Article 43

 

Broadband Privacy

Monday, January 15, 2018

Session Replay Scripts

pc-eye.jpg alt:images: snoppy pc

This is the first post in our “No Boundaries” series, in which we reveal how third-party scripts on websites have been extracting personal information in increasingly intrusive ways. [0]

By Steven Englehardt, Gunes Acar, and Arvind Narayanan
Freedom To Tinker
November 15, 1017

Update: we’ve released our data the list of sites with session-replay scripts, and the sites where we’ve confirmed recording by third parties.

You may know that most websites have third-party analytics scripts that record which pages you visit and the searches you make.  But lately, more and more sites use “session replay” scripts. These scripts record your keystrokes, mouse movements, and scrolling behavior, along with the entire contents of the pages you visit, and send them to third-party servers. Unlike typical analytics services that provide aggregate statistics, these scripts are intended for the recording and playback of individual browsing sessions, as if someone is looking over your shoulder.

The stated purpose of this data collection includes gathering insights into how users interact with websites and discovering broken or confusing pages. However the extent of data collected by these services far exceeds user expectations [1]; text typed into forms is collected before the user submits the form, and precise mouse movements are saved, all without any visual indication to the user. This data can’t reasonably be expected to be kept anonymous. In fact, some companies allow publishers to explicitly link recordings to a users real identity.

For this study we analyzed seven of the top session replay companies (based on their relative popularity in our measurements [2]). The services studied are Yandex, FullStory, Hotjar, UserReplay, Smartlook, Clicktale, and SessionCam. We found these services in use on 482 of the Alexa top 50,000 sites.

See HERE or HERE.

What can go wrong? In short, a lot.

Collection of page content by third-party replay scripts may cause sensitive information such as medical conditions, credit card details and other personal information displayed on a page to leak to the third-party as part of the recording. This may expose users to identity theft, online scams, and other unwanted behavior. The same is true for the collection of user inputs during checkout and registration processes.

The replay services offer a combination of manual and automatic redaction tools that allow publishers to exclude sensitive information from recordings. However, in order for leaks to be avoided, publishers would need to diligently check and scrub all pages which display or accept user information. For dynamically generated sites, this process would involve inspecting the underlying web applications server-side code. Further, this process would need to be repeated every time a site is updated or the web application that powers the site is changed.

A thorough redaction process is actually a requirement for several of the recording services, which explicitly forbid the collection of user data. This negates the core premise of these session replay scripts, who market themselves as plug and play. For example, Hotjar’s homepage advertises: Set up Hotjar with one scriptin a matter of seconds and Smartlooks sign-up procedure features their scripttag next to a timer with the tagline every minute you lose is a lot of video.

To better understand the effectiveness of these redaction practices, we set up test pages and installed replay scripts from six of the seven companies [3]. From the results of these tests, as well as an analysis of a number of live sites, we highlight four types of vulnerabilities below:

1. Passwords are included in session recordings. All of the services studied attempt to prevent password leaks by automatically excluding password input fields from recordings. However, mobile-friendly login boxes that use text inputs to store unmasked passwords are not redacted by this rule, unless the publisher manually adds redaction tags to exclude them. We found at least one website where the password entered into a registration form leaked to SessionCam, even if the form is never submitted.

2. Sensitive user inputs are redacted in a partial and imperfect way. As users interact with a site they will provide sensitive data during account creation, while making a purchase, or while searching the site. Session recording scripts can use keystroke or input element loggers to collect this data.

All of the companies studied offer some mitigation through automated redaction, but the coverage offered varies greatly by provider. UserReplay and SessionCam replace all user input with an equivalent length masking text, while FullStory, Hotjar, and Smartlook exclude specific input fields by type. We summarize the redaction of other fields in the table below.

image:replay

Automated redaction is imperfect; fields are redacted by input element type or heuristics, which may not always match the implementation used by publishers. For example, FullStory redacts credit card fields with the `autocomplete` attribute set to `cc-number`, but will collect any credit card numbers included in forms without this attribute.

image:replay

To supplement automated redaction, several of the session recording companies, including Smartlook, Yandex, FullStory, SessionCam, and Hotjar allow sites to further specify inputs elements to be excluded from the recording. To effectively deploy these mitigations a publisher will need to actively audit every input element to determine if it contains personal data. This is complicated, error prone and costly, especially as a site or the underlying web application code changes over time. For instance, the financial service site fidelity.com has several redaction rules for Clicktale that involve nested tables and child elements referenced by their index. In the next section we further explore these challenges.

A safer approach would be to mask or redact all inputs by default, as is done by UserReplay and SessionCam, and allow whitelisting of known-safe values. Even fully masked inputs provide imperfect protection. For example, the masking used by UserReplay and Smartlook leaks the length of the user’s password

3. Manual redaction of personally identifying information displayed on a page is a fundamentally insecure model. In addition to collecting user inputs, the session recording companies also collect rendered page content. Unlike user input recording, none of the companies appear to provide automated redaction of displayed content by default; all displayed content in our tests ended up leaking.

Instead, session recording companies expect sites to manually label all personally identifying information included in a rendered page. Sensitive user data has a number of avenues to end up in recordings, and small leaks over several pages can lead to a large accumulation of personal data in a single session recording.

For recordings to be completely free of personal information, a sites web application developers would need to work with the site’s marketing and analytics teams to iteratively scrub personally identifying information from recordings as its discovered. Any change to the site design, such as a change in the class attribute of an element containing sensitive information or a decision to load private data into a different type of element requires a review of the redaction rules.

As a case study, we examine the pharmacy section of Walgreens.com, which embeds FullStory. Walgreens makes extensive use of manual redaction for both displayed and input data. Despite this, we find that sensitive information including medical conditions and prescriptions are leaked to FullStory alongside the names of users.

We do not present the above examples to point fingers at a certain website. Instead, we aim to show that the redaction process can fail even for a large publisher with a strong, legal incentive to protect user data. We observed similar personal information leaks on other websites, including on the checkout pages of Lenovo [5]. Sites with less resources or less expertise are even more likely to fail.

4. Recording services may fail to protect user data. Recording services increase the exposure to data breaches, as personal data will inevitably end up in recordings. These services must handle recording data with the same security practices with which a publisher would be expected to handle user data.

We provide a specific example of how recording services can fail to do so. Once a session recording is complete, publishers can review it using a dashboard provided by the recording service. The publisher dashboards for Yandex, Hotjar, and Smartlook all deliver playbacks within an HTTP page, even for recordings which take place on HTTPS pages. This allows an active man-in-the-middle to injecting a scriptinto the playback page and extract all of the recording data. Worse yet, Yandex and Hotjar deliver the publisher page content over HTTP - data that was previously protected by HTTPS is now vulnerable to passive network surveillance.

The vulnerabilities we highlight above are inherent to full-page session recording. That’s not to say the specific examples can’t be fixed indeed, the publishers we examined can patch their leaks of user data and passwords. The recording services can all use HTTPS during playbacks. But as long as the security of user data relies on publishers fully redacting their sites, these underlying vulnerabilities will continue to exist.

Does tracking protection help?

Two commonly used ad-blocking lists EasyList and EasyPrivacy do not block FullStory, Smartlook, or UserReplay scripts. EasyPrivacy has filter rules that block Yandex, Hotjar, ClickTale and SessionCam.

At least one of the five companies we studied (UserReplay) allows publishers to disable data collection from users who have Do Not Track (DNT) set in their browsers. We scanned the configuration settings of the Alexa top 1 million publishers using UserReplay on their homepages, and found that none of them chose to honor the DNT signal.

Improving user experience is a critical task for publishers. However it shouldn’t come at the expense of user privacy.

End notes:

[0] We use the term exfiltrate in this series to refer to the third-party data collection that we study. The term leakageђ is sometimes used, but we eschew it, because it suggests an accidental collection resulting from a bug. Rather, our research suggests that while not necessarily malicious, the collection of sensitive personal data by the third parties that we study is inherent in their operation and is well known to most if not all of these entities. Further, there is an element of furtiveness; these data flows are not public knowledge and neither publishers nor third parties are transparent about them.

[1] A recent analysis of the company Navistone, completed by Hill and Mattu for Gizmodo, explores how data collection prior to form submission exceeds user expectations. In this study, we show how analytics companies collect far more user data with minimal disclosure to the user. In fact, some services suggest the first party sites simply include a disclaimer in their sites privacy policy or terms of service.

[2] We used OpenWPM to crawl the Alexa top 50,000 sites, visiting the homepage and 5 additional internal pages on each site. We use a two-step approach to detect analytics services which collect page content.

First, we inject a unique value into the HTML of the page and search for evidence of that value being sent to a third party in the page traffic. To detect values that may be encoded or hashed we use a detection methodology similar to previous work on email tracking. After filtering out leak recipients, we isolate pages on which at least one third party receives a large amount of data during the visit, but for which we do not detect a unique ID. On these sites, we perform a follow-up crawl which injects a 200KB chunk of data into the page and check if we observe a corresponding bump in the size of the data sent to the third party.

We found 482 sites on which either the unique marker was leaked to a collection endpoint from one of the services or on which we observed a data collection increase roughly equivalent to the compressed length of the injected chunk. We believe this value is a lower bound since many of the recording services offer the ability to sample page visits, which is compounded by our two-step methodology.

[3] One company (Clicktale) was excluded because we were unable to make the practical arrangements to analyze script’s functionality at scale.

[4] FullStory’s terms and conditions explicitly classify health or medical information, or any other information covered by HIPAA as sensitive data and asks customers to not provide any Sensitive Data to FullStory.

[5] Lenovo.com is another example of a site which leaks user data in session recordings.

[6] We used the default scripts available to new accounts for 5 of the 6 providers. For UserReplay, we used a scripttaken from a live site and verified that the configuration options match the most common options found on the web.

SOURCE

---

Website operators are in the dark about privacy violations by third-party scripts

By Arvind Narayanan
Freedom To Tinker
January 12, 2018

Recently we revealed that session replayӔ scripts on websites record everything you do, like someone looking over your shoulder, and send it to third-party servers. This en-masse data exfiltration inevitably scoops up sensitive, personal information in real time, as you type it. We released the data behind our findings, including a list of 8,000 sites on which we observed session-replay scripts recording user data.

As one case study of these 8,000 sites, we found health conditions and prescription data being exfiltrated from walgreens.com. These are considered Protected Health Information under HIPAA. The number of affected sites is immense; contacting all of them and quantifying the severity of the privacy problems is beyond our means. We encourage you to check out our data release and hold your favorite websites accountable.

Student data exfiltration on Gradescope

As one example, a pair of researchers at UC San Diego read our study and then noticed that Gradescope, a website they used for grading assignments, embeds FullStory, one of the session replay scripts we analyzed. We investigated, and sure enough, we found that student names and emails, student grades, and instructor comments on students were being sent to FullStoryגs servers. This is considered Student Data under FERPA (US educational privacy law). Ironically, Princetons own Information Security course was also affected. We notified Gradescope of our findings, and they removed FullStory from their website within a few hours.

You might wonder how the companiesҒ privacy policies square with our finding. As best as we can tell, Gradescopes Terms of Service actually permit this data exfiltration [1], which is a telling comment about the ineffectiveness of Terms of Service as a way of regulating privacy.

FullStoryҒs Terms are a different matter, and include a clause stating: Customer agrees that it will not provide any Sensitive Data to FullStory.Ӕ We argued previously that this repudiation of responsibility by session-replay scripts puts website operators in an impossible position, because preventing data leaks might require re-engineering the site substantially, negating the core value proposition of these services, which is drag-and-drop deployment. Interestingly, Gradescopes CEO told us that they were not aware of this requirement in FullStoryҒs Terms, that the clause had not existed when they first signed up for FullStory, and that they (Gradescope) had not been notified when the Terms changed. [2]

Web publishers kept in the dark

Of the four websites we highlighted in our previous post and this one (Bonobos, Walgreens, Lenovo, and Gradescope), three have removed the third-party scripts in question (all except Lenovo). As far as we can tell, no publisher (website operator) was aware of the exfiltration of sensitive data on their own sites until our study. Further, as mentioned above, Gradescope was unaware of key provisions in FullStorys Terms of Service. This is a pattern weҒve noticed over and over again in our six years of doing web privacy research.

Worse, in many cases the publisher has no direct relationship with the offending third-party script. In Part 2 of our study we examined two third-party scripts which exploit a vulnerability in browsers built-in password managers to exfiltrate user identities. One web developer was unable to determine how the scriptwas loaded and asked us for help. We pointed out that their site loaded an ad network (media-clic.com), which in turn loaded themoneytizer.com, which finally loaded the offending scriptfrom Audience Insights. These chains of redirects are ubiquitous on the web, and might involve half a dozen third parties. On some websites the majority of third parties have no direct relationship with the publisher.

Most of the advertising and analytics industry is premised on keeping not just users but also website operators in the dark about privacy violations. Indeed, the effort required by website operators to fully audit third parties would negate much of the benefit of offloading tasks to them. The ad tech industry creates a tremendous negative externality in terms of the privacy cost to users.

Can we turn the tables?

The silver lining is that if we can explain to web developers what third parties are doing on their sites, and empower them to take control, that might be one of the most effective ways to improve web privacy. But any such endeavor should keep in mind that web publishers everywhere are on tight budgets and may not have much privacy expertise.

To make things concrete, here’s a proposal for how to achieve this kind of impact:

Create a 1-pager summarizing the bare minimum that website operators need to know about web security, privacy, and third parties, with pointers to more information.

Create a tailored privacy report for each website based on data that is already publicly available through various sources including our own data releases.

Build open-source tools for website operators to scan their own sites [3]. Ideally, the tool should make recommendations for privacy-protecting changes based on the known behavior of third parties.

Reach out to website operators to provide information and help make changes. This step doesn’t scale, but is crucial.

If you’re interested in working with us on this, wed love to hear from you!

Endnotes

We are grateful to UCSD researchers Dimitar Bounov and Sorin Lerner for bringing the vulnerabilities on Gradescope.com to our attention.

[1] Gradescope’s terms of use state: “By submitting Student Data to Gradescope, you consent to allow Gradescope to provide access to Student Data to its employees and to certain third party service providers which have a legitimate need to access such information in connection with their responsibilities in providing the Service.”

[2] The Wayback Machine does not archive FullStory’s Terms page far enough back in time for us to independently verify Gradescope’s statement, nor does FullStory appear in ToSBack, the EFFs terms-of-service tracker.

[3] Privacyscore.org is one example of a nascent attempt at such a tool.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 01/15/18 •
Section Privacy And Rights • Section Broadband Privacy
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Sunday, December 17, 2017

Democracy Hollowed Out Part 34 - The Day The Internet Died

Save

in order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum and create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future.

The greatest source of hope for reestablishing a vigorous and accessible marketplace for ideas is the Internet.

We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Worldwide Web.

We must ensure by all means possible that this medium of democracy’s future develops in the mold of the open and free marketplace of ideas that our Founders knew was essential to the health and survival of freedom.
- Al Gore, 2005

---

Net Neutrality keeps the internet free and open enabling anyone to share and access information of their choosing without interference.

But on Dec. 14, 2017, the FCC voted along party lines to pass Chairman Pai’s plan to dismantle the Net Neutrality rules.

Without these rules, companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon will be able to block or slow down any online content including political speech they disagree with. This will disproportionately harm people of color and other marginalized communities who use the internet to fight systemic discrimination and share their stories.

Net Neutrality is essential to education, economic opportunity, innovation, social movements and dissent. Without Net Neutrality there’s no way to organize for justice or power the resistance.
- Save The Internet, December 14,2017

If you think DNS ABUSE, DPI, SNOOPING, PROJECT RIALTO, NEBUAD, SOPA, CISPA, THREE STRIKES, ETC, were CHALLENGES for privacy and freedom on the -nternet - they were. They are.

But last week the biggest nail yet was driven into America’s Internet coffin.

It’s about TITLE II of the TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.

And GLOBAL censorship of the VOICES of the people.

---

Net Neutrality Is Officially Dead

Mashable
December 17, 2017

Companies now control the internet, and there’s no way to stop them.

The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to eliminate its power to ensure net neutrality, effectively paving the way for internet providers to begin charging companies and consumers for faster internet access.

These kinds of arrangements, commonly called “fast lanes,” will inevitably favor big companies and hurt innovation, net neutrality advocates have warned.

The FCC isn’t just making it so internet providers don’t have to follow the rules. The order voted on Thursday almost entirely removes the FCC from any responsibility when it comes to keeping an eye on how the internet runs. Instead, the Federal Trade Commission will be tasked with going after companies if they are deemed to have made deals that hurt consumers or competition a move that few outside of anti-regulation advocates believe will be good for the internet.

Nothing will change immediately for consumers, but internet providers have already shown signs that they’re ready and willing to begin creating fast lanes - such as Comcast, which has already begun to change its framing on how it will handle internet traffic. That could mean Netflix has to pay Comcast so that its videos stream efficiently, a cost that would almost inevitably be passed on to subscribers. It also means that the next great internet idea might not have the money to pay for that fast lane, effectively killing it before the idea had a chance.

Chairman Ajit Pai led the charge for the proposal, ignoring public outcry and even some Republicans in Congress who advocated for the FCC to keep the rules in place.

“If our rules deter the massive infrastructure investment that we need, eventually we’ll pay the price in terms of less innovation,” Pai said.

“It is not going to end the internet as we know it. It is not going to kill democracy. It is not going to stifle free expression online,” Pai added.

The FCC voted along its usual 3-2 party line, with the three Republican commissioners voting for the proposal to remove net neutrality regulations. The two Democratic commissioners voted against the proposal.

The meeting was not without its drama. A bomb threat reportedly called into the meeting as Pai spoke forced the chairman to pause the meeting and briefly clear the room.

The vote marks a drastic reversal for net neutrality. Open internet advocates celebrated in 2015 when the FCC, then under Obama-appointee Chairman Tom Wheeler, voted to classify internet providers as “common carriers” a legal term that allowed the regulator to keep a closer watch on internet providers in the same way utilities like electricity are regulated.

At the time, Pai, a Republican commissioner appointed by Obama, had voiced strong opposition to the move. Two years later, President Donald Trump appointed Pai as chairman. Pai then immediately signaled that he would move to reverse the 2015 vote.

On Thursday, he succeeded, and then some.

The two Democratic commissioners issued strong dissents on the ruling, which will inevitably be challenged by lawsuits. Those lawsuits remain one of the few remaining hopes for net neutrality in the near term.

“I dissent from this rash decision to roll back net neutrality rules. I dissent from the corrupt process that has brought us to this point,” said Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. “And I dissent from the contempt this agency has shown our citizens in pursuing this path today. This decision put the Federal Communications Commission on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American public.”

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn also dissented.

“I dissent from this fiercely-spun, legally-lightweight, consumer-harming, corporate-enabling Destroying Internet Freedom Order,” she said.

Clyburn closed her statements by reading off part of Pai’s dissent from the 2015 vote.

“As I close my eulogy of our 2015 net neutrality rules, carefully crafted rules that struck an appropriate balance in providing consumer protections and enabling opportunities and investment, I take ironic comfort in the words of then Commissioner Pai from 2015, because I believe this will ring true about this Destroying Internet Freedom Order. ‘I am optimistic, that we will look back on todays vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan path, that has served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future Commission. But I do believe that its days are numbered,’” Clyburn said. “Amen to that, Mr. Chairman. Amen to that.”

SOURCE

---

The FCC just killed net neutrality
Its over

By Jacob Kastrenakes
The Verge
December 14, 2017

Net neutrality is dead - at least for now. In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission approved a measure to remove the tough net neutrality rules it put in place just two years ago. Those rules prevented internet providers from blocking and throttling traffic and offering paid fast lanes. They also classified internet providers as Title II common carriers in order to give the measure strong legal backing.

TodayҒs vote undoes all of that. It removes the Title II designation, preventing the FCC from putting tough net neutrality rules in place even if it wanted to. And, it turns out, the Republicans now in charge of the FCC really don’t want to. The new rules largely don’t prevent internet providers from doing anything. They can block, throttle, and prioritize content if they wish to. The only real rule is that they have to publicly state that they’re going to do it.

Opponents of net neutrality argue that the rules were never needed in the first place, because the internet has been doing just fine. “The internet wasn’t broken in 2015. We were not living in some digital dystopia,” commission chairman Ajit Pai said today. “The main problem consumers have with the internet is not and has never been that their internet provider is blocking access to content. It’s been that they don’t have access at all.”

While that may broadly be true, it’s false to say that all of the harms these rules were preventing are imagined: even with the rules in place, we saw companies block their customers from accessing competing apps, and we saw companies implement policies that clearly advantage some internet services over others. Without any rules in place, they’ll have free rein to do that to an even greater extent.

Supporters of net neutrality have long argued that, without these rules, internet providers will be able to control traffic in all kinds of anti-competitive ways. Many internet providers now own content companies (see Comcast and NBCUniversal), and they may seek to advantage their own content in order to get more eyes on it, ultimately making it more valuable. Meanwhile, existing behaviors like zero-rating (where certain services don’t count toward your data cap) already encourage usage of some programs over others. If during the early days of Netflix, you were free to stream your phone carrier’s movie service instead, we might not have the transformational TV and movie company its turned into today.

One of the two Democrats on the commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, called today’s vote a “rash decision that puts the FCC on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American public.” “This vote,” Rosenworcel says, gives internet providers the green light to go ahead and discriminate and MANIPULATE YOUR INTERNET TRAFFIC,” something she says they have a business incentive to do.

“This is not good,” Rosenworcel says. “Not good for consumers. Not good for businesses. Not good for anyone who connects and creates online.”

Commissioner Clyburn, the other Democrat, said the implications of today’s vote are “particularly damning” ... for marginalized groups, like communities of color, that rely on platforms like the internet to communicate. No one will be able to stop internet providers if they allow the social media services these groups rely on to slow down, blocking the dissemination of information, Clyburn said.

Both Rosenworcel and Clyburn also criticized the FCC’s HANDLINK OF PUBLIC COMMENT period that proceeded this vote, saying that the administration acted inappropriately in ignoring millions of voices in support of net neutrality. It is abundantly clear why we see so much bad process with this item: :because the fix was already in,” Clyburn said. Rosenworcel said the commission showed a “cavalier disregard” for the public and a :contempt” for citizens speaking up.

The vote comes after a contentious and messy public comment period. After opening the proposal up for feedback earlier this year, the commission received a record-breaking 22 million comments. But many of those comments were spam 7.5 million, according to the commission - and the FCC has refused to help REFUSED TO HELP INVESTIGATIONS into what happened. The commission was also quiet about website problems that caused its comment form to crash briefly in May.

Those comments are likely to play a role in whatever lawsuit hits following this vote. Net neutrality supporters are almost certain to sue the commission in an attempt to invalidate this proceeding and restore the 2015 net neutrality rules. While the commission is allowed to change its mind, it isn’t allowed to change rules for “arbitrary and capricious reasons.” In court, the FCC will have to prove that enough has changed since 2015, and that there’s enough evidence in the record of comments, to back up the conclusion that it ought to revoke net neutrality.

Since the beginning of this proceeding, the commission has made it very clear that it isnt really interested in most public comments either, despite a requirement to accept and consider them. The commission has stated time and again that it only values legal arguments, so we may see complaints that millions of consumer comments were ignored. Even if they don’t include the spam, the net neutrality proceeding was still the most commented ever at the commission.

This is the first time in more than a decade that the FCC has actually been opposed to net neutrality. The FCC has been promoting open internet rules since the mid-2000s, though it wasn’t until 2010 that they were turned into formal regulations. In 2014, those were overturned in court after the FCC was sued by Verizon. The court said that the FCC could try again using Title II, and so it did that in 2015. Those rules, which have been in place for two years, are the ones getting overturned today.

The vote ran over over an hour, with extensive speeches from the five commissioners, particularly from the two dissenting Democrats. In a highly unusual moment, the commission’s meeting room was evacuated briefly on advice of security. Cameras that remained on and streaming showed dogs being brought in to search the room.

Now that the vote is over, the commission will take a few weeks to make final adjustments to the rules. Theyll then be filed with the Federal Register and appear there in a few months. At that point, net neutrality will officially be off the books, and these new rules (or really, the absence of any) will take effect.

So what can you expect to change now that net neutrality is over? Not all that much - not overnight, at least. Rather than large swaths of the internet suddenly becoming unavailable or only offered for a fee, internet providers will likely continue to explore subtler methods of advantaging themselves and their partners, like offering data to use certain services for free or speeding up delivery of their own content.

These are things that may initially sound good. But in the long run, they disadvantage upstarts that don’t have the money to pay up. The problem is that, eventually, we may not know what products and services we missed out on because they never made it through the mess.

SOURCE

---

Goodbye internet: How regional divides upended the world wide web
Governments have broken the world wide web.

By Mark Scott
Politico Europe
December 15, 2017

So, there you have it: 2017 was the year that finally broke the internet.

From Europes aggressive (some would say fanatical) expansion of digital privacy and hate speech rules to the rollback on December 14 of the United States’ net neutrality provisions, this year marks the end of an era.

Gone is the internet where people from Philadelphia to Paris pretty much had access to the same digital services. That basic tenet (the world in the world wide web) is what made the internet the lifeblood coursing through our daily lives. Its what was making countriesҒ borders increasingly meaningless and connecting people (for good and bad) in ways that seemed like science fiction just a few years ago.

The common global internet is now dead. In its place is something all together different: a “Balkanized splinternet,” where your experience online is determined by local regulation.

In 2018, the forces dividing the internet along regional or national borders are only likely to gain momentum, as governments worldwide reassert their control over digital forces that threatened to turn policymakers and politicians into bit players in a tech-centric world run by the likes of Google, Amazon and Facebook.

That Balkanization should worry anyone who (like me) believes that when harnessed correctly, the global digital revolution - like previous epochal shifts such as the Industrial Revolution - offers both new economic opportunities and a chance for people to become more engaged in public life.

In part, governments efforts to reclaim control over the internet is only natural. But without better cross-border coordination between policymakers from across the globe җ including China, where draconian internet laws still limit free speech and other fundamental rights this mad dash to regulate could have the opposite effect than whatגs intended.

Instead of reining in the (many) excesses of the online world, while protecting the underlying global structure of the internet, regional digital rule-making threatens to derail the economic, societal and political advances of the internet age.

Take net neutrality the concept that all internet traffic should be treated equally, no matter if itגs a Google search, Netflix movie or Twitter rant.

On December 14, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission rolled back such provisions, in essence allowing telecom operators to charge digital companies for improved access to their telecom networks. Supporters of the changes say it wont hamper innovation, even though critics (including Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web) say it’ll end the internet as we know it.

No matter the outcome, its going to alter AmericansҒ internet experience for the good or bad, depending on your view.

By changing its stance on net neutrality, the U.S. is also setting itself apart from Europe, whose own net neutrality regulations still (mostly) insist that all internet traffic should be treated equally.

In the coming months, this diverging approach by arguably the worldגs two largest digital markets (excluding China) about one of the underlying principles of the internet will start to bite.

A new service marketed to U.S. consumers, for example, may fall afoul of EU rules. Or a European could be offered a different version of a product sold to an American, solely because of each regions contrasting approach to net neutrality. The result will be a regionalized internet experience that is fundamentally different to what is currently on offer worldwide.

Such online Balkanization isn’t just limited to changes in Washington, D.C.

In October, Germany passed some of the worlds most onerous online hate speech rules, including fines of up to Ҁ50 million for the likes of Facebook and Twitter if they consistently fail to remove illegal content from their digital platforms within 24 hours.

Other EU countries, notably France and Britain, also are mulling similar changes to force Big Tech to take greater responsibility for harmful or illegal material that appears on their sites.

Many on both sides of the Atlantic (including inside the tech companies) favor such a revamp. But Europe has gone significantly further to limit what can be posted online than in the U.S., where the First Amendments freedom of speech protections makes unilateral takedowns of content an impossibility.

This too is causing the day-to-day online experiences of Europeans and Americans to diverge, as content available in California may fail to make it through to others living in Catalonia. ItҒs hard to see how such digital splintering helps to spread ideas and foster debate between people around the globe.

And its not just the U.S. and EU җ two of the worlds strongest (albeit, somewhat dysfunctional) democratic regions җ that are pushing ahead with greater control of the internet.

Russia, Turkey, the Philippines and a growing list of other authoritarian regimes, as well as China and its existing Great Firewall,Ӕ are similarly demanding their own versions of the internet. That includes forcing tech companies to store data held on local citizens in servers located inside these countries to strong-arming social networks to censor content critical of national leaders.

This is the current state of the digital world at the end of 2017.

Without a significant (and fast) reassessment of how the internet is governed worldwide, the coming year will likely lead to more of the same: greater national controls over an online realm whose global reach is quickly becoming a relic of the past.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 12/17/17 •
Section Privacy And Rights • Section Broadband Privacy • Section Dying America
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Thursday, May 04, 2017

Book: Down and Out in the New Economy

image: Down And Out in the New Economy

Homeless and Unemployed in an Economy We’re Supposed to Think Is Liberating
In Ilana Gershon’s new book ”DOWN AND OUT IN THE NEW ECONOMY,” the employer power dynamic is called into question.

By Ilana Gershon
University of Chicago Press
April 27, 2017

The following is an adapted excerpt from the new book Down and Out in the New Economy: How People Find (or Dont Find) Work Today by Ilana Gershon (University of Chicago Press, April 2017):

Chris, an independent contractor in his midfifties, knows a lot about what it means to deal with an unstable job market, especially during those moments when you are between gigs and don’t know when you are going to get the next one. There was a period in 2012 where he hadn’t had a contracting job for a while, and he had no idea how he was going to pay his rent. He realized he might be able to make his rent for another month, but if he didn’t get a job soon, he might be homeless. He decided that he needed to get his body ready for this very likely possibility. I started to sleep on the floor a few hours each night, as long as I could take it, so I could get used to sleeping on a sidewalk or on the dirt. That’s how bad it looked. It just seemed hopeless, Chris said. Out of the blue, a staffing agency based in India contacted him and offered him a contract in the Midwest, giving him enough money to make it through this bad patch. But this stark moment, in which he saw homelessness around the corner, is part and parcel of the downside of careers made up of temporary jobs. Chris responded to this possibility in the way that you are supposed to if you are constantly enhancing yourself. He began to train his body for living on the streets, realizing that he needed to learn how to sleep without a bed. He was determined to be flexible and to adapt to potential new circumstances. Seeing the self as a bundle of skills, in practice, means that for some people enhancing your skills involves training yourself to survive being homeless. This too is a logical outcome of our contemporary employment model.

I have studied how people are responding to this new way of thinking about work and what it means to be a worker. In the United States, people are moving away from thinking that when they enter into an employment contract, they are metaphorically renting their capacities to an employer for a bounded period of time. Many people are no longer using a notion of the self-as-rented-property as an underlying metaphor and are starting to think of themselves as though they are a business, although not everyone likes this new metaphor or accepts all its implications. When you switch to thinking about the employment contract as a business-to-business relationship, much changes - how you present yourself as a desirable employee, what it means to be a good employer, what your relationships with your coworkers should be like, the relationship between a job and a career, and how you prepare yourself for the future.

The self-as-business metaphor makes a virtue of flexibility as well as the practical ways people might respond in their daily lives to conditions of instability and insecurity. As Gina Neff points out in Venture Labor, the model encourages people to embrace risk as a positive, even sought-out, element of how they individually should craft a career. Each time you switch jobs, you risk. You don’t know the amount of time you will have at a job before having to find a new one, and you risk how lucky you will be at getting that job and the next job. And with every job transition, you risk the salary that you might make. If there is a gap between jobs, then some people will find that they no longer experience a reliable, steady, upward trajectory in their salaries as they navigate the contemporary job market. Yet this is what you are now supposed to embrace as liberating.

Chris’s experiences cycling between employment and increasing periods of unemployment was a familiar story for me. I interviewed so many people in their late forties to early sixties who had a few permanent jobs early in their careers. But as companies increasingly focused on having a more transient workforce, these white-collar workers found their career trajectories veering from what they first thought their working life would look like. They thought that they might climb the organizational ladder in one or maybe even three companies over the course of their lifetime. Instead, they found that at some point in their mid to late forties, they started having shorter and shorter stints at different companies. The jobs, some would say, would last as long as a project. And as they grew older, the gaps between permanent jobs could start growing longer and longer. They struggled to make do, often using up their savings or selling their homes as they hoped to get the next job. Some started to find consulting jobs in order to make ends meet before landing the hoped-for permanent job, and then found themselves trapped on the consulting trackliving only in the gig economy. True, not everyone felt like contracting was plan B, the option they had to take because of bad luck. In their book about contractors, Steve Barley and Gideon Kunda talk about the people they interviewed who actively chose this life. I met these people too, but they weren’t the majority of the job seekers I interviewed. Because I was studying people looking for a wide range of types of jobs, instead of studying people who already had good relationships with staffing agencies that provided consultants, I tended to meet people who felt their bad luck had backed them into becoming permanent freelancers. These were people who encountered the self-as-business metaphor as a relatively new model, one they felt they actively had to learn in order to survive in today’s workplace, as opposed to the younger people I interviewed, many of whom had grown up with the self-as-business model as their primary way to understand employment.

When you think of the employment contract in a new way, you often have to revisit what counts as moral behavior, since older frameworks offer substantively different answers to questions of moral business practice. People have to decide what it means for a company to behave well under this new framework. Consider the self-as-business model. What does a good company do to help its workers enhance themselves as allied businesses? What are the limits in what a company should do? What counts as exploitation under this new model? Can businesses do things that count as exploitation or bad practices now that might not have been considered problems earlier, or not considered problems for the same reasons (and thus are regulated or resolved differently)? Businesses are certainly deeply concerned that workersҒ actions both at work and outside of work could threaten the companys brand, a new worry - but this is the tip of the iceberg. And the moral behavior of companies isnt the only issue. Can workers exploit the companies they align with now or behave badly toward them in new ways?

Yet while these two metaphors - the self-as-property and the self-as-business - encourage people to think about employment in different ways, there are still similarities in how the metaphors ask people to think about getting hired. In both cases, the metaphors are focusing on market choices and asking people to operate by a market logic. Deciding whether to rent your capacities is a slightly different question than deciding whether to enter into a business alliance with someone, but in both instances you are expected to make a decision based on the costs and benefits involved in the decision. In addition, both metaphorical contracts presume that people enter into these contracts as equals, and yet this equality doesn’t last in practice once you are hired. In most jobs, the moment you are hired, you are in a hierarchical relationship; you are taking orders from a boss. Some aspects of working have changed because of this shift in frameworks, but many aspects have stayed the same.

Avoiding Corporate Nostalgia

I talked to people who were thoughtfully ambivalent about this transition in the metaphors underlying employment. They didn’t like their current insecurity, but they pointed out that earlier workplaces weren’t ideal either. Before, people often felt trapped in jobs they disliked and confronted with office politics that were alienating and demoralizing. Like many people today, they dealt with companies in which they were constantly encountering sexism and racism. Not everyone had equal opportunities to move into the jobs they wanted or to be promoted or acknowledged for the work that they did well.

However, as anthropologist Karen Ho points out, when you have a corporate ladder that excludes certain groups of people, you also have a structure that you can potentially reform so that these groups will in the future have equal opportunities. When you have no corporate ladder, when all you have is the uncertainty of moving between companies or between freelance jobs - you no longer have a clear structure to target if you want to make a workplace a fairer environment. If there is more gender equality in the US workplace these days than there was thirty years ago, it is in part because corporate structures were stable enough and reformers stayed at companies long enough that specific business practices could be effectively targeted and reformed. Part of what has changed about workplaces today is that there has been a transformation in the kinds of solutions available to solve workplace problems.

I see what people said to me about their preference for the kinds of guarantees and rights people used to have at work as a form of critique, not a form of nostalgia. People didn’t necessarily want to return to the way things used to be. When people talked to me nostalgically about how workplaces used to function, it was often because they valued the protections they used to be able to rely on and a system they knew well enough to be able to imagine how to change it for the better.

Many people I spoke to were very unhappy with the contemporary workplace’s increasing instability. They worried a great deal about making it financially through the longer and longer dry spells of unemployment between jobs. I talked to a man who was doing reasonably well that year as a consultant, and he began reflecting on what the future would hold for his children. He didn’t want them to follow in his footsteps and become a computer programmer, because too many people like him were contingent workers. He wanted them to have their own families and reasoned: “If everybody thinks they can be laid-off in two weeks, how would they feel confident enough to be a parent and know that they’e got twenty-one years of consistent investment?”

It is not that the people I spoke to necessarily wanted older forms of work. What many wanted was stability. No matter how many times people are told to embrace being flexible, to embrace risk, in practice many of the people I spoke to did not actually want to live with the downsides of this riskier life. The United States does not have enough safety nets in place to protect you during the moments when life doesnt work out. Because you are supposed to be looking for a new job regularly over the course of a lifetime, the opportunities when you might become dramatically downwardly mobile increase. There are more possible moments in which you have to enhance your skills at surviving on much less money or even living rough.

Changing Notions of What Counts as a Good Employment Relationship

When people are thought of as businesses, significant aspects of the employment relationship change. The genre repertoire you use to get a job alters to reflect this understanding as you use resumes, interview answers, and other genres to represent yourself as a bundle of business solutions that can address the hiring company’s market-specific temporary needs. Networking has changed what it means to manage your social relationships so that you can stay employed has shifted. Some people I met are now arguing that you treat the companies you are considering joining in the same way you would treat any other business investment: in terms of the financial and career risk involved in being allied with this company.

It is not just that you evaluate jobs differently when you know that your job is temporary - deciding you can put up with some kinds of inconveniences but not others. Instead, you see the job as a short-term investment of time and labor, and the job had better pay off - perhaps by providing you with new skills, new networks, or a new way of framing your work experiences that makes you potentially more desirable for the next job. What if this new framework allows workers to have new expectations of their employers, or can safeguard workers’ interests in new ways? If you have this perspective, what are the new kinds of demands that employees could potentially make of employers?

For Tom, this new vision of self-as-business was definitely guiding how he was judging the ways companies treated him and what was appropriate behavior. I first contacted Tom because I heard through the grapevine that he refused to use LinkedIn. I was curious, as I had been doing research for seven months by that point and only came across one other person who was not using LinkedIn (and has since rejoined). We talked about his refusal, and he explained to me that LinkedIn didn’t seem to offer enough in return for his data. He clearly saw himself in an exchange relationship with LinkedIn, providing data for it to use and in return having access to the platform. Fair enough, I thought: as far as I can tell, the data scientists at LinkedIn and Facebook whom I have met see the exchange relationship in similar ways. Yet Tom decided that what LinkedIn offered wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t worth providing the company with his personal data. So I asked him about various other sites that he might use in which the exchange might be more equitable, and he lit up talking about these other sites. For Tom, because he saw himself as a business, and viewed his data as part of his assets, he was ready to see LinkedIn as offering a bad business arrangement, one he didn’t want to accept. The self-as-business framework allowed him to see the use of certain platforms as instances of participating in business alliances. Some alliances he was willing to enter into, but not all.

This wasn’t his only encounter with a potentially exploitative business arrangement. He typically worked as an independent contractor, and a company asked him to come in for a job interview. When he got there, his interviewer explained that the position was a sweat equity job - Tom wouldn’t get a salary, but rather he would get equity in the company in exchange for his labor. “Okay” he replied. “So what is your business model?” His interviewer was surprised and discomforted to be asked this. He refused to answer; employees don’t need to know the details of the company’s business model, he said. Tom felt that this was wrong; because he was being asked to be an investor in the company - admittedly with his labor instead of with money, he felt should be given the same financial details that any other investor in a company would expect before signing on. It sounded to me like Tomגs interviewer was caught between two models: wanting the possible labor arrangements now available but unwilling to adjust whom he told what. The interviewer was not willing to follow through on the implications of this new model of employment, and as a result, Tom wasnt willing to take the job. This is one way in which the self-as-business model offers a new way to talk about what counts as exploitation and as inappropriate behavior - behavior that might not have been an issue decades ago, or would have been a problem for different reasons (perhaps because a couple of decades ago, few people found sweat equity an acceptable arrangement).

But this new model also opens up the possibility that companies can have obligations to their employees that they did not have in the same way before. Since companies often dont offer stable employment, they now provide a temporary venue for people to express their passion and to enhance themselves. Can this look like an obligation that businesses have to their workers? Perhaps - businesses could take seriously what it means to provide workers with the opportunities to enhance themselves. Michael Feher argues that if people are now supposed to see themselves as human capital, there should be a renewed focus on what good investment in people looks like - regardless of whether workers stay at a single company.

SHOULD COMPANIES now help provide TRAINING for an employee’s next job? Throughout the twentieth century, companies understood that they had to provide their workers training in order for them to do their job at the company to their best of their ability. Internal training made sense both for the company’s immediate interests and for the company’s ability to retain a supply of properly trained workers over the life of the company. Now that jobs are so temporary, who is responsible for training workers is a bit more up in the air. Yet some companies are beginning to offer support for workers to train, not for the benefit of the company, but so that workers can pursue their passion, should they discover that working at that company is not their passion. Amazon, for example, in 2012 began to provide training for employees who potentially want radically different jobs. Jeff Bezo’s explained in his 2014 letter to shareholders: We pre-pay 95% of tuition for our employees to take courses for in-demand fields, such as airplane mechanic or nursing, regardless of whether the skills are relevant to a career at Amazon. The goal is to enable “choice.” It makes sense for a company to support its workers learning skills for a completely different career only under the contemporary perspective that people are businesses following their passions in temporary alliances with companies.

This model of self-as-business might give workers some new language to protest business practices that keep them from enhancing themselves or entering into as many business alliances as they would like. For example, just-in-time scheduling in practice is currently preventing retail workers from getting enough hours so that they can earn as much as they would like to in a week. This type of scheduling means that workers only find out that week how many hours they are working and when. They cant expect to have certain hours reliably free, and they need to be available whenever their employer would like them to work. Marc Doussard has found that good workers are rewarded with more hours at work. While white-collar workers might get better pay in end-of-the-year bonuses for seeming passionate, retail workers get more hours in the week. If workers make special requests to have certain hours, Doussard discovered, their managers will often punish them in response, by either giving them fewer hours to work or only assigning them to shifts they find undesirable. In practice, this means that workers have trouble holding two jobs or taking classes to improve themselves, as unpredictable shifts will inevitably conflict with each other or class times. Predictable work hours, in short, are essential for being able to plan for the future - either to make sure you are working enough hours in the week to support yourself or to educate yourself for other types of jobs. Since companies are now insisting that people imagine themselves as businesses, what would happen if workers protested when companies dont allow them to “invest in themselves” or when they are thwarted from having as many business partnerships (that is, jobs) as possible? Perhaps employees should now be able to criticize and change employers’ practices when they are prevented from being the best businesses they can be because of their employers workplace strategies.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 05/04/17 •
Section Bad Moon Rising • Section Revelations • Section American Solidarity • Section Privacy And Rights • Section Broadband Privacy • Section Microsoft And Windows • Section Job Hunt • Section News • Section Telecom Underclass • Section Dying America
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Internet Privacy Bites The Dust

Advertisers look forward to buying your Web browsing history from ISPs

Ad groups thank Republican lawmakers for move to kill ISP privacy rules.

By Jon Brodkin
ARS Technica
Mar 14, 2017

FCC and lawmakers seek end of privacy rules

The FCC’s new Republican chairman, Ajit Pai, opposes the rules and has already halted the implementation of a data security component that required ISPs to take “reasonable” steps to protect customers’ information from theft and data breaches. The more well-known portion of the rules, which requires ISPs to get opt-in consent from consumers before sharing information with third parties, is scheduled to take effect no earlier than December 4, 2017.

The entire set of privacy rules could be undone by either the FCC or Congress. “Without prompt action in Congress or at the FCC, the FCC’s regulations would break with well-accepted and functioning industry practices, chilling innovation and hurting the consumers the regulation was supposed to protect,” the ad industry groups said.

It’s “one of the worst rules that has been put forward in some time,” Association of National Advertisers Executive VP Dan Jaffe said, according to a MediaPost article. “One way or another, it needs to be stopped.” Jaffe said that the ad groups “plan to lobby on the Hill in support of the resolution proposed by Flake and Blackburn,” MediaPost wrote.

Republicans say the Federal Trade Commission, not the FCC, should have authority over the privacy practices of ISPs. But overturning the existing privacy rules would not by itself return authority to the FTC, and the FTC could be more lenient with ISPs than the FCC.

If no agency enforces privacy rules, “consumers will have no ability to stop Internet service providers from invading their privacy and selling sensitive information about their health, finances, and children to advertisers, insurers, data brokers or others who can profit off of this personal information, all without their affirmative consent,” Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said last week.

Acting FTC Chairwoman Maureen Ohlhausen said last year that the FTC recommends getting opt-in consent for “unexpected collection or use of consumers sensitive data such as Social Security numbers, financial information, and information about children,” and an opt-out system for other data, she wrote. Under that scenario, ISPs apparently would not need opt-in consent from customers before sharing Web browsing history.

SOURCE

---

It’s official: your internet provider can share your web history
Trump signs resolution killing FCC privacy rules

By Jacob Kastrenakes
The Verge
April 4, 2017

In a major blow to consumer privacy, President Trump signed a resolution today reversing an Obama-era rule that restricted what internet providers could do with their customers data.

Most notably, the privacy rule would have prevented internet providers from using, sharing, or selling a subscriber’s web browsing history without first getting their explicit permission. The rule also required internet providers to take “reasonable” steps to secure data from hackers and to notify customers in the event of a breach.

But Republicans argued that the rules were confusing to consumers and unfair to internet providers. They said that it didnt make sense for the rules to not also cover web companies like Facebook and Google.

The argument isnҒt particular sound: internet providers deliver data, while Facebook and Google run businesses on the web two distinctly different tasks. But that didnגt stop Republicans from passing a resolution to reverse the privacy order in both the House and Senate.

Speaking to the press last Thursday, White House spokesperson Sean Spicer said “killing the rules will allow service providers to be treated fairly and consumer protection and privacy concerns to be reviewed on an equal playing field.”

But theres not really a positive takeaway here for consumers. While the nightmare scenario of individually identifiable browser histories getting sold is unlikely to come to pass, spiking these regulations very much gives internet providers more leeway when using your data to target ads.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 03/15/17 •
Section Privacy And Rights • Section Broadband Privacy
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Democracy Hollowed Out Part 31 - Net Neutrality Dies

censorship.jpg

Internet Censorship 2013

Nine years ago Al Gore made a couple of GOOD POINTS about an open internet:

We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Worldwide Web.

...in order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum and create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future.

Since then, CISPA and SOPA tried to take away net neutrality.  Those initiatives have had LIMITED SUCCESS, until yesterday.  More on that below.

Al’s other point about open forums deserves equal attention.

Today, I write at a lot of places, and increasingly after opening dialogues about the poor, unemployed, unchecked corporatism, or direction this country is going in - posts are met with indifference, invalidation, and downright hostility.

But the worst and scariest thing over 2013 has been how posts I made on political forums of members of the US Government - have been deleted, and me banned from their sites.

ITS ONE THING that people would rather distance themselves from things they DON’T WANT TO DEAL WITH, but when the Facebook page of a US Congressman contains no other posts but his one-sided rhetoric, and praises from his followers, because everything else was censored out - we passed ANOTHER MILESTONE in the squelching of free expression and open communication.

The internet has become as bad as TV - a one sided pulpit for politicians to spew their propaganda - not an open forum.

Can it get worse?

Yes.

Internet Censorship 2014

Save the Intenet REPORTS:

On Jan. 14, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., struck down the Federal Communications Commissions Open Internet Order. In other words, Net Neutrality is dead (for now).

Wired TELLS US:

“Without high-level rules of the road, or other replacement high-level rules, the broadband carriers are free to discriminate and block content from consumers,” Chris Lewis, a vice president at digital rights group Public Knowledge, said in a telephone interview.

And the Huffington Post URGES US:

Now, just as Verizon promised it would in court, the biggest broadband providers will race to turn the open and vibrant Web into something that looks like cable TV—where they pick and choose the channels for you. They’ll establish fast lanes for the few giant companies that can afford to pay exorbitant tolls and reserve the slow lanes for everyone else.

We need strong protections and sensible policies to ensure the Internet continues to thrive and prosper. But to make that happen the millions of people who have fought for Net Neutrality—and the millions more who have rallied against Web-censorship bills like SOPA/PIPA and outrages like the NSA’s unchecked spying and surveillance—rise up like never before.

Together we can fight back against these greedy Internet service providers. We can save the Internet we love. But we have to act now.

I’m talking about the United States, NOT THE USSR or GREAT FIREWALL of CHINA.

Posted by Elvis on 01/15/14 •
Section Privacy And Rights • Section Broadband Privacy • Section Dying America
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home
Page 1 of 24 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Statistics

Total page hits 8461384
Page rendered in 1.9186 seconds
35 queries executed
Debug mode is off
Total Entries: 3105
Total Comments: 337
Most Recent Entry: 04/23/2018 10:03 am
Most Recent Comment on: 01/02/2016 09:13 pm
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 2
Total anonymous users: 0
The most visitors ever was 114 on 10/26/2017 04:23 am


Email Us

Home

Members:
Login | Register
Resumes | Members

In memory of the layed off workers of AT&T

Today's Diversion

A wise man only speaks when he has something to say; a Fool speaks when he has to say something. - Plato

Search


Advanced Search

Sections

Calendar

June 2018
S M T W T F S
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Must Read

Most recent entries

RSS Feeds

Today's News

External Links

Elvis Picks

BLS Pages

Favorites

All Posts

Archives

RSS


Creative Commons License


Support Bloggers' Rights