industryterm:internet service

  • Quelques organismes qui défendent le domaine publique en Allemagne et ailleurs

    Commons und Konvivialismus – Das Commons-Institut
    https://commons-institut.org/commons-und-konvivialismus

    Das »Konvivialistische Manifest« (2014 auf Deutsch erschienen) hat die globale Debatte um die Frage neu formatiert, wie wir das Zusammenleben angesichts von Klimakatastrophe und Finanzkrisen gestalten wollen und müssen. Die Beiträge des Bandes »Konvivialismus. Eine Debatte« (Hg. Frank Adloff und Volker M. Heins, erschienen im Transcript-Verlag) eröffnen nun die Diskussion um die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Manifests im deutschsprachigen Raum: Wo liegen seine Stärken, wo die Schwächen? Was hieße es, eine konviviale Gesellschaft anzustreben – in Politik, Kultur, Zivilgesellschaft und Wirtschaft? Welche neuen Formen des Zusammenlebens sind wünschenswert und welche Chancen bestehen, sie durchzusetzen? Acht Mitglieder des Commons-Instituts haben einen Kommentar-Beitrag zu dem Diskussionsband geschrieben

    Free software is a matter of liberty, not price — Free Software Foundation — working together for free software
    https://www.fsf.org/about

    The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom. We defend the rights of all software users.
    As our society grows more dependent on computers, the software we run is of critical importance to securing the future of a free society. Free software is about having control over the technology we use in our homes, schools and businesses, where computers work for our individual and communal benefit, not for proprietary software companies or governments who might seek to restrict and monitor us. The Free Software Foundation exclusively uses free software to perform its work.

    GNU und die Freie-Software-Bewegung
    http://www.gnu.org/home.de.html

    GNU ist ein Betriebssystem, das Freie Software ist ‑ d. h. es respektiert die Freiheit der Nutzer. Das GNU-Betriebssystem besteht aus GNU-Paketen (Programme, die speziell vom GNU-Projekt freigegeben wurden) sowie von Dritten freigegebene Freie Software. Die Entwicklung von GNU ermöglichte es einen Rechner ohne Software benutzen zu können, die Ihre Freiheit mit Füßen treten würde.

    Commons einfach erklärt - Hauptsache Commons
    https://www.hauptsache-commons.de/home/commons-einfach-erkl%C3%A4rt

    Die Haupt-Commons-Formel lautet:
    ∑[aD+nW] = bL

    aD = anderes DENKEN
    nW = neues WIRTSCHAFTEN
    bL = besseres LEBEN

    Das Handeln nach Commons-Prinzipien ermöglicht eine Gesellschaft ohne soziale Widersprüche oder ökonomische Krisen. Commons ersetzen die alten Strukturen. Sie bilden sich selbst organisierende Netzwerke aus, geeignet für Innovationen, da sie die kollektive Intelligenz für das Wohlergehen Aller nutzen.

    Wildnis in Deutschland - Hauptsache Commons
    https://www.hauptsache-commons.de/spezielles/wildnis-in-deutschland

    Die Initiative „Wildnis in Deutschland“ wird von 18 Naturschutzorganisationen getragen. Die Beteiligten finden, dass es ’höchste Zeit für mehr Wildnis in Deutschland’ ist !

    Sie unterstützen die Gründung von Nationalparks und die Schaffung von Wildnisgebieten und stärken die Öffentlichkeitsarbeit rund um das Thema Wildnis. Gemeinsam mit vielen Partnern und Initiativen sind sie aktiv für mehr faszinierende große Wildnisgebiete in Deutschland – für uns, unsere Kinder und Enkel.

    Creativity & Innovation | Electronic Frontier Foundation
    https://www.eff.org/issues/innovation

    Our digital future depends on our ability to access, use, and build on technology. A few media or political interests shouldn’t have unfair technological or legal advantages over the rest of us. Unfortunately, litigious copyright and patent owners can abuse the law to inhibit fair use and stifle competition. Internet service providers can give established content companies an advantage over startups and veto the choices you make in how to use the Internet. The Electronic Frontier Foundation fights against these unfair practices and defends digital creators, inventors, and ordinary technology users. We work to protect and strengthen fair use, innovation, open access, net neutrality, and your freedom to tinker.

    In principle, intellectual property laws (or IP law, a catchall term for copyright, patents, and trademarks) should serve the public in a number of ways. Copyrights provide economic incentives for authors and artists to create and distribute new expressive works. Patents reward inventors for sharing new inventions with the public, granting them a temporary and limited monopoly on them in return for contributing to the public body of knowledge. Trademarks help protect customers by encouraging companies to make sure products match the quality standards the public expects.

    #domaine_publique #creative_commons #convivialité #Allemagne

  • Netblocks suit les interruptions de services sur internet au Venezuela, concomitantes aux interventions de Juan Guaidó. Ici, les coupures au moment du coup d’état raté du 30 avril.

    Internet services restricted in Venezuela amid uprising - NetBlocks
    https://netblocks.org/reports/internet-services-restricted-in-venezuela-amid-military-uprising-xAG4RGBz

    Network data shows that Venezuela’s state-run internet provider ABA CANTV (AS8048) has restricted access to Twitter, Periscope, YouTube, Facebook and several other services after Juan Guaidó used Twitter to announce the final phase of Operation Freedom from the perimeter of a military base in La Carlota. The project, which has reportedly gained the support of defectors from the military, has the stated goal of reinstating democratic establishments in Venezuela.

    Access to each of the services remains intermittently available as the restrictions do not appear to be 100% effective, matching the patterns of network outage observed in previous nationwide censorship incidents.

    With WhatsApp servers already unstable, Telegram messenger’s web interface and website have become fully unreachable for users of Venezuela’s state-run internet provider as of 21:00 UTC (17:00 VET). The two applications have been used extensively by Venezuelans to keep track of the situation in the country. Telegram includes blocking countermeasures which can allow the mobile version of the app to continue working:

    Internet access was finally restored towards the end of Tuesday, 20 minutes prior to a live-streamed speech by Nicolás Maduro:
    https://twitter.com/netblocks/status/1123402465007874049/photo/1

  • Orange’s Sea Cable Repair Fleet Looks Beyond Investment Boom
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-24/orange-s-sea-cable-repair-fleet-looks-beyond-investment-boom


    The Pierre de Fermat ship
    Source : Orange SA

    • Phone carrier assessing opportunities in offshore wind sector
    • France sees strategic interest in marine cable expertise

    For decades, ships owned by French phone carrier Orange SA have traveled the world’s oceans, installing and fixing the undersea cables that carry internet traffic from one continent to another.

    The fleet of six run by Orange Marine is now looking to diversify, even with the biggest investment boom for the infrastructure since the 1990s. Instead of creating more business, the new high-capacity lines being financed by the tech giants are expected to put older cables out of service, meaning less work for the seaborne repairmen.

    One cable that started up last year highlights the issue. The line, running from the U.S. state of Virginia to Sopelana, Spain, accounts for half the capacity of the dozen or so trans-Atlantic cables. Known as Marea, the 6,600-kilometer (4,101-mile) link owned by Facebook Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Telefonica SA’s Telxius offers the fastest data transmission speeds in the world.

    Jean-Luc Vuillemin, who oversees Orange Marine, sees potential opportunities in servicing offshore wind turbines, he said in an interview on the Pierre de Fermat, a 100-meter ship named after the 17th-century mathematician and docked at the Brest port in northwest France.

    The ecosystem is pretty favorable right now but this may change in the future,” Vuillemin said. “You need to diversify when the business is in order, so we’re thinking about the next steps.

    Orange Marine is a small yet profitable business for France’s dominant phone carrier, generating about 100 million euros ($112 million) of annual sales out of Orange’s roughly 41 billion euros of revenue. But it’s considered a strategic asset by the company, whose largest shareholder is the French state.

    Being able to quickly repair cables can be crucial in an emergency, as Algeria experienced in 2015 when a link between Annaba in the country’s northeast and Marseille in southern France was cut by an anchor, disrupting internet service in the North African nation for almost a week.

    Together, Orange Marine and its France-based competitor at Nokia Oyj, Alcatel Submarine Networks, own about one-quarter of the 40 or so ships focused on subsea cables globally, Vuillemin said.

    Our Western economies are increasingly dependent on these subsea cables. Orange Marine provides strategic autonomy. It’s a matter of sovereignty,” he said.

  • At least 186 EU ISPs use deep-packet inspection to shape traffic, break net neutrality
    https://www.zdnet.com/article/186-eu-isps-use-deep-packet-inspection-to-shape-traffic-break-net-neutrality

    NGOs, academics warn about DPI’s impact on user privacy, that net neutrality might be watered down in the EU. Despite net neutrality regulation being in effect in the EU since 2016, European internet service providers are already breaking the rules and shaping traffic, according to a conglomerate of NGOs, academics, and private companies. Earlier this week, this group — made up of 45 entities from 15 countries — has sent an open letter to EU authorities expressing concerns about European (...)

    #Deep_Packet_Inspection_(DPI) #neutralité #profiling #surveillance #web #EDRi

    ##Deep_Packet_Inspection__DPI_ ##neutralité

  • Where is the ‘Malta’ of Asia?
    https://hackernoon.com/where-is-the-malta-of-asia-e4b3117c396f?source=rss----3a8144eabfe3---4

    The digital economy has given rise to megacities like London, Singapore, Hong Kong, and New York. A recent McKinsey study indicated that 600 cities across the world are creating over 60% of the global GDP and over 130 new cities are expected to enter the top 600 by 2025 , all of them from developing countries and 100 new cities from China. These cities are becoming smarter and will benefit from the fourth industrial revolution.Connectivity , human capital , use of internet service, integration of digital technology , and digital public services are indicators used to measure the success and impact of a digital economy.However, this is the case for developed cities. What about the other side?The Case of Emerging EconomiesIndia is a fine example. In spite of a proactive approach to digitise (...)

    #blockchain-technology #blockchain #malta #cryptocurrency #telangana

  • Telcos block access to websites continuing to host Christchurch terror footage
    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/telcos-block-access-to-websites-continuing-to-host-christchurch-terror-foota

    Telstra and other internet service providers have made the extraordinary decision to block access to 4chan and similar sites following the Christchurch attack.

    Several websites including 4chan have been blocked by major Australian telcos for continuing to host footage of the Christchurch terrorist attack.

    Telstra on Tuesday blocked access to 4chan, 8chan and Voat, the blog Zerohedge and video hosting platform LiveLeak.

    "We understand this may inconvenience some legitimate users of these (...)

    #Telstra #censure #filtrage #surveillance #web

    https://sl.sbs.com.au/public/image/file/96fa8762-6d7a-45e4-954d-cba177549602/crop/16x9

  • How cyber war affects #humanitarian aid
    https://hackernoon.com/how-cyber-war-affects-humanitarian-aid-e4f88b8caa6d?source=rss----3a8144

    How Cyber War Affects Humanitarian AidCyberwar tips from the @SwiftonSecurity Twitter accountImagine a dramatic, airport novel, most communications are down, electric and water service intermittent, internet services like Snapchat and messenger applications, non functional. The term cyber warfare conjures up images of computers launching attacks against each other, interrupting the modern world. Imagining how one would affect current humanitarian aid operations, or the knock on crisis digital war could create has yet to be fully explored. The International Red Cross Committee (ICRC) spotting a need, ran a symposium on this and related topics with the Digital Do No Harm Conference in London 11–12 December 2018. An esteemed colleague brought me on board the working group for cyber (...)

    #humanitarian-aid #cybersecurity #cyberwar #cryptocurrency

  • The Culture War Comes to Linux - Motherboard
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yw43kj/what-happens-if-linux-developers-remove-their-code

    After #Linux adopted a new Code of Conduct, a small group of programmers threatened to rescind their code from the project. Lead Linux developers say the threat is “hollow.”

    A small group of programmers are calling for the rescission of code contributed to Linux, the most popular open source operating system in the world, following changes made to the group’s code of conduct. These programmers, many of whom don’t contribute to the Linux kernel, see the new Code of Conduct as an attack on meritocracy—the belief that people should mainly be judged by their abilities rather than their beliefs—which is one of the core pillars of open source software development. Other developers describe these attacks on the Code of Conduct as thinly veiled misogyny.

    It’s a familiar aspect of the culture war that many online and IRL communities are already dealing with, but it has been simmering in the Linux community for years. The controversy came to the surface less than two weeks after Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, announced he would temporarily be stepping away from the project to work on “understanding emotions.” Torvalds was heavily involved with day to day decisions about Linux development, so his departure effectively left the community as a body without a head. In Torvalds’ absence, certain developers seem committed to tearing the limbs from this body for what they perceive as an attack on the core values of Linux development.

    So far, these threats haven’t actually resulted in developers pulling code from the Linux kernel, but some Linux contributors fear that this controversy could snowball to the point where significant chunks of the Linux kernel are revoked from use. This would have huge ramifications for anyone online, given that most internet services used on a day to day basis run on Linux. I spoke with a number of Linux developers about the source of the controversy, what could be done to improve the Code of Conduct, and why they think these threats to implement a Linux “killswitch” are totally overblown.

    Voir aussi : https://seenthis.net/messages/723091 et https://seenthis.net/messages/724176

    #sexisme #code #développement #domination #Torvalds #méritocratie

  • Opinion | Can Europe Lead on Privacy? - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/opinion/europe-privacy-protections.html

    The American government has done little to help us in this regard. The Federal Trade Commission merely requires internet companies to have a privacy policy available for consumers to see. A company can change that policy whenever it wants as long as it says it is doing so. As a result, internet companies have been taking our personal property — our private information — while hiding this fact behind lengthy and coercive legalese and cumbersome “opt out” processes.

    The European rules, for instance, require companies to provide a plain-language description of their information-gathering practices, including how the data is used, as well as have users explicitly “opt in” to having their information collected. The rules also give consumers the right to see what information about them is being held, and the ability to have that information erased.

    Why don’t we have similar protections in the United States? We almost did. In 2016, the Federal Communications Commission imposed similar requirements on the companies that provide internet service, forcing them to offer an explicit “opt in” for having personal data collected, and to protect the information that was collected.

    This didn’t last. Internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T and companies that use their connections, like Facebook and Google, lobbied members of Congress. Congress passed a law this year, signed by President Trump, that not only repealed the protections but also prohibited the F.C.C. from ever again imposing such safeguards. The same coalition of corporate interests succeeded in discouraging California from passing a state privacy law similar to the 2016 F.C.C. requirements.

    The New World must learn from the Old World. The internet economy has made our personal data a corporate commodity. The United States government must return control of that information to its owners.

    Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 2013 to 2017, is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

    #Vie_privée #RGPD #FCC

  • Facebook Turned Our Economy Into a Spying Operation | Alternet
    https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/our-economy-based-spying

    George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton sold us on the idea that we no longer needed a manufacturing economy in the U.S. because the internet was coming and it would provide entirely new business models.

    Now we’ve seen what that new economy looks like: spying for sale.

    Facebook takes all the information you give them, which they then use to create profiles to sell advertising to people who want your money or your vote.

    Your internet service provider, with former Verizon lawyer and now head of the FCC Ajit Pai having destroyed net neutrality, will soon begin (if they haven’t already started) tracking every single mouse click, reading every email, and checking out every one of your online purchases to get information they can sell for a profit.

    Your “smart" TV is tracking every show you watch, when and for how long and selling that information to marketers and networks.

    And even your credit card company is now selling your information—what have you bought that you’d rather not have the world know?

    To paraphrase Dwight Eisenhower’s Cross of Iron speech, this is not a real economy at all, in any true sense. It’s a parody of an economy, with a small number of winners and all the rest of us as losers/suckers/“product.”

    While it’s true that Facebook’s malignant business model may well provide a huge opportunity for a competitor to offer a “$3 a month and we don’t track you, spy on you, or sell your data” plan (or even for Facebook to shift to that), it still fails to address the importance of privacy in the context of society and law/rule-making.

    We cannot trust corporations in America with our personal information, as long as that information can make them more and more money. Even your doctor or hospital will now require you sign a form allowing them to sell your information to third parties.

    It’s been decades since we’ve had a conversation in America about privacy. What does the word mean? How should it be applied?

    Just this simple transparency requirement would solve a lot of these problems.

    Business, of course, will scream that they can’t afford compliance with such an onerous requirement. Every time they sell the fact that you love dogs but have a cat allergy and buy anti-allergy medications, they’ll only make a few cents per sale, but it’ll cost them more than that to let you know what part of you and your collective body of information they sold to the allergy medicine manufacturers.

    And that may well be true. It will decrease the profitability of companies like Facebook whose primary business model is spy-and-sell, and will incrementally reduce the revenue to medical groups, credit card companies, and websites/ISPs who make money on the side doing spy-and-sell.

    #Facebook #Médias_sociaux #Vie_privée #Economie_influence

  • Killing Net Neutrality Has Brought On a New Call for Public Broadband
    https://theintercept.com/2017/12/15/fcc-net-neutrality-public-broadband-seattle

    The Federal Communications Commission’s 3-2 vote to repeal net neutrality rules has many worried that internet service providers will now build the same sort of tiered internet that some other countries have — where individual providers can collude to throttle traffic to certain websites and services in order to shake money from consumers or the companies themselves — or both. For instance, in Morocco last year, multiple internet service providers worked together to briefly block voice chat (...)

    #Comcast #neutralité #WhatsApp #Skype #FCC

    ##neutralité

  • US regulator scraps net neutrality rules that protect open internet
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/14/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-open-internet

    The US’s top media regulator voted to end rules protecting an open internet on Thursday, a move critics warn will hand control of the future of the web to cable and telecoms companies. At a packed meeting of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington, the watchdog’s commissioners voted three to two to dismantle the “net neutrality” rules that prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from charging websites more for delivering certain services or blocking others should they, for (...)

    #neutralité #FCC

    ##neutralité

  • The Internet Is Dying. Repealing Net Neutrality Hastens That Death. - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/technology/internet-dying-repeal-net-neutrality.html

    Because net neutrality shelters start-ups — which can’t easily pay for fast-line access — from internet giants that can pay, the rules are just about the last bulwark against the complete corporate takeover of much of online life. When the rules go, the internet will still work, but it will look like and feel like something else altogether — a network in which business development deals, rather than innovation, determine what you experience, a network that feels much more like cable TV than the technological Wild West that gave you Napster and Netflix.

    If this sounds alarmist, consider that the state of digital competition is already pretty sorry. As I’ve argued regularly, much of the tech industry is at risk of getting swallowed by giants. Today’s internet is lousy with gatekeepers, tollbooths and monopolists.

    The five most valuable American companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud storage to nearly all of the online ad business. A handful of broadband companies — AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon, many of which are also aiming to become content companies, because why not — provide virtually all the internet connections to American homes and smartphones.

    Together these giants have carved the internet into a historically profitable system of fiefs. They have turned a network whose very promise was endless innovation into one stuck in mud, where every start-up is at the tender mercy of some of the largest corporations on the planet.

    This was not the way the internet was supposed to go. At its deepest technical level, the internet was designed to avoid the central points of control that now command it. The technical scheme arose from an even deeper philosophy. The designers of the internet understood that communications networks gain new powers through their end nodes — that is, through the new devices and services that plug into the network, rather than the computers that manage traffic on the network. This is known as the “end-to-end” principle of network design, and it basically explains why the internet led to so many more innovations than the centralized networks that came before it, such as the old telephone network.

    But if flexibility was the early internet’s promise, it was soon imperiled. In 2003, Tim Wu, a law professor now at Columbia Law School (he’s also a contributor to The New York Times), saw signs of impending corporate control over the growing internet. Broadband companies that were investing great sums to roll out faster and faster internet service to Americans were becoming wary of running an anything-goes network.

    To Mr. Wu, the broadband monopolies looked like a threat to the end-to-end idea that had powered the internet. In a legal journal, he outlined an idea for regulation to preserve the internet’s equal-opportunity design — and hence was born “net neutrality.”

    Though it has been through a barrage of legal challenges and resurrections, some form of net neutrality has been the governing regime on the internet since 2005. The new F.C.C. order would undo the idea completely; companies would be allowed to block or demand payment for certain traffic as they liked, as long as they disclosed the arrangements.

    But look, you might say: Despite the hand-wringing, the internet has kept on trucking. Start-ups are still getting funded and going public. Crazy new things still sometimes get invented and defy all expectations; Bitcoin, which is as Wild West as they come, just hit $10,000 on some exchanges.

    Well, O.K. But a vibrant network doesn’t die all at once. It takes time and neglect; it grows weaker by the day, but imperceptibly, so that one day we are living in a digital world controlled by giants and we come to regard the whole thing as normal.

    It’s not normal. It wasn’t always this way. The internet doesn’t have to be a corporate playground. That’s just the path we’ve chosen.

    #Neutralité_internet #Vectorialisme

  • 7 Things to Know About Ajit Pai, the Man Trump Tasked With Killing Net Neutrality | Alternet
    https://www.alternet.org/7-things-you-need-know-about-ajit-pais-cheerful-fanatic-who-wants-privatiz

    Ajit Pais is chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the government agency that regulates radio and television airwaves, cable TV, and internet. In other words, he has immense power.

    President Trump appointed Pai to serve as chairman in January and Pai has quickly moved to advance the interests of big broadcasting companies and internet service providers at the expense of the public. Next month, the five-member FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to roll back FCC rules limiting cable and internet service providers from charging more for their services.

    Even Trump supporters should be appalled, says the reliably conservative Forbes magazine.

    Tim Berners-Lee, the man who invented the protocols of the World Wide Web, is blunt: “The FCC under Ajit Pai has consistently chosen to sell out Americans for the profit of corporations."

    So who is this guy?

    #Neutralité_internet #FCC

  • The Geopolitical Economy of the Global Internet Infrastructure on JSTOR
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jinfopoli.7.2017.0228

    Article très intéressant qui repositionne les Etats dans la gestion de l’infrastructure globale de l’internet. En fait, une infrastructure globale pour le déploiement du capital (une autre approche de la géopolitique, issue de David Harvey).

    According to many observers, economic globalization and the liberalization of telecoms/internet policy have remade the world in the image of the United States. The dominant roles of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google have also led to charges of US internet imperialism. This article, however, argues that while these internet giants dominate some of the most popular internet services, the ownership and control of core elements of the internet infrastructure—submarine cables, internet exchange points, autonomous system numbers, datacenters, and so on—are tilting increasingly toward the EU and BRICS (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries and the rest of the world, complicating views of hegemonic US control of the internet and what Susan Strange calls the knowledge structure.

    This article takes a different tack. It argues that while US-based internet giants do dominate some of the middle and top layers of the internet—for example, operating systems (iOS, Windows, Android), search engines (Google), social networks (Facebook), online retailing (Amazon), over-the-top TV (Netflix), browsers (Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Microsoft Explorer), and domain names (ICANN)—they do not rule the hardware, or material infrastructure, upon which the internet and daily life, business, governments, society, and war increasingly depend. In fact, as the article shows, ownership and control of many core elements of the global internet infrastructure—for example, fiber optic submarine cables, content delivery networks (CDNs), autonomous system numbers (ASN), and internet exchange points (IXPs)—are tilting toward the rest of the world, especially Europe and the BRICS (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). This reflects the fact that the United States’ standing in the world is slipping while an ever more multipolar world is arising.

    International internet backbone providers, internet content companies, and CDNs interconnect with local ISPs and at one or more of the nearly 2000 IXPs around the world. The largest IXPs are in New York, London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Seattle, Chicago, Moscow, Sao Paulo, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. They are core elements of the internet that switch traffic between all the various networks that comprise the internet system, and help to establish accessible, affordable, fast, and secure internet service.

    In developed markets, internet companies such as Google, Baidu, Facebook, Netflix, Youku, and Yandex use IXPs to interconnect with local ISPs such as Deutsche Telecoms in Germany, BT or Virgin Media in Britain, or Comcast in the United States to gain last-mile access to their customers—and vice versa, back up the chain. Indeed, 99 percent of internet traffic handled by peering arrangements among such parties occurs without any money changing hands or a formal contract.50 Where IXPs do not exist or are rare, as in Africa, or run poorly, as in India, the cost of bandwidth is far more expensive. This is a key factor that helps to explain why internet service is so expensive in areas of the world that can least afford it. It is also why the OECD and EU encourage developing countries to make IXPs a cornerstone of economic development and telecoms policy work.

    The network of networks that make up the internet constitute a sprawling, general purpose platform upon which financial markets, business, and trade, as well as diplomacy, spying, national security, and war depend. The world’s largest electronic payments system operator, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications’ (SWIFT) secure messaging network carries over 25 million messages a day involving payments that are believed to be worth over $7 trillion USD.59 Likewise, the world’s biggest foreign currency settlement system, the CLS Bank, executes upward of a million trades a day worth between $1.5 and $2.5 trillion over the global cable systems—although that is down by half from its high point in 2008.60 As Stephen Malphrus, former chief of staff to the US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, observed, when “communications networks go down, the financial services sector does not grind to a halt, rather it snaps to a halt.”61

    Governments and militaries also account for a significant portion of internet traffic. Indeed, 90 to 95 percent of US government traffic, including sensitive diplomatic and military orders, travels over privately owned cables to reach officials in the field.62 “A major portion of DoD data traveling on undersea cables is unmanned aerial vehicle video,” notes a study done for the Department of Homeland Security by MIT scholar Michael Sechrist.63 Indeed, the Department of Defense’s entire Global Information Grid shares space in these cables with the general public internet.64

    The 3.6 billion people as of early 2016 who use the internet to communicate, share music, ideas and knowledge, browse, upload videos, tweet, blog, organize social events and political protests, watch pornography, read sacred texts, and sell stuff are having the greatest influence on the current phase of internet infrastructure development. Video currently makes up an estimated two-thirds of all internet traffic, and is expected to grow to 80 percent in the next five years,69 with US firms leading the way. Netflix single-handedly accounts for a third of all internet traffic. YouTube is the second largest source of internet traffic on fixed and mobile networks alike the world over. Altogether, the big five internet giants account for roughly half of all “prime-time” internet traffic, a phrasing that deliberately reflects the fact that internet usage swells and peaks at the same time as the classic prime-time television period, that is, 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.

    Importance des investissements des compagnies de l’internet dans les projets de câbles.

    Several things stand out from this analysis. First, in less than a decade, Google has carved out a very large place for itself through its ownership role in four of the six projects (the SJC, Faster, Unity, and Pacific Cable Light initiatives), while Facebook has stakes in two of them (APG and PLCN) and Microsoft in the PLCN project. This is a relatively new trend and one that should be watched in the years ahead.

    A preliminary view based on the publicly available information is that the US internet companies are important but subordinate players in consortia dominated by state-owned national carriers and a few relatively new competitors. Keen to wrest control of core elements of the internet infrastructure that they perceive to have been excessively dominated by United States interests in the past, Asian governments and private investors have joined forces to change things in their favor. In terms of the geopolitical economy of the internet, there is both a shift toward the Asia-Pacific region and an increased role for national governments.

    Return of the State as Regulator of Concentrated Markets

    In addition to the expanded role of the state as market builder, regulator, and information infrastructure policy maker, many regulators have also rediscovered the reality of significant market concentration in the telecom-internet and media industries. Indeed, the US government has rejected several high-profile telecoms mergers in recent years, such as AT&T’s proposal to take over T-Mobile in 2011, T-Mobile’s bid for Sprint in 2014, and Comcast’s attempt to acquire Time Warner Cable last year. Even the approval of Comcast’s blockbuster takeover of NBC Universal in 2011, and Charter Communications acquisition of Time Warner Cable last year, respectively, came with important strings attached and ongoing conduct regulation designed to constrain the companies’ ability to abuse their dominant market power.87 The FCC’s landmark 2016 ruling to reclassify broadband internet access as a common carrier further indicated that US regulators have been alert to the realities of market concentration and telecoms-internet access providers’ capacity to abuse that power, and the need to maintain a vigilant eye to ensure that their practices do not swamp people’s rights to freely express themselves, maintain control over the collection, retention, use, and disclosure of their personal information, and to access a diverse range of services over the internet.88 The 28 members of the European Union, along with Norway, India, and Chile, have adopted similar “common carriage/network neutrality/open network”89 rules to offset the reality that concentration in core elements of these industries is “astonishingly high”90 on the basis of commonly used indicators (e.g., concentration ratios and the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index).

    These developments indicate a new phase in internet governance and control. In the first phase, circa the 1990s, technical experts and organizations such as the Internet Engineers Task Force played a large role, while the state sat relatively passively on the sidelines. In the second phase, circa the early to mid-2000s, commercial forces surged to the fore, while internet governance revolved around the ICANN and the multi-stakeholder model. Finally, the revelations of mass internet surveillance by many states and ongoing disputes over the multi-stakeholder, “internet freedom” agenda on the one side, versus the national sovereignty, multilateral model where the ITU and UN system would play a larger role in internet governance all indicate that significant moves are afoot where the relationship between states and markets is now in a heightened state of flux.

    Such claims, however, are overdrawn. They rely too heavily on the same old “realist,” “struggle for control” model where conflict between nation-states has loomed large and business interests and communication technologies served mainly as “weapons of politics” and the handmaidens of national interests from the telegraph in the nineteenth century to the internet today. Yet, nation-states and private business interests, then and now, not only compete with one another but also cooperate extensively to cultivate a common global space of economic accumulation. Communication technologies and business interests, moreover, often act independent of the nation-state and via “private structures of cooperation,” that is, cartels and consortia, as the history and contemporary state of the undersea cable networks illustrate. In fact, the internet infrastructure of the twenty-first century, much like that of the industrial information infrastructure of the past 150 years, is still primarily financed, owned, and operated by many multinational consortia, although more than a few submarine communications cables are now owned by a relatively new roster of competitive players, such as Tata, Level 3, Global Cloud Xchange, and so forth. They have arisen mostly in the last 20 years and from new quarters, such as India in the case of Tata, for example.

    #Economie_numérique #Géopolitique #Câbles_sous_marins

  • MSC Containership Drags Anchor, Causing Internet Blackout in Somalia -Reports – gCaptain
    http://gcaptain.com/msc-containership-held-in-somalia-over-internet-blackout-reports

    Somali authorities have detained an MSC containership alleging that the vessel dragged anchor and cut an undersea fibre optic cable supplying internet to much of the country, according to reports. 

    Somalia has been suffering from an internet blackout since June 24 when the MSC Alice allegedly dragged anchor outside Mogadishu port, severing undersea fibre optic cables used by many of the country’s Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

  • Common sense: An examination of three Los Angeles community WiFi projects that privileged public funding over commons-based infrastructure management » The Journal of Peer Production
    http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-10-peer-production-and-work/varia/common-sense-an-examination-of-three-los-angeles-community-wifi-proj

    Several high-profile incidents involving entire communities cut off from broadband access—the result of natural disasters such as Superstorm Sandy in the Northeastern United States in 2012, to totalitarian governments in Egypt and Tunisia shutting down infrastructure in 2011—have raised awareness of the vulnerabilities inherent in a centralized internet. Policymakers are increasingly interested in the potential of community mesh networks (Harvard University, 2012), which use a decentralized architecture. Still, government agencies rarely fund community WiFi initiatives in U.S. cities. Three grassroots mesh networks in Los Angeles are distinct, however, as both local and state agencies subsidized their efforts. By comparing a public goods framework with theory of the commons, this study examines how government support impacted L.A.-based community wireless projects.

    By examining public investments in peer-to-peer networking initiatives, this study aims to better understand how substantial cash infusions influenced network design and implementation. Stronger community ties, self-reliance and opportunities for democratic deliberation potentially emerge when neighbors share bandwidth. In this sense, WiFi signal sharing is more than a promising “last mile” technology able to reach every home for a fraction of the cost required to lay fiber, DSL and cable (Martin, 2005). In fact, grassroots mesh projects aim to create “a radically different public sphere” (Burnett, 1999) by situating themselves outside of commercial interests. Typically, one joins, as opposed to subscribes to, the services. As Lippman and Reed (2003, p. 1) observed, “Communications can become something you do rather than something you buy.” For this reason, the economic theories of both public goods and the commons provide an ideal analytical framework for examining three community WiFi project in Los Angeles.

    The value of this commons is derived from the fact that no one owns or controls it—not people, not corporations, not the government (Benkler 2001; Lessig, 2001). The peer-to-peer architecture comprising community wireless networks provides ideal conditions for fostering civic engagement and eliminating the need to rely on telecommunications companies for connectivity. Instead of information passing from “one to many,” it travels from “many to many.” The primary internet relies on centralized access points and internet service providers (ISPs) for connectivity. By contrast, in a peer-to-peer architecture, components are both independent and scalable. Wireless mesh network design includes at least one access point with a direct connection to the internet—via fiber, cable or satellite link—and nodes that hop from one device to the next

    As the network’s popularity mounted, however, so did its challenges. The increasing prevalence of smartphones meant more mobile devices accessing Little Tokyo Unplugged. This required the LTSC to deploy additional access points, leading to signal interference. Network users overwhelmed LTSC staff with complaints about everything from lost connections to computer viruses. “We ended up being IT support for the entire community,” the informant said.

    Money, yes. Meaningful participation, no.

    Despite its popularity, the center shut down the WiFi network in 2010. “The decision was made that we couldn’t sustain it,” the informant said. While the LTSC (2010) invested nearly $3 million in broadband-related initiatives, the center neglected to seek meaningful participation from the wider Little Tokyo community. The LTSC basically functioned according to a traditional ISP model. In a commons, it is imperative that a fair relationship exists between contributions made and benefits received (Commons Sommerschule, 2012). However, the LTSC neither expected nor asked network users to contribute to Little Tokyo Unplugged in exchange for free broadband access. As a result, individual network users did not feel they had a stake in ensuring the stability of the network.

    HSDNC board members believed free WiFi would facilitate more efficient communication with their constituents, coupled with “the main issue” of digital inclusion, according to an informant. “The reality is that poor, working class Latino members of our district have limited access to the internet. A lot of people have cell phones, but we see gaps,” this informant said. These comments exemplify how the pursuit of public funding began to usurp social-production principles associated with a networked commons. While closing the digital divide and informing the public about community issues are laudable goals, they are clearly institutional ones.

    Rather than design Open Mar Vista/Open Neighborhoods according to commons-based peer production principles, the network co-founders sought ways to align the project with public good goals articulated by local and federal agencies. For instance, an informant stressed that community WiFi would enable neighborhood councils to send email blasts and post information online. This argument is a direct response to the city’s push for neighborhood councils to reduce paper correspondence with constituents (City of Los Angeles, 2010). Similarly, the grant application Open Neighborhoods submitted to the federal Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program—which exclusively funded broadband infrastructure and computer adoption initiatives—focused on the potential for community WiFi networks to supply Los Angeles’ low-income neighborhoods with affordable internet (National Telecommunications & Information Administration, 2010). The proposal is void of references to concepts associated with the commons, even though this ideological space can transform broadband infrastructure from a conduit to the internet into a technology for empowering participants. It seems that, ultimately, the pursuit of public funding supplanted initial goals of creating a WiFi network that fostered inclusivity and collaboration.

    There’s little doubt that Manchester Community Technologies accepted a $453,000 state grant in exchange for a “mesh cloud” it never deployed. These findings suggest an inherent conflict exists between the quest to fulfill the state’s public good goals, and the commons-based community building necessary to sustain a grassroots WiFi network. One could argue that this reality should have prevented California officials from funding Manchester Community Technologies’ proposal in the first place. Specifically, a successful community WiFi initiative cannot be predicated on a state mandate to strengthen digital literacy skills and increase broadband adoption. Local businesses and residents typically share bandwidth as part of a broader effort to create an alternative communications infrastructure, beyond the reach of government—not dictated by government. Grassroots broadband initiatives run smoothly when participants are committed to the success of a common enterprise and share a common purpose. The approach taken by Manchester Community Technologies does not reflect these principles.

    #Communs #wifi #mesh_networks #relations_communs_public

  • Africa’s North Korea: Reporting From Eritrea, the Land of No Journalists

    But Fathi Osman, an ex-Eritrean diplomat who fled the country and now works for Paris-based #Radio_Erena, an Eritrean media outlet in exile, says that comparison doesn’t do the situation in his home country justice. The Eritrean capital Asmara, he says, is a less open place than Pyongyang.

    http://www.newsweek.com/eritrea-north-korea-press-freedom-isaias-afwerki-623641
    #journalisme #presse #médias #Erythrée #répression #dictature

    • Eritrea’s Silent Totalitarianism

      Eritrea emerged as a sovereign state in 1991, following 30 years of armed battle for independence with its neighbour Ethiopia. The nationalist movement of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (FPLE) was a Maoist guerilla party that led Eritrea to independence in 1993 under secretary general Isaias Afwerki. The movement’s leader then became the first Eritrean President and reshaped the movement into a single party called the Popular Front for Democracy and Justice (FPDJ).

      There is no denying that the length and the severity of the war that led to Eritrea`s accession to independence have forged a real esprit de corps among its leaders. But while that spirit may be useful in times of war, it can have devastating effects on the civil society in times of peace. Since its inception, arbitrary detentions and cases of torture, rape, and extrajudicial killings have marred the regime – as was reported by a special UN commission in June 2016. According to the report, more than 400,000 Eritreans have been enslaved in the national conscription program, where they are forced to work in the army or the bureaucracy. In addition, there are no independent newspapers left and state-run media outlets are the sole providers of news.

      Yet twenty-five years into his party`s rule, Isaias Afwerki is still the president of Eritrea. Elections were scheduled for 2001, but have yet to take place. It is no wonder that Eritrea is often nicknamed the “North Korea of Africa.”

      Censorship and Repression

      According to Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom report of 2017, Eritrea is ranked 179th out of 180 countries; only North Korea ranks lower. To keep its grip on power, the repressive regime of Isaias Afwerki has used imprisonment and torture of opponents, harsh crackdowns on independent journalists, and arbitrary arrests, ultimately creating “a media climate so oppressive that even reporters for state-run news outlets live in constant fear of arrest.” In 2015, Eritrea had the third highest number of imprisoned journalists after China and Iran, all of whom have been given no trial and no criminal charges.

      But repression has not always characterized Eritrea’s attitude towards journalism. In 1996, the number of independent newspapers boomed, many of which were founded by graduates of the University of Asamara and presented pluralistic views. However, the political climate changed. Following a border conflict with Ethiopia (1998-2000), President Isawa Afewerki’s practices abruptly turned totalitarian. Using new measures to perpetuate his power, Afewerki established his position toward his opponents in the beginning of the 2000s by eliminating independent media outlets and cracking down on all dissent. Fifteen members of the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice wrote a public letter denouncing Afwerki’s “illegal and unconstitutional” actions, and were immediately jailed. Eleven of them are still incarcerated without trial, and have become known as the G-15. On the same day, 18 September 2001, Afwerki banned private newspapers and jailed eleven journalists, who remain in undisclosed locations. In addition, religious freedom in Eritrea is also curtailed, with the government allowing the practice of only four religions: the Eritrean Orthodox Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Eritrea, the Roman Catholic Church and Islam.

      To be sure, satellite dishes offering BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera can be accessed throughout the country, and Internet, although very slow, appears to be unfiltered. Even so, however, according to U.N. International Telecommunication Union figures, internet service is available only when channeled through slow dial-up connections and fewer than 1.2% of the population is using the internet in 2017, the lowest number on the list of 148 countries. Similarly, only 5.6% of Eritrea’s population owns a cell phone, again the lowest figure in the world. Inside Eritrea, all mobile communications are channeled through Eritrea’s sole state-run telecommunication company, EriTel. That the regulation of mobile communications is a tool to further project Isaias’ government authority on its population is evidenced by Eritrea’s decision to cancel plans to provide mobile Internet for its citizens by fear of the spread of the Arab Spring protests. Further isolationist policies include the restrictions placed on foreign correspondents. Indeed, the last remaining accredited international reporter was expelled in 2007, and ‘‘the few outside reporters invited in occasionally to interview the president are closely monitored.”

      Today, thousands of dissident and political prisoners, from former politicians and journalists to practitioners of illegal religions, continue to be detained with no planned trial in sight. Often, they are held in underground jails in remote areas where prisoners are placed in metal containers and suffer from intolerable heat. In some cases, information regarding the state of the prisoners’ health is not disclosed to the public nor their family.

      The report from the UN commission of inquiry on human rights in Eritrea claims that state spying and surveillance leads to the constant fear of arbitrary arrest, torture, disappearance or death. Ultimately, this culture of fear has created a climate of self-censorship and mistrust that affects communities and families. Denouncement of deserters can be rewarded with benefits from local administrators, and families of the deserter legally have to pay amends (50 000 nakfas for each deserter – or 2500 euros). This structure creates incentives to denounce members of your own family or your neighbours, further consolidating the role of an authoritarian state whose actions and agents are constantly expanding and interfering in the everyday life of its citizens.

      Forced Military Service

      In 1994, a national system of military mobilization for young Eritreans legally imposed 6 months of military training and one year of service. National service was perceived as a duty for the citizens which had not participated in the war of independence. Thus, tens of thousands of men and women from 18 and 40 years of old are recruited each year.

      However, since the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea that began in 1998, the period of service has been indefinitely extended. Eritreans over 18 years old are now conscripted into 18 months of military service, followed by an indefinite period of civil service that often lasts more than a decade. Since 2002, this expansion of the conscription period has become the central pillar of the national development campaign known as WofriWarsay Ykä?Lo, which aims to rebuild the country devastated by war, and to cope with the economic consequences of the decrease in trade relations with Ethiopia. The government also justifies national conscription by arguing that there is an ongoing highly militarized border dispute with its neighbor, Ethiopia.

      There seems to be little doubt, however, that this mobilization of almost all the available labor force in the country aims to set up a planned economy and to extend the reach of authoritarian control into social activities. Often referred to as forced labour, the national service is rooted in three-decade struggle for independence that gave rise to an obsession over security, evidenced by party and government policies and the consequent process of militarization of society. Anyone who defies this national program is subject to cruel torture.

      Completion of national service is a condition for full citizenship for young adults, which grants Eritreans who are required to serve indefinitely only limited rights in the choice of their studies and their professional activity, as well as restricts their freedom of movement within national borders. Freedom of enterprise and land ownership are also not allowed for conscripts, and their low wages and arbitrary leave allowances often disturb family life. But that is not all. Conditions in military training camps are dire, and conscripts must tolerate the inadequacy of food, water, hygiene facilities, accommodation and medical facilities. These camps are also sites of sexual violence perpetrated against women and girls, the purpose of which is to extract confessions, punish, and intimidate. To escape conscription, many avoid public places and hide. Today, 10 000 ‘deserters’ are imprisoned, often in metallic containers in remote cities.

      In light of the aforementioned constraints on freedom of expression and movement imposed on Eritreans, understanding why many decide to flee the country becomes less challenging. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) reported 474, 296 Eritreans globally registered as refugees and asylum seekers at the end of 2015, which represents around 12 percent of Eritrea’s estimated population of 3.6 million.

      Constrained Liberties in the Midst of Extreme Poverty

      However, the report of the U.N commission does not escape criticism. Journalist Bronwyn Bruton argues that since the U.N commissioners were denied entry into Eritrea, they relied almost exclusively on the testimonies of about 800 Eritrean refugees that had decided to leave Eritrea and failed to interview diplomats who had recently traveled to the country: ‘‘The commissioners didn’t interview Western diplomats or U.N. staff based in Eritrea. (…) They discarded tens of thousands of testimonials from Eritreans defending the Isaias regime, claiming these were irrelevant or inauthentic.”

      While acknowledging the human rights abuses taking place in Eritrea, Bruton argues that the report does not reflect the reality on the ground. Although the report claims that Eritreans who leave the country and eventually return face arbitrary imprisonment and torture, Bruton sheds light on the reports from some Horn of Africa reporters, including Mary Harper from BBC, about the thousands of Eritreans who have returned to celebrate independence: “They have spoken freely, and on camera, with dozens of Eritreans about the political situation in the country, despite the COIE’s assertion that Eritreans exist in a climate of fear without the ability to speak their minds.”

      Further, scholars have questioned the potential causal link between socioeconomic development and democracy. Some scholars worry that, should democracy occur before a country achieves a considerable level of socioeconomic development, governments would not be capable of accommodating all the new political and economic demands. Many have continuously justified authoritarian rule as a necessary ‘stopgap’ to jump-start economic growth. In their view, authoritarian regimes can limit workers’ wages and control labor unrest to increase profit and attract external and domestic private-sector investment. [1] To diversify its economy and to convert conscript jobs to formal civil-service or private-sector positions, some have argued that the Eritrean government has no other choice but to develop its economy: ‘‘It will simply be impossible to reform Eritrea’s controversial National Service Program (…) without improving the economy. Simply releasing those people to joblessness would cause insecurity, and of course the country would completely cease functioning….’’.

      In short, Eritrea is facing the problem of development in a situation of extreme poverty.

      To lift itself out of mass poverty, it needs a quantum leap in the accumulation of capital that is required to build infrastructure and educate the population. The Eritrean regime has evidenced their aspirations to develop through their achievements in sectors like education and healthcare which are strategic to the functioning of the state. According to the Eritrea Health MDGs Report of 2014, Eritrea is one of the only countries likely to fulfill the Millenium Development Goals in health. The achievements include the reduction of infant and child mortality rates and the increase of immunisation coverage. Considering that Eritrea ranks among the poorest countries in the world, such “Concerted government programmatic and resource investment in the health sector” should be acknowledged as a successful achievement.

      In this context, conscript work is a concerted effort to impoverish the individual for the benefit of the collective. The legitimacy of the move hinges on the ability of the government to build a viable consensus on its goals without excessive coercion. If the effort is squandered in useless projects or diverted through corrupt channels, the regime will devolve into the worst type of despotism. The restrictions on human liberties implemented by Isaias’ government are excessive and not necessary to secure the capital needed for Eritrea’s development. Should, however, the regime succeed in accumulating growth for its population while renouncing its draconian measures against dissent, it could pave the way toward a sustainable development for generations of Eritreans.


      https://mjps.ssmu.ca/2018/02/21/eritreas-silent-totalitarianism

      #totalitarisme

  • Egypt 24 hours later: What we know about the blocking of Mada Masr’s website | MadaMasr

    Menaces contre un des meilleurs sites d’information égyptien

    http://www.madamasr.com/en/2017/05/26/feature/u/24-hours-later-what-we-know-about-the-blocking-of-mada-masrs-website

    Access to Mada Masr’s website via most of Egypt’s internet service providers (ISPs) has been blocked since Wednesday evening.

    The country’s official state news agency, MENA, quoted a high-level security source on Wednesday night as saying that access to 21 websites, which had disseminated “content that supports terrorism and extremism and deliberately spreads lies,” had been blocked in Egypt in accord with “relevant legal proceedings.”

    Mada Masr has not been officially informed that any party has taken official or legal measures against it.

    Several other websites have also been blocked, including two Egyptian publications: Masr al-Arabiya and the website of the print weekly Al-Mesryoon. The list also includes some Qatari or Qatar-funded news outlets that support or are managed by the Muslim Brotherhood, principal among them Al Jazeera and Huffington Post Arabic, in addition to the official website for Palestinian political movement Hamas.

    #Egypte #presse #médias

  • The Republican Party Is Ready to Sell Off Your Internet Privacy at a Level That Boggles the Mind | Alternet
    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/republican-party-ready-sell-your-internet-privacy-level-boggles-mind

    Trump’s new Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, recently co-authored what is either an intentionally or naively deceptive op-ed in The Washington Post.

    Pai suggested that when Republicans in the House and Senate – without a single Democratic vote in either body – voted to legalize your Internet Service Provider – your ISP – to sell your personal (and you-thought-private) browsing information and the content of your emails and video-viewing to anybody they choose, they were actually working to “protect” your privacy. He knew this, he wrote, because critics of the GOP policy “don’t understand how advertising works.”

    Pai’s argument is basically that if Google can sell or use your information, then Comcast, AT&T, Time-Warner, etc., should be able to, too.

    But there’s a fundamental difference. If you don’t want Google to sell or use your information, you can use a search engine (like www.duckduckgo.com) or an online store that promises not to.

    But your internet service provider sees everything you do on the internet, right down to the keystroke level. They can monitor every VOIP conversation, make note of every search or purchase, and transcribe every email or IM. Just like your phone company, before Title II, could listen in on every one of your phone calls.

    #neutralité_internet

  • Internet Privacy 2017 | What You Need to Know - Shelly Palmer
    http://www.shellypalmer.com/2017/04/internet-privacy-2017-what-you-need-to-know

    There has never been a reasonable expectation of online privacy, and there never will be. Regardless of what you may have recently heard about joint resolutions or nullifications, nothing has changed. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have always had the right to use your data as they see fit, within a few Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) parameters. This has not changed. And you have given FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google) the right to use your data as they see fit (with a few privacy policy exceptions and within the few aforementioned FTC and FCC parameters). So regarding online privacy, for all practical purposes, absolutely nothing has changed.
    What About S.J.Res.34?

    Update: On April 3, 2017, the president signed S.J.Res.34, a joint resolution that nullified the FCC’s “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services” rule. But the FCC rule never went into effect. So net/net, nothing has changed.

    #USA #vie_privée #vie_privee #privacy

  • To Serve AT&T and Comcast, Congressional GOP Votes to Destroy Online Privacy
    https://theintercept.com/2017/03/29/to-serve-att-and-comcast-congressional-gop-votes-to-destroy-online-pri

    Clarifying events in politics are often healthy even when they produce awful outcomes. Such is the case with yesterday’s vote by House Republicans to free internet service providers (ISPs) – primarily AT&T, Comcast and Verizon – from the Obama-era FCC regulations barring them from storing and selling their users’ browsing histories without their consent. The vote followed an identical one last week in the Senate exclusively along party lines. It’s hard to overstate what a blow to individual (...)

    #Comcast #Google #Verizon #Facebook #AT&T #données #profiling #publicité #historique

    ##AT&T ##publicité

  • US consumers lose privacy protections for their web browsing history
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/28/privacy-protection-sell-web-browsing-history-data

    Congress voted to kill rules meant to prevent internet service providers from selling users’ web browsing histories and app storage histories to advertisers US politicians voted Tuesday to kill privacy rules meant to prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from selling users’ web browsing histories and app usage histories to advertisers. The planned protections, proposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and scheduled to take effect by the end of 2017, would have forced ISPs (...)

    #Comcast #Google #Verizon #historique #publicité #FCC

    ##publicité

  • Senate Republicans Vote to Allow ISPs to Sell Your Private Data - Motherboard
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/senate-republicans-vote-to-allow-isps-to-sell-your-private-data

    Republican lawmakers in the US Senate approved a measure on Thursday designed to kill federal broadband privacy protections and allow internet service providers like AT&T and Verizon to sell your sensitive private information to the highest bidder.

    The vote represents the culmination of a year-long campaign by the nation’s largest internet service providers (ISPs) and their GOP allies to torpedo Federal Communications Commission rules that require broadband providers to obtain “opt-in” consent before using, sharing, or selling private consumer data.

    Consumer advocates and privacy watchdogs responded with outrage, and accused Republican lawmakers of putting the financial interests of a handful of wildly profitable corporate giants ahead of the privacy interests of the American people.

  • LibreRouter: Why Buy a Router When You Can Build Your Own? · Global Voices

    C’est vrai ?

    https://globalvoices.org/2017/01/02/librerouter-why-buy-a-router-when-you-can-build-your-own

    To connect to the Internet, most people around the world rely on private companies to provide us with Internet service — and the necessary hardware to get online — for a fee. We depend on companies like Asus, Cisco, Eriksson and Huawei, that build modems and routers, in order to connect to the Internet.

    But this is not the only way to connect. LibreRouter, a new project developed by a group of hackers originating from different countries and backgrounds, will now make it easier to get online without relying on a corporate hardware manufacturer.