Darlene Casella ~

A United Nations ability to restrict the access of American Internet users and bloggers would be in contravention of free speech rights, guaranteed in the First Amendment.  However, the United Nations is not bound by the US Constitution.   What role will American elected officials play in an Internet power grab by the United Nations?

The United Nations Human Rights Council in July passed a resolution affirming that people have rights to Internet freedom of expression.  This is problematic precedent.  The definition of freedom varies from country to country.    Human Rights Council members China, Congo, Cuba, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and Uganda voted for the resolution while censoring their Internet.   Responding to the camel’s nose under the tent United Nations Internet resolution, an independent amalgamation of more than 100 cyber experts formulated an international Declaration of Internet Freedom, acceptable to free marketers, liberals, Democrats, and Republicans:

Expression: Don’t censor the Internet.

Access: Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks.

Openness: Keep the Internet an open network where everyone is free to connect, communicate, write, read, watch, speak, listen, learn, create and innovate.

Innovation: Protect the freedom to innovate and create without permission. Don’t block new technologies, and don’t punish innovators for their users’ actions.

Privacy: Protect privacy and defend everyone’s ability to control how their data and devices are used.

State censorship is heavy in Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.  Reporters Without Borders (RWB) is a watchdog group for cyber censorship.  Delphine Halgand, Washington D.C. Director maintains that countries have filters, blocks, and devices to track cyber dissident for killing and for arrest of bloggers.   RWB maintains a list of countries that are “Internet Enemies”.  Limited filtering is used in France and Germany regarding Nazism or Holocaust denial.   Child pornography is blocked in many countries.

Arab Spring demonstrated the power of Internet and mobile technologies which were used to organize and spread protest information.  They were visible to the world with Face Book, Twitter, and You Tube.   Egypt now has heavy censorship and loss of internet access for long periods.    Syria compromises websites and blocks information to media including Al Jazeera, BBC News, Orient TV, and al-Arabia TV.   Hizbullah terror group’s Al-Manar television station was removed from Facebook, the Lebanese Daily Star reported on August 16.   Facebook uses the State Department List of Foreign Terror Organizations to decide about halting activity that incites violence.

A World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) will take place in Dubai, December 3 – 14, 2012.   A treaty on Internet Governance will be debated.   Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack’s Internet Freedom legislation, HC Resolution 127, was approved in August by the full House, 414-0.  Elected leaders for Internet Freedom include Darrell Issa, Rand Paul, Ron Wyden, and more.

Excerpts edited from Congresswoman Bono Mack’s press release:

“The United Nations has been angling to become the epicenter of Internet governance.  At the WCIT discussions, a new treaty on Internet governance will be debated.  Proposed treaty changes could have a devastating impact worldwide on both freedom and on economic prosperity.   Americans want to keep the Internet free from government control; and to prevent other nations from giving the UN unprecedented power over Web content and infrastructure.  This must not happen. “

Letters from Bono Mack to Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, urge them to take up the House Internet Governance Bill to give the U.S.A. WCIT Delegation a mandate to keep the Internet free of government control.  Neither the United Nations nor the International Telecommunications Union should control the Internet.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed Terry Kramer as the leader of the American WCIT Delegation; and President Obama granted him Ambassadorship.  In an interview with Information Technology Industry President Dean Garfield, Kramer said that there are worrisome proposals with pricing mechanisms, content control and ‘have vs. have not’ nations.  Kramer’s goal appears to be a free market that is not filtered, and to have international regulations similar to 1988 Telecommunications Regulations.

As President Ronald Reagan said “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”    Who more than our children would benefit from Internet freedom?

Family Security Matters  contributor Darlene Casella was, before her retirement, an English teacher, a stockbroker, and president/owner of a small corporation. She lives with her husband in La Quinta, California, and can be reached at thedeadseawest@aol.com.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters . http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/

The Department of Homeland Security is now monitoring social media websites like twitter and facebook, but also news sites like Drudge Report and Huffington Post for signs of “threats and hazards” and also “any media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government and the Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) ability to prevent, protect and respond, to recovery efforts or activities related to any crisis or events which impact National Planning Scenarios.” The news report does not highlight any action that would be taken against these individuals for speaking out against the government and its’ agencies, but to collect and store this sort of information without a warrant is akin to unreasonable search and seizure, violating Fourth Amendment rights. Since this is also an attempt to curb speaking freely about the government, it also violates First Amendment rights. The quotation above from the article by Steve Watson is actually quite scary when you think about it. First off, the DHS obviously feels that it has the right to administer “National Planning Scenarios” when a crisis or event calls for it. This essentially means martial law and forcing all citizens to do what the DHS feels is best, without regard for the individual rights of a person.

The government never has the legitimate right to come onto your property and use force unless they have probable cause and a warrant. As we have seen from the events occurring after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, there will be members of the government that try to use force in a crisis scenario. In that case it was confiscating guns from law abiding citizens, leaving them helpless to protect themselves in a havoc ridden city. This is the type of planning that the DHS is afraid will be prevented by free speech on the internet. It is not okay and we need to take a stand right now against this type of monitoring, which just gets people used to the government sticking their nose into business that is not theirs.

Recently Google clued the public in on the increase in requests for censorship of online content coming directly from the United States government. “In the last half of 2011, U.S. agencies asked Google to remove 6,192 individual pieces of content from its search results, blog posts or archives of online videos, according to the report. That’s up 718% compared with the 757 such items that U.S. agencies asked Google to remove in the six months prior.” The article also states that Google in past years has complied with about 87% of the requests to remove content, suggesting that these were mainly legitimate concerns. In 2011 however Google complied with only 42% of the content removal requests, suggesting the US government made fewer legitimate requests, instead trying to censor dissent.

Unfortunately “In the last half of 2011, Google received 6,321 requests for user data from government agencies in the United States and complied at least in part with 93% of them”, although Google claims these were mostly requests regarding criminal investigations. Still though, most personal data and documents should need a warrant to be collected by police agencies. Google complies with more requests for information from the US government than any other government.

Keep reading about the Government Surveillance here.

Last week, Ubisoft revealed a trailer for their upcoming game, “Watchdogs”, at E3. In the game, you take on the role of Aiden Pearce, a talented young hacker who uses the city’s centralised communication lines and networking to wage a personal crusade. Over the course of the game, you will eavesdrop on cellphone conversations, manipulate traffic signals and hack into CCTV feeds, thereby making it one of the most refreshing concepts in gameplays since free running

It’s a fun game concept and all, but the prospect of an individual exercising near total control over such a vast communications system is unnerving. Think about it, all your personal information, no, more worryingly, all your google searches are available for some morally challenged kid to see

Face it, Google knows more about you than your partner,parent and counselor combined

Luckily for us, Ubisoft isn’t Dan Brown, and never claimed that the technology they portrayed was real.

Which isn’t to say it can’t happen.

Every time you login to Facebook it registers your location, and displays it to other people by default. Modern smartphone ecosystem( iOS, WP and android) require you to login with a personalised ID, which links your handheld device to any other services on that ecosystem. This means there now exists a unifying factor between your PC, smartphone and tablet. While all this makes life more convenient for consumers who can now transfer and work with data on multiple devices, it also exposes more access points for malicious elements. Coming back to Facebook, many websites today have a social plugin, and since it’s a reasonable assumption that more than half the Internet viewers have a tab opened on Facebook when browsing, every website you visit is registered and analysed. This information is then used to show personalised advertisements-and I’m deadly serious here-even prioritise the news feeds you view.

I can’t help but quote the trailer here: “you are no longer an individual, you are a data cluster bound to a vast global network…..for all data is interconnected. From Nigerian email scams to hardcore pornography, online shopping to emergency services, it’s all part of the same network.”

We as a generation are at a turning point. Unlike the Dot Com bubble of the nineties, we have the necessary resources and infrastructure to live up to the hype promised by the Information and Communication Technology(ICT) sector.

Of course, modern day systems aren’t as sophisticated as the ctOS shown in watchdog, but we’re getting there. Smart traffic lights are fast becoming a reality, with several pilot systems being deployed across the US. I’ve already touched on personalised advertising, but it’s scope is expanding so far as to include smart billboards even. The upcoming iOS 6 (on a side note, yes I am an iDevice fanboy) tracks your location and provides you with  your electronic boarding pass once you reach the airport (service not available everywhere though).

We’re basically two generations away from Skyne-Oh.Damn.

Ahead of us lies one the most exciting frontiers in humanity, cyberspace. And like every frontier, it has its fair share of pioneers and bandits.

Phone hacking is a reality, as victims of the News of The World scandal can testify to. Wireless signals can and have been hacked, with tutorials on hijacking Wi-Fi signals available on Google, if you look hard enough. Even those without access to sophisticated equipment can wreak havoc, as evidenced by a burglary ring that targeted tourists away on a holiday. Their system of tracking their victims? Facebook. There are thousands upon thousands of malicious entities out there intent on using the ICT sector, but the one people seem to be losing their sleep over the most is the government.

You knew this was coming.

Unlike criminal elements which can be tackled using algorithms and laws, the governments, any government, is the law, and the fact is, governments can and have regulated and monitored ICT networks for their own ends. And I’m not referring to the time Iran blocked its citizens from accessing Orkut, or China’s Google censorship wherein citizens cannot view “controversial” search results. I’m not even referring to the Patriot Act, which was passed on the wave of paranoia and national security.

The examples I’m going to take up are far closer to home. In 2007, the government, using the NTRO, was accused of tapping the phones of a number of prominent politicians, both in the opposition and the coalition. As of 2010, The Google Transparency Report claims that India has requested Google to share the user data of 3427 accounts. On a side note, India’s requests are superseded by only that of the US. Yes, both the world’s oldest and largest democracy.

The tragedy of the situation is, no matter how much we protest with Guy Fawkes mask on, no matter how many DDoS attacks we launch, considering the very nature of the ICT sector, someone is going to end up with a lot power. If it isn’t the government, it’s the cabal of private players who provide the Internet services in the first place. It isn’t apparent in India because, all said and done, the internet is still a recent phenomenon here, but abroad, the ISPs actively monitor the internet traffic of their users. This in itself is nothing new, it’s how these ISPs use their resources that’s a matter for concern. An instance: ISPs throttle the speeds of users who are connected to swarms, that is to say, users who use and download data off torrents. The concern that private players are obtaining too much arbitrary power with respect to what their users can and cannot do is what prompted the American FCC to recently pass a set of regulations regarding net neutrality.

So what can we do to prevent our future from becoming 1984 or Tekken? The first measure, as always, is education. A savvy consumer is an empowered consumer, and is by definition, less likely to be at the mercy of an overpowered corporation or a government. All said and done, a democracy has scope for dissent and debate, and a well-educated populace is in a better position to protect its rights.

The second measure is regulations. Yes, even after all my preaching and prattling about governments over-reaching the limit of their powers, I still stand by the necessity of government control and regulations. Libertarians the world over may object, but the belief that private players are always lassaiz faire is an illusion.

There really is no single solution to maintaining the balance of power with as vast a field as ICT, the very best we can do is to set up a system of checks and balances to ensure that no group is compromised.

*Sigh*, sometimes, I miss the days when the internet was just a big library and Cell Phones came with 1-bit displays.

-Vishwanath

The Value of Privacy

More in this Business Report »

Admen Spot an Enemy: W3C

Advocates say a built-in “Do Not Track” setting could mean more privacy for Web surfers. Opponents say it would be a disaster for online revenues. Which should you believe?

 

Tracking panel: During a 2011 workshop convened by the W3C, participants discussed proposals for a Do Not Track mechanism for the Web.
Wendy Seltzer

The advertising industry is brawling with some of the biggest names in technology: Microsoft, Mozilla, and the World Wide Web Consortium, the standards body for the Web.

The fight is taking place because the consortium, known as W3C, is developing a new “Do Not Track” standard so Web users can signal that online ad targeting companies should leave them alone. Advertising industry representatives say the standards-setting process has turned into an existential threat that could mean the end of free online content.

“The ad industry is being asked to honor something that could make the majority of Web users nonmonetizable and put it out of business,” says Mike Zaneis, head of the Office of the Interactive Advertising Bureau in Washington, D.C., which represents over 500 companies that together sell close to 90 percent of online ads in the United States.

Although few Web surfers have heard of it, the W3C has considerable power to shape online life. Founded by the Web’s inventor, Tim Berners-Lee, the international body sets the technology standards and protocols that companies adhere to so that the Web functions smoothly.

The W3C began looking at the idea of Do Not Track last year after two prominent members, Mozilla and Microsoft, implemented versions of the feature in their own Web browsers. In September, the W3C convened an 80-person Tracking Protection Working Group of industry, government, and academic experts to study the question, with the aim of thrashing out a single standard by mid-2012.

That goal now appears unlikely to be met, because the working group has run into major disagreements over how the technical standard could affect the $70-billion-a-year global online advertising market.

The technology of Do Not Track is relatively simple. When a browser accesses a Web page, it could send a signal—a 1 or a 0—to indicate whether the setting is enabled. What the working group hasn’t been able to agree on is precisely how the signal should change the behavior of a page and its advertising technology.

One of the biggest sticking points: what even counts as “tracking.” There’s general agreement that users should be able to block third-party ad companies that record browsing behavior, using that information to serve up so-called targeted ads. However, advertisers insist they must still gather data on how many people—and in some cases which people—have viewed a particular ad on a website.

Some privacy activists in the working group say that allowing such data collection could eviscerate the standard, turning it into a “Do Not Target” technology rather than a means of protection for consumers who don’t want their browsing monitored at all.

The result is a conflict that is pushing the standards body well beyond the nuts and bolts of the Web into hot-button economic and policy issues. “With Do Not Track, the technology issues are the least [of the] concerns,” says Lorrie Cranor, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University who studies privacy technology. “It’s about policy.”

No one seems very happy with the W3C’s progress so far, but the ad industry feels the most aggrieved. Zaneis describes the group’s weekly conference calls and occasional face-to-face meetings as having “a bit of a circus atmosphere.” He and others also say deliberations have been unduly influenced by Mozilla, the nonprofit foundation that markets the Firefox browser.

“Mozilla really runs the working group,” says Zaneis. “They probably see [Do Not Track] as a product differentiator.” Not only did a Mozilla privacy engineer help develop the first prototype for Do Not Track technology, but a foundation executive co-chairs the W3C committee, and its CEO has been a vocal critic of online tracking. (The foundation makes money from search engines such as Google who pay to be featured in Firefox and doesn’t rely directly on targeted ads for revenue.)

Next Page »

• Page
• 1
• 2

Abstract: In their effort to enforce a regulation system on the internet, several countries introduced the graduated response system (otherwise known as ‘three strikes and you’re disconnected’). Since then, it started gaining popularity all over the world whether in a legislated form or in a form of private agreements between major copyright holders and internet service providers. On an international level, the final version of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was published on 3 December 2010. Although it does not directly suggest the application of a graduated response system, it establishes a legal ground on which member states can justify the instauration of such a system.

This paper will discuss the role of the internet service providers in regulating the internet as it is designated by the graduated response system. The tasks entrusted to the providers will then be examined for their accordance with the principle of proportionality. The article will not focus in a particular national legislation, but it will rather provide an analysis of the problematic aspects of the graduated response system using examples of national legislations or accords. The central question is whether fundamental rights are respected by these enforcement measures. Since illegal file sharing has turned from a mere habit to an ideology, the paper will ultimately propose that it would be wise to take a step back not only from the incessant legislation process but also from the war declared against internet.

View Report

via The New York Times

The Internet, currently loosely regulated by 7 non-governmental organizations, has informed me that House law makers are hearing an international proposal this week that would give the United Nations control more over the Internet. The proposal is backed by Russia, China, Brazil, India, and other UN member nations and is unpopular on both sides of the US Congress.

According to Larry Strickling, head of the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the measure would expose the Internet to “top-down regulation where it’s really the governments that are at the table, but the rest of the stakeholders aren’t.” Specifically, the proposal would give the UN’s governing bodies more control over cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the Web’s address system. Additionally, government-owned Internet providers would be permuted to charge extra for international web traffic. Regardless of US approval, the proposal is expected to be up for vote this December.

Prominent figures have begun releasing op-eds naysaying the regulation of the Internet by the UN and we agree with much of the opposition’s perspective. Vinton Cerf, widely recognized as one of the fathers of the Internet, says that such a move would be “hazardous” for the future of the Internet and its users. He suggests that giving the UN control over the Internet in this manner would lead not only to abuses of human rights through the further limitation of free-speech but would also stunt innovation. Proponents of the proposal cite security issues but severely downplay the benefits of the Internet for economies and education. Putting limits on the open system will undoubtedly cause harm to the Internet as we know it.

That aside, there are some HUGE red-flags on this proposal that I think we should all be aware of. First, the major proponents of the measure are nations well known for human rights violations and for limiting free-speech within their borders. At the risk of sounding biased I am vaguely suspicious of any proposal which is primarily backed by those pedagogues of civil liberties, Russia and China. Second, I think we should consider that there are currently 7 non-governmental organizations regulating various aspects of the Internet and that on top of that countries reserve some right to censor incoming content. That’s an awful lot of eyes and ears on the Internet already not to mention a whole hell of a lot of bureaucracy. Increasing regulation, as with many things, decreases innovation simply by adding paper work. Not. A. Fan.

Of course, not all bureaucracy is created equal. The UN can create comities at the rate germs multiple but very really do those committees ever get around to achieving very much. In fact, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the UN may well be the slowest moving, most inefficient governing body currently on this planet. Too bad the whole point of the Internet is that it is an efficient form of communication, information gathering, and innovation.

Enough nit-picking. My final concern with this particular measure is the clause allowing government-owned Internet providers to charge extra for international web traffic. Under such a system countries could effectively create insular web-communities by making the cost of accessing foreign Internet content so high as to be prohibitive for the average consumer. That means that countries like China could ensure that their citizens are unable to access web content from anywhere outside of China effectively returning the country’s communications channels to the days of snail mail. The very idea makes me rather faint if you must know.

Preventing the free decimation of information would effectively curtail society as we know it, leaving us to have to “trust” our elected officials and traditional news sources at face value. There simply would be no other option unless you had the means to order foreign newspapers and read extensively. I’m going to call this phenomena the re-gentrification of information. Even 100 years ago the majority of people who had time to theorize, to come up with new ideas, to challenge authority already had authority themselves. They were educated and had significant free time. Now everyone has access to a holistic education should they chose to seize it and I just don’t want to see that go away.

Here’s hoping that December doesn’t bring us an Internet apocalypse now that the Mayan apocalypse is out.

-Wren

Eileen Ormsby

June 1, 2012 – 12:28AM

 

The Dark Web, the parallel internet that can be found only through encrypted private networks, unknown by many and accessed by few. Photo: Peter Riches

It’s called the Dark Web and once you are in you can buy people, drugs, guns and even have someone killed. The problem is: what can law enforcers do about it? 

Deep in cyberspace is a web of private networks hosting sites that Google will never find and videos that YouTube will never play. Within this web, drugs and guns are bought and sold, hitmen advertise their services, hackers can be hired to attack an enemy’s computer and pornographic images to satisfy the most depraved tastes can be downloaded.

It is a place where freedom of speech is absolute and unconstrained. It is the Dark Web, the parallel internet that can be found only through encrypted private networks, unknown by many and accessed by few.

The question being asked by law enforcement agencies is: how should they be regulated? Can they be regulated? The federal Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, has proposed legislative changes that could lead to the web history of any device connected to the internet being logged and retained for up to two years for law enforcement purposes.

“We must stay one step ahead of terrorists and organised criminals who threaten our national security,” Ms Roxon said last month.

But such measures will have no effect on those who conduct their criminal activities on the Dark Web because nothing is logged — there is no history to keep. And some argue such measures will cause more people to seek out anonymity services — the same services that provide access to the Dark Web.

“The Dark Web is the new underbelly of the internet,” says Ken Gamble, chairman of the Australian chapter of the International Association of Cyber Crime Prevention. “It’s seemingly uncontrollable, but of course there is a lot going on behind the scenes [by law enforcement agencies] that the public doesn’t know about.”

Drugs are the most common items for sale, but there are also online markets for weapons and explosives, false passports, entire new identities, counterfeit cash and fake diplomas. There are sites that claim to sell human organs that the buyer can collect from a Third World country and those that promise to procure exotic animals. Then there are the services; on offer are contract killings, hackers for hire, money laundering, theft-to-order, university papers and match-fixing.

Other sites offer porn that cannot be found on the regular internet — or “clearnet” in Dark Web speak. This includes child porn (prepubescent children), “jailbait” porn (young teens), zoophilia or bestiality and “hurt porn”,’ which shows children and adults being subjected to pain.

An Australian Federal Police spokesman said the ability to use technology to commit crime was a real threat. “From a law enforcement perspective, this means we need to develop new methodologies to ensure perpetrators cannot hide behind technological advances.”

“Hidden services” that enable people and organisations to host or access illegal material while their identity and location remains secret come bundled with anonymity software. Tor, originally developed in conjunction with the US Navy to protect government communications, is the most widely used, with more than 36 million downloads last year and between half a million and a million daily users.

“We are pretty familiar with the Tor network, because a lot of the criminals use that,” Gamble says.

Andrew Lewman, executive director of The Tor Project, says its positive applications outweigh the negative. “Tor’s original design was to give users privacy and anonymity online and that’s still the core of what we do.

“We produce software that we give away free [so that] anyone anywhere in the world who needs their privacy online can have it.”

This includes whistleblowers (WikiLeaks recommends it for releasing sensitive information) and human rights workers in hostile regimes, but Lewman says the vast majority of Tor usage is by “normal people who are just looking to not give out all their information: who they are, where they are and every website they visit”.

Tor’s hidden services began as a research project by US and Norwegian militaries to determine whether an anonymous platform could be developed to help people working in hostile regimes. If nobody, including Tor, knows who runs a website or where it is hosted, that information cannot be revealed. And if a server gets confiscated, there will be no IP trails or records of traffic to compromise operations. “Of course, criminals will pick up on that too, but criminals are opportunistic. That’s why they’re criminals,” Lewman says.

When the Tor software is downloaded, users have access to so-called “onion sites”. Because the sites are not designed to be found by search engines, users must either know the exact URL they want or use one of the available gateway sites.

The best known of the onion sites is the illegal drug marketplace Silk Road. Slick, professional and thriving with a multimillion-dollar turnover, Silk Road has set the standard for online black markets.

Its owner, known as Dread Pirate Roberts, claims to take a “high moral ground” when it comes to what it will sell; it refuses to list any items or services the intent of which is to defraud or cause harm to another person.

Black Market Reloaded (BMR), has no such pretences of conscience. Run on a similar platform to Silk Road, it sells not only drugs, but firearms and explosives, stolen Paypal accounts and credit card numbers, online banking account numbers and passwords, and contract killing services.

There are several offers of Australian bank account details for a percentage of the balance amount. The vendor offering Australian bank account details has good feedback for most transactions, but three claim the seller is a scammer.

Scammers and law enforcement are the main concerns of users of the black-market sites — in that order. Although buyers have the protection of an escrow and dispute resolution service on the larger sites, sellers sometimes persuade buyers to transact out of escrow. Or they plan a long con, as happened recently on Silk Road when the site’s top-rated and most trusted seller of cocaine and heroin disappeared with an estimated $250,000 of Silk Road customers’ money.

Identity items are another high-demand black-market product. These range from $5 driving licence copies that are good for nightclub entry but not much else, to passports that are “genuinely generated from within the IPS system of the UK government and guaranteed good for travel” for $4000.

The black markets and services almost exclusively use the virtual online currency Bitcoin. An April 2012 report apparently by America’s FBI (marked for official use only but leaked to the internet in early May) claims that the unique features of Bitcoin present distinct challenges for deterring illicit online activity.

While Bitcoin has legitimate uses, it is likely to continue to attract cyber criminals due to the ability to transact anonymously. “Since Bitcoin does not have a centralised authority, law enforcement faces difficulties detecting suspicious activity, identifying users and obtaining transaction records,” the report says. It estimates the Bitcoin economy to be worth between $35 million and $40 million.

Some Dark Web sites seem to be a form of dark parody or perhaps the demented fantasies of a disturbed mind. Some, which Fairfax Media has chosen not to name, offer tips about the type of female a cannibal should target, depending on how they want to cook their prey, while others claim to detail illegal laboratory experiments conducted on homeless people.

Other sites are incomprehensible to mere mortals — these are the hangouts of the hackers and phreakers (people who study, explore or experiment with telecommunications systems and who often work with hackers) doing whatever it is they do in their own impenetrable language.

But it is a cost of having a completely free anonymous web that the most unpalatable also get an equal voice. The most persistently disturbing aspect of the Dark Web is the child porn services. The Dark Web allows offenders to chat openly in online forums, download under-age porn and swap images without fear of identification or censorship.

One site, a smaller anonymity provider than Tor, but one that is known for its population of child abuse sites, says: “The true test of someone who claims to believe in freedom of speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with or even find disgusting.”

Seeing chat rooms in which offenders graphically describe sex acts with prepubescent children in the same terms you might expect to hear about adult porn stars is certainly disturbing.

Dr William Glaser, a psychiatrist who specialises in the assessment and treatment of sex offenders, says: “Offenders who only use child porn without going on to assault children seem to have a higher level of deviant sexual fantasies and an increased tendency to hold distorted views of children as sexual beings, compared to those offenders who actually assault kids.” But he concedes it might be possible that, for some, contact with other offenders over the internet could help to normalise and validate their experiences.

Even in the underground world of the Dark Web, most participants consider this stuff unacceptable. Dark markets that allow under-age porn to be listed for sale soon find their customers boycotting their shops.

Members of vigilante hacktivist collective Anonymous continually attempt to frustrate child abuse sites by crashing their hosts’ servers and those of sites they believe to be supportive of child porn.

Last October members of the group launched “Operation Darknet”, crashing the server of the host of the largest collection of child pornography on the internet and using a form of trickery to expose a list of IP addresses they claimed had accessed a child porn site.

“We will continue to not only crash [their] server, but any other server we find to contain, promote, or support child pornography,” Anonymous said.

But the successes of Anonymous have amounted to little more than a slight inconvenience to their targets; servers are restored within hours, if not minutes, the owners and whereabouts of the child abuse sites remain secret and images continue to be downloaded.

One gateway site that provides links to many Dark Web sites, including child porn, carries the message: “To Anonymous: [this site] is simply a wiki. Anti-paedo? Attack the paedo sites. You didn’t attack Wikipedia for hosting information about your enemies. Wake up.”

Ken Gamble believes Tor and other anonymity providers need to take responsibility for the content they enable. “Any organisation or infrastructure that operates as part of the global internet machine needs to take accountability,” he says.

Andrew Lewman disagrees. “We don’t host the content and therefore have no control over it. Would he expect Ford or Toyota to ‘take responsibility’ for those who steal, kidnap, speed, and otherwise break laws with their automobiles?”

Most of Tor’s funding comes from the US government, non-profit organisations and research programs. Around 5 per cent of its funding comes from donations, including anonymous donations. Some Dark Web sites claim to anonymously direct a percentage of their profits to Tor and encourage their customers to do the same. However, Tor does not accept Bitcoin donations, directing them instead to an unrelated entity that offers “a faster, larger Tor Network”.

Lewman says Tor has turned down sizeable donations from organisations known or suspected to be involved with terrorism or organised crime. But its acceptance of anonymous donations means it is reasonable to assume that part of Tor’s funding may come from the criminals who have a vested interest in the work carried out in conjunction with some of the world’s top university research departments. “It concerns us, yes,” Lewman says.

But no matter how advanced the technology, users can never have 100 per cent guaranteed anonymity. “As a research project, we’re far more honest than others about this,” Lewman says. “We do not magically encrypt the internet. Anyone who says they do is lying.”

But he says it is operator rather than software error — users log into a site that knows their identity or publish information that inadvertently identifies them. “Tor will protect your traffic over the network — what you do with that is up to you.”

One thing Gamble and Lewman agree on is that old-fashioned police work is still the most effective way to catch those who would use the Dark Web for illegal activities. And the Australian Federal Police has this warning for anyone contemplating online crimes: “Anyone engaging in illegal activity through these websites cannot be guaranteed of remaining anonymous and they might be prosecuted. The Australian Crime Commission, AFP and Customs and Border Protection are committed to targeting and combating illicit e-commerce platforms.

“The AFP will continue to work closely with international partner agencies to combat serious and organised crime, including high-tech crime and technology-enabled crime.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-new-underbelly-20120531-1zktt.html#ixzz1wWjtRJde ]]> http://gregstreak.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/law-ethics-and-the-idiocy-of-internet-regulation/ Thu, 24 May 2012 12:52:33 +0000 gregstreak http://gregstreak.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/law-ethics-and-the-idiocy-of-internet-regulation/ http://rt.com/usa/news/new-york-anonymous-internet-020/

Lawmakers in New York State are proposing a new legislation that involves the Web, and no, it’s not SOPA-esque or another CISPA-like spy-bill. Politicians in the Empire State want to outlaw anonymous speech on the Internet.

Republican Assemblyman Jim Conte says that the legislation he co-sponsors, Bill no. S06779, would cut down on “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks” and “turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity.”

This proposal is a travesty. The fact that it brushes up against (I’m being generous) our first amendment rights is not even the worst of it. This is a typical example of something broken about our system. In many cases, we’ve lost sight of what morality and ethics should be doing for us. We’ve tossed them aside. We’ve left only the law to say what’s okay. All three are worse for it.

Cyber-bullying is a problem. That’s certain. In the last few years, there’s been an explosion of activism against bullying in general. It’s clearly inappropriate for a single person, or particularly a child, to be made to feel categorically excluded, monstrous, or worthless. Our society has decided that we no longer want to perpetuate a notion of manning up or fitting in and would instead like to support a view of inclusiveness. All of that is wonderful.

Nonetheless, that fight cannot be made by the law. It is a cultural/social problem. In order for bullying to stop, the school cannot threaten to penalize mean-spirited Billy. He’ll probably just attack Roger all the more. They need to teach Billy to understand what he’s doing. Inculcate him with empathy. Unpack the coolness that used to come with leading the pack by picking on some undeserving soul. Point at bullying and say “only someone seriously wrong would do something like that.”

Laws should be an absolute limit at the end of what our society considers inappropriate. They outline the barrier where something crosses the line between what should be prevented/punished socially and what should lead to actual punitive measures. A murder is beyond the scope of social scolding. It transgresses a line so that the murderer becomes a threat to societal balance. The law must step in and control that force so as to uphold itself.

When laws become the code for our morality, what then for actual morality?  If allowed, we draw our line for appropriate and inappropriate as black and white. That’s inherently problematic. Think of how little good means at that point, and how little that bad. Think about everything that fits in there. Am I bad as a murderer because I once stole a bag of chips as a child? No, clearly not. Still, should the difference really be measured out in penalties and prison sentences?

A stark example of this is the mind-boggling case of our drug codes. They’re completely out of step with our behavior or with societal need. Marijuana just might be something that people should be looked down upon for using. That debate is worth having. Perhaps, the extent of use of marijuana should be the question. Regardless, in lieu of any clear harm to society, I can’t understand its possession’s status as a crime. As an exception, I’ll point to health concerns, but since that brings up the more complicated matter of the justification for education spending and social welfare programs, I’ll leave it aside.

Driving under the influence is a perfect counter example. Inasmuch as a single life other than the user’s can be ended by it, it is instantly a societal problem. As such, the justification for its illegality seems crystal clear. This is the kind of thing the law should be made for i.e. creating the boundaries that maintain order.

The question of ethics and morals is valuable. We must decide what is okay. We must decide what the culture will look down upon. Perhaps even more importantly, we must decide what we’ll aspire to. Conflating law for either of these destroys both the function of the law and the function of our ethics and morals. Our law is doomed to injustice and the wasting of resources on things that they need not be spent on. Our ethics become impoverished and binary. How many people do we have in jail? What do we actually believe in?

According to Canadian Professor of law Micheal Geist, TPP is: “[E]verything [the U.S.] wanted in ACTA but didn’t get.” Of importance is how the agreement will strengthen the U.S. ability to clamp down on others, Professor Geist explains that the TPP agreement will give the U.S. an ability to export its harsh copyright laws on other countries that sign the agreement, and allows the U.S. to amend its own domestic laws concerning certain IP provisions. Additionally, the agreement creates: “[L]egal incentives for [Internet] service providers to cooperate with copyright owners in deterring the unauthorised transmission of copyrighted materials.” As well as demanding that Internet service providers deny web access to all who repeatedly infringe against the draconian copyright laws. However, the agreement doesn’t stop there, and according to the senior editor of Ars Techina, Nate Anderson, it will:

“[P]rovide a “making available” right to copyright holders, such that simply offering a file through BitTorrent would be grounds for a lawsuit even if no one downloaded the file… And all countries must set up a process to identify Internet users for any ISP, going beyond US case law.”

Wikipedia also notes that the agreement could impose a legal regime stricter than that of the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the U.S Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), requiring criminal enforcement even if there might not be a copyright infringement.

Unfortunately, the TPP agreement hasn’t been given the attention that it deserves, with such harsh and sweeping powers to regulate and reform the way IP is managed, and also how ISP will be effected, it should be as well known as the controversial ACTA and PIPA bills in the U.S. The usual organisations and groups have voiced there concerns regarding the TPP agreement, and many Congressmen in the U.S. have also dissented against TPP, especially on how restrictive the agreement is, with regards to the IP of medicines. Else where in the world, legal experts in New Zealand had a conference expressing their concerns over how the agreement would negatively effect Maori culture, and genetically modified products; Japanese commentators are also worried that the agreement would harm Japan’s unique Manga industry, and damage part of their culture.

Overall, the TPP agreement is another way for governments and big business to push through draconian laws to try and regulate and punish those who maximise the Internets full potential. If the culture of cyber-libertarianism is to continue into the future, then such agreements need to be pulled out of the shadows by the public, and scrutinised in every possible way.

Further Reading and Watching:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/11/us_tpp_proposal_leaked/

http://tppdigest.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=291%3Abig-pharma-lobbying-intensifies-as-ustr-signals-ip-proposal-deadline&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=1

https://occupytppa.wordpress.com/

http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp/

http://tppwatch.org/what-is-tppa/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzZTr4-4gt4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InaiuTEMC3k

In my personal experience I haven’t ever read a terms and conditions contract and simply taken it on good faith that I’m not agreeing to ‘sell my soul to the devil’. However although the current system of internet regulation is not perfect, I believe it’s the best option we have. Past efforts to appoint a central governmental regulation body for the internet such as ACTA and SOPA have posed a major threat to civil liberties and individual privacy.

References

Kumar, Vikram (2012) Have a .com web address? Know the legal risks. Accessed May 6, 2012. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_81726_1%26url%3D

McDonald, Aleecia and Cranor, Lorrie. 2008. ‘The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies’. Accessed May 6, 2012. http://www.mendeley.com/research/the-cost-of-reading-privacy-policies/

Masnick, Mike. 2012. ‘What is ACTA and Why is it a Problem?’. Accessed May 6, 2012. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/11270917527/what-is-acta-why-is-it-problem.shtml

Schatz, Amy. 2011. ‘What is SOPA Anyway?’. Accessed May 6, 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203735304577167261853938938.html

The internet has developed a ‘what is ok for someone, is available to all’ concept. This means that there are definitely loopholes around the USA’s might on the internet. Using local domains such as .au, .eu or .co.uk allows the local laws those countries to police the content (Woodford 2012).  As Isobel Beatrice stated in her blog, “Has the internet come to the point where its regulations need regulating?”. There are still numerous grey areas in the regulation of the internet as no one really knows who has jurisdiction over what content and what anyone can do about the content that is online. About the only thing we do know for sure is that America is trying to control it all, one domain name at a time.

References

Beatrice, I. 2012. New Media Law, Policy, and Governance: Internet regulations need regulating. http://bit.ly/JgSc5x

Kumar, V. 2012. Have a .com web address? Know the legal risks. The National Business Review. March 19. Accessed May 6, 2012.

Shirky, C. 2012. Why SOPA is a bad idea. http://bit.ly/JgQzop.

Woodford, D. 2012. Lecture 9: New Media Law, Policy and Governance.

Tranter (2010, 19) believes that “law and technology as culture are tied to human freedom.”  This means human freedom is restricted by law, while technology empowers human freedom.  Issues like cyberbullying and cyberstalking are increasing gradually.  This blogger also provides an example of violation in Second Life.  Consequently, there is a controversial argument about setting up regulations for the virtual world or not.

For me, I would say that it is essential to have rules against those harmful activities.  Indeed, the online world is intangible and abstract.  Because of the anonymous function, no one can actually see the faces of people who hide behind the computer’s screens, but it does not mean that they are not responsible for what they do and say.

However, it is true that the online environment is hard to be controlled.  The challenge of regulating the Internet is to balance both freedom and protection (Connolly and Yager 2001).  It is because the public is always striving for the right of freedom of speech.  Furthermore, the Internet is accessible worldwide and every country has its own law, since Woodford (2012) raised an example in his week 9 lecture that it is not easy for Europe to interfere in an US corporation which is Facebook Inc.  As a result, this kind of conflict must be going on and on.

References:

Connolly, P J and Tom Yager. 2001. “Can regulation save the Internet?” InfoWorld 23 (13): 54-55. Accessed May 7, 2012. http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/194362533/13687AD87A11B51984/16?accountid=13380

Tranter, Kieran. 2010. “Stories of Human Autonomy, Law and Technology.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30 (1): 18-21. Accessed May 7, 2012. http://bst.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/30/1/18.full.pdf+html

Woodford, Darryl. 2012. “KCB206  New Media: Internet, Self and Beyond: Week 9 lecture notes.” Accessed May 7, 2012. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/contentWrapper.jsp?content_id=_4178409_1&displayName=Week+9+Lecture+Prezi&course_id=_81726_1&navItem=content&href=http%3A%2F%2Fprezi.com%2Fmvhwzqyjz3ne%2Fkcb206-4-may-2012%2F%3Fauth_key%3D55050e2c40f840a91c931c12539b80a98f8aaa35

Comments:

While I think setting up regulations against the harmful activities is essential, my fellow classmate  raises a question about would it be the same consequence between an act in virtual world and an act in real world.  Obviously, I did not consider this question but that is actually a really complicated question.  However, after reading Aimee’s blog, I think I get the answer of that question.  Aimee reminds me the discussion in the tutorial that although “not physically abused, it can be a highly emotional experience…”  Therefore, I think the consequence between real world and virtual world could be mostly the same since cyberbullying and bullying both can make victims hurt, no matter physically or mentally.

Alan Caruba ~

Most Americans assume that they have a right of privacy guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and, while several of the Bill of Rights imply this right, it is not specifically expressed.

However, it is understood. In a Supreme Court case, Meyer v Nebraska, 1923, Justice McReynolds perhaps said it best:

“While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

So, yes, a right of privacy does exist, but it may not exist for long.

There have been three attempts by Congress to exercise control over the Internet including the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act that would empower the companies we depend upon for access to the Internet to collect information on our activities, share it with the government, while refusing to notify us that our Internet use is being monitored. In basic terms, all our emails, Skype chats, web searches and other activities would be made known to a faceless governmental bureaucracy.

This is being put forward as a means to fight the so-called “war on terror” or to thwart cyber attacks.

Alan Gottlieb, a longtime advocate of the Second Amendment, has just created http://www.nointernettax.org to alert Americans to yet another threat to our privacy to oppose any kind of an Internet tax.

At the state level, the National Governor’s Association has introduced the Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP) for the purpose of establishing a “national collection center” to monitor and audit your Internet purchases. All your personal information and Internet shopping choices would be administered by “a trusted third party” or government body. An alternative would enable to subscribe to a national “cartel” tax collection system. It is unconstitution.

It is in essence the imposition of a national sales tax to fill the coffers of states that have demonstrated an inability to exercise prudence in the way they spend the taxes they already collect.

At the federal level, Sen. Dick Durbin has introduced S. 1452, the “Main Street Fairness Act” and has sponsored S. 1832, the “Marketplace Fairness Act.” Any time you see or hear the words “fair” or “fairness” it is a subterfuge for the redistribution of your wealth and the right of the government to know every aspect of your life. The Durbin legislation would require online retailers to pay sale tax on their transactions, thus yield million for state government.

H.R. 1981 is yet another similar piece of legislation. Under the guise of protecting children from pornography, it would require online service provides to, as Gottlieb points out, “spy on your online activities and provide that information to the government. H.R. 1981 “is all about data retention and requires Internet service providers to keep detailed records of your internet activity, your name, address, bank account numbers, and credit card numbers.”

Your privacy would vanish.

This kind of effort at totalitarian control exists at the international level insofar as the United Nations has long wanted to impose a world tax on Internet users with a special emphasis on financial transactions. In February, the U.S. Commission on Social Development introduced this form of taxation to support a “social protection floor.” It is a direct attack on capitalism which the communist-based U.N. justifies as its own version of a redistribution of wealth. Need it be said that the idea is being supported by Russia, China, India and Brazil among a number of nations seeking to control Internet transactions.

As Gottlieb points out, you already pay taxes on the Internet. “It is taxed in the same way that catalogues, mail order and TV sales are.” Indeed, “Every time you access the Internet, you are paying telecommunications taxes.” Online purchases that are not taxed include travel and financial services, vital to the vitality of the economy.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Internet Tax Freedom Act into law. It prevents governments from taxing Internet-only activities such as bandwidth, email, or the imposition of multiple taxes on any kind of electronic commerce. It will expire on November 1, 2012 unless extended by Congress.

Gottlieb notes that there are more than 30,000 state and local governments and 7,600 taxing authorities extant in the nation. As we know, most states are in serious financial difficulties, often as the result of government worker unions with which they have signed contracts that provide bountiful retirement and health benefits.

I recommend that you visit http://www.nointernettax.org/ and learn more and then to take action by writing, faxing or emailing your Senators and Representatives to let them know of your opposition to these efforts.

The United States imposes the highest corporate tax in the world and has an unfathomable tax system that sucks vast amounts of money from its citizens. It is $15 trillion in debt because it will not impose any limits on its spending. If any of the proposed measures are passed, not just more of your personal income be tapped, but your privacy will disappear.

© Alan Caruba, 2012   Alan Caruba blogs daily at Warning Signs . http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/

An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of National Anxiety Center . http://www.anxietycenter.com

The FBI recommends to visit this website to find more information on the virus. Also there you will find a guide on how to figure out, if your computer is infected and what to do, if that proves to be the case.

Iran has been hit by a major cyber attack. The virus was directed at the Iranian oil ministry and its main oil export terminals and has struck its computer and internal communcations system. The Guardian quotes an Iranian IT expert who explains Iran’s fear of outside cyber attacks and hints at its efforts to create a secure nationwide intranet.

Iran’s plans of a so called “clean intranet” have been known since the beginning of April (however, denied shortly after by the Iranian Ministry for Information and Communication Technology, after a storm of outrage by the international community).

MIT students have managed to hack a huge on-campus building in order to turn it into a giant tetris game – an over 20 years old idea of MIT hacking tradition. With a controller people were even able to move, rotate and drop the blocks. The video you can check out here.

Recommendation: Mashable provides a good overview about cyber attacks – basic facts, the most common attack types and tipps for prevention.

And of course, British citizens deserved better from their politicians

From the Guardian.

After Murdoch, what of the new digital titans?

Even as the Sun king’s reign is over, we should be concerned about the future of internet regulation

(AFP) – 4 hours ago – 1st March 2012, 14.37

BEIJING — China’s top leader in Tibet has ordered increased controls over the Internet and mobile phones, state press said Thursday, ahead of upcoming sensitive anniversaries in the restive region.

Chen Quanguo, Communist Party head of Tibet, said maintaining stability in the Himalayan region was of utmost importance during the meeting of China’s National People’s Congress which opens its annual session on Monday, the Tibet Daily said.

“Mobile phones, Internet and other measures for the management of new media need to be fully implemented,” the paper quoted Chen as telling a Thursday meeting.

“We must further spread throughout the region the the main idea that stability means everything. Unstable elements must be nipped in the bud and all work at maintaining stability must be deepened.”

The controls on new media appeared to be aimed at stopping information of unrest and crackdowns in one area from spreading and inciting other areas.

Chen’s comments follow a series of measures implemented by the government following a recent spate of self-immolations and violent protests against Chinese rule in the nation’s Tibetan-inhabited areas.

At least 22 self-immolation attempts have occurred in China over the last year, with many being undertaken by Tibetan Buddhist monks or former monks, rights groups say.

Police have also opened fire on Tibetan protesters in recent weeks.

In his speech, Chen said security forces must “crush hostile forces” led by the Dalai Lama who are plotting to bring instability to Tibet and destroy the atmosphere for the congressional meeting.

Beijing has blamed the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader who fled to India in March 1959, for recent unrest in Tibet and nearby areas.

In March 2008, several months ahead of the Beijing Olympics, riots in Lhasa and other Tibetan-inhabited areas erupted, resulting in a huge security presence that largely remains in place today, rights groups say.

Tibetans have long chafed at China’s rule over the vast Tibetan plateau, accusing Beijing of curbing religious freedoms and eroding their culture and language.

Beijing insists that Tibetans enjoy religious freedom and have benefited from improved living standards brought on by China’s economic expansion.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved.