Category: Internet

Economic evolution, technology and politics

If you order a Über car in Berlin, you will get a classic Berlin cream coloured Mercedes taxi instead. As in many other places special interest groups, politicians and bureaucrats are trying to stop market progress and competition. Sometimes they give somewhat understandable reasons such as insurance and tax issues. Sometimes they don’t.

But what is interesting is that still you will get a car, even though it might not be a black Über one. The service is being upheld, even if it’s only its interface that is used at the moment.

While it might be possible for local governments to prevent the ride-sharing side of Über (for the moment), the technical aspect of the concept seems to be unstoppable. Using the company’s smartphone app is much more cost efficient for taxi operators than having a telephone switchboard and some sort of local radio operated voice or data system to direct cars. And then there is the issue of not having to handle money or credit cards, as the payment function is already built into the system.

The Über concept also has proven to be popular with customers — as it is seen as easy to use, reliable, safe and hassle free. The same app can be used more or less worldwide

There is an underlying, slow but steady change towards a decentralized sharing economy in the western world. (Witch is was Über is really about.) This is a change of an entire market paradigm, allowing ordinary people to provide all different sorts of services to others. But for this to be a truly free and dynamic market it must be defended against over regulation and old business protectionism. For this to happen, it must be backed up by technical development.

It has been said that politics might overpower money — but that technology beats politics. This has proven to be right e.g. when it comes to the Internet, telecommunications and television. And it will be true when it comes to the emerging sharing economy — that is a yet fragile concept that politicians and bureaucrats cannot really get their heads around. (So they should keep out of it, but they rarely do.)

You can argue that cutting edge technology has become a prerequisite for economic freedom and evolution in today’s society. Which makes the fight for a free and open connected world even more important.

It might also be a good idea to hard-wire the new sharing economy with encrypted, decentralized digital currencies and payment methods, such as Bitcoin.

/ HAX

TTIP: The deceitful EU commissioner

EU:s commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, claims that the negotiations over the new EU-US trade agreement, TTIP, are the most transparent trade negotiations ever.

Well, this might actually be true — as such negotiations normally are conducted in total secrecy. But transparent? No.

There is nothing like an open, democratic process about TTIP. Negotiations are still being conducted behind closed doors. Not even politicians in EU member states or members of the European Parliament are allowed normal access to the documents.

For instance, nothing is known about the TTIP IP chapter — containing issues related to patents and copyright. This is the part of TTIP where it is believed that we (eventually) will find statues restricting openness and freedom on the Internet.

The plan is obvious: The EU and the US are trying to keep TTIP under wraps until there is an final document, that cannot be changed. They believe that an all or nothing approach will make it harder for elected parliamentarians to reject the agreement.

/ HAX

UN proposes web policing and licensing for social networks

The United Nations Broadband Commission for Digital Development just made some controversial and disputable recommendations. They want social networks and platforms to police the Internet and to be “proactive” against harassment and violence against women and girls. Only web platforms doing so should be licensed.

Washington Post reports…

“The respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center,” the report reads, not only for those “producing and providing the content,” but also everyone with any role in shaping the “technical backbone and enabling environment of our digital society.”

How that would actually work, we don’t know; the report is light on concrete, actionable policy. But it repeatedly suggests both that social networks need to opt-in to stronger anti-harassment regimes and that governments need to enforce them proactively.

At one point toward the end of the paper, the U.N. panel concludes that “political and governmental bodies need to use their licensing prerogative” to better protect human and women’s rights, only granting licenses to “those Telecoms and search engines” that “supervise content and its dissemination.”

This is bad, in so many ways.

It is a well-established principle that internet service providers and social networks are not responsible for what their users do. (Mere conduit.) Now, the UN Broadband Commission wants to throw that principle out the window. Meaning that concerned parties will have to monitor everything every user do — to be able to police the net in line with the commissions recommendations.

Then there is the idea of licensing social networks. This is a terrible idea, unacceptable in a democratic society. Period.

And knowing the modus operandi of the UN — you cannot rule out that this report is being encouraged by UN member states with a general interest in limiting a free and open internet.

One might also question the principle that “the respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center”. First of all, everyone deserves respect and security. Second, it is very dangerous to give different groups different rights, advantages or treatment. Everyone should have the same rights and be treated the same way by government.

A final reason to keep this door closed is that “respect” and “harassment” are relative terms. This is often in the eye of the beholder. There is a tendency in some circles to label all dissent as harassment. And then we have the “trigger warning” discussion, with countless examples of claims of annoyance and inconvenience used to limit freedom of speech.

Regardless of whether you think those are worthwhile ends, the implications are huge: It’s an attempt to transform the Web from a libertarian free-for-all to some kind of enforced social commons.

This UN report is ill thought out and dangerous for democracy.

/ HAX

Washington Post: The United Nations has a radical, dangerous vision for the future of the Web »

TTIP — What to expect when it comes to Internet related issues

Just before summer recess the European Parliament adopted a resolution regarding the EU-US trade agreement, the TTIP. It was generally positive to an agreement — even though the actual content of the TTIP still is unknown, in large parts.

Free trade as in free trade is a positive thing. But is this what the TTIP is about? Some would say it’s more about regulations. But we cannot tell for sure. The negotiations are conducted behind closed doors and the legislators in the European Parliament will probably not be allowed to see the entire text until negotiations are over. And then it will be to late to change anything. At that point all they can do is to to adopt or reject the whole package.

That was what happened with the ACTA agreement. It was also negotiated in secret. And it was also a package deal, impossible to change. Due to (among other things) possible limitations to a free and open Internet — the European Parliament surprised everyone by rejecting the deal.

So what’s in store when it comes to “intellectual property” and the Internet in TTIP? We still don’t really know. Some documents have been released (link»). But they are of a rather general nature and reveal very little when it comes to Internet related issues. But we have some indications.

This spring the European Parliaments legal affairs committee made a strong recommendation to exclude Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) from the TTIP (link»). However, in its’ recent resolution the EP failed to follow up on this recommendation (link»).

And we have the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, the TPP. One TPP document leaked by Wikileaks (link») suggests the following…

The 95-page, 30,000-word IP Chapter lays out provisions for instituting a far-reaching, transnational legal and enforcement regime, modifying or replacing existing laws in TPP member states. The Chapter’s subsections include agreements relating to patents (who may produce goods or drugs), copyright (who may transmit information), trademarks (who may describe information or goods as authentic) and industrial design.

The longest section of the Chapter – ’Enforcement’ – is devoted to detailing new policing measures, with far-reaching implications for individual rights, civil liberties, publishers, internet service providers and internet privacy, as well as for the creative, intellectual, biological and environmental commons. Particular measures proposed include supranational litigation tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards. The TPP IP Chapter states that these courts can conduct hearings with secret evidence. The IP Chapter also replicates many of the surveillance and enforcement provisions from the shelved SOPA and ACTA treaties.

It is expected that the TTIP will include something similar.

This suggests that TTIP will be ACTA all over again — when it comes to IPR, Internet related issues and civil rights.

The TTIP has already been heavily criticised when it comes to the “investor state dispute settlement” chapter, ISDS. But due to lack of substantial information civil society, activists and the media have yet not had any opportunity to react to any IPR and Internet related issues.

This might be a lesson the EU and US administrations have learned from ACTA — to play their cards close to their chest. The later this information is released, the harder it will be to build momentum for a campaign like the one that took down ACTA.

However, this is a weak plan. We know that there will be something. And we have some indications about what to expect. We are ready to take on the TTIP in full force and with short notice — to defend a free and open Internet. Like we did with ACTA.

I most strongly do recommend the EU and US administrations to follow the European Parliaments legal affairs committees recommendation to exclude IPR (and Internet related issues) from TTIP if they want this agreement to come true.

But they won’t.

/ HAX

Mixed US messages on cyber security

In South Korea US Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech on cyber security and international law earlier this week. Some quotes…

“As I’ve mentioned, the basic rules of international law apply in cyberspace. Acts of aggression are not permissible.”

“First, no country should conduct or knowingly support online activity that intentionally damages or impedes the use of another country’s critical infrastructure. Second, no country should seek either to prevent emergency teams from responding to a cybersecurity incident, or allow its own teams to cause harm. Third, no country should conduct or support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or other confidential business information for commercial gain. Fourth, every country should mitigate malicious cyber activity emanating from its soil, and they should do so in a transparent, accountable and cooperative way. And fifth, every country should do what it can to help states that are victimized by a cyberattack.”

The obvious question is: Does that include the NSA?

Is the alleged NSA attack on the SWIFT bank transfer system a “malicious cyber activity”?

What about all the mischief documented in NSA:s own Powerpoint presentations, revealed to the world by Edward Snowden? Does that count as “malicious cyber activity”?

Might the British GCHQ:s attack on Belgacom and the EU institutions be considered as a “malicious cyber activity”?

The Swedish government (Swedens FRA is a very close partner with NSA and GCHQ) has proposed that Swedish military should be allowed to conduct “active” surveillance — i.e. cyber attacks. (The Snowden files have reviled that Swedish FRA already are involved in such activities, in cooperation with GCHQ. So this is just about adjusting the law to what is actually going on.) Would that count as “malicious cyber activity”?

When John Kerry calls for international rules — would they apply to all countries?

Probably not.

/ HAX

Link: Kerry: Internet ‘Needs Rules to Be Able to Flourish and Work Properly’ »

Pirate Bay domains seized by Swedish court

Today a Swedish district court decided that Pirate Bay founder Fredrik Neij no longer can control the domains piratebay.se and thepiratebay.se – as they have been used for “illegal activities”.

However – the court does not give the government control over the domains. They stay with the domain top level administrator, the Punkt.se foundation.

On the one hand, it is strange that domain names can be seized. It is like if a street adress would be seized, because of illegal activities carried out there.

On the other hand, it is interesting that the court does not accept the prosecutors demand for the domain names to be handed over to the Swedish government. This still gives top domain administrators some leverage – and indicates that they are not liable for how a domain is used.

But the most important lesson to be learned from todays verdict is that we need to build a decentralised system for domain names — where they cannot be seized or taken down.

/ HAX

Read more: Key Pirate Bay Domains Must Be Seized, Court Rules »

If it’s on the Internet, it’s free to use?

Rick Falkvinge makes an interesting point in a recent blog post…

On February 13, 2014, the European Court of Justice – the Supreme Court of the European Union – appears to have ruled that anything published on the web may be re-published freely by anybody else. The case concerned linking, but the court went beyond linking in its ruling. This case has not really been noticed, nor have its effects been absorbed by the community at large.

If Rick is right, this might be a game changer. Reactions? Input?

Link »

Dear Google…

I appreciate Googles concerns when it comes to our online security. However, I think we might have a case of unintended consequences.

If you log on to your Google services from a new (or unknown) piece of hardware or from a new place, Google seems to block this attempt — often demanding that you change your password. I can see the logic behind that.

But if this happens often (and for some it does) it will lower the quality of the chosen new password. Having to figure out a new password/phrase (that you can remember) on the go simply doesn’t give you time to consider a strong and impregnable one.

Just sayin’.

/ HAX