Featured Post

The white-Left Part 1: The two meanings of white

Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Why are they protesting Google?

I've known and used Google even before it was a corporation, so when I heard they were going to protest Google in Venice, I went just to see what it was all about.

Google was started by a couple of guys at Stanford who had the lofty goal of making all of humanity's knowledge available to all of humanity. In the 16 years since they started, they have come incredibly close to fulfilling that goal.

At the protest, I was turned off early by what appear to be harassment of two black, female Google security guards that obviously had no clue that this protest would be happening by the leaders of this group of ~50 demonstrators. After Mark Lipman finished his argument with the security guards, he went on to complain that Google provides "no jobs and no opportunities for the poorest in our community, who need it the most."

It seems that Google is to be blamed for "gentrifying our community." Apparently they pay their employees too much. If they moved a sweetshop to Venice would that satisfy this group?

True enough, Google requires mainly highly-skilled employees. The future requires mainly highly skilled employees. Have these protesters investigated the many ways Google has made it relatively easy to gain those skills, even in some of the lowest income communities in the world?

And BTW, Google has a strong history of hiring from their community, the Open Source community. When I was president of Linux User, Los Angeles [LULA] they would regularly recruit through me because they believe in hiring first those who had contributed to this community.

In 2004, when Google was in Santa Monica, near where the anti-war movement was protesting Bush at SM airport, the Google office practically emptied out to join the protest. Afterwards, a Google employee that had come from LULA invited me in for free sodas and a tour.

Most people use the Internet everyday. Few have a deep understanding of how it was built and by who.

Speaking of Google employees, everybody knows of (1) Larry Page, (2) Eric E. Schmidt and (3) Sergey Brin. How many know of David C. Drummond, a black man who joined Google 11 years ago and is number 5 in their management team. I mention this so you don't think they just hire black people for "lowest income" jobs.

After I returned from the Google protest, I watched an Al Jazeera report on Google's latest project to fulfill their mission: Solar powered WiFi access points lofted high with hot air balloons. Google sees it as a way to extend Internet access to the least connected and poorest people in the world.

One of the demands of the protest was that Google "give back" to the Venice community. The day before the protest, some Google engineers were giving a programming class for youth at the Abbot-Kinney library. I didn't hear anybody at the rally mention that. Did they even know about it?

Even before Google moved to Venice, I was told, on the q-t, by the person delivering food to homeless people in Venice, that Google was funding the regular food drops.

Last year, Google came in at #1 in CNN/Money/Fortune list of "100 Best Companies to Work For," so obviously they should not be welcomed to Venice. Do these protesters know that all Google employees can spend 20% of their time, that's one day in five, on personal projects? How many corporations do that?

That's how Google engineers, with official Google backing, were able to build the first Speech-to-Tweet system when Mubarak tried to shut down the Internet in Egypt during the revolution. Google, working with Twitter, made sure that anybody with access to a land-line could still tell the world what was happening in Egypt. They did the same thing when Qaddafi tried to shut down the Internet in Libya. I know of no US corporation that did as much for the democratic movement in MENA.

In Nov-Dec 2010, when the first indications of what would be called the Arab Spring were developing, Google paid schools in Cairo to help improve Google Translates Arabic. That would prove extremely important in the coming months. I personally know of at least one use that may have saved lives, and saved the day, in Tahrir Square. Likewise, they rushed to improve their Farsi when people were in the streets in Iran, 2009.

"We feel that launching Persian is particularly important now, given ongoing events in Iran" said Google principal scientist Franz Och in a statement on Goolge's Official Blog.

And remember Wael Ghonim, the Google employee that played a leading role in the Egyptian uprising? After Wael Ghonim was released from the custody of Mubarak's thugs, he said he would like to return to work at Google if he was not fired. Outgoing Google CEO Eric Schmidt tweeted back "We're incredibly proud of you, @Ghonim, & of course will welcome you back when you're ready."

Google started out as an Open Source project. Like many successful Open Source & Free Software projects, it had to become a corporation to accomplish its mission. That's just the way the world works now.

But even though Google has become a giant corporation, I think I can accurately paraphrase Churchill by saying "Never before has a corporation done so much for so many for so little cost to the user."

I first discovered Google at the 1998 Linux Expo in North Carolina. They were just a Linux search engine working out of a garage then. They were, and are, a member in good standing of the Linux, Open Source or Free Software community.

True to the Free Software creed, they operate on a very different intellectual property model than all the other corporation in the world that are not part of that community.

Did those protesters even know that Google doesn't own Android? True Google has contributed heavily to Android development, but the software remains under a GPL or "copy-left" licensing. [Apache Software License, 2.0] Anybody can build an Android device without paying Google a single dime. Just try that with Iphone software. There is a big difference.

They say charity begins at home, but home for Google is not Venice, in spite the big building here that they have taken over. Google is a citizen of the world and home is the Free Software movement that spawned it. So if you want to look for Google's charitable side, you should look at all that they have done for Free Software. First, they continue to make most of the software they develop freely available under a GPL like license, then there are grant programs like the "Summer of Code"
Google Summer of Code is a global program that offers post-secondary student developers ages 18 and older stipends to write code for various open source software projects. We have worked with open source, free software, and technology-related groups to identify and fund projects over a three month period. Since its inception in 2005, the program has brought together over 6,000 successful student participants and over 3,000 mentors from over 100 countries worldwide, all for the love of code.
If you use the Internet, a Droid phone, or many other Internet appliance, you benefit from code paid for by Google and made available for free. Microsoft only does that by way of exception, and then only because they have to compete with the Open Source Community.

Much of what we know about Internet censorship in China is because Google very publicly fought it. All the others, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo went along with the Chinese program without so much as a mummer of public protest.

It was much the same when Bush started demanding access to people's search records in 2006. Again, all the other search engines went along with the program. It was only when Google made clear they were going to fight it that those plans were abandoned.

Google has also taken a strong position in fighting bogus claims of copyright infringement and in support of the "fair use" exception to the copyright laws. For that reason my Vietnam:American Holocaust remains up on YouTube [434,929 views] even as it was removed from Facebook because they don't recognize fair use. When Google received a copyright infringement claim about one piece of music I used, they didn't take down this very valuable anti-war film, instead they put a link to where viewers could buy the song.

The Open Source movement is a revolutionary movement, I call it communist software. Oddly enough it was through my connections to this movement, rather than the Left, that first alerted me to the rising "Arab Spring" before anyone else in the LA Left.

Obviously, I have a long association with this movement, and with the most significant corporation spawned by that movement, Google. That's why I think Google is the best corporation in the world and that's why I come to its defense.

Since this protest has adopted as its slogan "Google: We're Watching You!," I have to assume they have seen everything I have related above. What I can't figure out is why, of all the corrupt corporations in the world, they choose to target Google.

Personally, my protest time will continue to be focused on Syria, where an uncaring world is letting 200 people a day be slaughtered by their government, with the exception of occasional flurries into other areas, like this one.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

The Internet Takeover: Why Google is Next

Last week we saw an unprecedented attack on the freedom of the Internet by our government. It begin with the seizure of 82 domains by the DoJ and ended with a whole variety of moves, both legal and extra-legal to bring down WikiLeaks or block access to it. Clearly the U.S. government has launched a new campaign to control the Internet and what we can access with it.

Monday's Diary: BREAKING: Goodbye Internet Freedom as Wikileaks is Taken Down
Friday's Diary: BREAKING NEWS: Obama Admin Takes Control of Internet Domains!

They have been able to seize domains, as oppose to only block domains, China style, because they are taking unfair advantage of the fact that at present, the root domain servers, although run by an international NGO, are located in the United States and can be served by an American court order.

The Domain Name System [DNS] is that network of servers that converts a domain name, say DailyKos.com to it's IP address, in this case 208.122.51.48 which is how it is found on the Internet. In order to seize domains, the Federal government must 'seize' the top level domain servers or bend them to their will, that's why I have referred to this as an Internet coupe d'etat.

But as any Internet hacker can tell you, and the Feds found out last week, screwing with the DNS system and 'seizing domains' isn't everything it's cracked up to be. Many of the websites that Eric Holder claimed were selling counterfeit good were up and running under new domain names even before he had his Monday morning press conference. You can register a new domain name and point it at your website in less than an hour. The situation was much the same when they pulled the plug on wikileaks.org. Within hours it was available as wikileaks.de, wikileaks.nl, ljist.org and a host [no pun intended] of others. Before Friday was over some Kossacks had even included the wikileaks IP addess in their signatures.

Which brings me to the question of search engines. While the DNS system was designed as the first and most basic way we humans can find things on the web, it has largely been replaced or supplemented by the search engines. Hell, to tell you the truth these day, even when I know the domain name, I don't type it into the browser navigation bar, I type it into Google, let it correct my spelling, figure out if it's a dot com, dot net or dot whatever and find it for me. How do people find counterfeit goods or any goods on the Internet for that matter? They Google for them. How do you find documents like the Wikileaks if you don't know the website? You Google for them!

Which brings me to the point of this diary. As you can easily see, all of the Federal government's violation of international trust and our rights with its draconian seizure of domains and attacks on domains will come to naught if Google continues to do what it has always done, deliver us search results as it finds them, without fear or favor.

I don't for a moment consider the other major search engines. Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo all bent over for the Chinese government without even being kissed first, I don't think the Obama Administration will have any trouble out of them. Google on the other hand, just might pose somewhat of a problem. They are coming from a different place. They have their roots in the Free Software Movement and they have opposed this sort of thing before with China and the Bush Administration. And most importantly, of all the forces that may oppose the Obama Internet takeover, Google has the money and the technical clout to make it a real ball game.

Therefore you can bet that the pressure will be on Google big time to 'play ball.' I have seen all this coming for a long time. I know the government has been planning these moves for a long time. And I know that they know that Google could be a problem. That is why, apart from the fact that the Google/Verizon legislative proposal on network neutrality of August, really wasn't that bad, I considered this summer's attacks on Google to be preemptive strikes. It is also why I have been and continue to be so strong in my support for Google and have been and continue to be very suspicious of those, including Free Press, Huffington Post, Democracy Now, and the DailyKos, that were in panic mode in August, requesting that their followers sign petitions demanding "Google Don't Be Evil" and begging for the Federal government step in and protect the Internet. Again I ask of these organizations, the question I asked then.

Are you fools or tools?

Friday, December 3, 2010

Goodbye Internet Freedom as Wikileaks is Taken Down

The whistle blower website Wikileaks.org has been taken down by U.S. based host, Amazon.com, after it was pressured by the U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee. According to the Christian Science Monitor:

The website WikiLeaks.org is no longer functioning, after its US-based domain host on Thursday terminated service for the controversial site. The expulsion forced WikiLeaks to relocate its domain name with a Switzerland-based domain name host, and the website is now found at WikiLeaks.ch.

Perhaps fittingly, WikiLeaks' new domain name host is the Swiss Pirate Party, which the Associated Press calls "a political group formed two years ago to campaign for freedom of information and sensible technology policy." The New York Times reported that the party is a branch of the Swedish Pirate Party, according to the website whois.com.

Former domain name host EveryDNS.net, a subsidiary of New Hampshire-based web host Dynamic Network Hosting, said in a statement on its website that it booted WikiLeaks at 10 p.m. EST on Thursday.

"The interference at issues [sic] arises from the fact that wikileaks.org has become the target of multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites," the statement says.

Multiple distributed denial of service attacks [DDOS] are completely illegal, and completely disruptive to the world wide web and very costly because they operate by creating massive amounts of bogus Internet traffic in an effort to jam up one site. That traffic has to be handled and hundreds of Internet engineers must stay up all night trying to figure out just what the hell is going on. Just as hundreds of Internet engineers spent last weekend trying to figure out what was happening to these 82 domains. When our government fails to play by the rules [ and the rules of the Internet require openness about just how everyone is handling traffic ] there is no end to the disruption it can cause.

DDOS attacks are not trivial to pull off because they typically require the control thousands of computers on the Internet. I hope the organization behind this DDOS attack is found and prosecuted. But given the nature of the attack and it's target, I suspect that in this case our government is carrying out Internet crime rather than solving it. So don't wait for Eric Holder to announce arrest warrants of those who are behind these recent DDOS attacks on WikiLeak's U.S. host.

When the Obama Administration seized 82 domains over the weekend, the Daily Kos largely ignored the issue. I wrote a dairy about the website removals, but it got little attention. From the comments, it was clear that many here saw that as a simple question stopping counterfeiters by any means necessary and backed the government moves. They failed to see how this big take down of websites represents a serious threat our Internet freedom or the larger question of what will happen to the world wide web once individual governments start taking unilateral actions to dominate the Internet. Instead on Monday, they recommended an article about what the well known DHS contractor Level 3 said Comcast might do to Netflix, and failed to even mention the removal of 82 domains. I believe that the NYTimes website publication of that story just 6 hours after Eric Holder announced the seizure of domains of an unprecedented magnitude served to obscure the really important breaking news in the area network neutrality. How can we seriously talk about network neutrality if we allow the government to determine what information can even be distributed on the Internet?

Now they have pressured Amazon to taken down WikiLeaks. Will there be at outcry here now?

Also it should be noted somewhere that Assange is being taken down now, not to stop him from dropping dime on the Wars or America, which he has already done, or the State Dept. of America, which he has already done, it is being done just in time to stop him from dropping dime on the Bank of America.

Interesting.

UPDATE: An Open Letter to Amazon.com Customer Service from Daniel Ellsberg, rec'd 10:30pst
Dear friends:

I hope you will join me and others in boycotting Amazon--inconvenient as that may be--to provide some counter-pressure to efforts by Senator Lieberman and the Administration to demonize, hound, block and prosecute Wikileaks, and ultimately to control whistleblowing and dissent on the internet.

Note: After sending this letter to Amazon.com and to the websites below, I looked on Google News and found that antiwar.com had already launched a boycott effort, citing reasons that I share: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/antiwarcom-launches-boycott-of-amazoncom-after-retailer-drops-wikileaks-111205949.html Moreover, I hadn't yet read this terrific column by Glenn Greenwald, http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/lieberman/index.html (I read Greenwald every day, but I'm in the grip of a bad cold at the moment.) If you need more background, check out antiwar.com and Google News on Wikileaks, Assange, Amazon, etc.

I don't take it for granted that all my friends will agree with me about Wikileaks or Amazon. For those who do, this looks like a useful action."

[Note to editors: I hope that any sites that now encourage their readers to make purchases through amazon.com will consider ending this arrangement as antiwar.com has done--publicizing the reason for it to your readers-- even though I know that it means a loss of much-needed income for your operations. Let's not leave it to Joe Lieberman to call on a boycott! It's not only Wikileaks that is now under threat, and not only from Congress or Republicans.

Yours,
Dan Ellsberg

UPDATE 2: Government Sanctioned Private Seizure of Domains?

In checking the various WikiLeaks outlets as listed in wikileaks.info I noticed that wikileaks.com is replaced by a graphic that says "Sorry! This site is not currently available." This image is hosted at http://images-pw.secureserver.net/images/unavailable.jpg which is a GoDaddy.com server. This raises the troubling possibility that GoDaddy is holding a domain that doesn't belong to it.

Cosmos Engineering is the computer company I started in 1984. CosmosEng.com is the domain I purchased in 1996. At that time there was only one registrar, Network Solution. Fortunately, that monopoly got broken up and the annual fee dropped from $35/year at NS in 1996 to $10/yr. at GoDaddy today. Before I had GoDaddy as my registrar, I used Gandi.net out of France for $12.00 euros/yr. Now I'll be moving it offshore again because GoDaddy doesn't own that domain, I do, and if they are going to start taking advantage of the trust I have put in choosing them as my registrar, by seizing domains on anybody's orders, I will take my business to a land were liberty is still valued!

UPDATE 3: Reporters Sans Frontières [Reporters without Borders] issues statement, it read in part:

This is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China. We point out that in France and the United States, it is up to the courts, not politicians, to decide whether or not a website should be closed.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Julian Assange on Threat to Internet Freedom

In my dairy, I have already given extensive coverage to attempts by the U.S. government to control the Internet. Now it would seem that other governments want a hand on the controls too, but only governments, thus taking control away from the non-government international organizations that have run the Internet so far.

A United Nations initiative is developing that attempts to put multiple governments in charge of the Internet but only governments. On Friday, Vint Cerf, who is generally considered the father of the Internet, and is currently Google's Chief Internet Evangelist, wrote in the official company blog:
The beauty of the Internet is that it’s not controlled by any one group. Its governance is bottoms-up—with academics, non-profits, companies and governments all working to improve this technological wonder of the modern world. This model has not only made the Internet very open—a testbed for innovation by anyone, anywhere—it's also prevented vested interests from taking control.

But last week the UN Committee on Science and Technology announced that only governments would be able to sit on a working group set up to examine improvements to the IGF—one of the Internet’s most important discussion forums. This move has been condemned by the Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC), the International Chamber of Commerce and numerous other organizations—who have published a joint letter (PDF) and launched an online petition to mobilize opposition. Today, I have signed that petition on Google’s behalf because we don’t believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance. The current bottoms-up, open approach works—protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let’s fight to keep it that way.
These existing Internet governance groups such as ICANN and ISOC are also expressing concerns. Most recently the World Information Technology and Services Alliance weighed in, with John Higgins, Public Policy Chairman writing:
I was saddened and disappointed to learn that the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau, at its extraordinary meeting on December 7, 2010, decided to limit participation in the new Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum to governments only.

I therefore strongly urge you to set aside the December 7 decision to block participation from business and civil society in the new working group. In order for the working group to be effective in improving the Internet Governance Forum, it must provide for an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries.
IT News for Australian Business believes this new initiative has been spurred by WikiLeaks. Noting that a number of countries, including China, India and Saudi Arabia have already expressed support, under the subtitle WikiLeaks sparks push for tighter controls., they say:
At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for a "takeover" of the internet.
Of course not! Why would governments want to takeover the Internet?

Meanwhile back in the United States, the FCC is planning to seize more power on the Internet this week when it votes on it's so-called Net Neutrality rules. A Google/Verizon proposal for back in August. Reuter's describes the FCC rules this way:
The Federal Communications Commission will vote on Dec. 21 on whether to adopt regulations that ban the blocking of lawful traffic but allow Internet service providers to ration Web traffic on their networks.
So actually worst than the Google/Verizon proposal since if ISPs can ration web traffic on their networks, Net Neutrality pretty much goes out the window! But note that it will ban the blocking of lawful traffic.

Another way of saying that is to say that it will allow the blocking of unlawful traffic. And what is "unlawful" traffic? WikiLeaks is certainly at the top of the list. So would the 82 domains unilaterally seized by the U.S. gov't a few weeks ago, so would much of what has been done recently in support of WikiLeaks, and so would a growing list of blacklisted websites in an increasingly controlled Internet.

While Free Press has had nothing to say about the seizure of 82 domains by DHS for 'piracy' or attempts to block and censor WikiLeaks and it's supporters on the Internet, they are back on the beat for Net Neutrality and the FCC vote this Tuesday, asking supporters to send this letter:
Dear President Obama:

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski needs to hear from you right now. He came into office last year promising to fulfill your pledge to protect an open and neutral Internet from blocking and discrimination.

But he’s now pushing a rule that betrays your promise...
I think that on many fronts it should already be clear that Obama has broken his "pledge to protect an open and neutral Internet from blocking and discrimination." How can Free Press continue to ignore these broader issues of Internet freedom and press forward their very narrow campaign for what they define as Net Neutrality?

Again I ask, Are these people fools or tools?

Fight Internet Censorship!

Here is a recap of my other DKos diaries on this subject:
BREAKING - Digital Sit-Ins: The Internet Strikes Back!
Cyber War Report: New Front Opens Against Internet Coup d'état
Operation PayBack: 1st Cyber War Begins over WikiLeaks
The Internet Takeover: Why Google is Next
BREAKING: Goodbye Internet Freedom as Wikileaks is Taken Down
BREAKING NEWS: Obama Admin Takes Control of Internet Domains!
Things Even Keith Olbermann Won't Cover - UPDATE: VICTORY!!!
Stop Internet Blacklist Bill Now!
Sweet Victory on Internet Censorship: Senate Backs Off!
Internet Engineers tell the Senate to Back Off!
Why is Net Neutrality advocate Free Press MIA?
Obama's Internet Coup d'état
Julian Assange on Threat to Internet Freedom
FCC Net Neutrality's Trojan Horse
Free Press: Country Codes for the Internet?
The Mountain comes to Mohammad
Keith Olbermann's Deception
Court rules -> Google Must Be Evil & Maximize Profits
EFF on the Google\Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal
Google-Verizon: What is the Free Press Agenda?
End of the Internet As We Know It!
Free Press would make this Illegal!
Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

Why is Net Neutrality advocate Free Press MIA?

Free Press has been working hard to position itself as the champions of Net Neutrality and Internet freedom. Even before Google and Verizon announced the terms of their legislative proposal, Free Press agents were all over the liberal media lamenting the "End of the Internet as we know it" and condemning Google for turning to the dark side.

Free Press

They were here at the Daily Kos, the Hunfington Post, Democratic Now, really all over the place. According to them, they convinced more than 300,000 people to sign the "Google: Don't Be Evil" petition and express support for a FCC takeover of the Internet.

Yesterday, my dairy, SaveTheInternet.com and a staff of 37 people would be all over this story, but so far they have been silent.

Monday, I talked to Jenn Ettinger of Free Press. I called her because she had just written a piece last Thursday on their website Activists Tell FCC: 'Don’t Waffle on Net Neutrality!' about a SaveTheInternet.com breakfast they served to the FCC Commissioners. At that time she said she hadn't heard of the Obama proposals on Internet wiretapping and would have to talk to their policy people to determine their position.

Today I see she has a new piece on their website, Free Press Asks FCC to Crack Down on Fake News, but nothing on these latest Obama proposals. It would seem that Free Press is all about condemning Google and begging the FCC to do stuff. So, Yes, I mean this to be a very public calling out of Free Press.

WHAT IS THE FREE PRESS POSITION ON OBAMA'S DEMANDS FOR THE ABILITY MONITOR ALL INTERNET TRAFFIC? YOU HAVE RECENTLY MADE A BIG SHOW OUT OF NET NEUTRALITY. YOUR SILENCE ON THIS IS NOT AN OPTION.

After all, even if Free Press is only interested in Net Neutrality and is only opposed to tiered web pricing, and doesn't care about government spying and privacy, they still should be speaking out against this proposal. The gov't is asking that all Internet traffic be copied to them. They expect protected communications to be unencrypted for them. This will already more than double the Internet workload and this will slow down service for everyone. They expect to see my email before I do! If that isn't a violation of Net Neutrality, I don't know what is?

If Free Press is opposed to tiered web pricing, of the type they falsely accused Google and Verizon of making a deal on, where a company like Google can pay for preferential treatment for it's data, they must doubly be opposed to a tiered web where the gov't gets preferential treatment for our data, and we pay extra for it!

How can a group that calls itself Free Press remain silent in the face of such an extreme attack on the Internet as we now enjoy it?

At least one good thing did come out of the Google, Don't Be Evil campaign:



FCC Net Neutrality's Trojan Horse

Internet Engineers tell the Senate to Back Off! Hotlist

We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it. We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it.

We are writing to oppose the Committee's proposed new Internet censorship and copyright bill. If enacted, this legislation will risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS), create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure. In exchange for this, the bill will introduce censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties' ability to communicate.
So begins a letter sent the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday in which a very prominent group of Internet engineers expressed their strong opposition to the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA).

You can read the whole letter and see the list of 87 signers announced on Monday really will mean the end the Internet as we know it.

I know a lot of people were running around the left liberal world a month ago proclaiming "the end of the Internet as we know it." in the face of the Google Verizon proposal to guarantee net neutrality while keeping the FCC out of it. That was at best hyperbole, especially since there was no deal. This time it could really be true. The present danger to the Internet is not coming from any proposed tiered pricing, which in fact already exists, or any imagined future violations of 'net neutrality', it comes from the Federal gov't.

Yesterday, there were demonstrations across Europe against cut backs, according to the Internet. I didn't hear a mention on the evening news. The story about U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan killing civilians and collecting fingers broke on the Internet last month,

We all know that capitalism is in an unprecedented crisis and right now no one knows where the bottom is. Right now the people in this country have been fairly quiet. I for one, hope they will start to organize and fight back, and none of this phony Tea party flap either.

We all know that the Internet is critical to our success both as a source of information and a tool for organization. And so do they.

"They" in this case is corporate ruling class and they best exercise their influence through the Federal government. They don't want the Internet free, the way it is now. They want the Internet under their control. They need all means of communication and organization firmly under control, especially in the coming period. That is, at base, what these new legislative proposal are about. Internally it is about political control, externally, it is about U.S. world domination.

These Internet Engineers foretell the Balkanization of the Internet that I have been warning about in my diaries:
These problems will be enough to ensure that alternative name-lookup infrastructures will come into widespread use, outside the control of US service providers but easily used by American citizens. Errors and divergences will appear between these new services and the current global DNS, and contradictory addresses will confuse browsers and frustrate the people using them. These problems will be widespread and will affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government.
Then they go on to warn of the consequents of what really amounts to a U.S. gov't Internet Coup d'état:
The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open Internet, both domestically and abroad. We can't have a free and open Internet without a global domain name system that sits above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral bastion of free expression. If the US suddenly begins to use its central position in the DNS for censorship that advances its political and economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive.

The principal danger to the Internet today comes precisely from a U.S. government takeover of the Internet, so when the good folks at Free Press argue that to protect Net Neutrality:
The FCC Should Classify Broadband Internet Connectivity as a Telecommunications Service Under the Communications Act and Pair that Determination with Tailored Forbearance.
or when Keith Olbermann pushes for a FCC takeover to get back net neutrality and has on a guest that says:
But, honestly, government has always had to step in to protect Americans‘ rights.

I think this is very clear-cut that we need the government to step in and make sure that these corporations who want to line their pockets can‘t just step in and mess with what the Internet has been like for Americans so far.
They are no friends of the Internet and no friends of you.

There is a reason why this distinguished group of Internet Engineers, including the ones who create the DNS system, didn't get together and write a letter to the Senate about the Google Verizon proposal. They didn't see it as that important.

This they see as important! Last month's uproar around Net Neutrality was just a diversion to get you looking the other way. Which brings me to the last point in today's diary. Just where are all last month's brave defenders of Net Neutrality now that the real battle is being joined? Where is the Free Press opposition? When will Countdown do this story?
On second thought, I will include that list of signers. You probably never heard of them, but seeing how you are reading this, which means you obviously use the Internet, you should send them each a thank you email, not just for opposing the Senate bill, thank them for that fact that you can send them an email at all, and at no additional cost:

Now in alphabetical order thanks to Kossack CJnyc:

Adams, John: operations engineer at Twitter, signing as a private citizen
Aditya, Ramaswamy P.: I built various networks and web/mail content and application hosting providers including AS10368 (DNAI) which is now part of AS6079 (RCN), which I did network engineering and peering for, and then I did network engineering for AS25 (UC Berkeley), followed and now I do network engineering for AS177-179 and others (UMich).
Alden, Roland: Originator of the vCard interchange standard; builder of Internet infrastructure in several developing countries.
Alexander, Michael: I have been involved with networking since before the Internet existed. Among other things I was part of the team that connected the MTS mainframe at Michigan to the Merit Network. I was also involved in some of the early work on Email with Mailnet at MIT and wrote network drivers for IP over ISDN for Macintosh computers.
Applegate, Brandon: I have worked in the ISP sector since the mid-1990s as a network engineer.
Atlas, Alia: I designed software in a core router (Avici) and have various RFCs around resiliency, MPLS, and ICMP.
Auerbach, Karl: Former North American publicly elected member of the Board of Directors of ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
Ausman, James: helped build the first commercial web site and worked on the Apache web server that runs two-thirds of the Web.
Barrett, David: Founder and CEO of Expensify, former engineering manager for Akamai. I helped build Red Swoosh, which delivers large
files for legitimate content owners, and was acquired by Akamai, which hosts 20% of the internet by powering the world's top 20,000 websites.
Bellovin, Steve: one of the originators of USENET; found and fixed numerous security flaws in DNS; Professor at Columbia.
Bowie, David J.: intimately involved in deployment and maintenance of the Arpanet as it evolved from 16 sites to what it is today.
Boyes, David: Operations Coordinator, SESQUInet, First mainframe web server, First Internet tools for VM/CMS, Caretaker, NSS1, Caretaker ENSS3, Author, Chronos Appt Management Protocol, Broadcast operator, telepresence, IETF: IETF 28/29
Brunner-Williams, Eric: I contributed to rfc1122 and 1123, and co-authored rfc2629, Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations, and authored the "sponsored registry" proposal, implemented as .aero, .coop and .museum, and assisted with .cat, authored the privacy policy for HTTP cookies, and contribute to both the IETF and to ICANN.
Carr, Leslie: Craigslist Network Engineer
Clark, Bret: Spectra Access. We are New Hampshire's largest wireless Internet service providers and have built a large footprint of Internet Access for businesses in New Hampshire.
Clayton, Dr. Richard: designer of Turnpike, widely used Windows-based Internet access suite. Prominent Computer Security researcher at Cambridge University.
Coelho, Marco: As the owner of Argon Technologies Inc., a company that has been in the business of providing Internet service for the past 13 years.
Cook, Gordon: I led the OTA study between 1990 and 1992 and since April 1992 have been self employed as editor publisher of the cook report.
Cosell, Bernie: I was a member of the team at BBN that wrote the code for the original ARPAnet IMP. I also did a big chunk of the redesign of the TELNET protocol [addding DO/DONT/WILL/WONT].
Daniels, Walt: IBM’s contributor to MIME, the mechanism used to add attachments to emails.
DeLeskie, James: internetMCI Sr. Network Engineer, Teleglobe Principal Network Architect
DeLong, Owen: I am an elected member of the ARIN Advisory Council. I am the resource holder of record on a number of domains. I have been active on the internet for more than 20 years. I was involved in getting some of the first internet connections into primary and secondary schools before commercial providers like AT&T started sponsoring events like Net-Day.
DeReggi, Tom: 15yr ISP/WISP veteran, RapidDSL
Donnelly, Thomas: I help support the infrastructure for the world’s most widely used web server control panel.
Dyson, Esther: chairman, EDventure Holdings; founding chairman, ICANN; former chairman, EFF; active investor in many start-ups that support commerce, news and advertising on the Internet; director: Foundation, Sunlight
Eisenberg, Nathan: Atlas Networks Senior System Administrator, manager of 25K sq. ft. of data centers which provide services to Starbucks, Oracle, and local state
Fair, Erik: co-author, RFC 1627, RFC 977, former postmaster@apple.com.
Farber, David J.: helped to conceive and organize the major American research networks CSNET, NSFNet, and NREN; former chief technologist at the FCC; Professor at Carnegie Mellon; EFF board member.
Fleming, Paul: Run as33182 as a large hosting provider (5gbps+). develop monitoring software suite.
Gerstorff, Christopher: technician for a wireless broadband internet provider, Rapid Systems, Inc.
Gettys, Jim: editor of the HTTP/1.1 protocol standards, which we use to do everything on the Web.
Gilmore, John: co-designed BOOTP (RFC 951), which became DHCP, the way you get an IP address when you plug into an Ethernet or get on a WiFi access point. Current EFF board member.
Hartmann, Richard: Backbone manager and project manager at Globalways AG, a German ISP.
Hiebert, James: I performed early experiments using TCP Anycast to track routing instability in Border Gateway Protocol.
Hiers, David: I have designed dozens of Internet edge networks, several transit networks, and currently operate a VOIP infrastructure for 20,000 business subscribers.
Humphreys, Noel D.: As a lawyer I worked on the American Bar Association committee that drafted guidelines for use of public key encryption infrastructure in the early days of the internet.
Hutton, Thomas: I was one of the original architects of CERFnet - one of the original NFSnet regional networks that was later purchased by AT&T. In addition, I am currently chair of the CENIC HPR (High Performance Research) technical committee. This body directs CENIC in their managment and evolution of Calren2, the California research and education network.
Jennings, Bill: who was VP of Engineering at Cisco for 10 years and responsible for building much of the hardware and embedded software for Cisco's core router products and high-end Ethernet switches.
Jones, Illene: I have had a part in creating the software that runs on the servers.
Jurman, Dustin: I am the CEO of Rapid Systems Corporation a Network Service Provider, and Systems builder responsible for 60 Million of NOFA funding.
Kaminsky, Dan: renowned security researcher who in 2008 found and helped to fix a grave security vulnerability in the entire planet's DNS systems.
Kane, Kelly J.: Shared web hosting network operator
Katz, Lou: I was the founder and first President of the Usenix Association, which published much of the academic research about the Internet, opening networking to commercial and other entities.
Kazemi, Haudy: Implemented Internet connections (from the physical lines, firewalls, and routers to configuring DNS and setting up Internet-facing servers) to join several companies to the Internet and enable them to provide digital services to others.
Kristol, David M.: Co-author, RFCs 2109, 2965 ("HTTP State Management") Contributor, RFC 2616 ("Hypertext Transfer Protocol")
Kulawiec, Richard S.: 30 years designing/operating academic/commercial/ISP systems and networks.
Lachman, Ron: I am co-founder of Ultra DNS. I am co-founder of Sandpiper networks (arguably inventor of the CDN). I am "namesake" founder of Lachman TCP/IP (millions of copies of TCP on Unix System V and many other other platforms). Joint developer of NFS along with Sun MicroSystems.
Lapsley, Phil: co-author of the Internet Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP), RFC 977, and developer of the NNTP reference
implementation in 1986 ... still in use today almost 25 years later.
Lauck, Anthony G.: I helped design and standardize routing protocols and local area network protocols and served on the Internet
Architecture Board.
Laufer, Michael: worked on the different networks they dealt with including the Milnet, other US Govt nets, and regional (NSF) nets that
became the basis of the Internet. Also designed, built, and deployed the first commercial VPN infrastructure (I think) as well as dial up
nets that were part of AOL and many other things.
Loeliger, Jon: I have implemented OSPF, one of the main routing protocols used to determine IP packet delivery. At other companies, I have helped design and build the actual computers used to implement core routers or storage delivery systems. At another company, we installed network services (T-1 lines and ISP service) into Hotels and Airports across the country.
Malamud, Rebecca Hargrave: helped advance many large-scale Internet projects, and have been working the web since its invention.
Maurand, Curtis: founder of a small internet company in Maine in 1994. started delivering low cost broadband to municipalities and businesses before acquired by Time-Warner.
Meyer, Mike: I helped debug the NNTP software in the 80s, and desktop web browsers and servers in the 90s.
Moeller, Doug: Chief Technical Officer, Autonet Mobile, Inc.
Nerenberg, Lyndon: Author/inventor of RFC3516 IMAP BINARY and contributor to the core IMAP protocol and extension.
Nielsen, Christopher: I have worked for several internet startups, building everything from email and usenet infrastructure to large-scale clusters. I am currently a Sr. Operations Engineer for a product and shopping search engine startup.
Novinger, Jason: I was the Network Administrator for Lawrence Freenet, a small wireless ISP in Lawrence, KS.
Partridge, Dr. Craig: Architect of how email is routed through the Internet, and designed the world's fastest router in the mid 1990s.
Peter Rubenstein: I helped design and run the ISP transit backbone of AOLthe ATDN.
Peterson, Gordon E. (II): designer and implementer of the first commercially available LAN system, and member of the Anti-Spam Research Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
Pfankuch, Blake: Over the years I have implemented thousands if not tens of thousands of webservers, DNS servers and supporting infrastructure.
Pinkerton, Brian: Founder of WebCrawler, the first big Internet search engine.
Plato, Janet: I worked for Advanced Network and Service from 1992 or so running the US Internet core before it went public, and then doing
dial engineering until we were acquired by UUNet. While at UUnet I worked in EMEA Engineering where I helped engineer their European STM16 backbone.
Rall, Tony: I was involved in providing Internet access to the IBM corporation - from the late 80s until last year. I worked within the company to ensure that Internet access was as "open" and transparent as possible.
Reed, David P.: who played an important role in the development of TCP/IP and invented the UDP protocol that makes real-time applications like VOIP possible today; Professor at MIT
Reeves, Jeromie: Network Administrator & Consultant. I have a small couple hundred user Wireless ISP and work with or have stakes in many other networks.
Reitz, Jay: Co-founder and VP of Engineering of hubpages.com, the 60th largest website in the US with 14M monthly US visitors.
Rodgers, Robert: Engineer at Juniper and Cisco. Worked on routers and mobile systems.
Rodgers, Scott: I have been an ISP on Cape Cod Massachusetts for 17 years and I agree that this bill is poison.
Ross, Brandon: designed the networks of MindSpring and NetRail.
Rubenstein, Alex: founder of Net Access Corporation. We are an Internet Service Provider for nearly 15 years, and I have served on the ARIN AC.
Rutherford, Tim: managed DNS (amongst other duties) for an C4.NET since 1997.
Schmidt, Peter H.: I co-founded the company (Midnight Networks) that created the protocol test software (ANVL) that ensured routers from all vendors could actually interoperate to implement the Internet.
Schmidt, Stefan: I had sole technical responsibility for running all of the freenet.de / AS5430 DNS Infrastructure with roughly 120.000 Domains and approximately 1.5 million DSL subscribers for the last 9 years and have been actively involved in the development of the PowerDNS authoritative and recursive DNS Servers for the last 4 years.
Schulman, Bob: worked on University of Illinois’ ANTS system in the Center for Advanced Computation in 1976 when ANTS connected a few hosts to the ARPAnet.
Schultz, William: for the past 10 years I've worked on hundreds of networks around the US and have worked for a major voice and data carrier. I do not agree with Internet censorship in any degree, at all.
Shambley, Dave: retired engineer (EE rfwireless- computers) and active in the design of web site and associated graphics.
Sinclair, Harold: design, build, and operate DNS, Mail, and Application platforms on the Internet.
Skinner, Dave: I was an early provider of net connectivity in central Oregon. Currently I provide hosting services.
Spafford, Gene: who analyzed the first catastrophic Internet worm and made many subsequent contributions to computer security; Professor at Purdue.
Timmins, Paul: designed and runs the multi-state network of a medium sized telephone and internet company in the Midwest.
Todd, John: I invented and operate a DNS-based telephony directory "freenum.org" which uses the DNS to replace telephone numbers.
Turner, Judith Axler: I started the first NSF-approved commercial service on the Internet, the Chronicle of Higher Education's job ads, in 1993.
Ulevitch, David: CEO of OpenDNS, which offers alternative DNS services for enhanced security.
Vittal, John: Created the first full email client and the email standards.
Vixie, Paul: author of BIND, the most widely-used DNS server software, and President of the Internet Systems Consortium
Warren, Jim: I was one of Vint Cerf’s grad students and worked for a bit on the early protocols for the old ARPAnet ... back before it became the DARPAnet
Wolff, Stephen: While at NSF I nurtured, led, and funded the NSFNET from its infancy until by 1994 I had privatized, commercialized, and decommissioned the NSFNET Backbone; these actions stimulated thecommercial activity that led to the Internet of today.

Here is a recap of my other DKos diaries on this subject:
Why is Net Neutrality advocate Free Press MIA?
Obama's Internet Coup d'état
Julian Assange on Threat to Internet Freedom
FCC Net Neutrality's Trojan Horse
Free Press: Country Codes for the Internet?
The Mountain comes to Mohammad
Keith Olbermann's Deception
Court rules -> Google Must Be Evil & Maximize Profits
EFF on the Google\Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal
Google-Verizon: What is the Free Press Agenda?
End of the Internet As We Know It!
Free Press would make this Illegal!
Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

Sweet Victory on Internet Censorship: Senate Backs Off!

Yesterday's diary, Politico reported:
SENATE JUDICIARY IP HEARING POSTPONED – A markup on SJC Chairman Leahy’s IP infringement bill was postponed late Wednesday, as staffers anticipated the chamber would finish legislative work and adjourn for recess before the hearing could commence. The change in plans should delight some of the bill’s critics, at least, who expressed concern that the legislation was moving forward quickly.

No doubt, this delay has been influenced by the ground swell of opposition to this bill and is an important victory. It buys us more time to educate ourselves and the public about some very complicated questions where the stakes couldn't be higher.

However, wining a battle is not winning the war. We need to use this delay to build even more opposition to it. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been spearheading this fight, from their website:
Tell Your Senator: No Website Blacklists, No Internet Censorship!

Update: On September 30, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee postponed the scheduled markup of the Internet censorship bill — a fantastic outcome, given that the entertainment industry and their allies in Congress had hoped this bill would be quickly approved before the Senators went home for the October recess. Massive thanks to all who used the EFF Action Center to write to your Senators to oppose this bill.

This gives the public more time to remind legislators why any bill that interferes with the infrastructure of the Internet is a bad idea. This bill will be back soon enough, and Congress will again need to hear from concerned citizens like you. So stay tuned to EFF.org for new developments!

Here is a link to the Demand Progress Stop the Internet Blacklist! petition.

All and all, not a bad way to start October!


Here is a recap of my other DKos diaries on this subject:
Why is Net Neutrality advocate Free Press MIA?
Obama's Internet Coup d'état
Julian Assange on Threat to Internet Freedom
FCC Net Neutrality's Trojan Horse
Free Press: Country Codes for the Internet?
The Mountain comes to Mohammad
Keith Olbermann's Deception
Court rules -> Google Must Be Evil & Maximize Profits
EFF on the Google\Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal
Google-Verizon: What is the Free Press Agenda?
End of the Internet As We Know It!
Free Press would make this Illegal!
Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

Obama Admin Takes Control of Internet Domains

November 29, 2010

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton have announced operation "In Our Sites v. 2.0," a sweeping intellectual property enforcement initiative targeting "online retailers of a diverse array of counterfeit goods, including sports equipment, shoes, handbags, athletic apparel and sunglasses as well as illegal copies of copyrighted DVD boxed sets, music and software."

The Department Of Justice announced this morning that "Seizure orders have been executed against 82 domain names of commercial websites engaged in the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works as part of Operation In Our Sites v. 2.0."

PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE. IT IS NOT ABOUT COUNTERFEIT GOODS. IT'S ABOUT THE METHOD THAT IS BEING USED. THE U.S. DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO SEIZE DOMAINS, NO NATION DOES. EVEN CHINA ONLY BLOCKS DOMAINS. THIS IS AN UNPRECEDENTED ABUSE OF INTERNATIONAL TRUST! if they can do it, which I doubt. :-)

This is exactly the type of control that they have been seeking with the COICA, and which I have been blogging against with my diary at DKos and which so far they have been unable to get out of the Senate. No matter, they just up and did it by Executive Order.

As if the WikiLeaks Cablegate hasn't done enough to damage our trust and creditability around the world, now the Obama Administration has just announced that it will miss use America's position as the neutral steward of the Internet Infrastructure to "seize domains" (not just block domains) something no country has attempted before. Just how they intend to 'seize domains' remains to be seen but we are very likely witnessing the end of the Internet as we have know it..


Stay tuned. More to follow...

The danger to the Internet is precisely the same as outlined by 87 of the key Internet creators who are "just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it." warned about in their letter to the Judiciary Committee opposing the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA). before the mid terms.

from by diary: Internet Engineers tell the Senate to Back Off!

These Internet Engineers foretell the Balkanization of the Internet that I have been warning about in my diaries:
These problems will be enough to ensure that alternative name-lookup infrastructures will come into widespread use, outside the control of US service providers but easily used by American citizens. Errors and divergences will appear between these new services and the current global DNS, and contradictory addresses will confuse browsers and frustrate the people using them. These problems will be widespread and will affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government.
Then they go on to warn of the consequents of what really amounts to a U.S. gov't Internet Coup d'état:
The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open Internet, both domestically and abroad. We can't have a free and open Internet without a global domain name system that sits above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral bastion of free expression. If the US suddenly begins to use its central position in the DNS for censorship that advances its political and economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive.

Scientific American has a very good article, very good at explaining the basics in laymen's language. Long Live the Web: A Call for Continued Open Standards and Neutrality In it Tim Berners-Lee [Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. Today he is director of the international World Wide Web Consortium] write "The world wide web went live, on my physical desktop in Geneva, Switzerland, in December 1990. It consisted of one Web site and one browser, which happened to be on the same computer. The simple setup demonstrated a profound concept: that any person could share information with anyone else, anywhere."

Here are some excerpts:

The Web evolved into a powerful, ubiquitous tool because it was built on egalitarian principles and because thousands of individuals, universities and companies have worked, both independently and together as part of the World Wide Web Consortium, to expand its capabilities based on those principles.

The Web as we know it, however, is being threatened in different ways...Governments—totalitarian and democratic alike—are monitoring people’s online habits, endangering important human rights.

If we, the Web’s users, allow these and other trends to proceed unchecked, the Web could be broken into fragmented islands. We could lose the freedom to connect with whichever Web sites we want. The ill effects could extend to smartphones and pads, which are also portals to the extensive information that the Web provides.

Totalitarian governments aren’t the only ones violating the network rights of their citizens. In France a law created in 2009, named Hadopi, allowed a new agency by the same name to disconnect a household from the Internet for a year if someone in the household was alleged by a media company to have ripped off music or video. After much opposition, in October the Constitutional Council of France required a judge to review a case before access was revoked, but if approved, the household could be disconnected without due process. In the U.K., the Digital Economy Act, hastily passed in April, allows the government to order an ISP to terminate the Internet connection of anyone who appears on a list of individuals suspected of copyright infringement. In September the U.S. Senate introduced the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, which would allow the government to create a blacklist of Web sites—hosted on or off U.S. soil—that are accused of infringement and to pressure or require all ISPs to block access to those sites.

In these cases, no due process of law protects people before they are disconnected or their sites are blocked. Given the many ways the Web is crucial to our lives and our work, disconnection is a form of deprivation of liberty. Looking back to the Magna Carta, we should perhaps now affirm: “No person or organization shall be deprived of the ability to connect to others without due process of law and the presumption of innocence.”

UPDATE:

From TorrentFreak
“My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!” the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning.

“I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy I noticed the DNS had changed. Godaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN,” he explained.

Aside from the fact that domains are being seized seemingly at will, there is a very serious problem with the action against Torrent-Finder. Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner.

Torrent-Finder remains operational through another URL, Torrent-Finder.info, so feel free to check it out for yourself. The layouts of the sites it searches are clearly visible in the results shown.

Yesterday we reported that the domain of hiphop site RapGodFathers had been seized and today we can reveal that they are not on their own. Two other music sites in the same field – OnSmash.com and DaJaz1.com – have fallen to the same fate. But ICE activities don’t end there.

Several other domains also appear to have been seized including 2009jerseys.com, nfljerseysupply.com, throwbackguy.com, cartoon77.com, lifetimereplicas.com, handbag9.com, handbagcom.com and dvdprostore.com.

Once again, keep your eye on the ball. The key issue here is Internet control and censorship not stopping counterfeit goods. Most censorship schemes start with pornography as the excuse but once the mechanism is in place it quickly becomes political. In this case stopping counterfeit goods is the give excuse but the method appears to be one of taking advantage of the physical location of ICANN, an international Internet body, in the U.S. to stage a coupe d'etat 'seizing domains'.

UPDATE: Electronic Frontier Foundation has just put a very good piece up on their website
U.S. Government Seizes 82 Websites: A Glimpse at the Draconian Future of Copyright Enforcement?
They echo the same concerns I have outlined above:
it appears that the "raid" has swept up several sites that are hardly in the business of willful copyright infringement.

these seizures may be just a short preview of the kind of overreaching enforcement we’ll see if the Congress passes the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA).

If the United States government increases interference in critical DNS infrastructure to police alleged copyright infringement, it is very likely that a large percentage of the Internet will shift to alternative DNS mechanisms that are located outside the US. This will cause numerous problems — including new network security issues, as a large percentage of the population moves to encrypted offshore DNS to escape the censoring effects of the procedures outlined in COICA. Presumably the DOJ and the DHS should be committed to improving network security — not undermining it.

Here is a recap of my other DKos diaries on this subject:
Sweet Victory on Internet Censorship: Senate Backs Off!
Internet Engineers tell the Senate to Back Off!
Why is Net Neutrality advocate Free Press MIA?
Obama's Internet Coup d'état
Julian Assange on Threat to Internet Freedom
FCC Net Neutrality's Trojan Horse
Free Press: Country Codes for the Internet?
The Mountain comes to Mohammad
Keith Olbermann's Deception
Court rules -> Google Must Be Evil & Maximize Profits
EFF on the Google\Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal
Google-Verizon: What is the Free Press Agenda?
End of the Internet As We Know It!
Free Press would make this Illegal!
Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Stop Internet Blacklist Bill Now!

"If this bill had been law five or 10 years ago, there's a good chance that YouTube would no longer be around."

Peter Eckersley, senior staff technologist at the EFF
It's back! A Judiciary Committee vote on the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act this letter from 87 leading Internet Engineers outlining why this is a very bad idea. Now the midterms are over and the protests have died down, so they are trying to slip it by us in the lull.

You must act now to stop this Internet takeover! Call your Senators and sign the Demand Progress petition here.

This bill is being promote as one that is necessary to defend the Intellectual Property [IP] of American creators and one that will protect U.S. jobs. In reality it is designed to protect the profits of a handful of corporations and will cost the U.S. jobs.

Senator Patrick Leahy introduced this bill and has had it on a fast track for passage. Massive opposition put a stop to the dreams of quick passage before the mid terms. Now Leahy has been re-elected with the help of fat contributions from Time Warner, Walt Disney Co, Microsoft and Vivendi, and he has a debt to repay. It looks like it is back on the fast track and may come up for a vote as early as Thursday.

While it is promoted in the name of the artist and writer, it is designed to serve the corporations. The language of the bill is very carefully crafted to make sure corporations are considered IP rights holders. The copyright protections of this country have already been bent from the maximum 28 years set by the founding fathers to 125 years in the case of a corporation, 30 years longer than for a human being. Now that they have so stolen our public domain and locked up culture with the help of corrupt politicians on the take, they aim to use this bill to lock down the Internet. And the means that they want to use to lock down the Internet are so draconian in their intent and will be so damaging in their effect, that not only will it drive more and more Internet businesses and innovators overseas, thus costing American jobs, if carried through to full effect, is likely to precipitate a split in the Internet [then we really will be able to speak of the 'Internets'] that will cost the U.S. it's leading role in world communications and technology.

This bill doesn't really create any new forms of infringing activity, everything it covers is already illegal and the corporations and other copyright holders already have legal remedies to use against pirates and those who give them safe harbor. What this bill does is provide a lot of public resources for the likes of Nike, McDonald's, and MGM in their pursuit of profits. The law will create two blacklists of websites, one list of addresses that must be blocked, and an immunity list of websites the Justice Department would like to shutdown, a sort of 'bonus points' list. Of course the now, out-of-business website owner can appeal in court, provided they have the time and money. I have a friend who spent $50K 'winning' a fair-use copy right infringement suit. This law is first of all designed to shift the burden of copyright enforcement from the corporations to the government and the ISPs. Many times the judge's gavel is the hammer of money on the head of the poor.

But it is the method of enforcement that makes his bill particularly dangerous. It mandates that a new feature be added to the Internet in the United States that doesn't exist now, the ability to selectively filter and block Internet traffic. I should also tell you that this 'feature' will not be cheap to implement and since we know that ISPs will have the government's blessing in shifting those costs downstream, we know who, ultimately, will pay for our new controlled Internet.

Nor should anyone think that this is merely about "Infringement" as the bill advertises. Once the mechanisms of blacklist and censorship are put into place, they will be applied to a wider and wider array of "illegitimate" Internet traffic. Obviously "terrorist websites" (as defined by the DoJ) will be blocked, ditto sites that spread government or corporate secrets like WikiLeaks.

If you understand how the Internet works you will also understand that for the U.S. government to accomplish its intent in this bill and Obama's Internet spying bill, it will have to seize control of the root domain name servers from the international NGOs that currently run them. This is why I call it an Internet coupe d'etat and why the 87 Internet Engineers, among others, have warned that it could split the Internet.

The bottom line is this: As we move forward into a period of continuing economic crisis, this will promote increasing social protest and mass organization. Under these conditions, the gov't and its corporate masters realize that control of communications and the media is extremely important. When it comes to all of the traditional media, they have everything pretty well locked down. But when it comes to the Internet, that is a different story. There, not only do they not have that type of control, because the Internet in run by international NGOs, they aren't even in the drivers seat.

This COICA, together with an Internet eavesdropping bill to be put forward by the Obama administration amount to a attempted American coupe d'etat on the World Wide Web.

Here is a recap of my other DKos diaries on this subject:
Sweet Victory on Internet Censorship: Senate Backs Off!
Internet Engineers tell the Senate to Back Off!
Why is Net Neutrality advocate Free Press MIA?
Obama's Internet Coup d'état
Julian Assange on Threat to Internet Freedom
FCC Net Neutrality's Trojan Horse
Free Press: Country Codes for the Internet?
The Mountain comes to Mohammad
Keith Olbermann's Deception
Court rules -> Google Must Be Evil & Maximize Profits
EFF on the Google\Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal
Google-Verizon: What is the Free Press Agenda?
End of the Internet As We Know It!
Free Press would make this Illegal!
Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

# FCC Net Neutrality Trojan Horse

Things Even Keith Olbermann Won't Cover - UPDATE: VICTORY!!!

UPDATE: The Internet Blacklist Bill has been stopped this morning. See end of diary for details:

Part 1: The Internet Coup d'etat

The "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA) , also known as the Internet Blacklist Bill, was passed out of Judiciary yesterday by unanimous vote and near unanimous silence in the major media including Keith Olbermannand Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, which frankly should surprise no one because major corporate copyright holders Microsoft and NBC are big supporters of the bill and the bottom line is that Keith and Rachel work for MSNBC.

I won't repeat my arguments about why this bill really could mean the end of the Internet as we know it. I have already done that in my earlier diaries on this subject. However, I would ask anyone that is still has doubt about the radical attack on the Internet that is this bill to read the protest letter of 87 Internet fathers to the Senate. Here are a few excerpts:

this legislation will risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS), create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure.

All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended to restrict, but this bill will be particularly egregious in that regard because it causes entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just infringing pages or files. Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under this bill.

Senators, we believe the Internet is too important and too valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put this bill aside.
So don't be negative. Don't think of it as the end of the Internet as we know it. Think of it as the Internet as we know it in China.

So where is Keith Olbermann on this story? We know it's part of his beat because he was all over the Google/Verizon Net Neutrality panic of August. Then he was raising the alarm about "the Google-Verizon deal with the devil to throw out net neutrality for the sake of their profits." A few shows later, when it became clear there was no Google Verizon "deal", only a proposal for legislation, he was still highly critical "because Google and Verizon have proposed a framework whereby the FCC would not regulate the wireless Internet"

But the bottom-line is that it was just a proposal by two very big companies for a limited view of network neutrality. It did not include blacklists. Even if the very worst of the anti Google claims were true, and I have already shown they are bunk, but even if they were, it was claimed that access to the DailyKos could be greatly slowed down as others paid for preferential treatment. That was a proposal, this is a bill that is headed for passage if not opposed strongly now, that could remove the DailyKos from the web entirely.

So where is Keith Olbermann and all those other brave defenders of the Internet that were so loud in August because Google dared to make a proposal they found wanting? Why are they so silent in the face of this brazen attack?

One thing is certain, all Industry eyes will be on Google if this thing passes. They refused to play ball with the Bush administration's intrusions into our Internet privacy when they denied them data on our searches. Data which AOL, Yahoo and MS were happy to turn over, and they have opposed this sort of thing in China. What will they do with the COICA demands? I hope they have not been deterred from fighting this by the preemptive strikes launched against them recently.

Also yesterday Sarah Palin gave us an idea of how some that aspire to power view fair use and the copyright law, when she tweeted "The publishing world is leaking out-of-context excerpts of my book w/out my permission? Isn't that illegal?" Think what this law will mean in the hands of people like her.

But not to worry. Even if COICA passes the House and Senate and is signed into law by Obama, the DailyKos won't be affected. Not at first. It will be a death of a thousand cuts. First they will come for thepiratesbay.org because it's such an obvious target, and we can blog about that. Then they will come for WikiLeak, which is hosted by thepiratesbay servers, because not only are they disseminating materials in violation on copyright, they are threat to national security, and we can blog about that. By the time your bookmark for the DailyKos returns, "Server Not Found", they'll be no place left to blog.

UPDATE: VICTORY for now!!!!

I just receive this update from Aaron Swartz of DemandProgress.org:

Clay -- big news! Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send the Internet blacklist bill to the full Senate, but it was quickly stopped by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who denounced it as "a bunker-buster cluster bomb" aimed at the Internet and pledged to "do everything I can to take the necessary steps to stop it from passing the U.S. Senate."

Wyden's opposition practically guarantees the bill is dead this year -- and next year the new Congress will have to reintroduce the bill and start all over again. But even that might not happen: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Hollywood's own senator, told the committee that even she was uncomfortable with the Internet censorship portion of the bill and hoped it could be removed when they took it up again next year!

This is incredible -- and all thanks to you. Just a month ago, the Senate was planning to pass this bill unanimously; now even the senator from Hollywood is backing away from it. But this fight is far from over -- next year, there's going to be hearings, negotiations, and even more crucial votes. We need to be there, continuing to fight.

Here is a recap of my other DKos diaries on this subject:
Sweet Victory on Internet Censorship: Senate Backs Off!
Internet Engineers tell the Senate to Back Off!
Why is Net Neutrality advocate Free Press MIA?
Obama's Internet Coup d'état
Julian Assange on Threat to Internet Freedom
FCC Net Neutrality's Trojan Horse
Free Press: Country Codes for the Internet?
The Mountain comes to Mohammad
Keith Olbermann's Deception
Court rules -> Google Must Be Evil & Maximize Profits
EFF on the Google\Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal
Google-Verizon: What is the Free Press Agenda?
End of the Internet As We Know It!
Free Press would make this Illegal!
Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

Things Even Keith Olbermann Won't Cover: US Terrorism & Mass Murder

So now we are sending the M1A1 Abrams Battle tanks to Afghanistan for the first time. Pentagon spokesman Dave Lapan told reporters "that sending tanks to Afghanistan does not represent an escalation of the conflict." Escalation is so Vietnam. We don't have 'escalations' anymore, today we have 'surges'.

The long range artillery on those tanks are good for two things, destroying other tanks, which the Taliban don't have, and mass murder. Long range artillery, even in 2010, is not a precision weapon. The targets of those 120-mm main guns will be homes, not fortifications.

And how easily we kill today. Tuesday's headline from the region read:

20 Suspected Militants Killed

20 alleged militants were killed in a drone strike in North Waziristan, which would seem to make the question of whether they actually were militants, mute. Apparently not. One news report goes on:
At least four missiles were fired, two at the mud-brick house and two at the vehicle. Four of the slain were in the vehicle while at least 16 died in the flattened home. The identity of the dead was not known, and agents were trying to get more details, said the officials.
The phrase "Shoot first, ask questions later" comes to mind.

Notice this was a "home" that was flattened, not a barracks. Soldiers live in barracks, families live in homes. So, now I feel compelled to ask, as I always do after hearing another one of these reports: "How many of those 'suspected militants' were under the age of five?" And then another question, just because I am curious, "How do you sleep at night?" I live with myself by working for peace everyday.
Child Kill by USChild Kill by US

These are two of the 17 children killed on Dec. 20, 2009 in a drone strike in Yemen, five days before the underwear bomber tried his stunt. Let them stand in for the thousands of children we have murdered in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in our bloody War on Terrorism between last Christmas and this one. Do you get the picture? If not click here to see children from that same raid that were burned to a crisp. Click here, to see the bodies of high school students murdered in a mid-night Special Forces raid in Afghanistan. Click here, to see the truly grotesque pictures of the victims of our white phosphorous in Iraq. There may not have been chemical weapons in Iraq when we invaded, but there sure as hell are now!

Do you think that there is any amount of expensive technology or TSA abuse that can protect us from just retribution?

Frankly, the terminology they are using really troubles me because for more than 40 years now, I have considered myself a militant. Words are my weapons, although I did participate in my share of sit-ins and building takeover in protest of the Vietnam War, and I wish I was with the twenty thousand people protesting the School of Americas (i.e. "Schools of Assassins") in front of Ft. Benning, GA this weekend. Now, with nothing like due process, we are killing people who are suspected of being what I have been for most of my life. Killing them and their families. [BTW This annual SOAW mass protest is something else Keith won't cover, nor will anyone else in MSM outside of the Atlanta area.]

We killed between 3 and 5 million people in Vietnam, our Agent Orange and unfound ordinances are killing them still. We have yet to come to terms with that little bit of mass murder, nor the minimum 8 million people we have killed in total, including Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Iran, El Salvador, Panama, and so on since WWII. As I have pointed out earlier in my diary, the U.S. economy has required massive military spending just to stay afloat ever since the first great depression. These are the people that have paid the price.

This week the NY Times reports that we are systematically destroying thousand of homes in Afghanistan. The UN or somebody should stop this criminal activity.

In Arghandab District, for instance, every one of the 40 homes in the village of Khosrow was flattened by a salvo of 25 missiles, according to the district governor, Shah Muhammed Ahmadi, who estimated that 120 to 130 houses had been demolished in his district.
American troops are using an impressive array of tools not only to demolish homes, but also to eliminate tree lines where insurgents could hide, blow up outbuildings, flatten agricultural walls, and carve new “military roads,” because existing ones are so heavily mined, according to journalists embedded in the area recently.
One of the most fearsome tools is the Miclic, the M58 Mine-Clearing Line Charge, a chain of explosives tied to a rocket, which upon impact destroys everything in a swath 30 feet wide and 325 feet long. The Himars missile system, a pod of 13-foot rockets carrying 200-pound warheads, has also been used frequently for demolition work.
Often, new military roads go right through farms and compounds, cutting a route that will keep soldiers safe from roadside bombs.

It is claimed that these houses are abandoned and the demolitions are very orderly with the owners being compensated and all but I don't believe it. Not with these tools and not with the U.S. military track record for honest reporting. From the Gulf of Tonkin to the WikiLeaks revelations, they have shown that they will lie at the drop of a bomb.

Which is also why I don't believe the only people opposing our occupation in that fiercely independent tribal country are 'Taliban". I believe that anyone who dares to exercise their right of self defense against us is called "Taliban." A quick review of the Vietnam experience will tell you how the U.S. military sees things. From my film, Vietnam: American Holocaust:

Dennis Caldwell, 1st Aviation Brigade
I was a helicopter Cobra gunship pilot. I worked with another aircraft at all times in what is called a hunter-killer team. I was told by the other pilots in the unit how to tell a VC from a civilian--if they were running, they were VC. If they were standing there, they were well-disciplined VC, shoot 'em anyhow.
Scott Camil, 1st Marines
Another time I had a friend of mind killed and I was very upset and I asked this Vietnamese for his ID card and he says "cum beck" which means 'I don't understand' in Vietnamese and he just pissed me off so I pulled out my knife and I killed him and it didn't bother me at all. I just called it in and I said "One VC killed." and they said "How do you know he's a VC" and I said "because he's dead" and they laughed and said "okay"
BTW Scott Camil received two Purple Hearts, Combat Action Ribbon, two Presidential Unit Citations, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with three stars, Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Silver Star, Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Leaf, and Vietnam Campaign Medal during two tours in Vietnam. He will be the first tell you what a farce those metal were. He returned most of them at a Senate garden party in 1971, and is now the chapter president for Veterans for Peace in Gainsville, FL.

I only found out myself a few years ago that the term "Viet Cong" was itself a creation of a U.S. Army PsyOps officer in Siagon in 1958. It was designed to denigrate our enemy. In point of fact, the National Liberation Front fighters never did call themselves the Viet Cong or VC. Given that history, I don't know who they mean when they say they are only destroying "Taliban " houses.

And not only houses, but whole villages have been destroyed. In justifying this wholesale destruction, Shah Muhammed Ahmadi, Kandahar district governor, told the NY Times “We had to destroy them to make them safe.” Was he channeling Major Booris? He made one of the most famous quotes of the Vietnam War when he told AP reporter Peter Arnett on Feburary 7, 1968 "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

I wish we had Peter Arnett or someone like him to tell us the truth about our wars today. He is badly missed. When it comes to our present wars, Keith Olbermann and the whole damn crowd are good at keeping secrets.