Carlos,
It is particularly disturbing to see the condition to use mobile telephony
as an element for registering and authenticating users. It attempts to get
the State to accord undue importance to an industrial sector.
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy/>
6.Internet(a)gmail.com
twitter.com/shivaindia
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 12:45 AM Carlos Afonso via Governance <
governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org> wrote:
> Dear people, as some of you probably know, the Brazilian Congress is
> discussing a crucial bill of law on fake news. A version of the bill has
> been approved by the Senate (where the proposal originated) and is now
> under discussion in the Chamber of Deputies. Below is a precise review of
> the situation, by the Brazilian chapter of the Internet Society).
>
> The text refers to the statement on the bill of law published by the
> Brazilian chapter, which can be read here in Portuguese and English:
>
>
> https://isoc.org.br/noticia/capitulos-da-isoc-apoiam-nota-tecnica-da-isoc-b…
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> =============================
>
> This is a brief report on the recent developments in the Brazilian
> Congress regarding the Bill on Fake News.
>
> Despite strong opposition from civil society organizations and tech
> companies, which asked for a postponing of the voting so that a more
> informed discussion could take place, the Bill has been voted and approved
> by the Senate on June 30. Voting result was 45 in favor, 32 against the
> Bill (1 abstention + the President), from a total of 89 senators.
>
> The Bill now goes to the House of Representatives, where it can be amended
> or even rejected. If amended, it must come back to the Senate for another
> round of discussion and voting. Forecast is that it might take up to 3
> months for the matter to return to the Senate. *But recent press coverage
> indicates that things might be expedited in the House in a response to
> Bolsonaro's announced willingness to veto some parts of the project that
> might affect "freedom of expression".* If finally approved by the Senate,
> it must be sanctioned by the President, who can interpose his veto to
> specific parts of the text. So we still have many opportunities to fight
> for a much better version of the Bill.
>
> Some important highlights on the version that has been approved, both
> positive and negative ones:
>
>
> - End-to-end encryption was recognized as legal. But traceability
> through "forwarding metadata" was kept, and this was the hardest fight
> so far. Several organizations are threatening to take the matter to the
> Supreme Court, because of the threat to privacy.
> - Facial recognition was not inserted as means to identify users (as
> promised by the Rapporteur the weekend before the vote). Providers are
> required to develop measures to "identify users" accused of "inauthentic
> behavior". Collection of phone numbers is not mandatory anymore. The
> Bill now states that "those apps that rely on phone numbers to function are
> obliged to suspend services to those phone lines that are cancelled by the
> operator".
> - A last-minute copyright rule was suppressed from the Bill in the
> final round of deliberations.
> - Data localization was suppressed from the Bill. A CLOUD Act-inspired rule
> was adopted to oblige companies to provide access from Brazil to data
> stored abroad.
> - Mandatory arbitration for Terms of Service was suppressed. The
> Intermediary Liability regime from the “Marco Civil” stands untouched. But
> complicated rules related to authorization for providers to remove content
> immediately remain, in cases of "harmful consequences, information security
> or user security, threats to the functionality of the service, hate speech,
> child pornography, support to suicide and self-mutilation", "defamation and
> slander" against politicians, trademarks, individuals and legal entities,
> as well as "content that lead to error or confusion, including through deep
> fakes" (which is very broad). There is a need to ensure that all those
> reached by the content are also reached by a 'right of reply' in cases of
> defamation and slander.
> - The issue of TCP/IP ports in CG-NATed connections still remains.
>
> We thank the support from other Chapters to the statements we published.
> They were collected here
> <https://isoc.org.br/noticia/capitulos-da-isoc-apoiam-nota-tecnica-da-isoc-b…>
> and also resonated on Twitter.
>
> for ISOC-BR
>
> Flavio Wagner, chair
>
>
> --
> Governance mailing list
> Governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org
> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
Hi everyone,
I came across this short guide to designing off-grid power systems on
Reddit, and I figured it may be relevant. It's not extensive or detailed,
but I found it helpful:
https://traverseda.github.io/lessons/offgridPower.md.html
Best,
-Michael
Dear people, as some of you probably know, the Brazilian Congress is discussing a crucial bill of law on fake news. A version of the bill has been approved by the Senate (where the proposal originated) and is now under discussion in the Chamber of Deputies. Below is a precise review of the situation, by Flavio Wagner, chair of the Brazilian chapter of Internet Society.
Flavio refers to the statement on the bill of law published by the Brazilian chapter, which can be read here in Portuguese and English:
https://isoc.org.br/noticia/capitulos-da-isoc-apoiam-nota-tecnica-da-isoc-b…
fraternal regards
--c.a.
=============================
This is a brief report on the recent developments in the Brazilian Congress regarding the Bill on Fake News.
Despite strong opposition from civil society organizations and tech companies, which asked for a postponing of the voting so that a more informed discussion could take place, the Bill has been voted and approved by the Senate on June 30. Voting result was 45 in favor, 32 against the Bill (1 abstention + the President), from a total of 89 senators.
The Bill now goes to the House of Representatives, where it can be amended or even rejected. If amended, it must come back to the Senate for another round of discussion and voting. Forecast is that it might take up to 3 months for the matter to return to the Senate. *But recent press coverage indicates that things might be expedited in the House in a response to Bolsonaro's announced willingness to veto some parts of the project that might affect "freedom of expression"_._* If finally approved by the Senate, it must be sanctioned by the President, who can interpose his veto to specific parts of the text. So we still have many opportunities to fight for a much better version of the Bill.
Some important highlights on the version that has been approved, both positive and negative ones:
* End-to-end encryption was recognized as legal. But traceability through "forwarding metadata" was kept, and this was the hardest fight so far. Several organizations are threatening to take the matter to the Supreme Court, because of the threat to privacy.
* Facial recognition was not inserted as means to identify users(as promised by the Rapporteur the weekend before the vote). Providers are required to develop measures to "identify users" accused of "inauthentic behavior". Collection of phone numbersis not mandatory anymore. The Bill now states that "those apps that rely on phone numbers to function are obliged to suspend services to those phone lines that are cancelled by the operator".
* A last-minute copyright rule was suppressed from the Billin the final round of deliberations.
* Data localization was suppressed from the Bill. A CLOUD Act-inspired rule was adopted to oblige companies to provide access from Brazil to data stored abroad.
* Mandatory arbitration for Terms of Service was suppressed.**The Intermediary Liability regime from the “Marco Civil” stands untouched. But complicated rules related to authorization for providers to remove content immediately remain, in cases of "harmful consequences, information security or user security, threats to the functionality of the service, hate speech, child pornography, support to suicide and self-mutilation", "defamation and slander" against politicians, trademarks, individuals and legal entities, as well as "content that lead to error or confusion, including through deep fakes" (which is very broad). There is a need to ensure that all those reached by the content are also reached by a 'right of reply' in cases of defamation and slander.
* The issue of TCP/IP ports in CG-NATed connections still remains.
We thank the support from other Chapters to the statements we published. They were collected here <https://isoc.org.br/noticia/capitulos-da-isoc-apoiam-nota-tecnica-da-isoc-b…>and also resonated on Twitter.
Flávio
I am not a technical person ( CS, PS Econimist's approuch ) ...I was also wondering about the peer to peer ...please could you elaborate ? also, the pricing model how does this really work please? Appreciate your feedback ...
Amali
Sent from my Galaxy Tab A (2016)-------- Original message --------From: Jane Coffin <coffin(a)isoc.org> Date: 07/07/2020 00:12 (GMT-08:00) To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> Subject: Re: [DC3] Fwd: Building the world’s first peer-to-peer wireless network | TechRadar
It seems that the definition of peer may be different here : )
From: <dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net> on behalf of Joly MacFie <jolynyc(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Date: Monday, July 6, 2020 at 3:17 AM
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] Fwd: Building the world’s first peer-to-peer wireless network | TechRadar
> the world’s first peer-to-peer wireless network
I am struggling to understand what is P2P about this
It seems more like FON + LoRaWan + blockchain
Joly
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 12:36 AM Amali De Silva - Mitchell <gphlilanthi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.techradar.com/news/building-theI -worlds-first-peer-to-peer-wireless-network
Regards Amali De Silva-Mitchell
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
Hi everyone,
See the note below (bolded text added). Especially those of you in Europe
may be interested in this.
Best,
-Michael
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh(a)ripe.net>
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:11 AM
Subject: [cooperation-wg] New Open Consultations by BEREC (access sharing,
5G and co-investment)
To: Cooperation WG RIPE <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net>
Dear colleagues,
We'd like to draw your attention to a number of ongoing consultations with
the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC).
BEREC's task is to further refine the implementation of European
legislative instruments by issuing guidelines that support a consistent and
harmonised approach across all member states. As with other institutions,
BEREC's work has moved fully online, which makes consultations like this
even more important as a way to liaise with stakeholders and receive
feedback.
The following consultations might be of interest:
- Guidelines on the criteria for a consistent application of article 61 (3)
EECC (deadline 31 July)
* Article 61 (3) of the European Electronic Communications Code has a
number of provisions on sharing access infrastructure. In particular, this
consultation addresses two key points. The first is about imposing
obligations to share access infrastructure on entities which are not
designated to have significant market power. The second involves sharing
infrastructure beyond the first concentration or distribution point, to an
interconnection point where the number of customers becomes more efficient
and economically feasible.*
https://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/ongoing_public_consultations…
- Guidelines to foster the consistent application of the criteria for
assessing co-investments in new very high capacity network elements
(Article 76 EECC) (deadline 4 September)
We've already flagged the work on very high capacity networks in earlier
emails. These particular guidelines lay out some specifications under which
parties with significant market power (SMPs) may offer co-investment on new
infrastructure and under which circumstances this would affect the
obligations of the SMP under article 68 of the EECC. Our understanding is
that, under certain conditions, such a co-owned infrastructure would not be
subject to the regular obligations, such as infrastructure sharing and/or
regulated tariffs, that would normally apply to SMPs.
In our assessment, this could impact smaller operators that rely on such
sharing arrangements and obligations.
https://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/public_c…
- Guide to the draft BEREC Guide to the BEREC 5G Radar and 5G Radar
(deadline 4 September)
This consultation is part of the ongoing work to get a better understanding
of the regulatory issues that might emerge from the deployment of 5G. An
important part of this is the timing and priority of these issues as they
emerge and the timelines for BEREC and the national agencies to address
them.
https://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/ongoing_public_consultations…
At this stage, we do not envision the RIPE NCC submitting a response to any
of these consultations, but we know that some of you are active in these
areas and may find it is useful to share your views with BEREC directly.
These open consultations are an important part of BEREC's efforts to take
stakeholders' opinions into account and we would encourage you to make use
of this opportunity.
Regards,
Marco Hogewoning
(Interim) Manager Public Policy and Internet Governance
RIPE NCC