8 Years Later: Saeed Malekpour Is Still In An Iranian Prison Simply For Writing Open Source Software

from the free-saeed dept

We talk a great deal on Techdirt about the importance of free speech alongside the importance of not damning technological tools for the way third parties choose to use them. These matters can delve into minutiae in the American and Western forms of this conversation, with discussions about Section 230 protections and the like. But in other parts of the world, the conversation is much different.

Back in 2008 in Iran, for instance, the government there elected to imprison a Canadian resident of Iranian lineage, initially under a death sentence, but later commuting that sentence to mere life imprisonment. His crime? Saeed Malekpour created some open source code for sharing photos on the internet that others within Iran used for pornography.

Saeed was living in Canada as a permanent resident before he embarked on what was supposed to be a short trip to Iran in October 2008. While visiting his father in Iran, authorities decided to target Malekpour for his open source software program that others had used to upload pornographic images to the Internet.

His story is one of many that exemplify the fear Iranian authorities use to control the nation's Internet space. Saeed was charged with threatening the nation's Islamic ideals and national security via propaganda against the system, but evidence against him was scant. He spent time in solitary confinement and gave forced confessions — widely publicized on national television in 2010 — that were extracted under torture, including beatings, electrocution and threats of rape.

This follows the Iranian tradition of tamping down on the freedom and outcry of its own citizens by making examples of others. The guilt or innocence of these others is hardly relevant to this practice. In the case of Saeed, the target was the sharing tool, not the porn that others might have used it for. It's no mistake that Saeed's arrest came directly in the wake of the Iranian government's 2008 legislation blitz aimed at curtailing a free and open internet presence within its borders.

While groups like the EFF have been calling for his release for some time now, they are also currently running a campaign to help him through a letter-writing blitz targeted at Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. On Tuesday, the anniversary of Saeed's arrest, #FreeSaeed made its way around Twitter.

For those of us who believe in not only a free and open internet, but in the freedom to create and evolve digital tools -- without having to fear being targeted for the actions of others, particularly for benign actions like pornography -- it's a cause worth joining.

Filed Under: free speech, iran, open internet, open source software, photo posting, saeed malekpour

UK Gov't Report: Facebook, Twitter, And Google Are Pretty Much Unrepentant Terrorist Supporters

from the a-raging-hate-on,-disguised-as-an-official-report dept

The internet is for porn terrorism.

That's according to a report by the UK's Home Ministry, which claims the medium is inseparable from the message, especially if it's a US tech company.

Facebook, Twitter and Google and are deliberately failing to stop terrorists from using their websites to promote terrorism because they believe it will "damage their brands", MPs have warned.

MPs warned that social media websites are becoming the "vehicle of choice" for spreading terrorist propaganda but websites are policing billions of accounts and messages with just a "few hundred" employees.

I'm pretty sure giving terrorists free rein is more "damaging" to "brands" than the current status quo. Sure, chasing terrorists off the internet is just another form of whack-a-mole, but it's not as though these companies aren't trying. Facebook's policing of content tends to lean towards overzealous. Twitter just removed over 200,000 terrorist-related accounts. And as for Google, it's busy bending over backward for everyone, from copyright holders to a few dozen misguided governments. But the internet -- including terrorists -- perceives censorship as damage and quickly routes around it.

The argument can be made (and it's a pretty good argument) that it might be more useful to have terrorists chatting on open platforms where they can easily be monitored, rather than pushing them towards "darker" communications methods. But it's tough to reason with lawmakers who find big corporations to be the easiest targets for their displeasure.

And, really, their complaints are nothing more than a cheap form of class warfare, one that tacitly asks millions of non-terrorist internet users to sympathize with a government seeking to gain more control over the platforms they use.

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the committee, said: "Huge corporations like Google, Facebook and Twitter, with their billion-dollar incomes, are consciously failing to tackle this threat and passing the buck by hiding behind their supranational legal status, despite knowing that their sites are being used by the instigators of terror."

That's what the MPs are really seeking: a way to carve off a slice of these billion-dollar incomes. Vaz fears the "Wild West" internet (one filled with Middle Eastern desperadoes, apparently…) because it's "ungoverned" and "unregulated." If both of those "problems" are fixed, he'll presumably be able to sleep better -- perhaps warmed by the flow of a new revenue stream or soothed by an expansion of his government's powers. Either way, these companies should have to shoulder the blame for terrorism's continued existence.

Some might make the argument that the government isn't doing enough to fight terrorism. After all, "billions" of dollars go towards this battle every year, and every year nothing appears to change.

The report points specifically to the supposedly "low" number of employees policing posted content.

"It is alarming that these companies have teams of only a few hundred employees to monitor networks of billions of accounts..."

Apparently, these billion-dollar companies are expected to move towards a 1:1 ratio of moderators to users. Vaz also claims these companies need to take a "no questions asked" attitude towards law enforcement demands to have content taken down. If so, perhaps the UK government should start hiring more law enforcement officers and move the needle more towards a 1:1 ratio of constables to internetizens… or at least a 1:1 ratio of constables to platform content moderators.

The report also points to various "failures" within the UK government, suggesting anti-terrorism laws just aren't quite strict enough. It notes that police have allowed alleged terrorists to leave the country while on bail because they haven't seized their passports. And an official from Scotland Yard asserts -- with wording that suggests the UK doesn't have quite enough restraints on speech yet -- that existing laws can't shut down the sort of thing the report complains that Google, Facebook, and Twitter aren't shutting down quickly enough: namely, posts by Anjem Choudary, a "hate preacher" who was convicted of supporting the Islamic State.

Richard Walton, the former head of Scotland Yard's counter terrorism command, today warns that existing British laws would not prevent preachers who followed Choudary's example and acting as "radicalisers".

Obviously, the answer is MORE LAWS. That should fix it. That and blaming tech companies for third-party content, something they already police about as well as they can, considering the number of users on their respective platforms. It's always handy to have a scapegoat to beat like the dead horse these arguments are, especially when the scapegoat can mixed-metaphorically be portrayed as fat cats electro-fiddling while social media burns.

Filed Under: free speech, internet, isis, keith vaz, moderation, open internet, platforms, terrorism, uk
Companies: facebook, google, twitter

Donald Trump Says He'll Turn Off The Internet For Terrorists

from the uh,-how? dept

This isn't the first time he's said this, but on Monday, Presidential candidate Donald Trump once again insisted that part of his plan to "Make America Great Again" is to stop bad people from using the internet:

My Administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cutoff their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting. We cannot allow the internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy – we must shut down their access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately.

Almost no one covered this because everyone was focused on other stuff in the speech about his new "tests" for letting foreigners into the country. But this still remains a pretty big concern, in part because of just how technically clueless this is. Sure, we've seen some others suggest similarly dumb ideas, but no one seems to bother to think through how this might be done and what a mess it would create.

There's no way you can "disrupt" or block them from using the internet without also cutting off millions of innocent people -- many of whom almost certainly rely on the internet for all sorts of important things. And, on top of that, any solution would be of only limited effectiveness in the long run anyway. There are increasingly new ways and new paths to get online -- whether through wireless mesh networks or, eventually, from things like drones and satellites. Thinking that you can magically take an entire group of people off the internet is profoundly silly.

At the same time, as we've noted, the most ridiculous part in this idea that we should kick terrorists off the internet is the fact that the intelligence community has said that tracking what they're saying online has been tremendously beneficial in tracking terrorists, their views and their plans. Why would you want to cut off such a source of intelligence gathering?

The whole thing, like so much of this Presidential campaign, seems to be yet another example of a candidate saying what people want to hear with little to no thought about what it actually means, whether it would do any good or how to implement the plan.

Filed Under: donald trump, free speech, internet, isis, open internet, terrorists

How The EU Might Keep Internet Access Open To The Public

from the net-neutrality-redux dept

Earlier this summer, the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC) took in around a half million public comments on its draft guidelines for member states on implementing end user protections for fixed and mobile Internet connections.  The largest telecoms in Europe are lobbying hard for weakened interpretations of the so-called “net neutrality” Regulation passed late last year, which also covers data roaming and the EU Digital Single Market.

A few weeks ago, the largest telecom ISPs issued a 5G Manifesto in which they threatened not to invest in 5G wireless networks unless BEREC waters down its guidelines for enforcement of open Internet access.

Fortunately for American consumers, startup entrepreneurs and small businesses, the FCC was not swayed by similar ISP threats about how common carrier law would kill network investment here. And so even with U.S. open Internet law now firmly in place after a recent court decision, Verizon has announced significant continued investment in 5G networks and field testing in multiple locations.

But carriers in Europe, that don’t face competition from cable broadband providers like American phone company ISPs do, enjoy even stronger market dominance that allows them to intimidate regulators attempting to defend end user rights. The current generation of online startups needs to be able to count on the same open Internet connectivity that the most popular global platforms enjoyed in their infancy a decade or two ago. Only now it’s a battle against corporate lobbyists to get it.

In recognition of this opposition, over one hundred founders of European tech companies and startups along with their international investors and trade groups signed an open letter to underscore the critical importance of BEREC’s upcoming action to innovation and job-creating growth in the digital economy. They made it clear that if telecom ISPs are able to manipulate and subsidize data plan costs for users of established big name platforms, they will put up new barriers to online market entry. Earlier up front capital will be required in a “pay to play” environment, and those entrepreneurs who can’t pay up will find it much harder to be discovered online, scale up and compete for business. No such price of admission ever held back American tech startups, although many of their investors had grown very uneasy prior to the FCC’s decisive action in early 2015.

While BEREC has displayed a comprehensive understanding of real new threats to open Internet access, several loopholes in the draft guidelines must be closed if Europeans expect effective safeguards to protect their Internet access service from commercial interference. Specifically ISPs should not be allowed to use the “specialized services” exception to circumvent the ban on charging online content and application providers for priority transmission on the public Internet.

Secondly, given provisions in the Regulation prohibiting discriminatory commercial practices, BEREC should ban zero rating schemes that favor certain online platforms by exempting them from data caps. Zero rating is as harmful to startups and other competing platforms as technical network discrimination. Zero rating of an ISP’s own content is particularly anticompetitive. Finally network traffic management should be application-agnostic whenever possible. ISPs should not favor some classes of traffic and delay others, such as encrypted content, except under unusual circumstances.

Open Internet access law supports a digital innovation economy in which all online content is equally accessible regardless of the identity of one’s ISP or its business deals with online platforms. In the US, all zero rating is not banned, but the FCC is actively investigating sponsored data and zero rating plans for compliance with its open Internet order. In response to the EU Regulation, the Netherlands already has banned zero rating.

All ISPs have a natural economic incentive to partner with or acquire popular content providers in order to maximize monetization of their network facilities. As a practical matter, only the big ones like Comcast (NBC, Netflix) and Verizon (Aol, Yahoo!) can pull it off, but they can really change the game for others.

Sweden uniquely is less concerned about commercial interference with Internet access because the Swedish government itself built and owns the enviable universal fiber optic Internet access network there. Use of that infrastructure is licensed to dozens of competing IT providers, and Stockholm is beginning to resemble a Scandinavian Silicon Valley.

Elsewhere in Europe though, ISPs are in business to provide sufficient capacity to transmit the data traffic of all their customers without “fast lanes” for some and interruptions and buffering for everybody else.  Startups in Amsterdam, Berlin, Barcelona, Bratislava, Cyprus, Dublin, Lisbon, Ljubljana, Paris, Riga and Vienna are among their customers. So far the Dutch are in the lead in terms of proactively implementing the Regulation’s open Internet access provisions, which took effect this past spring.

While BEREC properly focuses on shielding consumers from the downsides of ISP commercial discrimination, it should also tailor its guidelines for the sake of Europe’s tech startups looking to attract investment funding and access global markets online. Other policymakers around the world will be watching whatever the EU decides at the end of August about enforcement of Internet access rights.

Cathy Sloan is a telecom and Internet industry lawyer and consultant

Filed Under: broadband, eu, europe, internet, net neutrality, open, open internet, telcos

The Broadband Industry Is Now Officially Blaming Google (Alphabet) For...Everything

from the glass-houses dept

From net neutrality to municipal broadband, to new broadband privacy rules and a quest to open up the cable set top box to competition, we've noted repeatedly that the FCC under Tom Wheeler isn't the same FCC we've learned to grumble about over the years. For a twenty-year stretch, regardless of party control, the agency was utterly, dismally apathetic to the lack of competition in the broadband space. But under Wheeler, the FCC has not only made broadband competition a priority, but has engaged in other bizarre, uncharacteristic behaviors -- like using actual real-world data to influence policy decisions.

Obviously, this doesn't please incumbent telecom operators like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, who grew pretty comfortable with an FCC that asked "how high" when commanded to jump. The reality is that this is just what it looks like when a regulator does its job and tries to fix a very broken market. But incapable of admitting the broadband market's horribly broken, the telecom industry instead seems intent on pointing fingers elsewhere. In a strange story over at Politico, broadband providers blame Google for absolutely everything the FCC has been up to.

The quest to open the set top box, the quest for more unlicensed spectrum, and the quest for better consumer privacy controls? All the fault of Alphabet and Google:

The cable industry-led Future of TV Coalition earlier this year suggested Google had "a sneak preview" of the FCC’s February plan to open up the set-top box market to new competitors. The move would require pay-TV companies to make their content streams available to third parties that want to build and sell their own boxes — a move that cable firms say is designed to benefit Google, which has already demonstrated a prototype cable box to regulators.

AT&T, meanwhile, has charged that the agency is placing its "thumb on the scale" in favor of Google via Wheeler's March proposal to impose strict privacy rules on broadband companies. The plan, according to AT&T and others, would put telecom firms at a disadvantage compared with Internet companies like Google, which wouldn't fall under the FCC rules. Internet firms' privacy practices are policed by the Federal Trade Commission, which is seen as less prescriptive.

On another front, the National Association of Broadcasters argued that Google led a behind-the-scenes push at the FCC to set aside more unlicensed airwaves — something that could boost Wi-Fi networks that support the company's products and services. NAB says this FCC set-aside allows Google to avoid having to pay for spectrum during the FCC's current incentive auction.

The telecom industry taking pot shots at Google is certainly nothing new; in fact the net neutrality debate basically began in 2005 when then AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proudly proclaimed that Google wouldn't be able to "ride his pipes for free." Traditionally though, the telecom industry has used third-party consultants, think tanks, and other policy tendrils to hurl strange attacks at Google. These new, more direct attacks are a sign of increased desperation.

This desperation originates with two things, one of them being Google Fiber. Though admittedly still limited in reach, Google Fiber has managed to light a fire under the apathetic posteriors of telecom giants that previously had little to no impetus to upgrade networks. It has managed to generate a national conversation about the sorry state of broadband competition, and even managed to illuminate the telecom sector's love of state protectionist laws that prevent community broadband and even public/private partnerships. In short, the broadband industry's mostly just pissed that they're now facing some competition (which is why they've resorted to lawsuits to slow Google Fiber's expansion).

The other thing on telecom executives' minds is the fact that with the broadband market saturated, they're turning to advertising and content to try and attain quarterly growth. That's why Verizon's been gobbling up companies like AOL and blowing kisses at Millennials in a quest to magically become the new Facebook or Google. But these ISPs face new neutrality and privacy regulations that Google doesn't have to worry about, solely because there's no competition in the broadband space (read: you have a choice in search engines, but often not in ISPs). This lack of competition isn't Google's fault. It's the fault of the carriers themselves and generations of lobbying.

The telecom industry has invited the wrath of regulators for years with a laundry list of bad behavior. The FCC's privacy rules weren't driven by Google, they were driven by Verizon's decision to use stealth cookies users couldn't opt out of to covertly track customers around the Internet. Net neutrality wasn't created by Google, it was created thanks to AT&T threatening to charge Google a "just because we can" toll. And while Google has lobbied to open up the cable set top box to competition, this idea is actually more than a decade old, driven primarily by the fact that the industry enjoys $20 billion in captive revenue thanks to absolutely no serious cable set top hardware competition whatsoever.

Yes, Google and Alphabet have become lobbying behemoths since Google first started ramping up its lobbying apparatus around 2007. And yes, like any large company, Google spends a good amount of its time lobbying to saddle the other guy with additional regulations -- something that will only increase as the company inevitably shifts from innovation to turf protection. And we've already started to witness this turn; most notably in the way Google turned its back on net neutrality in the States and abroad the last few years.

A saint Google isn't, but to suggest that the FCC is suddenly doing its job entirely because of Google lobbying borders on the comical, especially coming from an industry that has had its lobbying talons deep in the federal government for more than a generation. It's much the same way that ISPs and their loyal politicians have taken to attacking Netflix for daring to criticize usage caps and standing up for net neutrality. It's snide hubris from a sector that can't come to terms with the fact that a generation of telecom regulatory capture is finally starting to crumble. Instead of adapting to shifting markets, the telecom sector would rather blame "big tech" for a firestorm of regulatory activity it brought down upon itself.

Filed Under: blame, broadband, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, set top boxes, spectrum
Companies: alphabet, at&t, google, nab, verizon

Despite A Decade Of Trying To Kill It, Verizon Insists It Loves Net Neutrality

from the with-friends-like-these dept

You'd be hard pressed to find a company that's been more involved in trying to kill net neutrality than Verizon. The company successfully sued to overturn the FCC's original, flimsy 2010 neutrality rules, which most ISPs actually liked because they contained enough loopholes to drive several vehicle convoys through. Responding to Verizon's legal assault, the FCC responded last year by taking things further, passing new, (supposedly) more legally sound neutrality rules and reclassifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Verizon sued again, though this time as part of a multi-pronged coalition of ISP lobbying groups claiming the rules violated their free speech rights.

We're still waiting on a court ruling in this latest case, which could keep the rules intact, dismantle part of the rules, or obliterate them entirely. Given Verizon's decade-long quest for the latter option, it's a bit amusing to see the company pen a new blog post this week in which it tries to profess its undying devotion to an open Internet:

"Verizon is committed to an open Internet. It’s what’s right for consumers and is vital to our business. Why? We have invested billions in businesses that depend on the ability to reach customers over the networks and platforms of others. We invested in digital ad technology through our $4.4 billion purchase of AOL and own content through properties like the Huffington Post, MapQuest, and TechCrunch. We have an expanding presence in the digital media and entertainment space; Verizon Digital Media Services helps content companies deliver their services in digital form to any screen or device, anywhere in the world.

These investments would be at risk without an open Internet. Now more than ever, we see protecting an open Internet as a business imperative that is inextricably tied to our future success."

So, Verizon's argument goes, the company couldn't possibly hate net neutrality because it shelled out $4.4 billion for AOL last year. Ignoring its readership would need to be a bit of an imbecile to believe such a claim, Verizon proceeds to insist that it supports rules that outlaw blocking, throttling, paid prioritization, and even some kind of "general conduct standard" to "prevent unreasonable conduct by broadband providers" where there is "actual harm to consumers or to competition." The grand irony of course is that this is exactly what the FCC's original rules provided. The same rules Verizon lawyers sued to demolish.

It should be noted that most ISPs support a "no blocking rule," since no ISP in its right mind would try this for risk of PR seppuku. ISPs have also been willing to support rules prohibiting "paid prioritization" and "throttling," so long as the specific language comes with a universe of loopholes. You'll note that Verizon fails to mention the two areas where the net neutrality debate currently resides: interconnection and zero rating. And indeed, Verizon just got done giving the FCC a giant middle finger on the latter front by exempting its own streaming video services from the company's usage caps.

So yes, Verizon loves net neutrality rules, just as long as they don't cover any hot-button issues that actually matter, and are written with loopholes allowing ISPs to wiggle out of the remotest idea of accountability.

So why is Verizon pretending to love net neutrality again now? Should the courts strike down some or part of the rules -- or we elect a President that tries to dismantle them -- it's very likely we'll be having the entire net neutrality argument all over again in very short order. As such, Verizon lobbyists apparently think they can get out ahead of the next round of conversation and have begun the drum beat for new, Congressionally-crafted net neutrality rules the company actually likes:

"In the past we have criticized the FCC for applying outdated rules to the fast-moving Internet ecosystem. We still think that’s true, but let’s be fair: Congress hasn’t updated the FCC’s toolbox for over 20 years, so the FCC is working with the only tools it has, however inadequate. Congress can give the FCC the tools it needs to do this properly and on a legally sustainable basis. It should do so.

Fortunately, there is a real chance that Congress will deal with these issues soon. There is strong bipartisan interest in these issues and strong leadership in the relevant committees. We applaud these bipartisan efforts and encourage Congress to move forward so that we finally have clear and enforceable open Internet rules once and for all."

ISPs have long insisted they'd rather have Congress draft net neutrality rules because they know that A Congress is so politically dysfunctional that this will never happen, or B if it does happen, Congress is so flush with telecom campaign contributions the final rule language will be all-but useless. Again though, if all Verizon wanted was to put the debate to bed and get some half-assed rules passed, it could have just left the original 2010 rules in place. Instead Verizon got greedy and wanted to strike a killing blow to FCC authority, putting the entire industry in the uncertain neutrality quagmire we're currently enjoying today.

The reality is that if Verizon really wants to put the net neutrality debate to bed, it should do consumers and other ISPs a favor and just stop trying to help.

Filed Under: net neutrality, open internet
Companies: verizon

PayPal Continues To Drive People To Bitcoin And Other Solutions As It Starts Cutting Off VPNs & Open Internet Solutions

from the because-of-course-it-is dept

There's a fairly long history of Paypal being completely obnoxious in shutting down the accounts of basically anyone challenging the status quo in any way. Nearly all of our stories about Paypal follow a similar pattern:

• Paypal cuts off MEGA because it encrypts files
• Paypal cuts of account for supporting Chelsea Manning
• Paypal cuts off Wikileaks
• Paypal cuts off Mailpile, encrypted email program
• Paypal cuts off Smashwords, because it doesn't like some of its ebooks
• Paypal cuts off Diaspora
• Paypal cuts off a charitable secret Santa program
• Paypal cuts off Swedish ISP that stood for user freedoms

See a pattern yet? So, given all that, it's hardly a surprise to find out that Paypal has cut off a VPN service, arguing that because it might possibly maybe be used for copyright infringement, Paypal won't be a part of it. No, this doesn't make any sense, but as you can see from the list above, it seems pretty clear that if there's even a whiff of concern or challenging legacy businesses and beliefs, Paypal will cut you off. Because it can.

And, yes, there now are many other solutions out there, but Paypal still remains one of the easiest and most popular payment systems, even as many other companies try to take that crown away. Still, increasingly shutting off services that help protect users and enable an open internet seems like a piss poor way for Paypal to thank the open internet that made it possible in the first place. It seems likely that the more Paypal cuts these kinds of services off, the more likely it is that alternative payment systems will be deployed. Paypal may not care. After all, it's been doing this for years, but sooner or later, it's going to realize that it's just been opening up a big opportunity for others.

Filed Under: money, open internet, payments, vpns
Companies: paypal

French Politicians Pushing To Ban Linking To Any Website Without Permission

from the you-fail-at-the-internet dept

Apparently two French Parliament Members are on a mission to ban linking to websites, unless you first have permission. In short, they're looking to undermine one of the key features of the internet itself.

The idea was proposed but rejected by the Legislative Commission, but it is brought back again. Socialist Karine Berger and Valérie Rabault once again tabled their Amendment #843 to Axelle Lemaire’s Bill for a Digital Republic, which would actually prohibit by default a large quantity of hyperlinks in France.

This device aims at amending the Law for Confidence in the Digital Economy and hold ISP and hosts criminally responsible as soon as they “allow public access to works or objects protected by the copyright code, including through automated means.”

The amendment states “users are required to obtain authorization from concerned rights holders”. The two MPs demand that “such authorization covers actions by users of such services when transmitting to the said users the protected works or objects, in order to allow use as stated in the fist paragraph inasmuch as such users are not acting on professional purposes”.

Now, it's fairly obvious that you're dealing with two politicians who think they're somehow proposing a solution to "piracy" on the internet. But it's really yet another attempt at punishing Google. Similar to efforts in Germany, Spain and even the European Parliament, very, very shortsighted Google haters think that a way to "punish" Google is to make it pay money to sites that it links to (mainly when it comes to news aggregation). The two French politicians admit flat out that they're trying to help copyright maximalists:

The amendment is intended to “protect the creation of authors and define the scope of their rights on hyperlinks”, according to the two MPS’ rationale. “The amendment aims at reinstating protection on these hyperlinks, in favour of the authors and rights holders of the links’ target content.”

But linking isn't and should never be infringement. It's a reference and it takes you to the original content, which is beneficial. And yet, of course, it all comes back to politicians thinking that just because Google is successful while linking to others' content, Google must be somehow bad.

“Just look at Google’s referencing procedures: they are based on hyperlinks, and links that lead to copyright-protected works on their publishing site are precisely what allows Google to create any added value whatsoever”, said MP Karine Berger in her plea for the amendment.

“In other words, some commercial Internet operators benefit from the value of some copyright-protected cultural goods and services without ever paying for using them. The amendment, by raising the question as to whom is responsible for collecting value through hyperlinks, aims at overturning jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is a paramount legal and economic issue.”

Yes, Google creates value for itself in linking to websites. It also creates value for users. And for the websites it links to. That's why there's a massive search engine optimization business in which sites purposely try to get ranked better on Google, because sites that are linked from Google get tremendous benefit out of it.

I have a hard time understanding any kind of logic wherein you have a setup in which everyone basically benefits... and a politician still wants to come in and complain because one of the parties in the setup is doing well.

Filed Under: copyright, france, internet, karine berger, licenses, linking, open internet, valerie rabault

President Obama's State Of The Union: Praises Open Internet... Complains About Terrorists Using Open Internet

from the and-so-it-goes dept

As you probably heard, President Obama gave his final State of the Union Address a little while ago, and it was likely pretty much what you expected. A lot of vague pronouncements and not a whole ton of substance. I was surprised that the TPP got very little mention at all (it was basically mentioned in passing), but found it especially odd that the internet was mentioned just twice — and in ways that seemed to contradict each other. First, the President gave a brief mention of how his administration has "protected the open internet":

We’ve protected an open internet, and taken bold new steps to get more students and low-income Americans online. We’ve launched next-generation manufacturing hubs, and online tools that give an entrepreneur everything he or she needs to start a business in a single day.

The second mention comes a few paragraphs down, when he suddenly whines about terrorists using that very same open internet:

Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. Both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people, because in today’s world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life, including their own, can do a lot of damage. They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country; they undermine our allies.

Both points have an element of truth in them, but the whole thing seems pretty silly. If you have an open internet, then part of the point is that anyone can use it — even people you don't like. Fighting ISIS and other terrorists is certainly important, but even mentioning the fact that they use the internet is silly. Some of them drive cars too. It's not really all that relevant.

Beyond that, there really wasn't much related to stuff that we're interested in around here. It talks about bringing back our innovative spirit (did it really go away?), but (unlike in past States of the Union) chooses not to mention patent reform (even though the President's suggested reforms haven't gone anywhere).

It's silly to expect too much from the State of the Union Address, which gets a lot more buzz than it's worth, but as a first pass, the idea that the two mentions of the internet contradict each other more or less summed up one of the big problems with the way this administration has treated the internet. It tends to talk out of both sides of its mouth on these issues, and never really take a stand. There truly are a number of really great people working in the White House on tech policy, looking to maintain a free and open internet, but there are plenty of others who are trying to undermine it, and to give in to FUD about the "dangers" of an open internet. It's a bit disappointing that the President never really came out with a strong leadership position on this and made it clear that we're not going to undermine a free and open internet out of fear -- but instead continues to give lip service to the free and open internet, while hinting at a willingness to toss it out the window.

Filed Under: free speech, internet, isis, open internet, president obama, state of the union, terrorism

Two Important Speeches: The Threats To The Future Of The Internet... And How To Protect An Open Internet

from the pay-attention dept

Last week, I came across two separate speeches that were given recently about the future of the internet -- both with very different takes and points, but both that really struck a chord with me. And the two seem to fit together nicely, so I'm combining both of them into one post. The first speech is Jennifer Granick's recent keynote at the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas. You can see the video here or read a modified version of the speech entitled, "The End of the Internet Dream." It goes through a lot of important history -- some of which is already probably familiar to many of you. But, it's also important to remember how we got to where we are today in order to understand the risks and threats to the future of the internet. The key point that Granick makes is that for too long, we've been prioritizing a less open internet, in favor of a more centralized internet. And that's a real risk:

For better or for worse, we’ve prioritized things like security, online civility, user interface, and intellectual property interests above freedom and openness. The Internet is less open and more centralized. It’s more regulated. And increasingly it’s less global, and more divided. These trends: centralization, regulation, and globalization are accelerating. And they will define the future of our communications network, unless something dramatic changes.

Twenty years from now,

• You won’t necessarily know anything about the decisions that affect your rights, like whether you get a loan, a job, or if a car runs over you. Things will get decided by data-crunching computer algorithms and no human will really be able to understand why.
• The Internet will become a lot more like TV and a lot less like the global conversation we envisioned 20 years ago.
• Rather than being overturned, existing power structures will be reinforced and replicated, and this will be particularly true for security.
• Internet technology design increasingly facilitates rather than defeats censorship and control.

Later in the speech, she digs deeper into those key trends of centralization, regulation and globalization:

• Centralization means a cheap and easy point for control and surveillance.
• Regulation means exercise of government power in favor of domestic, national interests and private entities with economic influence over lawmakers.
• Globalization means more governments are getting into the Internet regulation mix. They want to both protect and to regulate their citizens. And remember, the next billion Internet users are going to come from countries without a First Amendment, without a Bill of Rights, maybe even without due process or the rule of law. So these limitations won’t necessarily be informed by what we in the U.S. consider basic civil liberties.

This centralization is often done in the name of convenience -- because centralized systems currently offer up plenty of cool things:

Remember blogs? Who here still keeps a blog regularly? I had a blog, but now I post updates on Facebook. A lot of people here at Black Hat host their own email servers, but almost everyone else I know uses gmail. We like the spam filtering and the malware detection. When I had an iPhone, I didn’t jailbreak it. I trusted the security of the vetted apps in the Apple store. When I download apps, I click yes on the permissions. I love it when my phone knows I’m at the store and reminds me to buy milk.

This is happening in no small part because we want lots of cool products “in the cloud.” But the cloud isn’t an amorphous collection of billions of water droplets. The cloud is actually a finite and knowable number of large companies with access to or control over large pieces of the Internet. It’s Level 3 for fiber optic cables, Amazon for servers, Akamai for CDN, Facebook for their ad network, Google for Android and the search engine. It’s more of an oligopoly than a cloud. And, intentionally or otherwise, these products are now choke points for control, surveillance and regulation.

So as things keep going in this direction, what does it mean for privacy, security and freedom of expression? What will be left of the Dream of Internet Freedom?

She goes on to note how this centralization comes with a very real cost: mainly in that it's now one-stop shopping for government surveillance.

Globalization gives the U.S. a way to spy on Americans…by spying on foreigners we talk to. Our government uses the fact that the network is global against us. The NSA conducts massive spying overseas, and Americans’ data gets caught in the net. And, by insisting that foreigners have no Fourth Amendment privacy rights, it’s easy to reach the conclusion that you don’t have such rights either, as least when you’re talking to or even about foreigners.

Surveillance couldn’t get much worse, but in the next 20 years, it actually will. Now we have networked devices, the so-called Internet of Things, that will keep track of our home heating, and how much food we take out of our refrigerator, and our exercise, sleep, heartbeat, and more. These things are taking our off-line physical lives and making them digital and networked, in other words, surveillable.

At the end of her speech, Granick talks about the need to "build in decentralization where possible," to increase strong end-to-end encryption, to push back on government attempts to censor and spy.

And that's where the second speech comes in. It's by the Internet Archive's Brewster Kahle. And while he actually gave versions (one longer one and one shorter one) earlier this year, he just recently wrote a blog post about why we need to "lock the internet open" by building a much more distributed web -- which would counteract many of Granick's quite accurate fears about our growing reliance on centralized systems.

Kahle also notes how wonderful new services are online and how much fun the web is -- but worries about the survivability of a centralized system and the privacy implications. He notes how the original vision of the internet was about it being a truly distributed system, and it's the web (which is a subsegment of the internet for those of you who think they're the same), seems to be moving away from that vision.

Contrast the current Web to the Internet—the network of pipes on top of which the World Wide Web sits. The Internet was designed so that if any one piece goes out, it will still function. If some of the routers that sort and transmit packets are knocked out, then the system is designed to automatically reroute the packets through the working parts of the system. While it is possible to knock out so much that you create a chokepoint in the Internet fabric, for most circumstances it is designed to survive hardware faults and slowdowns. Therefore, the Internet can be described as a “distributed system” because it routes around problems and automatically rebalances loads.

The Web is not distributed in this way. While different websites are located all over the world, in most cases, any particular website has only one physical location. Therefore, if the hardware in that particular location is down then no one can see that website. In this way, the Web is centralized: if someone controls the hardware of a website or the communication line to a website, then they control all the uses of that website.

In this way, the Internet is a truly distributed system, while the Web is not.

And, thus, he wants to build a more distributed web, built on peer-to-peer technology that has better privacy, distributed authentication systems (without centralized usernames and passwords), a built-in versioning/memory system and easy payment mechanisms. As he notes, many of the pieces for this are already in existence, including tools like BitTorrent and the blockchain/Bitcoin. There's a lot more in there as well, and you should read the whole thing.

Our new Web would be reliable because it would be hosted in many places, and multiple versions. Also, people could even make money, so there could be extra incentive to publish in the Distributed Web.

It would be more private because it would be more difficult to monitor who is reading a particular website. Using cryptography for the identity system makes it less related to personal identity, so there is an ability to walk away without being personally targeted.

And it could be as fun as it is malleable and extendable. With no central entities to regulate the evolution of the Distributed Web, the possibilities are much broader.

Fortunately, the needed technologies are now available in JavaScript, Bitcoin, IPFS/Bittorrent, Namecoin, and others. We do not need to wait for Apple, Microsoft or Google to allow us to build this.

What we need to do now is bring together technologists, visionaries, and philanthropists to build such a system that has no central points of control. Building this as a truly open project could in itself be done in a distributed way, allowing many people and many projects to participate toward a shared goal of a Distributed Web.

Of course, Kahle is hardly the first to suggest this. Nearly five years ago we were writing about some attempts at a more distributed web, and how we were starting to see elements of it showing up in places the old guard wouldn't realize. Post-Snowden, the idea of a more distributed web got a big boost, with a bunch of other people jumping in as well.

It's not there yet (by any stretch of the imagination), but a lot of people have been working on different pieces of it, and some of them are going to start to catch on. It may take some time, but the power of a more decentralized system is only going to become more and more apparent over time.

Filed Under: black hat, brewster kahle, centralized, decentralized, distributed internet, jennifer granick, open internet