Share on Social Media:

States May Ban Online Censorship

Until now, the Masters of the Universe have seemed invulnerable. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Amazon have grown accustomed to getting their way without effective opposition. Competitors can’t challenge their market domination, and the Biden-Harris junta evidently doesn’t want to rein them in. Unless the states intervene, Big Tech owns us.

A 'Walker, Texas Ranger' reboot is happening — here's what we know

Some states, though, have decided to enter the fray. Many have accused major tech platforms of online censorship. Florida and Montana led the way, considering laws forbidding censorship in social media, browser search engines, and online shopping fora.

Add Texas to the list. Texas Senator Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) sponsored a bill that could penalize Amazon, Facebook, Google, or Amazon for blocking access to information or commentary.

The bill would authorize Texans banned or suspended by Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube to sue them.

Hughes said, “We don’t allow a cable company to cut off your television because it doesn’t like your religion.”

What do the states say this is about?

Governor Greg Abbott backed the Hughes bill. “Big Tech’s effort to censor conservative viewpoints is un-American”, Abbott said, “and we’re not going to allow it in the Lone Star State.” Abbott accused several firms of leading “a dangerous movement to censor conservative voices and religious freedoms.”

To this, Abbott’s targets have a prepared response. Online firms have long claimed safe harbor under Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The section treats them as ‘common carriers’, not as publishers. They would, therefore, be immune from defamation or copyright infringement lawsuits for material posted on their platforms. The reasoning is that they don’t control what users post, any more than the phone carrier controls voice conversations.

Call 1-855-216-0185

Abbott and Hughes argue that certain firms have forfeited these exemptions. They’ve done so, Abbott says, by acting as publishers. Rejecting content for political, religious, or social reasons is the behavior of a publisher. And publishers don’t qualify for Section 230 protection.

Will the states prevail in court? Check this space for updates.

Get the most from your online experience. For the best deals in internet service, contact Satellite Country. Call today. We can help.

Call 1-855-216-0185

When would now be a good time to order TV or internet service? Call today.

Share on Social Media:

World Wide Web Inventor Calls for Its Overhaul

Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web, is unhappy with it.  He has been saying for years that it has evolved into something far different from what he envisioned. Not much more than ten years ago, the web was a decentralized open platform, but since then a few corporate giants have come to dominate it. Google, Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon hold a near-stranglehold over online information and commerce, and web surfers have to surrender privacy to get much use out of the web.

Image result for world wide web images

So what can we do to correct this sorry state of affairs? Well, Berners-Lee is hard at work on an alternative. Next week, he will launch a for-profit business called  Inrupt. Based on a crowd-sourced platform called Solid, it is meant to enable developers all over the world to wrest control of the web away from governments and corporate giants.

“It’s a historical moment.”

If Berners-Lee and his crew are successful, Google, Facebook, and Amazon will soon be struggling for survival. Berners-Lee is open about hisdesire not only to challenge them, but to take them down.. He jokingly (?) says his goal is ‘world domination’, and he says he wants a completely new internet. He said he is not consulting with Google or Facebook about how he will upend their business models. In his words: “We’re not asking their permission.”

“We have to do it now”, he said of Inrupt. “It’s a historical moment.”

Why now?

The need for a disruptive internet model has never been more obvious. For the last five years, one scandal after another has reminded us that our personal data is subject to manipulation and theft.

You’ve no doubt heard the news about Cambridge Analytica and the Obama reelection campaign hijacking Facebook user data to aid their political campaigns. Twitter and YouTube have been caught blocking, shadow-banning, or demonetizing conservative content. Google vacuums up personal data for ads, and apparently adjusts search functions for political reasons. In a recently released video of a Google corporate conference, several executives spoke of “our values”, with some pledging to use the platform to promote them. All of ‘our values’ were blatantly political.

We obviously- and urgently- need drastic overhaul of the world wide web. Otherwise, we will soon lose all semblance of honest and objective online information service.

Who’s in control?

Berners-Lee and Inrupt propose to address the failings of the dominant internet systems with a platform called Solid. With it, the user can create his own ‘personal online data store’ or POD. It will feature his calendar, music library, video library, contact list, to-do list, chat, and research tools. It’s like combining Outlook, WhatsApp, Slack, Spotify, and Google on the same browser- all available at the same time.

Most importantly, the data is under the user’s control. All the data he produces will be protected within his POD. The information will be secure, out of reach for his ISP, Google, Facebook, or any advertising engine- unless the user wants to release it. He can customize the degree of access he wants to provide for each bit of data.

This is a huge departure from the current internet model. In the last few years,  Google, Facebook, and other firms have been holding and controlling most online data in ‘silos’ that they built.

In the Solid web model, there are no silos.

What happens next?

Beginning almost immediately, developers can start building their own apps for the Inrupt platform. And Berners-Lee will spend the autumn tutoring developers and executives in building apps for Solid and Inrupt.

Tim Berners-Lee has set a daunting goal for himself. Can he really replace the current world wide web with something far better? Don’t bet against it. He has a record of bringing into fruition projects that others thought impossible.

(For the best internet connection, shop with Satellite Country. Talk to us. We can help.)

Share on Social Media:

Ditching Twitter & Facebook: Part II

You’ve hate Twitter and Facebook. I hate Twitter and Facebook. Despite our exasperation with them, though, we can scarcely imagine living without them. We need reliable platforms for connection with family and friends, and we don’t know where else to go. We worry that ditching the biggest network platforms will bring social isolation.

Image result for rejection images

Don’t give up. There are multiple alternatives, one for almost every specialized need. Which one is best for you will depend on your interests and personality.

Here are a few of the more popular social media platforms:

LinkedIn

LinkedIn is geared for professionals job seekers, and others seeking work or business opportunities. It has more than 500 million users in more than 200 countries. LinkedIn defines its mission as “…connect(ing) the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful.”

Employers post job openings on LinkedIn, job seekers post curriculum vitae on it, and both use it to maintain and extend contact networks. Job seekers can review profiles of hiring managers and see if any of their existing contacts can introduce them.

Users can even post articles and share video on LinkedIn.

GAB

Perhaps you’re fed up with shadowbanning and other abuse dished out by Twitter. Maybe you’re frustrated with its 140-character limit. If this is the case, GAB may be platform you need.

GAB is what Twitter claims to be, but isn’t. GAB is a truly open platform that doesn’t censor user posts. It also allows longer posts, with a 300-character limit.

GAB does enforce a code of conduct, just as other social media do. GAB is much more specific about what it forbids, though, and doesn’t exploit vague standards as an excuse for political censorship.

Mighty Networks

Unlike Facebook, which attempts to connect people who already know each other, Mighty Networks seeks to expand user social contacts. The platform’s ‘pods’ are based on common interests. With the Mighty Networks, it’s easier to reach new people who share the same passions and concerns.

Users can join existing ‘pods’ or create their own. With a Mighty Network account, you can organize contacts by similarity, shared interests, or physical proximity. You can even earn money for building a community.

Mastodon

Mastodon is a decentralized open-source network. It allows up to 500 characters per post, so it’s better than twitter at enabling extended conversation.

Mastodon differs from other social media in that it doesn’t sell user data to advertisers. Mastodon permits no advertising, data mining, or walled gardens.

Diaspora

Diaspora bills itself “the anti-Facebook”. Like Mastodon, it is a decentralized network. Instead of holding user data on centrally located servers controlled by a giant corporation, Diaspora operates on independently controlled servers in many locations. Users own all of their data on the network.

With your Diaspora account, you don’t have to use your own name, and you control who gets to see your posts.

NextDoor

NextDoor was founded on the theory that social media have alienated us from our neighbors. Most of our Twitter and Facebook contacts live far away from us, and few of us know many of the people who live nearby.

NextDoor was designed to reintroduce you to your neighbors, and its networks are based on geographic location. NextDoor is a forum for informing users about events in their neighborhoods. The platform is useful for planning local events, warning neighbors about dangerous visitors, reporting lost and found items, and even scheduling babysitters.

Other Networks

These are a few of the more popular general interest social platforms. There are others that cater to special interests. Ello bills itself the creator’s network, “built by artists for artists”. Dogster and Catster connect pet lovers. Peanut connects mothers seeking emotional support, advice, or opportunities to vent. Wanelo is a network for avid shoppers. Vero is a photo-sharing platform.

There are other networks, such as Tumblr and Reddit, that are already well established.

If you look, you can find a suitable substitute for Twitter and Facebook.

Share on Social Media:

FACEBOOK: A THREAT TO YOUR PRIVACY?

Image result for black mirror images

Can you trust social media? Is your privacy always safe in the hands of Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram?

Most of us don’t give much thought to how social media are handling our personal data. Perhaps we should.

The network effects of digital communication enable extremely rapid growth for firms that get in early, and over time they can dominate their market segments. Within a few years, they can acquire monopolies or near-monopolies. Once such near-monopoly is Facebook. Because of its massive user base- numbering in the billions- it gets close attention from advertisers. It crowds out other media- especially print.

This, in itself, could create serious problems for you. But what if Facebook becomes the dominant means of authenticating personal identity? You may soon be unable to handle the ordinary business of life without an account.

“The Zuckerberg Mafia finally hit me where it hurts.”

Consider the case of Jason Ditzian, who operates the website The Bold Italic. He was recently kicked out of a San Francisco ride-sharing service, City CarShare, after Getaround bought it. Getround had founded its platform on Facebook, and authenticated membership through it. Lacking an account, Ditzian could no longer use City CarShare. As he put it, “The Zuckerberg Mafia finally hit me where it  hurts.”

Getaround’s user agreement states: “We may permit third-party advertising networks to collect information about your use of our service over time…” It goes on to state that this could include location information. Getaround, then, would know where you’ve been- and when you’ve been there. Could this be a threat to your well-being?

What are you telling the world about yourself?

Most people post huge amounts of personal data on social media. Your Facebook posts may reveal:

  • Where you live
  • Who your friends or lovers are
  • Where you travel
  • What pets you have
  • Where you work
  • What you read
  • Your musical tastes
  • Your political or religious commitments and opinions

This can provide a nearly complete profile of your personality, background, and interests. What happens if this information falls into the wrong hands?

Could governments get your data?

 So far, your social media posts are used mainly to benefit advertisers. This may not be a serious problem for you. But what if governments or hostile political activists get their hands on the data? Consider China, for example. It has begun assigning “citizen scores” for applicants for housing or jobs. Its scores are derived largely from information on social media.

Could something similar happen here? Could the state use your data to ruin your life? Could it guess your location at any given moment, based on your Facebook posts?

The personal information Facebook can collect now is already a severe threat to privacy. At least you can opt out of participating, though.

What if that option is taken from you? If enough businesses and social groups require social media proof of I D, you may have to give in. Your survival may require it. You would have to leave yourself vulnerable to those who would use your personal data against you.

(For the best broadband connection, talk to us. We can help. To get the most out of your broadband connection, read our blog. Comment and share for your friends.)

The enclosed images are from Black Mirror, a Netflix series. It is said to be a contemporary version of The Twilight Zone.  

Share on Social Media:

RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN OVERTURNED

Image result for people closing curtains

We all want privacy. We have a right to it, don’t we? We want to forget our more embarrassing moments, and we want others to forget them, too.

Unfortunately, the internet’s memory is eternal. Every Facebook post we write, and every tweet we send, can come back to haunt us. Our friends, colleagues, and casual acquaintances have their own digital records of our lapses in judgement; and their audio, video, and text records can wreck our reputations. Follies we forgot about years ago can still thwart our job searches and romantic prospects.

It may be wise for us to manage our lives as if every moment outside of our homes is in the public record. After all, there is a very strong chance that it is.

But if we fail, what then? Are we doomed to relive our worst moments for the rest of our lives?

Some governments have decided to enforce digital privacy by statute. The European Union, among other entities, has embraced a ‘right to be forgotten’ rule. Under its terms, Google and other browsers will have to make certain information ‘unsearchable’ at the subject’s request. One’s embarrassing past will simply disappear from the internet. Nobody will ever find it again.

With the EU’s support, almost every expert expected other governments to adopt similar laws.

It’s not so certain now that this will be the case.

Search engines have challenged the ‘right to be forgotten’ in court. This morning, they scored one of their first major legal victories in the matter. Brazil’s highest court ruled that such laws place too heavy a burden on search engines, forcing them to become censors.

If other courts, in other states, follow suit, the ‘right to be forgotten’ may become unenforceable. The internet is international, and information can’t be confined within national boundaries.

We probably can’t rely on digital censors to protect our reputations. We may just have to assume that everything we do will become public- and act accordingly. And be careful with selfies.

(To get the internet service that works best for you, talk to us. We can help.)

Share on Social Media:

THE DAY THE INTERNET DIED

Internet_outage_map_October_2016

Is It Impossible?

The event had long been predicted. Most of us scoffed at the alarms, though, thinking they were merely the paranoid mutterings of conspiracy theorists, or cynical self-promotion by merchants hoping to profit from mass  hysteria.

The internet couldn’t possibly fail. A few websites might be vulnerable to hacking and malware, but the backbone of the internet was decentralized, robust, and thoroughly secure. We could always count on it. The dreaded day of Electronic Apocalypse would never arrive.

The Fateful Day Arrives

On Friday, October 21, 2016, the alarmists were proven right. The first wave of attacks began early in the day: about 7:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. This was in the midst of “rush hour” for internet use in America, with tens of millions casually reading the news, tweeting, and reviewing their Facebook pages. Some of the most heavily trafficked web sites and internet services in the world were knocked offline, including Netflix, Reddit, Etsy, Twitter, Spotify, AirBnB, the New York Times, Sound Cloud, PayPal, and the PlayStation Network. By about 9:00 a.m. EST, the affected services were operating again. They had apparently succeeded in repelling the attacks.

The day was not over, though, and the hackers were not finished. A second wave of attacks began just before noon EST. Yet a third wave began just after 3:00 pm.

The internet outages were especially severe and prolonged on the U.S. East Coast, where most of the affected servers were located. Widespread severe outages also afflicted California, the Desert Southwest, the Pacific Northwest, some Gulf Coast states, and parts of Europe. Asia, Africa, and Latin America saw very few outages.

What Caused the Outages?

Friday’s attacks on the internet were distributed denial of service (DDoS) assaults of Dyn, an internet performance management firm that provides Domain Name System (DNS) services. Dyn described the raids as “a very sophisticated and complex attack”.

A DNS service is, in essence, an address book for the internet. Reading the web addresses we see on our browser tabs, the DNS service finds, and connects us with, the corresponding servers so we can receive the content we request.

A DDoS attack overloads a server with fake service requests, consuming its memory and bandwidth, so it has little to none left for legitimate requests. To the web surfer, it appears that requested pages are busy. The hackers prolong the outage with automatic repetition of their requests. Even innocent surfers can aggravate it by refreshing their requests from unresponsive pages.

The source of Friday’s attacks was a botnet (artificial intelligence application) called Mirai. The botnet army took control of, and then launched its attacks from, a host of lightly secured webcams, fitness monitors, location devices, DVRs, routers, and even baby monitors. The Internet of Things (IoT) is a critical point of vulnerability.

Could it Happen Again?

In the wake of Friday’s attack, many web analysts have said that we might see similar attacks disrupting the upcoming election. An Election Day internet failure, though, is unlikely to affect the presidential race much. Control of polling places and balloting is too decentralized. Internet failure could affect down-ballot races, though.

The threat of further internet outages won’t fade away soon. It could persist for months or years, even if the culprits in Friday’s attacks are caught and punished quickly. The source code for the Mirai botnet has been released to the public.

What Can You Do?

First, make sure you have a strongly-encrypted internet service, such as HughesNet. Change your passwords often for all connected devices, including webcams, DVRs, and fitness monitors. Be careful about sharing passwords or electronic devices. Every day, be careful when logging into your computer.

If you’re unsure, ask your internet service provider what it’s doing to thwart similar attacks. If there’s any good news in this episode, it’s that the FCC says providers have it in their power to prevent DDoS failures. They just need a few system upgrades. And now, of course, ISPs are aware of the need for tighter security. Friday’s outages were a loud wake-up call.

With vigilance, we can prevent the next great day of internet failure. It will require effort and close attention, but we can do it.

The enclosed map is by Level 3. It provides equipment and services for internet carriers.

For the best online security, you need a reliable connection. This is where we come in. Talk to us. We can help.

Share on Social Media:

BRAVE NEW (AD-BLOCKING) BROWSER

Do you hate internet ads? Are you fed up with autoplay videos that distract you, slow down your browser, and consume an inordinate share of your data allotment? Brandon Eich says he has a solution for you.

A few years ago, Eich was the CEO of Mozilla. He was hounded out of his job by a Twitter mob over a small donation to a political cause. He has not been idle since then, though, and now he is poised to compete with his old employer.

Eich and his partners have raised $4.5 million in seed money for an ad-blocking browser to be called Brave. Eich says it will begin operating in September.

Unlike other browsers, in which the ad-blocking function is handled by third-party supplements or extensions. Brave has it built in. Brave says that its desktop version will be 40% to 60% faster than the competition, and the version for mobile devices will be two to four times faster than comparable browsers. Both desktop and mobile versions will consume far less data, and will dramatically extend battery life. Brave will feature several privacy and security functions: malware filtering, phishing protection, script blocking, fingerprint shields, and support for data encryption via HTTPS Everywhere.

Earlier this year, Eich said that Brave will insert its own ads, but they will not inhibit performance. The ads will be placed “only in a few standard-size spaces” found by a cloud robot, and will target users “only by a highly re-identifiable cookie”. In other words, targeting will be anonymous. You won’t have to give up your personal information to advertisers, as you would when using most other browsers.

The Brave ad platform has not been universally popular. In April, more than a dozen U.S. news organizations, including the New York Times Company, Dow Jones (owner of the Wall Street Journal), and the Gannett Corporation (owner of USA Today) sent a letter to Eich, claiming that it is “blatantly illegal”. Eich says that Brave has discussed the program with top New York publishers since then, and he believes they will learn to accept it. “If there is a role for ads”, he says, “they have to be fewer and more effective.”

(To get the most out of your browser, you need a reliable internet connection. Talk to us. We can help.)

Share on Social Media:

SOCIAL MEDIA AND PRIVACY

If you spend much time online, your privacy is unsafe unless you take steps to protect it. What may be even more dismaying is that the rules governing online privacy are inconsistent. They inhibit only a few of the worst potential violators, leaving others free to vacuum up as much of your personal data as their technologies allow.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission unwittingly underscored this inconsistency. Tom Wheeler, the FCC Chairman, announced a proposal for imposing strict new privacy rules on internet service providers.  From the consumer’s point of view, the proposal was a huge step forward, as ISPs would have to protect personal information, report breaches, and obtain consumer consent for personal data collection. Consumers would have to ‘opt in’ to allow collection of personal information. The new regulations would make it more difficult to use consumer data for targeted advertising.

Unfortunately, the new rules would exempt Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other browsers and social media. The American Civil Liberties Union expressed disappointment with the proposed new rules, and other consumer groups gave them only qualified endorsement. Some ISPs panned the proposal. AT&T, for example, called it discriminatory. The telecom giant objected that broadband providers would be held to stricter standards than other online companies.

Since the FCC won’t do much to protect you, you have to protect yourself when using social media. Consider using an ad blocker. Carefully review the privacy policy of any social website you visit.

You need to be vigilant to guard your privacy on any social medium. Some websites change privacy settings frequently, without notifying users. Facebook is especially notorious for this.

If you find that your privacy settings have been changed without your consent, change them back. Then send a complaint to the site administrators. This will not guarantee that the site’s policies will change, but it may help. If enough users complain, administrators may finally pay attention.

Above all else, remain alert. The best safeguard for your privacy is your own common sense.

(For the internet service that meets your needs, talk to us.)