Tag Archives: media

Радио България: какво всъщност се обсъжда

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/bnr_/

Отговорната редакторка на сайта на СБЖ казала,

че знае от много достоверен източник,

че Бетина Жотева, член на СЕМ,  казала,

че министърът на външните работи Захариева в личен разговор казала,

че е за закриване на Радио България.

Бетина Жотева казала,

че нито министър Захариева й е казала,

нито тя е казала, че министър Захариева й е казала,

че е за закриване на Радио България.

*

Днес много се говори, че са си говорили, това е интересен сюжет  –  но  да се върнем към Радио България.

 

I

Радио България и реформата в БНР

Радио България е име на програма, произвеждана и предоставяна за разпространение от Българското национално радио на различни езици. Технологиите се развиват, потребителските модели се променят, има динамика и във външните отношения на страната.  Променят се условията – променят се и програмите и услугите на обществените медии.

За Радио България в последно време се говори поради две обстоятелства:

  • Първо, разпространението на програмата онлайн

Радио България първоначално се разпространява наземно – поради което според ЗРТ подлежи на лицензиране  – и е лицензирана. През февруари 2012 г. разпространението на програмата продължава онлайн, като съдържанието на турски език се разпространява и наземно, включително интегрирано в програмата на районната станция  Радио Кърджали. Този факт стана  широко известен   при лицензирането на програмата на Радио Кърджали през 2015, когато се вдигна шум около новините на турски език – докато се установи, че това е част от чуждоезиковата продукция на Радио България.

Ръководството на БНР се обръща към регулатора с искане за изменение на лицензията на Радио България – така че съдържанието, което не се разпространява наземно от години, да престане да бъде предмет на лицензията. Както става ясно от протокол от заседанието на СЕМ на 16 май 2017 (стр.6-7):

 искането е за изменение на лицензията, в частта да бъдат заличени определени приложения към нея, а това са приложенията на отделни езици.

Мониторинг на СЕМ от 2017 установява, че изискванията на лицензията не се изпълняват. Да се актуализира лицензията изглежда логично искане   – пет  години след прекратяване на наземното разпространение на съдържанието на някои езици. Както напомня Мария Стоянова според посочения протокол

защото си спомняме, че става въпрос за предаватели, които са премахнати и предадени за скрап.

  • Второ, редуцирането на съдържанието онлайн

Сегашното ръководство на БНР взема и второ – вече програмно – решение да прекрати и производството на съдържание на някои от езиците. От медиите става ясно, че БНР се аргументира с данните за потреблението и интереса към това съдържание. Решението е подкрепено изцяло от Обществения съвет на БНР, обсъдено е и по съответния ред в органите на радиото. Зад решението с целия си авторитет е  Райна Константинова, в случая председател на Обществения съвет – но също  един от най-опитните експерти в областта на обществените медии в Европа.

Редуцирането на езиците ще доведе до намаляване на заетите в БНР. Някои са пренасочени в БНР, някои приемат условията за освобождаване, други протестират и търсят подкрепа в колегията и институциите.

Накратко, ръководството на БНР и Общественият съвет провеждат съдържателни обсъждания и така стигат до изводи за модела на преструктуриране на Радио България.

II

Реакцията към стъпките, предприети от БНР:

  • СЕМ

СЕМ обсъжда въпроса, но не стига до решение да измени лицензията и да легализира прекратяването на наземното разпространение, а (видно от посочения протокол) решава

да изиска информация от КРС  с какви мощности се разполага и къде се разпространява програмата на “Радио България” и

да изиска  от БНР програмна схема и програмна концепция за “Радио България”.

  • Парламент

На 15 юни парламентарната комисия за култура и медии има в дневния ред точка 2. Изслушване на генералния директор на Българското национално радио относно искане на БНР за изменение на индивидуална лицензия за създаване на радиоуслуга с наименование „Радио България” и свързаните с изменението последици.

Стенограмата отразява заседанието, изслушват се различните мнения, както и становище на министъра на външните работи. Депутатите се обединяват около идеята, че чуждоезиковата продукция на БНР трябва да бъде запазена.

Министър Захариева заявява ясно, че  министерството на външните работи по принцип не би могло да се меси в редакционната политика, въпреки че това е обществена медия. Също така министър Захариева обръща внимание,  че Радио България    „под формата, която го разбираме, класическата“     не съществува  – и става дума за чуждоезикова продукция.

За МВнР тази продукция има значение – „Подчертаваме, че чуждоезикови рубрики имат своята роля за разпространението на българската култура и наука, а също така за информираността на тези наши общности в чужбина, както и на чуждестранни граждани, за българската държавна политика.[…] разширяването на Западните Балкани е приоритет на външната политика на правителството и ще бъде един от приоритетите на българското председателство на Съвета на ЕС в началото на следващата година. И затова ще ни бъдат необходими, като инструмент да комуникираме, тези рубрики”, се казва в писмото до парламентарната комисия за култура и медии.

МВнР смята, че е уместно да се проведе обществена дискусия преди преструктурирането.

На сайта на президента е изложено становище, в което между другото се казва:    

Неприемливо е в навечерието на Българското председателство на Съвета на ЕС да се обсъжда идеята за закриването на „Радио България“. Тази програма на БНР има опит и традиции в създаването на образа ни навън като европейска държава на духа.

До медиите това съобщението достига накратко така:  Президентът забрани да се закрива Радио България.

 

  • Работещите в Радио България

Позицията на работещите е отразена по-подробно тук. Те  са срещу решението на ръководството, подкрепени са от Съюза на българските журналисти.

След срещите и публикациите поне става ясно:  парламент, президент и правителство не могат  да вземат програмните решения на обществените медии.

 

 

III

А сега?

Ръководството на БНР учи по трудния начин, че реформаторските мерки трябва да са отлично обосновани и публично обяснени и защитени, за да се отличават от обикновено съкращаване на живи хора.

УС на БНР приема за сведение изразените мнения и  решава поетапната модернизация да продължи след обществена дискусия.

Модернизацията не се поставя под съмнение, аналоговата лицензия ще си отиде. Същевременно колкото и чуждоезиковата продукция да е политически въпрос, никой не поддържа комуникация под определен праг на ефективност,  общественото радио също.

Така че предстои да се решава обща задача:    публичният  ресурс  да бъде инвестиран  в чуждоезикова продукция по такъв начин, че да се постига ефективна комуникация, включително с използване на съвременните платформи,  за изпълнение на обществената мисия на БНР.

 

 

Filed under: BG Content, BG Media, BG Regulator, Digital

Court Suspends Ban on Roku Sales in Mexico

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/court-suspends-ban-on-roku-sales-in-mexico-170623/

Last week, news broke that the Superior Court of Justice of the City of Mexico had issued a ban on Roku sales.

The order prohibited stores such as Amazon, Liverpool, El Palacio de Hierro, and Sears from importing and selling the devices. In addition, several banks were told stop processing payments from accounts that are linked to pirated services on Roku.

While Roku itself is not offering any pirated content, there is a market for third-party pirate channels outside the Roku Channel Store, which turn the boxes into pirate tools. Cablevision filed a complaint about this unauthorized use which eventually resulted in the ban.

The news generated headlines all over the world and was opposed immediately by several of the parties involved. Yesterday, a federal judge decided to suspend the import and sales ban, at least temporarily.

As a result, local vendors can resume their sales of the popular media player.

“Roku is pleased with today’s court decision, which paves the way for sales of Roku devices to resume in Mexico,” Roku’s General Counsel Steve Kay informed TorrentFreak after he heard the news.

Roku

TorrentFreak has not been able to get a copy of the suspension order, but it’s likely that the court wants to review the case in more detail before a final decision is made.

While streaming player piracy is seen as one of the greatest threats the entertainment industry faces today, the Roku ban went quite far. In a way, it would be similar to banning the Chrome browser because certain add-ons and sites allow users to stream pirated movies.

Roku, meanwhile, says it will continue to work with rightholders and other stakeholders to prevent piracy on its platform, to the best of their ability.

“Piracy is a problem the industry at large is facing,” Key tells TorrentFreak.

“We prohibit copyright infringement of any kind on the Roku platform. We actively work to prevent third-parties from using our platform to distribute copyright infringing content. Moreover, we have been actively working with other industry stakeholders on a wide range of anti-piracy initiatives.”

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Спорът БНР – Музикаутор, нова фаза

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/cpc-5/

На сайта на КЗК има съобщение, според което

С Определение № 654/15.06.2017 г. Комисията за защита на конкуренцията, на основание чл. 74, ал. 1, т. 3 от ЗЗК,  ПРЕДЯВИ на Сдружение на композитори, автори на литературни произведения, свързани с музиката и музикални издатели за колективно управление на авторски права „МУЗИКАУТОР“  твърдение за извършено нарушение по чл. 21, т. 5 от ЗЗК, изразяващо се в злоупотреба с господстващо положение на пазара на предоставяне на права за излъчване на музикални и литературни произведения от репертоара на Музикаутор по безжичен път, предаването или препредаването на произведенията по електронна съобщителна мрежа за доставчици на радиоуслуги на територията на страната, което може да предотврати, ограничи или наруши конкуренцията и да засегне интересите на потребителите посредством необосновано прекратяване на съществуващите договорни отношения с Българското национално радио, с което се препятства осъществяваната от радиото дейност.

В срок от 30 (тридесет) дни адресатът на определението и молителят имат право да представят писмени възражения по предявените твърдения.

*

През април 2017 СГС прекрати делото, заведено от БНР, поради недопустимост на иска.

През юни 2017 БНР и Музикаутор подписаха договор.

Filed under: BG Content, BG Media, Media Law

A Raspbian desktop update with some new programming tools

Post Syndicated from Simon Long original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/a-raspbian-desktop-update-with-some-new-programming-tools/

Today we’ve released another update to the Raspbian desktop. In addition to the usual small tweaks and bug fixes, the big new changes are the inclusion of an offline version of Scratch 2.0, and of Thonny (a user-friendly IDE for Python which is excellent for beginners). We’ll look at all the changes in this post, but let’s start with the biggest…

Scratch 2.0 for Raspbian

Scratch is one of the most popular pieces of software on Raspberry Pi. This is largely due to the way it makes programming accessible – while it is simple to learn, it covers many of the concepts that are used in more advanced languages. Scratch really does provide a great introduction to programming for all ages.

Raspbian ships with the original version of Scratch, which is now at version 1.4. A few years ago, though, the Scratch team at the MIT Media Lab introduced the new and improved Scratch version 2.0, and ever since we’ve had numerous requests to offer it on the Pi.

There was, however, a problem with this. The original version of Scratch was written in a language called Squeak, which could run on the Pi in a Squeak interpreter. Scratch 2.0, however, was written in Flash, and was designed to run from a remote site in a web browser. While this made Scratch 2.0 a cross-platform application, which you could run without installing any Scratch software, it also meant that you had to be able to run Flash on your computer, and that you needed to be connected to the internet to program in Scratch.

We worked with Adobe to include the Pepper Flash plugin in Raspbian, which enables Flash sites to run in the Chromium browser. This addressed the first of these problems, so the Scratch 2.0 website has been available on Pi for a while. However, it still needed an internet connection to run, which wasn’t ideal in many circumstances. We’ve been working with the Scratch team to get an offline version of Scratch 2.0 running on Pi.

Screenshot of Scratch on Raspbian

The Scratch team had created a website to enable developers to create hardware and software extensions for Scratch 2.0; this provided a version of the Flash code for the Scratch editor which could be modified to run locally rather than over the internet. We combined this with a program called Electron, which effectively wraps up a local web page into a standalone application. We ended up with the Scratch 2.0 application that you can find in the Programming section of the main menu.

Physical computing with Scratch 2.0

We didn’t stop there though. We know that people want to use Scratch for physical computing, and it has always been a bit awkward to access GPIO pins from Scratch. In our Scratch 2.0 application, therefore, there is a custom extension which allows the user to control the Pi’s GPIO pins without difficulty. Simply click on ‘More Blocks’, choose ‘Add an Extension’, and select ‘Pi GPIO’. This loads two new blocks, one to read and one to write the state of a GPIO pin.

Screenshot of new Raspbian iteration of Scratch 2, featuring GPIO pin control blocks.

The Scratch team kindly allowed us to include all the sprites, backdrops, and sounds from the online version of Scratch 2.0. You can also use the Raspberry Pi Camera Module to create new sprites and backgrounds.

This first release works well, although it can be slow for some operations; this is largely unavoidable for Flash code running under Electron. Bear in mind that you will need to have the Pepper Flash plugin installed (which it is by default on standard Raspbian images). As Pepper Flash is only compatible with the processor in the Pi 2.0 and Pi 3, it is unfortunately not possible to run Scratch 2.0 on the Pi Zero or the original models of the Pi.

We hope that this makes Scratch 2.0 a more practical proposition for many users than it has been to date. Do let us know if you hit any problems, though!

Thonny: a more user-friendly IDE for Python

One of the paths from Scratch to ‘real’ programming is through Python. We know that the transition can be awkward, and this isn’t helped by the tools available for learning Python. It’s fair to say that IDLE, the Python IDE, isn’t the most popular piece of software ever written…

Earlier this year, we reviewed every Python IDE that we could find that would run on a Raspberry Pi, in an attempt to see if there was something better out there than IDLE. We wanted to find something that was easier for beginners to use but still useful for experienced Python programmers. We found one program, Thonny, which stood head and shoulders above all the rest. It’s a really user-friendly IDE, which still offers useful professional features like single-stepping of code and inspection of variables.

Screenshot of Thonny IDE in Raspbian

Thonny was created at the University of Tartu in Estonia; we’ve been working with Aivar Annamaa, the lead developer, on getting it into Raspbian. The original version of Thonny works well on the Pi, but because the GUI is written using Python’s default GUI toolkit, Tkinter, the appearance clashes with the rest of the Raspbian desktop, most of which is written using the GTK toolkit. We made some changes to bring things like fonts and graphics into line with the appearance of our other apps, and Aivar very kindly took that work and converted it into a theme package that could be applied to Thonny.

Due to the limitations of working within Tkinter, the result isn’t exactly like a native GTK application, but it’s pretty close. It’s probably good enough for anyone who isn’t a picky UI obsessive like me, anyway! Have a look at the Thonny webpage to see some more details of all the cool features it offers. We hope that having a more usable environment will help to ease the transition from graphical languages like Scratch into ‘proper’ languages like Python.

New icons

Other than these two new packages, this release is mostly bug fixes and small version bumps. One thing you might notice, though, is that we’ve made some tweaks to our custom icon set. We wondered if the icons might look better with slightly thinner outlines. We tried it, and they did: we hope you prefer them too.

Downloading the new image

You can either download a new image from the Downloads page, or you can use apt to update:

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

To install Scratch 2.0:

sudo apt-get install scratch2

To install Thonny:

sudo apt-get install python3-thonny

One more thing…

Before Christmas, we released an experimental version of the desktop running on Debian for x86-based computers. We were slightly taken aback by how popular it turned out to be! This made us realise that this was something we were going to need to support going forward. We’ve decided we’re going to try to make all new desktop releases for both Pi and x86 from now on.

The version of this we released last year was a live image that could run from a USB stick. Many people asked if we could make it permanently installable, so this version includes an installer. This uses the standard Debian install process, so it ought to work on most machines. I should stress, though, that we haven’t been able to test on every type of hardware, so there may be issues on some computers. Please be sure to back up your hard drive before installing it. Unlike the live image, this will erase and reformat your hard drive, and you will lose anything that is already on it!

You can still boot the image as a live image if you don’t want to install it, and it will create a persistence partition on the USB stick so you can save data. Just select ‘Run with persistence’ from the boot menu. To install, choose either ‘Install’ or ‘Graphical install’ from the same menu. The Debian installer will then walk you through the install process.

You can download the latest x86 image (which includes both Scratch 2.0 and Thonny) from here or here for a torrent file.

One final thing

This version of the desktop is based on Debian Jessie. Some of you will be aware that a new stable version of Debian (called Stretch) was released last week. Rest assured – we have been working on porting everything across to Stretch for some time now, and we will have a Stretch release ready some time over the summer.

The post A Raspbian desktop update with some new programming tools appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

След Вяра Анкова

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/06/22/bnt-14/

Мъж влиза в БНТ след Вяра Анкова е заглавие в 24 часа.

24 часа е издание, което  не предполага – то  информира за решеното:  Защо е опасно този СЕМ да избира шефове на БНТ и БНР  и  изборът се отложи.

Сега казват: мъж влиза в БНТ.  Кой точно мъж? И това е казано.

Да си спомним как се фабрикува новината – като се обявява за обществено мнение: Обединение на БНТ и БНР иска медийната общност.  Нищо подобно – но 24 часа свежда волята.  Владимира Янева по-късно   разкрива механиката.

Да видим какво искала сега медийната общност – ето заглавие: Колеги на Каменаров смятат, че той е с най-големи шансове. И голяма снимка.

Октоподът-оракул Паул почина, но ние си имаме 24 часа.

 

Filed under: BG Media, BG Regulator

NSA Insider Security Post-Snowden

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/06/nsa_insider_sec.html

According to a recently declassified report obtained under FOIA, the NSA’s attempts to protect itself against insider attacks aren’t going very well:

The N.S.A. failed to consistently lock racks of servers storing highly classified data and to secure data center machine rooms, according to the report, an investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general completed in 2016.

[…]

The agency also failed to meaningfully reduce the number of officials and contractors who were empowered to download and transfer data classified as top secret, as well as the number of “privileged” users, who have greater power to access the N.S.A.’s most sensitive computer systems. And it did not fully implement software to monitor what those users were doing.

In all, the report concluded, while the post-Snowden initiative — called “Secure the Net” by the N.S.A. — had some successes, it “did not fully meet the intent of decreasing the risk of insider threats to N.S.A. operations and the ability of insiders to exfiltrate data.”

Marcy Wheeler comments:

The IG report examined seven of the most important out of 40 “Secure the Net” initiatives rolled out since Snowden began leaking classified information. Two of the initiatives aspired to reduce the number of people who had the kind of access Snowden did: those who have privileged access to maintain, configure, and operate the NSA’s computer systems (what the report calls PRIVACs), and those who are authorized to use removable media to transfer data to or from an NSA system (what the report calls DTAs).

But when DOD’s inspectors went to assess whether NSA had succeeded in doing this, they found something disturbing. In both cases, the NSA did not have solid documentation about how many such users existed at the time of the Snowden leak. With respect to PRIVACs, in June 2013 (the start of the Snowden leak), “NSA officials stated that they used a manually kept spreadsheet, which they no longer had, to identify the initial number of privileged users.” The report offered no explanation for how NSA came to no longer have that spreadsheet just as an investigation into the biggest breach thus far at NSA started. With respect to DTAs, “NSA did not know how many DTAs it had because the manually kept list was corrupted during the months leading up to the security breach.”

There seem to be two possible explanations for the fact that the NSA couldn’t track who had the same kind of access that Snowden exploited to steal so many documents. Either the dog ate their homework: Someone at NSA made the documents unavailable (or they never really existed). Or someone fed the dog their homework: Some adversary made these lists unusable. The former would suggest the NSA had something to hide as it prepared to explain why Snowden had been able to walk away with NSA’s crown jewels. The latter would suggest that someone deliberately obscured who else in the building might walk away with the crown jewels. Obscuring that list would be of particular value if you were a foreign adversary planning on walking away with a bunch of files, such as the set of hacking tools the Shadow Brokers have since released, which are believed to have originated at NSA.

Read the whole thing. Securing against insiders, especially those with technical access, is difficult, but I had assumed the NSA did more post-Snowden.

MPAA & RIAA Demand Tough Copyright Standards in NAFTA Negotiations

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-riaa-demand-tough-copyright-standards-in-nafta-negotiations-170621/

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada, and Mexico was negotiated more than 25 years ago. With a quarter of a decade of developments to contend with, the United States wants to modernize.

“While our economy and U.S. businesses have changed considerably over that period, NAFTA has not,” the government says.

With this in mind, the US requested comments from interested parties seeking direction for negotiation points. With those comments now in, groups like the MPAA and RIAA have been making their positions known. It’s no surprise that intellectual property enforcement is high on the agenda.

“Copyright is the lifeblood of the U.S. motion picture and television industry. As such, MPAA places high priority on securing strong protection and enforcement disciplines in the intellectual property chapters of trade agreements,” the MPAA writes in its submission.

“Strong IPR protection and enforcement are critical trade priorities for the music industry. With IPR, we can create good jobs, make significant contributions to U.S. economic growth and security, invest in artists and their creativity, and drive technological innovation,” the RIAA notes.

While both groups have numerous demands, it’s clear that each seeks an environment where not only infringers can be held liable, but also Internet platforms and services.

For the RIAA, there is a big focus on the so-called ‘Value Gap’, a phenomenon found on user-uploaded content sites like YouTube that are able to offer infringing content while avoiding liability due to Section 512 of the DMCA.

“Today, user-uploaded content services, which have developed sophisticated on-demand music platforms, use this as a shield to avoid licensing music on fair terms like other digital services, claiming they are not legally responsible for the music they distribute on their site,” the RIAA writes.

“Services such as Apple Music, TIDAL, Amazon, and Spotify are forced to compete with services that claim they are not liable for the music they distribute.”

But if sites like YouTube are exercising their rights while acting legally under current US law, how can partners Canada and Mexico do any better? For the RIAA, that can be achieved by holding them to standards envisioned by the group when the DMCA was passed, not how things have panned out since.

Demanding that negotiators “protect the original intent” of safe harbor, the RIAA asks that a “high-level and high-standard service provider liability provision” is pursued. This, the music group says, should only be available to “passive intermediaries without requisite knowledge of the infringement on their platforms, and inapplicable to services actively engaged in communicating to the public.”

In other words, make sure that YouTube and similar sites won’t enjoy the same level of safe harbor protection as they do today.

The RIAA also requires any negotiated safe harbor provisions in NAFTA to be flexible in the event that the DMCA is tightened up in response to the ongoing safe harbor rules study.

In any event, NAFTA should not “support interpretations that no longer reflect today’s digital economy and threaten the future of legitimate and sustainable digital trade,” the RIAA states.

For the MPAA, Section 512 is also perceived as a problem. While noting that the original intent was to foster a system of shared responsibility between copyright owners and service providers, the MPAA says courts have subsequently let copyright holders down. Like the RIAA, the MPAA also suggests that Canada and Mexico can be held to higher standards.

“We recommend a new approach to this important trade policy provision by moving to high-level language that establishes intermediary liability and appropriate limitations on liability. This would be fully consistent with U.S. law and avoid the same misinterpretations by policymakers and courts overseas,” the MPAA writes.

“In so doing, a modernized NAFTA would be consistent with Trade Promotion Authority’s negotiating objective of ‘ensuring that standards of protection and enforcement keep pace with technological developments’.”

The MPAA also has some specific problems with Mexico, including unauthorized camcording. The Hollywood group says that 85 illicit audio and video recordings of films were linked to Mexican theaters in 2016. However, recording is not currently a criminal offense in Mexico.

Another issue for the MPAA is that criminal sanctions for commercial scale infringement are only available if the infringement is for profit.

“This has hampered enforcement against the above-discussed camcording problem but also against online infringement, such as peer-to-peer piracy, that may be on a scale that is immensely harmful to U.S. rightsholders but nonetheless occur without profit by the infringer,” the MPAA writes.

“The modernized NAFTA like other U.S. bilateral free trade agreements must provide for criminal sanctions against commercial scale infringements without proof of profit motive.”

Also of interest are the MPAA’s complaints against Mexico’s telecoms laws. Unlike in the US and many countries in Europe, Mexico’s ISPs are forbidden to hand out their customers’ personal details to rights holders looking to sue. This, the MPAA says, needs to change.

The submissions from the RIAA and MPAA can be found here and here (pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Building Loosely Coupled, Scalable, C# Applications with Amazon SQS and Amazon SNS

Post Syndicated from Tara Van Unen original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/building-loosely-coupled-scalable-c-applications-with-amazon-sqs-and-amazon-sns/

 
Stephen Liedig, Solutions Architect

 

One of the many challenges professional software architects and developers face is how to make cloud-native applications scalable, fault-tolerant, and highly available.

Fundamental to your project success is understanding the importance of making systems highly cohesive and loosely coupled. That means considering the multi-dimensional facets of system coupling to support the distributed nature of the applications that you are building for the cloud.

By that, I mean addressing not only the application-level coupling (managing incoming and outgoing dependencies), but also considering the impacts of of platform, spatial, and temporal coupling of your systems. Platform coupling relates to the interoperability, or lack thereof, of heterogeneous systems components. Spatial coupling deals with managing components at a network topology level or protocol level. Temporal, or runtime coupling, refers to the ability of a component within your system to do any kind of meaningful work while it is performing a synchronous, blocking operation.

The AWS messaging services, Amazon SQS and Amazon SNS, help you deal with these forms of coupling by providing mechanisms for:

  • Reliable, durable, and fault-tolerant delivery of messages between application components
  • Logical decomposition of systems and increased autonomy of components
  • Creating unidirectional, non-blocking operations, temporarily decoupling system components at runtime
  • Decreasing the dependencies that components have on each other through standard communication and network channels

Following on the recent topic, Building Scalable Applications and Microservices: Adding Messaging to Your Toolbox, in this post, I look at some of the ways you can introduce SQS and SNS into your architectures to decouple your components, and show how you can implement them using C#.

Walkthrough

To illustrate some of these concepts, consider a web application that processes customer orders. As good architects and developers, you have followed best practices and made your application scalable and highly available. Your solution included implementing load balancing, dynamic scaling across multiple Availability Zones, and persisting orders in a Multi-AZ Amazon RDS database instance, as in the following diagram.


In this example, the application is responsible for handling and persisting the order data, as well as dealing with increases in traffic for popular items.

One potential point of vulnerability in the order processing workflow is in saving the order in the database. The business expects that every order has been persisted into the database. However, any potential deadlock, race condition, or network issue could cause the persistence of the order to fail. Then, the order is lost with no recourse to restore the order.

With good logging capability, you may be able to identify when an error occurred and which customer’s order failed. This wouldn’t allow you to “restore” the transaction, and by that stage, your customer is no longer your customer.

As illustrated in the following diagram, introducing an SQS queue helps improve your ordering application. Using the queue isolates the processing logic into its own component and runs it in a separate process from the web application. This, in turn, allows the system to be more resilient to spikes in traffic, while allowing work to be performed only as fast as necessary in order to manage costs.


In addition, you now have a mechanism for persisting orders as messages (with the queue acting as a temporary database), and have moved the scope of your transaction with your database further down the stack. In the event of an application exception or transaction failure, this ensures that the order processing can be retired or redirected to the Amazon SQS Dead Letter Queue (DLQ), for re-processing at a later stage. (See the recent post, Using Amazon SQS Dead-Letter Queues to Control Message Failure, for more information on dead-letter queues.)

Scaling the order processing nodes

This change allows you now to scale the web application frontend independently from the processing nodes. The frontend application can continue to scale based on metrics such as CPU usage, or the number of requests hitting the load balancer. Processing nodes can scale based on the number of orders in the queue. Here is an example of scale-in and scale-out alarms that you would associate with the scaling policy.

Scale-out Alarm

aws cloudwatch put-metric-alarm --alarm-name AddCapacityToCustomerOrderQueue --metric-name ApproximateNumberOfMessagesVisible --namespace "AWS/SQS" 
--statistic Average --period 300 --threshold 3 --comparison-operator GreaterThanOrEqualToThreshold --dimensions Name=QueueName,Value=customer-orders
--evaluation-periods 2 --alarm-actions <arn of the scale-out autoscaling policy>

Scale-in Alarm

aws cloudwatch put-metric-alarm --alarm-name RemoveCapacityFromCustomerOrderQueue --metric-name ApproximateNumberOfMessagesVisible --namespace "AWS/SQS" 
 --statistic Average --period 300 --threshold 1 --comparison-operator LessThanOrEqualToThreshold --dimensions Name=QueueName,Value=customer-orders
 --evaluation-periods 2 --alarm-actions <arn of the scale-in autoscaling policy>

In the above example, use the ApproximateNumberOfMessagesVisible metric to discover the queue length and drive the scaling policy of the Auto Scaling group. Another useful metric is ApproximateAgeOfOldestMessage, when applications have time-sensitive messages and developers need to ensure that messages are processed within a specific time period.

Scaling the order processing implementation

On top of scaling at an infrastructure level using Auto Scaling, make sure to take advantage of the processing power of your Amazon EC2 instances by using as many of the available threads as possible. There are several ways to implement this. In this post, we build a Windows service that uses the BackgroundWorker class to process the messages from the queue.

Here’s a closer look at the implementation. In the first section of the consuming application, use a loop to continually poll the queue for new messages, and construct a ReceiveMessageRequest variable.

public static void PollQueue()
{
    while (_running)
    {
        Task<ReceiveMessageResponse> receiveMessageResponse;

        // Pull messages off the queue
        using (var sqs = new AmazonSQSClient())
        {
            const int maxMessages = 10;  // 1-10

            //Receiving a message
            var receiveMessageRequest = new ReceiveMessageRequest
            {
                // Get URL from Configuration
                QueueUrl = _queueUrl, 
                // The maximum number of messages to return. 
                // Fewer messages might be returned. 
                MaxNumberOfMessages = maxMessages, 
                // A list of attributes that need to be returned with message.
                AttributeNames = new List<string> { "All" },
                // Enable long polling. 
                // Time to wait for message to arrive on queue.
                WaitTimeSeconds = 5 
            };

            receiveMessageResponse = sqs.ReceiveMessageAsync(receiveMessageRequest);
        }

The WaitTimeSeconds property of the ReceiveMessageRequest specifies the duration (in seconds) that the call waits for a message to arrive in the queue before returning a response to the calling application. There are a few benefits to using long polling:

  • It reduces the number of empty responses by allowing SQS to wait until a message is available in the queue before sending a response.
  • It eliminates false empty responses by querying all (rather than a limited number) of the servers.
  • It returns messages as soon any message becomes available.

For more information, see Amazon SQS Long Polling.

After you have returned messages from the queue, you can start to process them by looping through each message in the response and invoking a new BackgroundWorker thread.

// Process messages
if (receiveMessageResponse.Result.Messages != null)
{
    foreach (var message in receiveMessageResponse.Result.Messages)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Received SQS message, starting worker thread");

        // Create background worker to process message
        BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker();
        worker.DoWork += (obj, e) => ProcessMessage(message);
        worker.RunWorkerAsync();
    }
}
else
{
    Console.WriteLine("No messages on queue");
}

The event handler, ProcessMessage, is where you implement business logic for processing orders. It is important to have a good understanding of how long a typical transaction takes so you can set a message VisibilityTimeout that is long enough to complete your operation. If order processing takes longer than the specified timeout period, the message becomes visible on the queue. Other nodes may pick it and process the same order twice, leading to unintended consequences.

Handling Duplicate Messages

In order to manage duplicate messages, seek to make your processing application idempotent. In mathematics, idempotent describes a function that produces the same result if it is applied to itself:

f(x) = f(f(x))

No matter how many times you process the same message, the end result is the same (definition from Enterprise Integration Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions, Hohpe and Wolf, 2004).

There are several strategies you could apply to achieve this:

  • Create messages that have inherent idempotent characteristics. That is, they are non-transactional in nature and are unique at a specified point in time. Rather than saying “place new order for Customer A,” which adds a duplicate order to the customer, use “place order <orderid> on <timestamp> for Customer A,” which creates a single order no matter how often it is persisted.
  • Deliver your messages via an Amazon SQS FIFO queue, which provides the benefits of message sequencing, but also mechanisms for content-based deduplication. You can deduplicate using the MessageDeduplicationId property on the SendMessage request or by enabling content-based deduplication on the queue, which generates a hash for MessageDeduplicationId, based on the content of the message, not the attributes.
var sendMessageRequest = new SendMessageRequest
{
    QueueUrl = _queueUrl,
    MessageBody = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(order),
    MessageGroupId = Guid.NewGuid().ToString("N"),
    MessageDeduplicationId = Guid.NewGuid().ToString("N")
};
  • If using SQS FIFO queues is not an option, keep a message log of all messages attributes processed for a specified period of time, as an alternative to message deduplication on the receiving end. Verifying the existence of the message in the log before processing the message adds additional computational overhead to your processing. This can be minimized through low latency persistence solutions such as Amazon DynamoDB. Bear in mind that this solution is dependent on the successful, distributed transaction of the message and the message log.

Handling exceptions

Because of the distributed nature of SQS queues, it does not automatically delete the message. Therefore, you must explicitly delete the message from the queue after processing it, using the message ReceiptHandle property (see the following code example).

However, if at any stage you have an exception, avoid handling it as you normally would. The intention is to make sure that the message ends back on the queue, so that you can gracefully deal with intermittent failures. Instead, log the exception to capture diagnostic information, and swallow it.

By not explicitly deleting the message from the queue, you can take advantage of the VisibilityTimeout behavior described earlier. Gracefully handle the message processing failure and make the unprocessed message available to other nodes to process.

In the event that subsequent retries fail, SQS automatically moves the message to the configured DLQ after the configured number of receives has been reached. You can further investigate why the order process failed. Most importantly, the order has not been lost, and your customer is still your customer.

private static void ProcessMessage(Message message)
{
    using (var sqs = new AmazonSQSClient())
    {
        try
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Processing message id: {0}", message.MessageId);

            // Implement messaging processing here
            // Ensure no downstream resource contention (parallel processing)
            // <your order processing logic in here…>
            Console.WriteLine("{0} Thread {1}: {2}", DateTime.Now.ToString("s"), Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, message.MessageId);
            
            // Delete the message off the queue. 
            // Receipt handle is the identifier you must provide 
            // when deleting the message.
            var deleteRequest = new DeleteMessageRequest(_queueName, message.ReceiptHandle);
            sqs.DeleteMessageAsync(deleteRequest);
            Console.WriteLine("Processed message id: {0}", message.MessageId);

        }
        catch (Exception ex)
        {
            // Do nothing.
            // Swallow exception, message will return to the queue when 
            // visibility timeout has been exceeded.
            Console.WriteLine("Could not process message due to error. Exception: {0}", ex.Message);
        }
    }
}

Using SQS to adapt to changing business requirements

One of the benefits of introducing a message queue is that you can accommodate new business requirements without dramatically affecting your application.

If, for example, the business decided that all orders placed over $5000 are to be handled as a priority, you could introduce a new “priority order” queue. The way the orders are processed does not change. The only significant change to the processing application is to ensure that messages from the “priority order” queue are processed before the “standard order” queue.

The following diagram shows how this logic could be isolated in an “order dispatcher,” whose only purpose is to route order messages to the appropriate queue based on whether the order exceeds $5000. Nothing on the web application or the processing nodes changes other than the target queue to which the order is sent. The rates at which orders are processed can be achieved by modifying the poll rates and scalability settings that I have already discussed.

Extending the design pattern with Amazon SNS

Amazon SNS supports reliable publish-subscribe (pub-sub) scenarios and push notifications to known endpoints across a wide variety of protocols. It eliminates the need to periodically check or poll for new information and updates. SNS supports:

  • Reliable storage of messages for immediate or delayed processing
  • Publish / subscribe – direct, broadcast, targeted “push” messaging
  • Multiple subscriber protocols
  • Amazon SQS, HTTP, HTTPS, email, SMS, mobile push, AWS Lambda

With these capabilities, you can provide parallel asynchronous processing of orders in the system and extend it to support any number of different business use cases without affecting the production environment. This is commonly referred to as a “fanout” scenario.

Rather than your web application pushing orders to a queue for processing, send a notification via SNS. The SNS messages are sent to a topic and then replicated and pushed to multiple SQS queues and Lambda functions for processing.

As the diagram above shows, you have the development team consuming “live” data as they work on the next version of the processing application, or potentially using the messages to troubleshoot issues in production.

Marketing is consuming all order information, via a Lambda function that has subscribed to the SNS topic, inserting the records into an Amazon Redshift warehouse for analysis.

All of this, of course, is happening without affecting your order processing application.

Summary

While I haven’t dived deep into the specifics of each service, I have discussed how these services can be applied at an architectural level to build loosely coupled systems that facilitate multiple business use cases. I’ve also shown you how to use infrastructure and application-level scaling techniques, so you can get the most out of your EC2 instances.

One of the many benefits of using these managed services is how quickly and easily you can implement powerful messaging capabilities in your systems, and lower the capital and operational costs of managing your own messaging middleware.

Using Amazon SQS and Amazon SNS together can provide you with a powerful mechanism for decoupling application components. This should be part of design considerations as you architect for the cloud.

For more information, see the Amazon SQS Developer Guide and Amazon SNS Developer Guide. You’ll find tutorials on all the concepts covered in this post, and more. To can get started using the AWS console or SDK of your choice visit:

Happy messaging!

Sync vs. Backup vs. Storage

Post Syndicated from Yev original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/sync-vs-backup-vs-storage/

Cloud Sync vs. Cloud Backup vs. Cloud Storage

Google Drive recently announced their new Backup and Sync feature for Google Drive, which allows users to select folders on their computer that they want to back up to their Google Drive account (note: these files count against your Google Drive storage limit). Whenever new backup services are announced, we get a lot of questions so I thought we should take a minute to review the differences in cloud based services.

What is the Cloud? Sync Vs Backup Vs Storage

There is still a lot of confusion in the space about what exactly the “cloud” is and how different services interact with it. When folks use a syncing and sharing service like Dropbox, Box, Google Drive, OneDrive or any of the others, they often assume those are acting as a cloud backup solution as well. Adding to the confusion, cloud storage services are often the backend for backup and sync services as well as standalone services. To help sort this out, we’ll define some of the terms below as they apply to a traditional computer set-up with a bunch of apps and data.

Cloud Sync (ex. Dropbox, iCloud Drive, OneDrive, Box, Google Drive) – these services sync folders on your computer to folders on other machines or to the cloud – allowing users to work from a folder or directory across devices. Typically these services have tiered pricing, meaning you pay for the amount of data you store with the service. If there is data loss, sometimes these services even have a rollback feature, of course only files that are in the synced folders are available to be recovered.

Cloud Backup (ex. Backblaze Cloud Backup, Mozy, Carbonite) – these services work in the background automatically. The user does not need to take any action like setting up specific folders. Backup services typically back up any new or changed data on your computer to another location. Before the cloud took off, that location was primarily a CD or an external hard drive – but as cloud storage became more readily available it became the most popular storage medium. Typically these services have fixed pricing, and if there is a system crash or data loss, all backed up data is available for restore. In addition, these services have rollback features in case there is data loss / accidental file deletion.

Cloud Storage (ex. Backblaze B2, Amazon S3, Microsoft Azure) – these services are where many online backup and syncing and sharing services store data. Cloud storage providers typically serve as the endpoint for data storage. These services typically provide APIs, CLIs, and access points for individuals and developers to tie in their cloud storage offerings directly. These services are priced “per GB” meaning you pay for the amount of storage that you use. Since these services are designed for high-availability and durability, data can live solely on these services – though we still recommend having multiple copies of your data, just in case.

What Should You Use?

Backblaze strongly believes in a 3-2-1 Backup Strategy. A 3-2-1 strategy means having at least 3 total copies of your data, 2 of which are local but on different mediums (e.g. an external hard drive in addition to your computer’s local drive), and at least 1 copy offsite. The best setup is data on your computer, a copy on a hard drive that lives somewhere not inside your computer, and another copy with a cloud backup provider. Backblaze Cloud Backup is a great compliment to other services, like Time Machine, Dropbox, and even the free-tiers of cloud storage services.

What is The Difference Between Cloud Sync and Backup?

Let’s take a look at some sync setups that we see fairly frequently.

Example 1) Users have one folder on their computer that is designated for Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, or one of the other syncing/sharing services. Users save or place data into those directories when they want them to appear on other devices. Often these users are using the free-tier of those syncing and sharing services and only have a few GB of data uploaded in them.

Example 2) Users are paying for extended storage for Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, etc… and use those folders as the “Documents” folder – essentially working out of those directories. Files in that folder are available across devices, however, files outside of that folder (e.g. living on the computer’s desktop or anywhere else) are not synced or stored by the service.

What both examples are missing however is the backup of photos, movies, videos, and the rest of the data on their computer. That’s where cloud backup providers excel, by automatically backing up user data with little or no set-up, and no need for the dragging-and-dropping of files. Backblaze actually scans your hard drive to find all the data, regardless of where it might be hiding. The results are, all the user’s data is kept in the Backblaze cloud and the portion of the data that is synced is also kept in that provider’s cloud – giving the user another layer of redundancy. Best of all, Backblaze will actually back up your Dropbox, iCloud Drive, Google Drive, and OneDrive folders.

Data Recovery

The most important feature to think about is how easy it is to get your data back from all of these services. With sync and share services, retrieving a lot of data, especially if you are in a high-data tier, can be cumbersome and take awhile. Generally, the sync and share services only allow customers to download files over the Internet. If you are trying to download more than a couple gigabytes of data, the process can take time and can be fraught with errors.

With cloud storage services, you can usually only retrieve data over the Internet as well, and you pay for both the storage and the egress of the data, so retrieving a large amount of data can be both expensive and time consuming.

Cloud backup services will enable you to download files over the internet too and can also suffer from long download times. At Backblaze we never want our customers to feel like we’re holding their data hostage, which is why we have a lot of restore options, including our Restore Return Refund policy, which allows people to restore their data via a USB Hard Drive, and then return that drive to us for a refund. Cloud sync providers do not provide this capability.

One popular data recovery use case we’ve seen when a person has a lot of data to restore is to download just the files that are needed immediately, and then order a USB Hard Drive restore for the remaining files that are not as time sensitive. The user gets all their files back in a few days, and their network is spared the download charges.

The bottom line is that all of these services have merit for different use-cases. Have questions about which is best for you? Sound off in the comments below!

The post Sync vs. Backup vs. Storage appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

US Embassy Threatens to Close Domain Registry Over ‘Pirate Bay’ Domain

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/us-embassy-threatens-to-close-domain-registry-over-pirate-bay-domain-170620/

Domains have become an integral part of the piracy wars and no one knows this better than The Pirate Bay.

The site has burned through numerous domains over the years, with copyright holders and authorities successfully pressurizing registries to destabilize the site.

The latest news on this front comes from the Central American country of Costa Rica, where the local domain registry is having problems with the United States government.

The drama is detailed in a letter to ICANN penned by Dr. Pedro León Azofeifa, President of the Costa Rican Academy of Science, which operates NIC Costa Rica, the registry in charge of local .CR domain names.

Azofeifa’s letter is addressed to ICANN board member Thomas Schneider and pulls no punches. It claims that for the past two years the United States Embassy in Costa Rica has been pressuring NIC Costa Rica to take action against a particular domain.

“Since 2015, the United Estates Embassy in Costa Rica, who represents the interests of the United States Department of Commerce, has frequently contacted our organization regarding the domain name thepiratebay.cr,” the letter to ICANN reads.

“These interactions with the United States Embassy have escalated with time and include great pressure since 2016 that is exemplified by several phone calls, emails, and meetings urging our ccTLD to take down the domain, even though this would go against our domain name policies.”

The letter states that following pressure from the US, the Costa Rican Ministry of Commerce carried out an investigation which concluded that not taking down the domain was in line with best practices that only require suspensions following a local court order. That didn’t satisfy the United States though, far from it.

“The representative of the United States Embassy, Mr. Kevin Ludeke, Economic Specialist, who claims to represent the interests of the US Department of
Commerce, has mentioned threats to close our registry, with repeated harassment
regarding our practices and operation policies,” the letter to ICANN reads.

Ludeke is indeed listed on the US Embassy site for Costa Rica. He’s also referenced in a 2008 diplomatic cable leaked previously by Wikileaks. Contacted via email, Ludeke did not immediately respond to TorrentFreak’s request for comment.

Extract from the letter to ICANN

Surprisingly, Azofeifa says the US representative then got personal, making negative comments towards his Executive Director, “based on no clear evidence or statistical data to support his claims, as a way to pressure our organization to take down the domain name without following our current policies.”

Citing the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society of 2005, Azofeifa asserts that “policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of the States,” which in Costa Rica’s case means that there must be “a final judgment from the Courts of Justice of the Republic of Costa Rica” before the registry will suspend a domain.

But it seems legal action was not the preferred route of the US Embassy. Demanding that NIC Costa Rica take unilateral action, Mr. Ludeke continued with “pressure and harassment to take down the domain name without its proper process and local court order.”

Azofeifa’s letter to ICANN, which is cc’d to Stafford Fitzgerald Haney, United States Ambassador to Costa Rica and various people in the Costa Rican Ministry of Commerce, concludes with a request for suggestions on how to deal with the matter.

While the response should prove very interesting, none of the parties involved appear to have noticed that ThePirateBay.cr isn’t officially connected to The Pirate Bay

The domain and associated site appeared in the wake of the December 2014 shut down of The Pirate Bay, claiming to be the real deal and even going as far as making fake accounts in the names of famous ‘pirate’ groups including ettv and YIFY.

Today it acts as an unofficial and unaffiliated reverse proxy to The Pirate Bay while presenting the site’s content as its own. It’s also affiliated with a fake KickassTorrents site, Kickass.cd, which to this day claims that it’s a reincarnation of the defunct torrent giant.

But perhaps the most glaring issue in this worrying case is the apparent willingness of the United States to call out Costa Rica for not doing anything about a .CR domain run by third parties, when the real Pirate Bay’s .org domain is under United States’ jurisdiction.

Registered by the Public Interest Registry in Reston, Virginia, ThePirateBay.org is the famous site’s main domain. TorrentFreak asked PIR if anyone from the US government had ever requested action against the domain but at the time of publication, we had received no response.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

За очакванията към обществените медии

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/19203bbc/

 

Контекстът, в който работят обществените медии, се променя бързо. В резултат на тези промени се наблюдава и промяна в аудиторията по отношение на обществените медии. Поради това са необходими изследвания, за да се разберат приоритетите на обществеността, като се има предвид тази променяща се среда.

Какви са очакванията на хората по отношение на обществените телевизия и радио? Основен въпрос предвид финансирането с публичен ресурс.

На сайта на регулатора Ofcom   са  оповестени резултатите от изследването на обществените очаквания в Обединеното кралство към Би Би Си с акцент върху отличителността на Би Би Си – според доклада отличителни за Би Би Си са качество, професионализъм, достоверност на информацията, богатство от таланти,  ангажирани с производството и представянето на предаванията.

Събрани и обобщени са мнения за ролята на Би Би Си в обществото и новите й обществени функции.

Докладът

Важен е докладът –  но и подходът. За сравнение –  как е тук: без доклад. В миналото Народно събрание Полина Карастоянова, шеф на парламентарната комисия за култура и медии, проведе среща, наречена обществено обсъждане (10 март 2016) на обществените медии –  ето така. 

Filed under: EU Law, Media Law

Регулаторът отложи отново избора на генерален директор на БНТ

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/bnt-13/

Изглеждаше, че процедурата за избор на генерален директор на БНТ е обявена окончателно и на 2 август ще има избран нов генерален директор. Не е окончателно – на сайта на СЕМ има съобщение – изборът се отлага за края на август, причина:

за да се осигури достъп до актуална информация за програмното, технологичното и финансовото състояние на обществената медия, с оглед на гарантиране на равнопоставеното участие на кандидатите.

Причината е странна и проблематична: така излиза, че
(1) досегашните конкурси са провеждани в условия на неравнопоставеност на кандидатите и
(2)   с  един отчет  за полугодието  ще се  гарантира  равнопоставеното участие на кандидатите – с което се прехвърля отговорността за  равнопоставеността към сегашното ръководство на БНТ. А ако в отчета няма достатъчно информация – ще се отлага ли процедурата отново? И колко информация е достатъчно?

Колкото повече думи натрупва регулаторът около този отлаган избор, толкова повече въпроси възникват.

*
Прессъобщение

06 Юни 2017

Съветът за електронни медии (СЕМ), във връзка с обявената на 31 май 2017 г. процедура за избор на генерален директор на Българската национална телевизия (БНТ), реши да удължи срока за подаване на документи от кандидатите. Промяната се налага, за да се осигури достъп до актуална информация за програмното, технологичното и финансовото състояние на обществената медия, с оглед на гарантиране на равнопоставеното участие на кандидатите.
Във връзка с това СЕМ ще изиска от БНТ отчет за последното шестмесечие, който ще бъде разгледан на 3 юли и публикуван на сайта на регулатора.
Сроковете за отделните етапи на процедурата се изменят, както следва: подаване на документи – до 17 юли 2017 г.;
оповестяване на кандидатите, които са допуснати до процедурата – 08 август 2017 г.;
оповестяване на кандидатите, които са допуснати до изслушване – 17 август 2017 г.;
изслушвания – 21-22 август 2017 г.;
избор на генерален директор – 23 август 2017 г.
Решение РД-05-159/2016 г. относно процедура за избор на генерален директор на националния обществен доставчик на радиоуслуги, съответно на генерален директор на националния обществен доставчик на аудио-визуални медийни услуги

Filed under: BG Media, BG Regulator, Media Law

[$] Preventing stack guard-page hopping

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/725832/rss

Normally, the -rc6 kernel testing release is not the place where one would
expect to find a 900-line memory-management change. As it happens, though,
such a change was quietly merged immediately prior to the 4.12-rc6 release; indeed, it may have been the
real reason behind 4.12-rc6 coming out some hours later than would have
been expected. This change is important, though, in that it addresses a
newly publicized security threat
that, it seems, is being actively
exploited.

Roku Sales Banned in Mexico Over Piracy Concerns

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/roku-sales-banned-in-mexico-over-piracy-concerns-170619/

Online streaming piracy is on the rise and many people use dedicated media players to watch it through their regular TV.

While a lot of attention has been on Kodi, there are other players on the market that allow people to do the same. Roku, for example, has been doing very well too.

Like Kodi, Roku media players don’t offer any pirated content out of the box. In fact, they can be hooked up to a wide variety of legal streaming options including HBO Go, Hulu, and Netflix. Still, there is also a market for third-party pirate channels, outside the Roku Channel Store, which turn the boxes into pirate tools.

This pirate angle has now resulted in a ban on Roku sales in Mexico, according to a report in Milenio.

The ban was issued by the Superior Court of Justice of the City of Mexico, following a complaint from Cablevision. The order in question prohibits stores such as Amazon, Liverpool, El Palacio de Hierro, and Sears from importing and selling the devices.

In addition, the court also instructs banks including Banorte and BBVA Bancomer to stop processing payments from a long list of accounts linked to pirated services on Roku.

The main reason for the order is the availability of pirated content through Roku, but banning the device itself is utterly comprehensive. It would be similar to banning all Android-based devices because certain apps allow users to stream copyrighted content without permission.

Roku

Roku has yet to release an official statement on the court order. TorrentFreak reached out to the company but hadn’t heard back at the time of publication.

It’s clear, however, that streaming players are among the top concerns for copyright holders. Motion Picture Association boss Stan McCoy recently characterized the use of streaming players to access infringing content as “Piracy 3.0.

“If you think of old-fashioned peer-to-peer piracy as 1.0, and then online illegal streaming websites as 2.0, in the audio-visual sector, in particular, we now face challenge number 3.0, which is what I’ll call the challenge of illegal streaming devices,” McCoy said earlier this month.

Unlike the court order in Mexico, however, McCoy stressed that the devices themselves, and software such as Kodi, are ‘probably’ not illegal. However, copyright-infringing pirate add-ons have the capability to turn them into an unprecedented piracy threat.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

New Technique to Hijack Social Media Accounts

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/06/new_technique_t.html

Access Now has documented it being used against a Twitter user, but it also works against other social media accounts:

With the Doubleswitch attack, a hijacker takes control of a victim’s account through one of several attack vectors. People who have not enabled an app-based form of multifactor authentication for their accounts are especially vulnerable. For instance, an attacker could trick you into revealing your password through phishing. If you don’t have multifactor authentication, you lack a secondary line of defense. Once in control, the hijacker can then send messages and also subtly change your account information, including your username. The original username for your account is now available, allowing the hijacker to register for an account using that original username, while providing different login credentials.

Three news stories.

BPI Breaks Record After Sending 310 Million Google Takedowns

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/bpi-breaks-record-after-sending-310-million-google-takedowns-170619/

A little over a year ago during March 2016, music industry group BPI reached an important milestone. After years of sending takedown notices to Google, the group burst through the 200 million URL barrier.

The fact that it took BPI several years to reach its 200 million milestone made the surpassing of the quarter billion milestone a few months later even more remarkable. In October 2016, the group sent its 250 millionth takedown to Google, a figure that nearly doubled when accounting for notices sent to Microsoft’s Bing.

But despite the volumes, the battle hadn’t been won, let alone the war. The BPI’s takedown machine continued to run at a remarkable rate, churning out millions more notices per week.

As a result, yet another new milestone was reached this month when the BPI smashed through the 300 million URL barrier. Then, days later, a further 10 million were added, with the latter couple of million added during the time it took to put this piece together.

BPI takedown notices, as reported by Google

While demanding that Google places greater emphasis on its de-ranking of ‘pirate’ sites, the BPI has called again and again for a “notice and stay down” regime, to ensure that content taken down by the search engine doesn’t simply reappear under a new URL. It’s a position BPI maintains today.

“The battle would be a whole lot easier if intermediaries played fair,” a BPI spokesperson informs TF.

“They need to take more proactive responsibility to reduce infringing content that appears on their platform, and, where we expressly notify infringing content to them, to ensure that they do not only take it down, but also keep it down.”

The long-standing suggestion is that the volume of takedown notices sent would reduce if a “take down, stay down” regime was implemented. The BPI says it’s difficult to present a precise figure but infringing content has a tendency to reappear, both in search engines and on hosting sites.

“Google rejects repeat notices for the same URL. But illegal content reappears as it is re-indexed by Google. As to the sites that actually host the content, the vast majority of notices sent to them could be avoided if they implemented take-down & stay-down,” BPI says.

The fact that the BPI has added 60 million more takedowns since the quarter billion milestone a few months ago is quite remarkable, particularly since there appears to be little slowdown from month to month. However, the numbers have grown so huge that 310 billion now feels a lot like 250 million, with just a few added on top for good measure.

That an extra 60 million takedowns can almost be dismissed as a handful is an indication of just how massive the issue is online. While pirates always welcome an abundance of links to juicy content, it’s no surprise that groups like the BPI are seeking more comprehensive and sustainable solutions.

Previously, it was hoped that the Digital Economy Bill would provide some relief, hopefully via government intervention and the imposition of a search engine Code of Practice. In the event, however, all pressure on search engines was removed from the legislation after a separate voluntary agreement was reached.

All parties agreed that the voluntary code should come into effect two weeks ago on June 1 so it seems likely that some effects should be noticeable in the near future. But the BPI says it’s still early days and there’s more work to be done.

“BPI has been working productively with search engines since the voluntary code was agreed to understand how search engines approach the problem, but also what changes can and have been made and how results can be improved,” the group explains.

“The first stage is to benchmark where we are and to assess the impact of the changes search engines have made so far. This will hopefully be completed soon, then we will have better information of the current picture and from that we hope to work together to continue to improve search for rights owners and consumers.”

With more takedown notices in the pipeline not yet publicly reported by Google, the BPI informs TF that it has now notified the search giant of 315 million links to illegal content.

“That’s an astonishing number. More than 1 in 10 of the entire world’s notices to Google come from BPI. This year alone, one in every three notices sent to Google from BPI is for independent record label repertoire,” BPI concludes.

While it’s clear that groups like BPI have developed systems to cope with the huge numbers of takedown notices required in today’s environment, it’s clear that few rightsholders are happy with the status quo. With that in mind, the fight will continue, until search engines are forced into compromise. Considering the implications, that could only appear on a very distant horizon.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Disney Asks Google to Remove Its Own (Invisible) Takedown Notices

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/disney-asks-google-to-remove-its-own-invisible-takedown-notices-170618/

Pretty much every major copyright holder regularly reports infringing links to Google, hoping to decrease the visibility of pirated files.

Over the past several years, the search engine has had to remove more than two billion links and most of these requests have been neatly archived in the Lumen database.

Walt Disney Company is no stranger to these takedown efforts. The company has sent over 20 million takedown requests to the search engine, covering a wide variety of content. All of these notices are listed in Google’s transparency report, and copies are available at Lumen.

While this is nothing new, we recently noticed that Disney doesn’t stop at reporting direct links to traditional “pirate” sites. In fact, they recently targeted one of their own takedown notices in the Lumen database, which was sent on behalf of its daughter company Lucasfilm.

In the notice below, the media giant wants Google to remove a links to a copy of its own takedown notice, claiming that it infringes the copyright of the blockbuster “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.”

Disney vs. Disney?

This is not the first time that a company has engaged in this type of meta-censorship, it appears.

However, it’s all the more relevant this week after a German court decided that Google can be ordered to stop linking to its own takedown notices. While that suggests that Disney was right to ask for its own link to be removed, the reality is a bit more complex.

When it was still known as ChillingEffects, the Lumen Database instructed Google not to index any takedown notices. And indeed, searching for copies of takedown notices yields no result. This means that Disney asked Google to remove a search result that doesn’t exist.

Perhaps things are different in a galaxy far, far away, but Disney’s takedown notice is not only self-censorship but also entirely pointless.

Disney might be better off focusing on content that Google has actually indexed, instead of going after imaginary threats. Or put in the words of Gold Five: “Stay on Target,” Disney..

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Comodo DNS Blocks TorrentFreak Over “Hacking and Warez “

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/comodo-dns-blocks-torrentfreak-over-hacking-and-warez-170617/

Website blocking has become one of the go-to methods for reducing online copyright infringement.

In addition to court-ordered blockades, various commercial vendors also offer a broad range of blocking tools. This includes Comodo, which offers a free DNS service that keeps people away from dangerous sites.

The service labeled SecureDNS is part of the Comodo Internet Security bundle but can be used by the general public as well, without charge. Just change the DNS settings on your computer or any other device, and you’re ready to go.

“As a leading provider of computer security solutions, Comodo is keenly aware of the dangers that plague the Internet today. SecureDNS helps users keep safe online with its malware domain filtering feature,” the company explains.

Aside from malware and spyware, Comodo also blocks access to sites that offer access to pirated content. Or put differently, they try to do this. But it’s easier said than done.

This week we were alerted to the fact that Comodo blocks direct access to TorrentFreak. Those who try to access our news site get an ominous warning instead, suggesting that we might share pirated content.

“This website has been blocked temporarily because of the following reason(s): Hacking/Warez: Site may offer illegal sharing of copyrighted software or media,” the warning reads, adding that several users also reported the site to be unsafe.

TorrentFreak blocked

People can still access the site by clicking on a big red cross, although that’s something Comodo doesn’t recommend. However, it is quite clear that new readers will be pretty spooked by the alarming message.

We assume that TorrentFreak was added to Comodo’s blocklist by mistake. And while mistakes can happen everywhere, this once again show that overblocking is a serious concern.

We are lucky enough that readers alerted us to the problem, but in other cases, it could easily go unnoticed.

Interestingly, the ‘piracy’ blocklist is not as stringent as the above would suggest. While we replicated the issue, we also checked several other known ‘pirate’ sites including The Pirate Bay, RARBG, GoMovies, and Pubfilm. These could all be accessed through SecureDNS without any warning.

TorrentFreak contacted Comodo for a comment on their curious blocking efforts, but we have yet to hear back from the company. In the meantime, Comodo SecureDNS users may want to consider switching to a more open DNS provider.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Pirate Bay Ruling is Bad News For Google & YouTube, Experts Says

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-ruling-is-bad-news-for-google-youtube-experts-says-170615/

After years of legal wrangling, yesterday the European Court of Justice handed down a decision in the case between Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN and ISPs Ziggo and XS4ALL.

BREIN had demanded that the ISPs block The Pirate Bay, but both providers dug in their heels, forcing the case through the Supreme Court and eventually the ECJ.

For BREIN, yesterday’s decision will have been worth the wait. Although The Pirate Bay does not provide the content that’s ultimately downloaded and shared by its users, the ECJ said that it plays an important role in how that content is presented.

“Whilst it accepts that the works in question are placed online by the users, the Court highlights the fact that the operators of the platform play an essential role in making those works available,” the Court said.

With that established the all-important matter is whether by providing such a platform, the operators of The Pirate Bay are effectively engaging in a “communication to the public” of copyrighted works. According to the ECJ, that’s indeed the case.

“The Court holds that the making available and management of an online sharing platform must be considered to be an act of communication for the purposes of the directive,” the ECJ said.

Add into the mix that The Pirate Bay generates profit from its activities and there’s a potent case for copyright liability.

While the case was about The Pirate Bay, ECJ rulings tend to have an effect far beyond individual cases. That’s certainly the opinion of Enzo Mazza, chief at Italian anti-piracy group FIMI.

“The ruling will have a major impact on the way that entities like Google operate, because it will expose them to a greater and more direct responsibility,” Mazza told La Repubblica.

“So far, Google has worked against piracy by eliminating illegal content after it gets reported. But that is not enough. It is a fairly ineffective intervention.”

Mazza says that platforms like Google, YouTube, and thousands of similar sites that help to organize and curate user-uploaded content are somewhat similar to The Pirate Bay. In any event, they are not neutral intermediaries, he insists.

The conclusion that the decision is bad for platforms like YouTube is shared by Fulvio Sarzana, a lawyer with Sarzana and Partners, a law firm specializing in Internet and copyright disputes.

“In the ruling, the Court has in fact attributed, for the first time, secondary liability to sharing platforms due to the violation of copyrights carried out by the users of a platform,” Sarzana informs TF.

“This will have consequences for video-sharing platforms and user-generated content sites like YouTube, but it excludes responsibility for platforms that play a purely passive role, without affecting users’ content. This the case with cyberlockers, for example.”

Sarzana says that “unfortunate judgments” like this should be expected, until the approval of a new European copyright law. Enzo Mazza, on the other hand, feels that the copyright reform debate should take account of this ruling when formulating legislation to stop platforms like YouTube exploiting copyright works without an appropriate license.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Съд на ЕС: за достъпа до The Pirate Bay

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/the-pirate-bay-5/

Вчера беше публикувано решението на Съда на ЕС по дело C‑610/15 Stichting Brein срещу Ziggo BV и XS4ALL Internet BV.

Решението засяга функционирането и достъпа до The Pirate Bay.

Спорът

9 Ziggo и XS4ALL са доставчици на достъп до интернет. Значителна част от техните абонати ползват платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB, индексатор на BitTorrent файлове. BitTorrent е протокол, чрез който потребителите (наричани „равноправни устройства“ или „peers“) могат да споделят файлове. Съществената характеристика на BitTorrent се състои в това, че файловете, които се споделят, са разделени на малки сегменти, като по този начин отпада необходимостта от централен сървър за съхраняване на тези файлове, което облекчава тежестта на индивидуалните сървъри в процеса на споделянето. За да могат да споделят файлове, потребителите трябва най-напред да свалят специален софтуер, наречен „BitTorrent клиент“, който не се предлага от платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB. Този BitTorrent клиент представлява софтуер, който позволява създаването на торент файлове.

10      Потребителите (наричани „seeders“ [сийдъри]), които желаят да предоставят файл от своя компютър на разположение на други потребители (наричани „leechers“ [лийчъри]), трябва да създадат торент файл чрез своя BitTorrent клиент. Торент файловете препращат към централен сървър (наричан „tracker“ [тракер]), който идентифицира потребители, които могат да споделят конкретен торент файл, както и прилежащия към него медиен файл. Тези торент файлове се качват (upload) от сийдърите (на платформа за онлайн споделяне, каквато е TPB, която след това ги индексира, за да могат те да бъдат намирани от потребителите на платформата за онлайн споделяне и произведенията, към които тези торент файлове препращат, да могат да бъдат сваляни (download) на компютрите на последните на отделни сегменти чрез техния BitTorrent клиент.

11      Често пъти вместо торенти се използват магнитни линкове. Тези линкове идентифицират съдържанието на торента и препращат към него чрез цифров отпечатък.

12      Голямото мнозинство от предлаганите на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB торент файлове препращат към произведения, които са обект на закрила от авторски права, без да е дадено разрешение от носителите на авторското право на администраторите и на потребителите на тази платформа за извършване на действията по споделянето.

13      Главното искане на Stichting Brein в производството пред националната юрисдикция е да разпореди на Ziggo и на XS4ALL да блокират имената на домейни и интернет адресите на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB с цел да се предотврати възможността за ползване на услугите на тези доставчици на достъп до интернет за нарушаване на авторското и сродните му права на носителите на правата, чиито интереси защитава Stichting Brein.

Въпросите

 При тези обстоятелства Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Върховен съд на Нидерландия) решава да спре производството по делото и да постави на Съда следните преюдициални въпроси:

„1)      Налице ли е публично разгласяване по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29 от страна на администратора на уебсайт, ако на този уебсайт не са налице защитени произведения, но съществува система […], с която намиращи се в компютрите на потребителите метаданни за защитени произведения се индексират и категоризират за потребителите по начин, по който последните могат да проследяват, да качват онлайн, както и да свалят закриляните произведения?

2)      При отрицателен отговор на първия въпрос:

Дават ли член 8, параграф 3 от Директива 2001/29 и член 11 от Директива 2004/48 основание за издаването на забрана по отношение на посредник по смисъла на тези разпоредби, който по описания във въпрос 1 начин улеснява извършването на нарушения от трети лица?“.

Вече имаме заключението на Генералния адвокат Szpunar, според което

обстоятелството, че операторът на уебсайт индексира файлове, съдържащи закриляни с авторско право произведения, които се предлагат за споделяне в peer-to-peer мрежа, и предоставя търсачка, с което позволява тези файлове да бъдат намирани, представлява публично разгласяване по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29, когато операторът знае, че дадено произведение е предоставено на разположение в мрежата без съгласието на носителите на авторските права, но не предприема действия за блокиране на достъпа до това произведение.

Решението

Понятието „публично разгласяване“ обединява два кумулативни елемента, а именно „акт на разгласяване“ на произведение и „публичност“ на разгласяването (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 29 и цитираната съдебна практика). За да се прецени дали даден ползвател извършва акт на публично разгласяване по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29, трябва да се отчетат няколко допълнителни критерия, които не са самостоятелни и са взаимозависими.

  • ключовата роля на потребителя и съзнателния характер на неговата намеса. Всъщност този потребител извършва акт на разгласяване, когато, като съзнава напълно последиците от своето поведение, се намесва, за да предостави на клиентите си достъп до произведение, което е обект на закрила, и по-специално когато без неговата намеса тези клиенти по принцип не биха могли да се ползват от разпространеното произведение. (вж. в този смисъл решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 31 и цитираната съдебна практика).
  • понятието „публично“ се отнася до неопределен брой потенциални адресати и освен това предполага наличие на доста голям брой лица (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 32 и цитираната съдебна практика).
  • закриляното произведение трябва да бъде разгласено, като се използва специфичен технически способ, различен от използваните дотогава, или, ако не е използван такъв способ — пред „нова публика“, тоест публика, която не е била вече взета предвид от носителите на авторското право при даването на разрешение за първоначалното публично разгласяване на произведението им (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 33 и цитираната съдебна практика).
  • дали публичното разгласяване  е извършено с цел печалба (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 34 и цитираната съдебна практика).

42 В случая, видно от акта за преюдициално запитване, значителна част от абонатите на Ziggo и XS4ALL са сваляли медийни файлове чрез платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB. Както следва и от представените пред Съда становища, тази платформа се използва от значителен брой лица, като администраторите от TPB съобщават на своята платформа за онлайн споделяне за десетки милиони „потребители“. В това отношение разглежданото в главното производство разгласяване се отнася най-малкото до всички потребители на тази платформа. Тези потребители могат да имат достъп във всеки момент и едновременно до защитените произведения, които са споделени посредством посочената платформа. Следователно това разгласяване се отнася до неопределен брой потенциални адресати и предполага наличие на голям брой лица (вж. в този смисъл решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 45 и цитираната съдебна практика).

43      От това следва, че с разгласяване като разглежданото в главното производство закриляни произведения действително се разгласяват „публично“ по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29.

44      Освен това, що се отнася до въпроса дали тези произведения са разгласяват на „нова“ публика по смисъла на съдебната практика, цитирана в точка 28 от настоящото съдебно решение, следва да се посочи, че в решението си от 13 февруари 2014 г., Svensson и др. (C‑466/12, EU:C:2014:76, т. 24 и 31), както и в определението си от 21 октомври 2014 г., BestWater International (C‑348/13, EU:C:2014:2315, т. 14) Съдът е приел, че това е публика, която носителите на авторските права не са имали предвид, когато са дали разрешение за първоначалното разгласяване.

45      В случая, видно от становищата, представени пред Съда, от една страна, администраторите на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB са знаели, че тази платформа, която предоставят на разположение на потребителите и която администрират, дава достъп до произведения, публикувани без разрешение на носителите на правата, и от друга страна, че същите администратори изразяват изрично в блоговете и форумите на тази платформа своята цел да предоставят закриляните произведения на разположение на потребителите и поощряват последните да реализират копия от тези произведения. Във всички случаи, видно от акта за преюдициално запитване, администраторите на онлайн платформата TPB не може да не са знаели, че тази платформа дава достъп до произведения, публикувани без разрешението на носителите на правата, с оглед на обстоятелството, което се подчертава изрично от запитващата юрисдикция, че голяма част от торент файловете, които се намират на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB, препращат към произведения, публикувани без разрешението на носителите на правата. При тези обстоятелства следва да се приеме, че е налице разгласяване пред „нова публика“ (вж. в този смисъл решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 50).

46      От друга страна, не може да се оспори, че предоставянето на разположение и администрирането на платформа за онлайн споделяне като разглежданата в главното производство се извършва с цел да се извлече печалба, тъй като тази платформа генерира, видно от становищата, представени пред Съда, значителни приходи от реклама.

47      Вследствие на това трябва да се приеме, че предоставянето на разположение и администрирането на платформа за онлайн споделяне като разглежданата в главното производство, съставлява „публично разгласяване“ по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29.

48      С оглед на всички изложени съображения на първия въпрос следва да се отговори, че понятието „публично разгласяване“  трябва да се тълкува в смисъл, че  в неговия обхват попада предоставянето на разположение и администрирането в интернет на платформа за споделяне, която чрез индексиране на метаданните относно закриляните произведения и с предлагането на търсачка позволява на потребителите на платформата да намират тези произведения и да ги споделят в рамките на мрежа с равноправен достъп (peer-to-peer).

Масовите коментари са, че решението засилва позициите на търсещите блокиране организации.

Filed under: Digital, EU Law, Media Law Tagged: съд на ес