Untitled

[libertarianhumanitarian]

[millennialandmerry-blog]

Be afraid... be very afraid... 

[millennialandmerry-blog]

The Uncertain Future of Net Neutrality in the U.S.

SooOoO I’m playing a little fast and loose with this week’s assigned topic of “privacy,” but (attn.: Professor) please bear with me as I think what I’m about to discuss has privacy implications, and I’ll have another opportunity to post about privacy next week. While I’m sorry for deviating, I just couldn’t resist discussing this incredibly important, highly relevant issue currently making headlines.

Earlier this week, the United States Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced plans to repeal Obama-era net neutrality regulations.

Hold up… what is net neutrality? 

In a nutshell, net neutrality is a concept describing free and equal access to the Internet.  Net neutrality was enshrined in the 2015 Open Internet Order – accessible here – now vulnerable to repeal.  Aimed at Internet providers, the 2015 Order recognized and banned three practices particularly harmful to open Internet access: blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. 

Got it.  So what/who is the “FCC” and why do they want to repeal these protections? 

Well, the FCC is a U.S. government agency created in 1934 “to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.”  The FCC is directed by five commissioners, including one chairperson, who each serve five-year terms.  (Thanks Wikipedia).  As listed on the FCC website, the current commissioners are:

Ajit Pai – Chairman

Mingnon Clyburn

Michael O’Rielly

Brendan Carr

Jessica Rosenworcel

Two of the above are Democrats who support net neutrality; three are Republicans who want to see the 2015 regulations repealed.

What are the arguments for repealing net neutrality regulations? 

According to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, the regulations are overly burdensome government intrusions on Internet providers.  He believes removing the regulations will enhance competition and stimulate investment, which will lead to faster, cheaper internet access for all Americans.  

What are the arguments against the repeal - i.e. in favor of preserving existing net neutrality regulations? 

Critics believe that repealing the regulations will give providers an unfair power of selection – allowing them to determine what sites users can and cannot access.  There is also concern that repealing the regulations will disproportionately harm start-ups as they might not be able to afford what providers would demand to distribute their content to consumers. 

What do industry leaders think? 

Facebook, Google, Netflix, and Reddit all publicly support for net neutrality and discourage the FCC from repealing the protections.  There is an open, online letter from over 1,000 American businesses expressing concerns that “the success of America’s startup ecosystem depends on more than improved broadband speeds.  We also depend on an open internet – including enforceable net neutrality rules that ensure big cable companies can’t discriminate against people like us.”  The full letter is available here. 

So what can we do about it?

Ultimately, the future of American net neutrality will be determined by the five FCC commissioners when they vote on December 14th.  However, in the meantime, you can do the democratic thing: express your opinion!  Write to the FCC, sign an online pledge, let your voice be heard.  At least you can say you tried.

[millennialandmerry-blog]

Cybercriminality & DDoS Attacks: Comparisons and Concerns

 This week in class, we discussed cybercriminality.  Specifically, we discussed DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks.  For those who are unaware (and I was one of those up until recently to be honest (yes I live under a rock)), DDoS attacks use a large number of systems (sometimes called a “botnet”) to overwhelm a target site and cause an outage.  DDoS attackers can be motivated by a number of things – including financial gain, politics, and pure mischievous enjoyment.  

However, a DDoS motivation I found particularly interesting is “hacktivism.”  Basically, the idea is that DDoS attackers are protecting certain ideals and advocating for social change.  Their attacks are how they “send a message” to the establishment.  Some DDoS supporters have referred to these attacks as a form of electronic civil disobedience, comparing their participants to “occupy” protestors.  Going further, some even refer to DDoS attacks virtual sit-ins.  However, others dismiss DDoS attacks as hacking and others still refer to DDoS attacks as cyberterrorism.  So which is it?  Are DDoS attacks forces of good or evil?  

On one hand, I see how DDoS attackers are comparable to virtual “occupy” protestors.  But, something about a DDoS attacker feels very different than a civil rights-era protestor to me.  While I can understand a comparison of DDoS attacks and sit-ins as concepts, I cannot go so far as to understand a direct parallel between DDoS attackers and civil rights protestors as individual actors. Before people get out their virtual pitchforks, let me try to explain...

Our class has frequently discussed the difference between the “offline” and the “online” environment and whether those two are comparable in a given circumstance.  In the case of civil disobedience, I think that the “offline” versus “online” difference becomes meaningful.  Offline protestors, like the heroes of the civil rights movement, risk their physical bodies, sometimes their very lives for the recognition of their beliefs (which in the case of the civil rights protestors, were basic human rights). Offline protestors put themselves, and sometimes their loved ones, at risk and in danger by standing up for what they believe in.  Online protestors simply cannot do this.  And, when it comes to the offline group, there is no anonymity.  They are out in the open and exposed.  Think about the black-and-white pictures you may have seen of protestors at Woolworth’s Counter, on the Montgomery bus, in the Birmingham jail.  

Additionally, I am concerned with how disruptive, damaging, and potentially disastrous DDoS attacks could be.  This is especially notable in the modern world - amid increasing concerns of cyber warfare and the use of the internet to interfere in foreign domestic affairs.

Part of me really wants to believe in the DDoS “attackers.”  Part of me wants to believe in their righteousness, in their dedication to true justice, in their use of their powers for good and not evil.  But forgive me, if I have my concerns.

What do you think?  Do you agree?  Disagree?  Tell me about it.  Comment your opinion below.

[lovingyouisheaven-blog]

Was reading the SOPA Bill, and thought the very first sentence was quite interesting….

[millennialandmerry-blog]

Asking intermediaries to play a more active role in content filtering, monitoring, etc. could be a dangerous slippery slope.  This kind of broad language should be avoided.

Hey you, tumblr user!  You’re part of the online community - you’re part of this conversation.  What do you think?  Can we ask intermediaries to play a more active role?  Should we?  Comment below.

[millennialandmerry-blog]

Dead Drops: what to do if you see a USB stick sticking out of a wall

If you spot a USB flash drive cemented into a wall or kerb, you may have stumbled across a Dead Drop, part of a global art project borrowing tricks from the world of espionage

Avid file-sharers, keep your eyes peeled... 

[millennialandmerry-blog]

Copyright and the internet: is it creativity-enhancing or creativity-stifling?

Over the last two weeks, our class discussed copyright law as applied to online content.  Underlying almost every discussion was some variation of the following question:

When we apply “traditional” copyright law to the internet, are we ultimately stifling creativity or encouraging it?

Initially, I thought traditional copyright law clearly stifles online creativity.  After all, wasn’t the very purpose of the internet to create a free, open platform where users all around the world could share information?  Isn’t copyright law counterintuitive to this?  Aren’t there those who still believe in a freely accessible, universal internet for all?  (Here’s looking at you, John Perry Barlow).

Consider Lessig’s YouTube example: a mom shared a video of her small child dancing to practically inaudible background music.  After some time, the mom was eventually told that she was infringing the musician’s copyright and was asked to take the video down.

As a personal example: I once received a fairly formidable warning from Facebook that a travel-footage video I created/shared was a copyright infringement.  The reason?  I set the video to a copyright-protected song.  

My first reaction: instant-gratification-accustomed millennial fury!  I was only trying to share a video of my travels with my friends and family! Chill out Zuckerburg!  You and your copyright-protective filtration system are costing me likes!  You’re stifling creativity with pointless protections!  Aren’t you...?

*Okay, time for a reality check*

Someone wrote that song. Someone produced that song.  Someone recorded that song, etc., etc.  All of this costs money.  All of this was designed to earn money.

As wonderful as a free-to-access, free-to-share, utopian internet sounds, that is simply not our reality.  For better or for worse, we live in a highly commercialized society.  At some stage in its process, nigh everything we encounter is viewed from a profit-driven perspective.  Although we might not like it, it is from this realistic lens that we must consider the original question.  Copyright protects creators in the sense that it makes their creation economically viable. In theory, this economic gain allows and inspires creators to continue producing.[1]  Without it, creators would have dramatically lessened means and motives to create.

Certainly, existing copyright schemes are imperfect.  Often, they unfairly restrict non-commercial, private users (like the mother in Lessig’s example) from sharing their online creations.  We should work to improve existing copyright law so it can better accomplish its ultimate goal: encourage creativity.  Perhaps the notion of “fair use” can be broadened to encompass more online activity (perhaps I will expand upon this idea in a later post).  However, I ultimately think a flawed copyright system is better for creativity than none at all.

What do you think?  When we apply “traditional” copyright law to the internet, are we ultimately stifling creativity or encouraging it?  Comment your opinion below!

. . . . . . . . . . 

[1] Whether or not the individual creators themselves or their managers, agencies, labels, etc. ultimately benefit from copyright is an important, separate question beyond the scope of this 500-word-limit blog post.

[millennialandmerry-blog]

I wonder what Lessig would say about this...

[doctorswithoutborders]

This statement by Bayer CEO sums up everything that is wrong with the multinational pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical companies are singularly focused on profit and so aggressively push for patents and high drug prices. Diseases that don’t promise a profit are neglected, and patients who can’t afford to pay are cut out of the picture. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Read our response:http://ow.ly/sS4Uc

[millennialandmerry-blog]

A slightly outdated, but still tremendously infuriating, statement responding to a court decision’s to let an Indian company produce and sell a Bayer anti-cancer drug for 97% less. 

While the statement clearly embodies what is terribly wrong with “Big Pharma,” it also embodies the tensions inherent in intellectual property systems.  Dekkers argued that weakening IP rights in this way would deter researchers and developers from further advancements. 

What do you think?  Is this a revealingly accurate expression of Big Pharma’s heartless pursuit of profit?  Or can it be viewed as a carelessly worded yet fundamentally credible defense of IP rights?  Do IP rights seem to matter “less” in the face of human health crises? 

For more on this, check out this article.  Or this one.  Or this one.  

[millennialandmerry-blog]

Regulation must keep pace with technology, says World Economic Forum

Among the many reasons for taxi-app Uber's clash with regulator, Transport for London (TfL), is its use of “Greyball” a form of software devised, the company claims, to deny ride requests from “opponents who collude with officials on secret 'stings' meant to entrap drivers.

On Tuesday 26 September 2017, the World Economic Forum released its 2017-2018 Global Competitiveness Report.  The Report’s Introduction notes:

“This year the GCI [Global Competitiveness Index] points to three main challenges and lessons that are relevant for economic progress, public-private collaboration, and policy action: first, financial vulnerabilities pose a threat to competitiveness and to economies’ ability to finance innovation and technological adoption; second, emerging economies are becoming better at innovation but more can be done to spread the benefits; third, labor market flexibility and worker protection are needed for competitiveness and shared prosperity in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

[millennialandmerry-blog]

A Brief History of the Internet- Animated Documentary

A Brief History of the Internet is an short animated documentary starts with the 1960's ARPAnet, and touches on NCP, Email, LANs, birth of the internet, TCP/...

“So what’s next?  What’s the future for the internet?”