War on the Internet: Legalized Spying of Email?

Incumbent political institutions will continue to wage war of controls against the immensely expanding social media. The latter is being proven as a crystallizing force in politics (e.g. Arab Spring)

I have covered part of this cat and mouse engagement here, here, here and here. Now the theatre of war has expanded to include prying into personal emails.

This from Wall Street Journal (bold emphasis mine)

The U.S. government has obtained a controversial type of secret court order to force Google Inc. and small Internet provider Sonic.net Inc. to turn over information from the email accounts of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Sonic said it fought the government's order and lost, and was forced to turn over information. Challenging the order was "rather expensive, but we felt it was the right thing to do," said Sonic's chief executive, Dane Jasper. The government's request included the email addresses of people Mr. Appelbaum corresponded with the past two years, but not the full emails.

Both Google and Sonic pressed for the right to inform Mr. Appelbaum of the secret court orders, according to people familiar with the investigation. Google declined to comment. Mr. Appelbaum, 28 years old, hasn't been charged with wrongdoing.

The court clashes in the WikiLeaks case provide a rare public window into the growing debate over a federal law that lets the government secretly obtain information from people's email and cellphones without a search warrant. Several court decisions have questioned whether the law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

WikiLeaks is a publisher of documents that people can submit anonymously. After WikiLeaks released a trove of classified government diplomatic cables last year, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the U.S. was pursuing an "active criminal investigation" of WikiLeaks.

Passed in 1986, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is older than the World Wide Web, which was dreamed up in 1989. A coalition of technology companies—including Google, Microsoft Corp. and AT&T Corp.—is lobbying Congress to update the law to require search warrants in more digital investigations.

The law was designed to give the same protections to electronic communications that were already in place for phone calls and regular mail. But it didn't envision a time when cellphones transmitted locations and people stored important documents on remote services, such as Gmail, rather than on their own computers.

Law enforcement uses the law to obtain some emails, cellphone-location records and other digital documents without getting a search warrant or showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. Instead the law sets a lower bar: The government must show only "reasonable grounds" that the records would be "relevant and material" to an investigation.

As a result, it can be easier for law-enforcement officers to see a person's email information than it is to see their postal mail.

Another significant difference: A person whose email is inspected this way often never knows a search was conducted. That's because court orders under the 1986 law are almost always sealed, and the Internet provider is generally prohibited from notifying the customer whose data is searched. By contrast, search warrants are generally delivered to people whose property is being searched.

Read the rest here

Politics has never been about transparency or tolerance of political differences or of freedom of speech or of respect of privacy but has been about censorship and the suppression of political opponents or the despotic control of the flow of information. This applies not just in the US but everywhere.

Current day politics essentially represents an ongoing battle between vertical political forces, vestiges of the industrial age, against the new generation individual based or bottom-up forces whom have been enabled and empowered by the web, such as Wikileaks.

Even the current welfare-financial crisis being endured by mostly Western or developed nations have been clear symptoms of the erosion of this untenable structure.

It’s the same war that’s being wage at almost every aspects of our lives.

A war against our civil liberties. And, through the internet and through education, we are fighting back.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote,

Everything that happens in the social world in our time is the result of ideas. Good things and bad things. What is needed is to fight bad ideas. We must fight all that we dislike in public life. We must substitute better ideas for wrong ideas. We must refute the doctrines that promote union violence. We must oppose the confiscation of property, the control of prices, inflation, and all those evils from which we suffer.

Ideas and only ideas can light the darkness. These ideas must be brought to the public in such a way that they persuade people. We must convince them that these ideas are the right ideas and not the wrong ones. The great age of the nineteenth century, the great achievements of capitalism, were the result of the ideas of the classical economists, of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, of Bastiat and others.

Web Wars: Internet Activists battle against Web Censorship

From the Chronicle (opednews.com), [bold emphasis mine]

Computer networks proved their organizing power during the recent uprisings in the Middle East, in which Facebook pages amplified street protests that toppled dictators. But those same networks showed their weaknesses as well, such as when the Egyptian government walled off most of its citizens from the Internet in an attempt to silence protesters.

That has led scholars and activists increasingly to consider the Internet's wiring as a disputed political frontier.

For example, one weekend each month, a small group of computer programmers gathers at a residence here to build a homemade Internet—named Project Byzantium—that could go online if parts of the current global Internet becomes blocked by a repressive government.

Using an approach called a "mesh network," the system would set up an informal wireless network connecting users with other nearby computers, which in turn would pass along the signals. The mesh network could tie back into the Internet if one of the users found a way to plug into an unblocked route. The developers recently tested an early version of their software at George Washington University (though without the official involvement of campus officials).

The leader of the effort, who goes by the alias TheDoctor but who would not give his name, out of concern that his employer would object to the project, says he fears that some day repressive measures could be put into place in the United States.

He is not the only one with such apprehensions. Next month The­Doctor will join hundreds of like-minded high-tech activists and entrepreneurs in New York at an unusual conference called the Contact Summit. One of the participants is Eben Moglen, a professor at Columbia Law School who has built an encryption device and worries about a recent attempt by Wisconsin politicians to search a professor's e-mail. The summit's goal is not just to talk about the projects, but also to connect with potential financial backers, recruit programmers, and brainstorm approaches to building parallel Internets and social networks.

The meeting is a sign of the growing momentum of what is called the "free-network movement," whose leaders are pushing to rewire online networks to make it harder for a government or corporation to exert what some worry is undue control or surveillance. Another key concern is that the Internet has not lived up to its social potential to connect people, and instead has become overrun by marketing and promotion efforts by large corporations.

At the heart of the movement is the idea that seemingly mundane technical specifications of Internet routers and social-networking software platforms have powerful political implications. In virtual realms, programmers essentially set the laws of physics, or at least the rules of interaction, for their cyberspaces. If it sometimes seems that media pundits treat Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg or Apple's Steve Jobs as gods, that's because in a sense they are—sitting on Mount Olympus with the power to hurl digital thunderbolts with a worldwide impact on people.

This simply shows how technology facilitated markets will work around regulators as the latter will try to bring back the industrial age by imposing vertical flow of information.

Also this exhibits how 20th century top-down political organizations will furiously struggle to resist the snowballing 'bottom-up' forces fueled by the internet revolution.

The US Federal Reserve Moves towards Social Media Censorship

I have been saying that signaling channel is a policy tool used by central banks to manage the public’s ‘inflation expectations’ or price levels of exchange rates. This tool seems to be prominently used since the post Lehman collapse.

I have associated the repeated assaults on the commodity markets as part of this tactical move to project subdued inflation in order to justify more inflationism.

And managing the market’s mindset seems to be on a slippery slope that will perhaps entail escalating information control or censorship on the web.

The Economic Collapse Blog writes,

The Federal Reserve wants to know what you are saying about it. In fact, the Federal Reserve has announced plans to identify "key bloggers" and to monitor "billions of conversations" about the Fed on Facebook, Twitter, forums and blogs. This is yet another sign that the alternative media is having a dramatic impact. As first reported on Zero Hedge, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has issued a "Request for Proposal" to suppliers who may be interested in participating in the development of a "Sentiment Analysis And Social Media Monitoring Solution". In other words, the Federal Reserve wants to develop a highly sophisticated system that will gather everything that you and I say about the Federal Reserve on the Internet and that will analyze what our feelings about the Fed are. Obviously, any "positive" feelings about the Fed would not be a problem. What they really want to do is to gather information on everyone that views the Federal Reserve negatively. It is unclear how they plan to use this information once they have it, but considering how many alternative media sources have been shut down lately, this is obviously a very troubling sign.

You can read this "Request for Proposal" right here.

Read more here.

Monetary central planners think that they can repeal the laws of economics by applying Orwellian approach in communications management.

More signs of an increasingly desperate US Federal Reserve.

Blogger’s Friday the 13th Snafu

Blogger’s been down for more than a day. But it’s obviously back.

Unless one is stricken by Friday the 13^th phobia or friggatriskaidekaphobia, then blogger.com’s foul up has most likely been a coincidence.

Hopefully it’s been a technical glitch….

Notes the CNET,

"We're nearly back to normal -- you can publish again, and in the coming hours posts and comments that were temporarily removed should be restored," Eddie Kessler, tech lead/manager at Blogger, wrote in a post on the Blogger Buzz site around 10:30 a.m. PT.

The post continues:

Here's what happened: during scheduled maintenance work Wednesday night, we experienced some data corruption that impacted Blogger's behavior. Since then, bloggers and readers may have experienced a variety of anomalies including intermittent outages, disappearing posts, and arriving at unintended blogs or error pages. A small subset of Blogger users (we estimate 0.16%) may have encountered additional problems specific to their accounts. Yesterday we returned Blogger to a pre-maintenance state and placed the service in read-only mode while we worked on restoring all content: that's why you haven't been able to publish. We rolled back to a version of Blogger as of Wednesday May 11th, so your posts since then were temporarily removed. Those are the posts that we're in the progress of restoring.

The publishing site has millions of active blogs, he said.

…and not seeds towards online censorship.

Pornography: How Social Signalling Beats Prohibition Laws

A major reason why pornography can’t be stopped at all by prohibition laws has been poignantly captured by this New York Times article... (all bold highlights mine)

Around the country, law enforcement officials and educators are struggling with how to confront minors who “sext,” an imprecise term that refers to sending sexual photos, videos or texts from one cellphone to another.

But adults face a hard truth. For teenagers, who have ready access to technology and are growing up in a culture that celebrates body flaunting, sexting is laughably easy, unremarkable and even compelling: the primary reason teenagers sext is to look cool and sexy to someone they find attractive.

Indeed, the photos can confer cachet.

“Having a naked picture of your significant other on your cellphone is an advertisement that you’re sexually active to a degree that gives you status,” said Rick Peters, a senior deputy prosecuting attorney for Thurston County, which includes Lacey. “It’s an electronic hickey.”

One: This is not even an issue of commerce but of voluntary exchanges by a niche community where self esteem is at stake.

Two: Some people see pornography as a way to project personal issues-here sexuality in order to command social attention! Yes I know they are minors, but this doesn’t mean they are amoral or can’t distinguish between right and wrong. For them, social acceptance serve as their highest personal priority (value preference) to fulfil.

So what is construed as generally an immoral act is seen by some as a tool to broadcast social status—whereby consensual participants see such as acts as providing social “utility”.

In short, morality is subjective.

Three: This serves as example why it is an act of futility to legislate away exchanges between willing and voluntary suppliers, and eager audiences.

Legislating away self-esteem needs won’t solve this issue.

Four: I would say that perhaps most people are NOT engaged in voluntary exchanges like non-commercial pornography, yet the political imperatives (like the undertone of the article) are directed towards using the fallacy of composition as an instrument towards exercising political censorship.

In short, deviant behaviour of some segments of the society will be used as an excuse to control the public’s flow of information. The implied message is to shoot the messenger (cellphones, web, etc…) when the problem is one of behaviour.

The Philippine Government’s War Against Facebook

The Philippine government has initiated its stealth war against social media.

From the Philippine Inquirer,

Be wary of foreigners suddenly “liking” you on Facebook or other social networking sites, an official of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) advised netizens.

PDEA spokesperson Derrick Carreon said many drug mules or persons used to transport drugs through international borders were befriended and recruited online.

The Philippine government is on a slippery slope towards social media censorship and has used its war against drugs as justification.

It’s best to know that there are two different issues: war against drugs and war against social media.

Slippery slope simply means the government uses the war on drugs as a launching pad to expand political control over social media. They start with “warnings” first. Later this will be buttressed with statutes. Interventionism begets interventionism.

The war against social media is aimed at restricting the flow of information that runs against the interest of the government—via censorship.

Governments have been reeling from spontaneous People Power movements abroad fueled by social media, thus sees this information medium as a threat which must be neutralized.

For now, the so-called “warnings” are directed at the recruitment of drug Mules or carriers.

Shown below from PDEA (2008),

Drug mules have been exploding, the chart has not been updated. Yesterday’s TV news program reported 600+.

The propaganda: social media will be a major tool for the growth of drug abuse, thus must be controlled. Creeping government interventionism starts with public conditioning by indoctrination.

The Philippines is now among the top 10 major Facebook users (checkfacebook).

This means that the sin of 1,000 or less, will be used as an excuse to control the activities of 22 million Filipinos. As usual, interventionists apply the fallacy of composition to justify their actions.

Yet PDEA does NOT explain why from 20,000 reported cases of drug abuse in 1972, in 2004, the year Facebook was launched, drug usage has exploded to 6.7 million. (PDEA timeline)

The Philippine population in 1972 was 38.7 million, in 2004, the number of Filipinos grew to 83.9 million: this means about 8% of Filipinos are drug users (as of 2004), despite the statutes RA 9165, EO 218.

In short, drug trade and use has been flourishing in spite of Facebook. Facebook as a social medium functions as aggravating factor rather than the root cause.

However, Facebook will likely bear the brunt of the government [regulatory] failure (drug war) and the attempts to curtail the freedom of speech and expression.