[governance] Re: [Members] FW: [IP] Obama administration says the world's servers are ours
Jefsey
jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Jul 16 12:16:03 EDT 2014
At 07:09 16/07/2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Right now this is simply an order by a magistrate and has been
>appealed in federal court.
>Declamatory speech making can wait pending the result of this appeal
Correct,
this M$/JD fuss is absurd. JD should only ask for the NSA copy of the files.
In the past, geography was used extensively by criminals of all
types. This is why we forged international law. Now, with code
becoming a significant part of the law, we have a global virtual
territory under a global IETF law that is forged by internet
dominants' employees and sub-contractors.
The only human acceptable solution to this real/virtual internet
version of the omnipresent scientific, political, and societal
local/global problem is a multi-local-jurisdiction global internet,
where the local jurisdictions are built and enforced by localized
"code" - i.e. appropriate local standards. This is what technically
is called "SDN" (software defined networking).
To make this more easily understandable, I will use the road
metaphor. The internet is the road system and it requires local and
global technical and societal governances.
- There is the asphalted lane.
- The network of lanes is global. This is the "plug to plug" catenet.
- On top of the catenet, asphalt concrete has been laid in
layers: this is the "end to end" internet, the OSI layers 1 to 5 and
a part of 7.
The road, as per the OECD, is "a line of communication (traveled way)
using a stabilized base other than rails or air strips open to public
traffic, primarily for the use of road motor vehicles running on
their own wheels) ". The system building and maintenance, and road
traveling rules are under national, regional, and local jurisdiction
and responsibility along international principles.
- In OSI terms, this is the layers OSI 5 to 7 and what may
come above the OSI model.
- in IETF internet terminology (RFC 1958) this is to happen
at the fringe. The "fringe to fringe". is outside of the IETF "end to
end" scope.
The fringe can be on three sides:
- the "DSP" side, as one of the digital services it may provide.
- the remote "edge provider" side, plugged into the DSP's
system through its DCN (direct connection network)
- the user side at an Intelligent Use Interface (IUI). This
is why one speaks of the resulting layer six virtual global network
as the "InterPLUS", where PLUS stands for "presentation layer on the
user side".
The IUse (intelligent use) is the technical realm of the Civil
Society. To understand why, the presentation layer is what the NSA
prevented in the internet design: security, languages, formats, and
network intelligence.
This why the internet missing presentation layer ***does not***
"ensure that the information that the application layer of one system
sends out is best (and only) readable by the application layer of
another system". Not implementing the presentation layer has forced
everyone in the world to be NSA readable, i.e. to drive on the NSA
side of the road if we use the road metaphor.
Adding a layer six support on the user side permits you to freely
deploy optional layer six virtual networks in a transparent way to
the internet layers below, like driving on the users' virtual sides
of the road (on the information highways there are many virtual sides).
The resulting virtual networking has been planned from the onset (IEN
48, the fundamental internetting plan by Vint Cerf, in July 1978) in
order to be capable of supporting virtual networks being:
- transparent to technologies (this is the layer six job)
for a multitechnology network (IETF TCP/IP is not the only technology
users may want to plug into).
- neutral, since virtual networks will only be users
software defined and managed (SDN)
- "glocal", i.e. able to globally extend their internet
"locality" (according to IEN 48, local means peculiar to the
particular network). This is why they are called VGNs: virtual glocal networks.
Now, what the US is actually trying to achieve, just as every other
Government, is to protect their sovereignty over digitality. One used
to identify sovereignty with many grand things such as flags, ISO
3166 listing, violence legitimacy, UN membership, issuing laws and
jurisdiction, printing money, patriotism, etc. All of these things
are certainly part of the sovereignty whole, but sovereignty is an
iceberg: its visible economic tip is the capacity to raise taxes.
Right now, states are not raising very much money on digital
businesses (so, we, the users, pay for the taxes Google do not pay )
However, the US is by far the leading state in tax revenues on the
"huge bounty" "the global economy has realized [] due to the Internet
and the World Wide Web over the past several decades" (RFC 6852).
They want to protect and consolidate that situation.
This situation mostly results from a general use of the pretended
"necessary uniqueness/advantages of" the ICANN managed US VGN. It is
a BUG (no one can Be Unilaterally Global) that the US is trying to
transform into a global feature. In so doing, they are fragmenting
the Internet at the application layers: into "global communities
benefitting humanity". This is described in the "OpenStand" IEEE,
IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C "normalization paradigm" document |RFC 6852]:
Web, Windows, Android, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc. based on formal
or informal standards. This is a fragmentation because their
legitimate commercial competition has not been consolidated first by
one single support of diversity basis, at the missing internet
presentation layer six.
For years, I have tried to advance the second part of the IEN 48 plan
blocked by the US industry status-quo strategy. Transparency and
neutrality are highways for a competition that the incumbents did not
wish for and the current US 1996 Telecommunications Code does not
protect (cf. FCC "Open Internet Order" invalidation). However, all I
was able to do was:
1) to oppose confusing standardization, in particular in the
diversity area (multilinguistics).
2) to ascertain that the internet would continue to be able to
match its double IEN 48 motivation: i.e. to prove that TCP/IP could
support the two fundamental concepts deployed by 1978, by:
- Cyclades, the Louis Pouzin's datagram + catenet network of
networks. It was closed in October, for budgetary reasons, in order
to favor the X.25/PAD Transpac + Minitel project.
- Tymnet and its secure and neutral inter-technology agoric
architecture of which the VGN and extended services I eventually
internationally managed and deployed. (agorics is meshed complex logic.)
A few weeks before Vint Cerf published IEN 48, we (Tymnet) had met
with Louis Pouzin. We wanted to explore how Cyclades could extend its
own Tymnet VGN. However, they explained to us that they were to close
their project. We then all missed out on an opportunity that I would
like to avoid missing again.
For your information: Tymnet initiated commercial VAN services in
Feb. 1972. It was licensed by the FCC in 1977 (including for the
international namespace). It was the domestic leader (60% of the
market). It assumed 100% of the public international liaisons until
1987. Its domestic competition with the internet technology spin-off
Telenet has introduced/experienced the concept of competition vs.
regulation in universal telecoms services. It was acquired in 1984 by
the US industry to be progressively sacrificed to the "status-quo" strategy.
Thirty years later, the technical and political situation has changed:
- The WG/IDNAbis has enlightened the fact that the internet
technology was supporting diversity by fringe subsidiarity, and RFC
4895 has provided an example. Progress has been important in
distributed programming, virtualization, general sciences, etc. and
the experience acquired by the engineers and users. A better
architectonic understanding has been obtained; Libre and lead users
have emerged.
- after the WCIT voted and signed against the status-quo, in
the wake of the RFC 6852 internet economic fragmentation
acknowledgment. Snowdenia has made people aware of the digital
pervasiveness. The NTIA has engaged in an internet deregulation
strategy, where the US Executive branch protectorate would be
replaced by the colonial regime of the US commercial law (most of the
I*leading stakeholdership is being incorporated in the US).
This, however, opens up an opportunity for the Civil Society and Libre:
- to affirm itself as an RFC 6852 global community
benefitting humanity in the Civil/Libre area.
- to address the second motivation of the internet project
at its glocal level, encapsulating and consolidating the successful
completion of its first motivation (IETF internet).
This means understanding the InterPLUS for what it is to be: a
complex entanglement of VGNs (virtual glocal networks): the fringe to
fringe networks of the end to end network of plug to plug networks.
This means that we do not need IETF like structures, rough consensus,
gurus, leaders, etc. nor ICANN lawyers and BoD, nor Root Servers
Systems, nor political debates over the Internet global governance.
We only need a Libre non-profit local network digital services
provider (DSP) to start working, internetting at the presentation
layer six over the layers 1 to 5 internet, with other local Libre
non-profit local networks digital services providers (DSPs), and so
on. And then to learn from experience.
This is what I am currently implementing, a double proposition of:
- internet "Chinese wall": a non-IETF Trust copyrighted
description of digital network technologies (including the Internet
one) from the point of view of a connected machine. Help from every
source, including states, academies, research, ITU, ISO, etc.
- local community VGN development, cooperation, and
interconnection projects.
This is a time to think about tools, development languages, etc.
Then, to most probably start along a dual strata model:
- meshed local network (mostly Wi-Fi, out of fiber of which
80% is connected to the US and NSA)
- global connection gateways under revised secured protocol
to protect privacy.
Everyone is welcome to share in this multi-project and expected bar
camps, or to start his/her own one and contact us. And to contribute
in his/her own language: in my village, it is the French language.
jfc
>On 16 July 2014 10:29:55 am parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>The problem is, this isnt even hypocrisy, and an entirely new much
>>stronger word has to be invented for it...
>>
>>See for instance
>>
>>"The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an
>>age when "electronic communications are used extensively by
>>criminals of all types in the United States and abroad, from
>>fraudsters to hackers to drug dealers, in furtherance of violations
>>of US law.""
>>
>>Yes, global jurisdiction is needed, and that global jurisdiction
>>should be US jurisdiction. Sure.
>>
>>Meanwhile, similar demands by other countries to have jurisdiction
>>on matters of their national concern is supposed to be a call to
>>control the Internet.
>>
>>And at times when saying such think looks just too bad or illogical
>>in polite company, say, ok multistakeholder jurisdiction is fine,
>>knowing very well that it means nothing, which is the whole point..
>>
>>parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wednesday 16 July 2014 12:06 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>From: Dewayne Hendricks
>>><<mailto:dewayne at warpspeed.com>dewayne at warpspeed.com>
>>>Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Obama administration says the world's
>>>servers are ours
>>>Date: July 14, 2014 at 3:47:28 PM EDT
>>>To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net
>>><<mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>
>>>Reply-To: <mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>dewayne-net at warpspeed.com
>>>
>>>Obama administration says the world's servers are ours
>>>US says global reach needed to gut "fraudsters," "hackers," and
>>>"drug dealers."
>>>By David Kravets
>>>Jul 14 2014
>>><<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/obama-administration-says-the-worlds-servers-are-ours/>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/obama-administration-says-the-worlds-servers-are-ours/>
>>>
>>>Global governments, the tech sector, and scholars are closely
>>>following a legal flap in which the US Justice Department claims
>>>that Microsoft must hand over e-mail stored in Dublin, Ireland.
>>>
>>>In essence, President Barack Obama's administration claims that
>>>any company with operations in the United States must comply with
>>>valid warrants for data, even if the content is stored overseas.
>>>It's a position Microsoft and companies like Apple say is wrong,
>>>arguing that the enforcement of US law stops at the border.
>>>
>>>A magistrate judge has already sided with the government's
>>>position, ruling in April that "the basic principle that an entity
>>>lawfully obligated to produce information must do so regardless of
>>>the location of that information." Microsoft appealed to a federal
>>>judge, and the case is set to be heard on July 31.
>>>
>>>In its briefs filed last week, the US government said that content
>>>stored online doesn't enjoy the same type of Fourth Amendment
>>>protections as data stored in the physical world. The government
>>><safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/federalbrief-microsoftcase.pdf>cited
>>>(PDF) the Stored Communications Act (SCA), a President Ronald
>>>Reagan-era regulation:
>>>Overseas records must be disclosed domestically when a valid
>>>subpoena, order, or warrant compels their production. The
>>>disclosure of records under such circumstances has never been
>>>considered tantamount to a physical search under Fourth Amendment
>>>principles, and Microsoft is mistaken to argue that the SCA
>>>provides for an overseas search here. As there is no overseas
>>>search or seizure, Microsoft's reliance on principles of
>>>extra-territoriality and comity falls wide of the mark.
>>>
>>>Microsoft said the decision has wide-ranging, global implications.
>>>"Congress has not authorized the issuance of warrants that reach
>>>outside US territory," Microsoft's attorneys
>>><http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/microsoft-challenges-us-govt-warrant-to-access-overseas-customer-data/>wrote.
>>>"The government cannot seek and a court cannot issue a warrant
>>>allowing federal agents to break down the doors of Microsoft's
>>>Dublin facility."
>>>
>>>The Redmond, Washington-based company said its consumer trust is
>>>low in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations. It told the US
>>>judge presiding over the case that "[t]he government's position in
>>>this case further erodes that trust and will ultimately erode the
>>>leadership of US technologies in the global market."
>>>
>>>Companies like Apple, AT&T, Cisco, and Verizon agree. Verizon
>>><safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/verizonamicus.pdf>said
>>>(PDF) that a decision favoring the US would produce "dramatic
>>>conflict with foreign data protection laws." Apple and Cisco
>>><safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/applebriefinremicrosft.pdf>said
>>>(PDF) that the tech sector is put "at risk" of being sanctioned by
>>>foreign governments and that the US should seek cooperation with
>>>foreign nations via treaties, a position the US said is not practical.
>>>
>>>The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an
>>>age when "electronic communications are used extensively by
>>>criminals of all types in the United States and abroad, from
>>>fraudsters to hackers to drug dealers, in furtherance of violations of US law."
>>>
>>>The e-mail the US authorities are seeking from Microsoft concerns
>>>a drug-trafficking investigation. Microsoft often stores e-mail on
>>>servers closest to the account holder.
>>>
>>>The senior counsel for the Irish Supreme Court wrote in a recent
>>>filing that a US-Ireland "Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty" was the
>>><http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/10/National-Security/Graphics/SDNY%20McDowell%20Declaration.pdf>"efficient"
>>>avenue (PDF) for the US government to obtain the e-mail held on
>>>Microsoft's external servers.
>>>
>>>Orin Kerr, a Fourth Amendment expert at George Washington
>>>University,
>>><http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/microsoft-fights-us-search-warrant-for-customer-e-mails-held-in-overseas-server/2014/06/10/6b8416ae-f0a7-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html>said,
>>>"The scope of the privacy laws around the world is now a very
>>>important question, and this is the beginning of what may be a lot
>>>of litigation on the question. So it's a big case to watch."
>>>
>>><https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>Archives
>>><https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3>
>>>[]
>>>|
>>><https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308>Modify
>>>Your Subscription |
>>><https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20140714160148:B4952B62-0B91-11E4-BC5E-F4360264DADE>Unsubscribe
>>>Now
>>><http://www.listbox.com>
>>>[]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Members mailing list
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/663dbd9a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list