Pakistan Court Declares Mobile Data Disconnections By The Government Illegal

from the connecting-rights dept

In countries that put far less an emphasis on expanding human rights and personal liberty, it's become somewhat common for them to use strong-arm tactics to stifle dissent. One aspect of that is often times the suspension or shutdown of mobile networks, the theory being that the messaging and social media apps dissenters use on their phones allow them to organize far better than they otherwise could and therefore cause more trouble. Frankly, this has become something more expected out of Middle East authoritarian regimes than in other places, but they certainly do not have a monopoly on this practice.

However, there are governments with the ability to reverse course and go back in the right direction. One Pakistani court in Islamabad recently ruled that government shutdown of mobile networks, even if done under some claims for national security, are illegal. The news comes via a translation of a bytesforall.pk report. As a heads up, you will notice that the translation is imperfect.

Bytes for All, Pakistan welcomes the decision by the Honorable Judge of Islamabad High Court, Justice Athar Minallah whereby he declared the network shutdown as illegal and a disproportionate response to security threats.

The judgement reads as, "For what has been discussed above, the instant appeal and the connected petitions are allowed. Consequently, the actions, orders and directives issued by the Federal Government or the Authority, as the case may be, which are inconsistent with the provisions of section 54(3) are declared as illegal, ultra vires and without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The Federal Government or the Authority are, therefore, not vested with the power and jurisdiction to suspend or cause the suspension of mobile cellular services or operations on the ground of national security except as provided under section 54(3)."

If the government follows the directions of the ruling -- a very real question, to be sure -- no longer will federal authorities be able to respond to civil unrest or political activism by simply shutting off phone and data service to large swaths of citizens. It should be obvious that this is the wrong course of action anyway. Taking on a group decrying government oppression by further oppressing large numbers of people doesn't seem like a great formula for political tranquility. Still, it's good to see a government being held to account by the court system.

It seems that the folks at Bytes For All are hoping that this action in Pakistan will be the start of a wider shift in government policy across the region.

"This will set [a precedent], not only in the country but also for the external world wherever States use network disconnections as a tool to suppress fundamental rights in the name of security. Disconnecting people from communication networks is tantamount to denying a set of fundamental rights, including access to information, emergency services, expression and other associated rights," says Shahzad Ahmad, Country Director, Bytes For All, Pakistan.

Whether that actually happens remains to be seen, but if it can be done in Pakistan then surely it can be done elsewhere.

Filed Under: blocks, connectivity, free speech, internet, pakistan

British Military Chief Warns Russia Could Cut NATO's Internet Connections, As Traffic For World's Top Sites Is Mysteriously Routed Via...Russia

from the probably-just-a-coincidence dept

We recently wrote about an interesting comment from Vladimir Putin's Press Secretary that Russia had no intention of cutting itself off from the rest of the Internet. But there's another side to the disconnection story, as this Guardian news item reveals:

Russia could pose a major threat to the UK and other Nato nations by cutting underwater cables essential for international commerce and the internet, the chief of the British defence staff, Sir Stuart Peach, has warned.

Russian ships have been regularly spotted close to the Atlantic cables that carry communications between the US and Europe and elsewhere around the world.

In other words, although Russia says it won't cut itself off from the Internet, it could probably cut off many NATO countries. A new report, entitled "Undersea Cables: Indispensable, insecure", emphasizes the importance and vulnerability of the underwater cables that provide much of the Internet's global wiring:

97% of global communications and $10 trillion in daily financial transactions are transmitted not by satellites in the skies, but by cables lying deep beneath the ocean. Undersea cables are the indispensable infrastructure of our time, essential to our modern life and digital economy, yet they are inadequately protected and highly vulnerable to attack at sea and on land, from both hostile states and terrorists.

US intelligence officials have spoken of Russian submarines "aggressively operating" near Atlantic cables as part of its broader interest in unconventional methods of warfare. When Russia annexed Crimea, one of its first moves was to sever the main cable connection to the outside world.

And if there were any doubts that Russia is very interested in the world's Internet connectivity, this recent event may help to clarify things:

Traffic sent to and from Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft was briefly routed through a previously unknown Russian Internet provider Wednesday under circumstances researchers said was suspicious and intentional.

As another story in Ars Technica reported, this is not the first time important traffic has been mysteriously routed through Russia:

large chunks of network traffic belonging to MasterCard, Visa, and more than two dozen other financial services companies were briefly routed through a Russian government-controlled telecom under unexplained circumstances that renew lingering questions about the trust and reliability of some of the most sensitive Internet communications.

These events are a reminder that the online world depends on technologies where trust is an important element. That approach is now looking increasingly shaky as nation states wage attacks not just by means of the Internet, but even against it. This may explain why Russia says it wants alternative DNS servers for the BRICS nations: they could come in quite handy if -- by any chance -- the rest of the Internet goes down.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: connectivity, dns, infrastructure, internet, russia, uk, undersea cables

Remembering That Xbox Wanted Always Online DRM For Its Console In The Wake Of Major Xbox Live Outtage

from the got-lucky dept

Nearly half a decade into the current generation of gaming consoles, you will be forgiven if you don't recall some of the consternation surrounding Microsoft's initial plan to make the Xbox One have an "always online" requirement to play the games customers purchased. Microsoft initially floated this concept ahead of the console's release, perhaps testing the public waters for the requirement. If that was indeed the plan, the instinct to take the public's temperature on it was a good one, as the backlash was both swift and severe, particularly in light on Sony taking every opportunity to remind consumers that the Playstation 4 would have no such requirement. Predictably, at least to this author, Microsoft caved and removed this "feature", even as company employees who should have known better made insulting comments about how always online was the way of not just the future, but the present, and everyone should essentially shut up and get used to it.

Well, as many Xbox users will already know, Xbox Live had a major outtage this week. The service was down for somewhere between five and eight hours, depending on who you ask. And I mean completely down.

Xbox Live is experiencing some serious downtime at the moment, with many owners unable to play games or even sign in.

Microsoft acknowledged that both core services and purchasing was impacted before service was restored somewhere around 1am. Multiplayer games were affected, including major titles like Overwatch and Destiny. This is to be expected for online gaming when the online service is down. Single-player games, however, could still be played by putting the Xbox in "offline mode."

And that's great, except it's worth remembering that offline mode wasn't going to be a thing in Microsoft's initial plans. And, sure, five hours of being separated from a customer's legitimate purchases isn't a major travesty, but this outage demonstrates that even these minor inconveniences can be helpfully avoided by simply not requiring always online DRM. Had Microsoft had its way, paying customers would have been at best annoyed for several hours, unable to play the games they bought and certainly not being offered any recompense for their troubles.

More importantly, this episode should highlight several things. First, this is Microsoft we're talking about, and they were down hard for several hours. Let's acknowledge that it could have been worse. What if the service were down for several days? Second, what if this wasn't Microsoft we were talking about, with all of its riches and resources, but a smaller entity unable to recover so quickly? How long would the service have been down, keeping paying, legitimate customers from their valid purchases? Third, all of this real and potential damage to legitimate customers had been achieved for what? The Playstation, as we've noted, doesn't have this requirement, yet it is making money hand over fist. What good would Microsoft's original plan have done for all of this potential damage?

Those questions aside, Microsoft ought to be writing love letters to the fans that revolted against its always online plan. It's that backlash that helped keep this minor inconvenience for online gamers from being a full-blown PR nightmare.

Filed Under: always on, broken, connectivity, copyright, drm, xbox
Companies: microsoft

Comcast Fails To Connect SmartCar's Silicon Valley Office For 10 Months, Wants $60,000 Anyway

from the dysfunction-junction dept

Comcast for years has offered what most find to be utterly abysmal customer service and support, resulting in story after story of nightmare experiences for consumers and businesses alike. This is, by and large, thanks to limited competition in most of Comcast's footprint, and despite Silicon Valley being arguably the tech epicenter of the country, the region apparently isn't immune to Comcast's particular... charms or the nation's obvious lack of broadband competition.

For example, Seattle startup SmartCar wanted to open an office in Mountain View, California, so last year they asked Comcast if service was available. According to Comcast's website and two Comcast representatives, the company should have been able to get 100 Mbps broadband and television service bundled for $190 a month, provided SmartCar signed a "Business Service Order Agreement” and provided a $2,100 deposit. But as we've seen many times before, ISP availability systems simply aren't accurate, and Comcast soon informed the company that broadband wasn't available:

"The answer came back via e-mail on April 24: “The pre-wire survey shows that your location is just outside of our Comcast service zone,” a Comcast salesperson told Katta. “It just is not a financial feasibility to run the coax cable close enough to bring you service. We have a model and this would not meet the Comcast ‘payback’ model. Comcast doesn’t have any future plans to do a build out there. I understand that this is not good news and I sincerely want to thank you for your interest."

Which would have been annoying but not really news worthy if it had just ended there. But Comcast then reached out to SmartCar again to note that while cable wasn't available, the company would be able to provide fiber to the company's new Mountain View address for significantly more money per month:

"...This wasn’t the end of Katta’s dealings with Comcast. After further discussions, Comcast told Katta the company would be able to deliver fiber Internet service—at a much higher price than cable. Construction was required to bring fiber to the building, and Comcast wanted Katta to sign a four-year contract and pay $1,050 a month for 100Mbps symmetrical Internet service. “As we were already stuck in this lease, I had no option but to move forward,” (SmartCar CEO Sahas) Katta said."

While Comcast originally claimed the longest SmartCar would have to wait was "90 to 120 days," ten months went by before Comcast finally conceded that it couldn't service the company's address, blaming permitting and construction delays. Which again, would have been annoying but not the end of the world. That's when Comcast demanded $60,000 in payments for broadband service never delivered:

"With the lease expiring and Comcast service nowhere in sight, SmartCar sent a letter to Comcast on January 21 saying the company wished to terminate its contract. As noted earlier, Comcast then informed SmartCar that in order to cancel, it would have to pay $60,900.45 to cover construction costs. SmartCar pleaded its case with Comcast throughout all of February and part of March without any success. That finally changed after Ars got in touch with Comcast’s public relations team. On March 9, a Comcast rep sent Katta an e-mail apologizing while waiving the $60,900.45 in fees. The letter promised a refund of the $2,100 deposit."

So in typical Comcast fashion you've got several layers of failure here, from systems that can't accurately state where Comcast can deliver service, to a general tone-deafness to the problem of trying to charge $60,000 for service that was never delivered. And once again, only the threat of media coverage appears to be enough to get Comcast to admit any sort of error on its part. The only broadband service the company was able to get at the address was an AT&T line capable of just 500 kbps upstream, which is pretty common in areas where the local telco has given up on fixed-line broadband.

All told, it's another example of the lack of broadband competition across a huge swath of the country, and how it's only getting worse in areas where local cable monopolies face less competitive pressure than ever before.

Filed Under: broadband, connectivity, silicon valley
Companies: comcast, smartcar

The 550 Challenge: Can We Connect Everyone In The World Online (Yes, Everyone) By 2018?

from the it's-a-challenge dept

Dan Berninger has launched an ambitious program (for which I've agreed to sign on as a supporter), called the 550 Challenge. The idea is straightforward: see if we can work towards getting every single person on the planet connected to the internet by February 3, 2018 -- the 550th anniversary of Johannes Guttenberg's death:

The 550 Challenge - the world borderless by February 3, 2018 - promotes the expansion of Internet access to include everyone on earth by the 550th anniversary of Johannes Guttenberg's death. Gutenberg died on February 3, 1468 in relative obscurity before the printing press got credit for ending the Dark Age and setting in motion 200 years of accelerated progress in art, literature, and learning known as the Renaissance. The 550 Challenge seeks to realize the promise of the Internet as the basis for a new Communication Renaissance.

With economic turmoil around the globe, and various governments putting together all sorts of "make work" projects to try to boost the economy, Berninger (and those of us who have signed on) argue that nothing can help the economy like increasing communication among everyone on the planet:

A dramatic expansion of communication seems likely to prove more affordable than infrastructure projects, energy related interventions, and war. The nature of communication technology tends to shape the course of human affairs, because communication represents a key input to the global economy. Half of all energy gets consumed by moving people from one place to another, so improving communication can help addresss global warming and geo-political tensions generated by energy consumption.

A telephone call does not require a Green Card or engage the TSA, so communication technologies can lessen the dislocations associated with immigration, emigration, and the arbitrary power of birthplace over opportunity. The Arab Spring illustrates the threat communication poses to tyranny and utility for linking people across lines of conflict. Risks exist with any technology just as roads benefit people seeking to rob banks as well as the general public. The 550 Challenge merely asserts connecting everyone offers less downside risk than the disconnected status quo.

Connecting everyone on earth within six years seems ambitious, but it requires merely sustaining the existing pace of cell phone and Internet expansion. The process of connecting people may require first finding sources for food, water, and shelter as well as navigating dangerous conflict over borders, but the challenges nonetheless do not compare to the World War's of the 20th century both of which played out in less than six years.

It's an ambitious program, but the world needs ambitious programs, and this is one that seems worth supporting and doing anything we can to help it achieve its goals.

Filed Under: 550 project, broadband, connectivity, gutenberg, worldwide

Interesting World: Man Unwittingly Live Tweets Raid That Killed Osama Bin Laden

from the so-that-happened dept

There's really not much for us to say on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, since that's really not a topic for this blog... and, of course, it's being covered quite ably pretty much everywhere else. However, I do find this one minor side story, highlighted by Mike Butcher at TechCrunch, quite fascinating as an indication of the type of world we live in today. Apparently, while the helicopter raid was going on, an IT consultant in Abbottabad, Pakistan named Sohaib Athar, happened to be up and hear the helicopters and went to Twitter to talk about it on his account @ReallyVirtual (which is a great Twitter handle, by the way). You can read his tweets (and some of his retweets and responses) below. Start from the bottom to get them in order: He seems a bit in shock from his sudden internet fame, which is certainly understandable. However, what gets me is that something like this is even possible today. Just a few years ago, almost no one have ever thought that the world would be connected to such a level. One can hope that the sort of connections and humanization that come about due to such technological advances might one day lead to a world where we don't have to deal with bombings and terrorists to chase down...

Filed Under: communications, connectivity, killed, osama bin laden, sohaib athar, twitter
Companies: twitter

UK Gov't Admits That Protecting Big Record Labels More Important Than Getting Poor Online

from the regrettable-indeed dept

Via Glyn Moody, we learn that the UK government has responded to a question about how the Digital Economy Act might increase the price of internet access. The government's response? Yes, the Digital Economy Act might price poor people out of the internet, and that's "regrettable," but somehow necessary. Huh? So it's more important to protect the profits of a few obsolete record labels, than to help get more people connected to the internet? Remember, this is the UK, where it's already been determined -- by the music industry's own numbers -- that the music industry has grown quite a bit over the past few years. So there's no need for the Digital Economy Act to help the music industry. The only parties it really helps are a few record labels who refuse to adapt to the changing market. So, the only clear meaning of this statement from the government is an admission that protecting some obsolete businesses is more important than getting poor people online.

Filed Under: connectivity, digital economy act, lobbyists, poor, uk

The Impact Of Egypt Cutting Itself Off From The Internet

from the could-be-pretty-big dept

As the news came out late Monday that the last remaining independent ISP, who had remained online in Egypt, has now turned off its connection to the wider internet as well, people are beginning to explore what this all means. Andrew McLaughlin, who until recently was the deputy CTO of the Obama administration, has penned a thoughtful article for the Guardian noting how this emphasizes how infrastructure really matters and how limited competition allows these situations to develop:

The internet cutoff shows how the details of infrastructure matter. Despite having no large-scale or centralised censorship apparatus, Egypt was still able to shut down its communications in a matter of minutes. This was possible because Egypt permitted only three wireless carriers to operate, and required all internet service providers (ISPs) to funnel their traffic through a handful of international links. Confronted with mass demonstrations and fearful about a populace able to organise itself, the government had to order fewer than a dozen companies to shut down their networks and disconnect their routers from the global internet.

But, perhaps the bigger question is how will the cut off actually impact the Egyptian economy and wider society as a whole. It's really quite amazing how integrated the internet has become in all our lives, and it really has become a fundamental part of the economy and how we live. Pulling the plug on the internet in a decently large country has serious ramification both inside the country (most seriously) and outside:

A central unknown at this moment is what the economic harm to the country will be. Without internet and voice networks, Egyptians are losing transactions and deals, their stocks and commodities cannot be traded, their goods are halted on frozen transportation networks, and their bank deposits are beyond reach.

Also unknown is how many Egyptians have been harmed in non-economic ways � as human beings. As things stand, a worried mother who has not heard from her son or daughter can't send an email or check Facebook for a status update. A witness to violence or abuse can't seek help, document responsibility, or warn others via Twitter or a blog.

Life-saving information is inaccessible. Healthy, civil debate about the future is squashed. And in the absence of trustworthy news, firsthand reports and real-time images, rumour and fear flourish. In all those ways, the total internet cutoff undermines the government's own interest in restoring calm and order.

I imagine that there will be numerous case studies that come out of this unfortunate situation, based on what happens. One can only hope that the actual harms aren't as bad as they might be.

Filed Under: andrew mclaughlin, connectivity, egypt, internet

Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes

from the stop-complaining dept

We've mentioned in the past how silly it is that Apple blocks the Palm Pre and other devices from accessing iTunes. Plenty of people responded, pointing out that Apple really makes its money on the hardware, and thus it makes no sense to allow other hardware products to connect to iTunes. While I agree that Apple makes its money off the hardware, I still disagree that Apple should block others out. In doing so, it makes me and many others less likely to purchase an Apple product, because I don't want to get trapped into Apple hardware. I'd much rather a more open solution.

Over at Slate, Farhad Manjoo has written up a wonderful explanation of why Apple should not just allow the Palm Pre and others to connect to iTunes, but it should encourage it. The whole thing is worth reading, but here's a snippet:

I hope the company continues to search for ways to sync with iTunes, because the fight--silly as it seems--is important, and Palm is clearly in the right. Apple may have the USB-IF on its side, and it may also be protected by copyright law. But by blocking non-Apple devices from its music app, Apple is violating a more fundamental principle of computing--that unalike devices should be able to connect to one another freely. The principle underlies everything we take for granted in tech today: It's why the Internet, your home network, and the PC function at all. And it's why Palm should keep storming the iTunes fortress.

I am not claiming that Palm has the legal right to hack into Apple's software, nor am I calling on any authorities to compel Apple to let Palm in; if the cat-and-mouse game turns into a courtroom brawl, it's very likely that Apple would win the fight. Instead, I'm calling on Apple to stand down. Even better: It should create a legal pathway for Palm and every other company to sync with iTunes. Why? The most obvious reason is that it's good for iTunes users. Nobody other than Apple benefits from locked-down software. Apple frequently extols the wonders of digital music--the convenience, the flexibility, the environmental friendliness. But how flexible can it be if you're allowed to sync your tunes only with devices made by a single company?

What's more, the iTunes block is hypocritical. Like every other tech company, Apple has benefited enormously from the spirit of interconnectedness that pervades the tech industry. The iPod would have fizzled if Microsoft had blocked it from hooking up to Windows PCs. Or look at the iPhone--Apple is proud that it can sync with Outlook, Microsoft Exchange, Gmail, Yahoo, and just about everything else. Indeed, you could argue that Apple, once left for dead on the periphery of the tech industry, managed to come back only because it skillfully marketed Macs as the most promiscuous computers you could buy.

Indeed. While it's unlikely that Apple will actually do this, it would be a smart move. No one's buying Apple hardware because it syncs with iTunes. They're buying it for many other reasons, and Apple can continue to compete on those. Blocking the Pre and other devices from accessing iTunes is petty and unnecessary.

Filed Under: connectivity, iphone, ipod, itunes, openness, palm pre
Companies: apple, palm

How Many Ways Do You Connect To The Internet?

from the are-you-hyperconnected? dept

A new study points out the rather unsurprising fact that the number of "hyperconnected" individuals is growing. The definition of hyperconnected is anyone with seven or more connected devices and nine or more applications on those devices (though, it's not entirely clear how they define an "application" since it seems to include certain websites. Apparently 16% of people surveyed fell into that camp. Another 36% are in the "increasingly connected" group that counts those who connect via at least four devices and uses six or more applications. To be honest, this seems like an odd way of defining connectivity. If I had a really good "all-in-one" device meaning that I wouldn't need that many other devices but could use that one in more circumstances, why should that make me seem less connected? Of course, then there are the unconnected. A different study has found that approximately 18% of homes in the US have no internet access whatsoever.

Filed Under: connectivity