Tag: internet

New York’s “SAFE” Digital ID Act For Kids Threatens Online Free Speech and Privacy

Legislators in the state of New York are pushing two new bills to regulate the internet, specifically as it pertains to the way minors use social media – Assembly Bill A8148A and Senate Bill S7694A.

If it succeeds, the law would be the first of its kind in the US, and likely represent a blueprint for other states.

But both acts, dubbed Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids, have drawn criticism for bringing up constitutional issues tied to First Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, Governor Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers are said to be close on agreeing on the text of the bills, which are presented as designed to prohibit tech platforms from providing addictive feeds to minors (replacing them with content shown in chronological order), and monetizing their data, among other things.

But how would these platforms ascertain if somebody’s a minor? By requiring that their parents go through the digital ID age verification before they can provide consent on behalf of their children to use a particular social network in a particular way.

And this is where the legislative intent goes against the First Amendment, critics say, as having all online activity tied to a government-issued ID chills free speech and opens data privacy issues.

Somewhat ironically, given their open disregard of the First Amendment in other scenarios, those critics include some of the biggest tech companies.

Constitution and freedom of expression aside – their bottom lines would suffer if the bills pass, and so they find themselves as (no doubt, for both parties) uneasy bedfellows with those who consistently campaign against age verification, manipulated feeds, and data harvesting.

Keep reading

Google accidentally published internal Search documentation to GitHub

Google apparently accidentally posted a big stash of internal technical documents to GitHub, partially detailing how the search engine ranks webpages. For most of us, the question of search rankings is just “are my web results good or bad,” but the SEO community is both thrilled to get a peek behind the curtain and up in arms since the docs apparently contradict some of what Google has told them in the past. Most of the commentary on the leak is from SEO experts Rand Fishkin and Mike King.

Google confirmed the authenticity of the documents to The Verge, saying, “We would caution against making inaccurate assumptions about Search based on out-of-context, outdated, or incomplete information. We’ve shared extensive information about how Search works and the types of factors that our systems weigh, while also working to protect the integrity of our results from manipulation.”

The fun thing about accidentally publishing to the GoogleAPI GitHub is that, while these are sensitive internal documents, Google technically released them under an Apache 2.0 license. That means anyone who stumbled across the documents was granted a “perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license” to them, so these are freely available online now, like here.

Keep reading

The internet is disappearing, with a quarter of all webpages from 2013 to 2023 going the way of the dodo

Well, so long and thanks for all the fish. A study from the Pew Research Center entitled “When Online Content Disappears” indicates that our beloved internet may well be disappearing beneath our fingers—with a quarter of all webpages that existed between 2013 and 2023 found to be no longer accessible.

Contrary to the popular perception that everything committed to the interwebs is destined to exist forever, the study revealed that 38% of pages that existed in 2013 alone have now been lost (via The Independent). It doesn’t appear to be an age-related phenomenon, either. 

Even newer pages appear to be performing vanishing acts—eight percent of pages that existed in 2023 were found to be unavailable, too.

The study made use of Common Crawl, an open repository of web crawl data that archives billions of webpages and provides archives and datasets for public use. The researchers took random samples of over a million webpages, before checking the links to see which were still active, and which had gone to the great lost information archive in the sky.

The results showed 23% of news pages and 21% of government websites studied were found to include at least one broken link, while a staggering 54% of Wikipedia pages included a reference link that no longer exists. That’s a lot of facts that can no longer be reasonably checked.

Given the internet’s integral role in modern society (for better or worse) in terms of verifying information, these results are troubling. What with the increasing proliferation of misleading AI content, losing valuable sources of information pre AI-era can’t possibly help.

Compounding this slide into a murky world where verifiable information is increasingly harder to find, a recent study found that 46.9% of all internet traffic could be attributed to bots—many of which may be contributing all sorts of made-up information to further muddy the waters.

Keep reading

Australia’s eSafety commissioner and the Global Internet Censorship Network

Twitter owner Elon Musk should be thrown in prison, said a senator in Australia yesterday, because he refuses to delete a video of a recent stabbing from Twitter globally. “Whatever Elon Musk is on,” said Senator Jacqui Lambie, “it’s disgusting behaviour. Quite frankly, the bloke should be jailed.”

But what’s truly disgusting behaviour is calling for the incarceration of someone for refusing to censor the entire global Internet on behalf of a single nation. It is not the right of any nation to decide what should be on the Internet around the world. “No president, prime minister, or judge,” responded Musk on Twitter, “has authority over all of Earth!” He’s right.

It’s true that violent content online can be disturbing. I think platforms should put warning labels on them and find some way to prevent minors from seeing it. I also think there are real privacy concerns that should be addressed.

But violence is not the only thing the Australian government has told Twitter to remove. It has also targeted political speech. And nothing can justify the Australian government censoring the entire global Internet of content it does not like.

Many of us, myself included, have long suspected that government censors in Ireland, Scotland and the European Union would attempt to censor the whole of the internet, not just in their own countries. With Brazil and now Australia demanding the power to censor the whole internet, it’s clear that our fears were more than justified.

And now, Public has learned that there is a formal government censorship network called the ‘Global Online Safety Regulators Network’, which Australia’s top internet censor, Julie Inman Grant, who is an American, described at the World Economic Forum. The group includes censors from Australia, France, Ireland, South Africa, Korea, the UK and Fiji.

[Note: The UK’s Office of Communications (“Ofcom”) is one of the seven members of the Global Online Safety Regulators Network.]

But before getting to that, it’s first important to understand just how powerful she is. Here is Julie Inman Grant, boasting of her extraordinary censorship powers. “Yes, we do regulate the platforms. We have a big stick that we can use when we want to … They’re going to be regulated in ways that they don’t want to be regulated.”

Keep reading

FCC Set To Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules That Seem More Unnecessary Than Ever

Of all the modern technological advances, the internet is certainly one of the most impressive. For most consumers, it went from an inscrutable concept to a ubiquitous presence within a quarter of a century.

We owe much of that explosive growth to the freedom and openness that early internet adopters enjoyed thanks to minimal government regulation.

This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will likely reinstate net neutrality rules to promote fairness in internet access. But these rules seem less and less necessary all the time, while threatening the very openness that built the internet in the first place.

Net neutrality refers to a regulatory framework where internet service providers (ISPs) “cannot block or throttle internet traffic, or prioritize their business partners or other favorite web sites or services,” according to the Mozilla Foundation. “For example, ISPs can’t slow down your connection to Netflix or Zoom, or speed up a connection to their own favored streaming or video conferencing site. Without Net Neutrality, providers could control what people see and do online, not the consumers who pay for their Internet connections.”

Net neutrality regulations have come and gone under each presidential administration of the past 15 years: The Obama administration implemented rules in 2010 which were struck down in 2014; in 2015, then-FCC Chair Tom Wheeler proposed new rules under which the agency would regulate the internet more aggressively, as a public utility rather than an “information service.” Then in 2017, the FCC under the Trump administration voted to revert back to the pre-2014 rules.

This week, the agency is expected to vote to reimpose net neutrality. If adopted, the “Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet” draft order would effectively undo the 2017 vote that undid the 2015 rules that replaced the overturned 2010 rules.

But net neutrality is not necessary to safeguard fair and open internet access. The proof is in the numbers: “From 2012 to 2014, the number of Americans without access to both fixed terrestrial broadband and mobile broadband fell by more than half,” the FCC reported in February 2018. “But the pace was nearly three times slower after the adoption of the 2015 Title II Order, with only 13.9 million Americans newly getting access to both over the next two years.”

Keep reading

Judge Acquits Backpage Co-Founder Michael Lacey on Most Counts

A federal judge has acquitted Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey of dozens of counts, including a majority of those on which federal prosecutors planned to retry Lacey later this year. U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa also acquitted former Backpage executives Jed Brunst and Scott Spear on multiple counts of which they were convicted by a jury last fall.

“After viewing the record in the light most favorable to the Government, the Court finds there is insufficient of evidence to support convictions under Counts 19–51 as to Mr. Lacey and Counts 66–99 as to Messrs. Lacey, Brunst, and Spear,” concluded Humetewa.

In November, a jury found Lacey guilty of just one the 86 counts against him and not guilty of one count as well. The jury was hung on the other 84 counts, including all charges that Lacey actively facilitated prostitution or participated in a conspiracy to facilitate prostitution via the online classifieds site he founded with his longtime newspaper partner James Larkin. (Larkin took his own life last summer a few days before the trial was scheduled to begin.)

The feds then decided to retry Lacey on those 84 counts, despite the fact that there had already been two trials on the same charges. (The first, in 2021, was declared a mistrial after prosecutors and their witnesses couldn’t stop talking about sex trafficking despite none of the defendants facing sex trafficking charges.)

Now, Humetewa has acquitted Lacey on 53 of the remaining 84 counts against him. Additionally, Humetewa acquitted Spear, former executive vice president of Backpage, of 10 of the counts on which he was found guilty by the jury and acquitted former Chief Financial Officer Brunst of 18 of the counts on which he was convicted.

Two of the other defendants were acquitted on all charges by the jury.

Keep reading

Judge Challenges Appeals Court Over Computer Monitoring Ban in January 6 Parole

A US federal judge – who imposed draconian surveillance measures against a man charged and later convicted and paroled in connection with the January 6 events – is clearly unimpressed by the ruling of a US Court of Appeals, that recently overturned his decision.

Senior District Judge Reggie Walton now wants the controversy officially revisited, so he scheduled a new hearing date for June 4 in a bid to make his original order for Daniel Goodwyn’s computer to be surveilled for “mis/disinformation” stick.

Early in April, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia announced that the order to monitor and “inspect” Goodwyn’s computer for “mis/disinformation” was the result of the district court having “plainly erred.”

Goodwyn (described in reports as a citizen journalist) was convicted on a single trespassing misdemeanor count based on him spending 36 seconds inside the Capitol on the day.

Goodwyn was subsequently arrested and sentenced by Judge Walton to two months in prison, but that was not all – his computer was to be “monitored and inspected” during his parole.

This last bit of the ruling was too much for the circuit court, which overturned it earlier in the month. The ruling said Walton “plainly erred in imposing the computer-monitoring condition without considering whether it was ‘reasonably related’ to the relevant sentencing factors and involved ‘no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary’ to achieve the purposes behind sentencing.”

But now Walton is trying to once again impose surveillance of Goodwyn’s computer, ordering him to “show cause” as to why that should not be happening.

Keep reading

Telegram Founder Reveals US Government’s Alleged Covert Maneuvers to Backdoor The App

What a shocker. Is this really newsworthy? Actually yes – because here, we’re seeing the opposite of clickbait – a subdued, to put it generously, headline in legacy US media, in an attempt to report about some of the things Telegram CEO Pavel Durov said during his interview with Tucker Carlson.

But behind this headline lies a pretty explosive, even if not surprising story – of how countries (in reality, more likely than one, but in this case, one is named) view the backbone of internet safety and integrity, namely – reliable, secure encryption.

Long story short – they view it as the enemy.

Durov, a Russian now in possession of multiple passports, based in Dubai, UAE, and often apparently butting heads with snooping efforts from governments (including Russian) revealed during the interview how the government in Washington one time tried to “break into Telegram,” as he put it.

But really, doing this successfully, given the nature of the encrypted app, would have meant not just breaking “into” – but, breaking Telegram.

Keep reading

Big Brother in Training? How Proposed Legislation Might Pave the Way for Online Age Verification and Digital ID

Bipartisan legislative efforts are underway in the US House of Representatives to adopt new versions of two laws originally drawn up to deal with the safety of youth online.

But the fear is that the bills introduced now – H.R.7891, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), and H.R. 7890, the Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) 2.0 – will facilitate implementation of a future sweeping age verification and digital ID push.

These concerns are raised because KOSA is directing the secretary of commerce, together with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct a study “evaluating the most technologically feasible methods and options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.”

At this stage of the proceedings, the study will not be used to mandate that platforms implement “an age gating or age verification functionality” – however, once the authorities have at their disposal the technical solutions to do it, some observers expect it could be used for a more aggressive legislative push at the federal level later on.

The key difference between the existing Senate version of KOSA and the proposed House bill is found under the “care of duty” component, with the House text now defining that to apply to “high impact online companies” with $2.5 billion or more annual revenue, and 150+ million global monthly active users over at least three months of the preceding year.

The Senate version refers to platforms “reasonably likely to be used by a minor” (employing 500 or more people, with gross annual revenue of $50 million or more).

Keep reading

NSA “Just Days Away From Taking Over The Internet” Warns Ed Snowden

The United States National Security Agency (NSA) is only days away from “taking over the internet” with a massive expansion of its surveillance powers, according to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

In an April 16 post to X, Snowden drew attention to a thread originally posted by Elizabeth Goitein — the co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice — that warned of a new bill that could see the U.S. government surveillance powers amplified to new levels.

Source: Edward Snowden

The bill in question reforms and extends a part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) known as Section 702.

Currently, the NSA can force internet service providers such as Google and Verizon to hand over sensitive data concerning NSA targets.

However, Goitein claims that through an “innocuous change” to the definition of “electronic communications surveillance provider” in the FISA 702 bill, the U.S. government could go far beyond its current scope and force nearly every company and individual that provides any internet-related service to assist with NSA surveillance.

“That sweeps in an enormous range of U.S. businesses that provide wifi to their customers and therefore have access to equipment on which communications transit. Barber shops, laundromats, fitness centers, hardware stores, dentist’s offices.”

Additionally, the people forced to hand over data would be unable to discuss the information provided due to hefty gag order penalties and conditions outlined in the bill, added Goitein.

Keep reading