The Internet Must Go

Time to Fight for Net Neutrality in the EU Subscribe to this blog About Author Glyn Moody's look at all levels of the enterprise open source stack. Contact Author Email Glyn Twitter Profile Linked-in Profile Net neutrality is one of those areas that most people are vaguely in favour of, without giving it much thought. That was particularly regrettable because already there were clear cases of UK operators undermining net neutrality. Although it's relatively short, and has plenty of easy-to-absorb graphs, there's a great summary of the findings from La Quadrature du Net, which has been following net neutrality closely (as well as playing a key role in helping to defeat ACTA in Europe): Some examples of special treatment for over-the-top traffic reported by fixed operators are prioritisation of certain kind of traffic or applications at peak times (such as HTTP, DNS, VoIP, gaming, instant messaging, etc.), and assigning lower priority to applications such as file downloading, P2P, etc.

United States – Google Transparency Report Nous divulguons ci-dessous les informations relatives aux demandes de renseignements sur les utilisateurs que nous recevons des autorités américaines : Les demandes FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act) sont des ordonnances de tribunal pouvant obliger les entreprises américaines à remettre des informations personnelles à des fins de sécurité nationale.Les lettres de sécurité nationale (NSL) sont des demandes autorisées par le FBI pouvant obliger les entreprises américaines à remettre "le nom, l'adresse, la durée d'utilisation du service et les informations de facturation relatives à des appels locaux et longue distance" d'un abonné à des fins de sécurité nationale. Demandes FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Les demandes reçues lors d'une période de référence donnée et qui restent valables sur les périodes suivantes sont comptabilisées dans chacune des périodes concernées. Pour plus d'informations sur les demandes FISA, reportez-vous à notre FAQ. Demandes pénales

2012 - who guards the network guardians? Monica Horten Published on 03 January 2012 Will the next corporate scandal involve the Internet? The Financial Times today* suggests that 2012 will be a pivotal year for the media. In 2011, we saw the apparent vindication of the Internet as an enabler of democracy, coupled with a massive growth in Internet traffic, ending the year with a huge spike on Xmas day as people downloaded apps on their new Smartphones. Why would one bring these apparently unrelated concepts together in a discussion of Internet policy? Millions of apps downloaded on smartphones signals a volume increase in mobile traffic not anticipated when the regulations were drawn up. Against that traffic increase, we have to consider the blocking demands from an increasing list of stakeholders. By ‘crunch’ I don’t necessarily mean a mirror of the credit crunch. The question is, what should policy-makers do? The trustworthiness of our regulators merits questioning.

Google transparency report shows growing number of government requests Google's latest transparency report shows a growing interest in user information by world governments. Google releases its eighth transparency report on ThursdayNumber of government requests has doubled since company started tracking in 2009The report breaks down law enforcement request by type for the first timeIn the first half of 2013, the U.S. made the most requests for user information (CNN) -- The United States government's hunger for information on Google users is continuing to rise. The tech company had more requests for user information in the first half of this year from the United States than any period before, according to the bi-annual Google transparency report released on Thursday. The United States government continues to make the most requests in the world for user data, with 10,918 requests for 21,683 user accounts during the first six months of 2013. India, Germany and France rounded out the top four, each making between 2,000 and 3,000 requests for user information.

Fiorina: Politicians don't care about Silicon Valley | Politics and Law ASPEN, Co.--Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive at Hewlett-Packard, on Monday promised a deregulatory approach toward technology if elected to the U.S. Senate, warning of governmental overreach on Net neutrality and saying that current politicians don't understand what's important to Silicon Valley. Fiorina, who won the Republican nomination in June, echoed what many technology executives have said for years: America's skilled-worker visa system is so badly broken that "we have to start from scratch," and that too many government policies push jobs overseas instead of making U.S. companies competitive against international rivals. "We have to put a huge emphasis on attracting the best and the brightest--this is a nation that has always led through immigration," Fiorina told the audience at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum here. "Our visa system for high skills workers is in disrepair." Here's what she had to say on those and related topics on Monday:

Net neutrality Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. The term was coined by Columbia media law professor Tim Wu.[1][2][3][4] The term "net neutrality" is vague and confusing to many. Another accepted description is "open internet" where you can use your internet connection for anything you wish at no additional charge and with no restrictions—this would be a net neutral environment. A "closed internet" refers to a situation where corporations can restrict what you see over an internet connection and charge for it. There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law. Definitions[edit] Absolute non-discrimination Limited discrimination without QoS tiering Limited discrimination and tiering

15 Facts About Net Neutrality [Infographic] Net neutrality has taken up a lot of headline space over the last two weeks. There was the Goggle and Verizon thing, and then something happened with the FCC and some Congress members, and the French may have been involved somehow… Admit it, your eyes are glazing over aren’t they? Yes, it’s true, net neutrality sometimes isn’t the easiest thing to wrap your head around. [Source: Online MBA Programs] Embed this Image on Your Site: [Via: Online MBA Programs After Google-Verizon fizzle, FCC should force Net neutrality THE “LEGISLATIVE framework proposal’’ on net neutrality released by and last week was a shock and a disappointment for those who had bought into Google’s motto of “Don’t be evil.’’ It’s a sad example of what happens when corporations are allowed to write regulatory rules — and why the Federal Communications Commission needs to re-seize the reins on broadband regulation. Net neutrality — the concept that Internet service providers shouldn’t be able to “shape’’ traffic, by, say, providing access to certain, popular sites at a speedier rate than newer, less popular ones — is one of the defining issues for the future of communications. Google had long been seen as an important ally of neutrality advocates, but its proposal with Verizon represents a troubling turnaround. The proposal suggests that all wirebound broadband Internet traffic should be treated neutrally, but then goes on to carve out a myriad of loopholes, most of them very broadly defined.

Protection of Intellectual Property: The Core of the Net Neutrality Debate It didn't take long for criticism of the Verizon/Google net neutrality proposal to start pouring in. "[I]nterest groups, bloggers, and even Google fanboys [have started] discrediting the plan" according to one trade publication. Although most of the commentary simply echoes various groups' long-held positions, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the nation's foremost cyber-rights watchdog, provided a crucial insight about the plan that goes to the core of the net neutrality issue. EFF found merit with some aspects of the proposal, particularly with regard to limiting the FCC"s regulatory authority. The most significant element of EFF's critique, however, is their objection to limiting net neutrality to "lawful" content. Whether or not to permit network management practices that discriminate against unlawful content is the crux of the net neutrality debate. Until the FCC's error in the Comcast decision is corrected, a responsible net neutrality framework cannot be developed.

Jonathan Zittrain asks why Google made a pact with Verizon at all | Technology Jonathan Zittrain offers a typically rational, insightful analysis of the Google-Verizon net neutrality pact on Newsweek, as interviewed by Dan Lyons. Professor of internet law at Harvard, and co-director of the Berkman Centre for Internet & Society, Zittrain asks why Google is party to the agreement at all. Is it involved because of its role as a content provider, or as a potential provider of internet access? The Google-Verizon document is just that - a document that commits them to nothing practical, which means they can "can get away with being far more vague than a typical contract", says Zittrain on his blog - where he fleshes out many of the finer implications of the pact. Language like "they can do reasonable network management" and "can't engage in undue discrimination" demands far more scrutiny to compose any coherent strategy, while "violations that cause meaningful harm" - is pointless jargon.

Q&A: Professor of Internet Law Jonathan Zittrain Google and Verizon shook up the tech world last week when they issued a set of proposals about net neutrality. Critics declared that Google, long a proponent of net neutrality, had sold out its principles, and that, as a result, the open Internet that we enjoy today would soon be a thing of the past. We asked Jonathan Zittrain, a professor of Internet law at Harvard Law School and co-director of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, what he thinks of the proposal. He wrote us answers via email. NEWSWEEK: In general what do you think of this framework and what impact will it have on consumers? Has Google sold out? The first question to ask is why Google is a party to this agreement at all. My understanding is that this is just a proposal from Google and Verizon -- they're saying, "Here's what we'd like to do." The FCC's authority to act here has been circumscribed by the D.C. On the wireless front, why did Google and Verizon exclude that from the framework?

Ashurst Following public concerns over the use of Phorm, Inc.'s behavioural advertising technology by UK internet service providers (ISPs), the European Commission has issued proceedings to address what it perceives as structural problems in the UK's implementation of European privacy Directives relevant to electronic communications. In particular, the Commission considers that the absence of active user consent may be insufficient to ensure the confidentiality of public electronic communications. Phorm's controversial "Webwise" product Webwise, the brand name of a behavioural advertising system developed by Phorm, has recently raised concerns at the Commission, due to its potential to allow internet use to be monitored. Phorm has already announced its discussions for the use of Webwise with several UK ISPs, including, most controversially, BT, as discussed below. The Commission views UK law as inadequate The extent of UK law: a question of consent Public concerns over Webwise