Group items tagged

An group of academics formed in 2004 geared towards the establishment of international governance for the internet. Contains many critical articles on the current state of the internet and attempts/strategies to govern the internet.

I wasn't previously a plan of Craigslist per se, however, as I'm so excited about the possibilities of peer to peer open source social networking (JoinDiaspora.com) it seems the time to reflect on the addition of a social layer of governance to the internet (Lessig in Code2.0 re identity layer), or the reverse, adding internet architectures to governance, which is Alice Goldmann is describing here.

During a speech at the Media Institute in Washington [February 24, 2010], Larry Strickling, President Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce and administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), suggested that there should be policy discussions between government agencies, foreign governments and key Internet constituencies on issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection and Internet governance. "It's now time to respond to all the social changes being driven by the growth of the Internet," Strickling said. "We need Internet Policy 3.0. We enter this new decade recognizing that we rely on the Internet for essential social purposes: health, energy efficiency, and education. It's also a general engine for economic and social innovation. We must take rules more seriously if we want full participation, but we must keep the need for flexibility in mind."

The conversation first looked at internet censorship from an international perspective covering issues of internet governance from and internet freedom. Unfortunately one or two members of the panel were prone to regurgitating policy rather than engaging in an actual debate. Towards the end inevitably the discussion was drawn to the proposed filtering laws within Australia. The general consensus from the panel members was that education had to be an essential part of policy when addressing online safety. Interestingly the government representative, the Minister for Home Affairs, was a keen supporter of this policy stance.

The US government is being encouraged by various committees and "experts" to increase regulation of the Internet. The Internet is compared industry to the car industry before regulation was introduced to make cars safer. Apparently the "Internet Wild West" is over!

Watch the live debate from Intelligence squared -Governments should not Censor the Internet? Intelligence Squared uniquely provides a forum for debate on crucial issues within Australia. On the Affirmative Antony Loewnstein- freelance journalist, author and blogger Ross LaJeunesse-head of Public Policy and Government Affairs for Google David Marr- reporter for Fairfax, broadcaster ABC On the Negative ELizabeth Handsley- specialist in media law as it affects children Kaiser Kuo- Beijing-based columnist and commentator on tech and politics. Alastair MacGibbon- founder of the Internet Safety Institute and Manageing Partner of internet consultancy the Surete Group.

A step back- looking at censorship in Australia under the Rudd government. Going back to when the ISP filtering laws were first proposed David Marr observes an underlining level of conservatism in Australia in particular light of the governments pursuit of censorship. He looks at the governments approach to undesired content on the internet by reflecting back on the Bill Henson case.

The Four Corners report mapped the issue from when internet censorship was bought forward as a policy issue in a report by the Australian Institute in 2003 to how the Howard government and now how the Rudd government has approached the issue of internet censorship. \n\nNot only can you can watch the report you can also read the transcript, watch the extended interviews and there are also links to further resources.\n

Howard Schdmit, The Whitehouse's Cybersecurity coordinator has revealed the US Government's plans for tackling attacks on it's networks. He has promised transparency. The official announcement (this bookmark) is very vague in it's initiatives. It will be interesting to see whether their can really separate US government networks from other parts of the Internet.  Cyber attacks are definitely increasing and play a major part in conflicts between countries. China amongst others is said to have attacked & attempted to hack and launch DoS attacks on US government networks and Russia shut down the Georgian communications infrastructure during the last week between the two countries et. )

The increasing use of 'free' webmail services, and indeed full office suites, from online providers by business and governments means an increasing amount of funding for encryption and ad free internets. This potentially leads to a new digital divide. The corporate or private internet of the wealthy, and the hyper surveilled commercial internet of the many.

Google shows in this maps the requests that different governments have done to remove contents from their services, including the Australian government. A more than respectable effort on transparency.

Google says that this is very much a trial and they don't give details about the requests, mainly all 'legitimate', in the interests of maintaining debate out about internet governance. The site however is launched the same day that 10 governments officially complain to Google about privacy breaches and lack of general accountability, mainly in relation to maps and buzz. I feel there's less transparency than there is positioning!

"The invisible shareholders, who are either money launderers, drug dealers or some people using government money, pick the directors of the banks because of their holdings, but have refused to disclose their identities," he said.

This article cogently describes the current US govt approach to policy and call for an Internet Policy 3.0. Also clarifies points and describes the issues in regulation and governance that are raised in response.

Wow. Read it and weep. Tim O'Reilly is promoting this article. I haven't read anything quite so scarily propagandist since Caberet. What do I mean? (and who is this 'state'?) Courtesy of One Economy Corporation "If e-mail lives in the cloud, who owns that information?" says State Department's Alec Ross. Cloud computing is a double-edged sword in the fight for Internet freedom, a top State Department official said on Wednesday." "During a major policy speech in January, Clinton announced that Internet freedom would become a strategic priority for the United States in 2010. In March, State revived the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, a Bush administration initiative that worked to harmonize policies departmentwide on protecting free speech. The renamed NetFreedom Task Force met on March 4, when 19 telecommunications and information technology companies discussed the corporate sector's role in facilitating Internet freedom."

The UK Government are proposing to introduce a Digital Economy Bill.  The owners of copyright material will be able to pursue individuals who are sharing their content and take legal recourse.  Persistent offenders can eventually be blocked by their ISP. "Persistent" offenders will have received 50 notices before the Government can request that the ISP block their access to the internet. Sites that host material / content that breaches the bill will be issued with a series of take down notices. This impacts all sites - not just those whose servers are based in the UK.  If the site does not comply with the take down notice it will be possible for the site to be blocked within the UK. 

A conversation between two leading authorities about how governments are using the internet and ICTs to advance their political agendas and policies.

SMH article about the Australian government's "Gov2.0" initiative which encourages government employees to use social media more.  

INTERNET FOR ALL Proceedings of the Third Internet Governance Forum Hyderabad, India 3-6 December 2008 - might be some interesting stuff in here

This is a clear example of a government trying to control the information flow with old techniques (only one CD for all journalists) and how the Internet comes into play to provide electoral information. Interesting to compare vs the 2008 US elections, where pundits and commentators could get info from various sites. Can the Internet change results?

The Thai government is increasing censorship over the Internet, with a special focus on political websites due to the uprising in the country.  What is interesting is that this has been going on for a few years, but it has not received that much media attention compared to Internet censorship in China. It is possible that the websites being banned are not that widely accessed by Thai people in the first place.