<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Good article Louis – similar thoughts expressed by Douglas Rushkoff below <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/05/rushkoff.egypt.internet/index.html?hpt=C1">http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/05/rushkoff.egypt.internet/index.html?hpt=C1</a><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
As I see it, our most common communication channels currently can be closed at the whim of corporations and governments, and often governments foreign to our own, if servers or registrars or registries or a host of other incidental arrangements exist within the blocking parties sovereignty. (or pass through their sovereignty in some instances). And often this is happening with no judicial checks and balances.<BR>
<BR>
Ths is a huge issue for the Internet as we know it and it is a governance issue. <BR>
<BR>
Avri mentioned some of the new technical workarounds – and some of the old ones. These will help the more literate but don’t solve the underlying problem, which is a fundamental lack of sensible agreements to ensure that the actions of individual governments and/or corporations are subject to a number of checks and balances before any takedowns occur.<BR>
<BR>
Things that will assist could include<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>international agreements and/or treaties on the right to communicate (yes I know we went there in the 1980s)
</SPAN></FONT><LI><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>codes of conduct with corporations
</SPAN></FONT><LI><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>policy statements by companies as part of user agreements
</SPAN></FONT><LI><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>an agreement by nations to require judicial action before any takedowns within their area of sovereignty
</SPAN></FONT><LI><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>education on the threats to human rights inherent in the current situation
</SPAN></FONT><LI><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>activism<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></UL><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
And I am sure there is more that can be done. Thanks Louis for putting the basic situation before us so well.<BR>
<BR>
Ian Peter<BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"><B>From: </B>"Louis Pouzin (well)" <<a href="pouzin@well.com">pouzin@well.com</a>><BR>
<B>Reply-To: </B><<a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <<a href="pouzin@well.com">pouzin@well.com</a>><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:00:50 +0100<BR>
<B>To: </B><<a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>[governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet?<BR>
<BR>
Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt have dispelled a tenacious myth, that it is impossible to block communications in internet. Practically it doesn't take long for a clever technical staff to turn off part or all of a national internet. Indeed, due to a very small number of popular applications provided by USA based quasi-monopolies, the net is no longer enjoying the characteristics of its initial design. Instead of peer to peer traffic exchanged between a large number of users, the net has regressed to a primitive client server model of proprietary services typical of the 70's. While dominant providers may be credited of a brilliant money making ability, their architecture vision has been definitely mediocre. If this is taken as a notable achievement of the private sector, we'd better look elsewhere for innovative concepts.<BR>
<BR>
A second myth has also been badly hit, that of the USA being a guardian of the freedom of expression. Like in China, Egypt, Iran, Myanmar, Tunisia, and more, the US govt makes every effort to eradicate from the internet information it doesn't like, e.g. Wikileaks, but not only. The seizure of domain names, by administrative rather judiciary process, is a clear symptom of a dangerous drift towards denial of justice and witch hunt. Remember McCarthyism. Sadly, in the western world this present trend is not limited to the USA.<BR>
<BR>
The case of rojadirecta, a Spanish site, is an interesting example of messy seizure by DHS.<BR>
<a href="http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5b403119ad7fc612b5b915ef0fe0c041&t=420566&page=1">http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5b403119ad7fc612b5b915ef0fe0c041&t=420566&page=1</a><BR>
Actually, rojadirecta remained on the net through other links, which was the most expedient alternative.<BR>
<BR>
As argued by some postings, DHS seizure of domain names seems to be a blatant violation of the US Constitution. Suing DHS in a US court is not a practical solution. DHS would be a sure winner, either by a biased judgment or by dilatory tactics. However, publicity on the process would call world attention on the risks involved in dealing with US controlled registries.<BR>
<BR>
A major lesson to be drawn from those recent events, and not to be forgotten, is that no country and no application is a safe haven. Putting all corporate information systems under some .com, .net, .org or similar TLD's is not just naive but irresponsible. Domain names should be hosted in a diversity of countries and registries. Check which organization is operating the DNS and where it is physically located. Have a private DNS, or at least keep track of IP addresses of essential sites. Maintain dialup telephone access to servers on voice grade modems. What else in extreme conditions ? Ham radio, satellite telephone, mail pigeons.<BR>
<BR>
At the same time frustrated citizens in authoritarian countries rush to Facebook for setting up demonstrations and keeping the world informed. Do they realize that security flaws give the police clues to identify them and their friends, collect their profiles, and impersonate them ?<BR>
<a href="http://www.europe1.fr/Medias-Tele/Il-s-est-glisse-dans-une-faille-de-Facebook-398657/">http://www.europe1.fr/Medias-Tele/Il-s-est-glisse-dans-une-faille-de-Facebook-398657/</a><BR>
<a href="http://www.john-jean.com/blog/advisories/facebook-vulnerabilites-csrf-et-xss-ver-destructeurs-sur-un-reseau-social-372">http://www.john-jean.com/blog/advisories/facebook-vulnerabilites-csrf-et-xss-ver-destructeurs-sur-un-reseau-social-372</a><BR>
<BR>
Btw, 500 millions of Fakebook profiles are a gold mine for all kinds of data collectors. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
<a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><BR>
To be removed from the list, visit:<BR>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><BR>
<BR>
For all other list information and functions, see:<BR>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><BR>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<BR>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><BR>
<BR>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>