The press review catalogues press articles related to la Quadrature's issues, compiled by its volunteers.
See also our French press review.
The list begins with “cheap, small, low-power plug servers,” Mr. Moglen said. “A small device the size of a cellphone charger, running on a low-power chip. You plug it into the wall and forget about it.”
Put free software into the little plug server in the wall, and you would have a Freedom Box that would decentralize information and power, Mr. Moglen said. This month, he created the Freedom Box Foundation to organize the software.
[...] with tens of thousands of individual encrypted servers, there would be no one place where a repressive government could find out who was publishing or reading “subversive” material.
A controversial law firm that sent letters to alleged illegal file sharers has been told it cannot drop its cases to "avoid public scrutiny".
ACS:Law contacted thousands of people accusing them of illegally downloading movies and songs and demanding payments of £500 to avoid court action.
Some of those contacted paid up, but it later emerged that the two companies had been taking 65% of the fines collected, with the minority of the money being passed back to the copyright holders in question, most of whom remain anonymous.
Quadrature du Net's repository of #cablegate cables related to ACTA, the secretive copyright treaty reveal that governments all over the world were pissed off that the USA and Japan wouldn't let them discuss the treaty with their citizens and industry.
More importantly, they explicitly confirm that the reason that ACTA was negotiated in secret among rich countries was that this was seen as the most expeditious way of getting a super-extreme copyright agreement passed with a minimum of fuss, and that all the poor countries who were excluded from the negotiation would later be coerced into agreeing to it.
WikiLeaks affects one of the key tensions in democracies: the government needs to be able to keep secrets, but citizens need to know what is being done in our name. These requirements are fundamental and incompatible; like the trade-offs between privacy and security, or liberty and equality, different countries in different eras find different ways to negotiate those competing needs.
[...] In 2006, WikiLeaks launched, holding out the possibility of evening up the odds, however slightly, in favour of the citizens. For the first three years of its existence, this change was more potential than actual, but in 2010, with the release of the Collateral Murder video, the Afghan war logs, and, most significantly, the US embassy cables, increased oversight of the state by citizens became real.
A batch of cables released by WikiLeaks has shown new insights into the motivation for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) currently under discussion. [...]
The WikiLe aks cables show that the news of the leak caused concern among negotiators [...]
"The history of ACTA as exposed by these US diplomatic cables shows how an opaque and illegitimate process has led to ill-founded and unbalanced repressive provisions," Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net, told V3.co.uk.
"As democratic representatives start debating the ratification of ACTA, they should reject ACTA so as to protect democratic values and the rule of law."
As La Quadrature du Net noted in a statement, the cables "do not bring anything entirely new to our understanding of Acta". However, they do reveal certain interesting details about the lengthy and secretive formulation of the agreement.
Cables from 2006, around the time that work on Acta began, showed that Japan resisted a World Trade Organisation legal attack on China, which is widely seen as a haven for intellectual property infringement — while groups such as La Quadrature du Net are most exercised by the online infringement aspects of Acta, the agreement is largely concerned with physical counterfeits.
US negotiators wanted to make the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta) a "freestanding agreement" to avoid scrutiny from international groupings such as the G-8 or OECD, according to diplomatic cables revealed by Wikileaks.
Wikileaks made available a number of Acta-related cables to the French digital rights campaign group La Quadrature du Net.
La Quadrature du Net said: "The history of Acta, as exposed by these US diplomatic cables, shows how an opaque and illegitimate process has led to ill-founded and unbalanced repressive provisions. As democratic representatives start debating over the ratification of Acta, they should reject Acta so as to protect democratic values and the rule of law."
[Techdirt] Leaked State Department Cables Confirm That ACTA Was Designed To Pressure Developing Nations
The site La Quadrature Du Net has a rather comprehensive look at a series of leaked State Department cables that confirm what many people said from the beginning about ACTA: that it was designed by US special interests as an "end run" around existing international intellectual property groups [...]
The full cable on this matter makes it clear that the US had a big plan and that plan involved bringing together only "like-minded" countries, and Japan was gleeful about this, but had originally expected the OECD would help.
French digital rights group La Quadrature du Net has compiled a list of relevant WikiLeaks cables regarding ACTA. In one, a top intellectual property official in Italy told the US that "the level of confidentiality in these ACTA negotiations has been set at a higher level than is customary for non-security agreements." [...]
As a Japanese trade official noted, "we should move as fast as possible and keep in mind that the intent of the agreement is to address the IPR problems of third-nations such as China, Russia, and Brazil, not to negotiate the different interests of like-minded countries. The new agreement could serve as a yardstick for measuring the market economy status of countries such as China and Russia."
Poor Internet providers. They have to carry all that horrible, horrible traffic from Netflix and YouTube, and they just can't afford it anymore. Unless they start charging end users 21 percent more for Internet access, or unless they're allowed to bill Internet companies at 3.7¢ per GB, the Internet could "become unusable at peak times" due to congestion.
The basic argument is simple and well-known. The ISPs claim that they just can't afford all the investment they've been making, and that's it totally unfair that companies like Netflix get to make nice business on their pipes without paying their fair share. Yes, it's the old, tired claim about "freeriding": [...]
The Kearney report at least takes a slightly better approach to the fear-mongering, at least admitting that Internet backbone traffic is fine—it's those last-mile networks that need all the cash.