• How To Boost Your Business With Residential Proxies : 5 Real-life Use Cases

    Image credit: UnsplashMasking your IP address might be useful in a range of situations from accessing blocked content to bypassing anti-bot systems implemented by search engines and other online services. Here are several ways of organizing proxies:Residential #proxy — IP addresses that are assigned to homeowners by the ISP are called residential. These addresses are flagged in regional internet registries. Residential proxies provided by services like Infatica use such IP addresses because all requests that are sent via them are indistinguishable from those generated by regular users.Data center proxy — Such proxies are not connected to the ISP, while addresses are assigned by hosting providers who’ve purchased large pools of IP addresses.Shared proxy — In this case a proxy can be used by (...)

    #privacy #seo #private-proxies #residential-proxies

  • The Case for Stablecoins — 1

    The Case for Stablecoins — 1Cryptocurrency price does not equate to #cryptocurrency’s valueCryptocurrency is still a technical, niche and lousy payment systemBoA BSoD — don’t you feel safe knowing that windows 95 is operating to protect your banking details :)When you spend time using the Internet is it because you care about the following items:Routers/switches/fiber optics/CAT5 — the Internet’s hardware backboneBGP—Border Gateway Protocol, the Internet’s global routing protocolGlobal routing tables—used by ISP’s to route packetsIP addresses — used by the TCP/IP protocol to route traffic on the InternetDNS —the Domain Name System used to map IP addresses to namesAlmost makes me nostalgic for my CCNA days when I was dreaming of becoming a network engineerIf this is you, then you make up less than 1% of my (...)

    #ethereum #blockchain #bitcoin #crypto

  • Who’s Really Behind the World’s Most Popular Free VPNs?

    After big names like Whatsapp, Snapchat, and Facebook, VPNs are the most searched-for applications in the world. “VPN” is the second-highest non-branded search term behind “games”, and free apps completely dominate the search results. The most popular applications have amassed hundreds of millions of installs between them worldwide, yet there seems to be very little attention paid to the companies behind them, and very little scrutiny done on behalf of the marketplaces hosting them.When someone opts to install a #vpn on their device, they are essentially choosing to trust their data with that company instead of their ISP or wireless carrier. The VPN provider can inspect your traffic, modify it, log it, and if their policy permits, send or sell it elsewhere. Given the potential for this data (...)

    #most-popular-vpn #privacy #china #security

  • Swedish ISP punishes #Elsevier for forcing it to block #Sci-Hub by also blocking Elsevier / Boing Boing

    This is the worst possible outcome for Bahnhof. TorrentFreak spoke to CEO Jon Karlung who describes it as a “horrifying” decision that “goes against the soul of the Internet.”

    The result, starting today, is that,,,, and several other domains are being blocked by the ISP. But Bahnhof wouldn’t be Bahnhof if it went down without a fight.

    The company has no faith in an expensive appeal, which another ISP lost last year in a similar blocking case. However, it does have another ace up its sleeve. Now that they are blocking anyway, they can easily an extra domain name to make a point.

    So, in addition, Bahnhof has gone ahead and banned its visitors from accessing the official website as well. Elsevier wanted a site blockade – it now has one.

  • Grindr Is Letting Other Companies See User HIV Status And Location Data

    SINTEF’s analysis also showed that Grindr was sharing its users’ precise GPS position, “tribe” (meaning what gay subculture they identify with), sexuality, relationship status, ethnicity, and phone ID to other third-party advertising companies. And this information, unlike the HIV data, was sometimes shared via “plain text,” which can be easily hacked.

    “It allows anybody who is running the network or who can monitor the network — such as a hacker or a criminal with a little bit of tech knowledge, or your ISP or your government — to see what your location is,” Cooper Quintin, senior staff technologist and security researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told BuzzFeed News.

    “When you combine this with an app like Grindr that is primarily aimed at people who may be at risk — especially depending on the country they live in or depending on how homophobic the local populace is — this is an especially bad practice that can put their user safety at risk,” Quintin added.

    But just because users are comfortable sharing personal information in their profile or chats doesn’t mean they want it being shared more broadly.

    “Some people’s jobs may be in jeopardy if the wrong people find out about their status — or maybe they have difficult family situations,” said Chris Taylor of Seattle, who uses Grindr but no longer displays his HIV positive status on his profile. It’s “disconcerting,” he said, that Grindr is sharing this information with other companies. “It can put people in danger, and it feels like an invasion of privacy.”

    The disclosure of HIV status also raises questions about the app’s privacy policy, which states: “You may also have the option to provide information concerning health characteristics, such as your HIV status or Last Tested Date. Remember that if you choose to include information in your profile, and make your profile public, that information will also become public.”

    But the average person may not know or understand what they’ve agreed to in the fine print. Some experts argue that Grindr should be more specific in its user agreements about how it’s using their data.

    #Grindr #Vie_privée #CGU

  • Facebook Turned Our Economy Into a Spying Operation | Alternet

    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

  • Say hello to security.txt

    Security is a difficult process and organisations don’t always get it right, I think everyone can agree on that. What’s important though is that when things inevitably do go wrong, those who want to contact you and let you know there is a problem can do so quickly and easily. This is what security.txt aims to allow.

    Responsible Disclosure I’ve been doing security research for a few years now and in that time I’ve had to reach out and contact numerous organisations to let them know they have a serious problem. I’ve found issues in ISP issued hardware like the EE BrightBox router (twice), holiday booking websites like Hotel Hippo and even utility providers like Ecotricity. Bad things happen and organisations need to respond quickly to resolve them but one things that’s always slowed (...)

  • Say hello to security.txt

    Security is a difficult process and organisations don’t always get it right, I think everyone can agree on that. What’s important though is that when things inevitably do go wrong, those who want to contact you and let you know there is a problem can do so quickly and easily. This is what security.txt aims to allow.

    Responsible Disclosure I’ve been doing security research for a few years now and in that time I’ve had to reach out and contact numberous organisations to let them know they have a serious problem. I’ve found issues in ISP issued hardware like the EE BrightBox router (twice), holiday booking websites like Hotel Hippo and even utility providers like Ecotricity. Bad things happen and organisations need to respond quickly to resolve them but one things that’s always slowed (...)

  • Here’s a List of the Members of Congress Who Just Told Ajit Pai to Repeal Net Neutrality
    And how much money they’ve taken from the telecom industry.

    Wednesday afternoon, 107 Republican members of Congress sent Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai a letter supporting his plan to repeal net neutrality protections ahead of the commission’s Thursday vote.

    “The record is exhaustive, every viewpoint is well represented, and the time has come for the Commission to act,” the letter says. The current regulations, of course, are widely popular with the American people, and there have been widespread public protests urging the FCC to keep the protections in place.

    The House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Communications and Technology released the letter, and it is signed by 107 lawmakers. Many of their signatures are illegible, and the committee did not release a typed list of the members who signed it. A call to the committee was not immediately returned.

    Motherboard staff has attempted to compile a list of names on the letter. The full letter is embedded below. So far, we have been able to read 84 names; if you can read any that we have missed please tweet at us or email us ( We will be updating this list throughout the night.

    We have also listed the amount of money they have received in donations from the telecom industry since 1989, as compiled by The Center for Responsive Politics and The Verge.

    If net neutrality is an issue that is important to you and the name of your representative is on this list, you may want to consider whether they should continue serving you the next time they are up for reelection.


  • What Will Really Happen if the FCC Abandons Net Neutrality ?

    Article intéressant parce qu’il donne la parole aux opposants à la neutralité. Mais à trop vouloir jouer au centre, on finit par prendre le point de vue des dominants.

    Supporters often link net neutrality to free speech and unfettered, equal access to the internet. They also want stricter rules to curb the conduct of ISPs. “Removal of the net neutrality rules could entirely take down the internet as a free and open source of information,” said Jennifer Golbeck, a professor at the University of Maryland, on the Knowledge@Wharton show on SiriusXM channel 111. “It’s going to be more corporate control over the content we see … potentially not just favoring things that benefit [ISPs] financially but favoring them politically.”

    But critics say that too much regulation dampens innovation and investments in the internet, which has thrived for decades without formal net neutrality rules. For example, net neutrality would tamp down on innovations such as T-Mobile’s “Binge On” service, which lets customers stream video from Netflix, YouTube, Hulu and other sites without counting it against their data buckets, said Christopher Yoo, professor of law, communication and computer and information science at the University of Pennsylvania, on the radio show. Moreover, the order brings back the FTC as the antitrust enforcer of ISP behavior, protecting consumer interests and banning deceptive business practices. (Listen to a podcast of the radio show featuring Yoo and Golbeck using the player above.)

    As providers of information services, ISPs were much more lightly regulated than telecommunications services — such as the old Ma Bell. However, the FCC did adopt policies to preserve free internet access and usage and curb abuses. In 2004, FCC Chairman Michael Powell under President George W. Bush set out four principles of internet freedom: the freedom to access lawful content, use applications, attach personal devices to the network and obtain service plan information.

    In 2010, under Obama’s first FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, the agency’s Open Internet Order adopted anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules after finding out that Comcast throttled BitTorrent, a bandwidth-intensive, peer-to-peer site where users shared files of TV shows, movies or other content. Faulhaber says Comcast made the mistake of “targeting a particular upstream company. That you can’t do. If you want to control traffic, you have to do it in a much less discriminatory way.”

    But the 2010 order, which also required ISPs to disclose their network management practices, performance and commercial terms, was vacated by a federal court in 2014 after Verizon sued the FCC. The court said the FCC did not have the authority to act because ISPs are not regulated like common telephone carriers.

    This ruling led to the 2015 order by Wheeler that reclassified ISPs like landline phone companies, giving the agency the power to regulate many things, including prices set by broadband providers, although this was set aside. The order also specified the no-blocking and no-discrimination of traffic, and banned paid prioritization, which would give faster internet lanes to companies that pay for it. And it crafted internet conduct standards that ISPs must follow. Last year, an appellate court upheld this order.

    The current proposal by Pai rolls back Wheeler’s order, and more. It classifies ISPs back under information services. It allows paid prioritization. It also punts the policing of any ISP blocking and discriminatory behavior to the FTC to be investigated on a case-by-case basis. It dismantles Wheeler’s internet conduct standards because they are “vague and expansive.” But the proposed order does adopt transparency rules, requiring ISPs to disclose information about their practices to the FCC and the public.

    For ISPs, the issue is not so much net neutrality as it is about Title II. “All of the major ISPs like Comcast and AT&T are on the record saying that they support the idea of net neutrality, but they just oppose the legal classification of broadband as a regulated telecommunications service,” Werbach says. “I wouldn’t expect to see any dramatic changes in the companies’ practices near term. They’re going to wait and see how this all plays out, and they’re also not going to do something that will provoke significant backlash and pressure for more regulation.”

    During her radio show appearance, Golbeck noted that the danger of fast lanes is that smaller websites that cannot afford to pay the ISP could be left behind. Research shows that “even delays of less than a second in serving up content [will make people] bail from your site and go someplace else.” Conversely, she said, if ISPs speed up access to popular sites like Amazon and Netflix because they pay, “it inhibits the ability for other new startup sites to compete.”


  • North Korea Gets New Internet Link via Russia

    Being single-homed behind China Unicom gave China control over North Korea’s internet access. This is important as the international community tries to persuade China to use its influence to reign in the nuclear aspirations of North Korea. However, now with an independent connection to Russia via TTK, such leverage is greatly reduced. With alternatives for international transit, the power shifts to North Korea in deciding whether or not to maintain its connectivity to the global internet.

    #BGP #single_point_of_failure #internet #cyberwar

    • Russia Provides New Internet Connection to North Korea

      Until now, Internet users in North Korea and those outside accessing North Korean websites were all funneled along the same route connecting North Korean ISP Star JV and the global Internet: A China Unicom link that has been in operation since 2010.


      From 2012 for about a year, a second link to Star JV existed via Intelsat, an international satellite telecommunications operator, but in recent years the Chinese link has been the sole connection to Star JV.

      Relying on one Internet provider has always left North Korea in a precarious situation.

      More than once the link has been the target of denial of service attacks. Most were claimed by the “Anonymous” hacking collective, but on at least one previous occasion, many wondered if US intelligence services had carried out the action.

  • “Present efforts at reducing latency, nevertheless, fall far short of the lower bound dictated by the speed of light in vacuum. What if the Internet worked at the speed of light? Ignoring the technical challenges and cost of designing for that goal for the moment, let us briefly think about its implications.”

    Summary: the speed of the Internet is still far from the theoretical limits, specially when it comes to #latency.

    The most interesting part of the paper is the measurement of the things that take time when connecting to a Web site: latency often dominates (unlike what the ISP ads “100 Mb/s!!!” say).

  • 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

    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

  • Ethiopia Imposes Nationwide Internet Blackout · Global Voices

    Last year, the government was forced to postpone the national university entrance exam after the initial session was marred by a leak spread on Facebook. Activists in the diaspora leaked questions on Facebook ahead of the exam in early June in 2016 after the government refused to re-schedule the exam for students who missed an entire semester of classes due to protests.

    But the current blackout is different from previous mobile Internet and social media shutdowns that have been imposed in an effort to prevent exam leaking. This blackout is broader in scope and scale, effectively eliminating Ethiopia from the map of the global Internet.

    This is especially easy for the Ethiopian government to do, since all Internet and phone service in the country is provided through through a single government-owned Internet service provider, Ethio Telecom. The blackout thus leaves businesses, banks, Internet cafes in Addis Ababa and social media pages of government media cut off from the rest of the world, making it harder for them to do their day-to-day work.

    #Éthiopie #Internet #examens #censure #autorité

  • Wikipedia blocked in Turkey

    The Turkey Blocks monitoring network has verified restrictions affecting the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia in Turkey. A block affecting all language editions of the website detected at 8:00AM local time Saturday 29 April. The loss of availability is consistent with internet filters used to censor content in the country. Certain subdomains remained partially available on ISP TTNet at the time of writing, while the restriction appears to by fully implemented on Uydunet, Turkcell and other (...)

    #Wikipedia #censure #web #surveillance

  • The Republican Party Is Ready to Sell Off Your Internet Privacy at a Level That Boggles the Mind | Alternet

    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 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.


  • [#book] The Red Web: The Struggle Between Russia’s Digital Dictators and the New Online Revolutionaries
    (Andrei Soldatov, Irina Borogan, 2015)

    On the eighth floor of an ordinary-looking building in an otherwise residential district of southwest Moscow, in a room occupied by the Federal Security Service (FSB), is a box the size of a VHS player marked SORM. The Russian government’s front line in the battle for the future of the Internet, SORM is the world’s most intrusive listening device, monitoring e-mails, Internet usage, Skype, and all social networks.

    But for every hacker subcontracted by the FSB to interfere with Russia’s antagonists abroad—such as those who, in a massive denial-of-service attack, overwhelmed the entire Internet in neighboring Estonia—there is a radical or an opportunist who is using the web to chip away at the power of the state at home.

    Drawing from scores of interviews personally conducted with numerous prominent officials in the Ministry of Communications and web-savvy activists challenging the state, Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan peel back the history of advanced surveillance systems in Russia. From research laboratories in Soviet-era labor camps, to the legalization of government monitoring of all telephone and Internet communications in the 1990s, to the present day, their incisive and alarming investigation into the Kremlin’s massive online-surveillance state exposes just how easily a free global exchange can be coerced into becoming a tool of repression and geopolitical warfare. Dissidents, oligarchs, and some of the world’s most dangerous hackers collide in the uniquely Russian virtual world of The Red Web.

    The Red Web: Russia and the Internet

    The Internet in Russia is a battleground between activists who would use it as a tool of political and cultural freedom and government officials who see it as a powerful instrument of political control, write investigative journalists Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan in their new book The Red Web. For now, the government appears to be winning the battle.

    Soldatov and Borogan trace the underlying conflict back to official anxiety in the Soviet era about the hazards of freedom of information. In the 1950s, the first Soviet photocopy machine was physically destroyed at the direction of the government “because it threatened to spread information beyond the control of those who ruled.”


    In a chapter devoted to the case of Edward Snowden, the authors express disappointment in Snowden’s unwillingness to comment on Russian surveillance or to engage with Russian journalists. “To us, the silence seemed odd and unpleasant.”

    More important, they say that Snowden actually made matters in Russia worse.

    Snowden may not have known or realized it, but his disclosures emboldened those in Russia who wanted more control over the Internet,” they write.

    Because the Snowden disclosures were framed not as a categorical challenge to surveillance, but exclusively as an exposure of U.S. and allied practices, they were exploited by the Russian government to legitimize its own preference for “digital sovereignty.”

    Snowden provided “cover for something the Kremlin wanted all along– to force Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s services, Gmail and YouTube, to be subject to Russian legislation, which meant providing backdoor access to the Russian security services.”


    The Red Web provides a salutary reminder for Western readers that the so-called U.S. “surveillance state” has hardly begun to exercise the possibilities of political control implied in that contemptuous term. For all of its massive collection of private data, the National Security Agency — unlike its Russian counterparts — has not yet interfered in domestic elections, censored private websites, disrupted public gatherings, or gained unrestricted access to domestic communications.

    #Snowden #Edward_Snowden
    #surveillance #NSA #FSB


      The authors also chart the history of #SORM, a system as sinister as its ugly acronym suggests. The Sistema Operativno-Rozysknikh Meropriyatiy, or System of Operative Search Measures, has been giving the FSB, successor to the KGB, a back door to spy on internet communications since 1998. At one point, Soldatov the younger comes eye to eye with a Sorm device. “The heavy metal door was opened, and Andrei quietly stepped inside a small room, packed with equipment on the racks. One of them had a small black box. It was labelled Sorm. It had a few cables and a few lights. Andrei was told that when the small green lamp was illuminated on the box, the FSB guys on the eighth floor have something to do. As he looked down, Andrei saw the small green lamp winking.”

      But Sorm was not born in 1998, the year Mr Putin became head of the FSB: as Soldatov and Borogan establish through interviews with KGB sources and engineers, the ancestors of the black box were in fact Soviet-era phone-tapping systems. To develop them, the KGB enlisted some of its enemies; in a prison lab near Moscow, dissident Lev Kopelev was set to work on speech-recognition techniques.


      And yet, in its efforts to gain the upper hand over the internet, Russia’s security apparatus appears clumsy, with activists outsmarting some of the intrusive surveillance. If the book has one shortcoming, it is that it fails to offer a conclusive explanation for this. The authors state that the regime is helpless in the face of a decentralised network. “Information runs free like water or air on a network, not easily captured,” they say.

  • Internet Backbone Provider Cogent Blocks Pirate Bay and other “Pirate” Sites

    Si c’est la vrai, ça n’est pas rien.

    Several Pirate Bay users from ISPs all over the world have been unable to access their favorite torrent site for more than a week. Their requests are being stopped in the Internet backbone network of Cogent Communications, which has blackholed the CloudFlare IP-address of The Pirate Bay and many other torrent and streaming sites.


    The sites in question all use CloudFlare, which assigned them the public IP-addresses and While this can be reached just fine by most people, users attempting to pass requests through Cogent’s network are unable to access them.

    The issue is not limited to a single ISP and affects a small portion of users all over the world, the United States and Europe included. According to Cogent’s own backbone routing check, it applies to the company’s entire global network.


    For now, however, we can only speculate what the reason or target is. Since so many of the sites involved are accused of facilitating copyright infringement, it seems reasonable to view that as a possible cause. However, this remains unconfirmed for now.

    #Cogent #AS174

  • Who had an e-mail address in Soviet Union ? – Poussières d’empire

    This map was made with data extracted from the Soviet UUCP map, in its summer 1991 version. The Unix-to-Unix Copy Protocol (UUCP) refers to a suite of computer programs and protocols allowing remote execution of commands and and based on mutual cooperation. Reaching a remote computer in UUCP net required to know exactly the path data would follow. For example, reaching a computer located in Moscow from Novosibirsk required to know addresses of the machines the data would go through between these two cities. As the shape of the network was constantly changing, an effort rapidly emerged to build a map of the connections between machines. Each system administrator would submit, by e-mail, a list of the systems to which theirs would connect, along with a ranking for each such connection. These submitted map entries were processed by an automatic program that combined them into a single set of files describing all connections in the network. These files were then published monthly in a newsgroup dedicated to this purpose. The UUCP map files could then be used by software such as « pathalias » to compute the best route path from one machine to another for mail, and to supply this route automatically. The UUCP maps also listed contact information for the sites, and so gave sites seeking to join UUCPNET an easy way to find prospective neighbors.
    In Soviet Union, UUCP map was managed by engineers working at the Kurchatov Institute for nuclear researches. They were closely working with people from Relcom, the first Soviet ISP.

    #ex-urss #internet #soviétisme

  • Doha News statement on the blocking of its website in Qatar

    As many are aware, Doha News became inaccessible to most online users in Qatar as of yesterday, Nov. 30.

    Our URL — — was apparently blocked by both of Qatar’s internet service providers, Ooredoo and Vodafone, simultaneously.

    Since then, the majority of people in the country have been unable to access our website on their desktop computers and mobile devices.


    While we waited for their response, we temporarily diverted readers from to another domain name,
    However, that URL also stopped working in short order.
    Deliberately blocked

    Given this development and the silence from the government and ISP providers, we can only conclude that our website has been deliberately targeted and blocked by Qatar authorities.

    We are incredibly disappointed with this decision, which appears to be an act of censorship.

    We believe strongly in the importance of a free press, and are saddened that Qatar, home of the Doha Center for Media Freedom and Al Jazeera, has decided to take this step.

  • Amazon might become ISP in Europe, but laws make US launch unlikely

    [EN] Amazon hasn’t commented publicly on the topic, which was raised today in a report by The Information (subscription required). The technology news site quotes “a person briefed on the discussion” as saying that Amazon is considering whether to offer Internet service over the networks of existing providers. Since Amazon reportedly doesn’t want to build its own network, it would have to purchase wholesale access, which isn’t available everywhere.

    [FR] Apparemment, Amazon lorgne le marché européen des FAI grand public. Est-ce qu’Orange accepterait de fournir le même type de services que pour, disons, Free ?

  • ISP Orange accidentally DDoSed French government site,, OVH and other domains were accidentally added to the list of banned sites qualified by the Ministry of Interior as promoting Terrorism.
    The result is that anyone visiting sites on these domains were redirected to a page from

    The banned websites were accused of providing instructions for carrying out terror attacks or celebrating acts of terrorism.

    (which isn’t entirely false actually)

    Une erreur bloque l’accès à Google pour les clients d’Orange


  • ISP, DDoS, Net Neutrality

    In a recent survey conducted by Corero, the majority of IT security professionals (53%) believe that ISPs are hiding behind net neutrality laws as a way to dodge their responsibilities when it comes to protecting their customers from DDoS attacks. Defending against these types of attacks is an important area of focus for service providers, given their bandwidth capacity and volume of customers – and the fact that they are uniquely positioned to eliminate bad traffic upstream from appropriate peering points, before it even reaches their customers’ networks, is beginning to create customer demand for them to do more.

    In the same survey, the majority of respondents (59%) worry that their ISP does not provide enough protection against DDoS attacks, and almost a quarter (24%) would go as far as to blame their ISP in the event of a DDoS attack affecting their business. This has potentially serious consequences, because over a fifth of those surveyed (21%) said that they would leave their service provider if they did not offer adequate protection against DDoS attacks.

    Customers have clearly come to expect their telcos to do something about the decaying mélange of internet traffic and increasingly sophisticated attack vectors. They expect to be able to pay for a ‘clean pipe’ of good traffic, where the threats have been proactively removed.

    So why are some ISPs reluctant to deliver this?

    #Net_neutrality #neutralité_du_net