netwit 2.01

BATTLE FOR THE INTERNET Google’s Sergey Brin: state filtering of dissent threatens web freedom



Day 3 Guardian 7 day series Battle for the Internet


Google’s Sergey Brin: state filtering of dissent threatens web freedom


Charles Arthur, Guardian 18 April 2012



Advertisements

April 18, 2012 Posted by | FaceBook, Google, Internet, Internet filtering, walled gardens | , , | Leave a comment

An Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the U.S. Congress



An Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the U.S. Congress


15 December 2011


Today, a group of 83 prominent Internet inventors and engineers sent an open letter to members of the United States Congress, stating their opposition to the SOPA and PIPA Internet blacklist bills that are under consideration in the House and Senate respectively.

The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open Internet, both domestically and abroad. We cannot have a free and open Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral bastion of free expression. If the US begins to use its central position in the network for censorship that advances its political and economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive.



See also:


The Revolt Against Congress’s New Internet Piracy Proposals


Larry Downes, Forbes, 28 November 2011



December 18, 2011 Posted by | COICA, E-PARASITE Act, Internet, Internet censorship, internet engineers, Internet filtering, PIPA, SOPA, Stop Online Piracy Act | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media


Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media

— Military’s ‘sock puppet’ software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda


Nick Fielding and Ian Cobain, Guardian, 17 March 2011


which links to


America’s absurd stab at systematising sock puppetry
–The US has a chance to move on from a history of clandestine foreign policy – instead it acts like a clumsy spammer


Jeff Jarvis, Guardian, 17 March 2011


which links to


The internet: Everything you ever need to know

–In spite of all the answers the internet has given us, its full potential to transform our lives remains the great unknown. Here are the nine key steps to understanding the most powerful tool of our age – and where it’s taking us


John Naughton, Guardian, 20 June 2010



March 20, 2011 Posted by | Government 2.0, Govt 3.0, Internet, internet activism, Internet censorship, Internet filtering, internet-centrism, Jeff Jarvis, John Naughton, net neutrality, Network security, social media, trust models | Leave a comment

#Internet #Egypt ~ How Egypt Killed the Internet [http://on.wsj.com/hMdA4J] [http://bit.ly/hH4AnD]



How Egypt Killed the Internet


* The techie side simplified for the Netwit



January 30, 2011 Posted by | Cory Doctorow, cyber attacks, cyber crime, cyber espionage, cyber security, cyber terrorism, cyber warfare, cyber-utopianism, cyberpunk, cyberspace, cypherpunk, Evgeny Morozov, Internet, internet activism, Internet censorship, Internet filtering, internet-centrism, social media | Leave a comment

#Internet #socialmedia ~ Inside the State Department’s Arab Twitter diplomacy [http://bit.ly/g1cX91] [http://bit.ly/hH4AnD]


Inside the State Department’s Arab Twitter diplomacy


Josh Rogin, Foreign Policy, 28 Jan 2011

This is a core article.



January 29, 2011 Posted by | Egypt, internet activism, Internet censorship, Internet filtering, Twitter | Leave a comment

#Internet #Socialmedia #Evegenymorozov – Setting up a straw dog? [http://bit.ly/gUppgD] [http://bit.ly/hH4AnD]



First Thoughts on Tunisia and the role of the Internet


Evgeny Morozov, Foreign Policy, 14 Jan 2011

“What strikes me about events in Tunisia is that social media seems to have failed in what many of us thought would be its greatest contribution (outside of social mobilization) — that is, in helping to generate and shape the coverage of events in the mainstream media. On the contrary, despite all the buzz on Twitter it took four weeks to get the events in Tunisia on the front pages of major newspapers, at least here in the U.S. (the situation in Europe was somewhat better — and it was way better in the Middle East — for all the obvious reasons). “



Reading that is a reminder governments have always used the latest technology against their people as effectively as peoples used it against their governments. It’s just different technology. The Ancient Regime smashed printing presses. The political groups set up other ones to pump out the revolutionary pamphlets. In pre-revolutionary Russia, the government would have tapped plenty of phones abuzz with the news that the sealed train containing Lenin had set off from Zurich.

The irony is that self-appointed social media gurus have set up straw dogs which they themselves find they are having to drag down. And that includes Morozov, who apparently was some sort of blog specialist.

To try to make an argument in a large book, that the downsides of social media out-way the ups, is hard to pull off.

Social media proved very effective in U.S. elections.

To argue that they are of little use or their effectiveness in social mobilisation is minimal because authoritarian regimes are quick to use the same media to catch internet activists, is little different from saying regimes rounded up activists before social media existed. It’s probably true, in the case of Tunisia, many more Tunisians outside Tunisia were Tweeting and using FaceBook than inside it. But these messages will have been in Arabic and French which some inside Tunisia got to read and pass on in some way or another. They still used the telephone, email and read the papers, listened for radio from all round the world and watched satellite TV. No one is suggesting that social media were the only avenue for protest and social mobilisation. Words of encouragement will have spread by less high tech means. Comms didn’t begin and end with social media. This is the internet-centrist position, which is only to be expected from people who live by the internet, web and clever software.

Anti-government activism in Iran started with blogs, long before FaceBook and Twitter. They arrested bloggers. Just because the Iranian election protests were organised with the help of mobile phones, text messaging, and social media, and this helped the government to track the activists, doesn’t mean to say it wasn’t effective.

A more honest and true answer, and one that didn’t need a whole book to argue is that it helped both in different ways. That governments have learnt to hack social media, can surely only mean that pretty good encryption will be taken up by greater numbers.



January 29, 2011 Posted by | Evgeny Morozov, Internet, internet activism, Internet censorship, Internet filtering, Tunisia, Tunisian cyberactivists, Twitter | Leave a comment

#Internet #Egypt ~ How Egypt Killed the Internet [http://on.wsj.com/hMdA4J [http://bit.ly/hH4AnD]


How Egypt Killed the Internet


Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, Wall Street Journal, 29 Jan 2011




side-comment

The man who pooh-poohs social media in his book The Net Delusion, but who is himself a master of their use to promote his very book, asks in a Tweet if Egypt will be appointing a Minister for Twitter and FaceBook. I wrote a general reply to him with a #evgenymorozov (he is not following me) suggesting they may also be thinking about a Minister for Vodaphone – the Egyptian government shut down the whole mobile network as well as tampering with the social media.



January 29, 2011 Posted by | Egypt, Evgeny Morozov, FaceBook, Internet, internet activism, Internet censorship, Internet filtering, Twitter | 1 Comment

#INTERNET ~ Egypt down : world first as nation blacks out [http://bit.ly/ecqihW]



Egypt down: world first as nation blacks out
ZDnet, 28 Jan 2011

The WDIK column
This is very interesting: it shows that Egypt is even more authoritarian than Tunisia was. Both countries rely heavily on U.S. dosh, Egypt to the tune of $1.2B, probably a lot in the form of armaments. Both countries roped in to be a bulwark against Islamic terrorism, both possibly involved, in return for dosh, in extra-ordinary rendition: Egypt certainly so.

Hillary Clinton has gone on TV to urge restraint, that the Egyptian government not resort to shooting people in the streets. Well of course she has: the American’s don’t want anyone to draw attention to the Egyptian military relying so heavily on U.S. armaments, and using said to repress its own people. And certainly not that Egyptian doctors be digging out small arms rounds from protesters with Made in the U.S.A on them.

But at the same time the Obama administration will be squirming because all this shows that the American armaments and aviation industries rely heavily on selling their goodies to repressive regimes. Keeping the U.S. economy heathly on the backs of the freedom of billions of non-Americans. Take Indonesia. Take Saudi Arabia. It really behoves U.S. politicians to rein in idle talk of democracy and freedom.

Even more funny is the request that Egypt does not close down the Internet and mobile networks to stop the protesters communicating. Particularly since that was what was in the minds of many in the U.S. government in reaction to the Wikileaks crisis. They asked Internet companies such as Amazon to shut down servers connected to WikLeaks! But of course, there is bound to be some highly paid official in the U.S. who is now pointing out that Twitter and FaceBook are multi-billion dollar American businesses and must not be shut down by foreign governments willy-nilly!



January 28, 2011 Posted by | Egypt, FaceBook, info-war, Internet censorship, Internet filtering | Leave a comment

#INTERNET #encryption #PgP #P2P ~ Who owns the Internet and does it matter?



Well, I don’t that’s for certain. Just the PC, some copper cables and a router. I’ve got a computer ID and a URL for any site I maintain. I’ve no idea what happens to those little packets of digital data that stream in and out of the router. They tell me Skype is encrypted, but how would I know?

Plenty of people can learn lots about me. Social media give a lot away to anyone caring to look. Governments will almost certainly have automatic systems to check who is saying what to whom on the Internet. If they don’t they will be buying the software to do so right now.



Internet black holes

The logical direction is a full-encrypted P2P world. The downside of a PgP P2P (as opposed to client-server, where only servers supply) world is no one else can know what’s being said between these two people. (Entrance, stage left, cipherpunk Julian Assange, encryption software in hand) Sometimes even Internet People might be happy for their governments to have ways of finding things out. The trend is more towards individuals giving up their privacy in return for what the Internet and Web provides in exchange. Both governments and non-governmental organisations are taking full advantage of this while it lasts.

The give-up-your-privacy-social-media seem to be in a cross over graph with Govt 1.0 which is in the process of changing to Govt 2.0, most wholeheartedly in local govt. At the moment social media are just underneath the cross-over. WikiLeaks and others are pushing the whole thing up to the cross-over a lot quicker. The biggest thing from WikiLeaks will be a unrelenting exposure of kleptocratic government. Even non-kleptocrats will be worrying about this: so many democratic govts. have cosy relationships with kleptocrasies. France recently had one with Tunisia. Was that because they were selling them french made armaments? Some of the U.S.A’s best friends are keptocrats. Easier to do big arms deals with them, too. Who does Indonesia buy its military harware from? Israel, which is not a kleptocracy except in that the U.S. govt.hands an awful lot of American tax payer’s money over to it without asking. So in a sense it’s an inverse Kleptocracy, in which a state not individuals receives the handout. So the U.S. govt. is doing the stealing from its own people to keep another sate going.

Who owns the Internet is an important question. If governments feel they are getting locked out of individuals lives, they may want to more impose rules on Internet usage that P2P-type people don’t want or like.

Tim Bermers-Lee is the most prominent advocate of a neutral Net. Most people haven’t the faintest idea what this would mean or require in practice. It’s not going to happen if every no-democratic state keeps control of the copper wires, optical fibe and satellites they put into space.

The reason I found Wikileaks interesting and thought it would be a good idea to set up a WikiLeaks dedicated blog, was partly because it was an ideal opportunity to re-examine the wider implications of the Internet and Web. Anyone with half an ear for the digital zietgeist can’t fail to read up on the implications of WikLeaks and other areas of change in the digital arena.

One of these things is the Govt 2.0 The problem arises when a yawning Govt. 2.0 gap builds up, say between authoritarian states and democracies. This is not exactly a firm basis for net neutrality (or open data) if the U.S. becomes compeletely open and China remains closed. In fact, the ways things go, it is inevitable that the U.S. will drag China kicking and screaming intop the open world

Both types of states have an interest in reading the minds of their citizens. Interestinglt social media such as faceBook and twitter are the simplest and easiest way for them to do so. Every new digital technology has a downside.

P2P proper only arrives when there is Pretty Good privacy for all. And yet no govt. wasnt this because they have got used to checking on peopoe with the technology uptodate.

Coinciding with a recent WikiLeaks leak a lot of publicity for Govt 2.0 and visualisation techniques through the work on the WikLeaks data but others.


repost:

OPEN DATA Initiatives and visualisation techniques



January 20, 2011 Posted by | anonymity online, Canberra cyber security centre, China, connective knowledge, connectivism, cyber attacks, cyber crime, cyber espionage, cyber security, cyber terrorism, cyber warfare, cyber-utopianism, cyberspace, cypherpunk, digital forensics, digital journalism, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), encryption, FaceBook, FGI, free government information [FGI], Government 2.0, Govt 3.0, hacker culture, info-war, information silos, Internet, internet activism, Internet filtering, Julian Assange, Mark Zuckerberg, net neutrality, network anomalies, Network security, network theory, on-line rights, Open data, open source, P2P, P2P Foundation, Peer-to-Peer, Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), privacy, Semantic Web, silo effect, social media, social networks, Tim Burners-Lee, trust models, Twitter, Web 2.0, Web 3.0, WikiLeaks | Leave a comment

#INTERNET #China #firewall #greatfirewallofchina





There is a US gov site which has a good summary of China and filtering, but I’ve lost it in a sudden browser shut down. And I haven’t managed to re-Google it. See it, let me know. Or anything else similarly comprehensive.

In the meantime a Der Spiegel starter from which there are some ideas to work with :

How China Leads the World in Web Censorship



January 19, 2011 Posted by | China, Citizen 2.0, cognitive infilltration, connectivism, cyber security, cyber warfare, cyber-utopianism, cyberspace, Der Spiegel, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Evgeny Morozov, Government 2.0, Govt 3.0, Indentity Ecosystem Framework, info-war, information silos, Internet, Internet filtering, internet-centrism | | Leave a comment