[governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet?

[Louis Pouzin (well)]

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.

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.

The case of rojadirecta, a Spanish site, is an interesting example of messy
seizure by DHS.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5b403119ad7fc612b5b915ef0fe0c041&t=420566&page=1
Actually, rojadirecta remained on the net through other links, which was the
most expedient alternative.

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.

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.

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 ?
http://www.europe1.fr/Medias-Tele/Il-s-est-glisse-dans-une-faille-de-Facebook-398657/
http://www.john-jean.com/blog/advisories/facebook-vulnerabilites-csrf-et-xss-ver-destructeurs-sur-un-reseau-social-372

Btw, 500 millions of Fakebook profiles are a gold mine for all kinds of data
collectors.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110205/5d62cdb9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t