War on Internet: Internet Freedom Prevails over UN Sponsored Regulations

The United Nations via the International Telecommunication Union has failed in her mission to put a centralized legal kibosh on the internet.

From Forbes.com

For the last two weeks some of the planet’s most oppressive regimes have faced off against some of the most powerful Internet advocates in an effort to rewrite a multilateral communications treaty that, if successful, could have changed the nature of the Internet and altered the way it is governed.

On Thursday night that effort failed, as a US-led block of dissenting countries refused to sign the proposed updates, handing the United Nation’s International Telecommunication Union a humbling defeat.

The United States, which framed its dissent as defending “the open Internet,” was joined by more than 80 other countries, including Australia,Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kenya, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Sweden and the United Kingdom. (Some of the non-signers seemed to be seeking to avoid making too overt of a political statement, saying, regrettably that they could not sign because they had to “consult with capital.”)

On Friday, the remaining members of the ITU, which is made up of 193 countries, signed the treaty, known as International Telecommunications Regulations, but the gesture in many ways was hollow.

Like other U.N. agencies, the ITU strives for consensus, and it’s within that consensus that the ITU derives its authority. The ITU can’t force a country to abide by its treaties, but if representatives of all member countries agree to a global telecommunications framework, and subsequently pass laws enforcing the framework, the ITU itself grows stronger.

Dissenting countries led by the US have not really been for defending “open internet”, as the US for instance have pursued various forms of social media censorship (some examples see here here here and more). The difference, I think, is that these supposed “open internet” faction don’t want to be tied up with or submit to a global regulator via such treaty.

They seem to prefer approaching the internet via domestic policies.

The same article seem to give such a hint,

Interpreted as a power grab by the United Nations, the secrecy rang alarm bells. Distrust of the ITU began to approach panic after the contents of more controversial proposals became known. Some of the proposals endorsed by authoritarian countries would have increased censorship, potentially restricted the free flow of information and undermined the voluntary framework that forms the basis of today’s Internet.

In addition, upholding the treaty may also extrapolate to the dilution of power by the opposing bloc to the UN consensus led by authoritarian governments which would be unacceptable to opposition many whom are developed economies.

The good news is that forces of decentralization embodied by the internet continues to sow division on governments. Such factionalism will likely be more pronounced when the next debt crisis surfaces.

War on Internet: Google will warn Users of State Sponsored Attacks

Hail Google. Google will warn their users of state sponsored privacy intrusions.

From Foreign Policies the Cable

UPDATE: A senior Senate aide confirmed that this evening he received a warning on his Gmail account that Google suspected he had been the target of a state-sponsored cyber attack.

Web giant Google is about to announce a new warning informing Gmail users when a specific type of attacker is trying to hijack their accounts -- governments and their proxies.

Later today, the company will announce a new warning system that will alert Gmail users when Google believes their accounts are being targeted by state-sponsored attacks. The new system isn't a response to a specific event or directed at any one country, but is part and parcel of Google's recent set of policy changes meant to allow users to protect themselves from malicious activity brought on by state actors. It also has the effect of making it more difficult for authoritarian regimes to target political and social activists by hacking their private communications.

"We are constantly on the lookout for malicious activity on our systems, in particular attempts by third parties to log into users' accounts unauthorized. When we have specific intelligence-either directly from users or from our own monitoring efforts-we show clear warning signs and put in place extra roadblocks to thwart these bad actors," reads a note to users by Eric Grosse, Google's vice president for security engineering, to be posted later today on Google's Online Security blog, obtained in advance by The Cable. "Today, we're taking that a step further for a subset of our users, who we believe may be the target of state-sponsored attacks."

When Google's internal systems monitoring suspicious internet activity, such as suspicious log-in attempts, conclude that such activities include the involvement of states or state-backed initiatives, the user will now receive the specialized, more prominent warning pictured above. The warning doesn't necessarily mean that a user's account has been hijacked, but is meant to alert users that Google believes a state sponsored attack has been attempted so they can increase their security vigilance.

Google wants to be clear they are not singling out any one government for criticism and that the effort is about giving users transparency about what is going on with their accounts, not about highlighting the malicious actions of foreign states.

Read the rest here

War on Internet: Anonymous will do a Wikileaks this December

The war on the internet continues.

Despite a string of legal harassment suit waged against activists like Wikileaks, internet activism will persist to haunt governments and their cronies.

Another activist group called the Anonymous announced that they will do a Wiki-leaks expose this December.

From Personal Liberty.com (hat tip Sovereign Man)

The global “hacktivist” syndicate Anonymous wants people all over the world to expose evidence of corruption and injustice by leaking documents to which they have access.

In a recently posted video, the group urges anyone who has access to evidence of corporate or government wrongdoing to purchase a USB drive and document the evidence for publication on the Internet.

“Imagine you purchase a USB drive. Imagine you take it to your work place. Imagine you collect evidence of illegality and corruption. Imagine together we expose all lies. Imagine we leak it all,” scrolls across the screen in a recent video posted by the group.

The initiative, dubbed Project Mayhem 2012, will take place over the 10-day period from Dec. 12 to Dec. 21, during which the video claims “the World will see an unprecedented amount of Corporate, Financial, Military and State leaks that will have been secretly gathered by millions of CONSCIENTIOUS citizens, vigilantes, whistle blowers and insiders worldwide.”

The group claims to be in the process of developing a Wikileaks-style platform called TYLER where the information can be anonymously posted.

Video here.

Which Social Media Networks will Stand Beside You From Governments

The Electronic Frontier Foundation conducted a study to see which of the 18 major internet companies will stand beside their users against governments intrusions.

The introduction from the study at the EFF.org

The Electronic Frontier Foundation examined the policies of 18 major Internet companies — including email providers, ISPs, cloud storage providers, and social networking sites — to assess whether they publicly commit to standing with users when the government seeks access to user data. We looked at their terms of service, privacy policies, and published law enforcement guides, if any. We also examined their track record of fighting for user privacy in the courts and whether they’re members of the Digital Due Process coalition, which works to improve outdated communications law. Finally, we contacted each of the companies with our conclusions and gave them an opportunity to respond and provide us evidence of improved policies and practices. These categories are not the only ways that a company can stand up for users, of course, but they are important and publicly verifiable.

Their conclusion…

Readers of this year’s annual privacy and transparency report should be heartened, as we are, at the improvements major online service providers over the last year. While there remains room for improvement in areas such as the policies of location service providers, certain practices — like publishing law enforcement guidelines and regular transparency reports — are becoming standard industry practice. And we are seeing a growing, powerful movement that comprises civil liberties groups as well as major online service providers to clarify outdated privacy laws so that there is no question government agents need a court-ordered warrant before accessing sensitive location data, email content and documents stored in the cloud.

Read the entire report here

War on the Internet: 377 Words to use for Uncle Sam to Watch You

Free speech undermines the power of centralized government. So governments will make any excuses to work on repressing free speech.

One way is to make everyone a suspect for politically mandated illegitimate activities as ‘drugs’ or ‘terror’. This by monitoring so called ‘suspicious’ activities, a.k.a. spying. And naturally, where people congregate to share or exchange information, now becomes the hotbed for government intelligence.

A list of 377 sensitive words that you use may trigger Uncle Sam’s monitoring of you.

From Simon Black of Sovereign Man

After vigorous resistance, the Department of Homeland Security was finally forced into releasing it’s 2011 Analyst’s Desktop Binder. It’s a manual of sorts, teaching all the storm troopers who monitor our Internet activity all day which key words to look for.

Facebook, a.k.a. the US government’s domestic intelligence center, is the primary target for this monitoring… though it’s become clear so many times before that various departments, including the NSA and FBI, are monitoring online activity ranging from search terms to emails.

Domestic spying is typically denied in public and swept under the rug. After all, it’s legality has always been questionable… if not entirely Unconstitutional.

Yet month after month it seems, there is new legislation introduced to deprive Internet users of their privacy and make the open collection of data a natural part of the online landscape.

Homeland Security’s key word ‘hotlist’ is really no surprise… they’re just the ones to get caught.

So now we know, at least, what these goons are looking for. Sort of.

According to the manual, DHS breaks down its monitoring into a whopping 14 categories ranging from Health to Fire to Terrorism. It’s a testament to how bloated the department’s scope has become.

Afterwards there is a list of 377 of key terms to monitor, most of which are completely innocuous. Exercise. Cloud. Leak. Sick. Organization. Pork. Bridge. Smart. Tucson. Target. China. Social media.

Curiously, in its ‘Critical Information Requirements’, the manual decrees that analysts should also catalog items which may “reflect adversely on DHS and response activities.”

Absolutely unreal. Big Brother is not just watching. He’s digging, searching, reading, monitoring, archiving, and judging too.

The list of the 377 sensitive words here

Twitter Yields to Selective Censorship

This is a sad development for social media: The popular Twitter has yielded to selective censorship

From New York Daily News,

Twitter service may be getting spotty in some countries.

The micro-blogging firm announced on the company blog Thursday that it plans to change its censorship policies to comply with different countries' regulations.

"As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression," the post read. "Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others are similar, but for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi comment."

Users' tweets will be blocked in a country where they are against the law, but shown in nations where they are legal. For example, a pro-Nazi tweet may be scrubbed in Germany, but would appear on the user's account if read in the U.S.

When Twitter removes a comment, it says it will clearly mark when a Tweet has been censored and send it to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, which is creating a database of tweets deleted not only because of censorship but also as a result of cease-and-desist notices and copyright infringement.

Despite the setback, which I think is part of any struggle for change through attrition, I remain hopeful that internet freedom will prevail.

Quote of the Day: The Internet is Not for the Government to Regulate

From Cato’s Jim Harper

The Internet is not the government’s to regulate. It is an agreement on a set of protocols—a language that computers use to talk to one another. That language is the envelope in which our communications—our First-Amendment-protected speech—travels in hundreds of different forms.

The Internet community is growing in power. (Let’s not be triumphal—government authorities will use every wile to maintain control.) Hopefully the people who get engaged to fight SOPA and PIPA will recognize the many ways that the government regulates and limits information flows through technical means. The federal government exercises tight control over electromagnetic spectrum, for example, and it claims authority to impose public-utility-style regulation of Internet service provision in the name of “net neutrality.”

Video: What's Wrong with Internet Censorship

Cato's Julian Sanchez explains what is wrong with internet censorship

From Cato:

Internet censorship is not the answer to problems of piracy online. Cato Institute research fellow Julian Sanchez explains that internet censorship won't effectively address the problem of piracy and will threaten innovation and the liberties of Americans by engaging in unconstitutional prior restraint.

By the way, after a furious backlash, bi partisan legislators are reportedly backing off from supporting the bill.

Bonus Quote of the Day: Internet as Engine for Free Speech and Innovation

The Internet is the greatest engine for free speech and innovation ever known to humankind. Certainly its power can be used for good as well as bad, but censoring content, jeopardizing the security of the Internet, and stifling innovation is not the answer for protecting intellectual property rights.

That’s from Mike Brownfield at the Heritage “Morning Bell” Blog.

I would add that the internet is the greatest medium for democraticizing knowledge.

War on the Internet: Freedom Wins Round One

Writes Mac Slavo

Amid significant pressure from tens of thousands of internet users and major web behemoths like Google, Facebook, and Reddit, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is, in its current form, Dead on Arrival:

“Misguided efforts to combat online privacy have been threatening to stifle innovation, suppress free speech, and even, in some cases, undermine national security. As of yesterday, though, there’s a lot less to worry about.

“The first sign that the bills’ prospects were dwindling came Friday, when SOPA sponsors agreed to drop a key provision that would have required service providers to block access to international sites accused of piracy.

“The legislation ran into an even more significant problem yesterday when the White House announced its opposition to the bills. Though the administration’s chief technology officials officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy, the White House statement presented a fairly detailed critique of the measures and concluded, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” It added that any proposed legislation “must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet.”

…

“Though the administration did issue a formal veto threat, the White House’s opposition signaled the end of these bills, at least in their current form.

“A few hours later, Congress shelved SOPA, putting off action on the bill indefinitely.

“Sourced From Washington Monthly via The Daily Sheeple

Sponsored primarily by purported free speech advocates that include democrats and republicans alike, the SOPA would have fundamentally transformed the internet as we know it today. As Daisy Luther writes at Inalienably Yours, the bill was nothing short of a direct attack against the first Amendment and the right to free speech:

“On closer inspection, the legalese in the bill has the potential to eviscerate free speech….and like NDAA, without proof…only with suspicion of “wrong-doing”. It’s all about copyright infringement. If you tick off the powers that be, and you’ve quoted someone, somewhere, saying something, you may have infringed on their copyright. As a defendant, you are not even present at the legal proceeding allowing “them” to shut you down until you prove yourself innocent.

“How do they shut you down? Search engines are required to remove you from their listings. Internet Service Providers can be ordered to block access to your site. Advertising networks and payment providers can also be forced to cease doing business with you. This continues until you are proven INNOCENT. Wait – I thought it was innocent until proven guilty….oh….that was “before” the NDAA.

Source: The Internet: The Last Bastion of Free Speech

While this bill of goods was being sold to the American public as a way to reduce online piracy originating on foreign shores, in essence the legislation would have made it possible for any organization (with the financial assets and access to attorneys to do so) to target web sites (foreign or domestic) using excerpts, quotes, and videos without express permission of the authors or producers of such content. Furthermore, any web site linking to suspected copyrighted content would be guilty by association for fascilitating the infringement.

Read the rest here

In the growing realization that political power is being frayed by the ongoing information age revolution or the democratization of knowledge, the 20^th century welfare and warfare state will use anything, like Intellectual Property and copyright arguments, as pretext to rein control over the internet. Earlier they argued that the cyberspace can pose a threat to national security.

Today, Wikipedia and other websites has shut down to express their opposition to proposals over censorship masquerading as ‘foreign Internet Piracy’.

The above is just one of the other being actions undertaken such as Spying of Email and the harassment of Wikileaks

As I previously wrote

These actions represent “resistance to change”, whereby politicians will try to enforce information control or censorship in the way the industrial age used to operate.

The horizontal flow of information threatens the institutional centralized frameworks built upon the industrial age economy.

As I earlier wrote,

“Political and economic ideology latched on a vertical top-bottom flow of power will be on a collision course with horizontal real time flow of democratized knowledge.

“This would likely result to less applicability of ideologies based on centralization, which could substantially erode its support base and shift political capital to decentralized structure of political governance that would conform with the horizontal structure of information flows.

“People will know more therefore control from the top will be less an appealing idea.

But again these attempts to regulate the web are likely to fail.

Nevertheless the war on the internet accounts as part of the adjustment process away from the command and control structure of the industrial ages with the knowledge revolution taking place beyond the reach of politicians. Besides, technological advances will work around regulations.

Signifying the foundation of knowledge, the internet will serve as THE battleground between socialism and free markets, and this will be just one of the many series of skirmishes that are destined to occur. And as previously noted, many internet activists have already been preparing for the worst scenario.

Indexed’s Jessica Hagy has a nice graphical depiction of the ongoing war, which she calls: Dark Ages II: in discussion now!

Indeed, the left and vested interest groups wants us to remain in the Dark ages and as their serfs.

War on the Internet: Threat to National Security as Pretext for Controls

As earlier posted, governments around the world will be rationalizing control of the web or the cyberspace by putting up various bogeymen (strawmen).

The US has now been considering cyber attacks as a threat to national security that would justify military response.

From the Wall Street Journal,

The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.

The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.

This is an overblown reaction.

Writes Cato’s Benjamin Friedman

Actually, our claim is not that we should never use military means to respond to cyberattacks. Our point instead is that the vast majority of events given that name have nothing to do with national security. Most “cyberattackers” are criminals: thieves looking to steal credit card numbers or corporate data, extortionists threatening denial of service attacks, or vandals altering websites to grind personal or political axes. These acts require police, not aircraft carriers.

Even the cyberattacks that have affected our national security do not justify war, we argue. There is little evidence that online spying has ever done grievous harm to national security, thinly sourced reports to the contrary notwithstanding. In any case, we do not threaten war in response to traditional espionage and should not do so merely because it occurs online.

Moreover, despite panicked reports claiming that hackers are poised to sabotage our “critical infrastructure” — downing planes, flooding dams, crippling Wall Street — hackers have accomplished nothing of the sort. We prevent these nightmares by decoupling the infrastructure management system from the public internet. But even these higher-end cyberattacks are only likely to damage commerce, not kill, so threatening to bomb in response to them seems belligerent.

I am reminded by this wonderful quote from General Douglas MacArthur who said that government has always peddled fear to expand over us.

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervour -with the cry of grave national emergency. Always, there has been some terrible evil at home, or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it

Always somewhere a deception designed to curtail our liberties.

Knowledge Revolution: Internet and Freedom

I’ve been writing about how the internet/web has functioned (and will continue to function) as a critical instrument for the widespread dissemination of the principles of freedom based on what I call the Hayekian Knowledge revolution platform—characterized by a decentralized-horizontal flow of information.

You can read my earlier explanations here or here.

And in realizing that the web has been undermining the current political order, governments around the world has, intuitively, resorted to counterbalancing these evolving spontaneous order by attempting to regulate the internet or by imposing censorship. A good example are reports from wikileaks (such as this and this) that has exposed many covert government activities.

Well my observations seem to be getting substantial validations.

Here is the Economist, (bold emphasis mine)

THE number of people with access to the internet has more than doubled in the past five years to over two billion. Many governments have responded with regulation and repression, according to a report published on April 18th by Freedom House, which assigns countries an internet freedom score. Nine of the 15 countries that the Washington-based think-tank assessed in 2009 fared worse this year, among them Iran, Tunisia and China. On the plus side, citizens are growing increasingly adept at sidestepping these threats to their internet freedoms, and the use of social media did much to galvanise political opposition across the Arab world in recent months. Indeed web-users in some countries, such as Georgia and Estonia, have more freedom now than they did two years ago.

Some great charts

The massive growth of Internet Users (Freedom House)

Social media as a widely used application (Internet world stats)

Index of Internet freedom: 37 country score of internet freedom (0 Best, 100 Worst)

A green-colored bar represents a status of “Free,” a yellow-colored one, the status of “Partly Free,” and a purple-colored one, the status of “Not Free” on the Freedom of the Net Index. (Freedom House)

More internet freedom versus less internet freedom (Freedom House)

How Asia has fared.(Freedom House)

Freedom House identifies the typical government’s countermeasures:

(From Freedom House, bold emphasis original)

Key Trends

* Explosion in social-media use met with censorship: In response to the growing popularity of internet-based applications like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, many governments have started targeting the new platforms as part of their censorship strategies. In 12 of the 37 countries examined, the authorities consistently or temporarily imposed total bans on these services or their equivalents.

* Bloggers and ordinary users face arrest: Bloggers, online journalists, and human rights activists, as well as ordinary people, increasingly face arrest and imprisonment for their online writings. In 23 of the 37 countries, including several democratic states, at least one blogger or internet user was detained because of online communications.

* Cyberattacks against regime critics intensifying: Governments and their sympathizers are increasingly using technical attacks to disrupt activists’ online networks, eavesdrop on their communications, and cripple their websites. Such attacks were reported in at least 12 of the 37 countries covered.

* Politically motivated censorship and content manipulation growing: A total of 15 of the 37 countries examined were found to engage in substantial online blocking of politically relevant content. In these countries, website blocks are not sporadic, but rather the result of an apparent national policy to restrict users’ access to information, including the websites of independent news outlets and human rights groups.

* Governments exploit centralized internet infrastructure to limit access: Centralized government control over a country’s connection to international internet traffic poses a significant threat to free online expression, particularly at times of political turmoil. In 12 of the 37 countries examined, the authorities used their control over infrastructure to limit widespread access to politically and socially controversial content, and in extreme cases, cut off access to the internet entirely.

The battle rages.