Internet at Risk

[Double_D]

Read from a News article this morning...

 

By Simon Kent ,Toronto Sun

 

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

 

An obscure United Nations agency has its hand hovering over the Internet kill switch and there’s not much anyone can do about it — except talk.

Arab states have joined Russia and a loose global coalition of like-minded nations to propose sweeping governmental powers to regulate the web.

 

Their proposal is being debated at a global conference in Dubai being run under the auspices of something called the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

 

The plan, co-signed by noted lovers of personal freedom, including Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, is causing deep divisions at the meeting that is attempting to rewrite a long-standing treaty on web regulation.

 

So, if you are one of those people who like your Internet free, uncensored and outside UN control (or anyone’s control for that matter), you might want to listen to what U.S. Ambassador Terry Kramer has to say.

 

The former Vodaphone senior executive is in Dubai leading the U.S. delegation and working alongside Canada to defeat the notion that the Internet belongs to any single administrative agency.

 

Certainly not the UN. Definitely not any unelected and unrepresentative delegates meeting in secret somewhere within the UN’s mighty East River edifice in New York.

 

“At the moment the Internet is a global form of communications that defies control by any single nation state or sovereign agency and I am here alongside allies like Canada to help make sure it stays that way,” Kramer told the Toronto Sun by phone from Dubai.

 

“Our aim is to ensure that everything from domain names to charging protocols to the ability to suspend the Internet within national borders remains an impossibility.

 

“Countries that want to have bilateral agreements to stop access to sites at each others’ agreement or act to suppress opponents or minorities they deem to be dangerous must also learn that the Internet does not work that way.

 

“Online censorship should not be on the table.”

 

If anyone should know that it is Kramer, who boasts a 25-year career in global telecommunications. For 18 of the 25 years he worked for Vodafone Group Plc/AirTouch Communications in a variety of roles domestically and internationally including group strategy and business improvement director, regional president and Vodafone Americas.

 

In June 2012, the Harvard-based professor was personally appointed by U.S. President Barack Obama to serve as ambassador, head of U.S. delegation for WCIT-12.

 

He said he wants to work with all countries of goodwill in the simple pursuit of Internet freedom.

 

“Some countries see the future remit of the ITU as encompassing the Internet but the U.S. position is clear: The treaty should continue to apply only to traditional telecommunications such as international wireline and wireless calls.

 

“People should be free on the Internet, the Internet itself should be free — free flow of information — without risk of any type of censorship.”

 

Not everyone agrees with that simple definition.

 

A leaked draft of the Russia-led proposals for further ITU-control would give countries “equal rights to manage the Internet including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering.”

 

That undermines ICANN, a self-governing, non-profit organization under contract to the U.S. department of commerce, which is ultimately responsible for ensuring people trying to reach a given website actually get there without hindrance or restraint.

 

For those who like their democratic votes exercised by secret ballot, there is more disappointment ahead than just these proposals.

 

Hamadoun Toure, ITU secretary general has confirmed the changes will be carried by “consensus” — therefore no ballot, no show of hands or even a verbal “yea” or “nay” will be allowed when the final decision is made.

 

It will be up to his committee chairmanship alone to decide if consensus has been reached.

 

That session will be held Friday. It will closed to the media.

 

 

:(

[MA_Goblin]

:( Why can't politicians and the likes keep their litle fingers out of the "box"..

[Double_D]

Game Developers should be concerned since the biggest feature of their game platforms is " Multiplayer ":music_whistling:

[Namenlos Ein]

Russian ‘internet blacklist’ goes online (01 November, 2012)

 

http://zapret-info.gov.ru/

[WildBillKelsoe]

oh fVck!!! I'm from Egypt, and its normal to experience line outages from time to time, but for God sake, don't censor internet. I've been to saudi arabia, and anything under porn, is strictly prohibited. I guess arab states are coming to an absolute sectarian closure. By that, if I want to visit a .mil domain, I get a site blocked message. FVVVVVCCKKK!!!

[diveplane]

they kill the internet youll get riots sweeping the globe.

[Chazz_BMF]

they kill the internet youll get riots sweeping the globe.

 

21th. December

 

End of internet = Doomsday :D

[Speed]

they kill the internet youll get riots sweeping the globe.

 

Not if they do it slowly.

 

The internet is one of the greatest forces bringing the world together and helping to promote freedom... so of course some governments are against it.

[EtherealN]

Russian ‘internet blacklist’ goes online (01 November, 2012)

 

http://zapret-info.gov.ru/

 

Already exists an analogue in Sweden. Used mainly to block stuff like child pornography.

[26-J39]

It's quite obviously more about protecting the criminals in power and suppressing truth, whistleblowers etc. You don't need censorship for child porn, You simply take the site down because it's illegal and sick and go after the offenders. Sorry no conspiracy theories here just fact.

[EtherealN]

Actually, you do need "censorship" for it, unless the material is on hardware in your own country (or a country where you can get assistance from local authorities). If, for any reason, you are unable to get this assistance (be that because the crime you are prosecuting is not illegal in the country of origin, or simply because local authorities are incompetent).

 

Let's be careful about the political discussion, otherwise this thread will not get old.

[26-J39]

I understand what you say EtherealN and your right in that respect, you'd think that type of thing would be illegal everywhere but unfortunately not or in many cases supported even if, in our world. :(

 

Edit: Not DCS World fortunately! :D

[Namenlos Ein]

Already exists an analogue in Sweden. Used mainly to block stuff like child pornography.

And this Swedish analogue blocks, for example, internet page about virtual “drugs” (“boosters”) in the EVE Online game?

 

http://www.eve-space.ru/article/?pl=19 - blocked page.

 

http://times.tjournal.ru/articles/eve-space-block

 

http://www.chickgeekgames.com/2012/11/russian-federal-service-for-drug.html

Edited December 12, 2012 by Namenlos Ein

[EtherealN]

No, but there has been (for example) an incident where a minor political party's website was blocked for promoting child pornography. If I understood the incident right, some cracker broke into the server, replaced the legit site with some less than nice stuff, and the site in question ended up blocked nationwide for this before the damage was repaired (the people in charge of the relevant unit in the police/prosecutorial office thing apparently didn't understand that precisely this kind of attack would be possible against sites, and the party being extra-parliamentary and having zero paid staff of any kind wasn't fast enough).

 

So what I'm saying is, this type of law might be defensible (I don't know myself, it's a way complex subject) - but still subject to severe problems if selectively applied towards an other purpose.

 

Definitely something to worry about, but let's worry about it in the right way. It's like surveillance cameras in cities - can be good if used to prosecute or dissuade crime, and can be bad if used to persecute opposition, minorities etcetera.

[Pyroflash]

It is indeed fairly tricky to form a concrete position on this. One one hand you have legitimate censorship of harmful material like child pornography, government secrets, copyrights, etc.. However, the long standing argument has been, and will continue to be where the line is drawn in these cases. Exactly how much government intervention is necessary to ensure that our rights are protected without infringing on other rights. For that matter, what exactly is a right when it comes to internet usage? I personally feel that freedom of expression, and freedom of access to all public information is a right (given that I already pay for internet costs), however some people may not see it that way. In fact, the internet can be, at times, emotionally damaging to young/insecure people.

 

There are also arguments in place that freedom of information extends to copyrighted material. I do not agree, of course, as I know fully well how much effort is required in order to produce such material. However this does not mean that I support the notion by some that my access to the internet should be somehow restricted in order to promote the security of this material.

 

These are just some simple, common arguments, let alone ones that have to do with organized control over certain technical internet "backbones" that people have their opinions over. And the decisions and opinions surrounding them may not be as clear cut as some may like to think. However I do firmly believe that it is for precisely this reason that everyone needs to be involved, and not just politicians who know nothing about the day to day operations and structure of the internet.

[Wolf Rider]

I think we all know the "protect the children" is just a nefarious ruse, because perpetrators of such 'activities' use VPN. The censorship methods don't address that.

[EtherealN]

I think we all know the "protect the children" is just a nefarious ruse, because perpetrators of such 'activities' use VPN. The censorship methods don't address that.

 

They still make arrests based on it.

 

If everyone that partook in this kind of thing was internet-savvy, you'd have a point.

 

Think of it like this: no point having phone-tapping be legal, because any perp would be using unregistered prepaids, right? Well yeah, some do, but there's still a lot of cases where phone-tapping actually works. For every evasion you think is obvious and easy, there's probably some other easy evasion you've never thought about and that someone else thinks is dead obvious.

[Wolf Rider]

yes, they do make arrests but not what is based on the VPN but on what is on the machine they have taken their custody for analysis.

 

We had a court judgement passed here in OZ recently, which made what is on the air-waves considered as public domain (a few years back the 'eavesdropping' laws were also repealed)... no warrant for taps necessary.

 

Any wonder why US is pushing bluetooth and Wi-Fi?

 

 

back to the 'net... how does "blocking a site" prevent VPN activities?

[EtherealN]

back to the 'net... how does "blocking a site" prevent VPN activities?

 

Who has stated that it does?

 

This isn't different to stuff like blocking Piratebay. You're not denting the serious, organized, people with that.

But the regular home-joe with no clue? Blocking means he's blocked because he doesn't know how to get at it through any other method.

 

VPN-related arrests happen, but I don't know whether they are achieved through infiltration or what. But of course - never, ever, assume that something like that is actually secure, it's always just a matter of how bad the other guy wants to get at you (and how skilled he is). But what you're failing to see here is that the blockings aren't concerned with the more secretive, behind-the-scenes, skilled people. They use other methods for those. Costly, expensive, measures that are unecessary if you can stop the crime from taking place in the first place through ensuring that the people that don't know how that stuff works simply can't perform the crime in the first place.

 

Compare to stopping speeding through setting up electronic speed limiters on automobiles. Skilled people will find a way to bypass it. But that doesn't mean that the absolute majority of people will still be prevented from speeding by it.

Edited December 12, 2012 by EtherealN

[Wolf Rider]

back to the point of "nefarious ruse" :)

[EtherealN]

That's just paranoia.

 

Here's your chain of reasoning:

 

1) It is possible to bypass blocking.

2) The big offenders bypass blocking.

3) Therefore blocking is pointless and just a "nefarious ruse".

 

It's step 3 here that is your problem. You have not successfully argued for step 3, or rather, as in logic: step 1 and 2 does not on their own give 3. It relies on those steps being the complete and full picture through the unstated assumption that item 2 includes everyone.

[Fjordmonkey]

I'll just quote Firefly: You can't stop the signal, Mal.

 

The Internet is an almost Newtonian entity. For every attempt to stop it, censor it or limit it, there's a reaction in the form of proxies, workarounds and loopholes. Unless they radically change the IPv4 or IPv6-protocols, people will find a way around whatever anyone comes up with.

[Wolf Rider]

That's just paranoia.

 

Here's your chain of reasoning:

 

1) It is possible to bypass blocking.

2) The big offenders bypass blocking.

3) Therefore blocking is pointless and just a "nefarious ruse".

 

It's step 3 here that is your problem. You have not successfully argued for step 3, or rather, as in logic: step 1 and 2 does not on their own give 3. It relies on those steps being the complete and full picture through the unstated assumption that item 2 includes everyone.

 

 

let me explain "logic" to you...

 

I'll ask:

 

Are you standing over there (WR points in that direction)?

 

No, is your answer

 

Are you standing over here (WR points in this direction)?

 

No, is you answer

 

Well, if you're not standing over there or standing over here, you must be somewhere else then?

 

Yes, you agree

 

 

well, if you're somewhere else, you can't be at your screen reading this then, eh?

 

to respond to your points...

1. it is quite easy to block banning on any forum, for instance

2. anyone can bypass blocking... not just big offenders

3.The nefarious ruse, the powers that be using the "protect the kiddies" diatribe to gain the ability to lock out sites/ pages on a country wide basis, which may not be to their liking... eg like China.

 

Whistleblowers - gone

anti-government/ politician sites - gone

minor sites (which should have been, and this is an important bit... taken care of under parental supervision methods) - gone just to make the PoB look good by way of their 'plan' working.

 

 

free speech/ freedom of expression... well it was nice when we had it :cry:

[EtherealN]

Anyone that knows how. The point is that you are assuming that the people that are targeted by this specific measure are computer savvy. They are not. Internet users that has ever even heard the acronym VPN (for example) are a very very tiny minority. The absolute majority of internet users don't even know what an IP adress is.

 

You're just refusing to acknowledge that point, but it is important.

 

You are considering the measure as if it would be relevant to you, establishing that you would be able to defeat it, and from that reaching the conclusion that the measure is pointless. The last does not follow from the previous. It simply doesn't.

 

Another example then: I can fairly easily defeat automated speed cameras. There is equipment that is technically illegal without license in my country that will detect them and render them ineffective. (Since I'll slow down only right in front of them and otherwise continue to drive at illegal speeds.) Said equipment is, however, still fairly easy to get hold of and not expensive. Therefore, shouldn't it follow that speed cameras are pointless since they are easy to defeat?

 

Well no. Because most people don't have a clue about that possibility. So they are effective at apprehending those speeders that don't take these measures, and they are effective through modifying the behaviour of those that don't take these measures. (The analogy suffers slightly in my country since the exact location of all speed cameras must be made public, so obviously all GPS equipment nowadays will tell all drivers that they're coming up on one, but go a couple years back to before everyone had GPS in their automobiles.)

 

And finally, the same argument you are using can be used right back at your example: how come a random browser of child pornography would know exactly how to hide, but a whistleblower wouldn't? How come criminals and whatnoit are by definition very computer savvy, but whistleblowers are not?

 

Basically:

Yes, it is possible to make laws with ulterior motives.

No, this does not mean all such laws have ulterior motives nor that they are ineffective at what they do. Don't make the mistake of thinking that something has to be 100% effective to be valuable; if that was the case, clearly we should abolish the police entirely since they don't catch every criminal.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

they kill the internet youll get riots sweeping the globe.

Who says the internet is going to be killed?