians, I don’t know who to blame, but on Ustream.tv and Justin.tv and many other audio streaming services, you can stream without limits even from Germany. So I would have thought Google had a bit more courage against non-free countries.  Germany apparently doesn’t have the same level of free speech than other countries in Europe have. Or is it just that Google didn’t launch it there? Like Google Music?

 

More articles in german:

Staatsvertrag verhindert Start von Google Hangouts On Air in Deutschland

http://dirk-baranek.de/internet/staatsvertrag-verhindert-start-von-google-hangouts-on-air-in-deutschland/

Kein Hangouts on Air in Deutschland
http://www.meint-ihr-das-ernst.de/gesetze/kein-hangouts-on-air-in-deutschland/

YouTubes Livestreaming vor dem Aus?
http://blog.zdf.de/hyperland/2011/07/youtubes-livestreaming-vor-dem-aus/



Paul Vixie Explains How PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet
August 26, 2011, 12:21 pm
Filed under: Big Brother, Decentralization, DNS, globalchange, ipv6, linux, society | Tags: , , ,

source

 

from the not-cool-folks dept

It’s pretty difficult to question Paul Vixie’s credibility when it comes to core internet infrastructure. Creator of a variety of key Unix and internet software, he’s still most known for his work on BIND, “the most widely used DNS software on the internet.” So you would think that when he and a few other core internet technologists spoke up about why PROTECT IP wouldbreak fundamental parts of the internet, people would pay attention. Tragically, PROTECT IP supporters, like the MPAA, appear to be totally clueless in arguing against Vixie. Their response is basically “it’s fine to break the internet to evil rogue sites.”

That, of course, is missing the point. It’s not that anyone’s worried about breaking the internet for those sites. It’s that it will break fundamental parts of the internet for everyone else as well. And… it will do this in a way that won’t make a dent in online infringement. Afterdawn sat down with Vixie who gave a clear and concise explanation of why PROTECT IP is a problem. The biggest issue is how it will impact DNSSEC, which adds encrypted signatures to DNS records to make sure that the IP address you’re getting is authentic. You want that. Without that, there are significant security risks. But PROTECT IP ignores that.

Explained simply, for DNSSEC to work, it needs to be able to route around errors. But the way PROTECT IP is written, routing around errors will break the law:

Say your browser, when it’s trying to decide whether some web site is or is not your bank’s web site, sees the modifications or hears no response. It has to be able to try some other mechanism like a proxy or a VPN as a backup solution rather than just giving up (or just accepting the modification and saying “who cares?”). Using a proxy or VPN as a backup solution would, under PROTECT IP, break the law.And, of course, none of these DNS efforts will actually stop infringement. As the Afterdawn article notes: “Bypassing DNS filtering is trivially easy. All you need to do is configure your computer to use DNS servers outside the US which won’t be affected by the law.”

And while supporters of PROTECT IP insist that there’s nothing to worry about because it only impacts those “foreign websites,” that’s misleading in the extreme. PROTECT IP will impact a ton of US-based technology companies. First, if we have a less secure internet, that’s going to be a problem for obvious reasons. Additionally, the way the law works is that it puts a direct burden on US companies to figure out ways to block sites declared rogue (you know, like the Internet Archive and 50 Cent’s personal website), or face liability. This will increase both compliance and legal costs.