tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/internet-governance-4404/articlesInternet governance – The Conversation2022-11-21T21:43:38Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1948952022-11-21T21:43:38Z2022-11-21T21:43:38ZWhat Elon Musk’s destruction of Twitter tells us about the future of social media<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496484/original/file-20221121-14-5wan9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C44%2C6000%2C3943&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Since its beginnings in 2006, Twitter has grown into one of the most important social networks in the world.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/what-elon-musk-s-destruction-of-twitter-tells-us-about-the-future-of-social-media" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter has been <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/twitter-elon-musk-timeline-what-happened-so-far-rcna57532">a fast-moving disaster</a>. It has also created a tangible problem for journalists, politicians, activists and academic scholars: Where do we talk to each other if or when Twitter finally collapses or becomes unusable? </p>
<p>It’s a useful question. Contemplating life without Twitter pushes us to look beyond Twitter’s odious underbelly to consider what we liked about it. In doing so, it can help us understand better what social media is, for better and worse, and to consider what we want it to be. </p>
<h2>Twitter communities</h2>
<p>What I will miss about Twitter is its large scale and reach. It has become the default way for so many groups to communicate with each other and, because it’s basically just one big message board, across groups. </p>
<p>Social media companies regularly argue that this scale is why there is so much <a href="https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379177">hate speech and disinformation on their networks</a>. As harmful as this speech may be, Twitter’s reach has nonetheless been a boon for, say, emerging researchers wanting to easily reach the largest number of their peers.</p>
<p>Smaller online communities are fantastic for any number of reasons. They allow members to share their interests and knowledge. Their smaller size makes them easier to moderate effectively. However, their smallness can also inhibit the serendipity of running into ideas that you wouldn’t otherwise see. </p>
<p>Furthermore, smaller online communities still depend on the benevolence of whoever happens to be in charge of the server. Twitter’s open design somewhat mitigates against the formation of strict hierarchies among groups on the platform, although as we’re learning, commercial social media still leaves us <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/mass-firings-at-twitter-better-com-show-us-the-dark-side-of-digital-layoffs/articleshow/95400833.cms">subject to the owner’s whims</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1593486310580555776"}"></div></p>
<h2>The end of Twitter</h2>
<p>Thinking about where to go after Twitter also highlights that social media networks are not substitutes for each other. Well, they are for advertisers, who will go wherever the audience is. But people use different social media for different purposes. </p>
<p>As an academic, TikTok has nothing to offer me in terms of creating and sharing knowledge with my peers. The Twitter-like Mastodon may allow for <a href="https://fediscience.org/server-list.html">easier communication among colleagues</a>, but it lacks Twitter’s out-of-community reach.</p>
<p>That there is no equivalent substitute for Twitter highlights that there is a strong public interest in fostering public social media, to provide communities with stable communication infrastructure.</p>
<p>Relatedly, this debacle also confirms that advertising does not provide a sustainable business model for socially responsible social media. Twitter has <a href="https://www.barrons.com/news/can-twitter-become-more-profitable-under-elon-musk-01650998108">only turned a profit in two of its 16 years</a>. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-14/elon-musk-twitter-loses-balenciaga-as-advertisers-quit">Advertisers are currently abandoning Twitter</a> in the face of <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/twitters-moderation-system-is-in-tatters/">Musk’s content-moderation follies</a> which, combined with Musk’s incompetence, could drive the company into bankruptcy. </p>
<p>Most important, however, its ad-based business model is based on the viral spread of content designed to engage our attention at any cost, be it bullying, harassment or hate speech. As journalism professor Yumi Wilson notes, “<a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/justinphillips/article/Elon-Musk-Twitter-17575946.php">Twitter was a scary place even before Elon</a>.”</p>
<h2>Life after Twitter</h2>
<p>All this suggests that we need to think seriously about how to move beyond ad-funded social media. Mastodon on its own <a href="https://theconversation.com/citizens-social-media-like-mastodon-can-provide-an-antidote-to-propaganda-and-disinformation-192491">offers a decentralized, community-based paradigm</a>. However, depending on the long-term commitment of volunteers and small operators is itself a recipe for instability.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/people-are-leaving-twitter-for-mastodon-but-are-they-ready-for-democratic-social-media-194220">People are leaving Twitter for Mastodon, but are they ready for democratic social media?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Much more interesting is the proposal that Mastodon-based services could be used by an arm’s length public agency like the CBC to <a href="https://theconversation.com/canadas-public-broadcaster-should-use-mastodon-to-provide-a-social-media-service-194116">publicly fund stable, well-run social media</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496482/original/file-20221121-18-u6ygc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a phone screen showing the twitter logo of a silhouette of a white bird on a blue background sits atop a pile of money and a photograph of elon musk" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496482/original/file-20221121-18-u6ygc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496482/original/file-20221121-18-u6ygc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496482/original/file-20221121-18-u6ygc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496482/original/file-20221121-18-u6ygc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496482/original/file-20221121-18-u6ygc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496482/original/file-20221121-18-u6ygc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496482/original/file-20221121-18-u6ygc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Social media platforms, like Twitter, rely on the attention economy to make profits.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Searchability</h2>
<p>Finally, we need to talk about search engines. Twitter is valuable in part because it allows individuals to broadcast easily to a large audience. Without large-scale social media, we’re <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/11/twitter-facebook-social-media-decline/672074/">back to the problem of how to discover other people’s work</a> and how to get your work in front of an audience.</p>
<p>Search engines have flown under the radar in our discussions about how platforms should be governed. If we want to reduce online platform power and make the best information easily locatable, we need to reconsider whether our current search engines are good enough. </p>
<p>There is cause for concern: <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90673924/its-not-just-you-google-search-really-is-getting-worse">Google’s gold-standard search engine has been “getting worse,”</a> in large part because the company has been clogging its results with advertising that makes it more difficult for users to find relevant information. Given that the big online <a href="https://www.cigionline.org/articles/platform-assumptions-are-a-choice-not-a-given/">platforms</a> continue to rely heavily on advertising revenues, this is a problem that will worsen.</p>
<p>Let’s not glorify Twitter. It is, in <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-bad-news-spreads-study/">many ways</a> and for many people, a malevolent force. Even pre-Musk, it was a breeding ground for <a href="https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/shocking-scale-of-abuse-on-twitter-against-women-politicians-in-india/">harassment</a>, particularly of women and individuals from marginalized groups. It can enable often life-ruining <a href="https://scott.mn/2022/10/29/twitter_features_mastodon_is_better_without/">bullying</a> and disproportionate <a href="https://yalereview.org/article/online-shaming-twitter-culture-tyson">public shaming</a> of otherwise private individuals, particularly through the <a href="https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/99662106175542726">quote-tweet function</a>. </p>
<p>Twitter has had a negative effect on the quality of our social discourse, serving as a <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-grade-facebook-tiktok-twitter-youtube-on-readiness-to-handle-election-misinformation1/">conduit for mis-</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/27/civil-rights-2022-midterms/">disinformation</a>, designed to <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90665826/yale-researchers-say-social-medias-outrage-machine-has-the-biggest-influence-on-moderate-groups">encourage outrage</a> rather than substantive conversation. </p>
<p>As bad as it was — and is — <a href="https://youtu.be/2595abcvh2M">you don’t know what you got till it’s gone</a>. Twitter pre-Musk was no paradise, but Musk’s rampage allows us to see both the good and bad in social media as it currently exists. And, as a result, to consider what we want (and need) social media to be.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/social-media-and-society-125586" target="_blank"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479539/original/file-20220817-20-g5jxhm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=1" width="100%"></a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194895/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Blayne Haggart receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. He is a Senior Fellow with the Centre for International Governance Innovation.</span></em></p>Elon Musk’s chaotic takeover of Twitter reveals what we like and need from social media.Blayne Haggart, Associate Professor of Political Science, Brock UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1629142021-07-26T12:03:24Z2021-07-26T12:03:24ZFight for control threatens to destabilize and fragment the internet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412936/original/file-20210723-19-1icr46a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4146%2C3047&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">International power plays are a threat to a stable, open internet.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/environment-royalty-free-illustration/487182330">erhui1979/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You try to use your credit card, but it doesn’t work. In fact, no one’s credit card works. You try to go to some news sites to find out why, but you can’t access any of those, either. Neither can anyone else. Panic-buying ensues. People empty ATMs of cash.</p>
<p>This kind of catastrophic pan-internet meltdown is more likely than most people realize.</p>
<p>I direct the <a href="https://cltc.berkeley.edu/internet-atlas">Internet Atlas Project</a> at the University of California, Berkeley. Our goal is to shine a light on long-term risks to the internet. We produce indicators of weak points and bottlenecks that threaten the internet’s stability.</p>
<p>For example, where are <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/undersea-cables">points of fragility in the global connectivity of cables</a>? Physical cables under the sea deliver <a href="https://internethealthreport.org/2019/the-new-investors-in-underwater-sea-cables/">95% of the internet’s voice and data traffic</a>. But some countries, like Tonga, connect to only one other country, making them vulnerable to cable-clipping attacks. </p>
<p>Another example is <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/CDN">content delivery networks</a>, which websites use to make their content readily available to large numbers of internet users. An <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/finiancial-times-new-york-times-bloomberg-news-websites-down-2021-06-08/">outage at the content delivery network Fastly</a> on June 8, 2021, briefly severed access to the websites of Amazon, CNN, PayPal, Reddit, Spotify, The New York Times and the U.K. government.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a screenshot of a web browser showing an error message" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The U.K. government, along with many big-name news organizations and companies, was briefly offline on June 8, 2021, due to an outage at a single company that distributes content for websites.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-photo-illustration-a-screen-displays-a-holding-page-news-photo/1322484485">Leon Neal/Getty Images Europe</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The biggest risks to the global internet</h2>
<p>We take measurements at various layers of the internet’s technological stack, from cables to content delivery networks. With those measurements, we identify weak points in the global internet. And from those weak points, we build theories that help us understand what parts of the internet are at risk of disruption, whom those disruptions will affect and how severely, and predict what would make the internet more resilient.</p>
<p>Currently, the internet is facing twin dangers. On one side, there’s the threat of total consolidation. Power over the internet has been increasingly concentrated primarily in the hands of a few, U.S.-based organizations. On the other side, there’s fragmentation. Attempts to challenge the status quo, particularly by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/how-russia-and-china-are-attempting-to-rewrite-cyberworld-order/2021/03/30/16030226-9190-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html">Russia and China</a>, threaten to destabilize the internet globally.</p>
<p>While there’s no single best path for the internet, our indicators can help policymakers, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, activists and others understand if their interventions are having their intended effect. For whom is the internet becoming more reliable, and for whom is is it becoming more unstable? These are the critical questions. About <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/">3.4 billion people are just now getting online</a> in countries including Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu. What kind of internet will they inherit?</p>
<h2>A US-controlled internet</h2>
<p>Since at least 2015, the core services that power the internet have become increasingly centralized in the hands of U.S. corporations. We estimate that U.S. corporations, nonprofits and government agencies could block <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/how-the-us-could-block-the-internet">a cumulative 96% of content on the global internet</a> in some capacity.</p>
<p><iframe id="pK1ip" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/pK1ip/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The U.S. Department of Justice has <a href="https://doi.org/10.15779%2FZ384Q3M">long used court orders aimed at tech providers</a> to block global access to content that’s illegal in the U.S., such as copyright infringements. But lately, the U.S. federal government has been leveraging its jurisdiction more aggressively. In June, the DOJ used a court order to briefly seize <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/notices-iran-linked-websites-say-they-have-been-seized-by-us-2021-06-22/">an Iranian news site</a> because the department said it was spreading disinformation.</p>
<p>Due to interlocking dependencies on the web, such as content delivery networks, one misstep in applying this technique could take down a key piece of internet infrastructure, making a widespread outage <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/cache-rules-everything-around-me">more likely</a>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, U.S.-based technology companies also risk wreaking havoc. Consider Australia’s recent <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015">spat with Facebook over paying news outlets for their content</a>. At one point, Facebook blocked all news on its platform in Australia. One consequence was that many people in Fiji, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/facebooks-australia-ban-threatens-to-leave-pacific-without-key-news-source">temporarily lost a key news source</a> because they rely on prepaid cellphone plans that feature discounted access to Facebook. As these <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/flashpoints">skirmishes</a> increase in frequency, countries worldwide are likely to suffer disruptions to their internet access.</p>
<h2>A splinternet</h2>
<p>Naturally, not everyone is happy with this U.S.-led internet. <a href="https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/russias-twitter-throttling-may-give-censors-never-before-seen-capabilities/">Russia throttles Twitter traffic</a>. <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/google-project-dragonfly-employees-quitting">China blocks access to Google</a>. </p>
<p>These domestic maneuvers certainly threaten localized meltdowns. India now regularly <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/70-of-global-internet-shutdowns-in-2020-were-in-india-report/articleshow/81321980.cms">shuts down the internet regionally during civil unrest</a>. But, in aggregate, they present a more global threat: <a href="https://medium.com/cltc-bulletin/internet-fragmentation-beyond-free-and-closed-cb8b1dfcd16a">internet frgamentation</a>. A fragmented internet threatens speech, trade and <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/the-consequences-of-a-fragmenting-less-global-internet/">global cooperation in science</a>. </p>
<p>It also increases the risk of cyberattacks on core internet infrastructure. In a global internet, attacks on infrastructure hurt everyone, but walled-off national internets would change that calculus. For example, <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/21/65940/russia-wants-to-cut-itself-off-from-the-global-internet-heres-what-that-really-means/">Russia has the capacity to disconnect itself from the rest of the world’s internet</a> while maintaining service domestically. With that capacity, it could <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/cache-bail">attack core global internet infrastructure</a> with less risk of upsetting its domestic population. A sophisticated attack against a U.S. company could trigger a large-scale internet outage.</p>
<h2>The future of the internet</h2>
<p>For much of its history, the internet has been imperfectly, but largely, open. Content could be accessed anywhere, across borders. Perhaps this openness is <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/is-internet-centralization-good">because, rather than in spite, of the U.S.’s dominance</a> over the internet.</p>
<p>Whether or not that theory holds, the U.S.’s dominance over the internet is unlikely to persist. The status quo faces challenges from the U.S.’s <a href="https://chinai.substack.com/p/chinai-142-digitalized-public-governance">adversaries</a>, its <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-france-gaia-x-cloud-platform-eu-tech-sovereignty/">historical allies</a> and its <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796160524/apple-declines-doj-request-to-unlock-pensacola-gunmans-phones">own domestic tech companies</a>. Absent action, the world will be left with some mixture of unchecked U.S. power and ad-hoc, decentralized skirmishes.</p>
<p>In this environment, building a stable and transnational internet for future generations is a challenge. It requires delicacy and precision. That’s where work like ours comes into play. To make the internet more stable globally, people need measurements to understand its chokepoints and vulnerabilities. Just as central banks watch measures of inflation and employment when they decide how to set rates, internet governance, too, should rely on indicators, however imperfect.</p>
<p>[<em>Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-understand">Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162914/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Merrill receives funding from The Internet Society and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.</span></em></p>The US is wrestling with the rest of the world for control of the internet. The ‘net as we know it could be a victim of the struggle.Nick Merrill, Research Fellow, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1175652019-06-12T11:30:10Z2019-06-12T11:30:10ZCompanies’ self-regulation doesn’t have to be bad for the public<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278726/original/file-20190610-52758-189aq1l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C162%2C5184%2C3282&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Managing a shared resource doesn't have to involve fences.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sheep-new-zealand-421561492">Caroline Ryan</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If Boeing is allowed to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-allows-jetmakers-to-self-certify-that-planes-meet-us-safety-requirements/2019/03/15/96d24d4a-46e6-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html">certify that a crash-prone aircraft is safe</a>, and Facebook can <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/opinion/zuckerberg-privacy-facebook.html">violate users’ privacy expectations</a>, should companies and industries ever be <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/436328-corporate-self-regulation-is-failing">allowed to police themselves</a>? The debate is <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-antitrust-legal-explainer/explainer-should-big-tech-fear-u-s-antitrust-enforcers-idUSKCN1T62K3">heating up</a> particularly in the U.S. tech sector with growing calls to regulate – or even break up – the likes of <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazon-retail-chief-says-scrutiny-is-warranted-but-companys-breakup-is-not-2019-06-05">Google, Apple and Amazon</a>. </p>
<p>It turns out to be possible, at least sometimes, for companies and industries to govern themselves, while still protecting the public interest. Groundbreaking work by <a href="http://www.aei.org/publication/elinor-ostrom-and-the-solution-to-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/">Nobel Prize-winning political economist Elinor Ostrom</a> and her husband Vincent found a solution to a classic economic quandary, in which people – and businesses – self-interestedly enrich themselves as quickly as possible with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12116">certain resources</a> including <a href="http://bierdoctor.com/papers/Rader_derived_data_abstract_May_2017.pdf">personal data</a>, thinking little about the secondary costs they might be inflicting on others.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278729/original/file-20190610-52771-1j02bnf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278729/original/file-20190610-52771-1j02bnf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278729/original/file-20190610-52771-1j02bnf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=892&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278729/original/file-20190610-52771-1j02bnf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=892&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278729/original/file-20190610-52771-1j02bnf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=892&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278729/original/file-20190610-52771-1j02bnf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1121&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278729/original/file-20190610-52771-1j02bnf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1121&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278729/original/file-20190610-52771-1j02bnf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1121&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Elinor Ostrom in 2009, when she won the Nobel Prize in Economics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nobel_Prize_2009-Press_Conference_KVA-30.jpg">Holger Motzkau/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the director of the <a href="https://ostromworkshop.indiana.edu/research/internet-cybersecurity/index.html">Ostrom Workshop Program on Cybersecurity and Internet Governance</a>, I have been involved in numerous projects studying how to solve these sorts of problems when they arise, both online and offline. Most recently, my <a href="https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2017-no-2/when-toasters-attack/">work</a> has looked at how to manage the massively interconnected world of sensors, computers and smart devices – what I <a href="https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/solutions/industries/docs/gov/everything-for-cities.pdf">and others</a> call the “<a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3266188">internet of everything</a>.” </p>
<p>I’ve found that there are ways <a href="https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789">companies can become leaders</a> by <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2573787">experimenting with business opportunities</a> and collaborating with peers, while still working with regulators to protect the public, including both in the air and in cyberspace.</p>
<h2>Tragedy revisited</h2>
<p>In a classic economic problem, called “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons">the tragedy of the commons</a>,” a parcel of grassland is made available for a community to graze its livestock. Everyone tries to get the most benefit from it – and as a result, the land is overgrazed. What started as a resource for everyone becomes of little use to anyone. </p>
<p>For many years, economists thought there were only two possible solutions. One was for the government to step in and limit how many people could graze their animals. The other was to split the land up among private owners who had exclusive use of it, and could sustainably manage it for their individual benefit.</p>
<p>The Ostroms, however, found a third way. In some cases, they revealed, <a href="http://www.aei.org/publication/elinor-ostrom-and-the-solution-to-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/">self-organization can work well</a>, especially when the various people and groups involve can <a href="https://www.iucn.org/downloads/policy_matters_19_preface__introductions_and_chapters_1_5.pdf">communicate</a> effectively. They called it “polycentric governance,” because it allows regulation to come from more than just one central authority. Their work can help determine if and when companies can effectively regulate themselves – or whether it’s best for the government to step in.</p>
<h2>A polycentric primer</h2>
<p>The concept can seem complicated, but in practice it is increasingly popular, in federal programs and even as a goal for <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operations-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/">governing the internet</a>. </p>
<p>Scholars such as Elinor Ostrom produced a broad swath of research over decades, looking at <a href="https://books.google.hr/books/about/Polycentricity_and_Local_Public_Economie.html?id=iBZ32c7KLWUC&redir_esc=y">public schools and police department performance</a> in Midwestern U.S. cities, coastal overfishing, forest management in nations like Nepal, and even <a href="https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol37/iss3/7">traffic jams</a> in New York City. They identified <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1304697">commonalities among all these studies</a>, <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/ostrom_lecture.pdf">including</a> whether the group’s members can help set the rules by which their shared resources are governed, how much control they have over who gets to share it, how disputes are resolved, and how everyone’s use is monitored.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T6OgRki5SgM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom explains her work in a 2010 lecture.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All of these factors can help predict whether individuals or groups will successfully self-regulate, whether the challenge they’re facing is <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=1494833">climate change</a>, <a href="https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1888&context=aulr">cybersecurity</a>, or anything else. <a href="http://escotet.org/2010/11/interview-with-nobel-laureate-elinor-ostrom/">Trust is key</a>, as Lin Ostrom said, and an excellent way to build trust is to let <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2490">smaller groups make their own decisions</a>.</p>
<p>Polycentric governance’s embrace of self-regulation involves relying on <a href="https://www.ubs.com/microsites/nobel-perspectives/en/laureates/elinor-ostrom.html">human ingenuity</a> and collaboration skills to solve difficult problems – while focusing on practical measures to address specific challenges.</p>
<p>Self-regulation does have its limits, though – as has been clear in the revelations about how <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/faa-let-boeing-self-regulate-software-believed-737-max-crashes-2019-3">the Federal Aviation Administration allowed Boeing</a> to <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/faa-let-boeing-self-regulate-software-believed-737-max-crashes-2019-3">certify the safety</a> <a href="https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/boeing-downplayed-737-max-software-risks-self-certified-much-of-planes-safety/">of its own software</a>. Facebook has also been heavily criticized for failing to block an <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebooks-biggest-fails-before-cambridge-analytica/">anonymous horde</a> of <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-passwords-plaintext-change-yours/">users across the globe</a> from <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-social-responsibility-should-include-privacy-protection-94549">manipulating people</a>’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/technology/facebook-regulation-ftc-fine.html">political views</a>.</p>
<p>Polycentric regulation is a departure from the idea of “<a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2012/06/14/jeffrey-weiss-elinor-ostroms-enduring-trust-in-the-commons">keep it simple, stupid</a>” – rather, it is a call for engagement by numerous groups to grapple with the complexities of the real world. </p>
<p>Both Facebook and Boeing now need to convince themselves, their employees, investors, policymakers, users and customers that they can be trusted. Ostrom’s ideas suggest they could begin to do this by engaging with peers and industry groups to set rules and ensure they are enforced.</p>
<h2>Governing the ‘internet of everything’</h2>
<p>Another industry in <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/annashedletsky/2018/08/06/why-industrial-iot-is-usually-a-failure-and-how-to-fix-it/#2fe576d042ed">serious need of better regulations</a> is the smart-device business, with tens of billions of connected devices around the world, and little to no <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2016/1026/Opinion-How-to-fix-an-internet-of-broken-things">concern</a> for user security or privacy.</p>
<p>Customers often buy the cheapest smart-home camera or digital sensor, <a href="https://www.schneier.com/books/click_here/">without looking at competitors’</a> security and privacy protections. The results are predictable – hackers have hijacked thousands of internet-connected devices and used them to attack the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davelewis/2017/10/23/the-ddos-attack-against-dyn-one-year-later/#4765cbe51ae9">physical network of the internet</a>, take control of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30575104">industrial</a> equipment, and spy on private citizens through their smartphones and <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/woman-claims-hacker-used-baby-monitor-to-spy-on-her-in-her-bedroom-2018-06-07">baby monitors</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278730/original/file-20190610-52789-1oe6wxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278730/original/file-20190610-52789-1oe6wxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278730/original/file-20190610-52789-1oe6wxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278730/original/file-20190610-52789-1oe6wxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278730/original/file-20190610-52789-1oe6wxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278730/original/file-20190610-52789-1oe6wxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278730/original/file-20190610-52789-1oe6wxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/278730/original/file-20190610-52789-1oe6wxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Who else might be watching this view, over the internet?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-baby-monitor-security-538634722">Saklakova/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some governments are starting to get involved. The state of California and the European Union are exploring laws that promote “<a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-law-iot-devised-to-have-reasonable-security-feature">reasonable</a>” security requirements, at least as a baseline. The EU is encouraging companies to band together to establish <a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/will-the-gdpr-incite-sectoral-codes-of-conduct/">industry-wide codes of conduct</a>. </p>
<h2>Getting governance right</h2>
<p>Effective self-governance may seem impossible in the “Internet of everything” because of the scale and variety of groups and industries involved, but polycentric governance does provide a useful lens through which to view these problems. Ostrom has asserted this approach may be <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1304697">the most flexible and adaptable way</a> to manage rapidly changing industries. It may also help avoid conflicting government regulations that risk stifling innovation in the name of protecting consumers without helping either cause. </p>
<p>But success is not certain. It requires active engagement by all parties, who must share a sense of responsibility to the customers and mutual trust in one another. That’s not easy to build in any community, let alone the <a href="https://www.digitalistmag.com/digital-economy/2018/07/20/digital-transformation-modern-form-of-creative-destruction-06179806">dynamic tech industry</a>.</p>
<p>Government involvement can help build bridges and solidify trust across the private sector, as happened with cybersecurity efforts from the <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2446631">National Institute for Standards and Technology</a>. Some states, like <a href="https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ohio-law-creates-cybersecurity-safe-harbor-for-businesses/">Ohio</a>, are even rewarding firms for using appropriate self-regulation in their cybersecurity decision-making.</p>
<p>Polycentric governance can be flexible, adapting to new technologies more appropriately – and often more quickly – than pure governmental regulation. It also can be more efficient and cost-effective, though it’s not a cure for all regulatory ills. And it’s important to note that regulation can spur innovation as well as protect consumers, especially <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-simple-rules-of-disciplined-innovation">when the rules are simple</a> and outcome focused.</p>
<p>Consider the North American Electric Reliability Council. That organization was originally created as a group of companies that came together voluntarily in an effort to protect against blackouts. NERC standards, however, were eventually made legally enforceable in the aftermath of the <a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985876/print">Northeast blackout of 2003</a>. They are an example of an organic code of conduct that was voluntarily adopted and subsequently reinforced by government, consistent with professor Ostrom’s ideas. Ideally, it should not require such a crisis to spur this process forward. </p>
<p>Ultimately, what’s needed – and what professor Ostrom and her colleagues and successors have called for – is more experimentation and less theorizing. As the 10-year anniversary of Ostrom’s Nobel Prize approaches, I believe it is time to put her insights to work, offering industries the opportunity to self-regulate where appropriate while leaving the door open for the possibility of government action, including antitrust enforcement, to protect the public and promote <a href="https://ndias.nd.edu/news-publications/ndias-quarterly/the-meaning-of-cyber-peace/">cyber peace</a>.</p>
<p>[ <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=thanksforreading">Thanks for reading! We can send you The Conversation’s stories every day in an informative email. Sign up today.</a></em> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117565/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Shackelford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A Nobel Prize-winning political economist found a way to promote good governance and protect users without the need for heavy-handed government regulation.Scott Shackelford, Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics; Director, Ostrom Workshop Program on Cybersecurity and Internet Governance; Cybersecurity Program Chair, IU-Bloomington, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/789702017-06-09T03:55:27Z2017-06-09T03:55:27ZCan the world ever really keep terrorists off the internet?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172789/original/file-20170607-29563-1k0ds6c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can the world come together as one to fight terrorism online?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/aerial-view-people-forming-world-map-213005812">rawpixel.com/shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After London’s most recent terror attacks, British Prime Minister Theresa May called on countries to collaborate on internet regulation to prevent terrorism planning online. May <a href="http://time.com/4804640/london-attack-theresa-may-speech-transcript-full/">criticized online spaces</a> that allow such ideas to breed, and the companies that host them.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3_C6B4piRvI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">British Prime Minister Theresa May has said it is time to say ‘enough is enough’ when it comes to tackling terrorism.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>May did not identify any companies by name, but she could have been referring to the likes of Google, Twitter and Facebook. In the past, <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/08/25/facebook-youtube-twitter-terrorism-isis/">British lawmakers have said</a> these companies offer terrorism a platform. She also might have been referring to smaller companies, like the developers of apps like <a href="https://telegram.org/">Telegram</a>, <a href="https://whispersystems.org/">Signal</a> and <a href="https://www.wickr.com/">Wickr</a>, which are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-genie-is-out-of-the-bottle-its-foolish-to-think-encryption-can-now-be-banned-52395">favored by terrorist groups</a>. These apps offer encrypted messaging services that allow users to hide communications. </p>
<p>May is not alone in being concerned about attacks on citizens. After her comments on Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump vowed to work with allies and do whatever it takes to stop the spread of terrorism. He did not, however, specifically mention internet regulation.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UcnUdZ6ZskI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">President Donald Trump addressed the London terror attacks during an event at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, DC.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Internet companies and other commentators, however, have <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/tech-companies-respond-to-theresa-mays-call-for-internet-regulation-after-london-terror-attack-2017-6">pushed back</a> against the suggestion that more government regulation is needed, saying <a href="https://theconversation.com/bypassing-encryption-lawful-hacking-is-the-next-frontier-of-law-enforcement-technology-74122">weakening everyone’s encryption poses different public dangers</a>. Many have also questioned whether some regulation, like banning encryption, <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133644-theresa-mays-repeated-calls-to-ban-encryption-still-wont-work/">is possible at all</a>.</p>
<p>Because the internet is geographically borderless, nearly any message can have a global audience. Questions about online regulation <a href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/is02/readings/johnson-post.html">have persisted</a> for years, especially regarding harmful information. As a law professor who studies the impact of the internet on society, I believe the goal of international collaboration is incredibly complicated, given global history.</p>
<h2>Some control is possible</h2>
<p>While no one country has control over the internet, it is a common misconception that the internet cannot be regulated. In fact, individual countries can and do exert significant control over the internet within their own borders. </p>
<p>In 2012, for example, the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/syria-internet-shut-down-online-blackout-explained_n_2213263.html">Bashar al-Assad regime shut down</a> the internet for all of Syria. According to Akamai Technologies, an internet monitoring company, the country went <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/11/29/syria_blackout_internet_shutdown_a_bad_sign_for_activists_assad_regime.html">entirely offline</a> on Nov. 29, 2012. The internet blackout lasted roughly <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-07/news/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-internetbre94616m-20130507_1_renesys-syria-opendns">three days</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"274163048263057408"}"></div></p>
<p><a href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/filtering/china/">China aggressively blocks access</a> to more than 18,000 websites, including Facebook, Google, The New York Times and YouTube. While there are some limited workarounds, the Chinese government regularly <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/chinas-great-firewall-is-doubling-up-on-vpn-regulation.html">targets and eliminates</a> them. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.tjsl.edu/slomansonb/5.2%20Yahoo%20US.pdf">French courts have prohibited</a> the display and sale of Nazi materials online in France by Yahoo’s online auction service. After losing a legal case, Yahoo <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2001/jan/04/internetnews.media">banned the sale</a> of Nazi memorabilia from its website worldwide, though it denied that the move was in direct response to the court ruling.</p>
<p>Even in the United States, <a href="http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1626&context=fclj">local governments have shut down</a> mobile data and cellphone service during protests. In addition, the United States reportedly either is developing or has developed its own internet “<a href="https://epic.org/foia/dhs/internet-kill-switch/">kill switch</a>” for times of national crisis.</p>
<h2>International collaboration</h2>
<p>These types of regulation efforts aren’t limited to individual governments. Groups of countries have successfully collaborated to pursue common goals online. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.privacyenforcement.net/">Global Privacy Enforcement Network</a>, for example, is a network of representatives from nearly 50 countries including the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany. The GPEN works to develop shared enforcement practices related to internet privacy and has reviewed many companies’ online privacy policies. When the GPEN discovers websites or apps that <a href="https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/news-and-announcements/2015/nr-c_150902/">violate a country’s privacy laws</a>, it informs the administrators or developers and encourages them to follow those laws. The group can recommend countries take <a href="https://www.privacyenforcement.net/sites/default/files/Annual%20Report%20Final%20Version.pdf">enforcement action</a> against websites or apps that do not comply.</p>
<p>The European Union, made up of 28 countries, has also worked to regulate harmful messages on the internet. In 2016, the European Commission <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm">announced</a> a joint agreement with internet companies Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube. Among other things, the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/hate_speech_code_of_conduct_en.pdf">companies agreed to create clear and rapid processes</a> for reviewing potentially objectionable information and removing it if need be.</p>
<h2>At the UN</h2>
<p>In addition, the United Nations has been pursuing general global regulation of the internet. The U.N.’s first Working Group on Internet Governance was created in 2004 to propose models for global internet regulation.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the working group <a href="https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/the-power-of-networks">has not been able to agree</a> on how to create new transnational bodies with rule-setting or regulatory power over the internet. Each country has different views on the global political issues raised by the internet’s vast reach. While some countries can find common ground, it may be nearly impossible to create a worldwide model that harmonizes all of these perspectives. </p>
<p>The farthest the U.N. has gotten so far has been creating the Internet Governance Forum, which <a href="http://igf.wgig.org/about.htm">brings together</a> governments, private companies and individuals to address questions about internet regulation. The group has <a href="http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/join_unesco_organized_sessions_at_the_internet_governance_fo/">discussed and reported on</a> internet access, human rights and free speech issues. These discussions are an opportunity to exchange experiences and views, but there are no negotiated outcomes, rules or laws that come from the IGF. </p>
<p>Finding widespread common ground on internet-based issues will likely only <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/3061574/the-new-nationalism-of-brexit-and-trump-is-a-product-of-the-digital-age">become more difficult</a> as the U.K. exits from the EU and the U.S. takes increasingly nationalist positions. Even so, the experiences of smaller groups of countries may inform a broader effort as global policies on terrorism shift, and the world’s approach to internet regulation changes with it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78970/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shontavia Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>British Prime Minister Theresa May called for an international cooperative effort to drive terrorists off the internet. How well have other global efforts to manage the internet fared?Shontavia Johnson, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/460332015-08-14T05:35:12Z2015-08-14T05:35:12ZBreaking the US government’s hold on the internet won’t be easy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91819/original/image-20150813-21428-1ucpjzq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C1766%2C5000%2C2589&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">America by shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The internet today is far bigger and more inextricably linked to our daily lives than its creators in the 1970s and 1980s could have imagined. So perhaps it is not surprising that some of the structures put in place decades ago may have failed to keep pace with its rapid evolution.</p>
<p>Chief of these is perhaps the nonprofit organisation ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. ICANN is responsible for the key roles of assigning the unique internet protocol (IP) addresses that locate individual websites on the net, and managing the domain name system (DNS), which translates the human-readable web addresses we type (such as www.theconversation.com) into IP addresses (such as 192.68.0.1). Its policy decisions have an <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-london-meeting-that-could-shape-the-future-of-the-internet-28278">important impact</a> on the internet’s evolution, for example the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/domain-name-expansion-signals-political-shift-of-the-internet-22865">expansion of top level domain names</a>. </p>
<p>However, since ICANN was established in 1998 its <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/icann-mou-1998-11-25-en">contractual links with the US Department of Commerce</a> have led to criticism of a perceived US and Anglo-centric bias. Controversies such as the original rejection of the <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/03/19/why-icanns-approval-of-the-xxx-domain-is-an-important-precedent/">.xxx domain name for pornography</a> led to criticism that the US had <a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2003_1/komaitis">too much sway</a> over ICANN’s decisions, and calls for ICANN to disassociate itself from the US, or be replaced with a truly independent, global agency, increased.</p>
<h2>ICANN’T remain so US-centric</h2>
<p>The ICANN-US government relationship has been steadily renegotiated, first in a 2009 <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en">Affirmation of Commitments</a> that released ICANN from direct government control but allowed continued influence over <a href="http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_067688.pdf">certain activities</a> such as the key function of issuing IP addresses. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91586/original/image-20150812-18071-ut3y02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">ICANN president Fadi Chehadé giving a speech in Toronto.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fadi-chehade-toronto.jpg">ICANN</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This accelerated after Edward Snowden <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23768248">revealed the extent of global US surveillance</a>, which led to a group of core internet organisations releasing the <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en">Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation</a> in 2013, calling for the speedy de-Americanisation of ICANN’s functions and the creation of a more global, equitable basis for internet governance. That ICANN’s own president and chief executive <a href="https://www.icann.org/profiles/fadi-chehade">Fadi Chehadé</a> was among the signatories is thought to have spurred the US government on to pass the bipartisan Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/805/all-info">DOTCOM</a>) Act in June 2015. </p>
<p>Congress now has a short window in which to approve the transition plans and temporarily extend the current agreement, if needed, past the expiry date of September 30. </p>
<h2>Breaking up is hard to do</h2>
<p>What next? ICANN is to transfer its functions to a multistakeholder organisation – a power-sharing agreement between governments, civil society, the private sector and other interested parties. This is a worthy approach but a firm guiding hand is needed to ensure the whole enterprise does not become a talking shop unable to make any decisions.</p>
<p>An <a href="https://www.icann.org/stewardship/coordination-group">ICANN Transition Coordination Group</a> has been set up to manage the transition, and a <a href="https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-proposal-EN.pdf">199-page</a> final transition proposal is <a href="https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/">open for public comment</a> until September 8.</p>
<p>However, the true complexity of this process has become apparent. Due to the overwhelming number of interested parties <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/icann-stewardship-transfer-looms-amid-doubts-over-deadline/">wanting a role in proceedings</a>, it is unlikely any agreement will be reached by the deadline.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91802/original/image-20150813-21393-1bgrjci.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alphabetsoup: who runs the internet?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lynnalipinski/ICANN</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Uncharted waters</h2>
<p>Under the proposals, ICANN’s IP address-assigning functions would be contracted out to a separate entity, overseen by staff drawn from domain name registries, with powers to make changes. There will also be a IANA review process that, as a last resort, could recommend that the contract be terminated. Anyone with a reasonable claim to be involved can be, and this way oversight is shared by a range of groups in a process that should provide balance. </p>
<p>Crucially, there is no direct role for any government or intergovernmental body, with the only route of influence through the <a href="https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee">Governmental Advisory Committee</a>, which has around 140 governments as members and 30 intergovernmental organisations as observers and advises the ICANN Board on wider policy issues. Like ICANN, this committee has also drawn criticism for <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/02/24/gac-backs-off-tld-censorship-a-bit-but-not-enough">being a mouthpiece of western governments</a>. However, any pressure applied by governments will come up against the slow-moving behemoth that is ICANN’s internal procedures, which require consensus from many advisory and technical committees.</p>
<p>Another body expected to assert its influence is the International Telecommunication Union, the UN’s information technology and telecoms agency. While it is a specialist organisation composed of many commercial and non-governmental expert groups, like the UN it is a member state organisation. In the past the union has been put forward as a body that could fulfil ICANN’s governance functions, moving away from perceived western-centrism. But as a body comprised of national government members, greater involvement could lead to a more “top-down” form of internet control subject to the whims of international relations between members and their national and commercial interests.</p>
<p>ICANN has many flaws, but its lengthy, measured deliberations have guided the internet in its evolution to its current state as an open, interoperable, worldwide network. The alternatives could be so much more damaging to the essential need for the internet to remain open and transparently governed. The proposals put forward would maintain elements of this; whether ICANN’s restructure will be resistant to political pressure remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46033/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Easton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If there’s to be one committee to rule them all, it needs to be handled right.Catherine Easton, Senior Lecturer, Law School, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/415282015-05-27T11:25:33Z2015-05-27T11:25:33ZThriving market for dwindling IP addresses is a good commercial reason to finally adopt IPv6<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83094/original/image-20150527-4812-1um4sh5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You can hold off for now, but IPv6, like change, is inevitable.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IP by Grasko/shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Internet Protocol (IP) has been phenomenally successful. From an experiment in the 1970s, it has evolved to an internet spanning the globe, connecting billions of users. IP underpins the enormous success that is the World Wide Web – and its ubiquity has led to the convergence a wide range of technologies upon it, including digital phone calls made using Voice-over-IP (VoIP).</p>
<p>But IP isn’t just successful, it’s valuable too. IP requires computers attached to the network to have an IP address. The current version (IPv4) has a 32-bit addressing scheme, which provides a total of 2<sup>32</sup> or 4.3 billion globally unique addresses. While that may seem like a lot, historically IP address space was given out in large blocks – in the early days up to 16m addresses at a time. </p>
<p>As available addresses disappear, their value grows, and a thriving market is developing around the resale of unused IP addresses. Recently the UK government’s Department for Work and Pensions <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32826353">sold unused addresses</a> within the enormous space allocated to it to a Norwegian company, Altibox, for £600,000. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83010/original/image-20150526-24751-1ymqd73.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83010/original/image-20150526-24751-1ymqd73.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83010/original/image-20150526-24751-1ymqd73.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83010/original/image-20150526-24751-1ymqd73.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83010/original/image-20150526-24751-1ymqd73.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83010/original/image-20150526-24751-1ymqd73.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83010/original/image-20150526-24751-1ymqd73.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83010/original/image-20150526-24751-1ymqd73.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">IPv4 addressing, a hierarchical address where each element is assigned as network or host bits.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ipv4_address.svg">Indeterminate</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Conserving a dwindling resource</h2>
<p>The need to conserve IP addresses was realised as early as the 1990s. This led to the creation of a system of <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/internet-technical-community/the-rir-system">five regional internet registries</a> (RIRs) under the global <a href="http://www.iana.org/">Internet Assigned Numbers Authority</a> (IANA). The five RIRs requested blocks of 16m addresses at a time from IANA as needed, from which they would <a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml">assign addresses for use</a> by others. In February 2011 IANA allocated the <a href="https://www.nro.net/news/ipv4-free-pool-depleted">last of its largest blocks</a>, one to each RIR, and declared the IPv4 address space exhausted.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83084/original/image-20150527-4835-o3venn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83084/original/image-20150527-4835-o3venn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83084/original/image-20150527-4835-o3venn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83084/original/image-20150527-4835-o3venn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83084/original/image-20150527-4835-o3venn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83084/original/image-20150527-4835-o3venn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83084/original/image-20150527-4835-o3venn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83084/original/image-20150527-4835-o3venn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Allocated IPv4 address space over time, by RIR.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet, reading this online as you are, clearly this has not brought about the end of the internet. But RIRs have become much more strict about assigning addresses. For example RIPE NCC, the European RIR, now provides at most only a block of around 1,000 addresses at a time. The development of <a href="http://www.vicomsoft.com/learning-center/network-address-translation/">network address translation</a> (NAT) has hugely slowed the consumption of globally unique IP addresses, allowing an entire network of client computers, such as in your own home network, to connect to the internet while sharing a single globally unique IP. However, it’s clear a new approach is needed – and in the meantime a growing open market for IPv4 addresses is emerging.</p>
<h2>Putting a value on IP</h2>
<p>Microsoft made the first big purchase of IP addresses in March 2011, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12859585">buying around 660,000 addresses from bankrupt Nortel</a> for US$7.5m, or around US$11 each. This figure has remained fairly stable since, with one broker recently indicating variance <a href="http://ipv4marketgroup.com/broker-services/buy/">from US$7 to US$13</a>. These transfers are <a href="https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/ipv4-transfers/table-of-transfers">publicly viewable</a>, at least under RIPE’s <a href="https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#55">transfer policies</a> in Europe.</p>
<p>We’re likely to see much more trading activity as the RIRs edge closer to exhausting their allocations – which could <a href="http://teamarin.net/2015/05/07/ipv4-request-pipeline">happen within weeks</a> for the North American RIR, ARIN. Price fluctuations will depend on IPv4 demand, which in turn will depend on how quickly and painlessly its successor, IPv6, is deployed. </p>
<p>With 128-bit addressing, IPv6 can supply enough addresses for every networked device on the planet for the foreseeable future (around 340,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 – or hundreds of times more than required to <a href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/whatis/ipv6-addresses-how-many-is-that-in-numbers/">assign an address to every atom on Earth</a>).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83012/original/image-20150526-24734-116pcin.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83012/original/image-20150526-24734-116pcin.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83012/original/image-20150526-24734-116pcin.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83012/original/image-20150526-24734-116pcin.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83012/original/image-20150526-24734-116pcin.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83012/original/image-20150526-24734-116pcin.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83012/original/image-20150526-24734-116pcin.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83012/original/image-20150526-24734-116pcin.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">IPv6 addressing, an enormous address space.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ipv6_address_leading_zeros.svg">Indeterminate</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The IPv6 waiting game</h2>
<p>The core IPv6 specification was published around 20 years ago, and today all major operating systems and routing platforms support it, yet without any urgency to move from IPv4, few have done so.</p>
<p>So what’s the hold-up? One problem is its incompatibility with IPv4: an IPv6-only device cannot communicate directly with an IPv4-only device, instead a translation mechanism is required. Nor is there a deadline to drive the switch, as there was to fix the Y2K bug or with the UK’s phased analogue-to-digital television switch-over.</p>
<p>The initial plan for global IPv6 deployment, as much as any plan existed, was to transition before IPv4 address space ran out. Instead, we’re now in the position of individual ISPs and organisations trying to work out how to implement IPv6 while sustaining their IPv4 operations.</p>
<p>Some larger content providers offer their services over both IPv4 or IPv6 – Google and Facebook, for example, have done so since <a href="http://www.worldipv6launch.org/">World IPv6 Launch day</a> in June 2012. Google’s <a href="https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html">public IPv6 stats</a> show that around 6% of all its customer traffic is now IPv6, heading towards 10% within a year. Content delivery networks such as Akamai <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/article/2187128/lan-wan/big-news-for-ipv6--akamai-to-launch-service-in-april.html">also offer IPv6</a>, allowing their customers an easy way to enable IPv6 for their own services. Akamai’s own <a href="http://www.stateoftheinternet.com/trends-visualizations-ipv6-adoption-ipv4-exhaustion-global-heat-map-network-country-growth-data.html">stats</a> show it recently topped 1m hits per second via IPv6 worldwide. ISPs have also begun IPv6 roll-out, perhaps the biggest example being Comcast in the US. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83083/original/image-20150527-4812-1iqroxb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83083/original/image-20150527-4812-1iqroxb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83083/original/image-20150527-4812-1iqroxb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83083/original/image-20150527-4812-1iqroxb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83083/original/image-20150527-4812-1iqroxb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83083/original/image-20150527-4812-1iqroxb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83083/original/image-20150527-4812-1iqroxb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83083/original/image-20150527-4812-1iqroxb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Projected IPv4 address space run-out, by RIR.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Inevitably, there will be a (perhaps very protracted) period of “dual stack” deployment, where both protocols are offered to cater for older devices. But this adds complexity and isn’t a long-term solution. Running IPv6-only networks, translating to an increasingly “legacy” IPv4 where necessary at the edge, is the most viable future model. And with providers such as Google, Facebook and Netflix already IPv6-enabled, a typical home network may already see as much as 50% of its traffic being natively IPv6-capable.</p>
<h2>What difference will IPv6 make?</h2>
<p>Simply put, IPv6 allows internet growth. It’s unfortunate that the general public will be blissfully unaware of it, despite standing to benefit from the new internet technologies and devices it will enable. No one should need to ever see or, heaven forbid, have to type in a IPv6 address. In that sense, IPv6 is set to become the unsung hero of the internet. With its vast globally unique address space, IPv6 allows every device on the internet to be directly addressable – no need for complexities such as NAT or limitations on running services from home computers. </p>
<p>For those in charge of networks or developing applications, IPv6 simplifies operation and design – reported to be a major driver for Comcast’s IPv6 deployment. Facebook has <a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2014/06/facebook-moving-to-an-ipv6-only-internal-network/">recently announced</a> that its internal network traffic will soon be IPv6-only. These are big indicators of an IPv6 future. For application developers, the benefits are less readily realised until a significant portion of their customers can use IPv6, but the potential is there.</p>
<p>For the internet to meet the increasing demands of its connected users, and certainly for the much-touted “Internet of Things” of a multitude of internet-connected devices to be made possible, the move to IPv6 is essential.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41528/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Chown has in the past received funding from the European Commission for research and deployment projects in IPv6, most notably the 6NET project from 2002-2005. He is currently co-chair of the UK IPv6 Council.</span></em></p>The UK government has sold spare IP addresses to a booming resale market - so now there’s a cash incentive to move to IPv6 sooner rather than later.Tim Chown, Lecturer, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/396022015-04-01T14:45:12Z2015-04-01T14:45:12ZDoes civic society need Martha Lane Fox as online champion?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76791/original/image-20150401-31309-or3fsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There needs to be more to the net than just data scraping and surveillance.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/heyrocker/2601758109/">heyrocker</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In his iconic Discworld series, the late Terry Pratchett offered two useful social observations: first, that dragons affect the value of personal property and, second, that in order to avoid tyranny we should always question who guards the guards.</p>
<p>The second is relevant to the points made by <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/tech-giants-too-much-power-reclaim-internet">Martha Lane Fox</a> who, in her recent <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05p9tvt/the-richard-dimbleby-lecture-30032015">Richard Dimbleby Lecture</a>, called for the creation of an civic institute to “examine the ethical and moral issues posed by the internet”.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76789/original/image-20150401-31292-4ydupr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76789/original/image-20150401-31292-4ydupr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76789/original/image-20150401-31292-4ydupr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76789/original/image-20150401-31292-4ydupr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76789/original/image-20150401-31292-4ydupr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76789/original/image-20150401-31292-4ydupr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76789/original/image-20150401-31292-4ydupr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76789/original/image-20150401-31292-4ydupr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Martha Lane Fox.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Cabinet Office/Crown Copyright</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lane Fox envisages her institute as guardians to watch over us everyday users of the world wide web, and to guard against the <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/internet/162114-google-accounts-for-25-of-all-internet-traffic-is-used-by-60-of-online-devices-daily">domination of corporations</a>, government <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall">censorship</a>, and self-serving EU legislative agendas that provide only <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24622919">weak data regulation and protection</a>.</p>
<p>These concerns <a href="https://projects.eff.org/%7Ebarlow/Declaration-Final.html">are not new</a>, and are shared by many who care about the future of the internet. Grandees such as <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2014/03/features/web-at-25">Sir Tim Berners-Lee</a> and his <a href="http://webfoundation.org">Web Foundation</a> and <a href="http://www.w3.org">the W3C</a>, have already campaigned for a more “pro-human” web as it passes its 25th birthday, one that is better suited to digital rights. What’s been called a <a href="https://webwewant.org">Web We Want</a> where users have influence over a digital future intended for <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/web-inventor-tim-berners-lee-stars-in-olympics-opening-ceremony/">everyone</a>.</p>
<h2>Free people pull in many directions</h2>
<p>This is all very well, but the internet is relatively ungoverned: virtual, supranational territory that falls outside the boundaries of nation-states, and which lacks the democratic mechanisms and social protections that they afford. </p>
<p>Claims of a flat, open, and egalitarian internet are misguided. Where there is one rule for one user and one rule for another, social Darwinism – the survival of the fittest – ensues. The web echoes and magnifies the world’s gross cultural relativity and widespread inequality. Its transformative power has reached only half the world’s population, a fact that reinforces the power, money, gender, and class-based inequalities rife offline. Any civic internet institute without major financial support and global political backing will struggle to make a difference.</p>
<p>Such an institute would be forced to consider how the many free-ranging individuals, from many levels of society, which shape the web may react to proposed changes to a platform that is a major part of their lives. Increasingly, online behaviour defines us as individuals, yet direction and control of the internet is held by a technical oligarchy.</p>
<p>So Lane Fox’s call is not limited to the implications of what the web could bring, or what it has already brought – good or bad. It is also an investigation of the scope of human imagination, looking towards what we want the web to be by establishing a set of rules and agreements on decision-making – what Berners-Lee has called <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/12/online-magna-carta-berners-lee-web">an online magna carta</a>. The implications of the internet of things, of the rapid growth of government surveillance, and surveillance-based, data-trawling business models all play in to this.</p>
<p>An institute that aimed to provide a civic counterweight to corporate and government power would have to evaluate where that power lies on the web, the different views of digital privacy and ownership and use of data.</p>
<p>A user’s right to control their data and privacy might require laws or regulation to support that right, ensuring that one is never allowed to treat another as merely a means to their own ends. Then again, users could agree to surrender their data in exchange for services – a deal that need not be Faustian, merely utilitarian. The fact that the mechanisms for this exchange – cash for data, essentially – already exist means the services get built and we all benefit. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76792/original/image-20150401-31268-o2gy1z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76792/original/image-20150401-31268-o2gy1z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76792/original/image-20150401-31268-o2gy1z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76792/original/image-20150401-31268-o2gy1z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76792/original/image-20150401-31268-o2gy1z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76792/original/image-20150401-31268-o2gy1z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76792/original/image-20150401-31268-o2gy1z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Even benevolent, technocratic tyranny must be watched for.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmasters/2564786205/">davidmasters</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Standing on the shoulders of giants</h2>
<p>Importantly, Lane Fox’s call is concerned with more than technicalities, and is focused on how to strengthen individual freedoms on the web. After all, citizenship emerges from civil, social and political rights and responsibilities – extending this to the web is not such a great leap, but will require wide support and agreement. In fact this may be more important than any institute – an antidote to the concerns of power and dominance that could be as important as movements for gender equality and universal suffrage.</p>
<p>If the internet has technocratic forums such as the W3C, <a href="https://www.ietf.org/about/">IETF</a> and <a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/">Internet Society</a>, perhaps society at large should have a representative body to compare to these technocratic ones, to push participatory governance and <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgeIndex.aspx">keep digital citizenry alive</a> to reflect the very human rights of the billions of internet users.</p>
<p>There are already organisations striving to bring understanding to the tangle of power and rights online, including the University of Southampton’s <a href="http://www.southampton.ac.uk/wsi/index.page">Web Science Institute</a>, the <a href="http://oii.ox.ac.uk/">Oxford Internet Institute</a>, and others in the <a href="http://www.webscience.org/">Web Science Trust</a> network.</p>
<p>So perhaps another new institute is not what we need, but instead greater support for those that already exist, and better links between industry, academia and government. This needs to be strengthened against a background of increasing individual digital freedoms, because only this way are we going to be able to innovative and educate our way to a better web for all. These together can engineer new digital leaders for tomorrow, creating online champions for our human rights.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39602/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Day receives funding from the EPSRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leslie Carr receives funding from the EPSRC.</span></em></p>There are many organisations studying the web. But whose interest do they have at heart?M Day, PhD student, University of SouthamptonLeslie Carr, Professor and Co-director, Web Science Doctoral Training Centre, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/383282015-03-03T15:17:10Z2015-03-03T15:17:10ZCan competition fix net non-neutrality?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73630/original/image-20150303-31829-zqzg5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tim Harford got it wrong on net neutrality. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/poptech/7466343832/in/photolist-cnLXU5-cnLYfY-cnLz7A-cnVijU-cnLYo3-eKqaWc-qjKZBo-pqhjhV-pAg16c-8HxD1U-o7FV9a">Poptech/flickr </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Short answer: it isn’t obvious that it can.</p>
<p>Let me back up a second and explain why I am revisiting this issue. Tim Harford <a href="http://timharford.com/2015/03/battle-for-the-webs-last-mile/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter">published an article</a> a few days ago that took his masterful econsplaining skills to the issue of net neutrality. But in providing his characteristically clear exposition, he crystallized where many economists (including Tim) slip up on the issue of whether broadband competition would get rid of net non-neutrality and make net neutrality regulations redundant.</p>
<p>Tim points out first that price discrimination — allowing ISPs to charge fees to give different data higher or lower priority – might be actually of value to consumers:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… it is also easy to think of good reasons to treat different kinds of content differently. An online back-up service for big data sets might prefer a discount for a connection that will run only at quieter times of day. Stream the World Cup final and you’ll want to guarantee uninterrupted coverage; sell the highlights as a download and you might accept a cheaper, more volatile connection if it saves money.</p>
<p>With a mandatory uniform price, the online back-up might be too expensive to operate, the live stream too slow to satisfy customers, and the video download getting a faster connection than it really needs. (There is a formal economic model of this effect courtesy of Benjamin Hermalin and Michael Katz but it seems intuitive to me.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is important. The argument suggests that when network management is an issue (and let’s just take that as an assumption here), then consumers might have a better experience if a broadband provider managed it for them to ensure that live streams are uninterrupted while less essential stuff is not. I can only agree, although I have to add <a href="http://www.digitopoly.org/2014/05/20/is-netflixs-place-in-the-slow-lane/">that it is not at all clear</a> that live video streaming is what we would give priority to, but that is another matter.</p>
<p>But the claim follows that if there is sufficient competition amongst broadband providers, then fast and slow lanes would not arise:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Fast lanes and slow lanes are a symptom of this market power, but the underlying cause is much more important. The US needs more internet service providers, and the obvious way to get them is to force cable companies to unbundle the “last mile” and lease it to new entrants.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The problem here is that we believe that competition is designed to provide consumers with more of what they want. So if your claim is that they want fast and slow lanes to manage network traffic, then moving from monopoly to competition won’t stop that from happening. It will likely enhance it even if, at the same time, it delivers lower prices to consumers. Indeed, <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2439360">in my own work</a> (that just appeared in the Journal of Regulatory Economics) I found that it could be a vehicle for such behavior even if net non-neutrality is not just about network management but something more sinister — like content provider hold-up.</p>
<p>The broader argument that <a href="https://theconversation.com/net-neutrality-should-apply-to-mobile-networks-38149">I have made many times</a> is that, in fact, solving the main problem with net non-neutrality — content provider hold-up — can be done with net neutrality while using less intrusive pricing schemes and product design to solve network management issues. In other words, I think we can have our cake and eat it too, and net neutrality regulation is a good place to start.</p>
<p>On the issue of broadband competition, there is a political economy reason why net neutrality regulations might turn out to be bad for this: they now provide an excuse to allow things like the Comcast-Time Warner merger to proceed on the basis that net neutrality regulations curb a negative side effect of that. My argument here is that I am far from convinced that the two things are related. However, I guess we will see if the political economy issues assist the merger’s regulatory chances. As Tim Harford noted, cable company stocks rose after last week’s announcement by the FCC, so things are not looking too good on that front.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38328/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Short answer: it isn’t obvious that it can. Let me back up a second and explain why I am revisiting this issue. Tim Harford published an article a few days ago that took his masterful econsplaining skills…Joshua Gans, Professor of Strategic Management, University of TorontoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/340232014-11-11T13:23:29Z2014-11-11T13:23:29ZNETmundial’s promises of grassroots internet governance leave a lot to be desired<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64128/original/v89hqt23-1415620382.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's hard carrying the weight of internet governance on your back.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">skunkworksphotographic</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The way in which the internet is governed has shifted from technical debates held in <a href="http://xplanations.com/whorunstheinternet/">obscure committees</a> to a hotly contested field in which various nations vie for influence. Online surveillance, cybersecurity and how to treat undesirable content are now widely discussed topics that affect us all – so it makes sense that this is reflected by including a wider range of people in deciding how the net is governed.</p>
<p>The newest addition to the group of internet governance organisations – and one that says it will bring a wider range of stakeholders into the process – is the <a href="https://www.netmundial.org/">NETmundial Initiative</a>. Perceptions of NETmundial vary, from a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/us-internet-governance-idUSKBN0IQ2O120141106">grass-roots discussion forum</a> to a “<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/internet_un_security_council_net_mundial_initiative/">UN Security Council for the internet</a>”. However, in contrast to its claims to promote citizen participation, the initiative more resembles an attempt by governments and large corporations to maintain their hold on power.</p>
<h2>Surveillance sours the pudding</h2>
<p>Back in June 2013, the revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden about mass surveillance by intelligence agencies such as NSA and GCHQ upended the public debates about “internet freedom”. Until then, those debates had, with <a href="http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/netfreedom/index.htm">careful nurturing</a> by the US State Department, focused on human rights in countries such as China and Iran. Now Western governments suddenly emerged as the aggressors as leaked documents revealed how surveillance was conducted against whole populations, politicians, and corporations. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/24/brazil-president-un-speech-nsa-surveillance">Addressing the UN general assembly</a> in September 2013, Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, accused the US of violating international law, arguing:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion and therefore no effective democracy. In the absence of the respect for sovereignty, there is no basis for the relationship among nations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Countries such as Germany and Brazil discussed ways in which the internet could be used in a way that is less dependent on US internet companies and telecommunications infrastructure monitored by intelligence agencies.</p>
<h2>A third way</h2>
<p>Perhaps most significantly, the Brazilian government hosted a conference to discuss the future of internet governance, called <a href="http://netmundial.br/">NETmundial</a>. Representatives of national governments, private sector and civil society met in Sao Paulo in April 2014 to develop new principles of internet governance and a road map for the future.</p>
<p>Participants, particularly from <a href="http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/the-fair-of-competing-narratives-civil-societyies-after-netmundial/">civil society</a> and the developing world, praised NETmundial’s open and participative nature that allowed them opportunities to voice their concerns. <a href="https://www.icann.org">ICANN</a>, one of the chief regulatory organisations for the internet, had often been criticised for its close connections to business and the US government. But efforts by many countries outside the West to transfer some of its regulatory role to the International Telecommunications Union (<a href="https://www.itu.int">ITU</a>) were even more controversial, as they would allow authoritarian governments to increase their influence. </p>
<p>So in the context of this disagreement, NETmundial was a welcome arrival to encourage debate and – particularly – address the pressing, post-Snowden issues.</p>
<h2>Same name, new aim</h2>
<p>The recently launched NETmundial Initiative uses the same name, includes Brazil’s <a href="http://www.cgi.br">Internet Steering Committee</a> and might seem to continue these aims. But on closer inspection the new project raises serious doubts. Its leadership group now includes the <a href="http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-internet-governance">World Economic Forum</a> – an organisation known for its close links to big business and political elites, rather than its commitment to participatory, grassroots politics and ground-up internet governance. </p>
<p>This new NETmundial’s website <a href="https://www.netmundial.org/">claims</a> its goal is “to energise bottom-up, collaborative solutions”. But assigning a core role to an exclusive, elite club seems to contradict these claims. With the World Economic Forum at its heart, the new NETmundial seems more like an attempt by what <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html">the Occupy movement called “the 1%”</a> to capture the NETmundial brand and sweep inconvenient debates such as those triggered by the Snowden files back under the rug.</p>
<p>The NETmundial Initiative is led by a Co-ordination Council with five “permanent members” modelled after the UN Security Council and 20 further members. ICANN, the Brazilian Steering Committee and the World Economic Forum have awarded themselves a permanent seat each, while the 20 non-permanent members will be drawn from academia, civil society, government, business and world regions. </p>
<p>While this is in line with a multi-stakeholder approach, the central role of an institution like the World Economic Forum leaves doubts over ICANN chair Fadi Chehade’s <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/internet_un_security_council_net_mundial_initiative/">claims</a> that “everything will be done bottom-up, this is the mother of all bottom-up processes”. ICANN’s role in the new initiative has been questioned, too, as ICANN is explicitly a technical body whereas NETmundial is due to focus on non-technical issues.</p>
<p>Civil society groups, internet organisations and activists are <a href="http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/in-multistakeholderism-we-trust-on-the-limits-of-the-multistakeholder-debate">faced with a conundrum</a>. Working with the NETmundial Initiative offers a way to be a part of the governance process and push for a new policy direction. But by doing so they may offer legitimacy to a return to elite-driven, business-as-usual politics and – potentially – to an attempt to draw a line under the many important debates triggered by the Snowden revelations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34023/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arne Hintz receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for the project 'Digital Citizenship and Surveillance Society: UK State-Media-Citizen Relations after the Snowden Leaks'.</span></em></p>The way in which the internet is governed has shifted from technical debates held in obscure committees to a hotly contested field in which various nations vie for influence. Online surveillance, cybersecurity…Arne Hintz, Lecturer in Media, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/325882014-10-06T15:32:32Z2014-10-06T15:32:32ZMesh networks and Firechat make ‘switching off the internet’ that much harder<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60927/original/7yp7rq2t-1412608274.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The app that's been lighting a fire under Hong Kong protests.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">OpenGarden.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The events in Hong Kong have seen technology play a huge role in organising political protest, as much as in the days of <a href="https://www.westminster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/220675/WPCC-vol9-issue2.pdf">the Arab Spring</a> of 2011. But governments have become wise to the potential influence of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, and blocking websites is easy (if you’re the government).</p>
<p>The <a href="http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/what-the-arab-spring-tells-us-about-the-future-of-social-media-in-revolutionary-movements">technology</a> now wielded by the students and protesters in Hong Kong has evolved. The Firechat app isn’t connected to a centralised service or website through which its messages are routed. Instead, each phone running the Firechat app acts as a node in a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27225869">mesh network</a>, passing messages node to node, from origin to destination. In this way, the messages cannot easily be blocked.</p>
<p>This is quite different to the way mobile phone networks function. The by-and-large excellent coverage we enjoy is possible because the network providers – such as Orange, Vodafone, T-Mobile, EE and Three in the UK – have spent many millions setting up base stations across the globe. Although the protocols differ between networks and have evolved over time (GSM, EDGE, 3G, 4G) they all work in a similar way: the base station forwards traffic from the phone, towards the intended destination. This does mean, however, that base station failures can severely disrupt communications. </p>
<h2>Mesh for resilience</h2>
<p>Ad-hoc mesh networks such as Firechat uses take an alternative approach. Instead of routing traffic through base stations, they allow nearby mobile phones to communicate directly with each other – what is called peer-to-peer networking. </p>
<p>This model has many benefits, including lower costs and higher performance. They have found a variety of purposes over recent years, largely in bringing low-cost internet connectivity to areas that are not well provided for – whether in <a href="http://www.share4dev.info/kb/documents/4780.pdf">Africa</a> or <a href="http://hebnet.co.uk/">western Scotland</a>, or <a href="http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/research/projects/ngn/slides/msn08talks/ishmael_ulanc.pdf">northern England</a>. They are also used to deploy free, community wireless networks in cities, popular in <a href="http://freifunk.net/">Germany</a>, and also available in <a href="http://www.bristolwireless.net/">Bristol</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60929/original/mmxnyts5-1412608406.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60929/original/mmxnyts5-1412608406.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60929/original/mmxnyts5-1412608406.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60929/original/mmxnyts5-1412608406.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60929/original/mmxnyts5-1412608406.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60929/original/mmxnyts5-1412608406.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60929/original/mmxnyts5-1412608406.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60929/original/mmxnyts5-1412608406.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">If you want to take it down, you have to take them all down.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">OpenGarden.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The key property of mesh networking is its resilience: with no reliance on base stations, ad-hoc mesh networks can stay up and functional even when some or many nodes are off. This makes them difficult to shut down in an <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8288163/How-Egypt-shut-down-the-internet.html">easy, kill-switch fashion</a>. This has made it of interest to the military and also to disaster response agencies.</p>
<p>Instead of attacking the base stations used by standard mobile networks, it would probably be necessary to use some sort of jamming signal, broadcasting powerful radio signals to disrupt the mesh network over specific geographic areas. If you want a live demonstration, try this: put your wireless internet-connected phone next to the microwave and turn it on. Wi-Fi uses the same radio spectrum as a microwave, and 850W of nearby microwave interference will be enough to damage your phone’s chance of communicating clearly with your home base station.</p>
<h2>Missing features</h2>
<p>Firechat uses these aspects of mesh networking to its advantage and the protesters have used Firechat to theirs. It’s also found strong followings in <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/06/05/could-this-app-create-a-free-secret-web/">Taiwan</a>, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/24/firechat-updates-as-40000-iraqis-download-mesh-chat-app-to-get-online-in-censored-baghdad">Iraq</a>, Syria and Egypt. The app has been downloaded 4m times from one Chinese app store alone (Tencent).</p>
<p><a href="https://opengarden.com/firechat">Firechat</a> allows three different types of messaging. The Everyone mode is like talking in an open chat room, where a limited number of people can interact based only on their proximity to each other. The Nearby mode allows users to find others close by. The Firechat mode is a chat room based on a single topic.</p>
<p>While popular, no approach is perfect and FireChat has already had several issues identified. For example, the highly open nature of communications, with nearby users all part of the same “conversation”, brings with it problems of privacy and anonymity. There is no encryption or user authentication – and while this makes it easy to set up and use, it means all communication is open to eavesdropping, or raises problems of users masquerading as people they’re not. </p>
<p>Firechat’s developers have even openly said that it is not a tool for communicating sensitive information. As with everything, the devil is therefore in the detail and users should be aware of its limitations. Nevertheless, it is an important development towards ensuring that the power and reach of the internet is democratised and cannot be switched off by the powerful at the expense of the people.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32588/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gareth Tyson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The events in Hong Kong have seen technology play a huge role in organising political protest, as much as in the days of the Arab Spring of 2011. But governments have become wise to the potential influence…Gareth Tyson, Lecturer in electronic engineering and computer science, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/315362014-09-11T05:11:00Z2014-09-11T05:11:00ZForums on internet governance reveal tensions over how the web should be regulated<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58717/original/d9585g7k-1410366615.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Turkey may censor its internet but there is still, internationally, deep divisions over how the internet should be governed.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Republic_Protest_second_rally_Petates_3.jpg">Miguel Carminati</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How the internet is governed is no longer a matter seen fit to be left to mere technical committees. With the extent of online surveillance, so dramatically revealed by the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files">Snowden files</a>, increased content filtering and blocking, and the issue of net neutrality, which would allow telecoms firms to “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/10/tech-firms-go-slow-internet-net-neutrality">create fast web lanes</a>” for some companies, it is a contentious area with major social and political implications.</p>
<p>The Internet Governance Forum (<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article?id=1557:2014">IGF</a>), which has just met for the ninth time in Istanbul, revealed the extent to which the internet’s decision-making bodies such as <a href="https://www.icann.org/">ICANN</a> are heavily disputed, with schisms developing not just between governments but also different groups of civil society. A parallel <a href="https://iuf.alternatifbilisim.org/">Internet Ungovernance Forum</a> was organised by activists, advocates and academics to expose the areas of discussion not up for debate at the IGF and question the fundamental ideas of governance on which it rests.</p>
<p>Created following the UN’s World Summit on the Information Society (<a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html">WSIS</a>) in 2003 and 2005 and held annually since then, the IGF brings together government, business and civil society to try and build consensus around how the internet should be governed. As a forum for debate (with no mandate for action) it complements ICANN’s decision-making executive powers on a narrower range of critical internet resources. </p>
<p>The IGF is an open forum, anyone can register without a fee or other accreditation requirements. There are a huge range of workshops, talks and meetings on issues such as bringing broadband to the developing world, cyber-security, and freedom of expression. The current controversies over <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality">net neutrality</a> – which would allow companies to discriminate between certain data on their networks based on content, or how much the content’s owner has paid – was high on the agenda this year. The ongoing <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-02/06/tim-berners-lee-reclaim-the-web">fragmentation of the internet</a> into national jurisdictions and networks, each with different content limitations and legal requirements, was also a cause for concern. </p>
<p>But the Snowden files, whose revelations continue to expose mass surveillance by the likes of the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), were less prominently discussed than one might expect. Similarly the debate on content censorship was rather mute, particularly considering the <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa32f4f6-3855-11e4-9fc2-00144feabdc0.html">practices of host country Turkey</a>, where services such as Youtube and Twitter have been repeatedly shut down, and thousands of websites remain blocked. Turkish activists and academics had proposed several workshops on censorship in Turkey, but all were rejected by the IGF. </p>
<p>The official reason was that IGF workshops have to address broader issues than just one country – but this also reflects a long-standing IGF practice of treating the host country with cautious deference. </p>
<p>In response activists organised their Internet Ungovernance Forum as an alternative where the implications of censorship and surveillance are top of the agenda. Participants from around the globe discussed how information from dissidents is suppressed, <a href="http://surveillance.rsf.org/en/">in Turkey and elsewhere</a>. They raised ways in which people are profiled, persecuted and even <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/may/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/">killed</a> through the help of mass data collection, and how technical infrastructure and its functions are captured and controlled by the state or by the business sector. However they also explored ways to thwart such control with alternative, secure systems, such as activist-based <a href="https://help.riseup.net/">online communication services</a> and <a href="https://securityinabox.org/">encryption tools</a>.</p>
<p>Here, the keynote speakers were not government and business leaders but the likes of <a href="https://www.torproject.org/">Tor</a> developer and journalist Jacob Applebaum and, by video link, <a href="https://wikileaks.org/">WikiLeaks</a> founder Julian Assange (replacing Edward Snowden, who had to cancel due to technical difficulties). Shuttle buses to this parallel forum’s venue were even laid on to ensure that IGF participants could hear the alternative views.</p>
<p>However, the goals and arguably the significance of the Ungovernance Forum went beyond putting forward a different agenda. Its name is more than just a pun on the official forum. Whereas the IGF is a so-called multi-stakeholder process involving governments, business and civil society, the Ungovernance Forum questions the practice of engaging or collaborating with the governmental and commercial bodies, many of which abuse human rights and are striving to transform the internet into space of consumption and control. </p>
<p>While civil society groups participating in the IGF support this multi-stakeholder process and lobby for its <a href="http://igfcontinuation.org/">continuation</a>, the activists outside highlight the need for clear alternatives rather than the inevitable (and often imbalanced) compromises such a process leads to. They claim that civil society may not be in a position to significantly make its mark on an agenda dominated by others with diametrically opposed interests, instead only lending it a legitimacy it doesn’t deserve.</p>
<p>The IGF and the IUF thus highlighted different approaches towards understanding, developing and regulating the internet. The next IGF will take place in Brazil next year, and discussions about another alternative forum are already starting.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31536/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arne Hintz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How the internet is governed is no longer a matter seen fit to be left to mere technical committees. With the extent of online surveillance, so dramatically revealed by the Snowden files, increased content…Arne Hintz, Lecturer in Media, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/282782014-06-20T14:37:23Z2014-06-20T14:37:23ZThe London meeting that could shape the future of the internet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51763/original/j34th6gc-1403256228.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Edgware Road: where big decisions are made.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/howardlake/3694428710/sizes/l">HowardLake</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.icann.org/">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers</a> is holding its <a href="http://meetings.icann.org/icann50">50th public meeting</a> in London from June 22. </p>
<p>An international crowd spanning business, politics and civil society will be meeting across 60 events to try to reach agreements on some important issues about the shape of the internet. The summit comes at a time of great change for internet governance and some very important issues are on the table.</p>
<p>ICANN is the not-for-profit organisation that controls the registration of domain names – the web addresses at the heart of the internet. It is seen as the body that maintains “root” of the internet and therefore plays a key role in ensuring its stability as a global, decentralised communications system. Its function is mainly related to the code level of the internet with the basic aim of ensuring that whatever device you are reading this on is able to, once a connection is found, access the information held online.</p>
<p>So ICANN can be seen as a group of technicians. These are the engineers who enable the miracle of innovation that is the internet to keep on going. But since controlling the root of the internet comes with immense power, ICANN has necessarily had to become more political. Reflecting this change, ICANN shifted its structure in 2006 to share more power more equally between different countries rather than concentrating it in the US alone.</p>
<p>The last ICANN meeting happened in Singapore just three months ago, but regular meetings are needed because of the potentially dramatic changes under discussion at the moment. There are two key, current areas for debate which will have a significant role in shaping the future of the organisation and, indeed, the internet itself.</p>
<p>The first is the expansion of web addresses to allow generic top-level domain names (<a href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/">g-TLDs</a>). This extension means anyone wanting to register a domain name is no longer restricted to using .com at the end of their web address. This is extremely significant development as it considerably increases the number of web addresses available. But it also raises problems for ICANN, which will have to control the registries, develop effective complaints mechanisms and protect existing rights holders.</p>
<p>The aim is to promote competition while minimising the potential for exploitation through, for example, g-TLD holders charging exorbitant fees for registration. The decision to expand the g-TLDs has drawn criticism because it could place extra burdens on people and businesses as they try to set up a web presence. It could also make it easier for those advising companies on maintaining a website to charge consultancy fees.</p>
<p>It is fitting that this is the subject of numerous meetings at ICANN50. Hopefully these will focus on developing robust, fair procedures to support the increase in domain names and ensure that the end user is at the centre of the discussion at all times.</p>
<p>The second key area relates to the very heart of ICANN itself and, in particular, its relationship with the US government. While this has been a subject of discussion for some time, the revelations of the past year about the extent to which US government agencies have been invading privacy through the internet has made it all the more pressing. ICANN started in the US and its ties to a state that has been systematically exploiting the internet to invade privacy has repercussions for internet governance.</p>
<p>The manner in which the root operates can be manipulated in order to make it easier to track information and infringe upon users’ privacy. While ICANN is a self-declared organisation with an international structure, it does operate under a contract with the US’ National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In March 2014, however, an announcement was made stating that the NTIA did not intend to renew this contract.</p>
<p>This came as a surprise to many but could be a step towards reducing the reach of the NTIA. Breaking the tie would leave ICANN as a truly international body without the “steadying hand” of one individual state. For many this would be seen as a positive step; a split from the body which had committed high-profile and ongoing violations of citizens’ trust.</p>
<p>But it will also mean that ICANN will have to reflect on its structure and procedures in order to ensure that control is shared equally and that certain interests are not protected more than others. ICANN has in the past been criticised for its lack of transparency and accountability, such as when it made the decision to expand g-TLDs. Some suggestions for ICANN’s future restructuring include separating the management of its technical functions from those that are more political, and creating an independent monitoring body to hold it to account. Hopefully there will be a great deal of introspection, planning and negotiation in London.</p>
<p>ICANN50 is crucial to the development of an open, stable and secure internet. It should therefore be a forum in which the concerns of everyone who uses the internet are addressed. There needs to be a renewed focus on human rights and protecting end users. Many, but not all, of ICANN’s meetings are public, so I urge you to <a href="http://meetings.icann.org/icann50">participate remotely</a>. More than ever, there’s a need for citizens to take part in the discussions that shape the internet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28278/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Easton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is holding its 50th public meeting in London from June 22. An international crowd spanning business, politics and civil society will be meeting across…Catherine Easton, Lecturer, Law School, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/242412014-03-12T06:38:08Z2014-03-12T06:38:08ZThe internet is on fire but Snowden’s heroes can’t save us<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43624/original/q58qtfgn-1394575301.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Someone get a fire extinguisher! Just, you know, maybe not Mark Zuckerberg.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/cibomahto/2291127824/sizes/o/">cibomahto</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Just ahead of the 25th anniversary of the World Wide Web, Edward Snowden has sent what he hopes will be a strong message to the powers that control the internet in a video link streamed live to South by Southwest event in Austin, Texas.</p>
<p>Snowden pitched his appearance as a call to arms. The NSA is [“setting fire to the future of the internet”](<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26525260">http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/10/snowden-the-nsa-is-setting-fire-to-the-future-of-the-internet/</a> and those who understand how the nuts and bolts of the web work must step up to be our firemen.</p>
<p>His words have resonated with a lot of angry people. Revelations about the NSA’s Prism project have confirmed many people’s worst fears. The internet grew up in a culture of anti-authoritarianism, bottom up consensus and the rule of standards but it has been co-opted by powerful states that undermine those values and challenge our human right to private communications.</p>
<p>We might have expected this type of behaviour from authoritarian regimes but there was an assumption that in liberal states, where the promotion of human rights online has been championed, we wouldn’t be subjected to this kind of invasion of our privacy. But the recent revelations that GCHQ was storing images from <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo">Yahoo chat</a> (many of which were sexually explicit) put paid to the notion that even the most private online interactions can be secured.</p>
<p>The extent to which the NSA and GCHQ have been monitoring not only suspected wrongdoers but ordinary citizens exposes some deep concerns about the accountability of intelligence organisations – a frustration that led Edward Snowden to leave his comfortable life as a security contractor and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files">reveal what had been happening</a> last year.</p>
<h2>Where do we go from here?</h2>
<p>At SXSW, Snowden urged those who build websites and develop the services on which we rely to take action. For him, these are the people best placed to enhance our privacy. He said they should develop more effective encryption and encourage the companies they work for to make it readily available to the average user. Using an anonymising tool like The Onion Router <a href="https://theconversation.com/sorry-nsa-but-the-tor-network-is-secure-and-its-here-to-stay-18945">(TOR)</a> is fine for those determined to protect their online profile, for example, but it is beyond the capacity or inclination of many average users. This is where innovation from the private sector can help, just like Snowden proposes.</p>
<p>We shouldn’t be surprised to hear an engineer proposing technological solutions to what are essentially political problems. His response is common and rational. But it ultimately ignores the ambivalence most people feel about whether it should be the job of private companies or states to protect our civil liberties online.</p>
<p>Clearly, most people have not been communicating online in the understanding that quite so much of their data has been retained and stored by Western governments. We do give it away for free to tech companies like Google and Facebook though, and perhaps that’s why Snowden thinks we are more comfortable handing them more responsibility.</p>
<p>This of course, happens in a framework of commercial exchange. In return for the search engines and social networking tools we use every day, our personal data becomes a currency which is sold on to allow for targeted advertising. We are all complicit in this arrangement but few of us really understand what happens to our data and who has access to it. While these companies watch us, who is watching them?</p>
<p>Perhaps Snowden is hoping an organisation like the <a href="https://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/">Global Network Initiative</a> is will step in to save us. This industry led organisation comprised of a number of the information giants – Google, Yahoo, Facebook – has developed standards and practices for how companies should deal with requests by governments to hand over data. </p>
<p>Presumably, the GNI was a response to requests made in response to demands for information from governments in places like China and the Middle East. But where was the GNI when PRISM was on the prowl? </p>
<p>None of this will sit well with citizens if Snowden wants us to rely on the technical community to secure our privacy. How we want the internet to be governed over the next 25 years and beyond is a political question. It will take much more engagement with processes that can offer accountability and representation. It’s unlikely that leaving it to the market is a long term solution.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24241/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Madeline Carr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Just ahead of the 25th anniversary of the World Wide Web, Edward Snowden has sent what he hopes will be a strong message to the powers that control the internet in a video link streamed live to South by…Madeline Carr, Lecturer in International Politics and the Cyber Dimension , Aberystwyth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/222452014-01-29T01:55:17Z2014-01-29T01:55:17ZAustralia’s net neutrality lesson for the US<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/39739/original/j97wb844-1390445679.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Verizon, Comcast and other providers have been fighting against net neutrality rules since 2005, when the Federal Communication Commission first introduced such measures. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steve Rhodes</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A US court <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf">ruling</a> meaning broadband internet service providers will no longer have to follow principles of network neutrality has sparked predictions the internet will end as we know it. </p>
<p>Some predict it will be controlled by <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101">a few rich corporations</a> who will charge content providers on a pay-to-play model.</p>
<p>Others have <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/12/web-tool-democracy-tim-berners-lee">predicted increased government control</a> or <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523736/around-the-world-net-neutrality-is-not-a-reality/">suggested that people in developing nations will be forced into servitude to Facebook</a>.</p>
<p>But Australia hasn’t ever had net neutrality, with domestic internet service providers shaping and restricting traffic, and often allowing “unmetered” access to certain websites for their own reasons. And it hasn’t been a disaster.</p>
<h2>Are some more equal than others?</h2>
<p>Net neutrality means an internet connection is free from filtering, prioritisation, censorship, or favour based on the provider of the content which is being accessed.</p>
<p>That is, <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-net-neutrality-2315">all content must be treated equally</a> so that some parts of the internet are not priviledged over others.</p>
<p>Internet service providers can – <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-telstra-trial-to-slow-down-peer-to-peer-downloaders-likely-to-succeed-12016">and often do</a> – manage their networks to ensure that bandwidth sensitive applications like <a href="https://theconversation.com/you-use-voip-try-and-understand-it-make-a-noise-and-make-it-clear-1524">Skype</a> and video streaming operate smoothly. </p>
<p>Internet service providers who manage their networks in this way do so to maximise the capacity of expensive infrastructure, while ensuring that data intensive peer to peer applications like <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-bittorrent-lawsuit-why-sly-stallone-is-out-to-get-you-1231">Bittorrent</a> used by some don’t affect others.</p>
<p>One of the creators of the modern internet, <a href="http://mybroadband.co.za/news/broadband/86353-sa-internet-traffic-shaping-not-a-net-neutrality-issue-cerf.html">Vint Cerf</a>, has already said that traffic management is not a net neutrality issue, so long as providers are consistent in their treatment of like services.</p>
<h2>So what’s the problem?</h2>
<p>The problem arises when a provider is no longer even-handed in its network management, and one supplier of content is prioritised over another.</p>
<p>Doing so adds a distinct anti-competitive flavour to internet access.</p>
<p>For example, if the provider was partnered with Google, it could then <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-07-24/news/40771834_1_airtel-isps-google">provide users with free access to one gigabyte of Google content each month</a>. </p>
<p>Such a partnership gives Google an advantage over its competitors by making competing services comparatively expensive. Under such a deal, internet users will likely favour Google over Bing, and Google+ over Facebook.</p>
<p>And while users could choose between competing content giants, minnow sized startups are unlikely to ever make similar deals. Innovation is stifled, and new competitors are effectively locked out. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf">Open Internet Rules</a>, which were set aside by the court, applied mainly to fixed-line broadband services, but exempted mobile broadband services like smartphones. </p>
<p>The Commission’s reasoning was sound – fixed-line broadband providers are monopolies in many parts of the USA, but a customer can usually choose between a number of mobile providers and therefore switch if one provider is restricting content.</p>
<p>The court’s reasoning for setting aside the Commission’s Open Internet Rules centred on a previous decision to classify internet service providers as “information services” rather than “common carriers”. </p>
<p>The court ruled that enforcement of the Open Internet Rules was imposing carrier obligations and so was tantamount to treating the internet service providers as “common carriers”. As there is no legal basis for “information services” to be regulated in this way, the court set aside the rules.</p>
<p>The saving grace of the ruling is the retention of the disclosure rules. These rules oblige internet service providers to publicly disclose network management practices, so consumers know what they’re buying.</p>
<h2>What about Australia?</h2>
<p>The possibility of true net neutrality in Australia has been lost a long time ago.</p>
<p>Historical wholesale pricing practices means that many providers provide their customers with “<a href="http://freezone.iinet.net.au/">Freezone</a>” areas which provide unmetered access to popular content. These arrangements reflect the lower cost for the provider in delivering locally hosted content to their users.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/39744/original/7vs8gxm2-1390447861.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/39744/original/7vs8gxm2-1390447861.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=152&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/39744/original/7vs8gxm2-1390447861.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=152&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/39744/original/7vs8gxm2-1390447861.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=152&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/39744/original/7vs8gxm2-1390447861.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=192&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/39744/original/7vs8gxm2-1390447861.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=192&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/39744/original/7vs8gxm2-1390447861.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=192&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Arrangements to offer unmetered access to various websites have meant net neutrality hasn’t really existed in Australia for some time, but the effects have been minimal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bigpond</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most internet-using Australians are familiar with ABC iView being <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/iview/">unmetered when accessed via selected providers</a>. While the ABC hasn’t paid providers for this feature, it has invested heavily in content distribution networks to deliver their data cheaply to them. </p>
<p>This is one reason why ABC iView attracts significantly more viewers than similar online offerings from SBS and the commercial networks.</p>
<p>Despite Australian net neutrality being a long lost ideal, two things remain in Australia’s favour:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Solid competition across most of Australia: Thanks to Telstra’s ADSL network being open to use by competitors, most Australians have a choice of which broadband provider they use, and so can switch providers if their provider restricts part of their internet service. This follows through to the National Broadband Network. Once a house is connected to the NBN householders can choose from a number of competing providers.</p></li>
<li><p>Strong consumer protection laws: Australian consumer law – usually enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission – is a world leader in protecting consumers. Any attempt by a large carrier to engage in anti-competitive conduct such as blocking or limiting access to a competitor’s service will invite long and costly action by the ACCC. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Net neutrality is an honourable aspiration, but the Australian internet service provider market has thrived and innovated without it. Discriminatory pricing in the form of unmetered content is more a consumer bonus than an imposition of someone else’s choice.</p>
<p>Now that the United States has ditched the rules of net neutrality, we can only hope they follow Australia’s example.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22245/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karl Schaffarczyk does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A US court ruling meaning broadband internet service providers will no longer have to follow principles of network neutrality has sparked predictions the internet will end as we know it. Some predict it…Karl Schaffarczyk, Law Honours Candidate, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/217032014-01-20T15:03:48Z2014-01-20T15:03:48ZEurope can learn from US on how not to do net neutrality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/39426/original/mptj3v2d-1390224169.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">But open to all on the same terms?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">balleyne</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We are entering a time of great uncertainty for internet freedom following two recent events. Both occurred in the US but have repercussions for Europe, where the debate on the future of net neutrality is warming up. But while events across the Atlantic could be seen as a win for private interests, Europe might be a tougher nut to crack.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://chrismarsden.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/glass-half-full-winning-and-losing-in.html">District of Columbia Court of Appeals has overturned</a> much of the Federal Communications Commission <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet#rules">network neutrality regulations</a>. In what has been seen as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/verizon-ruling-is-a-major-blow-to-equal-internet-access-22068">major blow for net neutrality</a>, it decided that internet access provider Verizon could charge customers for faster internet speeds. Then, the President of the United States decided to tighten the rules governing secret surveillance of electronic communications in the wake of the NSA scandal.</p>
<p>The latter decision is highly contentious, with many advocates for privacy <a href="http://theconversation.com/obama-speech-reformed-nsa-may-look-much-the-same-21984">claiming it does very little to restrict government surveillance of US citizens</a> and nothing for foreigners – such as Europeans. That sets a precedent for the British government to make <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/17/barack-obama-surveillance-pledge-gulf-with-uk">even more minor procedural changes</a>, and for the respective agencies in US and UK to continue to swap the metadata that each has gathered on each other’s citizens. This amounts to government control of the internet, secured by gathering records of our metadata from private companies. </p>
<p>The net neutrality ruling in the US sets a precedent for private censorship by the same internet access providers, which are authorised, or at least not opposed in their actions, by the same governments. European lawmakers should take note of some of the prickly issues that have arisen in the course of these events.</p>
<h2>Less than virtuous circle</h2>
<p>The net neutrality ruling shows that it is extremely difficult to separate out individual items in communications policy. The National Security Agency and other <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/27/network_providers_accused_of_enabling_nsa_snooping/">security services need the legal and extra-legal cooperation of internet access providers</a> to continue monitoring citizens and the internet access providers need regulatory backing when they seek to speed up or slow down traffic on the internet for their own commercial benefit.</p>
<p>In both cases, the user’s right to privacy when they browse the internet is trampled underfoot. A particularly egregious case shows that Europe is not immune to such controversies. In 2007, BT and behavioural advertising company PHORM intercepted the traffic of 30,000 users without any attempt to secure their consent. The government had been involved in the deployment of the <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oq_Zp5UBjjAC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=marsden+phorm+neutrality&source=bl&ots=ealLSPwFMA&sig=f9gbb_yLqHpjzdHA87XLwRK6xl4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ynLaUqrJGvGM7AaB04DQCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=marsden%20phorm%20neutrality&f=false">technology used</a> but crucially, it was later dragged to the steps of the European Court of Justice and privacy laws were later amended to stop such an event happening again.</p>
<p>Europe should also note that technological progress is very difficult to regulate in the public interest when private market forces are pushing hard to censor content in the interests of <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/regulating-code">making a profit</a>. In the UK, BT and Vodafone want to charge content companies to carry video, claiming they will be able roll out fixed and mobile high speed internet more quickly if they are granted the ability to put a toll lane on the internet.</p>
<h2>Broken promises</h2>
<p>Recent events also show that electoral promises are hard to keep in the US when Congress does not support legislation. Just as Obama failed to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp as he had explicitly promised to do in his first presidential campaign, so the failure on <a href="http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2369">net neutrality breaks his main technology policy promise from 2007</a>.</p>
<p>This was a policy first developed by his friend Lawrence Lessig, his junior professorial colleague at Chicago when they both taught constitutional law in the early 1990s, and Lessig’s brilliant protege Tim Wu, who first coined the term <a href="http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html">net neutrality</a>. Lessig <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/9/who-gets-priority-on-the-web/a-deregulation-debacle-for-the-internet">warned in 2010</a> that Obama was cooling on net neutrality because of political opposition from telecoms lobbyists and their sponsored congressmen.</p>
<p>The messages come from European policymakers are equally mixed. Ed Vaizey, the UK minister in charge of internet policy, has declared himself in favour of net neutrality but also in favour of higher speed toll lanes, which is contradictory. Similarly, European Commissioner Neelie Kroes began her term by <a href="http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/108784/Net-neutrality-in-Europe/#vars!panel=1075935!">declaring her love for net neutrality</a> and has subsequently failed to do much to enforce it.</p>
<p>But Europe is not the United States and the litigation and congressional deadlock that has characterised the net neutrality debate does not apply. A pan-European proposal for enforcing net neutrality was set in motion by national legislation in the Netherlands and Slovenia and may become law <a href="http://chrismarsden.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/european-commission-proposal-may-stifle.html">this year</a>, though a new Commission and Parliament may delay or even derail the process.</p>
<p>The United States has failed to enforce net neutrality properly because it has tried to deregulate carriers with an à la carte approach. It has kept one eye on neutrality while simultaneously removing the requirement for internet provider monopolies to open access to competitors. In Europe, monopolies still have strict regulation to allow competitors and there is no obvious reason why net neutrality would be successfully challenged by the courts as exceeding European legal powers.</p>
<p>Just as extra-legal internet snooping is disapproved of in mainland Europe, so private censorship by the same internet companies is unpopular, and telecoms lobbying may not prevent the imposition of a real net neutrality law. That would then lead to 28 countries trying to implement it. Ed Vaizey may soon have the chance to correct his contradiction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21703/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Marsden has received funding from the European Commission FP7 Internet Science Network DPA 288021.
Note for academics: the network of networks using the Internet Protocol is ‘THE’ Internet, whereas The Conversation follows the general journalistic practice of referring to the internet. The academic usage distinguishes between the Internet and intranets and this article is about whether there continues to be one Internet or several ‘internets’.</span></em></p>We are entering a time of great uncertainty for internet freedom following two recent events. Both occurred in the US but have repercussions for Europe, where the debate on the future of net neutrality…Chris Marsden, Professor of Internet Law, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/220682014-01-16T00:15:52Z2014-01-16T00:15:52ZVerizon ruling is a major blow to equal internet access<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/39147/original/mxj7gpft-1389805520.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some are more equal than others when it comes to internet access.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">acroll</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>These are wild times for the management and governance of the internet, as is clear from the <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf">ruling</a> that came out of the US this week. In a victory for the private sector, the Federal Communications Commission was thwarted in its attempts to force network provider Verizon from treating all customers equally.</p>
<p>The decision provoked a storm about equitable access to online services, known as network neutrality. Although there is talk of an appeal against the Verizon ruling, this is an issue that will have significant implications for every one of us and it’s unlikely to go away.</p>
<p>Network neutrality is not simply a technical issue – it’s about social, economic, cultural and political preferences and consequently, it’s important to be aware of what changes are proposed and how they could affect the way we use online services.</p>
<h2>What are we fighting for?</h2>
<p>When data flows across the internet, it is broken up into smaller “packets” which travel through the fastest possible route to any given destination. Upon arrival, these packets are reassembled so that the file, email or video is accessible on our own computer or device.</p>
<p>Network neutrality typically refers to the transport of these data packets without prejudice. In a neutral network, all packets are transferred at the same speed without preference being given to some packets over others. No one can pay more to have their data privileged while others are left with a slow, second rate connection. </p>
<p>The Verizon ruling essentially does away with this principle and has therefore raised concerns about a market emerging for internet access. An internet movie streaming service could, for example pay a network provider to privilege its data so that it can provide a more reliable streaming service.</p>
<p>And because the internet has become such an important tool in areas such as education and development, the emergence of a two-lane highway has implications that go well beyond simple marketplace calculations about who foots the bill. Network neutrality sounds egalitarian and democratic but there are complicating factors that make it a much more difficult issue than many on either side of the debate would like to admit.</p>
<h2>The US is different</h2>
<p>In the US, where internet infrastructure is lagging behind many other developed nations, the reliance on the private sector to build networks and improve speed and access means that marketplace calculations about internet access take on added significance.</p>
<p>Companies such as Verizon argue they simply can’t make the profits they need to justify the amount they spend on infrastructure without restructuring their commercial opportunities, which begins with doing away with network neutrality.</p>
<p>These network providers think the likes of Google, eBay and Amazon are cashing in on their platforms without having to invest. The dot com start-up economy is based on brains, creativity and innovation, not capital investment, and that is an <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/Internet/ebusiness/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175801854&queryText=we%20have%20to%20make%20sure%20that%20they%20don%27%20sit%20on%20our%20network%20and%20chew%20up%20bandwidth%20.">irritation</a> for Verizon.</p>
<p>There are two obvious alternative models when it comes to paying for the pipe. Either the individual end user pays (some say we already do) or the companies that offer online services do.</p>
<p>Verizon would like hugely profitable companies such as Google and Facebook to pay for running their businesses across the internet. While there is some sense in that, the fear is that it would seriously stifle the extraordinary innovation we’re witnessing right now in the sector.</p>
<p>Google and Facebook, if pressed, would pay. But what about the next Google or Facebook that is yet to emerge from the garage or the college dorm? Tim Berners Lee, the UK scientist who invented the World Wide Web has repeatedly said that if he had charged for using the web in the first place, there simply <a href="http://www.thewritingcode.com/pages/transcripts/berners-lee.html">would be no web</a>.</p>
<h2>Streaming sends us to the brink</h2>
<p>Although the debate about privileging data on the internet goes back to the first years of privatisation and commercialisation in the mid 1990s, the rapid escalation in streaming media content has exacerbated the problem.</p>
<p>Streaming media packets need to arrive in time and in sequence. If an email takes a little longer to be reassembled and appear in our inbox, there is no impact on the quality of the experience for us. The same cannot be said for watching video online or listening to an audio file. If those packets don’t come in order and in time, we get poor playback quality and we generally blame that on our provider.</p>
<p>This is Verizon’s point. Telcos argue they need to be able to manage the network or privilege certain packets over others in order to stop our media content from stalling. That’s a step that many would concede as reasonable or even desirable and indeed, it already happens in some contexts.</p>
<p>Others, however, see this as the thin edge of a very big and irreversible wedge. The next step could be for network providers to privilege data that engages with services and applications they own or favour – and that would be the end of choice online. Why allow Skype traffic through when you provide a similar service? Why allow users to watch BBC iPlayer when a deal with Channel 4 would yield more profit?</p>
<p>In an ideal world (and in some lucky countries like South Korea and Estonia) the government also invests in or stimulates investment in internet infrastructure to ease this pressure on private telcos. Though judging from the way the ambitious Australian National Broadband Network has been stopped in its tracks by a change in federal power, that’s not a perfect solution either. </p>
<p>It’s important to remember that there is nothing determined about the internet. It doesn’t have to be neutral, it doesn’t have to be dominated by commercial concerns and it doesn’t have to be as insecure as it currently is. These are not technologically determined features of the internet, they’re choices that we make all the time. Or at least, they’re choices that are being made on our behalf. It’s a mistake to underestimate the role of politics in the internet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22068/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Madeline Carr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>These are wild times for the management and governance of the internet, as is clear from the ruling that came out of the US this week. In a victory for the private sector, the Federal Communications Commission…Madeline Carr, Lecturer in International Politics and the Cyber Dimension , Aberystwyth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/213992014-01-14T13:59:10Z2014-01-14T13:59:10ZThe politics of getting online in countries that don’t exist<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/39043/original/r6gbcr4j-1389697820.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nargono-Karabakh. They've got landmarks but no domain name.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Blackwych</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>What is the quickest route to international recognition? Aspiring states may try to ally themselves with a great power, lobby national governments, or even try to enlist the support of celebrities, which worked very well in the case of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/george-clooney-obama-sudan-crisis_n_1349905.html">South Sudan</a>. But whatever strategy they choose, the internet has become one of the key arenas in their struggle for recognition.</p>
<p>Separatist movements would historically gain recognition as states if they had managed to gain effective control over the territory to which they laid claim. But this is not how the current international system works.</p>
<h2>Web presence</h2>
<p>The creation of new states is very rare indeed but self-proclaimed states are more common. Abkhazia (Georgia), Nagorno Karabakh (Azerbaijan), Northern Cyprus (Cyprus), Somaliland (Somalia) and Transnistria (Moldova) have all managed to gain control over territory, often through warfare, and have established governments, parliaments, courts, health and education systems, and other characteristics we usually associate with states. Yet in spite of these successes, most have failed to gain widespread international recognition. Recognition is fundamentally a political decision and these territories therefore try to convince the international public, and their leaders, that they deserve it, and that recognition would serve strategic interests.</p>
<p>Much of this struggle is now being played out online. A big trend is for the de facto governments to create websites from which they espouse the virtue of their territories. On these sites, they tend to claim two things: that they already function as stable, effective entities and that they are democratic.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38883/original/v5tc6ww4-1389532683.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38883/original/v5tc6ww4-1389532683.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38883/original/v5tc6ww4-1389532683.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38883/original/v5tc6ww4-1389532683.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38883/original/v5tc6ww4-1389532683.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38883/original/v5tc6ww4-1389532683.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38883/original/v5tc6ww4-1389532683.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38883/original/v5tc6ww4-1389532683.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Transnistrian ministry of foreign affairs website.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://www.mfa-pmr.org/en">Transnistria’s foreign ministry</a>, for example, presents the entity as independent and democratic and proceeds to list its many attributes of statehood, including “its own constitution, controlled territory, legislation, market economy, developed financial and tax systems, modern communications infrastructure, army, militia, security service, national flag, coat-of-arms, and anthem”.</p>
<p><a href="http://somalilandgov.com/">Somaliland’s government</a>, which presents itself as “democratic and visionary”, similarly lists Somaliland’s attributes of statehood as a key argument for its recognition and the government points out that there is growing global support for its independence.</p>
<h2>Counter attack</h2>
<p>Their arguments are vehemently opposed by the states to which these territories legally still belong. Countries such as Georgia and Azerbaijan also make frequent use of the internet to counter these messages, and instead describe these entities as illegal breakaway territories founded on ethnic cleansing, controlled by unscrupulous leaders, and dominated by organised crime.</p>
<p>The strategies used by the unrecognised territories can therefore be described as “competitive democratization” or “competitive state-building”. They are trying to convince the world that they are more democratic and more stable than their parent states. Since most of these entities emerged from violent conflicts, they are also keen to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.</p>
<p>The foreign ministry of Nagorno Karabakh for example argues that recognition would promote “stability and long-lasting peace in the region”. In essence, these states are arguing they are the good guys and deserve recognition. That recognition is presented as a pragmatic solution that will lead to more peaceful outcomes.</p>
<h2>Another purpose</h2>
<p>So far, this quest for recognition – whether online or offline – has not been successful. Although the Somaliland government maintains on its website that recognition is its “number one priority”, these websites also serve a different purpose.</p>
<p>Territories hoping for independence present themselves as already functioning states in the hope that they can gain access to the international system and that other states will trade with them, investors will spend their money there and tourists will visit. This would all make survival easier, and more pleasant, even without international recognition.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/39038/original/p8p287j4-1389696252.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/39038/original/p8p287j4-1389696252.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/39038/original/p8p287j4-1389696252.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/39038/original/p8p287j4-1389696252.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/39038/original/p8p287j4-1389696252.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/39038/original/p8p287j4-1389696252.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/39038/original/p8p287j4-1389696252.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/39038/original/p8p287j4-1389696252.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nagorno Karabakh. Not on all maps.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Somaliland government website argues that the territory has “one of the most thriving economics in Africa” and the Transnistrian counterpart also highlights the many economic opportunities it can offer and a detailed powerpoint presentation for potential investors. Over in Nagorno Karabakh, several websites try to sell the entity to investors with posts such as <a href="http://www.nkrusa.org/business_economy/ten_reasons.shtml">10 Reasons to Invest</a> and aim to raise money from the Armenian diaspora.</p>
<h2>Domain name game</h2>
<p>Fighting for independence digitally is an innovative approach in what is, for many, a longstanding struggle. But these digital strategies are hampered by a significant problem. A lack of legal recognition offline prevents their progress towards what might be seen as the most important step for online progress – getting a top level domain name. Where the UK uses .co.uk or France uses .fr, there is as yet no equivalent for these entities. Nagorno Karabakh usually borrows Armenia’s, Somaliland uses .com and Transnistria uses .org.</p>
<p>Then there are other, more subtle barriers. Drop-down menus that ask you which country you are in on sites such as Skype and Amazon to do not include these territories and they do not feature on Google maps or similar sources. They are, in many ways, places that don’t exist and although the <em>de facto</em> authorities try to counter this with their own websites, their resources are limited and certainly no match for internet giants like Google and Amazonn.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21399/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nina Caspersen receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).</span></em></p>What is the quickest route to international recognition? Aspiring states may try to ally themselves with a great power, lobby national governments, or even try to enlist the support of celebrities, which…Nina Caspersen, Senior Lecturer, Department of Politics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/216682013-12-20T15:25:59Z2013-12-20T15:25:59ZAnonymity will be the next victim of internet censorship<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38375/original/y9fg7k8h-1387551032.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The dark web is under threat.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Fir0002</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The worrying developments in UK internet freedom over the last year make predictions for 2014 gloomy to say the least. Censorship now affects us all, so we should be thinking about it. And it’s not politically driven censorship we should be most afraid of.</p>
<p>This year has been characterised by tension between the UK government’s use of terrorism laws and free speech and, more recently, by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25430582">concern</a> over the <a href="http://mccullagh.org/misc/articles/cwd.keys.to.the.kingdcom.1996.txt">unavoidable over-blocking</a> of content in the name of protection. Yet there are greater threats to our internet freedom than the heavy hand of the government.</p>
<h2>Oversight versus interference</h2>
<p>Both the government and internet service providers have abdicated responsibility for the quality control of the security filters being put in place in a bid to prevent children from accessing pornographic content at home.</p>
<p>ISPs such as <a href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/bt-filters-reply">BT</a> and <a href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/skys-reply-to-org-on-default-internet-filters">Sky</a> have delegated the task of deciding what to block to third party companies. For <a href="http://politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/12/19/comment-three-embarrassing-truths-about-david-cameron-s-porn">accountability</a> and <a href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/ukccis-overblocking">oversight</a> that is bad news but in terms of possible political interference it is actually good.</p>
<h2>Why censorship?</h2>
<p>There have been three main drivers for internet censorship. One is child abuse imagery, the banning of which is in line with the general population’s views. Websites containing child porn can be taken down, for example through the Internet Watch Foundation, and, since November, <a href="https://theconversation.com/blocks-just-move-child-porn-under-the-counter-20531">search engines have returned warnings and reduced results</a> when certain terms have been searched for. Although porn in general is not illegal, the ISPs’ filters will have an impact on the blocking of child abuse by negatively affecting the distribution of borderline illegal material. </p>
<p>The second driver is combating extremism. It is still unclear how censorship will be applied here, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/blocking-extremist-sites-is-not-the-same-as-fighting-child-porn-20930">classification is highly problematic</a>. No clear public mandate exists for this censorship, nor are links with legislation on issues such as hate speech or proscription of organisations, made explicit. In <a href="http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/46768/kw/parental%20filter/c/346,6679,6680#settingup">its filters</a>, BT does not have an “extremism” category, although some content may fall within its “weapons and violence” or “hate” labels.</p>
<p>The final category is media organisations aiming to protect their copyright. The <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/contents">2010 Digital Economy Act</a> allows for ISPs to apply sanctions (such as bandwidth restriction and disconnection) to users who have downloaded copyrighted material. ISPs have also been forced to block file sharing websites, such as <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17894176">The Pirate Bay</a> and BT includes the practice in its filtering. But file sharing isn’t always illegal and even when it is, public opinion is divided about whether or not it is acceptable. The heavy-handed measures that can be taken show the impact of the commercial interests in this domain.</p>
<h2>Mission creep</h2>
<p>It’s important to note that <a href="http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/46768/kw/parental%20filter/c/346,6679,6680#settingup">BT is filtering in 14 categories</a>, even though David Cameron promised nothing broader than “porn” filters. The generous explanation for this is that the third party providers being used by ISPs already had a range of filtering options in place for parental controls or use in schools, for example filtering against high bandwidth activities like file sharing and media streaming.</p>
<p>More worryingly though, it <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/17/bt_parental_controls_will_block_proxies_and_anonymiser_sites/">has been reported</a>
that the BT filters also restrict access to sites promoting the use of proxies. This is where the next battle over internet censorship will be fought. Restricting the technological means through which internet users can obscure their IP addresses, obtain some anonymity, and hide the content they are accessing from others is the next big target.</p>
<p>Again, the excuse may be that the third party providers already have this built into their products for good reasons. In the context of school web filters, for example, circumvention of filters needs to be prevented. </p>
<p>But it looks like these measures could well be broadened. The IWF and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre have been<br>
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/18/online-child-abuse-peer-to-peer">asked to investigate child abuse imagery in the “Dark Web”</a>. The only predictable, and sensible, recommendation for reducing child porn to come out of this will be to restrict access to the Dark Web. And that has to be done by restricting a user’s ability to disguise their activities. </p>
<h2>Media companies and the TTIP</h2>
<p>This by itself will not cause the UK government to restrict access to Tor, VPNs, or proxies in general. However, the media copyright lobby will want to make this happen because peer-to-peer networks, content indexed through torrent sites, possibly using some form of anonymous routing along the way, carry the majority of the “illegal” file sharing load.</p>
<p>Media companies stand to gain significant powers, possibly trumping national legislation, through trade agreements such as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131219/05544825628/actas-back-european-commission-reveals-plans-to-put-corporate-christmas-list-ip-demands-into-taftattip.shtml">TTIP</a>. Using these, they will want to close off all avenues of illegal file sharing, and they are unlikely to care about collateral damage to internet privacy. Thus, we have to worry about restrictions on the use of Tor anonymous routing, VPNs, proxies, and any other ways that allow us to be more anonymous and protected on the internet.</p>
<p>This prediction then brings together the two big internet freedom storylines of the last six months. The government’s desire for quick internet censorship solutions will end up impeding our capacity to defend ourselves against overzealous surveillance from intelligence services and tech companies.</p>
<h2>The Tor fightback</h2>
<p>The good news is that Tor traffic has <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwMr8Xl7JMQ">proved hard to detect and shut down</a>. Many countries have tried and failed. Security companies claiming to have the required technology typically are only able to block older versions.</p>
<p>These days, Tor connections look like normal secure web traffic. Currently only China systematically and openly blocks Tor (with its Great Firewall) for long periods of time. They do this by blocking the eight “directory authorities” that form the entry point to Tor, in combination with Deep Packet Inspection. In response, the Tor project continually develops new camouflage methods, and also <a href="https://ooni.torproject.org/">very promising tools for detecting internet censorship</a>. It is very sad that we may be using this tool sometime soon in the UK, and that Russia and Japan have been reported to be considering blocking Tor. All is not lost, but we should be on our guard.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21668/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eerke Boiten is a senior lecturer in the School of Computing at the University of Kent, and Director of the University's interdisciplinary Centre for Cyber Security Research. He receives funding from EPSRC for the CryptoForma Network of Excellence on Cryptography and Formal Methods. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julio Hernandez-Castro does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The worrying developments in UK internet freedom over the last year make predictions for 2014 gloomy to say the least. Censorship now affects us all, so we should be thinking about it. And it’s not politically…Eerke Boiten, Senior Lecturer, School of Computing and Director of Interdisciplinary Cyber Security Centre, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/205312013-11-20T14:49:21Z2013-11-20T14:49:21ZBlocks just move child porn under the counter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35703/original/4kqc53pm-1384952183.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are search engines really at the front line in the fight against child pornography?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">GoodNCrazy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Google and Microsoft have agreed to install filters on their search engines to prevent them being used to search for child abuse images. Some queries on Google and Bing will be blocked, while others will produce a warning message alongside filtered results.</p>
<p>It is not as if people need to be told. Child porn has been illegal for a long time in most of the world. The question to ask is why it still hasn’t been eradicated. The ease with which digital media can be stored, transmitted and copied is only part of the problem. Beyond technology, social deprivation, poverty, sex tourism and child trafficking all play a part and require larger, more complex solutions.</p>
<h2>Hurdle, not barrier</h2>
<p>In terms of effectiveness, the introduction of filters by search engines is similar to moving porn under the counter at a newsagent’s. It creates a useful hurdle to prevent people accidentally or gradually entering the territory but it will not stop a determined person from accessing the material if they really want to. In principle, it will sharpen the boundary between innocent and criminal behaviour but serious criminal behaviour will not be affected. Most of this activity takes place in parts of the internet that are not visible to search engines anyway.</p>
<p>In this case, there is an echo of what happened with the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-for-investigation-of-protected-electronic-information">Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Part III)</a> in the late 2000s. This UK law requires people to hand over encryption keys if asked and allows them to be jailed for up to two years if they fail to comply. Security experts noted this would have little impact on serious criminals using encryption intelligently. Indeed, the first person to be convicted through this was <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/jfl_ripa_opinion/">not a hardened criminal, but someone with mental health issues</a>.</p>
<p>To date, still <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831">only a single conviction</a> is known to have been made under this part of the act against a man who refused to hand over the encryption password to his computer to police investigating child porn. Experts suggest most serious online child porn activity is taking place in the heavily encrypted and obscured “dark net” so Cameron’s announced intention to address this area next is very welcome. We can overlook his somewhat hyperbolic assertion that work to track online child porn is somehow comparable to the codebreakers of World War 2.</p>
<h2>The trade-off</h2>
<p>The basic technological ideas behind these internet search filters are well known. Given the complexity and evolution of natural language, any such filter can only make an educated guess at whether a query is looking for child abuse. Sometimes it will wrongly place a search query in that category (a “false positive”), and sometimes it will fail to identify one (a “false negative”).</p>
<p>Any filtering technique will show a trade-off between these two kinds of errors: reducing one kind will increase the other. Too many false positives leads to inappropriate censorship and too many false negatives makes the filter ineffectual. A middle category with warning messages and selected search results for these child abuse filters alleviates this to a limited extent, although the search engine still needs to choose between the three categories.</p>
<p>David Cameron’s comments that the search engine providers had so far been “unable” to implement these kinds of filters are rather surprising, though. Last century’s search engines started by just looking for bits of text in web pages, but their business model these days relies crucially on being able to decide the relevance of a given web page to a search query.</p>
<p>Both Google and Microsoft have had filtering technology in place to comply with the Chinese government’s censorship on internet search for some time. Google operated compliantly in the Chinese market until 2010; Microsoft’s Bing has collaborated with the main Chinese search engine Baidu since 2011. Clearly they have been reticent to implement it elsewhere, perhaps because blocking search terms, even for laudable causes such as tackling child abuse, raises questions for the future. </p>
<p>If this is indeed the first time such technologies are being rolled out in the UK, it is a landmark moment in internet freedom. Cameron may not be ready to acknowledge it, but after the Snowden revelations, many people will not feel able to trust the UK government not to try to extend censorship into other areas.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20531/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eerke Boiten is a senior lecturer in the School of Computing at the University of Kent, and Director of the University's interdisciplinary Centre for Cyber Security Research. He receives funding from EPSRC for the CryptoForma Network of Excellence on Cryptography and Formal Methods. </span></em></p>Google and Microsoft have agreed to install filters on their search engines to prevent them being used to search for child abuse images. Some queries on Google and Bing will be blocked, while others will…Eerke Boiten, Senior Lecturer, School of Computing and Director of Interdisciplinary Cyber Security Centre, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/196302013-10-30T06:30:44Z2013-10-30T06:30:44ZCrunch time for crowdfunders as regulation looms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34039/original/mv5w8pzf-1383065998.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The money is piling up but will the regulators knock crowdfunding down?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeff Belmonte</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Crowdfunding has attracted the attention of regulators and may have to change its ways. As it finds itself at the centre of a Financial Conduct Authority <a href="http://www.fca.org.uk/news/cp13-13-regulatory-approach-to-crowdfunding">consultation</a>, those in the game are wondering if the beady eye of regulators kill off the trend or make it stronger.</p>
<p>While crowdfunding is not completely unregulated, this is the first time the emerging field has faced real interrogation. The FCA acknowledges in its consultation that its current rulebook was not developed with this particular investment mode in mind.</p>
<p>The consultation covers both loan-based and investment-based crowdfunding and states that investing through these online platforms tends to be riskier than more traditional methods.</p>
<h2>Rising star</h2>
<p>Crowdfunding is a collective effort. Anyone with an art, technology or community project can post information about their plans and ask others to invest or donate. Sites such as <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/">Kickstarter</a>, GoFundMe and Funding Circle all offer an alternative to traditional financing for operations looking to try something new. Those seeking funds post a short description of their project, set a target for funding and a time limit to raise the money. The general rule is that if the funding target is not reached, the money is not collected. But there are many different options on the table in the cases of projects that are successful.</p>
<p>The trend has been particularly important in the development of videogames and scientific research. Games developers have cashed in on the eagerness of fans to take an active part in the industry and have experienced <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-cash-for-gaming-ill-stick-to-kickstarter-thanks-17857">huge success</a>. The most successful crowdfunding project of all time is computer game Star Citizen, which has so far raised <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/128957-Star-Citizen-Hits-24-Million-With-Hot-New-Trailer">$24 million</a>.</p>
<p>Scientists on the other hand, are increasingly turning to the public to fund their work through sites like <a href="https://www.microryza.com/">Microryza,</a> often after struggling to access grants. The public are in turn excited by the chance to support what could potentially be the next big breakthrough in cancer treatment or other areas of medical research and are willing to punt small amounts of cash to support the cause.</p>
<h2>Uncharted waters</h2>
<p>Yet crowdfunding is still in its infancy. The novel nature of the funding mechanism has thrown up all kinds of questions. What happens if there are problems with a project? What if there are unmet expectations? What if copyright disputes emerge? Crowdfunding is evolving to meet these challenges but there have been problems.</p>
<p>In its many forms, crowdfunding often straddles boundaries between different regulatory approaches and frameworks. This is particularly true in Europe, where common regulatory approaches to financial intermediation have displayed a marked tendency to lag behind the establishment of the common market itself. Both crowdfunders and fundees might find themselves in a “no man’s land” between different jurisdictions where there are few precedents. </p>
<p>The world of crowdfunding already has internal regulatory mechanisms, such as the code of practice launched by the <a href="http://www.ukcfa.org.uk/">UK Crowd Funding Association</a> in March. But it was only a matter of time before something more formal became necessary. Currently, the FCA and the US Securities and Exchange Commission are aiming to bring in a regulatory framework in 2014.</p>
<h2>Who owes who?</h2>
<p>It is obvious that when you make promises about a project and subsequently win crowdfunding for it, you need to make good your claims to new investors. But what about those who have supported and developed your idea in the past and are not part of the new funding crowd? This can be a difficult set of relationships to manage, but it is critical to get it right. Reputation is everything in online funding. If you let investors down on a project, you jeopardise future attempts to win crowdfunding.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, even though large amounts of money can be raised through crowdfunding, the idea is that individual commitments are small. So while these projects are risky, investors are generally not risking their life savings in the hope of return. In the spirit of so many kinds of internet exchange, they are often simply keen to support an idea that they find interesting.</p>
<p>But there is also the question of when your responsibilities towards your investors end. Few projects simply “end”, especially the successful ones, so where is the line to be drawn? Books may go on to become films, novel treatments may go on to become blockbuster drugs. What are the ongoing rights in these cases?</p>
<p>What about technical projects that need significant rounds of new funding to get to next stage? If you go for a second round of funding to scale up or commercialise your product, what are your responsibilities towards the original funders?</p>
<p>It is possible to appear successful, and get a project off the ground, but what if you need more money for to take a product to the next level? If you have fragmented the equity by offering small numbers of shares to many people, then you may not be in a position to trade equity for an investment from a business angel or a venture capitalist with enough funds to support significant expansion. Potentially, this could make the product uninvestable; similarly, a wide disclosure of the idea could compromise the intellectual property position, which again might discourage serious investors coming in down the line. </p>
<p>It is early days for crowdfunding so there is little precedent. Crowdfunding can be fun but as it becomes more regulated, players on all sides should think carefully about their investments, particularly in the long-term. We are operating in unknown territory, but, sooner or later, someone is going to want their share of a crowdfunded project that made its creator a millionaire.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19630/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lorraine Warren receives funding from the Resaerch Councils UK New Economic Models of the Digital Economy strand</span></em></p>Crowdfunding has attracted the attention of regulators and may have to change its ways. As it finds itself at the centre of a Financial Conduct Authority consultation, those in the game are wondering if…Lorraine Warren, Senior Lecturer in Innovation, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/193052013-10-22T05:21:17Z2013-10-22T05:21:17ZIgnoring your privacy pays nicely for leading websites<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33392/original/g298y2dm-1382360631.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We turn in droves to the sites that know most about us.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Next Web</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>You might think that as we grow increasingly concerned about the way our personal information is used online, we are choosing to turn away from those that infringe on our privacy. However, sites that adopt the most intrusive policies when it comes to user information continue to be the most successful.</p>
<p>Our <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596113001250">research</a>, published in the academic journal Telecommunication Policy, shows that the more intrusive a website’s approach, the more traffic it enjoys. In European legislation, privacy is considered a fundamental right. This is enshrined in <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML">a 1995 EU directive</a> that assured individual protection related to the processing and free movement of personal data.</p>
<p>There is an ongoing debate about how this directive should be reformed to fit with the changed world we live in but there has been limited work so far on whether allowing websites to self-regulate is a viable option or whether the rules need to be dictated from the top down. The results of our work would suggest that the latter may well be the most appropriate. </p>
<p>We constructed an original dataset containing information about the digital business models of the top ranked websites in France, collected by <a href="http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/FR">Alexa top sites ranking</a>. This included Google, Facebook, Amazon, Le Monde and Le Figaro.</p>
<p>The aim was to look at whether firms are interested in respecting their customers’ private information or if, in doing so, they might lose visitors. Websites differ in their approaches to gathering information about users. Some gather data through cookies and others ask visitors to subscribe to services. Some take a name, some take an email address and others take a full postal address. We found a very strong correlation between the intrusiveness of privacy measures such as these and web audience. </p>
<p><a href="http://cetucker.scripts.mit.edu/docs/econ_summary_2011.pdf">Previous work</a> shows that individuals have a certain level of tolerance of intrusive advertising when they visit an e-commerce website, because they perceive personalised advertising as providing information. Users now provide a huge amount of information about themselves, their families and their colleagues when they use websites and are rewarded with location-based services and personalised content as a result. When we sign up for these services, we value instant gratification over our longer-term privacy and companies are benefiting from this trade off while users may not be getting [such a good deal](individual user’s privacy](http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/46968784.pdf). </p>
<p>The truth remains that the more intrusive the site, the better able it is to customise its offer and to attract and retain its audience. Firms do not come up against significant opposition to using this data and it brings economic returns. They therefore have a strong incentive to provide a personalised service in order to increase the attractiveness of their websites.</p>
<p>This makes it less likely that the businesses themselves will take the initiative to protect user privacy. Why give up profitable activity if you don’t have to? Policymakers and regulators should acknowledge this and take action to inform consumers about the possible risks associated with the disclosure of their private information when they use websites.</p>
<p>From a regulatory perspective, this might mean looking carefully at the business models these websites have in place to find out more about the relationship between gathering information on users and generating profit, such as through advertising.</p>
<p>Consumers are wiser these days about their personal data being gathered but that does not necessarily equate to a desire to take action against it from happening - especially if the trade-off is a loss of access to email or online shopping.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19305/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The research presented in this article was a French Research Agency project funded by ESPRI.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabrice Rochelandet does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>You might think that as we grow increasingly concerned about the way our personal information is used online, we are choosing to turn away from those that infringe on our privacy. However, sites that adopt…Grazia Cecere, Associate Professor of Economics Telecom Ecole de Management and University of Paris SudFabrice Rochelandet, Professor of ICT, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris 3 Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/190492013-10-14T13:47:42Z2013-10-14T13:47:42ZIt’s bad news all round if Airbnb bites the dust in New York<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33016/original/t6rkztgz-1381756723.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cheap weekends in NYC could be a thing of the past.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">WanderingTheWorld</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has sent a subpoena to the home-renting company <a href="https://www.airbnb.co.uk">Airbnb</a>. The demand asks for personal data relating to 15,000 users of the service in the city that have rented out their home. A law passed in 2010 makes it illegal for residents to rent out their home for less than 30 days.</p>
<p>In response <a href="http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Airbnb.memo_.pdf">AirBnb is challenging the law</a>. It wants to use New York as an example of how its business model can overcome regulatory obstacles to become legitimate and socially acceptable. It argues that <a href="http://blog.airbnb.com/who-we-are/">“regular people renting out their own homes should be able to do so”</a> and that occupancy tax is not an irresolvable problem. It points to a <a href="http://publicpolicy.airbnb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Berlin-Airbnb-economic-impact-study.pdf">study conducted in Berlin</a> which highlights the local economic impact of Airbnb: a contribution of more than $130 million in a single year. Even more importantly, it argues this money provides a greater contribution to the local economy than if the money was spent in large international hotel chains.</p>
<p>The outcome of this saga could prove to be globally influential, particularly in Europe where lawmakers are already examining how to govern these disruptive new forms of commerce.</p>
<p>Airbnb isn’t the only company of its kind suffering growing pains. Car sharing start-ups are also facing entrenched bureaucracy, <a href="http://www.aflcio.org/Features/Innovators/Taxi!-Taxi!-Cabbies-Form-Unlikely-Union">resistant unions</a>, and <a href="http://pandodaily.com/2013/06/25/los-angeles-shocks-uber-sidecar-and-lyft-with-cease-desist-orders-despite-state-authorization/">cease-and-desist</a> letters because some feel the services they offer risks eroding the taxi transportation market.</p>
<p>These new businesses that are bracketed into the “<a href="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104-internet-everything-hire-rise-sharing-economy">sharing economy</a>” or “<a href="http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com">collaborative consumption</a>” face enormous legal hurdles. Technology brings the potential for new social arrangements which the law simply hasn’t had time to catch up with. The services encourage us to rent rather than buy, or go even further by persuading us to commercially exploit the spare resources that we each own individually. They turn the person with a spare room into an hotelier, the person with <a href="http://www.blablacar.com">a spare car seat</a> into a taxi driver, <a href="https://poshmark.com">the old wardrobe</a> into a thrift shop, <a href="http://snapgoods.com">the tool box</a> into a money maker, and <a href="http://corp.fon.com">the home wi-fi network</a> into an internet cafe. The value of the sharing economy has been estimated to be worth <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104-internet-everything-hire-rise-sharing-economy">$26 Billion per year</a> and is growing rapidly. It is big business and it’s little wonder regulators are beginning to pay attention.</p>
<p>This type of informal bartering is of course not new, but previously the transactions were almost invisible to authorities. It was a black market, or at best, a grey market. The web has changed that. The companies that have succeeded in this space so far have designed transparent transaction records to create openness and honesty because the peer-to-peer model relies on trust as its currency. But as a consequence they make it easier for regulators to sniff out informal exchanging and thus tax avoidance.</p>
<p>What is potentially worrying for people using these systems is that even more personal data will be collected under the guise of regulation - a particularly sensitive issues in the wake of the NSA scandal. The type of data held on sites such as Airbnb does not exist in a vacuum. It is behavioural and has the potential to reveal more about our consumption habits than most citizens would like to share.</p>
<p>The surveillance tension can only be addressed by creating greater legal clarity for organisations, otherwise social and technological innovation will be prevented from emerging in this fertile space. Airbnb <a href="http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Airbnb.memo_.pdf">argues</a> “tax laws are confusing, contradictory, and impossible to articulate, especially as applied to the novel ways that users may share their accommodation”, but that isn’t the only problem for regulators. There are also spillover effects of renting out accommodation which need to be monitored. For instance, most people who rent out their apartments live in close proximity to neighbours, many of whom have objected to the constant flow of antisocial guests in their building.</p>
<p>There are lots of reasons to champion this emerging breed of business. They advocate experiential rather than materialistic consumption and they take significantly less resources from the environment than traditional alternatives. They are ideologically refreshing, but that involves inevitable conflict. We need to think more about how we evaluate the social implications of these models.</p>
<p>For the past few decades at least, politicians in the UK and US alike have cherished ownership as a means of creating a sense of pride and social responsibility. This may partially reveal why regulators have been slow to embrace this new wave of services, but their popularity demands that renewed attention be given to the laws of commerce and the rights of the individual to trade freely. The future success of these organisations may actually depend more on persuading government to collaborate than consumers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19049/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Harvey receives funding from EPSRC and the University of Nottingham</span></em></p>New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has sent a subpoena to the home-renting company Airbnb. The demand asks for personal data relating to 15,000 users of the service in the city that have rented…John Harvey, Researcher, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/187032013-09-30T10:02:18Z2013-09-30T10:02:18ZMPs have missed the mark in attacking copyright reform<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32091/original/bhwkyrhn-1380291081.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Copyright is changing. Some are yet to catch on.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">eddiedangerous</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee set out some fairly strong <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmcumeds/674/674.pdf">views</a> last week about how its members think the UK should approach copyright reform. </p>
<p>I have an interest to declare in that I have been heavily involved in this debate since the autumn of 2010, when I was asked by the UK government to conduct an independent <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm">review</a> of intellectual property law, with a particular focus on economic growth.</p>
<p>On copyright, the committee makes four strong recommendations: that Google should be forced to block content which involves copyright infringement as robustly as it blocks child pornography; that the maximum penalty for copyright theft be increased to ten years in jail; that the government should get on with implementing the anti-piracy measures proposed in the 2010 Digital Economy Act; and that it should reverse its hitherto favourable stance on the measures proposed in my review.</p>
<p>My work, the committee says, is part of an agenda which “could cause irreversible damage to the creative sector on which the UK’s future prosperity will significantly depend.” In the CMS committee’s view: “the existing law works well.”</p>
<p>Here are some respects in which the existing law does not work well. The fact that it remains illegal for anyone to do what most of us routinely do – namely to copy one rights-protected file, such as music, from one device we own to another. No wonder people are so confused about the boundary between lawful and unlawful. The answer? A carefully drawn exception in copyright law to permit personal, non-commercial copying of files: a reform the committee opposes.</p>
<p>Reform is also needed in several other areas: to relieve archivists of the dilemma that it can be illegal for them to copy a work even for preservation and to prevent damaging restrictions on the ability of researchers to use techniques such as text and data mining; or to make copyright rules right for digital era schools and universities. Workable and detailed reforms are now being put forward by the government to address these issues.</p>
<p>The case I made in the review was that a successful copyright regime in a digital world needed to be shorn of palpable absurdity if the law is to be respected and enforceable in a way which commands broad public support. I also argue that rights holders need to do a better job in licensing and selling rights, especially for small, low-value transactions, through what I called a <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-copyright-dce">Digital Copyright Exchange</a>.</p>
<p>This aspect of the project, at least, meets with the committee’s approval, but a successful exchange cannot do the job alone: if the law continues to be dressed as an ass, it will damage the exchange as well. Put together one-click licensing and laws that pass the common sense test and we will release a significant new level of energy in the collaborative, co-productive world of the creative economy.</p>
<p>In my view, the committee’s core misjudgement arises from the fact that it appears to be focused exclusively on the perspective of existing, mostly large, creative industry players and not at all upon emerging digital firms and entrepreneurs. Nor does it take account of consumers, who appear to have been left behind in this report.</p>
<p>A more balanced approach is necessary if we are to make the most of the UK’s creative economy. This term, “creative economy”, by the way, appears in the CMS Committee report’s title, but it is never defined and appears to be used interchangeably and randomly with the term “creative industries”.</p>
<p>In the recent <a href="http://www.nesta.org.uk/home1/assets/features/a_manifesto_for_the_creative_economy">Nesta Manifesto for the Creative Economy</a>, which I co-authored, we clear up this imprecision by defining the creative economy based on labour force data which enables us to count creative workers, inside and beyond the creative industries, and so to compute the value of their work and the size of the creative economy.</p>
<p>By these Nesta definitions, the UK creative economy employs 2.5 million people and accounts for something like 10 per cent of UK gross value added. Having nailed this down, we set out an agenda to ensure the creative economy prospers.</p>
<p>This includes a “schools digital pledge” to ensure that the curriculum brings together art, design, technology and computer science; a seven-point plan for creative clusters; and proposals to put creative economy research and development on a par with other business sectors. We discuss the role of the BBC and offer some thoughts about the complex issue of policing competition on the internet. We also say that a carefully undertaken reform of copyright, operating within the framework of exceptions permitted in European law and a prospective, unified EU digital market, will be an indispensable component of success.</p>
<p>I think this a much better programme for supporting the UK creative economy than the one put forward by the CMS Committee’s politicians. Why not read both and judge for yourself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18703/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Hargreaves
Does not directly own shares in any company.
Has done work on intellectual property issues for the following:
The UK Intellectual Property Office (payment for time devoted during the IP review)
Nesta: one day a week research fellowship from January 2012 to February 2013.
Has research funding from the AHRC and the EPSRC on themes involving the creative economy, but not specifically with regard to copyright.
Has written for the Lisbon Council, a Brussels think tank, on copyright issues and is a Senior Fellow at the Lisbon Council.
is a member (unpaid) of the Digital Wales Advisory Network.
is a member (unpaid) of the Alacrity Foundation board
is a member (unpaid) of the board of National Theatre Wales.
is a new member (paid) of the EU's Office for Harmonisation of Internal Markets Observatory - advisory board on IP enforcement.
</span></em></p>The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee set out some fairly strong views last week about how its members think the UK should approach copyright reform. I have an interest to declare in…Ian Hargreaves, Professor of Digital Economy, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/184372013-09-20T12:15:48Z2013-09-20T12:15:48ZPick your battles when fighting financial spying<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/31726/original/jxpgfxjd-1379671101.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Banking is global at every level. Get used to it and decide what's important.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hakan Dahlstrom</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Another day brings yet another “revelation” based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden. This time, <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/how-the-nsa-spies-on-international-bank-transactions-a-922430.html">Der Spiegel</a> revealed the details of an NSA programme known as “follow the money”, through which the agency has been monitoring millions of financial transactions.</p>
<p>The two organisations named by Der Spiegel were Visa and SWIFT, suggesting that, somehow, the NSA was able to capture data from transactions processed by these global financial bodies, who between them serve millions of people.</p>
<p>We are now primed to react with indignity every time the NSA is exposed as prying into a new aspect of our daily lives but perhaps it’s time to start thinking more constructively about our response. Are the concerns being expressed actually the right ones?</p>
<p>Anyone who believes that their financial transactions are not being monitored has never had a credit card cloned. When it happened to me, I was astonished that the technology from my credit card provider was able to spot differences in my spending pattern as soon as they occurred.</p>
<p>Within a couple of days, the company had contacted me about the unusual spending. Some of the flagged transactions were most assuredly not me. Buying industrial sewing machines and making hundreds of calls to China from phone boxes in Waterloo stand out quite plainly against my regular habits. But the company was able to make far more nuanced assumptions based on what appeared to be a deep understanding of my habits. </p>
<p>Buying children’s shoes from a shop in my local town could well have been me but somehow the company knew it wasn’t. Sure enough, it is always my wife who buys the shoes</p>
<p>Every single transaction that was flagged to me as being fraudulent was accurate. Even down to buying petrol, apparently because I buy petrol for very similar amounts each time.</p>
<p>I was rather pleased that some automated system was watching my transactions and was able to spot the errant spending. I wasn’t thinking at the time that this was some great invasion of privacy, although it did force me to conclude that I am a little predictable.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the system had also spotted some false transactions that I could have been predicted to make because they were made in several places simultaneously, which was obviously impossible when they were geographically so far apart. It wasn’t just my predictability but there was some automated intelligence being applied.</p>
<p>My lack of a sense of invasion of privacy was in large part due to the fact that I was one among thousands, hundreds of thousands of customers who were being processed in the search for aberrant behaviour patterns.</p>
<p>And so it is with the large volumes of meta data that intelligence agencies collect about telephone calls. Hence, I was neither surprised nor felt my privacy had been violated when that practice was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order/print">revealed</a>.</p>
<p>Similarly, let’s for a moment suppose that the NSA, among many others I’m sure, is looking at millions of financial transactions, as is claimed by Der Spiegel. Does that mean that it scrutinises my accounts and takes note each time I fill up at the petrol station? Of course not.</p>
<p>Like credit card companies, the NSA would be looking for patterns of behaviour that might be of interest to it - linkages that show how money is being moved around and used in activities which it has a mission to prevent. The biggest clue is in the name: Follow The Money.</p>
<p>Law enforcement agencies have been doing this for years. When a fraud is committed or money laundered via multiple accounts, the agencies attempt to trace where that money has gone. But of course, someone has to first spot that pattern to determine it is worthy of further investigation.</p>
<p>In many ways they have a much easier time these days, now that everything is done electronically. Several decades ago, when many records were kept in local bank branches, the process would have taken a long time, but there cannot be anywhere on Earth that is not now part of electronic funds transfer systems. How else would you be able to draw out cash in some far flung ATM when on your exotic holiday?</p>
<p>The more our lives become reliant upon electronic systems, and our interconnectedness, the more we can assume others will wish to take an interest in that data as a means of determining if we somehow stand out from the crowd.</p>
<p>One of the biggest safeguards to date in securing our data from regime change has been the inability to store these vast volumes of data for long periods. That is changing. The cost, size and expense of operating huge data stores is falling at an increasing rate. We have moved from megabytes to gigabytes to terabytes in a only a few years and now larger systems can consider storing petabytes and exabytes. These were unimaginable quantities of data only a few years ago.</p>
<p>Your transactions will be amongst the millions of financial transactions allegedly being hoovered up. But unless the systems monitoring that data flow somehow connect you to something or someone of interest, an intelligence organisation, even one as large as the NSA, would simply not have the capacity to take a personal interest in you.</p>
<p>So, instead of shaking our fists when we find agencies monitoring our financial dealings, perhaps we should take a tip from the credit card companies and take a more nuanced approach.</p>
<p>We should be identifying our specific concerns - asking how long our data is being kept, what checks and balances are in place to stop that data being misused, and perhaps what constitutes unusual patterns of behaviour to us and the people looking out for them. </p>
<p>Personally, I believe that countries such as the US and UK are more likely to ensure that proper checks and balances are in place than many other countries who care far less about civil liberties. Still, that doesn’t mean we should just accept monitoring regardless. The idea often <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832263">advocated</a> that if you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t worry about monitoring is flawed. Governments change and what makes someone of interest today can change with that change of regime.</p>
<p>There must be checks and balances: processes to make sure that we are not targeted for political, economic or other reasons that do not represent a real danger. Most importantly we don’t want our data retained “just in case” someone might find a use for it in future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18437/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Woodward does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Another day brings yet another “revelation” based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden. This time, Der Spiegel revealed the details of an NSA programme known as “follow the money”, through which the agency…Alan Woodward, Visiting Professor , University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/162152013-07-19T05:45:19Z2013-07-19T05:45:19ZThe internet will never forget you … if you’re British<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/27716/original/2vk3y5zp-1374163461.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You might want to forget that picture, but the internet won't</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Miia Ranta</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Justice ministers from across Europe sat down in Brussels yesterday to discuss some tricky issues for internet privacy, one of the most controversial of which was the right to be forgotten.</p>
<p>After the NSA scandal, privacy has become particularly emotive for the general public. Why shouldn’t we be allowed to control what information is available about us on the internet, particularly those embarrassing photos of our exploits in the past?</p>
<p>The European Commission is seeking to tighten the rules to help European citizens do exactly that. It is <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf">proposing</a> to amend legislation to require data “controllers” like Facebook to delete personal data at the request of users. They could even be fined for failing to do so.</p>
<p>The UK has other ideas. Speaking to the BBC ahead of the meeting in Brussels, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling argued that the stricter rules have been designed with large companies such as Facebook and Google in mind but that introducing them in the UK could have a serious financial impact on smaller businesses.</p>
<p>He wants the UK to be able to opt out of the rules and take a different approach to, say, Germany, which is backing the Commission.</p>
<h2>How did I get here?</h2>
<p>The “right to be forgotten” is a recent concept that addresses internet users’ concerns about the permanence of information publicly displayed about them. Now that the commercial internet is nearly 20 years old, it has become apparent that it does not readily forget things.</p>
<p>Once out there, posts, photos, stories and webpages don’t fade away. When people google themselves, they are often surprised and embarrassed to see pictures and comments they made in the past surface instantaneously. By its nature, the internet remembers, and search engines are in the business of indexing all of those remembrances. There are things that people wish were left in the past - inappropriate photos, immature comments, or simply views they held that are no longer true.</p>
<p>Consider speech, the first human form of communication. It is characterised by impermanence. Words spoken in the air are ephemeral and we rely on memory to recall what is said. Of course, with the advent of audio recording devices, a semi-permanent, faithful recollection of what someone said became available, though it was trapped on the media on which it was recorded. Now, with recording and publishing fused into a single act, online communications achieve a permanence that makes some people uncomfortable.</p>
<p>Information about a person can surface that she or he never wrote or uploaded. It could be a news story from a local paper with an unflattering quote, or worse, a mugshot made public and then automatically put online by an unprincipled but legal website. The right to be forgotten is the idea that people should have control over their informational lives, and be able to demand that posts and photos be erased.</p>
<h2>Please delete me</h2>
<p>Forgetting on a grand scale might be possible, but it would require a change in the way the internet is managed. Facebook, for example, owns its infrastructure and jealously guards its content. It is a “gated community” so the company can take unilateral action on the content within its walls. So, imagine a “biodegradability option,” where you are given the chance to have all your photos, comments and posts deleted from Facebook’s servers after, say, 90 days. This is a very simple way to give users some control. For other organisations, forgetting could function in the same way that a “subject access request” does already. If you know an organisation has your data, you formally ask it to tell you everything it knows. Theoretically, there could be a “subject deletion request.” The problem with this, as with the access request, is that you have to know who holds the data, and that’s not always clear.</p>
<p>To make the plan work, Brussels needs to further define who the data controller actually is. This would partly address the UK’s concerns. But still the the internet’s penchant for remembering remains an issue. Information on the internet proliferates in limitless ways: there are mirrors and backups and alternate versions everywhere. A company’s ability to delete information only extends to its own equipment. Who is in control if one company shares information with another? What if a business closes down but its data assets are still online? What happens in the case of cached data?</p>
<p>The internet’s primary nature is interlinking computers - the most valuable use of those links is data sharing. As such, intentional de-linking and deletion is difficult. Consider the case of a newspaper article. It may be unflattering or false, or may be a story of an arrest that was then cleared. The story is copyrighted by the newspaper, and it is part of both the company’s and the world’s historical record. If someone feels that the story is untrue or unappealing, or facts have changed or been updated, as in the clearing of a criminal charge, the idea of the right to be forgotten is compelling, but legally, it may not be possible. </p>
<p>Grayling’s decision to side with business on this issue has not played well with Europe. The minister says he is reluctant to impose stricter regulations on businesses at a time when growth is a top priority and argues that the proposal could create unrealistic expectations about our right to privacy.</p>
<p>Businesses are right to be worried about the extra costs involved and the extra hurdles they may need to jump, but does that justify diminishing the right of citizens to control their online identity? A key function of data protection authorities and policy-makers is to balance the interests of citizens, businesses and the state. Privacy rights are highly valued in Europe, and this proposed right logically fits within a privacy agenda. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/16215/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gilad Rosner receives funding from the EPSRC and the University of Nottingham.</span></em></p>Justice ministers from across Europe sat down in Brussels yesterday to discuss some tricky issues for internet privacy, one of the most controversial of which was the right to be forgotten. After the NSA…Gilad Rosner, Digital Identity Researcher, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.