Post 12: Net Neutrality

Since I have written a research paper on Net Neutrality I have decided to attach it below so that you can read it if you would like and see that I have spent time discussing the idea: Essay 2. Other than that I will attach a synopsis of my opinions on the issue below so that it is not necessary to read the essay.

How data is manipulated and presented is a prominent concern, especially regarding the current power dynamic between ISPs, the U.S. government and the users of the Internet. As technology advances, regulation and information segregation becomes easier and more commonplace. The router allows operators to prioritize or de-prioritize certain packets of data or even drop or remove them from their network altogether. This technology continues to evolve and allow operators to choose how to handle data packets for commercial or policy reasons as opposed to the network performance reasons. Packets can be favored because they originate from a preferred source or de-prioritized or even blocked simply because they originate from a non-preferred source. This prioritization or de-prioritization of data packets is often dubbed “access tiering” and it is at the core of the Net Neutrality debate.[1] The ability to handle data on different network tiers has ignited a high-profile debate in the United States about whether or not operators should be allowed to discriminate between data packets and, therefore, whether regulatory intervention is needed to constrain how operators run their networks.[2] Without regulation this opens the door for ISPs to differentiate the data pathways, allowing only some information through at their own discretion. That means an ISP could charge more to stream Netflix versus YouTube, or increase or slow a users browser speed based on price or data plan. This could create a complicated network of business alliances, restrictions on information and socioeconomic disparities. After pushback from the American people, the FCC reconstructed the Open Internet rules and adopted new rules on February 26th, 2015. These rules were designed to protect free expression and innovation on the Internet and promote investment in the nation’s broadband networks. The new rules apply to both fixed and mobile broadband services, recognizing advances in technology and the growing significance of mobile broadband Internet access in recent years. These rules restrict blocking so broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications and services. It also restricts throttling; broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, or services. Further, it restricts paid prioritization or “fast lanes”; broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind.[3] Even though actions have been taken, the concept of Net Neutrality and its place in our society is not resolved.

Moving forward with policy, it is important to understand that there must be some regulation of the Internet, and that there is already regulation on the Internet, as it exists today. The question is not whether to regulate cyberspace, but how to do so—within which forum, focusing on which layer, involving which actors, and according to which of many competing values. The regulation of cyberspace tends to take place behind the scenes, based on decisions taken by private actors rather than as a result of public deliberation, without even the knowledge of the public. As the trend toward the securitization and privatization of cyberspace continues, these problems are likely to become more, rather than less, acute.[4] The Net Neutrality rules that are put in place by the FCC are important and must be maintained and improved as the topography of the Internet continues to change. Open access to all content through an open channel is important regardless of medium or type of content. If the engineering behind the physical layer of the Internet changes and tiering must occur, it must be consumer-led, rather than operator-determined, access tiering. It must be matched with meaningful disclosure requirements and contractual protections best balance the reasonable demand that there be an incentive to invest in Internet infrastructure with the public interest in a ‘non-discriminatory’ Internet.”[5] A Net Neutrality policy decision map (See Appendix 2) is important to help understand the steps that must be taken and the process that must follow in order to further address the Net Neutrality debate. The U.S. debate on Net Neutrality has generally been centered on what ISPs could or could not do unless the laws are put into place, which is what they are currently doing at the moment. In this way, it will require a steady raising of awareness, the channeling of ingenuity into productive avenues, and the implementation of liberal-democratic restraints.[6] Even though it is a slow process, actions and legislation must be pushed forward to prevent the upheaval of the Internet instead of waiting for it to be irrevocably changed.

 

References:

[1] Ganley, Paul and Ben Allgrove. “Net Neutrality: A Users Guide.” 454.

[2] Ganley, Paul and Ben Allgrove. “Net Neutrality: A Users Guide.” 455.

[3] Open Internet. Federal Communcations Commission. May 2, 2015. FCC.gov.

[4] Nissenbaum, Helen. Privacy in Context. 56.

[5] Ganley, Paul and Ben Allgrove. “Net Neutrality: A Users Guide.” 463.

[6] Nissenbaum, Helen. Privacy in Context. 56.

 

Project 3: Security + Encryption

Our group decided to make a campaign video that informs the public about issues of encryption and security. The project can be found here. Please see my responses to the questions below.

• Is encryption a fundamental right? Should citizens of the US be allowed to have a technology that completely locks out the government?

I think that that this issue sits at the peak in between two very slippery slopes. On one side there is the fear that if the government has a backdoor to a device, it has a backdoor to everyones device. Then, there’s the idea that once the key exists, that it will get into the wrong hands and security as we know it will be gone. There is the other side too, where if we completely lock the government out, illegal activities could rise in the unsupervised and non-policeable domain. I would not want to have either of these scenarios happen. I think encryption is a right, because people should be able to protect their own data without the government watching; however, I think there has to be more restrictions for the platforms themselves to keep out illegal activity.

• How important of an issue is encryption to you? Does it affect who you support politically? financially? socially? Should it?

The issue of encryption is important to me, but I think it could definitely be a lot more important to me. I am not very literate when it comes to politics, but I think that if I learned more about the stances of different politicians on encryption it would make a difference to me. I also think it is important to consider when I think about what companies and resources I give my money to and who I decide to share my data with. I know that data is already being used as a “currency” but I think supporting companies with a strong encryption system and security is very beneficial. Overall, I can see how these topics are very important and I would like to put more time into understanding how I can better prioritize them.

• In the struggle between national security and personal privacy, who will win? Are you resigned to a particular future or will you fight for it?

I think that this question depends on the location of where it is being asked. In many countries around the world I definitely see that national security would overtake the need for personal privacy. I think it is difficult when it comes to the U.S. because the country clearly values national security a lot (with the whole largest military in the world thing) and also really values personal privacy. I really do think that national security will win, but then technology will continue to advance and we will continue to find ways to keep our information private. I do not think there is an ultimatum since I think the way we do things, technology we use, and the things we do will constantly change and evolve. I think that we should fight for what we want, but that we should know that this will be a constant battle.

Post 11: Reverse Engineering, Piracy

 

The DMCA basically bars reverse engineering and circumvention. The article on the Copyright Act explained that the “anti-circumvention” provisions (sections 1201 et seq. of the Copyright Act) bar circumvention of access controls and technical protection measures. So that these technical protection measures and access controls are lumped together into a sort of “no-zone.”

This is a difficult issue to deal with because there are a lot of different applications of reverse engineering or circumvention that are motivated by many different things and have a wide range of affects. It seems that there is a significant push to change the act as it stands. I read in the article, “Soon It’ll Be OK To Tinker With Your Car’s Software After All” that:

Advocacy group Public Knowledge had requested that the Librarian of Congress allow people to make personal copies of their DVDs, but that petition was rejected. The group says that and other limitations in the ruling show that the DMCA overall needs to be rewritten — something that EFF and other advocacy groups have been pushing for a while.

It was interesting to see that people are now concerned with the preservation of our cultural heritage through digital means and how this act prevents the preservation. It appears that this law also inhibits people who are just trying to preserve the artifact instead of manipulate it, sell it or copy it for their own use. I do not have enough information whether or not this movement is positive or negative because I do not know enough information on whether or not decrypting and allowing information to be used by historians could cause a greater overall breach. Some information and opinions were provided by, “The Copyright Rule We Need to Repeal If We Want to Preserve Our Cultural Heritage” below:

Common wisdom would tell you, “Don’t copy things without permission, and everything will be fine.” But just as DRM-based copy protection prevents unauthorized users from making copies of digital goods, it also prevents cultural institutions from making copies for archival purposes. Every encrypted cultural work is locked, and to get the key, you have to pay the content owner…

The anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA was created primarily to protect DVDs; it did not anticipate our rapid shift to media-independent digital cultural works, so it is absurdly myopic when it comes to digital preservation.

There is also the unrelated issue that John Deere is now trying to tell people they don’t actually “own” their tractor, they are just driving them for the time being. I do not think this is appropriate because it takes away the ability for the owners of these vehicles to be able to fix them. When you originally bought a car, you were able to fix any of the mechanics of it if you had the capability. I do not think that this idea of ownership should change now that there is software involved. I read the article “We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership” and saw that they were using a broad statement to enforce a law against a completely different circumstance:

And that’s how manufacturers turn tinkerers into “pirates”—even if said “pirates” aren’t circulating illegal copies of anything. Makes sense, right? Yeah, not to me either…

The pièce de résistance in John Deere’s argument: permitting owners to root around in a tractor’s programming might lead to pirating music through a vehicle’s entertainment system.

I don’t think that this software policing is really beneficial to a lot of people. If the software is in a device that you own, and that software affects the performance of the physical device that you have, I believe that you should be able to alter and fix it on your own. I can see the implication if you do not own certain rights to software that is separate from something you own. But if your tractor is broken, I think you should be able to fix it by yourself.

Post 10: Patent Trolls, Open Source

From the readings, specifically “WIPO – What is IP?”, I have found some of the basic information about patents. I learned that a patent is an exclusive right that is granted for an invention- a product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem. The idea of the patent is to provide innovators and inventors of these processes protection for their invention. Patents only last for a limited time period. In return for the patent protection, all patent owners are obliged to publicly disclose the information or technical knowledge on this advancement so that it can produce further innovation from others in the future.

I think it is interesting to take Tesla as case study for thinking about the importance of patents. It has now been almost two years since they have released all of their patents. In the article, “All Our Patent Are Belong To You” it explains why they did that:

Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.

The idea behind it is that there should not be restrictions to advancing the field in electric vehicles. This makes a lot of sense to me because the goal of the company is to completely change the way the automotive industry works–to change it to a normative electric vehicle standard. Ideally, not having patents would push innovators and create a greater opportunity for advancements to be made. If electric vehicles become more common, Tesla would benefit because owning a Tesla would become more practical with an increase of electric charging stations nationwide. I do not think enough time has passed to understand if this impact has been positive or negative though. Has Tesla been loosing money because other companies can take their technology? Is Tesla advancing above its competitors because now it does not have to publish its technology (by patent law) since it gave away its patents? I think more time could be used to study this to see if it actually improves advancement or hinders advancement.

With regards to patents being granted on software or just restricted to the physical realm, i found some good information in the article, “The Supreme Court doesn’t understand software, and that’s a problem”, as stated:

The problem, at root, is that the courts are confused about the nature of software. The courts have repeatedly said that mathematical algorithms can’t be patented. But many judges also seem to believe that some software is worthy of patent protection. The problem is that “software” and “mathematical algorithm” are two terms for the same thing. Until the courts understand that, the laws regarding software patents are going to be incoherent.

I think it is currently difficult to pinpoint what can be patented, but as inventions continue to become more virtual with the rise in computing capabilities, it is important to protect those that make these inventions. Whether or not traditional patents are the means, I think something should be enacted to provide these protections for the creators of software.

Post 9: Advertising

As the Internet is increasingly expanding and evolving, the question of what the Web looks like and who has control over it comes into play. For a space originally molded after the horizontal, free-thinking example of California culture, the integrity of the Web exists on the foundation that it is innately a borderless, free network.It is interesting to see that the Internet’s utility has changed over the years. Where it was once exploratory, it now seems to a ground for external companies to capitalize on our data unknowingly. That is why I really liked the idea in the article “The Internet’s Original Sin” especially when it pinpoints where the issues could have arisen from:

I have come to believe that advertising is the original sin of the web. The fallen state of our Internet is a direct, if unintentional, consequence of choosing advertising as the default model to support online content and services.

Even though this was unintentional, the consequences of choosing advertising as the main platform to maintain online content changes the internet from its original fundamental purpose and culture. I think it is important to investigate why our data is the main capital that is extracted on the internet today from many services. In the article “How Companies Learn Your Secrets” I saw that when we think something is ‘free’ on the internet, it is really not true. Nothing is free in life; instead, companies are taking your data instead of your money.

“Free is a good price,” Pew said in its report. People like no-cost services, and are willing to forfeit some privacy in exchange for them. An individual’s data has become its own kind of currency. One survey respondent, referring to his use of Gmail, said: “To be honest, I don’t really care … I use Gmail for free, but I know that Google will capture some information in return. I’m fine with that.”

As it said in a few of the articles, your data is worth a lot of money. It could be worth up to $1,200 dollars. That is something that I find difficult to wrap my mind around, but I do not doubt that it is true. I know that my data is being monitored or shared when I see ads or sponsored posts that seem interrelated to my personal self. These ads are the “creepy” ads that were mentioned in the articles. I liked the analysis of these “creepy” ads and how it relates and takes advantage of our disposition in Western culture in the article “Data ” and the Uncanny Valley of Personalization”:

Personalization appeals to a Western, egocentric belief in individualism. Yet it is based on the generalizing statistical distributions and normalized curves methods used to classify and categorize large populations. Personalization purports to be uniquely meaningful, yet it alienates us in its mass application.

I think the ads are interesting and how they are targeted as stated above, but the bigger picture is an issue of who has our data, what they are doing with it, and how will this affect our privacy. It is said well in “The Convenience-Surveillance Tradeoff”:

“The data is there, and it’s being used, and there isn’t a damn thing most of us can do about it, other than strongly resent it,” one respondent told Pew. “The data isn’t really the problem. It’s who gets to see and use that data that creates problems. It’s too late to put that genie back in the bottle.”

 

The question that remains is to decide how precious our privacy is, and how much we would be willing to fight for it. I believe most of it is already gone so implementing policy is probably an uphill battle, but probably worth implementing the best change we can make. Personally I use Adblock myself, and since I have started using it have blocked 89,160 ads. I am not sure the ethical standpoint on using this tool; however, I believe I should not be forced to look at ads.