Group items tagged

An article on how the increasing flow of internet traffic could potentially lead to a form of 'gatekeeping' of users by providers. It has always been perceived that there was network neutrality as providers charged a flat rate for unlimited internet access. However, the article argues that this is not the case as there has aways been some form of management of traffic so that an acceptable level of service is maintained. An extreme example is the court case between BitTorrent users and the provider Comcast. Comcast blocked this service as it was effecting service. This was challenged by users who initially won. However in a challenge by Comcast, Washington found in their favour as it found that the Federal Communications Commission could not decide how Comcast should manage its network. Another interesting point made is the potential for service providers to charge content providers who attract a large amount of traffic.This way good service is guarenteed, through essentially sharing the burden of cost. Obviously this is fiercely opposed by businesses. Clearly this all has the potential to change the relationship between users, content providers and service providers.

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.

A coalition of internet companies are pushing for the US federal regulator responsible for communication industries to reassert control over ISPs by seeking to have internet services re-classified under the same rules as telephone services.

The University of Sydney's IT Alumni Association will next week bring together IT experts in networking, industry, law, child welfare and ethics to discuss the Federal Government's plans to introduce compulsory internet filtering by Internet Service Providers. Forum details When 6.30pm for a 7pm start, Wednesday 28 April 2010 Where Boardroom (Room 124), School of IT Building, 1 Cleveland Street, The University of Sydney How Entry is free and open to the public but online registration by 23 April is essential. For more information http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/alumni/discussion_forum.shtml

blog entry: in the internet culture as such, peopel tend to believe that we should enjoy the buffets service that the internet now provide. Is it possible for online news contnent to be charged? What about those new aggregator websites?

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.

Amendments made to the digital economy bill last week, handing courts the power to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block certain websites, threaten freedom of speech and will lead to British websites being blocked without due judicial process, the chief executives of leading technology companies said in an open letter to the Financial Times. The heads of the four largest UK internet service providers as well as Google, Facebook, eBay and Yahoo have all co-signed the letter, along with consumer groups and academics, objecting to amendment. Theoretically the amendment could lead to sites such as YouTube being blocked in the UK.

A GROUP of Google's partners in China have sent an impassioned plea to the internet giant, saying their businesses are in jeopardy if Google closes its Chinese search engine, and demanding to know how they will be compensated.

The deal has been done, it's only the matter of how Googld deal with those partners and its financial problem accordingly.

This study explores an under-studied layer of Chinese Internet censorship: how Chinese Internet companies censor user-generated content, usually by deleting it or preventing its publication. Systematic testing of Chinese blog service providers reveals that domestic censorship is very decentralized with wide variation from company to company. Test results also showed that a great deal of politically sensitive material survives in the Chinese blogosphere, and that chances for its survival can likely be improved with knowledge and strategy. The study concludes that choices and actions by private individuals and companies can have a significant impact on the overall balance of freedom and control in the Chinese blogosphere.

The US Federal Communications Commission has been dealt a major blow in asserting its right to regulate net neutrality with a district court ruling the FCC had "failed to demonstrate" its authority to interfer with activity undertaken by internet service provider Commcast. Comcast had been moving to restrict the internet access of customers using peer-to-peer sharing software, which uses large amounts of bandwidth and is a common mode of illegal video and music piracy.

Product alert - but this one is free! Symantec have released 'Norton Everywhere' which aims to provide a holistic security solution to all internet devices. What this means for DNS is rather than defaulting to the DNS server of your internet provider you can use choose to use the Norton DNS. This will filter insecure sites and guard against malicious DNS attacks. Symantec isn't the first to provide such a service. If Norton doesn't appeal there are other free DNS options such as Google Public DNS an OpenDNS. Changing your default DNS setting to one of these providers seems like a worthwhile thing to do.

Call for consultation regarding Australian government's mandatory internet filtering scheme. 

GoDaddy.com, the world's largest domain name registration company is taking similar action to Google by deciding to not conduct further business in China. This decision is a reaction to China now demanding that applicants of domain names are to provide additional personal information, including a full colour head shot photograph. While China maintains forcing applicants to register extensive personal information will curb the creation of unsavoury sites (namely pornography) everyone else outside of the Chinese government believes such detailed personal information will equip the government to target any individual (to what extent - who knows) displaying any content that the government does not support. Is this an invasion of privacy? Should people be able to exercise multiple personas on the internet, or should you be who you are? If a government is to collect such information who will ensure the information it collects isn't abused? Do we answer these questions differently when thinking of China i.e. what would the answers be if Australia was to introduce such a law? At the very least, it's a relief to see companies realising that China is compromising the values of the internet and are reacting suitably by taking their services out of the country. More need to participate in the retalliation.

A German court has granted an injunction against torrent site The Pirate Bay (TPB) brought against it by Hollywood film studios. The injunction means that TPB's bandwidth provider cannot connect it to internet servers, meaning it is unavailable. Of course, getting one torrent site shut down is just the tip of the iceberg - there are thousands of torrent sites out there and many may originate in countries where the service providers or site owners can't be prosecuted. TPB originates in Sweden. In 2009, TPB's four founders were sentenced to a year in jail and ordered to pay a $US3.6million fine.

Information about the Digital Economy Bill provided by the UK Parliament. Includes a summary of the bill, its progress, latest news and the link to the full bill.

This article discusses who is held resposible for cyberbullying. Three executives from Google have been convicted of privacy violation, and have been accused of not acting swiftly enough to take down an online video of an autistic boy being beating by teen bullies. There are many issues that arise from this topic, for example, how far does accountability stretch, does it stem from the original poster, to the Internet Service Provider, the company hosting the content.It brings to question who do we hold responsible, and under which jurisdiction and set of laws do we use. Should there be a screening process to prevent such videos from being posted online?

This is my blog post about cyberbullying, it also addresses how to counter cyberbullies by reporting their violation of any EULA, and Terms of Service to the provider.

Two of the world's leading providers of online services Google and Yahoo have criticised the federal government's plan to censor internet content as heavy handed. The Australian government are now trying to enhance accountability and transparency of the mandatory ISPs filering schema.