Group items tagged

Google speaks out on censorship and the violation of user privacy in China. Yahoo in the US agrees but its Chinese partner Alibaba Group does not. Are they afraid of a backlash from Beijing and fear for their ungoing business success? Makes me wonder how bad the quagmire in China really is...

Yahoo has made public its proposal to hack the domain name system (DNS) so as to resolve issues with migrating to IPv6 from IPv4. Internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) was the first widely deployed version of IP that supports 32 bit addresses (equating to 4,294,967,296). The issue of exhausting the 32 bit address allocation was identified in the 1990's, prompting the development of IPv6. IPv6 supports 128 bit addresses, obviously offering a more expansive address system. The article claims that a 'significant percentage of internet users have broken IPv6 connectivity'. Yahoo thus proposes to switch users to IPv4 connectivity once detection of broken IPv6 connectivity is realised. Yahoo will forward its proposal to the Internet Engineering Task Force, however questions of DNS trust and security will surely be the two topics of debate in testing this proposal.

 Is it OK to rely on members to moderate and monitor  content or should companies be responsible for the content that their users post?  

The internet is running out of web addresses. And here another article: http://news.techworld.com/networking/3218712/google-microsoft-and-yahoo-talk-about-ipv6-whitelist/ Google, Microsoft and Yahoo talk about IPv6 whitelist and plan to create a shared list of customers who can access their websites via IPv6

Global 'Human Rights' Network Initiative founded or funded? by ICT companies increasingly at risk of government intervention. Hmm. So far Microsoft, Yahoo and Google are on the board. It's troublingly necessary to include ICT businesses in this issue, however their role in the interest group makes for a confusing mix of human rights and network rights. Not always the same thing.

Censorhip is Chinea is taking to another lever? Some journalists' email account in Yahoo is hacked; though the result remain unclear, but it may imply the "freedom" in China is somehow lost.

The conference on cybersecurity in Dallas, Texas has brought forward the fears of cybersecurity experts in which they still recognize the potential for "nightmare" scenarios. All the experts at this conference agree that the only way to protect against the "nightmare scenario" is for global cooperation.

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.

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.

Some western companies (Yahoo, Cisco) operating in China have handed over information leading to the arrest of dissidents. Others have happily ignored the censorship and oppression in an attempt to garner market share. Google is the first and only western company operating in China to make a stand against the Chinese regime, even if this has only happened after operating in China for four years. The author argues that two things will need to happen to end internet censorship: other companies need to follow suit and a social movement from the society of internet users needs to gather force.

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.

This article (posted yesterday) is about the announcement of a huge China-based cyber espionage which stole thousands of documents - including classified information, visa applications, and personal identities - from "politically sensitive targets" around the world using platforms such as Twitter, Google Groups, Blogspot, Baidu Blogs, blog.com and Yahoo Mail to maintain persistent control of infected computers. Among the targets: the offices of the Dalai Lama, the United Nations as well as Indian and Pakistani government officials. Also available in this article, a report document of 58 pages about "Investigating Cyber Espionnage" (scribd application)

If you are going to look at copyright on the internet, you really can't go past this settlement. This is Google's next step at world domination: control of our intellectual property. No one likes it, but everyone is going ahead with it because Google has them over a barrel ... The basic deal is that Google wants to digitise every book ever written and make them all searchable online by google customer. On the surface this is all shiny; it seems commonsense that all material should be digitised - we have to keep up with technology. The problem arises when you get to the sticky situation of copyright - generally with books, owners get royalties every time someone buys a copy. With the digitisation, Google wasn't too keen on the idea of pay-per-view. Ideally, they would have loved to present all that information free and just reap the benefit ... well, however Google reaps benefits. There was litigation all round - publishers were against it, yahoo and other internet giants were against it (because it wasn't their idea) and it went to the doors of the US Supreme Court, but not quite to trial. Google's rivals were not too sure that they wanted to go to trial, because the outcome was a little on the uncertain side. So the Google book settlement was drawn up, objected to, fought, signed up to, taken to the US Supreme Court for approval, rejected, modified, fought over a bit more, and sent back to the judge. The last move was in Feb 2010; we're still waiting for Critics argue that the deal gives Google too much power over digital books and will not benefit customers in terms of cost, possible censorship issues, privacy. Copyright owners will also lose out, as Google's royalty policy cuts them out of the system and reduces their royalty - and they are automatically included in the agreement unless they 'opt out' (even if they have not 'opted in'). Really, Google is the only party that seems to benefit, and yet for all of the fighting, the settlement seems

Government and industry leaders in the US call for international cooperation on internet security. The three-day conference discussed issues ranging from cyberterrorism to organised cybercrime. Measures suggested included "cyber defense exercises" and enlisting the support of the private sector.

Twitter users have been issued subpoenas from Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett due to the critical comments they've made about the politician. It's interesting how much anonymous comments can make an impact on a public figure's reputation that it forces him to take legal action.  

Twitter receives a grand jury subpoena forcing the company to reveal a user's identity. Interesting how this can be done when the stakes are high, when there is a a political subtext under it. Could this set a precedent for defamation cases?