indeed... well stated Andre. This SWITCH / "legal process" needs still
*alot* of fine-tuning.
On 12.08.2012 19:12, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 10.08.2012 16:27, Serge Droz wrote:
>> Hello Swinogers,
>> you may have read our press release yesterday:
>> http://www.switch.ch/about/news/2012/malware-080812.html >>
>> In the latest "PandaLabs Quarterly Report" Switzerland is judged as the
>> "Least infected" country. While one always has to read such number with
>> care, we still feel it indicates that Swiss ISPs do a good job.
>> We've been sending out reports about infected systems since about a
>> year, and the response was positive. Most people did put in the
>> additional effort to support their customers fixing the problems.
>> Thus a big "Thank you" to all who take security serious..
> Despite the results in cleaning up *websites* I still feel uneasy about
> this completely extra-judicial domain takedown process. A domain is at
> least as important as a specially assigned phone number. When BAKOM
> want's to deactivate such a phone number because of alleged abuse it
> has to issue an official order (Verfügung) which can be appealed in legal
> court. Then court then may, or may not, issue a stay on the order until
> things are further analysed or sorted out.
> Here SWITCH is the accuser and executioner in union. On top of that it
> will only re-establish the domain when SWITCH is satisfied that its demands
> are fulfilled. There is no appeals process, no legal court, no 3rd party
> review, simply nothing. And ".ch" Domains are a Swiss federal resource
> in law.
> It seems we haven't hit the edge cases yet where there is disagreement on
> whether something actually is malware or malicious enough between SWITCH
> and a domain holder.
> I'm waiting for the day "megarapiddownload.ch" (made that up) is considered
> illicit for the purpose of a domain disable procedure. What then? IFPI
> throwing a party?