Tag Archives: internet-restricting

Internet and Facebook are the Same and No Shame

download

And then there’s Free Basics, the two-year-old project Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg has called an online 911. In about three dozen developing countries so far, Free Basics—also known as Internet.org—includes a stripped-down version of Facebook and a handful of sites that provide news, weather, nearby health-care options, and other info. One or two carriers in a given country offer the package for free at slow speeds, betting that it will help attract new customers who’ll later upgrade to pricier data plans…

Facebook says Free Basics is meant to make the world more open and connected, not to boost the company’s growth….On Dec. 21, 2016,  the Indian government suspended the program, offered in the country by carrier Reliance Communications….

“Who could possibly be against this?”
Opponents, including some journalists and businesspeople, say Free Basics is dangerous because it fundamentally changes the online economy. If companies are allowed to buy preferential treatment from carriers, the Internet is no longer a level playing field, says Vijay Shekhar Sharma, founder of Indian mobile-payment company Paytm....“We don’t see Free Basics as philanthropy. We see it as a land grab, says Pahwa.

[On Feb. 8, 2016, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ruled against Facebook’s scheme.]

Adi Narayan, Facebook’s Fight to Be Free, Bloomberg Business Week, Jan. 14, 2016

The Nationalization of Internet: example 1

emergency switch at nuclear power plant Switzerland. Image from wikipedia

The Swiss government has ordered tighter security for its own computer and telephone systems that could block foreign companies from key technology and communications contracts.  The governing Federal Council’s decision Wednesday cited concerns about foreign spies targeting Switzerland.

National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, who worked for the CIA at the U.S. mission to the U.N. in Geneva from 2007 to 2009, has released documents indicating that large American and British IT companies cooperated with those countries’ intelligence services.According to a Swiss government statement, contracts for critical IT infrastructure will “where possible, only be given to companies that act exclusively according to Swiss law, where a majority of the ownership is in Switzerland and which provides all of its services from within Switzerland’s borders.”

Swiss govt tightens tech security over NSA spying, Associated Press, Feb. 5, 2014

How to Get Rid of Hacktivists: the approach of the United States

operation payback tweet

Thirteen members of a hacking collective that calls itself Anonymous were indicted on Thursday (October 3, 2013) on charges that they conspired to coordinate attacks against prominent Web sites.The 13 are accused of bringing down at least six Web sites, including those belonging to the Recording Industry Association of America, Visa and MasterCard.  The attacks caused “significant damage to the victims,” the indictment said.

The attacks, carried out from September 2010 to January 2011, were part of campaign called Operation Payback, which started as an effort to support file-sharing sites but later rallied around WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.  Hackers took down the sites by inflicting a denial of service, or DDoS, attack, in which they fired Web traffic at a site until it collapsed under the load. Though the indictment mentions 13 hackers, thousands more participated in the attack by clicking on Web links that temporarily turned their computers into a digital fire hose aimed [at the websites of the companies].

According to the indictment, which was handed up at Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., the hackers’ tool of choice was a simple open-source application known as Low Orbit Ion Cannon, which requires very little technical know-how.  Hackers simply posted a Web link online that allowed volunteers to download an application that turned their computer into a “botnet,” or network of computers, that flooded targets like Visa.com and MasterCard.com with traffic until they crashed…

By BRIAN X. CHEN and NICOLE PERLROT, U.S. Accuses 13 Hackers in Web Attacks, New York Times, October 3, 2013

Excerpt from indictment

“In connection with planning various DDoS cyber-attacks, members of the conspiracy posted fliers captioned “OPERATION PAYBACK” and claimed that: “We sick and tired of these corporations seeking to control the internet in their pursuit of profit. Anonymous cannot sit by and do nothing while these organizations stifle the spread of ideas and attack those who wish to exercise their rights to share with others.”

PDF of Indictment on Scribd

Global Online Freedom Law, how states and tech companies restrict internet freedom

In May and June [2011] human-rights lawyers in America filed two suits alleging that executives at Cisco Systems, a California-based tech firm, sold China’s government equipment customised to help track dissenters online. Only one of the plaintiffs is an American citizen; more than a dozen are Chinese. Cisco denies all wrongdoing.

Such jurisdictional jiggery-pokery is made possible in part by the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), which lets foreigners bring alleged violations of international law before American courts. Oil companies, mining firms and banks have all been subject to ATCA litigation since the ancient law was unburied in the 1980s. But only in recent years has the act been used to target tech firms whose products, or user data, might have been used to trap activists. In the best-known case, in 2007, Yahoo! reached a settlement with representatives of two Chinese democracy campaigners who said the firm had given authorities information that had led to their arrest. Daniel Ward, a lawyer leading one of the suits against Cisco, thinks that similar cases could be brought against other firms.

The issue is getting hotter as Sino-American internet business expands, in both directions. American tech firms covet China’s huge market. On July 4th Microsoft confirmed that its Bing search engine will soon be powering English-language results for local users of Baidu, China’s censored search giant. Even firms with more modest horizons may find themselves dealing with regimes that closely control the internet. More and more governments are moving to restrict the flow of information online, according to Freedom House, a lobby group.

Meanwhile, the global reach of China’s own internet firms, many of them listed on American stock exchanges, is drawing legal challenges. Campaigners in New York have started a suit against Baidu, saying its censored search results violate their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Stephen Preziosi, insists the case be heard in an American court—Baidu sells advertising to American firms and aggressively protects its American trademark, he says.

Still, suits against Cisco or other high-tech players face an uncertain legal path. Last year an appeals court hearing another ATCA case said the statute could not be used to prosecute firms, creating a division among judges that only the Supreme Court can settle. Lawyers retort that even if ATCA use against firms is curbed, individual executives could still be targeted.

Some American politicians think clearer legislation would help. One long-mooted bill, the Global Online Freedom Act, would make the government keep a list of internet-restricting states. Under its latest revision, advanced in April by Chris Smith, a Republican congressman, firms would need to seek the approval of American authorities before passing user information to one of these regimes [or should it be to any regime?]; search engines would have to reveal details of any content they are asked to block. Export controls on web-blocking technologies would also be reviewed.

The bill has struggled to gain support since it was floated in 2006. But it could be helpful to American firms, argues Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a lobby group, because clear legislation at home would give ammunition to executives negotiating business terms with foreign authorities. “They could all point to the same rules,” she says.

Internet freedom: Tort and technology, Economist, July 23, 2011, at 57