TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » General & Current Events

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 06:58 AM
Francois Cellier's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 3rd planet of Sol
Posts: 2,101
Default Has the internet just sold its soul?

From the Independent

Has the internet just sold its soul?

As Google closes in on a deal to buy preferential web access, time is running out to save one of the founding principles of the net

By Stephen Foley in New York
Friday, 6 August 2010


Google stood accused last night of betraying the founding principles of the internet, as it readied a deal that will abandon key parts of its support for "net neutrality", which has guaranteed equal access to the worldwide web since its inception.

In what one internet freedom campaigner called a "doomsday scenario" that will change the internet forever, the search engine pioneer is close to agreeing terms with the largest telecoms company in the US that would open the door to special "fast lanes" for favoured internet traffic.

The bilateral agreement between Google and Verizon raises the spectre of big media corporations carving up the internet between them, and side-steps the Obama administration's attempts to ensure that all internet traffic is treated the same, regardless of whether it comes from the smallest blogger or the largest online video site.

Google, which has stood by its early motto of "Don't be evil" while growing into a $160bn (£100bn) media colossus, was hastily trying to shore up its reputation last night, as it faced a torrent of criticism from campaign groups and individuals venting their anger on Twitter and on blogs. The company denied that it will sign any deal to buy fast-lane access for its own traffic, which includes bandwidth-heavy videos from its loss-making YouTube site.

But the agreement between Google and Verizon is meant to lay ground rules for the treatment of internet traffic by the phone and cable companies over whose networks the data travels. Although the exact terms were shrouded in mystery, it was clear that the outline they have agreed introduces exemptions to the principle of net neutrality, including the opportunity for telecoms operators to offer "premium services" to some internet companies.

Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, told reporters yesterday that the company has been "talking to Verizon for a long time about trying to get an agreement on what the definition of net neutrality is". He said: "People get confused... What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favour of another. It's OK to discriminate across different types."

Under the deal, Verizon will not block or slow internet traffic over land lines, but could do so to wireless devices, which are increasingly important ways for consumers to access the internet.

The two sides have not publicly announced their agreement, but last night the proposed deal killed off an attempt by the US telecoms regulator to patch together a broader pact, backed by the Obama administration, to safeguard net neutrality after a series of meetings lasting into the weekend were callled off. If the Google-Verizon deal is made public, the support of the most powerful players on either side of the debate could immediately make it the de facto standard for managing internet traffic in the future, and is likely to win enough backing on Capitol Hill to be signed into law. It would also have resonance across the world, as similar debates about the future of the internet are taking place in most developed countries. In the UK, the regulator Ofcom plans to consult on the issue after British Telecom warned that the popularity of iPlayer meant the BBC was hogging too much of the nation's network capacity.

Telecoms companies argue that being allowed to charge more to heavy-traffic internet companies will bring in the money needed to increase network capacity. Opponents fear a two-tier web, in which start-up companies and individual bloggers will be frozen out, and where prices for consumers could rise sharply.

Josh Silver, of the US advocacy group Free Press, said a Google-Verizon deal was the "doomsday scenario" that had been feared for years. "It marks the beginning of the end of the internet as you know it," he said. "Since its beginnings, the net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it's ABC News or your uncle's video blog. That's all about to change, and the result couldn't be more bleak for the future of the internet, for television, radio and independent voices."

Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, another internet freedom advocate that has been lobbying for net neutrality, said: "The fate of the internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google."

The regulations governing how telecoms and cable companies manage their networks have been in confusion for several months, since a court overturned the Federal Communications Commission's fine on Comcast, a cable operator which had been censured for secretly slowing down some customers' internet connections. The company had been trying to limit the amount of bandwidth used by people who download large amounts of music and video over the web. The FCC's legal authority to regulate internet traffic, and therefore make good on President Barack Obama's campaign promise to safeguard net neutrality, has been unclear since the court ruling.

News of the agreement of principles with Verizon, after 10 months of talks between the companies, began to emerge yesterday and Google was immediately subjected to a deluge of criticism on Twitter. "Don't be evil, my ass," one correspondent wrote, while many others called it a "sell-out" and urged followers to support online petitions in favour of net neutrality legislation. One Twitter user, jkercado, said simply: "Et tu, Google?"

Without giving more details, Verizon last night said its goal is "an internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation".


Don't be evil?

1998 Larry Page and Sergey Brin officially launch Google, two years after they develop a search engine called BackRub as a research project at Stanford University. It is named Google, a play on "googol", which is the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros.

1999 An employee comes up with the informal motto "Don't be evil" which is later written into the company's official Code of Conduct.

2000 Google becomes the largest search engine, allowing users to search more than 1 billion URLs. The group begins selling advertising. AdWords allows anyone with a credit card to create advertising targeted to keywords to run alongside search results.

2004 The search index hits 6 billion items, including 4.2 billion web pages. The company goes public, listing at $85 a share.

2005 Google Earth: a map of satellite images of the entire Earth's surface, drawing criticism from privacy groups and security officials.

2005 Publishers and authors take legal action over Google scanning and copying books.

2006 Google buys YouTube. It offers a censored version of its search service in China.

2007 The debut of Google Street View, which raises privacy fears over displaying faces and number plates. Separate concerns raised over the archiving of users' searches.

2008 European Union report says Google and its rivals should delete user data after six months. Google had already committed to making search logs anonymous. The indexing system counts 1 trillion URLs.

2008 The first smartphone running Google's Android operating system is launched – the HTC Dream.

2009 Annual revenues hit $23.6bn. Google falls prey to hacking in China and responds by removing the restrictions to its search results.

2010 Google admits some of its Street View cars harvested information from public WiFi spots. More privacy concerns over the launch of its microblogging service Google Buzz.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 07:08 AM
Francois Cellier's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 3rd planet of Sol
Posts: 2,101
Default

Even now, net neutrality is not truly available.

First, it doesn't apply to the "last mile," i.e., the connection of my home to the backbone. For example, when I use Skype here at our weekend home in the mountains, I have to disable video, because the bandwidth available to me at this location is simply too small to support video sufficiently well. Even watching streaming video from this place is painful as the pictures freeze up constantly. When I receive email messages with large attachments, I cringe, because they clog up my email. It takes forever to download these messages, and it takes forever-squared to upload such messages. I also prefer, not to do updates while I am here at our weekend home. I usually wait until I am back at our regular home where downloading the updates is much faster. Some of our members from the U.S. complained even quite recently that they still don't have broadband access to the Internet at all but are restricted to using a modem. I can't even imagine what agony it must be to still operate off a modem.

Second, it doesn't apply to those offering information either. People with deeper pockets can host their web services on faster (and more expensive) servers. Thus, they are likely to attract more traffic. Thus, even if I myself have fast access to the Internet, it doesn't help me when I try to access information that is hosted on a server with slow access to the Internet.

However, I am concerned that this type of deal will mean that, in the future, Internet providers will have an incentive to neglect the small customers in favor of those who are willing to pay more. This will lead to a situation where the services available to small customers will deteriorate rapidly.

Last edited by Francois Cellier; 06-08-10 at 07:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 09:07 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

Tbh I'm usually all over internet freedom issues, but I don't think that the whole net neutrality (or lack thereof) thing is a serious theat to anything. It's not like the companies are going to stick the plebs back on 56K the second they get the chance - they're aiming to provide a sevice that people want at a price they'll pay too. Most household consumers don't need huge amounts of bandwidth anyway, I guess it'll probably resolve itself into a B2B (plus nerds suffering from feelings of pipe envy) market and a consumer market.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 01:16 PM
PostmodernProphet's Avatar
full immersion.....
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,194
Default

/shrugs....I post at four different boards....they all use vBulletin......I know that costs money.....I know the original bulletin board system still exists.....it's cheaper but not as nice......I don't know much about it, but there may well be a more expensive board structure program that's available that most people don't use because it's too expensive.....there are probably "roads" on the internet I never travel, either because I don't own a key to the door or because I have no desire to go where they lead......but then, when I travel, I don't expect to be able to stay at 5 star hotels for the cost of a Super8 motel either......
__________________
....attached to sanity by a bungee cord.....
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-10, 02:11 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

No anonymity on future web says Google CEO

Privacy is so last century

No anonymity on future web says Google CEO | THINQ.co.uk

The CEO of search giant Google has told users they can look forward to an Internet that offers them no place to hide.

"True transparency and no anonymity", he says, is the way forward - and there's nothing we can do to prevent it.

According to a report on tech blog ReadWriteWeb, Eric Schmidt revealed the size of the Internet information boom yesterday at the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe.

"There was five exabytes [five billion gigabytes] of information created between the dawn of civilization through 2003," he said. "But that much information is now created every two days, and the pace is increasing... People aren't ready for the technology revolution that's going to happen to them.

"In our lifetimes," Schmidt said, "we'll go from a small number of people having access to information, to five billion people having all the world's knowledge in their native language."

The bulk of that information, Schmidt explained, comes in the form of user-generated data. Every digital interaction throws up information, he said. And that information can be used to minutely analyse and predict human behaviour.

"If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go," Schmidt said, adding unnervingly.

"Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!"

Schmidt told delegates at the conference that the availability of information increased convenience, and enabled society to more effectively combat anti-social and criminal behaviour - but his talk raised some unsettling issues.

He said that addressing issues such as identity theft, for instance, required "true transparency and no anonymity".

"In a world of asynchronous threats," said Schmidt, "it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it."

Schmidt's comments come just days after hacker Samy Kamkar demonstrated a technique that used Google's Street View Wi-fi data to identify an individual's location remotely down to as little as nine metres.

Literally, as well as metaphorically, it seems, there's no place left to hide.
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-10, 01:33 PM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

Simple.

I have plenty of photos of mine on the web and some people have photos of me but none of them are on facebook and, with perhaps one or two exceptions, don't identify me by name. A Google search on my name returns 227,000 hits. Even if you qualify it with "Sydney" there are still 22,000. And that's the way I like it.

What parents would have thought many decades ago, that choosing a very common name for their child would, in the 21st century, give him or her a privacy advantage?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-10, 02:00 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

A search with my name give you my LinkedIn profile - I am fine with that. But a French author I never heard of has the exact same name (probably not the same middle name but that's irrelevant).

He is clearly trying to get known: Facebook, personal website etc. Good. He takes the whole first page of Google result!
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-10, 04:48 PM
PostmodernProphet's Avatar
full immersion.....
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,194
Default

Originally Posted by roadkill View Post

I have plenty of photos of mine on the web and some people have photos of me but none of them are on facebook and, with perhaps one or two exceptions, don't identify me by name. A Google search on my name returns 227,000 hits. Even if you qualify it with "Sydney" there are still 22,000. And that's the way I like it.
would you move your garbage can a bit to the left, it's blocking my view of your tele......

I searched my surname on the White Pages site and only got 84 hits in the whole country......40+ of them I recognized as cousins, etc......I communicated with one of the others by email (who it happens lives only a couple of cities away from here) and found out the rest were related to him.....there were quite a few in the Netherlands, however, and they may be related to both of us.....also a line of blacks in the Bahamas with the same surname......
__________________
....attached to sanity by a bungee cord.....

Last edited by PostmodernProphet; 07-08-10 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-10, 05:17 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
...also a line of blacks in the Bahamas with the same surname......
I think "black people" would read better...

(NB: Posted as poster, not as mod).
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-10, 05:28 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

I think we tend to dance around the race issue too much in English. It comes across as really... euh... white. I mean, in French it's perfectly okay to just say "blacks" or "Arabs" or whatever.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 9
Benjamin, contracycle, Francois Cellier, FredFredson, Gilles de Rais, Noir, PostmodernProphet, roadkill, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0