🌎 Discussion: Online Piracy, AI, Net Neutrality, Killswitch, and Other Internet Issues II

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Apple Rejected Justice Department Demands for iMessages

The fight between law enforcement and tech companies about encryption and privacy is getting nastier than ever.

According to a report from the New York Times, the Justice Department obtained a court order for real-time messages between suspects using iPhones to communicate, but Apple didn’t comply.

The Times reported on the “standoff” between Apple and the DOJ over encrypted iMessages:

Government officials had warned for months that this type of standoff was inevitable as technology companies like Apple and Google embraced tougher encryption. The case, coming after several others in which similar requests were rebuffed, prompted some senior Justice Department and F.B.I. officials to advocate taking Apple to court, several current and former law enforcement officials said.​

The fight between Apple and the DOJ hasn’t come to a lawsuit yet, but tensions have been high for a while. In the past, the DOJ has tried to use the All Writs Act, an antiquated law from the 18th century to force Apple and other companies to comply with requests for users’ data.

In some cases, Apple can’t comply even if it hires a team of law enforcement superfans: Encryption on phones and tablets running Apple’s newer (iOS 8) software means that the company can’t access password-protected data, whether or not there’s a search warrant. In the case this summer, the Times reports that Apple did eventually turn over certain stored iMessages it was able to access through the cloud, but it wasn’t the real-time snooping the government wanted.

This is another chapter in an unfolding and likely long-term fight, and Apple’s not the only tech company at odds with the government and law enforcement over who gets to see data. Microsoft is currently in a similar legal battle with the DOJ.

http://gizmodo.com/report-apple-rejected-justice-department-demands-for-e-1729211290

Scary stuff

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Why Winning the Dancing Baby Lawsuit Is a Big Deal For the Internet

In 2007, a home video of a baby dancing to Prince’s 1984 masterpiece Let’s Go Crazy was uploaded onto YouTube. Eight years and a few dozen lawyers later, a federal appeals court has ruled that uploading the video was an OK thing to do — a judgement that is of surprising importance to the rest of the internet.

A few months after Stephanie Lenz, the mother who filmed the video, uploaded it to YouTube, Universal Music Group cried copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Universal sent YouTube a takedown motion, causing the video to be pulled.

[YT]N1KfJHFWlhQ[/YT]

A few weeks later, Lenz sent YouTube a counter-motion, arguing the video was ‘fair use’, and therefore allowed under copyright law. More to the point, she sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA — a case that has been bouncing around until today, when a federal appeals court in San Francisco sided with the dancing baby.

As well as being an excellent standalone piece of news (how often do you get to write that three federal judges sided with a baby dancing to Prince?), the ruling has serious implications for how intellectual property is handled on the internet.

The key part of Lenz’s legal case revolved around Universal’s blanket issuance of a DMCA notice, without first even considering if Lenz’s use constituted fair use — something that’s required under the DMCA.

Currently, big rights-holders like Universal and the RIAA use algorithms to generate DMCA takedowns — basically, they have computers trawling YouTube and Google, looking for video clips that violate their intellectual property, and send DMCA notices to whoever’s hosting the video.

But in doing so, they aren’t first considering if use of the material constitutes ‘fair use’, like a parody (or a baby dancing to said work).

Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have long pointed out that companies abuse the DMCA, by sending out (absurd) takedown notices without evaluating each case, and just hoping that the host will be intimidated into taking down the offending clip.

According to the precedent set in Lenz’s case, rights-holders will have to evaluate each situation on a case-by-case basis, to see if it constitutes fair use. That means no more giant automated take-downs, which is a big win for an uncensored internet. And all because of one dancing baby.

http://gizmodo.com/why-winning-the-dancing-baby-lawsuit-is-a-big-deal-for-1730683152

This is huge news! I've seen many friends battle on various platforms trying to keep their remixes available on the net and hopefully this precedent will make things a bit easier for all of us now

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Internet Inventor Vint Cerf Thinks the FCC's Proposed Wi-Fi Rules Are Crap

The FCC’s latest controversy is over a proposed set of changes to the rules surrounding Wi-Fi routers, in theory to make them more secure, and less easy to abuse. But a group of big-name internet experts would beg to differ.

The FCC’s regulations are mostly designed to make sure that any radio-emitting device—including the Wi-Fi routers lingering under everyone’s desk—only broadcast on the frequencies that they’re supposed to. The rule change was sparked by a complaint from airports, who found modified equipment was tampering with weather radar at aiports.

In order to prevent those kinds of modifications., the FCC’s proposals would limit the extent to which users can mess with the software on their routers, including preventing loading popular third-party firmwares like DD-WRT. Naturally, privacy-minded home tinkerers around the world freaked out.

Now, the new rules are being opposed by a panel of 260 industry experts, including internet co-inventor and all-around cool guy Vint Cerf—but for a very different reason.

In an open letter filed with the FCC today, the group has put forwards an alternative framework for how routers would be regulated, with a focus on security and openness. Their rules would require router manufacturers to post source code online, update it against security flaws frequently, and face tough FCC sanctions if they failed to comply.

Those rules would go a long way towards locking down Wi-Fi routers—which, as it currently stands, are frighteningly insecure. All your internet traffic flows through them, but the default passwords tend to be nothing more than ‘admin’, and you probably last updated yours using Windows XP.

http://gizmodo.com/internet-inventor-vint-cerf-thinks-the-fccs-proposed-in-1736646900

It's amazing how many people don't know how to secure their routers

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The Government's New Cybersecurity Bill Is Dangerous

The Senate just passed a cybersecurity bill that won’t do crap to prevent hacks. What it will do is help the government spy on its citizens.

The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) passed Senate today with a vote of 74-21. All five amendments proposed to water down the bill’s broad language and spying permissions failed, and the Senate passed a motion to prevent filibusters.

If CISA sounds familiar, it should: Like a horny zombie looking to skullf*** the nation’s privacy, it’s similar CISPA, an older cybersecurity bill that would let private companies turn over any of your personal data to the government as long as the information fell under a broad definition of relevance.

This is why you should care about it.

What CISA Would Do

CISA is designed to make it easier for companies like Google or Facebook to share information about possible cyberattacks with the government. And by information I mean user data. If two ISIS bros are obviously plotting 9/11 pt. 2 via Twitter DM, CISA is theoretically supposed to make it easier to get that information to the right people. The problem isn’t the general idea, but the execution.

CISA has no safeguards to prevent companies from sharing irrelevant personal information, just vague wording about the need for a “cyber threat indicator” to pass data along.

Companies won’t need to redact any personal signifying information unless they have proven it is NOT related to the “threat,” which means it’ll be way easier to err on the side of not redacting anything—especially since those companies aren’t liable for the data, so there isn’t any incentive not to give it up.

“The sponsors set up a test that virtually guarantees there won’t be any serious effort to weed out unrelated information,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) told me. Wyden is a vocal opponent of CISA, and he’s not done fighting it, despite today’s vote. Wyden spearheaded the campaign against SOPA and PIPA, and he’s hoping for a similar rallying moment online.

“A Direct Pipeline to the NSA”

If CISA becomes law, the Department of Homeland Security will share the data it funnels from tech companies immediately with the National Security Agency, which has a track record of making the broadest possible interpretations of what data should get collected. Wyden calls this a “direct pipeline to the NSA.”

The DHS will also immediately share all the data with the Department of Defense, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, so any information companies pass along will be fair game to get pored over by multiple government agencies.

High-profile hacks like the OPM breach have Congress scared, and eager to pass any bill with “cybersecurity” in the title. But creating a centralized portal for the information of millions of people is a dangerous game.

“I think that handing over this personal information is something that foreign hackers are going to pay attention to,” Wyden said.

Not a Cybersecurity Solution

CISA gives tech companies free reign to pass data along, but most major tech companies hate this bill because they have the foresight to realize it’s a privacy craphow. “We don’t support the current CISA proposal,” Apple said in a statement last week. “The trust of our customers means everything to us and we don’t believe security should come at the expense of their privacy.”

It’s not just tech companies that hate the bill. Privacy activists are very pissed about it. Here are some reactions from prominent groups:

“This vote will go down in history as the moment that lawmakers decided not only what sort of Internet our children and our children’s children will have, but what sort of world they will live in. Every Senator who voted for CISA has voted for a world without freedom of expression, a world without true democracy, a world without basic human rights.” - Fight the Future​

“This bill will make our digital lives both less secure and less private. It will funnel an enormous amount of sensitive information into government hands, where it can be used in cases that have nothing to do with cybersecurity. The government will be able to use this private data for programs that look exactly like the mass NSA surveillance revealed over the past several years. We thank those senators who sought to improve the bill, and especially those who opposed it outright, but this is a bad day for civil liberties.” - Gabe Rottman, legislative counsel in the ACLU Washington Legislative Office​

“The Senate voted for a bill that could allow companies to transfer vast amounts of private citizens’ personal data to government databases. That’s a cybersecurity problem, not a cybersecurity solution. This bill places our privacy at needless risk while ignoring the basic security measures technologists have long advocated, such as strong encryption. When will Congress get serious about protecting our privacy and security?” Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice​

Can We Stop It?

I’ve written about CISA before, and what I said then bears repeating. Public outcry helped get rid of CISPA twice, and even though batting down these careless bills can feel like a state-sponsored nightmare version of Whack-A-Mole, the other option is just accepting them.

The only way to prevent one from eventually passing is to keep caring and letting Congress know these bills are unacceptable each time one is introduced.

http://gizmodo.com/the-governments-new-cybersecurity-bill-will-make-us-les-1739058955

I swear these old idiots will never learn. This is a horrible idea. Click the hyperlink above to sign the petition to stop this damn thing

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Why You Should Care About the Coming Email Privacy Law

You probably think the US government needs a warrant if they want to dig through your old emails, texts, and instant messages, right? Well, you’re wrong! That may change soon with the Email Privacy Act, which is set to go up for a vote in the House tomorrow with overwhelming support blowing at its back.

The law that currently governs how police can pry into your digital life is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was originally passed in 1986. The ancient rule allows law enforcement to search through emails, instant messages, photos, etc that are stored in the cloud once they are 180 days old. If you think that seems arbitrary and weird, that’s because it is. Why 180? Why at all? Because in 1986, nobody could conceive the possibility of storing data that long.

A lot of major companies like Apple and Google “require” the police and other government officials to present a warrant before they turn over data—it’s an informal arrangement that law enforcement generously abides by since congress has waited 30 years to update the rules.

Still, it’s better to have a law on the books than to rely on the goodwill of technology companies and law enforcement. The Email Privacy Act is just this law we’ve been waiting for. It protects you from both of them.

The bill goes up for a vote in the House tomorrow, and has been cosigned by 314 House members, so it’s very likely to pass. It’s worth noting that though the bill still needs to pass the Senate before President Obama can sign it into law, there isn’t any opposition. In fact, James Comey, the Director of the FBI, has publicly supported law enforcement needing a warrant to search digital content.

So what exactly will the Email Privacy Act do for you? If you’ve ever used the internet to store any private conversations, information, or photos—if you’re reading this, I bet you have—this bill will protect your data from unlawful searches, and make law enforcement get a warrant signed by a judge if they want to rifle through the archive of your digital life. In other words, email servers containing your data would be subject to the same warrant standards as your backpack or your house.

The law won’t stop secretive intelligence agencies like the NSA from sweeping up data about your data without a warrant, but it’s a start.

Enjoy Congress acting in your digital best interest while it lasts. Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Burr, who head up the Senate Intelligence Committee, are cooking up a very bad bill that will give federal judges the power to fine tech companies that won’t decrypt data at the government’s behest. The bill hasn’t been formally introduced, but you better believe it’s coming. Indeed, the Email Privacy Act is a major step in the right direction, but making sure the anti-encryption bill doesn’t pass is the only way your privacy will really be secure.

http://gizmodo.com/why-you-should-care-about-the-coming-email-privacy-law-1773167538

I had no idea this was the way it is with the 180 days BS. Glad to see our elected officials doing something worthwhile for a change.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The Supreme Court Just Gave FBI the Power to Hack Innocent People

A proposed change to the ‘Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure’ issued yesterday by the United States Supreme Court will allow federal judges to allow the FBI to hack multiple computers at once, including machines of people who haven’t been suspected of a crime. It can even hack people the FBI knows to be innocent.

Under the old rules, the FBI had to know the location of the computer they were trying to hack, and thus had to get a warrant from a judge in that jurisdiction in order to deploy what’s ambiguously termed a ‘Network Investigative Tool’ (NIT) or hacking tool. Now, under the new rule issued by the highest court in the land, the FBI can go to a federal judge to hack computers they don’t even know the location of.

“So let’s say [the FBI] is trying to track a botnet or whatever, some type of cybercrime. [The FBI] can get a search warrant to go after let’s say 10 or 20, or 50 computers,” Neema Singh Guliani, ACLU Legislative Counsel told Gizmodo. “This new rule allows one judge to say ‘yeah, here’s a search warrant, go after those 50 computers and those computers can belong to victims [of cybercrime].’”

The new rule would allow the FBI to infect innocent people computer with malware in order to investigate cybercrime—even if their only connection to the crime is that they’re the victims. What could go wrong? Even better, there’s a legitimate fear that the judges who end up authorizing these hacking warrants don’t even fully grasp what they’re authorizing.

“I think a significant concern is within that rule there is no requirement that the FBI disclose to a judge exactly what hacking technique they’re using, what the unintended consequences are what the implications are,” Guliani said. “So you may have a situation where a judge is authorizing something without fully understanding what the questions are. And this has come up in other technologies like stingrays where judges say ‘well, I didn’t really know what I was authorizing.’”

This rule has six months to be changed or outright banned by Congress before it automatically goes into law. Senator Ron Wyden is already trying to ring alarm bells about these new powers, saying “These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans’ privacy and the scope of the government’s powers to conduct remote surveillance and searches of electronic devices.”

The FBI, of course, has failed to even pretend to be transparent about how it’s using our tax dollars to hack people. We know virtually nothing about what the current hacking procedures are, what protections exist, how often it’s hacking people, and what tools it’s using. “You can pretty much name the question and we probably don’t have an answer,” Guliani said.

“Criminals now have ready access to sophisticated anonymizing technologies to conceal their identity while they engage in crime over the Internet, and the use of remote searches is often the only mechanism available to law enforcement to identify and apprehend them,” Department of Justice Spokesperson Peter Carr told Gizmodo. “This amendment ensures that courts can be asked to review warrant applications in situations where is it currently unclear what judge has that authority. The amendment makes explicit that it does not change the traditional rules governing probable cause and notice. The amendment would not authorize the government to undertake any search or seizure or use any remote search technique not already permitted under current law. Rather, the amendment would merely ensure that some court is available to consider whether a particular warrant application comports with the Fourth Amendment. This rule change would not grant any additional authority to conduct searches outside the U.S.”

There’s another problem with mass FBI hacking. It’s unclear that evidence gathered via malware laden hacking tools will actually end up being admissible in court. In addition, these warrants are sketchy when it comes to fulfilling some basic requirements of the fourth amendment, which bans unreasonable search and seizure.

The FBI learned this the hard way recently when evidence from a massive child porn operation was suppressed in court because the FBI didn’t have the legal authority to hack thousands of computer’s it didn’t know the location of.

“What we’ve seen with the NITs in the Tor hidden services cases is that the government has gotten a single warrant authorizing it to use an exploit and install a NIT on thousands of unknown individuals’ computers,” Andrew Crocker, Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Gizmodo. “That warrant doesn’t (and in fact can’t) satisfy the particularity requirement in the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment, meaning that the evidence derived from the NIT should be suppressed.”

This is yet another confusing and secretive way the FBI is going about solving crimes in the digital age, and it’s only going to get worse.

http://gizmodo.com/the-supreme-court-just-gave-fbi-the-power-to-hack-innoc-1773753539

Well that sucks.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The Next Battle for Net Neutrality Is Getting Bloody

Net neutrality is a slippery subject. Months after the government appeared to get greedy telecom companies in check, carriers have come up with another clever trick to make more money and jeopardize the open internet. The latest trick is something called zero-rating, and your mobile carrier probably already uses—or abuses—this net neutrality loophole.

This week, 58 tech companies, including Reddit, Yelp, and Kickstarter, asked the FCC in a letter to lead a transparent discussion about zero-rating practices. Basically, they want the same open discussion that spurred 4 million people to send comments to the FCC because they believe zero-rating policy could have a dramatic effect on the health of net neutrality in the US.

The FCC is reportedly scrutinizing zero-rating practices, but the agency is doing so behind closed doors. Companies that depend on an open and unbiased internet are very concerned about this. The letter notes:

Making decisions on these cases would set precedents for future practices, and would have implications for the Internet ecosystem that reach far beyond the stakeholders directly affected by these individual plans.

These decisions are too important to happen behind closed doors.​

If you’re not familiar with zero-rating, the term refers to carriers exempting certain services, like Spotify and Netflix, from a customer’s data plan—meaning unlimited binging with no data cap worries. Net neutrality advocates are quick to point out how this is not unlike giving certain types of data priority over others, like a toll road rather than a fast lane.

Well known examples of zero-rating include the Music Freedom and BingeOn programs offered by T-Mobile. Obviously, T-Mobile sees the plan as pro-consumer. The company says that any music or video service can sign up (if they meet the tech requirements) and that the services are completely optional for users. Meanwhile, digital rights activists like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) take issue with zero-rating practices on the grounds that they violate the principles of net neutrality. The EFF even got into a public Twitter spat with T-Mobile CEO John Legere in January. A separate Stanford study sides with EFF on the matter.

“Widely embraced, zero-rating threatens to rewrite the rules upon which the internet was built,” EFF legal director Corynne McSherry told Gizmodo. “Zero-rating helps transform the internet from a permission-less environment... into one in which developers effectively need to seek approval from ISPs before deploying their latest groundbreaking technology.”

But new and arguably more nefarious examples have sprung up since T-Mobile’s arguably well-intentioned net neutrality infraction. Ars Technica reported last November that Comcast’s own streaming service doesn’t count against customers data caps—but Netflix sure does! Verizon does something similar with its own go90 video platform, and just last week, Sprint said it would also be zero-rating traffic, meaning all four major carriers in the US practice some form of data cap manipulation. Companies like Verizon and AT&T also charge web services if they wish to have a zero-rating on their network, creating an obvious unfair competitive landscape, whereas T-Mobile’s zero-rating service is free to join.

It’s not just mobile either. With the growing stable of ISPs putting data caps on broadband internet, like Comcast but also smaller ISPs, zero-rating may not only affect your smartphone but also your home internet as well. So you can see how this could easily balloon into a much bigger problem if left unaddressed.

Back in 2015, the FCC didn’t put forth a definitive bright-line rule because there simply weren’t enough examples to create one. The FCC did say that it would examine zero-rating issues on a case-by-case basis.

During an FCC press conference on Wednesday, Chairman Tom Wheeler said that he’s seen the companies’ zero-rating letter, but that the commission is currently waiting to hear the DC circuit’s decision on the open internet rules which has been languishing in courts for months. When asked if a ruling would affect judgement on zero-rating issues, Wheeler said he wouldn’t comment on anything hypothetical.

But advocates and affected companies are transparent about what they want. “I’d love to see them seek input from a variety of sources,” said McSherry. “They need to bring in the nerds to really understand the potential impact of these programs.”

The FCC has been kicking ass on the internet policies recently with strong open internet rules, subsidizing broadband internet for low-income housing, and calling BS on terrible cable boxes. We can only hope the trend continues.

http://gizmodo.com/the-next-battle-for-net-neutrality-is-getting-bloody-1778648849

The fight rages on.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

AT&T Exploits Massive Loophole to Deny Budget Internet to Some Low-Income Customers

When AT&T merged with DirecTV, the Federal Communications Commission mandated the company give anyone on food stamps internet service for a monthly fee of $10 or less. The program, which launched in April, is called “Access From AT&T” and requires the company to charge SNAP recipients $10 (plus tax) if the download speed “technically available” in their area is 5 or 10 Mbps. Poor folks in areas where the download speed “technically available” is 3 Mbps pay $5 (plus tax).

But as the National Digital Inclusion Alliance attempted to help people apply for this discount, the organization discovered that many were told “the program was unavailable at their addresses” even if AT&T internet service was available in their neighborhood.

The NDIA figured out that AT&T was able to deny SNAP beneficiaries discounted internet service in areas where the fastest speed available was less than 3 Mbps. And while you might think such slow internet is a rarity in rural areas, it actually accounts for around 21% of blocks in Cleveland and Detroit. The blocks with internet service below 3 Mbps constitute some of the cities’ poorest areas.

When the NDIA reached out to AT&T to propose a change in the program that would give low-income people in those areas the same discounts, the company told them “AT&T is not prepared to expand the low income offer to additional speed tiers beyond those established as a condition of the merger approval.”

So if you’re not rich enough to live in area that has internet speed 3 Mbps or higher “technically available,” then you won’t qualify for the discount program put in place to help you.

Update, 11:04 EDT: An AT&T spokesperson told Gizmodo:

The vast majority of the locations where we offer internet service are able to subscribe to internet speed tiers at 3Mbps or higher.

Our low-cost internet service speed tiers for qualifying households participating in SNAP – 10Mbps, 5Mbps or 3Mbps – were determined by the FCC as part of its Order approving the DTV merger.

http://gizmodo.com/at-t-exploits-massive-loophole-to-deny-budget-internet-1786295847

F*** these people so much. That is absolute BS.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Google Fiber No Longer Coming to a City Near You

Google announced Tuesday that it is “pausing” its Fiber operations in ten cities. Google Fiber will remain in cities that Google has already laid the infrastructure for, but Alphabet is putting a halt on future development. Google will also be laying off 9% of its Fiber team, according to Ars Technica. The CEO of Google Access, Craig Barratt, is also stepping down.

What is Google Fiber, you ask? Surprisingly enough, it is not the tech giant’s answer to Soylent—although a high tech breakfast cereal designed to get your intestines going should be called Google Fiber. It is high-speed fiber optic internet, which is something the country desperately needs. Google is putting a halt on operations in the following cities, meaning these are where the layoffs will be happening:

Chicago, Illinois

Dallas, Texas

Jacksonville, Florida

Los Angeles, California

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Phoenix, Arizona

Portland, Oregon

San Diego, California

San Jose, California

Tampa, Florida

Here’s what Barratt wrote about the changes:

These changes to our business and technology will have some immediate implications. Some of our efforts will remain unchanged, but others will be impacted. In terms of our existing footprint, in the cities where we’ve launched or are under construction, our work will continue. For most of our ‘potential Fiber cities’—those where we’ve been in exploratory discussions—we’re going to pause our operations and offices while we refine our approaches...

In this handful of cities that are still in an exploratory stage, and in certain related areas of our supporting operations, we’ll be reducing our employee base.

In August, Alphabet CEO Larry Page recommended Craig Barratt cut his staff in half, coming on the heels of a report that the company is shifting its focus to wireless technology. Seems like Google Fiber may hold the same fate as Verizon FiOS (bad).

http://gizmodo.com/google-fiber-halts-operations-in-ten-cities-1788214992

Well, that really sucks. Now the cable companies are not going to have any reason to upgrade the crappy infrastructure we have in place now.

 

[summerteeth]

Apple Rejected Justice Department Demands for iMessages

http://gizmodo.com/report-apple-rejected-justice-department-demands-for-e-1729211290

Scary stuff

I think it's scary that the government can't access it even with a search warrant. If there is cause there should be a way to access information that may be pertinent to a crime.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I think it's scary that the government can't access it even with a search warrant. If there is cause there should be a way to access information that may be pertinent to a crime.

If they have a warrant there is no problem and they would comply on an individual case by case basis. Just giving them the keys to the kingdom and trusting they'll only use it legally is not the way to go because the government doesn't exactly have a good track record with that sort of thing.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The FCC Just Passed a New Rule To Protect Your Privacy From Internet Providers

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just voted 3-2 to stop internet service providers from sharing your personal data with third parties, like location data or browsing history, without your explicit consent.

ISP’s have been looking to capitalize on (sell) the wealth of data generated by its users for some time now, and this move might have just thrown cold water on those ambitions. As Politico very smartly points out, this is a kick in the shin for AT&T on its quest to become an advertising giant with its planned $86 Billion acquisition of Time Warner. These new rules will make it harder for these ISPs to sweep up your personal and intimate data so that they can sell it to advertisers or other third parties.

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler—a guy who actually gives a **** about your online privacy and how these massive multi-billion dollar telecoms treat its customers—touted the win. “It’s the consumers’ information,” Wheeler told the Washington Post. “How it is used should be the consumers’ choice. Not the choice of some corporate algorithm.”

Of course, the telecoms have whined at every step of the process, but today the government did something that benefits you. The FCC is protecting your privacy from the profit-crazed telecoms.

“There is a basic truth: it is the consumer’s information,” Wheeler told Politico. “It is not the information of the network the consumer hires to deliver that information. What this item does is to say that the consumer has the right to make a decision about how her or his information is used. “

Remember: there is literally zero benefit for you as a customer and user give up your personal information so that rich guys at tech companies or telecoms can sell it. With that in mind, you (and the government) should do everything in your power to restrict these companies’ stranglehold on your data. There’s nothing in it for you but there is tons of money, for these companies that hate its customers, using you as the product.

http://gizmodo.com/the-fcc-just-passed-a-new-rule-to-protect-your-privacy-1788293139

Chalk up a win for us little guys.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Remaining FCC Commissioners Promise to Gut Net Neutrality 'As Soon As Possible'

The FCC’s net neutrality rules are returning to the crosshairs of Republicans. Two of the remaining FCC commissioners, both members of the GOP, have promised internet service providers (ISPs) lobbying groups they will begin gutting net neutrality rules “as soon as possible.”

FCC chairmen Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly sent a joint letter to the telecom industry’s five largest lobbying groups this week promising to reverse legislation meant to protect consumers from internet speed throttling:

As you know, we dissented from the Commission’s February 2015 Net Neutrality decision, including the Order’s imposition of unnecessary and unjustified burdens on providers ... we will seek to revisit those particular requirements, and the Title II Net Neutrality proceeding more broadly, as soon as possible.​

The letter essentially serves as a warning to net neutrality supporters. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, a Democrat, is set to leave office when Donald Trump takes office on January 20. Wheeler’s departure will significantly expose the net neutrality rules passed last year with only Democratic votes.

Pai and O’Reilly will have 2-1 Republican majority after Wheeler’s departure. Donald Trump will then nominate two new members to the FCC after taking the presidency, and his nominations will be confirmed by the Senate. The process typically takes several months to complete, which means Pai and O’Reilly will have months to oversee federal rule-making.

Of course, rolling back net neutrality rules isn’t going to be easy for the remaining Republican commissioners. It’s expected to be a long and drawn out process that will likely face bureaucratic obstacles every step of the way, including a commenting period during which the media and US citizens can voice their opinion to the FCC. During one of the last commenting periods, the FCC’s website was crippled by the influx of responses, forcing the commission to extend the deadline.

In their letter to telecoms, Pai and O’Rielly focused much of their attention on shielding small businesses from parts of the net neutrality rules that require ISPs to report network performance metrics (like speed, delays, and dropped requests). Their comments were a direct response to a letter sent to the FCC from the five major telecom lobbying groups who argued that reporting network performance requires expensive equipment and hurts business.

The biggest change promised by the FCC commissioners, however, is the repeal of the Title II net neutrality order that prohibits ISPs from blocking or throttling web traffic. The Title II order is by far the most controversial part of the net neutrality rules and ensures that ISPs can’t charge people more money for visiting websites like Netflix or YouTube. If revoked, it would significantly change how people pay for and use the internet.

At this point, net neutrality rules are at a high risk of being walked back. Even Chairman Wheeler admits as much, saying recently, “I hope that if there is legislation, that it is net neutrality in more than name.” Now, it’s really just a question of whether the FCC is going to create a new, weaker set of rules or revoke net neutrality regulation altogether.

http://gizmodo.com/remaining-fcc-commissioners-promise-to-gut-net-neutrali-1790363416

This is going to cost us average people a s*** ton of money.

 

[Tao43]

Google Fiber No Longer Coming to a City Near You



http://gizmodo.com/google-fiber-halts-operations-in-ten-cities-1788214992

Well, that really sucks. Now the cable companies are not going to have any reason to upgrade the crappy infrastructure we have in place now.

In my area outside of Houston, AT&T isn't upgrading existing data lines to fiber optic lines. I know a line technician and he told me it is due to the line technician union. Fiber optic requires less maintenance and upkeep and would cause layoffs, so the union is fighting the implementation of fiber optic lines in outlying areas.

 

[terry78]

So basically we are stopping innovation because it would cause job loss. Isn't this the same mindset about robots taking over our jerbs?

 

[Tao43]

So basically we are stopping innovation because it would cause job loss. Isn't this the same mindset about robots taking over our jerbs?

Pretty much. There is an AT&T U-Verse box/terminal directly across the highway where my street is. They won't run lines under the highway (which is easy as heck to do. PVC pipe and a water hose will cut through the ground under the highway and tie in another box). My internet comes from a terminal that is a mile and a half down the road. The lines have been spliced so much that my DSL speed is like 1.5 BPM. I would gladly pay for the U-Verse high speed internet, but they won't run the lines because of the union.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The Father of the World Wide Web Has Some Worries About His Baby

Yesterday was the 28th anniversary of the day that Tim Berners-Lee submitted his proposal for what would become the World Wide Web. In honor of the occasion, he published a letter outlining the biggest areas of its development that are doing him a frighten and warping his original vision.

Berners-Lee still directs the World Wide Web Consortium which develops open standards for the web. That gives him a tremendous amount of influence. But now that the web truly is world wide, governments and multi-billion dollar corporations hold most of the power. While a lot of the problems he points out aren’t at all knew, he says that he’s become “increasingly worried about three new trends” over the last 12 months.

Things that Tim is worried about:

1. The loss of control over personal data

Berners-Lee acknowledges the problem that we all have come to accept the labyrinthine terms of service that come with the private technologies that we use. This has also become an issue with government surveillance, which is collecting data and monitoring communications without asking for personal permission. Berners-Lee fears that data collection by governments is having a chilling effect on what we feel comfortable discussing online.

2. It’s too easy for misinformation to spread on the web

Fake news! Yes, like all of us, Berners-Lee is confounded with the problem of online communication and social bubbles creating a ripe landscape for false information. Specifically “the use of data science and armies of bots” to game the system.

3. Political advertising online needs transparency and understanding

He worries about the ability of politicians to craft multiple narratives for specific groups and no one understanding what the politicians true message is. “Targeted advertising allows a campaign to say completely different, possibly conflicting things to different groups. Is that democratic,” Berners-Lee asks.

Those are some real problems, indeed. They’ve all been part of a heated discussion. But what do we do about them? Tim’s not totally sure either but at least he does us the service of outlining some vague solutions that he’s leaning towards.

Things that Tim thinks we could do to solve the problems:

1. “Data pods” might be one way to give people more control over their personal information. Berners-Lee has been working with MIT and the Qatar Computing Research Institute on one such project called “Solid” (social linked data). While it’s still in the early stages of development, the idea of Solid is to keep personal data siloed from the corporations that profit from it. Theoretically It would give users greater control over allowing companies like Facebook access to their information and also the ability to revoke access to that information. It would also make it easier to move social data from one application to another, minimizing “vendor lock-in.”

2. Subscriptions and micropayments as a solution for publications and other ad-driven businesses. The idea seemingly being to disconnect the gold rush for traffic and the use of personal data for targeted marketing.

3. Fighting government overreach through the courts, if necessary. (hint: it is and will forever be necessary.)

4. Push gatekeepers like Facebook and Google to “continue their efforts” to fight fake news without forming centralized determination of what is or isn’t true.

5. Greater transparency in the ways that algorithms are being used to influence our lives. He cites the Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning set of principles as an example of how new standards could be determined.

6. Increased regulation of political campaign ads online to bring them up to the same standards required for other mediums like television and radio.

Unfortunately, its difficult to see how to persuade those with the power to implement these solutions. Governments will do what they want, though continuous legal battles may hold the beast at bay in some countries. And many internet-focused corporations have built their entire business model around having exclusive personal data and using it efficiently.

Berners-Lee doesn’t necessarily seem naive enough to believe these problems will be solved soon and he says he’ll continue to work on the World Web Web foundation’s five-year strategy as a way of finding solutions.

His access to the most powerful players in tech and his general level of influence will likely be his best weapon in the fight. Convincing the titans of tech that they should stick to the philosophy of not being evil is the best hope for keeping the web alive.

http://gizmodo.com/the-father-of-the-world-wide-web-has-some-worries-about-1793198480

Very valid points.

 

[Herofan]

I see subscription fees increasing in addition to rather than instead of ads, maybe there would be fewer ads but you couldn't cut off such an opportunity (subscription certainly feels riskier for the provider).
I think most people would prefer ads to subscription costs (ads certainly feel free or at least cheaper and a lot of people expect free, that's a lot of what makes the Internet fun) so the increase would be gradual.

 

[wiegeabo]

With our privacy soon to go the way of the dodo, tigerVPN is offering a great deal.

$29 for a lifetime subscription. Normally $9.99 a month ($7.50 if paying for a year upfront).

https://store.boingboing.net/sales/tigervpn-lifetime-subscription-3

Link for more details

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

I've got ExpressVPN, but it was a family thing and I barely use it as I use my phone internet at the moment.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I've got ExpressVPN, but it was a family thing and I barely use it as I use my phone internet at the moment.

Opera makes a free VPN app for phones that works great. I never go on public wifi without it fired up these days.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

If you want to do something about Net Neutrality today is that day my friends:

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Text 504-09 the word "resist"

Follow the prompts to send all of the elected officials your thoughts on Net Neutrality. Takes just a few minutes after answering some basic questions.

They are voting to rollback protection in December.

This could legitimately be the biggest threat to our countries democracy in recent memory.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Republicans Finally Set a Date to Kill Net Neutrality

The FCC on Tuesday finally rolled out its plan to kill off net neutrality. There’s a strong chance that doing so will screw over millions of American consumers and lead to a rise in online censorship across the US.

But on the hand, it will make internet service providers and mobile carriers a ****load of money.

The vote to repeal net neutrality will be held by the commission on December 14th, according to a statement from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. Pai has painted his efforts to grant companies like Verizon broad authority to control which websites its customers can access as “restoring” the internet to its former glory.

Republicans control three of the commission’s five seats, giving them the majority needed to pass the new rules.

Since being appointed chairman by President Donald Trump in January, Pai has been determined to roll back the Obama-era net neutrality rules, which reclassified internet providers as “common carriers” under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The reclassification allowed the FCC to regulate internet providers, such as Verizon and AT&T, and make it illegal for ISPs to discriminate against content by blocking or slowing traffic to websites whenever they choose.

Pai has repeatedly claimed that net neutrality has forced broadband providers to decrease their investments. But that’s a lie.

“Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades,” Pai said in a statement. “Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet.”

Pai added that his plan will require internet providers to be transparent and allow consumers to “buy the service plan that’s best for them.” The responsibility of policing ISPs will be transferred back to the Federal Trade Commission, as it was before the net neutrality rules were approved in 2015.

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel called Pai’s justifications “ridiculous” and “offensive” to American consumers. “Following actions earlier this year to erase consumer privacy protections, the Commission now wants to wipe out court-tested rules and a decade’s work in order to favor cable and telephone companies,” she said.

“You’ve got to hand it to Chairman Pai,” Sen. Ron Wyden said in a statement. “He really gets the job done for the titans of Big Cable. Tearing down net neutrality is the crowning achievement of the most anti-consumer FCC chair in history. Consumers, rural Americans, small businesses and pretty much everyone except Big Cable executives will lose out thanks to this terrible proposal.”

Congressman Frank Pallone Jr., the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, noted that millions of Americans have spoken out in defense of net neutrality. “In making this announcement, the Trump FCC is choosing to ignore the public and push forward with a harmful plan to kill net neutrality and destroy the internet as we know it,” he said.

“Internet rights are civil rights,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union. “Gutting net neutrality will have a devastating effect on free speech online. Without it, gateway corporations like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T will have too much power to mess with the free flow of information.”

https://gizmodo.com/republicans-finally-set-a-date-to-kill-net-neutrality-1820645506

Seriously folks, call your representatives. Fax or email them. File a complaint with the FCC. If you're like me and too lazy to search to do all those things text the word "resist" to 504-09 and a script bot will do all the hard work for you. Now is the time to make your voice heard before we all get f***ed.

 

[TheCardPlayer]

Once again, Republicans try their hardest to destroy and hurt as many as they can, to line pockets.