Published: Thursday, January 27, 2011, 6:00 AM
Updated: Thursday,January 27, 2011, 10:51 AM
The Grand Rapids Press By Shandra Martinez
GRAND RAPIDS - Rodney McFall remembers standing in long lines late Friday afternoons to cash his paycheck.
These days, electronic banking means those lines are growing shorter at check-cashing outlets. McFall rarely waits longer than a few minutes.
"I like getting a check because I can cash it when I want to," said McFall, as he stepped up to a Western Union counter at Duthler's Family Foods grocery store on Bridge Street NW.
Those Friday afternoon lines will shrink even further this year with a new state law that lets employers do away with paper paychecks.
Employees will have the option of having their wages deposited directly into their accounts or onto plastic pay cards that usually work like debit cards.
The savings will be significant for companies, said William Dunn, of the American Payroll Association.
Studies show that businesses spend 50 cents to $3 to issue one paycheck, compared with direct deposit, Dunn said.
"It's interesting all the hidden costs related to paying an employee," he said, noting that payroll checks require special ink and paper.
Until now, employers - with a few exceptions - couldn't stop issuing paper paychecks unless the employee agrees. Michigan is the latest state to let companies move to a paperless payroll.
Other states allow employers to mandate the payment method, said attorney Robert Dubault, with Warner, Norcross & Judd in the law firm's Muskegon office.
"We're a little bit behind the curve in Michigan," said Dubault, who specializes in labor and employment law. "I don't think (most businesses) view it as going as far as they like. Many would like to do just direct deposit. It's certainly a step in the right direction."
Michigan's new law includes provisions to protect employees, such as limiting the fees associated with the pay cards, Dubault said.
Part of the paperless push comes from Uncle Sam. Last year, the federal government mandated companies make tax payments electronically.
The feds will no longer give Social Security recipients the choice of a check after May 1. Payments will be directly deposited into a bank or credit union account or loaded onto a prepaid Direct Express Debit MasterCard.
The move will save the government $120 million annually, said Richard Gregg, Treasury fiscal assistant secretary.
These days, more people bank electronically.
"When I started in banking 30 years ago, we used to have lines out the door every Friday with people waiting to cash payroll checks and make deposits,"
said Martin Moran, PNC's senior vice president of business banking for outstate Michigan.
People still come to bank branches with paychecks on Friday, but the number declines every year.
Most people starting their first jobs out of college will begin their adult banking experience on their iPhones or computers, Moran said.
For employers, going electronic means not having to worry about employees losing checks or washing them with the laundry. Even farms now use pay cards to pay seasonal workers.
"You can pay rent and mortgage with pay cards," Moran said.
Like many banks, PNC often works with its client companies to train employees about the benefits of direct deposit or pay cards, making sure they understand how to use each system, Martin said.
Tom Duthler, co-owner of Duthler's Family Foods, said his family's business doesn't have any immediate plans to switch to an electronic payroll.
"Paper is still convenient for us," he said, adding the chain of urban stores continues to offer check-cashing services.
McFall, a bus driver for The Rapids, said he cashes his check at Duthler's because he wants to support neighborhood businesses.
"I like to spend locally," he said.
E-mail Shandra Martinez: smartinez@grpress.com and follow her on Twitter at twitter.com/shandramartinez
http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2011/01/forget_paper_paychecks_paydays.html
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Google Comes Under Fire for 'Secret' Relationship with NSA PC World
Grant Gross - Tue Jan 25, 9:48 am ET
Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group largely focused in recent years on Google's privacy practices, has called on a congressional investigation into the Internet giant's "cozy" relationship with U.S. President Barack Obama's administration.
In a letter sent Monday, Consumer Watchdog asked Representative Darrell Issa, the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to investigate the relationship between Google and several government agencies.
The group asked Issa to investigate contracts at several U.S. agencies for Google technology and services, the "secretive" relationship between Google and the U.S. National Security Agency, and the company's use of a U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration airfield in California.
Federal agencies have also taken "insufficient" action in response to revelations last year that Google Street View cars were collecting data from open Wi-Fi connections they passed, Consumer Watchdog said in the letter.
"We believe Google has inappropriately benefited from close ties to the administration," the letter said. "Google is most consumers' gateway to the Internet. Nonetheless, it should not get special treatment and access because of a special relationship with the administration."
Consumer Watchdog may have an ally in Issa, a California Republican. In July, he sent a letter to Google raising concerns that White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin, the former head of global public policy for Google, had inappropriate e-mail contact with company employees.
A Google spokeswoman questioned Consumer Watchdog's objectivity. Some groups have questioned the group's relationship with Google rival Microsoft, and Consumer Watchdog's criticisms of online privacy efforts have also exclusively zeroed in on Google, with the group rarely mentioning Microsoft, Facebook and other Web-based companies in the past two years.
"This is just the latest in a long list of press stunts from an organization that admits to working closely with our competitors," said the Google spokeswoman.
But Consumer Watchdog gets no funding from Microsoft or any other Google competitor, said John Simpson, consumer advocate with the group. "We don't have any relationship with Microsoft at all," he said. "We don't take any of their money."
Consumer Watchdog has decided to focus on Google's privacy practices because the company's services serve as a gateway to the Internet for many people, Simpson said. If the group can push Google, "without a doubt the dominant Internet company," to change its privacy practices, other companies will follow suit, he said.
"Google's held itself to be the company that says its motto is, 'don't be evil,' and they also advocate openness for everyone else," he said. "We're trying to hold them to their own word."
Consumer Watchdog, in January 2009, suggested that Google was preparing a lobbying campaign asking Congress to allow the sale of electronic health records. Google called the allegations "100 percent false and unfounded."
In September, Consumer Watchdog bought space on a 540-square-foot video screen in New York's Times Square, with the video criticizing Google's privacy practices.
In April, Consumer Watchdog officials called for the U.S. Department of Justice to break up Google. They appeared at a press conference with a representative of the Microsoft- and Amazon.com-funded Open Book Alliance.
Consumer Watchdog's latest complaints about the relationship of Google and the Obama administration are outlined in a 32-page report.
The paper questions a decision by NASA allowing Google executives to use its Moffett Federal Airfield near Google headquarters. Although H211, a company controlled by Google top executives, pays NASA rent, they enjoy access to the airfield that other companies or groups don't have, Simpson said.
The paper also questions Google contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and other agencies, suggesting that, in some cases, Google contracts were fast-tracked. The paper also questions Google's relationship with the U.S. National Security Agency and calls for the company to be more open about what consumer information it shares with the spy agency.
When asked if other companies, including broadband providers, should disclose what customer information they share with the NSA, Simpson said they should, too.
"I understand the NSA is a super-secret spook organization," he said. "But given Google's very special situation where it possesses so much personal data about people, I think that there ought to be a little more openness about what precisely goes on between the two."
Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's e-mail address is grant_gross@idg.com.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20110125/tc_pcworld/googlecomesunderfireforsecretrelationshipwithnsa
Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group largely focused in recent years on Google's privacy practices, has called on a congressional investigation into the Internet giant's "cozy" relationship with U.S. President Barack Obama's administration.
In a letter sent Monday, Consumer Watchdog asked Representative Darrell Issa, the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to investigate the relationship between Google and several government agencies.
The group asked Issa to investigate contracts at several U.S. agencies for Google technology and services, the "secretive" relationship between Google and the U.S. National Security Agency, and the company's use of a U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration airfield in California.
Federal agencies have also taken "insufficient" action in response to revelations last year that Google Street View cars were collecting data from open Wi-Fi connections they passed, Consumer Watchdog said in the letter.
"We believe Google has inappropriately benefited from close ties to the administration," the letter said. "Google is most consumers' gateway to the Internet. Nonetheless, it should not get special treatment and access because of a special relationship with the administration."
Consumer Watchdog may have an ally in Issa, a California Republican. In July, he sent a letter to Google raising concerns that White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin, the former head of global public policy for Google, had inappropriate e-mail contact with company employees.
A Google spokeswoman questioned Consumer Watchdog's objectivity. Some groups have questioned the group's relationship with Google rival Microsoft, and Consumer Watchdog's criticisms of online privacy efforts have also exclusively zeroed in on Google, with the group rarely mentioning Microsoft, Facebook and other Web-based companies in the past two years.
"This is just the latest in a long list of press stunts from an organization that admits to working closely with our competitors," said the Google spokeswoman.
But Consumer Watchdog gets no funding from Microsoft or any other Google competitor, said John Simpson, consumer advocate with the group. "We don't have any relationship with Microsoft at all," he said. "We don't take any of their money."
Consumer Watchdog has decided to focus on Google's privacy practices because the company's services serve as a gateway to the Internet for many people, Simpson said. If the group can push Google, "without a doubt the dominant Internet company," to change its privacy practices, other companies will follow suit, he said.
"Google's held itself to be the company that says its motto is, 'don't be evil,' and they also advocate openness for everyone else," he said. "We're trying to hold them to their own word."
Consumer Watchdog, in January 2009, suggested that Google was preparing a lobbying campaign asking Congress to allow the sale of electronic health records. Google called the allegations "100 percent false and unfounded."
In September, Consumer Watchdog bought space on a 540-square-foot video screen in New York's Times Square, with the video criticizing Google's privacy practices.
In April, Consumer Watchdog officials called for the U.S. Department of Justice to break up Google. They appeared at a press conference with a representative of the Microsoft- and Amazon.com-funded Open Book Alliance.
Consumer Watchdog's latest complaints about the relationship of Google and the Obama administration are outlined in a 32-page report.
The paper questions a decision by NASA allowing Google executives to use its Moffett Federal Airfield near Google headquarters. Although H211, a company controlled by Google top executives, pays NASA rent, they enjoy access to the airfield that other companies or groups don't have, Simpson said.
The paper also questions Google contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and other agencies, suggesting that, in some cases, Google contracts were fast-tracked. The paper also questions Google's relationship with the U.S. National Security Agency and calls for the company to be more open about what consumer information it shares with the spy agency.
When asked if other companies, including broadband providers, should disclose what customer information they share with the NSA, Simpson said they should, too.
"I understand the NSA is a super-secret spook organization," he said. "But given Google's very special situation where it possesses so much personal data about people, I think that there ought to be a little more openness about what precisely goes on between the two."
Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's e-mail address is grant_gross@idg.com.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20110125/tc_pcworld/googlecomesunderfireforsecretrelationshipwithnsa
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Renewed Push to Give Obama an Internet "Kill Switch"
January 24, 2011 10:12 AM
Renewed Push to Give Obama an Internet "Kill Switch"
Posted by Declan McCullagh
A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a "national cyberemergency," and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year.
Internet companies should not be alarmed by the legislation, first introduced last summer by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Senate aide said last week. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
"We're not trying to mandate any requirements for the entire Internet, the entire Internet backbone," said Brandon Milhorn, Republican staff director and counsel for the committee.
Instead, Milhorn said at a conference in Washington, D.C., the point of the proposal is to assert governmental control only over those "crucial components that form our nation's critical infrastructure."
Portions of the Lieberman-Collins bill, which was not uniformly well-received when it became public in June 2010, became even more restrictive when a Senate committee approved a modified version on December 15. The full Senate did not act on the measure.
The revised version includes new language saying that the federal government's designation of vital Internet or other computer systems "shall not be subject to judicial review." Another addition expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include "provider of information technology," and a third authorized the submission of "classified" reports on security vulnerabilities.
The idea of creating what some critics have called an Internet "kill switch" that the president could flip in an emergency is not exactly new.
A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August 2009 authorized the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or Web sites. House Democrats have taken a similar approach in their own proposals.
Lieberman, who recently announced he would not seek re-election in 2012, said last year that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said.
Civil libertarians and some industry representatives have repeatedly raised concerns about the various proposals to give the executive branch such broad emergency power. On the other hand, as Lieberman and Collins have highlighted before, some companies, including Microsoft, Verizon, and EMC Corporation, have said positive things about the initial version of the bill.
But last month's rewrite that bans courts from reviewing executive branch decrees has given companies new reason to worry. "Judicial review is our main concern," said Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which includes eBay, Oracle, Verisign, and Yahoo as members. "A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance."
In some cases, DelBianco said, a company may have a "good-faith disagreement" with the government's ruling and would want to seek court review. "The country we're seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court," he said. "Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure."
Other industry representatives say it's not clear that lawyers and policy analysts who will inhabit Homeland Security's 4.5 million square-foot headquarters in the southeast corner of the District of Columbia have the expertise to improve the security of servers and networks operated by companies like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, and Google. American companies already spend billions of dollars on computer security a year.
"Declaration of National Cyber Emergency"
The revised Lieberman-Collins bill, dubbed the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, works this way: Homeland Security will "establish and maintain a list of systems or assets that constitute covered critical infrastructure" and that will be subject to emergency decrees. (The term "kill switch" does not appear in the legislation.)
Under the revised legislation, the definition of critical infrastructure has been tightened. DHS is only supposed to place a computer system (including a server, Web site, router, and so on) on the list if it meets three requirements. First, the disruption of the system could cause "severe economic consequences" or worse. Second, that the system "is a component of the national information infrastructure." Third, that the "national information infrastructure is essential to the reliable operation of the system."
At last week's event, Milhorn, the Senate aide, used the example of computers at a nuclear power plant or the Hoover Dam but acknowledged that "the legislation does not foreclose additional requirements, or additional additions to the list."
A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But her decision is final and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.
President Obama would then have the power to "issue a declaration of a national cyberemergency." What that entails is a little unclear, including whether DHS could pry user information out of Internet companies that it would not normally be entitled to obtain without a court order. One section says they can disclose certain types of noncommunications data if "specifically authorized by law," but a presidential decree may suffice.
"No amount of tightening of what constitutes 'critical infrastructure' will prevent abuse without meaningful judicial review," says Berin Szoka, an analyst at the free-market TechFreedom think tank and editor of The Next Digital Decade book. "Blocking judicial review of this key question essentially says that the rule of law goes out the window if and when a major crisis occurs."
For their part, Lieberman and Collins say the president already has "nearly unchecked authority" to control Internet companies. A 1934 law (PDF) creating the Federal Communications Commission says that in wartime, or if a "state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency" exists, the president may "authorize the use or control of any...station or device."
In congressional testimony (PDF) last year, DHS Deputy Undersecretary Philip Reitinger stopped short of endorsing the Lieberman-Collins bill. The 1934 law already addresses "presidential emergency authorities, and Congress and the administration should work together to identify any needed adjustments to the act," he said, "as opposed to developing overlapping legislation."
This article was originally posted on CNET
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20029302-501465.html
Renewed Push to Give Obama an Internet "Kill Switch"
Posted by Declan McCullagh
A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a "national cyberemergency," and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year.
Internet companies should not be alarmed by the legislation, first introduced last summer by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Senate aide said last week. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
"We're not trying to mandate any requirements for the entire Internet, the entire Internet backbone," said Brandon Milhorn, Republican staff director and counsel for the committee.
Instead, Milhorn said at a conference in Washington, D.C., the point of the proposal is to assert governmental control only over those "crucial components that form our nation's critical infrastructure."
Portions of the Lieberman-Collins bill, which was not uniformly well-received when it became public in June 2010, became even more restrictive when a Senate committee approved a modified version on December 15. The full Senate did not act on the measure.
The revised version includes new language saying that the federal government's designation of vital Internet or other computer systems "shall not be subject to judicial review." Another addition expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include "provider of information technology," and a third authorized the submission of "classified" reports on security vulnerabilities.
The idea of creating what some critics have called an Internet "kill switch" that the president could flip in an emergency is not exactly new.
A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August 2009 authorized the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or Web sites. House Democrats have taken a similar approach in their own proposals.
Lieberman, who recently announced he would not seek re-election in 2012, said last year that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said.
Civil libertarians and some industry representatives have repeatedly raised concerns about the various proposals to give the executive branch such broad emergency power. On the other hand, as Lieberman and Collins have highlighted before, some companies, including Microsoft, Verizon, and EMC Corporation, have said positive things about the initial version of the bill.
But last month's rewrite that bans courts from reviewing executive branch decrees has given companies new reason to worry. "Judicial review is our main concern," said Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which includes eBay, Oracle, Verisign, and Yahoo as members. "A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance."
In some cases, DelBianco said, a company may have a "good-faith disagreement" with the government's ruling and would want to seek court review. "The country we're seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court," he said. "Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure."
Other industry representatives say it's not clear that lawyers and policy analysts who will inhabit Homeland Security's 4.5 million square-foot headquarters in the southeast corner of the District of Columbia have the expertise to improve the security of servers and networks operated by companies like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, and Google. American companies already spend billions of dollars on computer security a year.
"Declaration of National Cyber Emergency"
The revised Lieberman-Collins bill, dubbed the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, works this way: Homeland Security will "establish and maintain a list of systems or assets that constitute covered critical infrastructure" and that will be subject to emergency decrees. (The term "kill switch" does not appear in the legislation.)
Under the revised legislation, the definition of critical infrastructure has been tightened. DHS is only supposed to place a computer system (including a server, Web site, router, and so on) on the list if it meets three requirements. First, the disruption of the system could cause "severe economic consequences" or worse. Second, that the system "is a component of the national information infrastructure." Third, that the "national information infrastructure is essential to the reliable operation of the system."
At last week's event, Milhorn, the Senate aide, used the example of computers at a nuclear power plant or the Hoover Dam but acknowledged that "the legislation does not foreclose additional requirements, or additional additions to the list."
A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But her decision is final and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.
President Obama would then have the power to "issue a declaration of a national cyberemergency." What that entails is a little unclear, including whether DHS could pry user information out of Internet companies that it would not normally be entitled to obtain without a court order. One section says they can disclose certain types of noncommunications data if "specifically authorized by law," but a presidential decree may suffice.
"No amount of tightening of what constitutes 'critical infrastructure' will prevent abuse without meaningful judicial review," says Berin Szoka, an analyst at the free-market TechFreedom think tank and editor of The Next Digital Decade book. "Blocking judicial review of this key question essentially says that the rule of law goes out the window if and when a major crisis occurs."
For their part, Lieberman and Collins say the president already has "nearly unchecked authority" to control Internet companies. A 1934 law (PDF) creating the Federal Communications Commission says that in wartime, or if a "state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency" exists, the president may "authorize the use or control of any...station or device."
In congressional testimony (PDF) last year, DHS Deputy Undersecretary Philip Reitinger stopped short of endorsing the Lieberman-Collins bill. The 1934 law already addresses "presidential emergency authorities, and Congress and the administration should work together to identify any needed adjustments to the act," he said, "as opposed to developing overlapping legislation."
This article was originally posted on CNET
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20029302-501465.html
Google Seeks to Weaken Search Engine Ranking of "Content Farming" Websites
Eric Blair
Infowars.com
January 23, 2011
Google has announced that it is fixing flaws in its algorithm that allows search results to be spammed, while also planning to weaken the search-ability of websites referred to as "content farms." Matt Cutts, head of Google's anti-spam team, writes:
As "pure webspam" has decreased over time, attention has shifted instead to "content farms," which are sites with shallow or low-quality content. In 2010, we launched two major algorithmic changes focused on low-quality sites. Nonetheless, we hear the feedback from the web loud and clear: people are asking for even stronger action on content farms and sites that consist primarily of spammy or low-quality content. (my emphasis)
The only clear reference from Google about problems occurring from "content farms" in regards to spamming search results is from China: "Last year Google faced a rash of webspam on Chinese domains in our index. Some spammers were purchasing large amounts of cheap .cn domains and stuffing them with misspellings and porn phrases." They claim this scheme led to "irrelevant" search results.
Yet, their goal seems to be to weaken what has been referred to as "news aggregating" websites as "one change that primarily affects sites that copy others' content and sites with low levels of original content." This clearly describes many sites that present alternative news. However, plenty of alternative news sites and blogs have original material which they freely share, in part or in full, purely to support one another in disseminating the truth. This is of key importance to spread information in the absence of government or foundation funding, as enjoyed by much of the mainstream media. It is also a counter to censorship, so that a free market of ideas can flourish where people can investigate facts for themselves, rather than have opinions dictated from a limited number of sources.
According to a recent cheerleading article by TechCrunch, content farms indeed include websites that post any duplicate content word-for-word, "Now, finally, it sounds like they're going to do more to take on sites that just repurpose content from other sites (hopefully including the countless sites that repost TechCrunch articles verbatim)."
What's odd is that everyone knows that original content already carries far more weight with Google algorithms than re-posted content. Additionally, backlinks from well-ranked relevant sites is also a huge factor in building a strong Google page rank, besides driving traffic to the source. Therefore, it would stand to reason that websites like TechCrunch should be overjoyed when other relevant sites post their content, as long as it is sourced with a hyperlink. Alexa ranks TechCrunch at 305 on the entire Internet, no doubt due to their 36,374 links that Alexa recognizes. Without allowing the sharing of their original content, this level of achievement would be impossible under the current Google algorithm.
For those who understand this concept, if they punish sites that re-post content such as news aggregators that link back to them, the source will surely lose traffic and overall ranking despite being heavy in original content. Which begs the question, what people have been asking for "stronger action against content farms?" Because gauging the rise in popularity of alternative media (i.e. news aggregators), it seems that Internet users themselves aren't the ones complaining.
It is obviously the entrenched dinosaur media that despises having to play on a level field, especially as it pertains to truthful reporting and analysis. Former executive editor of the Washington Post, Leonard Downie Jr., addressed "old media vs. new media" in a September lecture where he excoriated so-called content farms as "parasites living off journalism produced by others." He even claims re-posting of material, even if sourced, is "stealing" as reported by Politico:
'The aggregators fill their websites with news, opinion, features, photographs and video that they continuously collect - some would say steal - from other national and local news sites, along with mostly unpaid postings by bloggers who settle for exposure in lieu of money,' Downie said.
'Though they purport to be a new form of journalism, these aggregators are primarily parasites living off journalism produced by others. They attract audiences by aggregating journalism about special interests and opinions reflecting a predictable point of view on the left or right of the political spectrum, along with titillating gossip and sex. Revealing photos of and stories about entertainment and celebrities account for much of the highly touted web traffic to the Huffington Post site, for example.'
Downie rightly states that these sites attract an audience seeking a certain point of view, but ignores the fact that mainstream outlets do the same. Some would argue that the real strength behind news aggregators is the ability to expose the establishment's gross injustices and other inconvenient truths without all the "titillating" distractions. As the masses become more aware of establishment lies, they are flocking to alternative sites who cut through the BS and present a clear path to the truth.
Google's algorithm changes seem to be yet another tool being used to direct the flow of information away from the alternative media to selected mainstream news sources. It compounds actions already taken by Google in their involvement in upending net neutrality in favor of mega-media machines; the attempt by Congress to crack down on copyright infringement by blacklisting domain names; and copyright extortionist lawyers suing over wording in links.
It's obvious that the establishment will find a way to punish truth sites, either through technical penalization for re-posting material, reducing access speed, blogging taxes, lawsuits for copyright infringement, or by arbitrarily blacklisting the domain altogether.
At it's core, this new Google algorithm seems to punish information sharing in favor of protectionist conglomerates with large writing staffs. We in the alternative media would do well to recognize that these actions being taken by the elite of the media world are just another sign of their weakened state. Now is the time for the alternative media to seek more writers and more cooperation.
http://www.infowars.com/google-seeks-to-weaken-search-engine-ranking-of-content-farming-websites/
Infowars.com
January 23, 2011
Google has announced that it is fixing flaws in its algorithm that allows search results to be spammed, while also planning to weaken the search-ability of websites referred to as "content farms." Matt Cutts, head of Google's anti-spam team, writes:
As "pure webspam" has decreased over time, attention has shifted instead to "content farms," which are sites with shallow or low-quality content. In 2010, we launched two major algorithmic changes focused on low-quality sites. Nonetheless, we hear the feedback from the web loud and clear: people are asking for even stronger action on content farms and sites that consist primarily of spammy or low-quality content. (my emphasis)
The only clear reference from Google about problems occurring from "content farms" in regards to spamming search results is from China: "Last year Google faced a rash of webspam on Chinese domains in our index. Some spammers were purchasing large amounts of cheap .cn domains and stuffing them with misspellings and porn phrases." They claim this scheme led to "irrelevant" search results.
Yet, their goal seems to be to weaken what has been referred to as "news aggregating" websites as "one change that primarily affects sites that copy others' content and sites with low levels of original content." This clearly describes many sites that present alternative news. However, plenty of alternative news sites and blogs have original material which they freely share, in part or in full, purely to support one another in disseminating the truth. This is of key importance to spread information in the absence of government or foundation funding, as enjoyed by much of the mainstream media. It is also a counter to censorship, so that a free market of ideas can flourish where people can investigate facts for themselves, rather than have opinions dictated from a limited number of sources.
According to a recent cheerleading article by TechCrunch, content farms indeed include websites that post any duplicate content word-for-word, "Now, finally, it sounds like they're going to do more to take on sites that just repurpose content from other sites (hopefully including the countless sites that repost TechCrunch articles verbatim)."
What's odd is that everyone knows that original content already carries far more weight with Google algorithms than re-posted content. Additionally, backlinks from well-ranked relevant sites is also a huge factor in building a strong Google page rank, besides driving traffic to the source. Therefore, it would stand to reason that websites like TechCrunch should be overjoyed when other relevant sites post their content, as long as it is sourced with a hyperlink. Alexa ranks TechCrunch at 305 on the entire Internet, no doubt due to their 36,374 links that Alexa recognizes. Without allowing the sharing of their original content, this level of achievement would be impossible under the current Google algorithm.
For those who understand this concept, if they punish sites that re-post content such as news aggregators that link back to them, the source will surely lose traffic and overall ranking despite being heavy in original content. Which begs the question, what people have been asking for "stronger action against content farms?" Because gauging the rise in popularity of alternative media (i.e. news aggregators), it seems that Internet users themselves aren't the ones complaining.
It is obviously the entrenched dinosaur media that despises having to play on a level field, especially as it pertains to truthful reporting and analysis. Former executive editor of the Washington Post, Leonard Downie Jr., addressed "old media vs. new media" in a September lecture where he excoriated so-called content farms as "parasites living off journalism produced by others." He even claims re-posting of material, even if sourced, is "stealing" as reported by Politico:
'The aggregators fill their websites with news, opinion, features, photographs and video that they continuously collect - some would say steal - from other national and local news sites, along with mostly unpaid postings by bloggers who settle for exposure in lieu of money,' Downie said.
'Though they purport to be a new form of journalism, these aggregators are primarily parasites living off journalism produced by others. They attract audiences by aggregating journalism about special interests and opinions reflecting a predictable point of view on the left or right of the political spectrum, along with titillating gossip and sex. Revealing photos of and stories about entertainment and celebrities account for much of the highly touted web traffic to the Huffington Post site, for example.'
Downie rightly states that these sites attract an audience seeking a certain point of view, but ignores the fact that mainstream outlets do the same. Some would argue that the real strength behind news aggregators is the ability to expose the establishment's gross injustices and other inconvenient truths without all the "titillating" distractions. As the masses become more aware of establishment lies, they are flocking to alternative sites who cut through the BS and present a clear path to the truth.
Google's algorithm changes seem to be yet another tool being used to direct the flow of information away from the alternative media to selected mainstream news sources. It compounds actions already taken by Google in their involvement in upending net neutrality in favor of mega-media machines; the attempt by Congress to crack down on copyright infringement by blacklisting domain names; and copyright extortionist lawyers suing over wording in links.
It's obvious that the establishment will find a way to punish truth sites, either through technical penalization for re-posting material, reducing access speed, blogging taxes, lawsuits for copyright infringement, or by arbitrarily blacklisting the domain altogether.
At it's core, this new Google algorithm seems to punish information sharing in favor of protectionist conglomerates with large writing staffs. We in the alternative media would do well to recognize that these actions being taken by the elite of the media world are just another sign of their weakened state. Now is the time for the alternative media to seek more writers and more cooperation.
http://www.infowars.com/google-seeks-to-weaken-search-engine-ranking-of-content-farming-websites/
Monday, January 17, 2011
The app that can read your mind: iPhone brainwave detector arrives (it was only a matter of time)
By Matt Blake
Last updated at 3:56 AM on 15th January 2011
It's a device that would be more at home on the set of a Star Wars movie than the streets of Britain. But an iPhone application has been developed that can read minds.
The XWave allows users to control on-screen objects with their minds as well as train their brains to control attention spans and relaxation levels.
No-brainer: The XWave allows users to control on-screen objects with their minds as well as train their brains to control attention spans and relaxation levels.
The device - that could confuse Luke Skywalker himself - is the latest in the field of emerging mind-controlled games and devices and works via a headset strapped around the user's forehead, plugging into the iPhone jack.
State of the art: A sensor within the device can then read the user's brainwaves through the skull, converting them into digital signals before displaying them in various colours on the iPhone screen.
And as the mind focuses on a particular task the graphics change, indicating the user's level of concentration or relaxation.
The high-tech sensor was developed by innovations giant PLX Devices using technology that has for years been used by doctors to treat epilepsy and seizures in patients.
Brain train: As the mind focuses on a particular task the graphics change, indicating the user's level of concentration or relaxation.
But PLX Devices founder and CEO Paul Lowchareonkul said it was a matter of time before such contraptions entered the mainstream. He said: 'The human brain is the most powerful, complex thing in the universe, and for the first time, we're able to harness its amazing power and connect it to everyday technology.
'With the development of 3rd party apps, the potential for innovation is limitless.'
Brain-training exercises include levitating an on-screen ball for a certain amount of time or changing a colour by relaxing the brain in a bid to maximize the brain's attention span.
And designers say it won't stop there. Incredibly, another app, called XWave Tunes allow users to connect with each other through the type of music that most stimulates their brainwaves.
The company says it is working on other ways in which the futuristic technology can be applied such as playing games through the mind, controlling the lights at home and even choosing what music to listen to on an iPod depending on the user's mood.
Its designers claim the possibilities are endless, whether it is for relaxation, brain training, entertainment, games, social networking, sports or sleep.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346900/The-app-read-mind-iPhone-brainwave-detector-matter-time.html#ixzz1B825HgzU
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346900/The-app-read-mind-iPhone-brainwave-detector-matter-time.html
Last updated at 3:56 AM on 15th January 2011
It's a device that would be more at home on the set of a Star Wars movie than the streets of Britain. But an iPhone application has been developed that can read minds.
The XWave allows users to control on-screen objects with their minds as well as train their brains to control attention spans and relaxation levels.
No-brainer: The XWave allows users to control on-screen objects with their minds as well as train their brains to control attention spans and relaxation levels.
The device - that could confuse Luke Skywalker himself - is the latest in the field of emerging mind-controlled games and devices and works via a headset strapped around the user's forehead, plugging into the iPhone jack.
State of the art: A sensor within the device can then read the user's brainwaves through the skull, converting them into digital signals before displaying them in various colours on the iPhone screen.
And as the mind focuses on a particular task the graphics change, indicating the user's level of concentration or relaxation.
The high-tech sensor was developed by innovations giant PLX Devices using technology that has for years been used by doctors to treat epilepsy and seizures in patients.
Brain train: As the mind focuses on a particular task the graphics change, indicating the user's level of concentration or relaxation.
But PLX Devices founder and CEO Paul Lowchareonkul said it was a matter of time before such contraptions entered the mainstream. He said: 'The human brain is the most powerful, complex thing in the universe, and for the first time, we're able to harness its amazing power and connect it to everyday technology.
'With the development of 3rd party apps, the potential for innovation is limitless.'
Brain-training exercises include levitating an on-screen ball for a certain amount of time or changing a colour by relaxing the brain in a bid to maximize the brain's attention span.
And designers say it won't stop there. Incredibly, another app, called XWave Tunes allow users to connect with each other through the type of music that most stimulates their brainwaves.
The company says it is working on other ways in which the futuristic technology can be applied such as playing games through the mind, controlling the lights at home and even choosing what music to listen to on an iPod depending on the user's mood.
Its designers claim the possibilities are endless, whether it is for relaxation, brain training, entertainment, games, social networking, sports or sleep.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346900/The-app-read-mind-iPhone-brainwave-detector-matter-time.html#ixzz1B825HgzU
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346900/The-app-read-mind-iPhone-brainwave-detector-matter-time.html
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Server Chief Out At Microsoft, Is Steve Ballmer Next?
Less than two weeks into 2011, there are signs that Microsoft learned little from a woeful 2010. Can the CEO survive?
By Paul McDougall , InformationWeek
Last week I identified seven ways Microsoft can save itself in 2011. One of the most important, I wrote, was that CEO Steve Ballmer must bring management stability back to Redmond: "In the past 18 months, the entrance to Microsoft's corporate headquarters has revolved faster than the judge's panel on American Idol."
I guess Ballmer sings to his own beat. Exactly one week later, he's decided to remove Bob Muglia, a 22-year company veteran, from his role as head of Microsoft's Server and Tools Business unit, which includes Windows Server and related products.
More Hardware Insights
Ballmer was vague about the reasons. "This is simply recognition that all businesses go through cycles and need new and different talent to manage through those cycles," said Ballmer, in an e-mail Monday to Microsoft employees. Then came the inevitable follow-up. "In conjunction with this leadership change, Bob has decided to leave Microsoft this summer," wrote Ballmer. "He will continue to actively run STB as I conduct an internal and external search for a new leader."
If Ballmer's e-mail is to be taken at face value, it raises big questions about his management style. After all, Ballmer is saying he asked the head of one of Microsoft's most strategic units to step down even though he's got no immediate replacement lined up. It also means STB will have a lame duck at the helm for as long as six months, a very long time in the tech business.
But there are bigger questions about Ballmer's leadership.
Can it be coincidence that Muglia now joins former Business Division president Stephen Elop, former Windows strategy VP Mike Nash, former Entertainment & Devices president Robbie Bach, former Genuine Software program director Alex Kochis, former Windows group senior VP Bill Veghte, and chief software architect Ray Ozzie on the list of senior executives who have left, or announced their intentions to leave, Microsoft in recent months.
In the words of a former New York University professor of mine, the late, great Edwin Diamond, "No sparrow falls by accident." It's apparent to me that the company's top talent has lost confidence in Microsoft's ability to thrive and innovate in the post-PC era. As a group, they're realizing that stagnation is bad for their careers, and wallets.
Microsoft stock traded at about $28 five years ago; today it still goes for 28 bucks. Over the same half decade, Google shares have increased from about $465 per share to $600 per while Apple shares have jumped from $85 to $341.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/desktop/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229000419&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News
By Paul McDougall , InformationWeek
Last week I identified seven ways Microsoft can save itself in 2011. One of the most important, I wrote, was that CEO Steve Ballmer must bring management stability back to Redmond: "In the past 18 months, the entrance to Microsoft's corporate headquarters has revolved faster than the judge's panel on American Idol."
I guess Ballmer sings to his own beat. Exactly one week later, he's decided to remove Bob Muglia, a 22-year company veteran, from his role as head of Microsoft's Server and Tools Business unit, which includes Windows Server and related products.
More Hardware Insights
Ballmer was vague about the reasons. "This is simply recognition that all businesses go through cycles and need new and different talent to manage through those cycles," said Ballmer, in an e-mail Monday to Microsoft employees. Then came the inevitable follow-up. "In conjunction with this leadership change, Bob has decided to leave Microsoft this summer," wrote Ballmer. "He will continue to actively run STB as I conduct an internal and external search for a new leader."
If Ballmer's e-mail is to be taken at face value, it raises big questions about his management style. After all, Ballmer is saying he asked the head of one of Microsoft's most strategic units to step down even though he's got no immediate replacement lined up. It also means STB will have a lame duck at the helm for as long as six months, a very long time in the tech business.
But there are bigger questions about Ballmer's leadership.
Can it be coincidence that Muglia now joins former Business Division president Stephen Elop, former Windows strategy VP Mike Nash, former Entertainment & Devices president Robbie Bach, former Genuine Software program director Alex Kochis, former Windows group senior VP Bill Veghte, and chief software architect Ray Ozzie on the list of senior executives who have left, or announced their intentions to leave, Microsoft in recent months.
In the words of a former New York University professor of mine, the late, great Edwin Diamond, "No sparrow falls by accident." It's apparent to me that the company's top talent has lost confidence in Microsoft's ability to thrive and innovate in the post-PC era. As a group, they're realizing that stagnation is bad for their careers, and wallets.
Microsoft stock traded at about $28 five years ago; today it still goes for 28 bucks. Over the same half decade, Google shares have increased from about $465 per share to $600 per while Apple shares have jumped from $85 to $341.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/desktop/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229000419&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News
Thursday, January 6, 2011
FCC challenges app makers to protect open Internet
By Jasmin Melvin Jasmin Melvin - Wed Jan 5, 5:53 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. regulators are asking software developers in an "Open Internet Challenge" to create apps that let Internet users know when their service provider -- fixed or mobile -- is interfering with content.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is trying to get consumers to help police Internet service providers for network management abuses such as slowing bandwidth-hogging content from movies.
The wants to spur the deployment of innovative technologies to protect the openness of the Internet.
The FCC adopted Internet traffic rules last month that ban landline Internet providers such as Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc from blocking lawful traffic or discriminating against bandwidth-heavy content.
The rules would also prevent wireless carriers such as AT&T Inc from blocking access to websites, or competing voice and video applications.
The agency describes an "open" Internet as a "platform that enables consumer choice, freedom of expression, competition, user control, and the freedom to innovate without permission."
The Open Internet Challenge continues the FCC's efforts to keep the Internet accessible to all content providers.
"Our goal is to foster user-developed applications that shine light on any practice that might be inconsistent with the free and open Internet," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said.
The challenge also tries to boost useful research into ways to measure, preserve and track the openness of the Internet.
The FCC said apps could provide real-time data to an individual experiencing a slow Internet connection speed, test networks for Internet service providers and aggregate network data for academics and policymakers.
The FCC's open Internet rules adopted on December 21 are expected to go into effect early in the year. But any legal challenges could tie the rules up for years.
(Reporting by Jasmin Melvin; editing by Andre Grenon)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110105/wr_nm/us_fcc_internet_competition
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. regulators are asking software developers in an "Open Internet Challenge" to create apps that let Internet users know when their service provider -- fixed or mobile -- is interfering with content.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is trying to get consumers to help police Internet service providers for network management abuses such as slowing bandwidth-hogging content from movies.
The wants to spur the deployment of innovative technologies to protect the openness of the Internet.
The FCC adopted Internet traffic rules last month that ban landline Internet providers such as Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc from blocking lawful traffic or discriminating against bandwidth-heavy content.
The rules would also prevent wireless carriers such as AT&T Inc from blocking access to websites, or competing voice and video applications.
The agency describes an "open" Internet as a "platform that enables consumer choice, freedom of expression, competition, user control, and the freedom to innovate without permission."
The Open Internet Challenge continues the FCC's efforts to keep the Internet accessible to all content providers.
"Our goal is to foster user-developed applications that shine light on any practice that might be inconsistent with the free and open Internet," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said.
The challenge also tries to boost useful research into ways to measure, preserve and track the openness of the Internet.
The FCC said apps could provide real-time data to an individual experiencing a slow Internet connection speed, test networks for Internet service providers and aggregate network data for academics and policymakers.
The FCC's open Internet rules adopted on December 21 are expected to go into effect early in the year. But any legal challenges could tie the rules up for years.
(Reporting by Jasmin Melvin; editing by Andre Grenon)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110105/wr_nm/us_fcc_internet_competition
Monday, January 3, 2011
Just 21% Want FCC to Regulate Internet, Most Fear Regulation Would Promote Political Agenda
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
American voters believe free market competition will protect Internet users more than government regulation and fear that regulation will be used to push a political agenda.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 21% of likely U.S. Voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed to such regulation, and 25% are not sure.
The survey was conducted shortly after the FCC decided on a party line vote to impose so-called "net neutrality" regulations on the Internet world. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly oppose FCC regulation of the Internet, while Democrats are more evenly divided. Those who use the Internet most are most opposed to FCC regulations.
By a 52% to 27% margin, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting Internet users. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly share this view, but a plurality of Democrats (46%) think more regulation is the better approach.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda. Half that number (28%) disagree and believe the commission would regulate in an unbiased manner.
The partisan divide is the same on this question as the others. A plurality of Democrats sees an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on December 23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
As you would expect, there is a huge gap between the Political Class and Mainstream Voters on this topic. Most Mainstream voters see free market competition as the best way to protect Internet users, but most in the Political Class prefer more regulation. Seventy-eight percent (78%) in the Political Class believe the regulations would be handled in an unbiased manner, while 72% of Mainstream voters believe they would be used to promote a political agenda.
The issue has attracted little public notice. Just 20% are following news of the net neutrality regulations Very Closely. Another 35% say they're following it somewhat closely.
Most Americans (55%) continue to favor FCC regulation of radio and TV.
The latest results are similar to earlier data showing little support for FCC regulation of the Internet.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters say the government's most important role is to protect their individual rights. Twenty-four percent (24%) believe a government's primary purpose is to ensure fairness and social justice, while 10% say it's to manage the economy.
But nearly half (48%) of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2010/just_21_want_fcc_to_regulate_internet_most_fear_regulation_would_promote_political_agenda
American voters believe free market competition will protect Internet users more than government regulation and fear that regulation will be used to push a political agenda.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 21% of likely U.S. Voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed to such regulation, and 25% are not sure.
The survey was conducted shortly after the FCC decided on a party line vote to impose so-called "net neutrality" regulations on the Internet world. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly oppose FCC regulation of the Internet, while Democrats are more evenly divided. Those who use the Internet most are most opposed to FCC regulations.
By a 52% to 27% margin, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting Internet users. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly share this view, but a plurality of Democrats (46%) think more regulation is the better approach.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda. Half that number (28%) disagree and believe the commission would regulate in an unbiased manner.
The partisan divide is the same on this question as the others. A plurality of Democrats sees an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on December 23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
As you would expect, there is a huge gap between the Political Class and Mainstream Voters on this topic. Most Mainstream voters see free market competition as the best way to protect Internet users, but most in the Political Class prefer more regulation. Seventy-eight percent (78%) in the Political Class believe the regulations would be handled in an unbiased manner, while 72% of Mainstream voters believe they would be used to promote a political agenda.
The issue has attracted little public notice. Just 20% are following news of the net neutrality regulations Very Closely. Another 35% say they're following it somewhat closely.
Most Americans (55%) continue to favor FCC regulation of radio and TV.
The latest results are similar to earlier data showing little support for FCC regulation of the Internet.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters say the government's most important role is to protect their individual rights. Twenty-four percent (24%) believe a government's primary purpose is to ensure fairness and social justice, while 10% say it's to manage the economy.
But nearly half (48%) of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2010/just_21_want_fcc_to_regulate_internet_most_fear_regulation_would_promote_political_agenda
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Internet groups fear UN could threaten cyberspace
Updated: Thu Dec. 30 2010 7:22:39 PM
Ian Munroe, CTV.ca News
Officials from 18 countries held an impromptu, late-night meeting earlier this month at the United Nations office in Geneva, and made a decision that rattled Internet technocrats around the world.
Autocratic governments like China and Iran attended the meeting, as did several democratic ones. Despite protests by Portugal and the United States, they voted to staff a working group on the future of the Internet Governance Forum -- an important theatre of discussion on matters of cyberspace -- by governments alone.
The seemingly arcane move reverberated through a community of technical experts, academics and civil society groups who felt they had been unfairly excluded.
Fourteen technical organizations that help oversee how cyberspace runs wrote an open letter asking the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) to reverse its decision. Meanwhile the Internet Society, an umbrella group that helps manage technical standards online, posted a petition to its website in protest.
"A significant fuss has been kicked up about it," said Byron Holland, president and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, which manages the .ca domain.
Even Google waded into the fray. Vint Cerf, a vice-president at the online behemoth and one of the pioneers of the Internet, added his name to the petition, alongside 2,600 others. He also attacked the UN decision in a Dec. 17 blog post on Google's website.
"We don't believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance," Cerf wrote. "The current bottoms-up, open approach works -- protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let's fight to keep it that way."
Eleven days later the UNCSTD buckled under the pressure, according to the Internet Society, and agreed to include up to 20 non-governmental groups.
The episode underscored what has become an uneasy relationship between organizations that have helped gently steer the Internet since its infancy, and UN bodies that came to focus on Internet governance during the 2000s as cyberspace continued to unfurl across the brick-and-mortar world.
"The root of the debate here is a philosophical difference between how you approach the future governance of the Internet," Holland told CTV.ca by phone. "Everything that goes forward from that will have a very different tone or direction."
Technocrats like Holland have also been hinting at a specific threat: that the UN could become a forum where authoritarian governments who are riled by the free flow of information work to put the breaks on its superhighway.
Cyber peace treaty
A second UN body -- the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which manages the world's radio frequencies and orbiting satellites -- has been debating who should govern the Internet for years.
Its secretary general, Hamadoun Toure, would like to spearhead the creation of a "cyber peace treaty" to prevent the Internet from becoming another domain in which countries wage war against one another, as they do by air or at sea.
"Cyber threats can reach critical infrastructure of any country, the nerve centre of any nation," Toure said by phone from Geneva. "A sophisticated attack can bring even the most powerful nation to its knees."
There have been several recent examples of such events. During a dispute with Russia in 2007, Estonia was hit by widespread cyber attacks that knocked out bank, newspaper and government websites. Similar denial-of-service attacks struck Georgian media and government websites a year later as Russian tanks rolled into South Ossetia.
Then last July, the discovery of the Stuxnet worm led to speculation that a foreign government was trying use malicious software to cripple Iran's nuclear program.
But there are a number of hurdles to creating an international agreement that would discourage such attacks. One is who would forge it.
"If we were to have a roundtable on this, you would see not only governments around it. Are we mentally prepared for that, to have around the same table private sector, civil society, consumer groups and governments?" Toure said. "That is what it will take for meeting the challenges of a cyber peace
treaty."
Risky business
Critics of Toure's proposal worry that non-governmental groups would not be given an equal seat at the table, and point to the ITU's plenipotentiary conference in October.
There, delegates discussed a Russian proposal to take over managing Internet domain names. Currently that task falls to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a private organization whose president and CEO was barred from attending the meeting.
Others say the ITU's government-to-government approach is too slow and clunky to manage something as fast-moving as the Internet, or that it could pave the way for less open regimes to introduce new online controls.
"We have to be careful about what institutions take the lead," said Ron Deibert, director of the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the University of Toronto. "The Chinas, the Irans, the Saudi Arabias of the world want to impose a territorial vision of control over cyberspace -- and if the ITU got its wishes, that's essentially what would happen."
In future, the debate over who should govern the Internet would do well to bear in mind its success stories like Google and Facebook, said Olaf Kolkman, director of NLnet Labs and chair of the Internet Architecture Board.
If the ease of accessing an unfettered online world helped those billion-dollar corporations evolve from tiny start-ups in garages or university dorm rooms, he suggested, then closing off the Web could lead to stagnation. It might also wall off opportunities for everyone who has yet to set foot in cyberspace.
"If we can preserve the spirit of openness moving forward," Kolkman wrote in an email, "we will see much of the innovation coming from developing countries, and the billions of people who have yet to come online but who will change the shape of the Internet when they do."
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101228/un-governments-future-of-the-internet-101230/20101230/?hub=TorontoNewHome
Ian Munroe, CTV.ca News
Officials from 18 countries held an impromptu, late-night meeting earlier this month at the United Nations office in Geneva, and made a decision that rattled Internet technocrats around the world.
Autocratic governments like China and Iran attended the meeting, as did several democratic ones. Despite protests by Portugal and the United States, they voted to staff a working group on the future of the Internet Governance Forum -- an important theatre of discussion on matters of cyberspace -- by governments alone.
The seemingly arcane move reverberated through a community of technical experts, academics and civil society groups who felt they had been unfairly excluded.
Fourteen technical organizations that help oversee how cyberspace runs wrote an open letter asking the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) to reverse its decision. Meanwhile the Internet Society, an umbrella group that helps manage technical standards online, posted a petition to its website in protest.
"A significant fuss has been kicked up about it," said Byron Holland, president and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, which manages the .ca domain.
Even Google waded into the fray. Vint Cerf, a vice-president at the online behemoth and one of the pioneers of the Internet, added his name to the petition, alongside 2,600 others. He also attacked the UN decision in a Dec. 17 blog post on Google's website.
"We don't believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance," Cerf wrote. "The current bottoms-up, open approach works -- protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let's fight to keep it that way."
Eleven days later the UNCSTD buckled under the pressure, according to the Internet Society, and agreed to include up to 20 non-governmental groups.
The episode underscored what has become an uneasy relationship between organizations that have helped gently steer the Internet since its infancy, and UN bodies that came to focus on Internet governance during the 2000s as cyberspace continued to unfurl across the brick-and-mortar world.
"The root of the debate here is a philosophical difference between how you approach the future governance of the Internet," Holland told CTV.ca by phone. "Everything that goes forward from that will have a very different tone or direction."
Technocrats like Holland have also been hinting at a specific threat: that the UN could become a forum where authoritarian governments who are riled by the free flow of information work to put the breaks on its superhighway.
Cyber peace treaty
A second UN body -- the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which manages the world's radio frequencies and orbiting satellites -- has been debating who should govern the Internet for years.
Its secretary general, Hamadoun Toure, would like to spearhead the creation of a "cyber peace treaty" to prevent the Internet from becoming another domain in which countries wage war against one another, as they do by air or at sea.
"Cyber threats can reach critical infrastructure of any country, the nerve centre of any nation," Toure said by phone from Geneva. "A sophisticated attack can bring even the most powerful nation to its knees."
There have been several recent examples of such events. During a dispute with Russia in 2007, Estonia was hit by widespread cyber attacks that knocked out bank, newspaper and government websites. Similar denial-of-service attacks struck Georgian media and government websites a year later as Russian tanks rolled into South Ossetia.
Then last July, the discovery of the Stuxnet worm led to speculation that a foreign government was trying use malicious software to cripple Iran's nuclear program.
But there are a number of hurdles to creating an international agreement that would discourage such attacks. One is who would forge it.
"If we were to have a roundtable on this, you would see not only governments around it. Are we mentally prepared for that, to have around the same table private sector, civil society, consumer groups and governments?" Toure said. "That is what it will take for meeting the challenges of a cyber peace
treaty."
Risky business
Critics of Toure's proposal worry that non-governmental groups would not be given an equal seat at the table, and point to the ITU's plenipotentiary conference in October.
There, delegates discussed a Russian proposal to take over managing Internet domain names. Currently that task falls to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a private organization whose president and CEO was barred from attending the meeting.
Others say the ITU's government-to-government approach is too slow and clunky to manage something as fast-moving as the Internet, or that it could pave the way for less open regimes to introduce new online controls.
"We have to be careful about what institutions take the lead," said Ron Deibert, director of the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the University of Toronto. "The Chinas, the Irans, the Saudi Arabias of the world want to impose a territorial vision of control over cyberspace -- and if the ITU got its wishes, that's essentially what would happen."
In future, the debate over who should govern the Internet would do well to bear in mind its success stories like Google and Facebook, said Olaf Kolkman, director of NLnet Labs and chair of the Internet Architecture Board.
If the ease of accessing an unfettered online world helped those billion-dollar corporations evolve from tiny start-ups in garages or university dorm rooms, he suggested, then closing off the Web could lead to stagnation. It might also wall off opportunities for everyone who has yet to set foot in cyberspace.
"If we can preserve the spirit of openness moving forward," Kolkman wrote in an email, "we will see much of the innovation coming from developing countries, and the billions of people who have yet to come online but who will change the shape of the Internet when they do."
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101228/un-governments-future-of-the-internet-101230/20101230/?hub=TorontoNewHome
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
