A New York bill that would ban new bitcoin mining operations is "swiftly making its way through the state capitol in Albany," reports CNBC. Some industry insiders fear that the bill, which calls for a two-year moratorium on certain cryptocurrency mining operations that use proof-of-work authentication methods to validate blockchain transactions, could have a domino effect across the U.S. From the report: Lawmakers sponsoring the legislation say they are looking to curb the state's carbon footprint by cracking down on mines that use electricity from power plants that burn fossil fuels. For two years, unless a proof-of-work mining company uses 100% renewable energy, it would not be allowed to expand or renew permits, and new entrants would not be allowed to come online. [...] At this point, the State Assembly has passed the bill, and it is now under consideration by the Democratic-controlled State Senate, which will soon vote on the measure. If it passes, it will land on the desk of Governor Kathy Hochul, who could sign it into law or veto it. "If it passes, it would make New York the first state in the country to ban blockchain technology infrastructure," explained Perianne Boring, founder and president of the Digital Chamber of Commerce. "New York will be left behind, losing to other states at best, and at worst, other more progressive nations," says Galaxy Digital's Head of Mining Amanda Fabiano. "New York is setting a bad precedent that other states could follow."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

According to some iPhone users, the Apple Music iOS app is installing itself directly to the iPhone's dock when downloaded, instead of to the phone's home screen. "It's also kicking out other apps users had set up in their dock and taking their spot, which is not something apps would normally do," adds TechCrunch. From the report: Some iPhone owners also found the bug was causing Apple Music to establish itself as the default music service for Siri requests, even if another service had previously been configured for this, like Spotify. It's unclear how widespread the bug is at this time, as we've tested it internally with mixed results. However, we've seen the dock issue taking place across different versions of iOS 15, old and new, so it does not appear to be related to a recent iOS update. It's also been seen impacting different iPhone models. [...] Apple was not able to provide further details about the bug, but said it's looking into it. You can view the "odd behavior" in a video posted on Twitter by iOS developer Kevin Archer.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: YouTube is showing videos that promote skin-bleaching, weight loss, drug culture and firearms to children as young as two, a new investigation of the company's "Kids" app has found. YouTube Kids, an app and website released in 2015, is supposed to be a safer, curated version of the video-sharing website aimed at children under 13. It tailors content to three age groups: "older," "younger" and "preschool," roughly corresponding to those aged nine to 12 years old, four to seven, and under four. The company says it ensures that the videos on the service are family-friendly through "a mix of automated filters built by our engineering teams, human review and feedback from parents to protect our youngest users online." But, it cautions users "no system is perfect and inappropriate videos can slip through." Research from the Tech Transparency Project, a US-based non-profit, shows that the system is indeed far from perfect. Using three different accounts, each set to one of app's age groups, the analysts discovered numerous videos that should not have made it past Google's filters. A Breaking Bad-themed cooking show, for instance, in which the hosts dress up in respirators and make jokes about the risk of inhaling the fumes, might be light-hearted viewing for adults or teens, but has been categorized by YouTube as being appropriate for "younger children" -- as has a Minecraft project to recreate the RV, "where the crystal meth is cooked," from the hit show. Songs sometimes slip mature themes into the children's app, too. Eric Clapton's Cocaine -- sample lyric "When your feeling is gone, and you wanna ride on, cocaine" -- is available to children as young as five as part of a guitar tuition series. Content aimed at gun users slips through the net, leading to younger children being shown a ranking of recoil pads, which protect shooters from the kickback of a firing gun, and older children being offered step-by-step instructions on how to build a shelf with a hidden compartment to conceal a pistol. Most alarming was content for kids that could lead to harmful body image issues. A popular Indian beauty influencer's post on how to apply skin-bleaching products was available for older kids, while even preschool children were shown a cartoon about the importance of burning calories to lose weight, which exhorted them to "wiggle your jiggle". In a statement, a YouTube spokesperson said: "We built YouTube Kids to create a safer environment for kids to explore their interests and curiosity, while giving parents the tools to customize the experience for their kids. We have a higher bar for which videos can be a part of the app and also empower parents to control what content their child can and cannot see. Upon review we have removed or age-gated a number of the flagged videos from the Kids app."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

YouTube Go is shutting down beginning this August, Google has announced this week. From a report: The lightweight Android app first launched in 2016 and features offline viewing and nearby sharing. Like other apps designed for emerging markets, YouTube Go includes a suite of features that take into consideration the high costs of data, poor signal strength and the prevalent use of SD cards on Android devices. YouTube Go first launched in India and later became available in more than 130 countries worldwide. The company notes that since 2016, it has invested in improvements to the main YouTube app that make it perform better in emerging markets, while also delivering a better user experience.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

VPN companies are squaring up for a fight with the Indian government over new rules designed to change how they operate in the country. Wired: On April 28, officials announced that virtual private network companies will be required to collect swathes of customer data -- and maintain it for five years or more -- under a new national directive. VPN providers have two months to accede to the rules and start collecting data. The justification from the country's Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) is that it needs to be able to investigate potential cybercrime. But that doesn't wash with VPN providers, some of whom have said they may ignore the demands. "This latest move by the Indian government to require VPN companies to hand over user personal data represents a worrying attempt to infringe on the digital rights of its citizens," says Harold Li, vice president of ExpressVPN. He adds that the company would never log user information or activity and that it will adjust its "operations and infrastructure to preserve this principle if and when necessary." Other VPN providers are also considering their options. Gytis Malinauskas, head of Surfshark's legal department, says the VPN provider couldn't currently comply with India's logging requirements because it uses RAM-only servers, which automatically overwrite user-related data. [...] ProtonVPN is similarly concerned, calling the move an erosion of civil liberties.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The Registration Operations Workshop (ROW) was conceived as an informal industry conference that would provide a forum for discussion of the technical aspects of registration operations in the domain name system and IP addressing.

The 9th ROW will be held online on Tuesday, June 16th, 2020 at 13h00-16h00 UTC. The agenda is:

• Panel: DNS Privacy and Encryption
• An Architecture overview of APNIC's RDAP deployment to cloud
• Deprecating jCard in RDAP: why and how
• i.whoswho - Whois/RDAP lookup for mere mortals
• EPP Extension: Registry Maintenance
• The Biggest Obstacle for Innovating with New TLDs
• Drone Remote Identification Protocol (DRIP) Use Cases

The attendance is free but registration is required to get the Zoom URL and credentials.

The ROW Series workshops are sponsored by Verisign and ICANN.

Written by Marc Blanchet, Internet Network Engineer and Consultant

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: DNS, Domain Names, Registry Services, Whois

The bottom line is that success is not guaranteed, but neither is failure — there is a non-zero probability of success.

On May 26th, SpaceX applied for permission to launch 30,000 "second-generation" Starlink broadband Internet satellites. (Note that the software on Starlink satellites is updated about once a week). The application narrative states that the second-generation satellites will be configured as follows:

Space Segment from the Application for Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the Spacex Gen2 Ngso Satellite System

(The offsets of the single-satellite planes are set to form a uniform pattern so when a satellite crosses the equator another satellite in the adjacent plane will cross the equator a short, constant time later). The following snapshots from a simulation created by Richard Cole illustrate the coverage.

Animations of the Gen2 Starlink constallation (by Richard Cole / source)

The application narrative describes the ground and space segments and addresses the problems of debris mitigation and interference with astronomical observation. Here are some points that caught my eye:

• The second-generation satellites "will have three times the data capacity of SpaceX's current satellites."
• Polar regions are covered.
• The second-generation satellites will have optical inter-satellite links.
• Low altitudes "will enable smaller spot beams and greater satellite diversity, achieving the intensive frequency reuse needed to heighten capacity available anywhere in the world."
• Low altitudes will allow SpaceX to use high E-band frequencies for communication with ground stations.
• Low altitudes will reduce latency.
• Terminal setup will be plug and play — "point it at the sky and plug it in."
• SpaceX promises to make sure that "Starlink has no material effect on discoveries in astronomy."
• SpaceX will extend its debris data sharing and collision-avoidance activities and "encourages all operators to follow these same practices."

Can they pull it off?

The FCC demands that half of the satellites for an approved constellation be launched within 6 years and all to be launched within 9 years. Can SpaceX manufacture, launch, and fund 30,000 second-generation satellites that quickly while continuing to launch first-generation satellites and replacements for those that are de-orbited after approximately five years of useful life?

When asked about Starlink during an interview at the Satellite 2020 Conference in March, Elon Musk said his goal for Starlink was to remain in the "not bankrupt category." If Elon is not sure, I can't be either, but they have a few positive things going for them.

Today, SpaceX is manufacturing about 120 satellites per month, which is far too few to satisfy the FCC. That being said, it is safe to say that Elon Musk knows more about modern, automated manufacturing than anyone alive today, having learned from his experience making cars, solar tiles, batteries, satellites, and rockets. He has learned the importance of building "the machine that builds the machines," which includes the factory, equipment, staffing, processes, and supply chain. SpaceX may already be able to make satellites faster than 120 per month and they will surely improve the manufacturing "machine" and the design of second-generation satellites for manufacturing ease. If that is not sufficient, they can open another factory — maybe acquire OneWeb's.

How about launching the satellites? SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell said in a recent interview that if their Starship was not ready to take astronauts to the International Space Station within three years, it would be "a major company fail" and in an earlier interview, she said that Starships will be able to carry 400 satellites at a time. In his Satelite 2020 interview, Elon Musk set a goal of three launches per day with Starships landing back at the launch sites within a few days of launch. If they can achieve that cadence, launching will not be a problem.

Can they fund the project? It will take around three years for SpaceX to complete the first phase of the first-generation satellites and Shotwell and Musk have both recently said that low-cost end-user terminals are critical for global success and those are perhaps three years away. During those three years, SpaceX will have income from their launch business, government contracts, and Starlink customers as well as private investment.

They have been collaborating on Starship with NASA for six years and recently flew two astronauts to the International Space Station. Colonel Eric Felt, head of the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, characterized that as the "culmination of perhaps the most successful private-public partnership of all times" so it seems safe to say they will be getting funding from the Defence Department as well as NASA.

How about private investment? SpaceX has succeeded in attracting Starlink investors recently, but Starlink's financial performance during the first three years of operation will impact their ability to continue raising capital. During the next three years, the majority of the satellites they launch will be at latitudes that deliver the most capacity in the relatively affluent regions of North America and Europe, and Internet service in the US and Canada is relatively expensive. Hopefully, they will be able to serve those markets without losing too much on expensive terminals while improving terminal technology. (They may also be interested in acquiring OneWeb antenna technology).

Debris is my biggest worry. The SpaceX application says their propulsion system will allow them to autonomously avoid collisions with tracked objects. Furthermore, over 85% of their satellites will be lower than the International Space Station and will be relatively quick to burn up in the atmosphere. They also promise to share all ephemeris data and encourage others to do the same.

But, what about objects that are too small to track? What if another operator is actively trying to avoid collisions — don't they need to coordinate with SpaceX? What about other companies that are planning to launch low-Earth orbit satellites? With the numbers of satellites being launched, it seems that international regulation and coordination are required and even then a debris solution is not obvious. Orbiting debris is clearly a global (not US) tragedy of the commons.

The bottom line is that success is not guaranteed, but neither is failure — there is a non-zero probability of success.

Written by Larry Press, Professor of Information Systems at California State University

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband, Wireless

On Wednesday, June 3 at 9:25 p.m. EDT, SpaceX launched its eighth Starlink mission. Falcon 9 lifted off from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. (Photo: SapceX)

SpaceX launched its eighth Starlink mission via the Falcon 9 rocket on Wednesday, carrying 60 more satellites for its Internet satellite constellation, bringing the total in operation on orbit to 480.

What's different this time: Wednesday's launch was the first Starlink satellite with a deployable visor to block sunlight from hitting the brightest spots of the spacecraft, according to the company. This measure is in response to the opposition from the astronomical community concerned with the increasing number of satellites (in particular by SpaceX ), with their sun reflections disrupting scientific observations with terrestrial telescopes. In January, SpaceX also launched another experimental satellite with a dark coating to reduce reflectivity.

For a deeper insight, read today's piece by Paul Budde and Fred Kappetijn: Hassle Over LEOs

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband, Wireless

The European Space Agency (ESA) receives hundreds of reports a week of possible dangerous situations that need to be looked at more closely. On average, ESA must make at least one evasive maneuver per satellite a year to avoid collisions.

The following article is based on a blog written by my Dutch colleague Fred Kappetijn. We have worked together to present this to you.

Every second, 4.5 billion people using computers and other electronic devices send 100,000 gigabytes of information to each other. Around 60% of the world's population has an Internet connection. North America and Europe have penetrations of 95% and 87%. But Asia and Africa do not yet get beyond 54% and 40%. On those continents, there are many remote areas where there is no Internet yet. At least no affordable Internet.

Limitations of of Satellite Communication

If there are no (fiber optic) cable or radio connections, there is still the relatively expensive alternative of satellite communication. Usually, these are geostationary (GEO) satellites positioned above the equator at an altitude of 36,000 kilometers. They rotate at the same speed as Earth. The footprint of such a satellite-only covers part of Earth's surface and a computer bit takes a while to go up and down. Although the bit travels through the vacuum of space at the speed of light (300,000 km/sec), it still does half a second over a return trip.

On top of that, there is another half-second for communication between Earth's ground stations via fiber-optic connections. There is also the refraction of the laser light in the fibre as the data speed is two-thirds of that of light. The total delay, the latency, of the telecommunications connection via GEO satellites, is thereby a second.

This is a long time when we realize that a human being is already aware of a delay at more than 0.15 seconds. As a result, synchronous communication such as video conferencing becomes unpleasant due to interruptions of the conversations, especially when more people are talking simultaneously in discussions.

The LEO Alternative

So, what is next? The solution to creating a global network of broadband Internet services without delay is to use telecommunication satellites that orbit closer to Earth, the so-called Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites. They are not 36,000 kilometers above Earth, but orbit at between 200 and 2,000 km. The computer bit goes up and down faster, so there is much less delay. Depending on the altitude of their orbit, these satellites circle every 24 hours, 12 to 16 times around the Earth. Due to their low and fast orbits, LEO satellites have a fast-moving and small footprint. That is why it takes many satellites for a global network.

The idea of developing such a satellite network was born a long time ago. The Iridium consortium made the first attempt. The first telecommunications service was launched in 1998. The aim was to build a network of 77 satellites. But within a month of the festive start, Iridium went bankrupt and U.S.$5 billion (AU$7.3 billion) had been lost.

Iridium collapsed because of problems with the financing of the venture. Other issues included poor quality of the indoor reception, the bulky user devices, and the overall mismanagement of the project. Iridium has restarted, and last year the last of the 66 satellites were launched. This revised satellite network now provides telecommunications services in remote places for the business market, such as the oil industry, aviation, and defense. So real niche markets, not a consumer market.

The second company that attempted to build a global satellite network to offer broadband Internet services was OneWeb. This company went bankrupt in March last year because the Japanese SoftBank, which was one of the main financiers with a billion-dollar investment commitment, pulled the plug. Of the planned 650 LEO satellites that would run their laps at an altitude of 1,200 km, 74 were launched. SoftBank, which suffered a loss of $17 billion in 2019, blamed COVID-19. But there are also rumors that OneWeb could not develop a sound revenue model for its expensive consumer-oriented broadband Internet services based on its "low delay" LEO satellite network.

Starlink Mission – SapceX launching 60 Starlink satellites stacked together deployed on 24 May 2019

There are still many ongoing projects, three of which are the most advanced. Telesat LEO, with 300 satellites, is developed by the Canadian telecommunications company Telesat. The second one is Project Kuiper (named after Dutch astronomer Gerard Kuiper, who died in 1973), the brainchild of Jeff Bezos's largest Internet shopping company, Amazon, with 3,236 satellites. Finally, there is Starlink from Elon Musk's space company SpaceX with 42,000 satellites. There are also plans from Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook; his project is called Athena with a yet unknown number of satellites. Google does not want to be left out and launched plans for Google's Satellite Constellation with "only" a thousand satellites.

Of course, most certainly, China also does not want to be left behind. Some of their projects include Hongyun (rainbow cloud) with 864 satellites and Hongyan (wild goose) with 320 satellites. The Russian state-owned company for space operations, Roscosmos, is also joining the race. Through the company Gonets (messenger), services are offered for commercial and military purposes. The satellite network now has 18 satellites in two orbits; the entire plan is for 36 satellites in six orbits.

Of all these projects, SpaceX's Starlink is undoubtedly the most advanced. At regular intervals, SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets are launched, each with 60 Starlink satellites on board. By May 2020, 422 satellites had been launched into orbit. That should grow to 12,000 in the first phase and another 30,000 at a later stage. This still requires a lot of money, and SpaceX will bring its spin-off Starlink Business to the stock market to raise money. Only last week did they launch the first-ever commercial crewed launch.

The expensive race for the global broadband satellite Internet is especially fierce in the Western world, with a squeeze between macho techno-billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos (the richest man in the world) and Mark Zuckerberg, who is a bit behind but thinks the project is part of Facebook's mission statement 'to bring the world closer together.' The business plans acknowledge a lot of investment needs to be made but predict that the proceeds will be huge.

Bears on the Road

For all these parties, there are at least four "bears on the road."

The first one is the battle for the required frequencies. The frequency spectrum is managed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is affiliated with the United Nations and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the U.S. Government. For example, SpaceX has objected to Amazon's attempt to participate in the first round of spectrum distribution, as the formal enrollment period has expired. If Amazon, with this short cut, would be able to get a piece of the pie, it would come at the expense of SpaceX's lead. In short, we are witnessing a wrestling game between Jeff and Elon.

The second "bear" is the cost of ground reception equipment. Because each satellite can only be seen on a limited surface for a limited time, the antennae in the reception and transmitting equipment should be able to track the satellite overflying at 7-8,000 kilometers per second. That is quite a technical feat but could make the user's equipment very expensive. It is now thought to be $1,000 per device, but engineers hope the price will fall to $200.

The third "bear" is the opposition from the astronomical community against SpaceX in particular. All these satellites, with their sun reflections, disrupt scientific observations with terrestrial telescopes. Lately, SpaceX has been making a strong effort to reduce this problem of their Starlink satellites by, for example, changing the position of the various components of the satellite and providing the satellites with light-absorbing coatings. The latter can only be a limited solution because dark paint absorbs heat that causes the satellite to heat up too much. This means more is needed for cooling, which needs more energy and more solar panels. This then increases the reflecting, and it becomes a vicious circle.

The fourth "bear" is space junk. The number of man-made objects in space will be much more significant because of these LEO satellite network projects. This increases the risk of collisions of satellites and rockets with space debris. The risk of such a collision was revealed in 2009 when a runaway Russian satellite rammed a then-active Iridium satellite, leading to a thousand new pieces of space debris.

Therefore, it is necessary to plan what should be done with the satellites if they are no longer active. One method that is now being applied is that after its active life, the satellite is directed to a lower orbit (de-orbiting). In such a lower orbit, the satellite encounters more resistance, which eventually slows down the satellite to bring it closer to Earth and finally disintegrates into the atmosphere and partially burns. Only last week, there was a spectacular light show above Australia when debris from a Russian rocket re-entered Earth's atmosphere where it burned off. NASA has recommended that 99% of LEO satellites should be taken to a lower orbit after their missions — a kind of palliative orbit for satellites.

The danger of possible collisions between the functioning and non-functioning satellites and space debris was revealed a few months ago. The Dutch-built Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS), which has not been in use since 1983, sailed just meters past another satellite. The American company LeoLabs has built a system for tracking LEO satellite-based radar and advanced algorithms. LeoLabs calculated that the two satellites would pass each other over Pittsburgh, with only 15 to 30 meters between them. That is exactly what happened. In aviation, they call that a near miss.

Since the launch in 1957 of the first satellite, the Russian Sputnik 1, a lot of stuff has been shot into space. After some 5,500 launches, this has created a huge pile of junk in space around the Earth — about 34,000 objects larger than ten centimeters, one million of magnitude between one and ten centimeters and some 130 million smaller than one centimeter.

The European Space Agency (ESA) receives hundreds of reports a week of possible dangerous situations that need to be looked at more closely. On average, ESA must make at least one evasive maneuver per satellite a year to avoid collisions. Most of the time, it concerns impending collisions with space debris. This requires a manual process which is expensive and very time consuming and unsustainable in the long term.

No wonder ESA is advocating that machine learning techniques are developed for satellites that will be required to continually transmit their position so that an automated traffic regulation system can be developed in space.

What Can Be Done?

There is still a lot of work to be done when looking at all the developments around delay-free global satellite-based broadband networks that provide affordable Internet access. But if the big innovative entrepreneurs with deep pockets like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have set their sights on this, it could eventually work. But before that happens, there will still have to be a few technical, financial, regulatory hurdles to be braced. No doubt that in this hurdling, every now and then, someone will make a fatal stumbling.

Written by Paul Budde, Managing Director of Paul Budde Communication

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband, Wireless

The Washington Post reports that a recent poll conducted shows that 3 out of 5 Americans are unable or unwilling to use an infection-alerting app developed by Google and Apple. About 1 in 6 adults can't use the app because they don't own a smartphone — with the lowest ownership levels for those 65 and older. People with smartphones evenly split between those willing versus unwilling to use such an app.

The primary concern among those not willing to use such an app comes from the distrust people have about the ability or willingness of those two tech companies to protect the privacy of their health data. This unwillingness to use such an app, particularly after seeing the impact that the virus is having on the economy, is disturbing to scientists who have said that 60% or more of the public would need to use such an app to be effective.

This distrust of tech companies is nothing new. In November, the Pew Research Center published the results of the survey that showed how Americans feel about online privacy. That study's preliminary finding was that more than 60% of Americans think it's impossible to go through daily life without being tracked by tech companies or the government.

To make that finding worse, almost 70% of adults think that tech companies will use their data in ways they are uncomfortable with. Nearly 80% believe that tech companies won't publicly admit guilt if they are caught misusing people's data. People don't feel that data collected about them is secure, and 70% believe data is less secure now than it was five years ago.

Almost 80% of people are concerned about what social media sites and advertisers know about them. Probably the most damning result of the survey is that 80% of Americans feel that they have no control over how data is collected about them.

Almost 97% of respondents to the poll said they have been asked to agree to a company's privacy policy. But only 9% say they always read the privacy policies, and 36% have never read them. This is not surprising since the legalese included in most privacy policies requires reading comprehension at a college level.

There is no mystery about why people are worried about the collection of personal data. There have been headlines for several years talking about how personal data has been misused. The Facebook/Cambridge Analytica data scandal showed a giant tech company selling personal data that was used to sway voters. The big cellular companies were caught selling customer location data several times, which lets whoever buys it understand where people travel throughout each day. Phone apps of all sorts report back location data, web browsing data, and shopping habits, and nobody seems to be able to tell us where that data is sold. Even the supposed privacy advocate Apple lets contractors listen to Siri recordings.

It's not a surprise that with the distrust of tech companies, it's becoming common for politicians to react to privacy breaches. For example, a bill was introduced into the House last year that would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to fine tech companies to as much as 4% of their gross revenues for privacy violations.

California recently enacted a new privacy law with strict requirements on web companies that mimic the regulations used in Europe. Web companies must provide California consumers the ability to opt-out from having their personal information sold to others. Consumers must be given the option to have their data deleted from the site. Consumes must be provided the opportunity to view the data collected about them. Consumers also must be shown the identity of third parties that have purchased their data.

The unwillingness to use the COVID-tracking app is probably the societal signal that the hands-off approach we've had for regulating the Internet needs to come to an end. Most hands-off policies were developed twenty years ago when AOL was conquering the business world, and legislators didn't want to tamp down on a nascent industry. The tech companies are among the biggest and richest companies in the world, and there is no reason not to regulate some of their worst practices. This won't be an easy genie to put back in the bottle, but we have to try.

Written by Doug Dawson, President at CCG Consulting

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Coronavirus, Internet Governance, Mobile Internet, Policy & Regulation, Privacy

Huawei is the strong favorite of Canadian network builders, for good products and extraordinary support. It displaced the incumbents at Bell Canada years ago and has a joint "Living Lab" in Vancouver with Telus1. Huawei had already won the 5G contracts. It has a thousand researchers and spends a quarter billion dollars on Canadian R&D.

It was a government decision. Bell Canada told the Canadian Press, "Huawei has been a reliable and innovative partner in the past, and we would consider working with them in 5G if the federal government allows their participation."

I infer that the Telus2 and Bell3 decisions to block Huawei from 5G is a political decision made under pressure from the U.S.. Canadians are insulted by the many Americans who think Canada is effectively ruled by the U.S., but Canada is deeply dependent.

Contrary to popular belief, Huawei no longer makes a habit of undercutting prices. Nokia underbid Huawei on recent Chinese contracts. Switching between vendors is a problem, however. The 5G gear of Ericsson, Nokia, and Huawei do not work well together — a serious failure of 3GPP standard making.

Ironing out the compatibility problems could require replacing existing equipment; UK telcos see a possible cost in the billions. But switching vendors should not make a major difference to users. Ericsson's 5G technology is comparable to Huawei's. Korea has 115,000 5G cells, some from Huawei and others from Ericsson and Samsung. There is no evident difference in performance.

The U.S. government has totally cracked the Nokia and Ericsson gear, possibly with direct cooperation. The same is probably true of the Chinese government, so the switch will not improve Canadian security.

1. Huawei and TELUS to create 5G "Living Lab" in Downtown Vancouver (Nov 6, 2015) 
2. TELUS announces 5G network equipment partners (Jun 2, 2020) 
3. Bell Canada selects Ericsson as 5G network equipment supplier (Jun 2, 2020) 

Written by Dave Burstein, Editor, DSL Prime

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband, Mobile Internet, Policy & Regulation, Wireless

A new survey of security and IT leaders by csoonline.com sheds light on how organizations across industries are dealing with the COVID-19 crisis, how prepared they were when the pandemic first hit, how vulnerable they are, and what the long-term impact on companies may be.

Unsurprisingly, the survey found there has been an increased number of employees working from home. It also found that more than 26% of survey respondents said their organizations have seen an increase in the volume, severity, and scope of cyberattacks since March 12, 2020. Only 54% of survey respondents indicated their pandemic (business continuity) plans prepared them for the current situation.

As our reliance on the internet and its underlying infrastructure of domain names, domain name system (DNS), and digital certificates has increased dramatically during this pandemic, so has the threat of these digital assets being attacked.

In our recent white paper, "Beyond the Firewall: Implementing DNS Defenses to Mitigate Online Vulnerabilities and Threats”, we explained that DNS forms the underlying infrastructure for how the internet works, serving as a directory to point users to the right web content. But when DNS goes down, websites go down. When that happens, the logical thing is to use phones and email to keep business running. However, that's not possible, because downed DNS means no email, no phones (VoIP), and no remote employee login through virtual private network (VPN). It also disallows file transfer protocol for moving large datasets and various multi-factor authentication services (for example, email, Google®, and Microsoft®).

We explain further that the simple-looking acronym, DNS, belies the complexity of the system that is made up of a worldwide web of separate entities working in a relay of information exchanges. This complex nature exposes the DNS to multiple potential points of failure, as each point in the system could be vulnerable to attacks, such as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, DNS hijacking, DNS cache poisoning, and domain shadowing, to name a few.

Since the failure of these digital assets can clearly lead to a significant impact in terms of lost revenue, data, and brand reputation, secure digital asset management is a boardroom discussion and should be included in your business continuity plan (BCP).

The Business Continuity Institute's annual BCI Horizon Scan Report identifies the top 10 business continuity threats for the next 12 months, as reported by 569 global respondents. And perhaps surprisingly to some, digital assets play a contributing factor in five of these risks:

1. Cyber attacks. DNS is vulnerable to a whole host of cyber attacks ranging from DNS cache poisoning, DNS hijacking, domain shadowing, malware, DNS tunneling, DDoS and phishing attacks, as well as the exploitation of expired digital certificates.
2. Data breaches. Cyber attacks against digital assets are increasingly used to steal data, either by masking another attack vector or by directly taking advantage of poor security and management of assets.
3. Unplanned IT and telecom outages. If a company's domains or DNS fail, then every way it communicates using the internet can fail. If that happens, how would an organization communicate with clients and employees?
4. Critical infrastructure failure. If you are relying on staff being able to work from home during a pandemic or while you're implementing your business continuity plan, you must secure VPN as a critical piece of infrastructure, and that includes securing your digital assets.
5. Supply chain disruption. Since a failure of company domains and DNS will grind to a halt the ability to communicate, how would a business maintain operations and supply chain?

Boards are responsible for understanding risk. It's clear from what I've outlined above that digital assets are at risk of poor management and the threat of third-party attacks.

If you're unsure how robust your approach is to managing corporate digital assets, use the CSC Domain Security Checklist. It's a free resource based on our defense in depth security approach that walks you through pertinent questions and identifies risks that may not have been considered.

For a more in-depth consultation, CSC Security CenterSM will analyze your portfolio and identify security blind spots to help you mitigate cyber threats.

If an incident occurs as it has done recently in the shape of COVID-19, the actions of the board and the organization's BCP will be closely watched in the court of public opinion, the legal courts, and by lawmakers.

1. This article originally published on Digital Brand Insider.

Written by Ken Linscott, Product Director, Domains and Security at CSC

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cyberattack, Coronavirus, Cybersecurity, Domain Management, DNS, Domain Names, Brand Protection

Co-authored by Klaus Stoll and Professor Sam Lanfranco.

Surveillance capitalism monetizes private data that it collects without consent of the individuals concerned, data to analyze and sell to advertisers and opinion-makers. There was always an intricate relationship between governments and surveillance capitalists. Governments have the duty to protect their citizens from the excesses of surveillance capitalism. On the other hand, governments use that data, and surveillance capitalism's services and techniques.

Donald Trump just outed himself as Surveillance Capitalist in Chief. Social media, as we know it only exists because it is one of the main sources of data, revenue, and profits for surveillance capitalism. It is also Donald Trump's much beloved and used bully pulpit that allows him to reach 80.5 million people in an instant.

Why is Trump attacking it by alleging that Twitter was stifling his freedom of speech? Why has he followed that by signing a likely legally unenforceable executive order that empowers federal regulators to crack down on social media companies that allegedly censor political speech or exhibit political bias?

The inconvenient truth is that surveillance capitalism is incompatible with the truth. Whilst pretending to serve millions, social platform business practices have been created not with the interest of users, but as ever more effective private data harvesters in the service of a commercial and political elite. In truth, they care little about the truth of what users say or receive. They care about their return on investment.

Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act protects social media companies from liability for the content that users post on their platforms, unlike other media who are held accountable for their content. This does not exempt social media companies from all responsibility for the veracity of content. Everybody on the Internet, be they private individuals, corporate companies, or President of the United States, have rights and responsibilities.

Trump has the right to free speech, and he is also responsible for what he says, its veracity and that it does not harm others. If he is unable to express his opinions responsibly, it falls to those whose platforms he uses to act responsible and flag his content with the intent to prevent harm from falsehoods. This is part of the give and take within the freedom of speech.

Such an intervention does not limit Trump's free speech. His opinion is still fully visible and unredacted. When its veracity is questionable or false, the platform to flag that promotes user due diligence, a wider exercise of responsible free speech, and a generally more knowledgeable public dialogue.

Trump's response to Twitter's actions is to clothe his unfettered lack of veracity in the wrappings of free speech. The irony of Trump's Executive Order is that Twitter could become required to remove such postings of questionable veracity, rather than just flag them for due diligence.

Twitter's response is a "violation" of the first principle of surveillance capitalism: Separate what is morally and ethically inseparable. Separate rights from responsibilities. Separate data ownership from privacy. Separate falsehood from consequences, all in the name of surveillance capitalism's profits.

Trump needs a social media bully pulpit that frees him from any concerns about anybody or anything except himself and his interests, to win the next election.

While Twitter pursues baby steps by flagging Trump's postings, social media must choose which path to follow. The whole Internet ecosystem must choose which path to follow. How do we protect the rights and responsibilities of free speech, promote the veracity of content, and protect user privacy?

Social media have become dominant players in this area of the Internet and have a major role to play. How does society balance the private interests of surveillance capitalism and a public good that includes free and responsible speech, veracity of content and user privacy? Surveillance capitalism, with its exploitive business model and associated use by allied political actors, will opt for their responsibility-free privileges and unbridled profits. Others, in defense of the public interest and the integrity of the individual, will fight for the Internet as free and unbiased Network of Networks dedicated to serving the common good.

The fight over the path forward will be long, costly, and turbulent. Those who demand truth and integrity in social media, endanger surveillance capitalism's business model with its storehouses of data, money, and power. Drawing on Trump's unfortunate Tweet, "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," on the Internet, that looting started two decades ago with social media warehousing and exploiting private date. Hopefully, with rightful and responsible free speech, veracity and engaged citizenship, we can get beyond the data looting and restore dignity to the role of the Internet as a Network of Networks operating in the public good, without having ended up where "the shooting starts."

Written by Klaus Stoll, Digital Citizen

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Censorship, Cybercrime, Cybersecurity, Internet Governance, Law, Policy & Regulation, Privacy

Four years ago, progressive intergovernmental organizations like the European Union became increasingly concerned about the proliferation of hate speech on social media. They adopted legal mechanisms for removing Twitter accounts like Donald Trump's. The provisions were directed at Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. In June of 2016, a "deconstruction" of these mechanisms was presented to one of the principal global industry standards bodies with a proposal to develop new protocols to rapidly remove such accounts. The proposal recognized that tweet messages such as Trump's were essentially global malware, and used cybersecurity threat models to identify and remove the source account.

The proposal for the new takedown protocol standards was not adopted. However, the EU did proceed to advance the legal mechanism implementations to additional social media platforms and in 2019 claimed a degree of success in removing the worst hate speech identified to European authorities. Unfortunately, Trump's Twitter account was not removed despite numerous parties identifying his messages as blatantly racist and xenophobic. The messages became so egregious that they led to a U.S. House of Representatives resolution condemning them. Twitter refused, however, to abide by the EU provisions.

The European Commission implements comprehensive and broad set of actions to tackle the spread and impact of online disinformation in Europe. (Image: European Commission)

During the past four years, the phenomenon of speech malware expanded into "fake speech." The EU progressively began to tackle these societal disinformation threats as well. The threats were especially relevant to elections. Legal mechanisms similar to those dealing with hate speech were put into effect.

Over time, Trump's hate speech evolved into fake speech — principally via Twitter messages. The messages became increasingly so "disinformative" that Twitter recently attempted to comply with its EU legal obligations through the labeling option. Trump on Thursday manifested a Tantrum by Executive Order against Twitter — purveying still further disinformation and asserting legal authority he does not have.

The Trump Tantrum against Twitter may have some unintended benefits to the larger world outside Trump's office. Among other things, it allows the EU to make clear that Twitter was, in fact, complying with its legal obligations. Furthermore, removing liability protection for social media companies would make the laws throughout the world deal with hate and fake speech more compelling. It also renews the possibility of developing a new cybersecurity protocol for identifying and tagging tweet disinformation. Indeed, it opens up the possibility of going beyond just tagging Trump's messages, but also terminating his account. Trump could even be memorialized in a sense by assigning his fake tweets with a unique cyber threat identifier and reported worldwide for implementing takedown remediation.

Note: The author was an invited expert to the November 1997 UNHCR conference on internet hate speech.

Written by Anthony Rutkowski, Principal, Netmagic Associates LLC

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cybersecurity, Internet Governance

United States Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass) introduced a bill that would require that the FCC create a new National Broadband Plan by July 2021. This plan would lay out the national goals needed for broadband going forward and also provide an update on how the COVID-19 crisis has impacted Internet access. I am not a big fan of the concept of a national plan for many reasons.

Can't Trust FCC Data. The FCC would base any analysis in a new plan on the same flawed data they are using for everything else related to broadband. At this point, the best description of the FCC's broadband data is that it is a fairy tale — and not one with a happy ending.

Gives Politicians Talking Points rather than Action Plans. A national broadband plan gives every politician talking points to sound like they care about broadband — which is a far cry from an action plan to do something about broadband. When politicians don't want to fix a problem, they study it.

Makes No Sense if Broadband is Unregulated. Why would the government create a plan for an industry over which the government has zero influence? The FCC has gifted the broadband industry with 'light-touch regulation' which is a code word for no regulation at all. The FCC canned Title II regulatory authority and handed the tiny remaining remnant of broadband regulation to the Federal Trade Commission — which is not a regulatory agency.

The Last National Broadband Plan was a Total Bust. There is no need for a National Broadband Plan if it doesn't include a requirement that the FCC should try hard to tackle any recommendations made. Almost nothing from the last broadband plan came to pass — the FCC and the rest of the federal government stopped even paying lip service to the last plan within a year after it was published. Consider the primary goals of the last National Broadband Plan that were to have been implemented by 2019:

• At least 100 million homes should have affordable access to 100/50 Mbps broadband. Because the cable companies implemented DOCSIS standards in urban areas, more than 100 million people now have access to 100 Mbps download speeds. But only a tiny fraction of that number — homes with fiber, have access to the 50 Mbps upload speed goal. It's also impossible to make a case that U.S. broadband is affordable — U.S. broadband prices are almost double the rates in Europe and the far East.
• The U.S. should lead the world in mobile innovation and have the fastest and most extensive wireless network of any nation. U.S. wireless broadband is far from the fastest in the world — our neighbor Canada is much closer to that goal than is the U.S. Everybody acknowledges that there are giant areas of rural America without good wireline broadband, but most people have no idea that cellular coverage is also miserable in a lot of rural America.
• Every American Community should have gigabit access to anchor institutions such as schools, libraries, and government buildings. We probably came the closest to meeting this goal, at least for schools, and over 90% of schools now have gigabit access. However, much of that gain came through poorly-aimed federal grants that paid a huge amount of money to bring fiber to anchor institutions while ignoring the neighborhoods around them — and in many cases, the fiber serving government buildings is legally blocked from being used to help anybody else.
• Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband and the means and the skills to subscribe. A decade after the last National Broadband Plan, there are still huge numbers of rural homes with no broadband, or with broadband that barely functions. Instead of finding broadband solutions for rural America, we have an FCC that congratulates itself each year for being on the right trajectory for solving the broadband gap.
• To ensure that America leads in the clean energy economy, every America should be able to use broadband to track and manage their real-time energy consumption. I can't come up with anything other than a facepalm for this goal.

As hard as I try, I can't think of even one reason why we should waste federal dollars to develop a new national broadband plan. Such a plan will have no teeth and will pass out of memory soon after it's completed.

Written by Doug Dawson, President at CCG Consulting

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband, Coronavirus, Policy & Regulation

Over the past three years, Trump and his followers around Washington have begun to erect the equivalent of his Southern Border Wall around the nation's information network infrastructure — especially for 5G. The tactics are similar — keep out foreign invaders who are virtually sneaking across the borders to steal the nation's information resources and controlling our internet things. The tactics and mantras are almost identical. "Build The Wall" that keeps the foreigners' equipment and communications out of our networks. Stop our cooperation in the international activities that foster global communication and trade because we are being treated unfairly.

Piece by piece, Trump has moved forward with his plans since assuming power — masked by incremental steps in diverse Washington agency venues and the esoteric fog that envelops how 5G networks and cooperation work and supports those who support it would make quick money from 5G network wall snake oil. Like all of the Trump communication, he creates an alternative reality, projecting the illusion of leadership and action while harming American telecommunication's national security and economic interests. Week after week, the bricks of Trump's 5G wall have emerged from Administration portals in the form of Executive Orders and instant emergency regulations dictated by tweets. Trump's 5G security disinformation campaign is the equivalent of his "taking bleach" to cure COVID-19 infections.

Specific examples of Trump's ignorant, xenophobic wall follies include bans on foreign network products, prohibiting international network interoperation, withdrawal of engagement in international 5G activities by government agencies, demanding lockstep compliance by allies, and impeding private sector collaboration in industry and academic activities. U.S. existence in most global activities has largely ceased — replaced by faux domestic initiatives that create the illusion of replacing ongoing global activities. You can see the adverse effects rather vividly in the participation and leadership at trusted, authoritative international venues dealing with 5G cybersecurity such as ETSI's annual Security Week. This is a real 5G security venue with the actual global participants in 5G developments, not Trump's fake ones.

Trump's playbook here dates back to almost identical tactics by the Harding Administration a century ago. Then, xenophobia and anti-globalism were peaking and abetted by a rampant fear of new foreign radio equipment going into rapidly emerging American wireless Internet infrastructure. Harding's tactics did not work out well, and ultimately the policies and global engagement changed significantly.

The costs of Trump's 5G wall fall upon American information industry providers who are being shut out of extraterritorial markets and losing their effective engagement in global collaborative activities. Trump's actions have been a gift for offshore providers. The costs also fall upon American consumers who will be served up more expensive products with inferior capabilities and fail to interoperate with the rest of the world. And lastly, Trump has made the nation itself an untrusted pariah worldwide that is focused entirely on serving his boundless narcissism and unfettered tweeting of fake information.

The remaining relevant dialogue in international bodies these days is how long it will take the U.S. to recover in a post-Trump world. That will be the great challenge of 2021 and beyond. That is the blueprint for the future that deserves attention over the coming months.

Written by Anthony Rutkowski, Principal, Netmagic Associates LLC

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband, Mobile Internet, Policy & Regulation, Telecom, Wireless

Language English Date: Thu, 09/07/2017

Twenty-five young people honored for using the Internet to make a difference  

Geneva, Switzerland—7 September 2017—The Internet Society today announced the awardees of its 25 under 25 program. One of the many initiatives supporting the Internet Society’s 25th Anniversary, the program recognizes 25 young people from around the globe who are passionate about using the Internet to make a positive impact in their communities and the world. 

Der BND will sich jetzt auch offiziell in die Lage versetzen, in beliebige Mobiltelefone und Computer einzubrechen. Angesichts der momentan im NSA-BND-Untersuchungsausschuß erst stattfindenden Versuche, die gegenwärtigen technischen Praktiken des Geheimdienstes in Kollaboration mit ausländischen Partnern zu verstehen und aufzuklären, ist diese Forderung an Dreistigkeit kaum zu überbieten. Die Enthüllungen der letzten anderthalb Jahre haben gezeigt, daß die unkontrollierten Geheimdienste weltweit alle ihnen zur Verfügung stehenden technischen Mittel nutzen, um sich weitgehend ohne effektive parlamentarische Kontrolle nicht nur Informationen über Opposition, kritische Presse und unbescholtene Bürger zu verschaffen, sondern schlichtweg sämtliche Daten abzugreifen, derer sie technisch habhaft werden können. Mit der unverhohlenen geheimdienstlichen Forderung, hinterrücks in Computer eindringen zu wollen, sollen praktisch kritische Sicherheitslücken mißbraucht werden, die auch anderen Kriminellen einen Angriffspunkt bieten. Gleichzeitig wird es Bürgern und Unternehmen erschwert, sich vor technischen Angriffen auf persönliche Daten oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse zu schützen und erleichtert zudem dritten Geheimdiensten das Ausspähen von Staats- und Betriebsgeheimnissen. 0day-Exploits werden auf dem ohnehin bereits von konkurrierenden Geheimdiensten finanzierten kriminellen Schwarzmarkt für sechs- bis achtstellige Euro-Beträge gehandelt. Um auf diesem Markt mitspielen zu können, müßte sich der BND mit Steuergeldern in gleicher Höhe am Bieterwettstreit beteiligen. Denn wie beim Handel mit Drogen oder Waffen regelt auch bei 0day-Exploits die Nachfrage das Angebot. Dirk Engling, Sprecher des CCC, warnte: "Wenn auch deutsche Geheimdienste diesen Schwarzmarkt mit unseren Steuergeldern noch anheizten, würde das erhebliche Folgekosten für die Wirtschaft haben, die schon heute kaum hinterherkommt, ihre technische Infrastruktur gegen Angriffe zu verteidigen." Der Anreiz würde weiter steigen, aufgespürte Sicherheitslücken im Geheimen zu handeln bzw. gezielt vermeintlich harmlose Fehler in kritische Softwarekomponenten einzubauen und diese dann nach einiger Zeit den Diensten und ihren Partnerfirmen zu verkaufen. Die Logik des Mitmischen im Schwachstellen-Schwarzmarkt führt dazu, daß Geheimdienste ein Interesse daran haben müssen, wenn eklatante Sicherheitslücken möglichst lange unentdeckt bleiben, während sie gleichzeitig nicht sicherstellen können, daß die gleiche Sicherheitslücke nicht auch von Kriminellen entdeckt oder parallel an diese verkauft wird. So können dann entsprechende Lücken für lange Zeit unbemerkt ausgenutzt werden. Dirk Engling findet zu den Plänen des BND klare Worte: "Der geplante Erwerb und Handel mit Sicherheitslücken durch den BND wäre nicht nur in mehrfacher Hinsicht rechtlich fragwürdig, sondern ist auch eine direkte und vorsätzliche Schädigung der deutschen Wirtschaft." Sicherheitslücken gehören nach der Entdeckung geschlossen und nicht verkauft und geheimgehalten solange es irgendwie geht. Der CCC fordert ein Verbot des Aufkaufs und der Verwendung von 0days durch Geheimdienste und auch sonstige deutsche Behörden. Stattdessen sollten die eingesparten Gelder in die Förderung von Software-Audits investiert werden. Die für den Ankauf vorgesehenen Mittel sollten in eine gute personelle und materielle Ausstattung für Auditierungen von auf Open Source basierender Software fließen, statt in einen mindestens anrüchigen Schwarzmarkt Gelder zu stecken und erheblichen Schaden im IT-Sektor in Kauf zu nehmen. Deutsche Behörden und Unternehmen sollten zudem verpflichtet werden, im Rahmen einer "responsible disclosure" alle ihr bekanntgewordenen kritischen Sicherheitslücken zu veröffentlichen. Links und weiterführende Informationen [1] http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bnd-will-informationen-ueber-software-sicherheitsluecken-einkaufen-a-1001844.html [2] http://buggedplanet.info/

Die Mitgliederversammlung des CCC hat sich dazu entschlossen, Edward Snowden mit Geldspenden beizustehen. Sein sechsköpfiges europäisches Anwaltsteam wird durch den CCC mit 36.000 Euro unterstützt, um bei den Kosten der Anwälte zu helfen. In der ersten Jahreshälfte beschloß die Mitgliederversammlung außerdem, Edward Snowden die Ehrenmitgliedschaft anzubieten. Diese Ehrenmitgliedschaft im CCC, die wir ihm über seinen deutschen Anwalt Wolfgang Kaleck angetragen haben, wurde von ihm herzlich und gern angenommen."Der jahrelange Einsatz des CCC und anderer für die Bürgerrechte und gegen Überwachung ebnete in Deutschland den Weg für eine breite Debatte nach den Enthüllungen durch Edward Snowden. Sowohl der Einsatz für die Sache als auch die Unterstützung für Snowden machen einen langen Atem notwendig. Die nunmehr erfolgte materielle Unterstützung durch den CCC leistet dazu einen wichtigen Beitrag", sagte Rechtsanwalt Wolfgang Kaleck.Edward Snowden ist die Quelle vieler Leaks über die Überwachungs- und Hacking-Aktivitäten der Geheimdienste, welche bereits mehr als ein Jahr lang international für viele Schlagzeilen sorgen. Durch die Bereitstellung von Informationen an Journalisten darüber, wie und in welchem Umfang wir alle von der NSA und ihren Partnern sowie mit Hilfe von Telekommunikations- und Internetprovidern überwacht werden, war er Auslöser einer globalen Diskussion. Eine zentrale Aussage unserer Hackerethik lautet: "Öffentliche Daten nützen, private Daten schützen." Snowden hatte den Anstand, nach diesen Prinzipien zu handeln.Zweifelsohne haben auch Chelsea Mannings mutige Aktionen denselben Kern. Auch ihr wurde von der Mitgliederversammlung des CCC – einstimmig – die Ehrenmitgliedschaft angeboten, um unserer Unterstützung Ausdruck zu verleihen. Sie nahm unser Angebot an, und es ist uns eine große Ehre, sie zu unseren Mitgliedern zählen zu können!Die ehemalige US-Soldatin Chelsea Manning, von 2009 bis 2010 im Irak stationiert, wurde im August 2013 aufgrund des Verstoßes gegen den US-amerikanischen Espionage Act sowie anderer Vergehen in Zusammenhang mit der Übermittlung hunderttausender Militär- und US-State-Department-Dokumente sowie Videos an Wikileaks verurteilt. Nachdem sie im Jahr 2010 als politische Gefangene unter unmenschlich harten Bedingungen und ohne Minimalstandards im Umgang mit Häftlingen sowie mit täglichem Zwang zur Entfernung ihrer Bekleidung untergebracht war, verbüßt sie nun eine 35-jährige Haftstrafe. [1]   Links:[1] Alexa O'Brien at the 30th Chaos Communication Congress (30c3) reporting on the secret trial of Chelsea Manning [2] Edward Snowden Interview Transcript

Es geht nicht nur um die NSA und Konsorten. Der sogenannte “Verfassungsschutz” hat nach den Feststellungen des Untersuchungsausschusses in Thüringen Nazi-Morde gedeckt und polizeiliche Ermittlungen sabotiert. [0] Der Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) wurde auch gerade wieder beim Griff in den Honigtopf erwischt. [1] In Wirklichkeit überwacht nicht nur die NSA uns alle, inklusive der Bundeskanzlerin, sondern auch der BND überwacht US-Außenminister Kerry und die Türkei – mindestens. Denn zugegeben wird ja immer nur das, was längst nachgewiesen ist.Edward Snowden arbeitete zuletzt nicht für die NSA. Er war bei Booz Allen Hamilton beschäftigt, einem Privatunternehmen. [2] Denn auch erschreckend an den Snowden-Enthüllungen ist: In einem Ausmaß, das wohl die meisten für unmöglich gehalten haben, überwachen nicht die Geheimdienste selbst, sondern Privatfirmen im Auftrag von NSA, GCHQ und anderen. Wer letztlich davon profitiert, zu wissen, welcher Politiker wo ein Verhältnis hat, wer sich wann mit wem getroffen hat und wer mit wem über was diskutiert, das wissen nicht einmal die Regierungen selbst. Sie haben längst die Kontrolle verloren. Die Informationen jedoch bekommen immer zuerst die Überwacher-Firmen, dann erst die Geheimdienste, und an letzter Stelle kommen vielleicht die Regierungen.Das Schweigen der deutschen Regierung und die Ablehnung, eine Vernehmung Edward Snowdens als Zeugen im Bundestags-Untersuchungsausschuß auch nur in Betracht zu ziehen, spricht Bände. [3] So kann es auf keinen Fall weitergehen. Der Überwachungswahn muß jetzt beendet werden! Das sollten wir mal laut ansagen, und zwar: Bei der Demo des Bündnisses “Freiheit statt Angst” am 30. August um 14 Uhr am Brandenburger Tor in Berlin! Laßt uns der Politik zeigen, daß wir es nicht länger hinnehmen, wie die Postdemokratie in den Überwachungsstaat führt. Wir fordern:Freiheit statt Angst! Stoppt den Überwachungswahn!   Links: [0] Abschlußbericht zum NSU [1] BND überwacht seit Jahren den NATO-Partner Türkei [2] Die umstrittenen Partner [3] Regierung lehnt Snowden-Vernehmung in Deutschland ab