#internet kill switch

New Post has been published on https://www.aneddoticamagazine.com/it/internet-kill-switch-il-presidente-del-consiglio-puo-spegnere-internet-del-tutto-o-in-parte/

Internet Kill Switch: il Presidente del Consiglio può spegnere internet, del tutto o in parte

A #Byoblu24 ne parlano Arturo Di Corinto, giornalista, e Ugo Mattei, docente. In studio, Claudio Messora e Virginia Camerieri.

L’Italia ha un Internet Kill Switch: in presenza di un rischio grave, il Presidente del Consiglio può spegnere internet, del tutto o in parte. Lo consente la legge sul Perimetro nazionale di sicurezza cibernetica del 2 marzo, nell’allegato “Documento di sicurezza nazionale”. Nella relazione dell’intelligence le cryptovalute, le formazioni di estrema destra e la disinformazione. È già successo molte volte nel mondo che uno Stato abbia spento internet per ragioni di sicurezza, lo ricorda la stessa BBC in un video di marzo. In Spagna il Governo ha già iniziato a parlare di sicurezza informatica compromessa per molti ospedali, e di bufale via internet che provocano “paura e panico nella popolazione” (fonte Agi).

New Post has been published on https://www.aneddoticamagazine.com/it/internet-kill-switch-il-presidente-del-consiglio-puo-spegnere-internet-del-tutto-o-in-parte/

Internet Kill Switch: il Presidente del Consiglio può spegnere internet, del tutto o in parte

A #Byoblu24 ne parlano Arturo Di Corinto, giornalista, e Ugo Mattei, docente. In studio, Claudio Messora e Virginia Camerieri.

L’Italia ha un Internet Kill Switch: in presenza di un rischio grave, il Presidente del Consiglio può spegnere internet, del tutto o in parte. Lo consente la legge sul Perimetro nazionale di sicurezza cibernetica del 2 marzo, nell’allegato “Documento di sicurezza nazionale”. Nella relazione dell’intelligence le cryptovalute, le formazioni di estrema destra e la disinformazione. È già successo molte volte nel mondo che uno Stato abbia spento internet per ragioni di sicurezza, lo ricorda la stessa BBC in un video di marzo. In Spagna il Governo ha già iniziato a parlare di sicurezza informatica compromessa per molti ospedali, e di bufale via internet che provocano “paura e panico nella popolazione” (fonte Agi).

Shontavia Johnson, Drake University

After London’s most recent terror attacks, British Prime Minister Theresa May called on countries to collaborate on internet regulation to prevent terrorism planning online. May criticized online spaces that allow such ideas to breed, and the companies that host them.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has said it is time to say ‘enough is enough’ when it comes to tackling terrorism.

May did not identify any companies by name, but she could have been referring to the likes of Google, Twitter and Facebook. In the past, British lawmakers have said these companies offer terrorism a platform. She also might have been referring to smaller companies, like the developers of apps like Telegram, Signal and Wickr, which are favored by terrorist groups. These apps offer encrypted messaging services that allow users to hide communications.

May is not alone in being concerned about attacks on citizens. After her comments on Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump vowed to work with allies and do whatever it takes to stop the spread of terrorism. He did not, however, specifically mention internet regulation.

President Donald Trump addressed the London terror attacks during an event at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, DC.

Internet companies and other commentators, however, have pushed back against the suggestion that more government regulation is needed, saying weakening everyone’s encryption poses different public dangers. Many have also questioned whether some regulation, like banning encryption, is possible at all.

Because the internet is geographically borderless, nearly any message can have a global audience. Questions about online regulation have persisted for years, especially regarding harmful information. As a law professor who studies the impact of the internet on society, I believe the goal of international collaboration is incredibly complicated, given global history.

Some control is possible

While no one country has control over the internet, it is a common misconception that the internet cannot be regulated. In fact, individual countries can and do exert significant control over the internet within their own borders.

In 2012, for example, the Bashar al-Assad regime shut down the internet for all of Syria. According to Akamai Technologies, an internet monitoring company, the country went entirely offline on Nov. 29, 2012. The internet blackout lasted roughly three days.

China aggressively blocks access to more than 18,000 websites, including Facebook, Google, The New York Times and YouTube. While there are some limited workarounds, the Chinese government regularly targets and eliminates them.

French courts have prohibited the display and sale of Nazi materials online in France by Yahoo’s online auction service. After losing a legal case, Yahoo banned the sale of Nazi memorabilia from its website worldwide, though it denied that the move was in direct response to the court ruling.

Even in the United States, local governments have shut down mobile data and cellphone service during protests. In addition, the United States reportedly either is developing or has developed its own internet “kill switch” for times of national crisis.

International collaboration

These types of regulation efforts aren’t limited to individual governments. Groups of countries have successfully collaborated to pursue common goals online.

The Global Privacy Enforcement Network, for example, is a network of representatives from nearly 50 countries including the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany. The GPEN works to develop shared enforcement practices related to internet privacy and has reviewed many companies’ online privacy policies. When the GPEN discovers websites or apps that violate a country’s privacy laws, it informs the administrators or developers and encourages them to follow those laws. The group can recommend countries take enforcement action against websites or apps that do not comply.

The European Union, made up of 28 countries, has also worked to regulate harmful messages on the internet. In 2016, the European Commission announced a joint agreement with internet companies Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube. Among other things, the companies agreed to create clear and rapid processes for reviewing potentially objectionable information and removing it if need be.

At the UN

In addition, the United Nations has been pursuing general global regulation of the internet. The U.N.‘s first Working Group on Internet Governance was created in 2004 to propose models for global internet regulation.

Unfortunately, the working group has not been able to agree on how to create new transnational bodies with rule-setting or regulatory power over the internet. Each country has different views on the global political issues raised by the internet’s vast reach. While some countries can find common ground, it may be nearly impossible to create a worldwide model that harmonizes all of these perspectives.

The farthest the U.N. has gotten so far has been creating the Internet Governance Forum, which brings together governments, private companies and individuals to address questions about internet regulation. The group has discussed and reported on internet access, human rights and free speech issues. These discussions are an opportunity to exchange experiences and views, but there are no negotiated outcomes, rules or laws that come from the IGF.

Finding widespread common ground on internet-based issues will likely only become more difficult as the U.K. exits from the EU and the U.S. takes increasingly nationalist positions. Even so, the experiences of smaller groups of countries may inform a broader effort as global policies on terrorism shift, and the world’s approach to internet regulation changes with it.

Shontavia Johnson, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Drake University

Shontavia Johnson, Drake University

After London’s most recent terror attacks, British Prime Minister Theresa May called on countries to collaborate on internet regulation to prevent terrorism planning online. May criticized online spaces that allow such ideas to breed, and the companies that host them.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has said it is time to say ‘enough is enough’ when it comes to tackling terrorism.

May did not identify any companies by name, but she could have been referring to the likes of Google, Twitter and Facebook. In the past, British lawmakers have said these companies offer terrorism a platform. She also might have been referring to smaller companies, like the developers of apps like Telegram, Signal and Wickr, which are favored by terrorist groups. These apps offer encrypted messaging services that allow users to hide communications.

May is not alone in being concerned about attacks on citizens. After her comments on Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump vowed to work with allies and do whatever it takes to stop the spread of terrorism. He did not, however, specifically mention internet regulation.

President Donald Trump addressed the London terror attacks during an event at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, DC.

Internet companies and other commentators, however, have pushed back against the suggestion that more government regulation is needed, saying weakening everyone’s encryption poses different public dangers. Many have also questioned whether some regulation, like banning encryption, is possible at all.

Because the internet is geographically borderless, nearly any message can have a global audience. Questions about online regulation have persisted for years, especially regarding harmful information. As a law professor who studies the impact of the internet on society, I believe the goal of international collaboration is incredibly complicated, given global history.

Some control is possible

While no one country has control over the internet, it is a common misconception that the internet cannot be regulated. In fact, individual countries can and do exert significant control over the internet within their own borders.

In 2012, for example, the Bashar al-Assad regime shut down the internet for all of Syria. According to Akamai Technologies, an internet monitoring company, the country went entirely offline on Nov. 29, 2012. The internet blackout lasted roughly three days.

China aggressively blocks access to more than 18,000 websites, including Facebook, Google, The New York Times and YouTube. While there are some limited workarounds, the Chinese government regularly targets and eliminates them.

French courts have prohibited the display and sale of Nazi materials online in France by Yahoo’s online auction service. After losing a legal case, Yahoo banned the sale of Nazi memorabilia from its website worldwide, though it denied that the move was in direct response to the court ruling.

Even in the United States, local governments have shut down mobile data and cellphone service during protests. In addition, the United States reportedly either is developing or has developed its own internet “kill switch” for times of national crisis.

International collaboration

These types of regulation efforts aren’t limited to individual governments. Groups of countries have successfully collaborated to pursue common goals online.

The Global Privacy Enforcement Network, for example, is a network of representatives from nearly 50 countries including the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany. The GPEN works to develop shared enforcement practices related to internet privacy and has reviewed many companies’ online privacy policies. When the GPEN discovers websites or apps that violate a country’s privacy laws, it informs the administrators or developers and encourages them to follow those laws. The group can recommend countries take enforcement action against websites or apps that do not comply.

The European Union, made up of 28 countries, has also worked to regulate harmful messages on the internet. In 2016, the European Commission announced a joint agreement with internet companies Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube. Among other things, the companies agreed to create clear and rapid processes for reviewing potentially objectionable information and removing it if need be.

At the UN

In addition, the United Nations has been pursuing general global regulation of the internet. The U.N.‘s first Working Group on Internet Governance was created in 2004 to propose models for global internet regulation.

Unfortunately, the working group has not been able to agree on how to create new transnational bodies with rule-setting or regulatory power over the internet. Each country has different views on the global political issues raised by the internet’s vast reach. While some countries can find common ground, it may be nearly impossible to create a worldwide model that harmonizes all of these perspectives.

The farthest the U.N. has gotten so far has been creating the Internet Governance Forum, which brings together governments, private companies and individuals to address questions about internet regulation. The group has discussed and reported on internet access, human rights and free speech issues. These discussions are an opportunity to exchange experiences and views, but there are no negotiated outcomes, rules or laws that come from the IGF.

Finding widespread common ground on internet-based issues will likely only become more difficult as the U.K. exits from the EU and the U.S. takes increasingly nationalist positions. Even so, the experiences of smaller groups of countries may inform a broader effort as global policies on terrorism shift, and the world’s approach to internet regulation changes with it.

Shontavia Johnson, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Drake University

What will you do when the internet goes dark? According to the Outage Analyzer website, which tracks worldwide website outages over 45,000 websites suffered outages across the globe on April 24, 2016, as seen above from the screen shot taken this morning of their front page. When your favorite website goes down there are million upon millions of others you can browse through while IT techs fervently work to get it back up, but what about when your Internet goes down? Consider the recently release polling data showing that only 6 percent of Americans consider news media as "very" trustworthy. While 56 percent say they do get their news from television, 32 percent of those rely on cable news.  In this day and age where Americans are becoming more and more disillusioned with politics and more are are saying they are not affiliated with either party, the next quote from Rasmussen is very interesting: Voters not affiliated with either party are most dependent on the Internet, with cable news a close second. According to another poll reported on by ABC News we see the following information:

About 6 in 10 Americans watch, read, or hear news several times a day, ascomputers, smartphones and tablets make it easier for people to follow the news on an on-demand basis.

A majority of people get news from social media, most frequently by far from Facebook. "Facebook is the place where everyone is, and so you're not necessarily looking for news, but you're getting it...

There is an old philisophical thought experiment which asks ""If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Well, take that a step further..... if the economy collapses, or a terror attack occurs on a large scale, or if a bomb is dropped on a large U.S. city, or any major massive event happens and the government shuts down your Internet, cable and communications.... how would you know? That is a question that makes the following information very disturbing. INTERNET, CABLE AND PHONE OUTAGES Why are we seeing an increase in frequency of outages in America, each and every day, from some of the top companies such as Comcast, Cox, AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon? Screen shots taken of each of the above referenced companies "live outage" maps, taken on April 25, 2016 are shown below, but it is noteworthy that in each case the most reported problem is Internet outages, with reports of phone, television or total blackouts showing a significantly lower number. For Cox, 79 percent of the reported problems were Internet, total blackout 13 percent and television 7 percent. Comcast, Internet is listed at 65 percent, total blackout at 17 percent and TV at 17 percent. Time Warner 73 percent listed Internet, 13 percent total blackout and 12 percent TV. AT&T lists Internet reports at 64 percent, and phone iterruptions at 18 percent with 17 percent reporting "no network or reception."  Verizon reports 75 percent of complaints were of no Internet service, phone service reports came in at 16 percent and TV at 8 percent. In every case, the Internet was the most reported outage and as seen in the screen shots below, it spans from one end of the country to the other.

Readers can check these outages and others at Down Detector. Now we have all experience equipment failure, weather interruptions and a whole host of other issues that might knock our internet out periodically, but looking back at previous reports, and having reported on this issue at ANP multiple times, we seem to be seeing a massive increase in frequency in whole areas on different dates. Something very strange is going on with these constant outages, and the list of potential reasons are not comforting. Is the internet infrastructure so outdated that even the biggest of the service providers cannot maintain stability? Are hackers, hostile countries or even terrorists systematically testing our vulnerabilities? Or is our own government beta testing their infamous "kill switch?"

On July 6, 2012, Barack Obama issued an Executive Order titled "Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions", which on the surface is very straight forward as stated in Section 1, where it says "The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions....." It isn't until we read much further down that we get to Section 5.2, where we see the the EO actually gave Obama control of the Internet:

Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications, including: communications that support Continuity of Government; Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal emergency preparedness and response communications; non-military executive branch communications systems; critical infrastructure protection networks; and non-military communications networks, particularly with respect to prioritization and restoration;

(b) incorporate, integrate, and ensure interoperability and the necessary combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications defined in section 5.2(a) of this order under all circumstances, including conditions of crisis or emergency;

In other words, in times of emergency or "crisis" the Executive Office can take total control of all commercial or private networks. In January 2016 it was reported that the Supreme Court has allowed the details of the U.S. government's internet and cellphone kill switch to remain a secret from the American people. United States — On Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear a petition from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) that sought to force the Department of Homeland Security to release details of a secret “killswitch” protocol to shut down cellphone and internet service during emergencies. BOTTOM LINE With more and more financial industry insiders warning of an economic collapse, while top insurers are talking about preparations on the part of world leaders for "pandemics" of civil unrest on a global scale, in conjuntion with theDHS and FEMA holding "first time ever" riot control drills, we find the timing of these outages to be suspicious, especially when you note from the outage screen shots above, that Texas where those first time ever drills occurred, is highlighted in almost all the reports. ANP has consistently urged readers to prepare with extra food, water, medical items and basic necessitites, but there is a good likelihood that the Internet, your cable news and your phones could be shut down in the even of a national emergency, so we would also suggest a short wave radio and/or learn aboutHam Radios and print out their frequency lists, pre-plan meeting places with your family, friends, and like-minded community members. Decide now what you would do if the Internet goes dark and prepare accordingly.

Written by Susan Duclos