Category: Internet

“Anti-Piracy Plans Harm The Internet”

The Internet Infrastructure Coalition is urging the U.S. Government not to blindly follow the RIAA and MPAA’s input regarding online piracy threats. The group, which represents tech firms including Google, Amazon and Verisign, warns that the future of the Internet is at stake.

Torrentfreak: “MPAA and RIAA’s Anti-Piracy Plans Harm The Internet” »

Merkel to social networks: Hand over the Holy Grail

In times when most people (at least most young people) use social media as their main source for news, German Chancellor Angela Merkel demands that these platforms should disclose their privately-developed algorithms.

“The algorithms must be made public, so that one can inform oneself as an interested citizen on questions like: what influences my behavior on the internet and that of others?” (…)

“These algorithms, when they are not transparent, can lead to a distortion of our perception, they narrow our breadth of information.”

Of course, that would be very interesting. But, at the same time, demanding that private companies disclose their deepest trade secrets doesn’t seem very reasonable or likely to happen.

Nevertheless, Merkel touches on an important issue, with far-reaching democratic implications. Information is power. And whoever is in control of the flow of information has a huge influence on society and politics. She continued…

“The big internet platforms, via their algorithms, have become an eye of a needle which diverse media must pass through to reach users. This is a development that we need to pay careful attention to.”

On the other hand, what information will show up in your Facebook newsfeed or Google searches is largely decided by who your friends are, what they read, what they share and also by what web pages you yourself use to visit, like and on your own web search history. There is no universal model – rather all newsfeeds and all search results are personal.

And it would be rather strange to have news feeds insisting on trying to have you to read articles that you don’t care about or find interesting. Or search engines coming up with results that are not relevant to you or not in line with your preferences.

Taking the Chancellors remarks to the extreme, it would be quite terrifying if the government were to have influence over your news flow and your search results. It’s foreboding enough that politicians (on both national and EU levels) have had Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to censor posts with certain content.

In my opinion, the only way to tackle this issue is by introducing disruptive competition. And it will happen. Internet platforms rise and fall. We have absolutely no idea what platforms or what technical concepts will be used tomorrow.

The Internet and the World Wide Web is, by design, an unprecedented opportunity for humanity to discover of information and knowledge, distribute content and take part in a free and open debate. I don’t think it would be a good idea for governments to interfere in this free and dynamic evolution.

The focus should be on entrepreneurs, activists, academia and private individuals to develop new and better tools and platforms. In doing so, I’m quite sure that information diversity, as well as privacy, will be competitive advantages.

/ HAX

RT: Merkel says Facebook, Google ‘distort perception,’ demands they ‘reveal algorithms’ »

Yet another ill-conceived EU idea on fighting copyright infringements

The European Commission has a new idea – to fight copyright infringements by targeting companies who advertise on file sharing sites. To nobody’s surprise, what the commission suggests is a mess.

EDRi:s Joe McNamee:

It is currently discussing “guiding principles” for withdrawal of services by advertising companies to penalise and prevent “commercial scale” infringements. Tellingly, the final paragraph of the “guiding principles” contains very similar wording to the ill-fated “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” (ACTA) that was rejected in 2012.

Like ACTA, the “guiding principles” include illusory “safeguards”, such as references to non-existent legal terms like “fundamental principles” and “fair process” (not due process). Like ACTA, it refers to “commercial scale”, as if this was a safeguard. The European Commission itself has previously said that the term is too vague in existing law.

The text also refers to a “right to access lawful content”, even though there is no such “right”. We have a right to freedom of movement (not a right to legal movement), we have a right to freedom of communication. The implication of the expression “right to access lawful content” is that everything we do or say should be assumed to be illegal until proven otherwise. This is profoundly objectionable.

Why is it that every time the European Commission address issues like copyright, file sharing and a free and open Internet – they totally loose it?

The commissioners are supposed to be the elite of European bureaucracy and they have top legal advisors. But do they even know what they are doing? Or do they deliberately conspire to deceive the public?

/ HAX

EDRi: “Follow the money” on copyright infringements »

On TTIP, CETA, free trade and a free and open Internet

I’m a free marketeer. I believe that free trade would be hugely beneficial for all.

I also believe in a free and open Internet. Especially as it provides a level playing field on which entrepreneurs from all over the world can join a global market, 24/7.

And I’m not at all happy with politicians and bureaucrats trying to force me to choose between the two.

The CETA (EU-Canada) and TTIP (EU-US) trade agreements are problematic. CETA will undermine Europeans right to data protection and privacy online. The same goes for TTIP, which also might contain intellectual property regulations undermining the principle that Internet service providers are not responsible for what their customers are up to in their cables (the mere conduit principle). That would have huge implications, leading to a strictly controlled Internet where everything you are up to must be approved in advance. When it comes to TTIP, we still have no comprehensive information about what is going to be included or not when it comes to IP – as negotiations are carried out behind closed doors.

Also, the ISDS mechanism in these trade agreements will make a much needed and long overdue copyright reform impossible.

But then, again, these trade agreements are not really about free trade. They are about »harmonizing« rules and regulations. So, they are really about regulating trade.

If you want free trade, all you have to do is to get rid of customs fees and other trade barriers. That would benefit us and all of the humanity greatly. But that is not what the politic and bureaucratic elite hope for. They want to regulate and control. The EU even has a special sub-bureaucracy for »trade defense«.

So, I don’t buy into it when they claim that these »free trade agreements« are about free trade.

I’m standing with free trade. And I’m standing with a free and open Internet. It is perfectly possible and logical to combine these standpoints with being critical to CETA and TTIP.

/ HAX

IoT: When toasters attack

While people have been discussing the possible threat of Artificial Intelligence (AI) – a totally different and very real threat has emerged: IT-attacks exploiting the Internet of things (IoT).

Simply put, a multitude of connected devices can be used in unexpected, unwanted and destructive ways. IT security expert Bruce Schneier explains in reference to a recent attack…

Instead of using traditional computers for their botnet, they used CCTV cameras, digital video recorders, home routers, and other embedded computers attached to the internet as part of the Internet of Things.

E.g. it can be about DDos-attacks or to set up a botnet to distribute malware.

Many devices used today are more or less unprotected. At Krebs on Security the victim of such an attack, Brian Krebs writes…

One of those default passwords — username: root and password: xc3511 — is in a broad array of white-labeled DVR and IP camera electronics boards made by a Chinese company called XiongMai Technologies. These components are sold downstream to vendors who then use it in their own products. (…)

“The issue with these particular devices is that a user cannot feasibly change this password,” said Flashpoint’s Zach Wikholm. “The password is hardcoded into the firmware, and the tools necessary to disable it are not present. Even worse, the web interface is not aware that these credentials even exist.”

This also raises the question of state-sponsored attacks. What if a country orders its electronics industry to include specific vulnerabilities, backdoors, malware etc. in its products?

For now, I guess awareness and an open discussion is the best protection. Also, there might be initiatives on a political level in the EU:

According to a report at Euractive.com, the Commission is planning the new IoT rules as part of a new plan to overhaul the European Union’s telecommunications laws. “The Commission would encourage companies to come up with a labeling system for internet-connected devices that are approved and secure,” wrote Catherine Stupp. “The EU labelling system that rates appliances based on how much energy they consume could be a template for the cybersecurity ratings.”

Links:
• We Need to Save the Internet from the Internet of Things »
• Who Makes the IoT Things Under Attack? »
• Europe to Push New Security Rules Amid IoT Mess »
• Commission plans cybersecurity rules for internet-connected machines »

/ HAX