{"id":79435,"date":"2024-10-02T09:00:51","date_gmt":"2024-10-02T09:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=79435"},"modified":"2024-10-02T09:00:51","modified_gmt":"2024-10-02T09:00:51","slug":"italy-approves-piracy-shield-vpn-dns-proposal-risk-of-prison-for-isps-intact-updated","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=79435","title":{"rendered":"Italy Approves Piracy Shield VPN\/DNS Proposal, Risk of Prison For ISPs Intact [Updated]"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"football-senate-s\"<\/a>In 2023, the Italian government passed new legislation that aimed to rid the country of illegal IPTV services and web-based streaming platforms. At least in part, this would be achieved by blocking their domain names and IP addresses via the now-infamous Piracy Shield system.<\/p>\n

To drive the message home, the law also introduced tougher criminal sanctions at the supply end of the market, with increased fines and custodial sentences on the table. For consumers, it meant that those pirate IPTV users face fines of up to 5,000 euros, and authorities suggest that automated fines<\/a> might be just around the corner.<\/p>\n

Last week, it was revealed that the tough new law (Law 93\/2023), introduced last year and already amended once, was about to find itself amended again. Set to benefit top-tier football league \u2018Serie A\u2019 most in the short term, the original proposals<\/a> can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Compel VPN and DNS services to block pirated content, not just ISPs<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2022 Allow blocking of IP addresses and domains, even if legal content is present<\/p>\n

\u2022 Remove limits on the volume of domains and IP addresses ISPs must permanently block<\/p>\n

\u2022 Compel service providers to report suspected<\/em> crime, or face up to a year in prison<\/p>\n

Amendments Approved, After a Series of Amendments<\/h2>\n

The proposals were signed by Senator Dario Damiani of the Forza Italia party on the input of Senator Claudio Lotito, also of Forza Italia. Senator Lotito understands football and lives and breathes Serie A. As the majority owner and president of Serie A football club Lazio, he\u2019s uniquely positioned to take part in the lawmaking process and then benefit from the outcome.<\/p>\n

The Senate Budget and Finance Committees have now approved the proposals we reported late last week but only after further amendments. The first set of changes are shown in the image below, with unchanged text in white, red representing the earlier text, and green the now-approved text; summarized as follows:<\/p>\n

Amendments (6.0.35) (Law 93\/2023<\/a>)<\/h2>\n

\u2022 Incidental blocking of non-infringing sites and services permitted as long as shared server\/resources \u201cpredominantly\u201d used for infringement.<\/p>\n

\u2022 New provision allowing those negatively affected by blocking to request revocation.<\/p>\n

\u2022 \u201cAlternative DNS services\u201d clarified as \u201cpublicly available DNS\u201d (Pi-Hole users can therefore relax).<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2022 Proposal to block unlimited domains\/IP addresses left intact.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Introduction of provisions for domain registries \/ IP assignment services to unblock domains \/ IP addresses six months after initial blocking, providing illegal use has been discontinued. <\/p>\n

\u2022 Introduction of provisions for domains \/ IP addresses to be removed from the Piracy Shield platform. Current law provides no mechanism for revoking domain or IP address blocks, leading to concerns IPv4 addresses could eventually run out.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Amendments 6.0.35 (Law 93\/2023<\/a>)\"6.0.35<\/a><\/em><\/center><\/p>\n

Original documents (old text<\/a> \/ approved text<\/a>) (Italian) <\/em><\/p>\n

Amendments (6.0.36)<\/h2>\n

\u2022 The requirement for providers of network access services, search engines, ISPs, VPN providers, CDN services, DNS providers and reverse proxy services, to report suspected criminal activity<\/em> has been withdrawn. <\/p>\n

\u2022 A replacement requirement specifies that when any of the above \u201cbecome aware\u201d that \u201ccriminal conduct is underway or has been committed or attempted\u201d they must immediately report the circumstances to the \u201cjudicial authority\u201d or \u201cjudicial police\u201d providing all relevant information.<\/p>\n

\u2022 A new requirement for online services to register a point of contact for direct communication with the authorities, for the purposes of tackling crime<\/p>\n

\u2022 A prison sentence of up to one year, for failure to comply with the reporting requirements listed above, remains intact.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Amendments (6.0.36)<\/em>\"6.0.36<\/a><\/center><\/p>\n

Original documents (old text<\/a> \/ approved text<\/a>) (Italian)<\/em><\/p>\n

What Happens Next<\/h2>\n

A vote is scheduled for today and, if that goes to plan, the amendments will head immediately to the Chamber of Deputies (lower house of parliament) for a second reading before the measure expires on October 8, 2024.<\/p>\n

The proposals, should they become law, could trigger a legal challenge. In an article published last Friday, the president of AIIP \u2013 the Italian Internet Provider Association \u2013 described the amendments as \u201can initiative that betrays two years of commitment and loyal collaboration in the sector.\u201d<\/p>\n

Giovanni Zorzoni says that the amendments run contrary to the conclusions reached following an AGCOM technical table last year, while introducing \u201cnew and dangerous surveillance obligations\u201d on communication operators, supported by threats of imprisonment under criminal law. <\/p>\n

In our article last weekend we mentioned an amendment in 2023 that allowed rightsholders to block domains without AGCOM oversight; that was considered a betrayal, Zorzoni\u2019s public comments go much further than that.<\/p>\n

Keeping ISPs Happy Seems Less of a Priority<\/h2>\n

Confirmation that ISPs feel let down doesn\u2019t come as a surprise. Assurances previously given to ensure full cooperation appear to have been forgotten once the critical phase ended. From the outside looking in, ISPs\u2019 concerns never seemed likely to get in the way of the mission.<\/p>\n

Months before Piracy Shield began blocking IP addresses in February, ISPs and other experts warned that permanently blocking IPv4 IP addresses would be unsustainable. Running out of viable IPv4 addresses was a real concern, but one that continually fell on deaf ears. In parallel, fears over the scale of blocking and the financial burden on ISPs led to an agreement which limited how many domains\/IP addresses could be blocked.<\/p>\n

The arbitrary removal of those limits via the amendments led Zorzoni to decry the method of their introduction in his article on Friday. Buried in an unrelated financial bill and handled by committees with no competency in the electronic communications sector, Zorzoni said<\/a> the ruling majority appear set authorize limitless blocking, regardless of agreement and contrary to expert advice.<\/p>\n

Tweaked Amendment Throws Zorzoni a Bone, It May Not Be Enough<\/h2>\n

Whether intentional or not, the approved amendments contain changes that may be intended to steal Zorzoni\u2019s thunder, arriving as they did after his article was published last Friday. Limitless blocking has already been approved but as detailed above, measures to unblock IPv4 addresses suddenly appeared over the weekend, perhaps as an implied quid pro quo<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Whatever the circumstances, the second set of amendments that threaten to criminalize ISPs remain, albeit with a tweak that removes \u201csuspicion\u201d and replaces it with \u201cawareness\u201d of actual criminal conduct. Why \u2018mere conduit\u2019 ISPs are suddenly required to police the internet while rejecting the \u201cinnocent until proven guilty\u201d standard, is certainly controversial.<\/p>\n

Zorzoni describes the proposal as \u201can unconstitutional, indeterminate provision, which would impose generalized surveillance obligations on Internet operators, following a model that is outside the democratic West.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAs AIIP, but I am sure that we will not be the only ones, we will oppose these changes in every Italian and European forum, if they are approved,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s true that Article 15(1) of Directive 2000\/31<\/a> prohibits the imposition of an obligation on an ISP to carry out general monitoring of information that it transmits on its own network. The rightsholders who came up with this provision understand that, and already have a solution.<\/p>\n

After identifying problematic platforms as part of their regular piracy monitoring, they will write letters to service providers detailing the criminal behavior taking place on their networks. After helping ISPs meet the \u201cawareness\u201d standard \u2013 which immediately triggers the reporting requirement \u2013 ISPs could be left in an impossible position.<\/p>\n

When news of the vote breaks later today (Tuesday), an update will appear here.<\/em><\/p>\n

Update: The Senate has given the green light to the Omnibus Decree, in the form detailed above. 98 senators voted in favor, with 88 against. The text will now head to the Chamber for a second reading.<\/p>\n

Giovanni Zorzoni<\/a> of the Italian Internet Provider Association (AIIP): \u201cAn irresponsible initiative that, in the sole interest of the football lobby, tramples on operators, the Authority and the Internet ecosystem.\u201d<\/p>\n

From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\n

Powered by WPeMatico<\/a><\/small><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In 2023, the Italian government passed new legislation that aimed to rid the country of illegal IPTV services and web-based streaming platforms. At least in part, this would be achieved by blocking their domain names and IP addresses via the now-infamous Piracy Shield system. To drive the message home, the law also introduced tougher criminal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":79436,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[308],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-torrent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79435","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=79435"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79435\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/79436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=79435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=79435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=79435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}