Internet Urgently Needs More Regulations, Speaker Says

Great work walkswithfish. Thank you.

...Now, after that reality check, I'm going to stick my head under the covers.

But no. The net IS big business, true, and most every interest with an agenda wants it controlled (business, government) - but - it's not over til it's over.

I'm thinking the right pressure now will prevent immediate ill-conceived action (more regulations and controls instead of a discrete regulated and controlled network for utilities, children and other neophytes).

The Obama administration has stated its commitment to a free internet, the NSA is working with Google (the primo successful FREE advertising network) - and I think not coincidentally, Google is now building test broadband networks. A separate controlled network might solve the cyber-terrorism, cyber-vandalism and illiterate-net-user problems - without infringing on our Rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the (Internet) Press.

Point being - I think the problem may be solvable WITHOUT us absorbing the cost. ...????? What do you think?

During his visit to China in November, for example, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, he defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governments accountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States belief in that ground truth is what brings me here today.

Remarks on Internet Freedom. Hillary Rodham Clinton

Other sources listed here:
Controlling the Internet

Originally posted by soficrow

A separate controlled network might solve the cyber-terrorism, cyber-vandalism and illiterate-net-user problems - without infringing on our Rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the (Internet) Press.

Point being - I think the problem may be solvable WITHOUT us absorbing the cost. ...????? What do you think?

A separate controlled network?

Not going to happen... The way to the real money is to completely control the internet. Again, if they can control the way advertising pays websites, if they can charge for content such as news, that is a start.

Security etc are simply a distraction from the ultimate agenda. No matter what happens there are always going to be security issues on ANY network.

Those who run free websites will eventually find themselves unable to do so... If corporate entities and governments have their way.

If it is costing you money to offer a free service... how long would you do it?

It is coming... Prepare.... But enjoy what you have while it lasts.

Stopping this is as likely as stopping Iran from going nuclear.





[edit on 12-2-2010 by Walkswithfish]

Here is an interesting news item...

www.washingtonpost.com...

With the iPad structure, Apple is creating absolute control for product, delivery and even ownership that can be revoked at will. Apple allows or rejects the application (the container); it can remove all or part of any content from its servers; and it can even remotely delete the stuff you purchased. Imagine: You go to a bookstore and spend $25 on a book that a court later finds illicit; a bookstore employee then goes to your place, takes the book from the shelf and leaves some money on your kitchen table. Wouldn't you be slightly uncomfortable with this?

Journalism, much more than music or entertainment, requires channels of dissemination that cannot be vulnerable to any kind of leverage. For content to be free (as in free speech, not free beer), platforms and networks must be neutral. Any closed, proprietary system contradicts this imperative.

Control eh?

Everyone should quickly make the switch to new technologies and platforms for accessing the internet.

Come on, make it easy for them.

Originally posted by Walkswithfish

Originally posted by soficrow

A separate controlled network might solve the cyber-terrorism, cyber-vandalism and illiterate-net-user problems - without infringing on our Rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the (Internet) Press.

Point being - I think the problem may be solvable WITHOUT us absorbing the cost. ...????? What do you think?

A separate controlled network?

Not going to happen... The way to the real money is to completely control the internet. Again, if they can control the way advertising pays websites, if they can charge for content such as news, that is a start.

It already IS happening - imo, we just need to make sure we save this one as the FREE NET.

...Like create the new net for utilities, children and the computer illiterate - control and regulate it totally - and leave this one alone.

Security etc are simply a distraction from the ultimate agenda.

Of course - and there are several agendas for controlling the Net, not just the Corporate Right to Profit one.

No matter what happens there are always going to be security issues on ANY network.

True - look what happened to the US Military's network. But all the same, separating the controlled/regulated net from the FREE NET will make it a lot easier to stay on top of - and will help keep the net-paranoids off our backs.

Those who run free websites will eventually find themselves unable to do so... If corporate entities and governments have their way. ...
If it is costing you money to offer a free service... how long would you do it?

Google provides an incredible service - for free to users - supported by advertisers. ...If the FREE NET is separated from a controlled net for utilities, children etc - there is no reason or rationale for controls on the FREE NET. ...and small websites can continue to function, supported by 3rd party advertising.

Stopping this is as likely as stopping Iran from going nuclear.

I don't agree. But well-planned media campaigns have convinced people to demand protection. It will take enough voices from this side to drown out the demands for protection coming from the ignorant frightened sheeple.

...We have to meet and match the anti-free-net media campaigns with our own demands for a FREE NET - without hacking (which will only proves protections are needed).

reply to post by soficrow


The passage of time will reveal the truth, the transition to a controlled internet is underway. Divide and conquer?



By the way, I checked and the eBay data center I visited and is under construction is nearing completion, and so far estimated costs are over $364 Million and growing.... In this economy!

And that new facility is one of SIX other existing data centers owned and operated by eBay.

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
reply to post by soficrow

 

..., the transition to a controlled internet is underway.

Agreed. But it can be blocked, imo, by building a separate controlled and regulated net for utilities, children and others in need of protection.

...And LOUD public support for this solution.

Divide and conquer?

Business as usual.

By the way, I checked and the eBay data center I visited and is under construction is nearing completion, and so far estimated costs are over $364 Million and growing.... In this economy!

And that new facility is one of SIX other existing data centers owned and operated by eBay.

If your point is that the Web is manipulated to develop consumers and used to make money - agreed. It is.

Doesn't mean it can't serve other purposes too.

The WEB is the new press - and our venue for Free Speech. We all need to speak out for Freedom of the Press, and demand our constitutional rights.









[edit on 14-2-2010 by soficrow]

I wonder how many people know that it's Media Corporations who are pushing for Internet controls and regulations - NOT the government?

...The FCC is leaning towards protecting "Net Neutrality" - and unfiltered access to news, information and commerce.

...Media Corporations want the ability to filter and censor as they wish.

...If the Media Corporations win, and get what they want from the FCC - which is the ability to filter and censor as they wish - we will lose the Free Web, and all it represents.

Worse, because the SCOTUS recently acknowledged corporations' Right to Freedom of Speech as "persons" under law for Campaign Finance - this ruling will be used to secure Media Corporations' Rights to Freedom of Speech and of the Press on the Internet.

If Media Corporation secure their Rights to Freedom of Speech and of the Press on the Internet - then ours will be gone. They will have the legal grounds to say that we have no such Rights on their turf - they can tell us to create our own servers and ISPs if we want Freedom of Speech and of the Press on the Internet.



Note: I honestly missed this one - haven't been paying attention, was baffled and confused by all the rhetoric, red herrings and bs flying around. But this, in a nutshell is how it plays:

Human Persons' Rights to Freedom of Speech and of the Press on the Internet

v/s

Corporate Persons' Rights to Freedom of Speech and of the Press on the Internet




.






[edit on 16-2-2010 by soficrow]

Arguably, Internet services fall under the purview of the FCC. For example, the FCC defines telephone service as a "universal service," NOT a "commercial service."

FCC rules are up for change, to accommodate "new technology," something that's been put off for decades.

The FCC COULD define broadband as a "universal service" - like telephones - and protect broadband networks for the public - all it would take would be strong network neutrality rules that prohibit content blocking and discrimination online.

It's been argued that:

"a broadband plan without open Internet protections is like the constitution without the bill of rights - it's insufficient. "


Our tax dollars helped build the physical framework for the Internet. But now, media corporations are claiming they own it outright, and have the right to censor information on the Net.

I do NOT agree.

- sofi

reply to post by soficrow

Originally posted by soficrow
I wonder how many people know that it's Media Corporations who are pushing for Internet controls and regulations - NOT the government?

...

...Media Corporations want the ability to filter and censor as they wish.

I don't think that is what they 'want', although despite what I say, that will be the practical effect of their ends.

What they want is the ability to CHARGE YOU a hefty premium for your 'free speech'.

It's depressing as hell.

One day, I fully expect the Internet to become the toy of only those with means. In some respects, it started out that way.

Let there be no doubt, the golden age of information access is likely to become a thing of the past.

Nice topic, sofi. Excellent as usual.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by soficrow

 

Originally posted by soficrow
I wonder how many people know that it's Media Corporations who are pushing for Internet controls and regulations - NOT the government?

...

...Media Corporations want the ability to filter and censor as they wish.

I don't think that is what they 'want', although despite what I say, that will be the practical effect of their ends.

What they want is the ability to CHARGE YOU a hefty premium for your 'free speech'.

But their filtering and censoring requires legal grounds. IF the corporations win, and the FCC defines the Internet as a "commercial service," then the grounds are:

1. Filtering to save bandwidth, cut costs - and maximize profits as required by law;
2. Censoring for "personal" reasons, and to serve their "personal" agendas - Rights established for "persons" as Rights to Freedom of Speech and of the Press.

NOTE: We'll NEVER hear about ANYTHING that might hurt someone's bottom line - like dangerous drugs, disease-causing pollution or contaminations, you name it. ...and yes, every available 'service' will have a surcharge attached.


HOWEVER, IF the Internet is defined as a "universal service" like telephones, then there are no legitimate grounds for filtering and censoring - except red herring issues like "national security" and "public safety" (hence all the fear-mongering that's going on).

It's depressing as hell.

One day, I fully expect the Internet to become the toy of only those with means. In some respects, it started out that way.

Let there be no doubt, the golden age of information access is likely to become a thing of the past.

ONLY IF there is no public outcry in support of the Free Web.

ONLY IF the FCC defines the Internet as a "commercial service" instead of a "universal service."

Nice topic, sofi. Excellent as usual.

Thanks loam. But I really do need some help here. I'm trying to wrap my head around this issue, situation - and sort through all the red herrings, smoke and mirrors and fear-mongering. It's way too hard to do alone. Need help!



...and oh yeah, I want to do a video on this - been slashing and burning and cutting and deleting, rewriting, reworking - want to get it right.





[edit on 17-2-2010 by soficrow]

"National security" is a big reason given for regulating and controlling the Internet. The story is that hackers can bugger our telephone networks, banking transactions and even our power grid - never mind the whole internet.

Seems though, that what hackers are doing is "jamming" and "spoofing" the GPS signals that all this stuff depends on - the satellite navigational systems. The "hacking" has nothing to do with computers or viruses; it's mechanical...

Sat-nav systems under increasing threat from 'jammers'

Technology that depends on satellite-navigation signals is increasingly threatened by attack from widely available equipment, experts say.

While "jamming" sat-nav equipment with noise signals is on the rise, more sophisticated methods allow hackers to program what receivers display.

At risk are not only sat-nav users, but also critical national infrastructure.

A UK meeting outlining the risks was held at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington on Tuesday.

"GPS gives us transportation, distribution industry, 'just-in-time' manufacturing, emergency services operations - even mining, road building and farming, all these and a zillion more," David Last, a consultant engineer and former president of the Royal Institute of Navigation, told the conference.

"But what few people outside this community recognise is the high-precision timing that GPS provides to keep our telephone networks, the internet, banking transactions and even our power grid online."

......Each satellite in a sat-nav constellation is putting out less power than a car headlight, ...
What that means, ...is that the signals can be easily swamped by equipment back on Earth.

This can be done unintentionally by, for example, pirate television stations, or with a purpose in mind.

Military systems have been doing this "jamming" - flooding an area with a signal at the GPS frequency - for years in a bid to frustrate enemy navigation systems.

But small jamming devices are increasingly available on the internet.

…What is more, receivers can be "spoofed" - not simply blinded by a strong, noisy signal, but fooled into thinking their location or the time is different because of fraudulent broadcast GPS signals.

"You can now buy a low-cost simulator and link it to Google Earth, put on a route and it will simulate that route to the timing that you specify," said Professor Last.

…the tools could be in the hands of criminals within a year or two.

One obvious reason to do the jamming or spoofing is that high-value cargo is tracked with GPS, as are armoured cars and many rental cars, so that confusing the tracking signal could spell a successful heist.

Sat-nav-based pricing for toll roads and road usage charges could be spoofed, and a company's employees may even use the devices to block the tracking devices imposed on company cars.

But jamming and spoofing, Professor Last said, were irresistible to the hacker type who did it for fun.

Kinda makes you wonder what really happened on 9/11.

I think the reference above is really important. Here are the main points:


1. GPS systems are being hacked with signalling hardware that has nothing to do with the Internet - the hacks are called "jamming" and "spoofing."

2. GPS hacks are threatening navigation, and also critical national infrastructures.

3. Despite the fact that GPS hacks are not "computer hacking" per se, and do not rely on the Internet, the threats from GPS hacks to navigation and critical national infrastructures are being twisted and misrepresented as a reason to regulate and control the Internet.

4. Regulating and controlling the Internet will NOT safeguard critical infrastructure and navigation from GPS hacks.

"GPS gives us transportation, distribution industry, 'just-in-time' manufacturing, emergency services operations - even mining, road building and farming, all these and a zillion more," David Last, a consultant engineer and former president of the Royal Institute of Navigation, told the conference.

"...GPS (also keeps) our telephone networks, the internet, banking transactions and even our power grid online."

Sat-nav systems under growing threat from 'jammers'

***

Critical infrastructure under cyber attack

Switzerland: McAfee's latest report has revealed the staggering cost and impact of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure such as electrical grids, oil and gas production, telecommunications and transportation networks. A survey of 600 IT security executives from critical infrastructure enterprises worldwide showed that more than half (54 percent) have already suffered large scale attacks or stealthy infiltrations from organized crime gangs, terrorists or nation-states. The average estimated cost of downtime associated with a major incident is $6.3 million per day.

The report "In the Crossfire: Critical Infrastructure in the Age of Cyberwar", commissioned by McAfee and authored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), also found that the risk of cyberattack is rising. Despite a growing body of legislation and regulation, more than a third of IT executives (37 percent) said the vulnerability of their sector had increased over the past 12 months and two-fifths expect a major security incident in their sector within the next year. Only 20 percent think their sector is safe from serious cyberattack over the next five years.

Many of the world's critical infrastructures were built for reliability and availability, not for security. Traditionally, these organizations have had little to no cyber protection, and have relied on guards, gates and guns. Today however, computer networks are interconnected with corporate IT networks and other infrastructure networks, which are accessible from anywhere in the world.