China, Apple, Facebook threaten the 'open Web'

Glaucus

Glaucus

Active Member
Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
697
Google co-founder: China, Apple, Facebook threaten the 'open Web'

In an interview published Sunday, Google's co-founder cited a wide range of attacks on "the open Internet," including government censorship and interception of data, overzealous attempts to protect intellectual property, and new communication portals that use web technologies and the internet, but under restrictive corporate control.
Click to expand...
It's one of the main reasons I'll never own an iOS device, and urge everyone I know to stay away from them as well.
 
I read pretty much the same story in the Guardian.
I used to think that you couldn't put the internet genie back in the bottle but I started to think otherwise about a decade ago but I thought it would be the telecos back then until the record companies got into the act and it's looking very ugly out there. Sure the internet is "cyberspace" but it's made of real machines and real wires and fiber situated in countries that can just walk in to the server room and unplug everything if that's what they really want to do.

Really the only hope is that "they" realize that they don';t want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
 
Ya, I got into debates over this. People would tell me that you can't stop the internet, it's designed to go around "damage" etc. True, but I always countered that laws trump everything and that you should expect law makers to screw it all up. Especially if those law makers are American. And sure enough....

The fact is we can't rely on technology to get around bad laws or authoritarian regimes. It's worked for a bit in places like the middle east, but it's just a matter of time before they decide to force change. Iran is talking about completely cutting itself off from the world wide internet and replacing it with what will effectively be a nation wide LAN. Technology can't help if politicians grab a hold of it and smash it to bits (ok, bad attempt at a pun).

And you're right, the first world isn't much immune from that either, we just have different problems. The telecos actually haven't cared what goes through the pipes so long as they can get their cut from it. Although, now they are turning into content companies as well, so it will likely change and change very quickly - for the worse. So far the FCC/CRTC are the front line and last line of defense for net neutrality, and they've been taking flak from the industry and industry bought politicians, which are many. Most common people are oblivious and will likely side with the content providers. Why? Because it seems people are quick to trade freedom for a little bit of convenience. When I talk to my friends and family about this sort of thing, they sit there and listen and in the end they just tell me, "But I just want it to work, so I buy an iPhone". Frustrating to say the least. The real kicker is that more open iPhone alternatives like Windows Phone and Android are just as easy and in many ways better, but they're hooked on the Apple marketing BS. And using this model the telecos will entice people into their walled gardens of movies and music, where buying access to the internet is now really just buying access to their media store.

Sure, it'll be nice and easy, but I can't think of a worse fate for the internet.
 
Glaucus said:
When I talk to my friends and family about this sort of thing, they sit there and listen and in the end they just tell me, "But I just want it to work, so I buy an iPhone".
Click to expand...
Sure I've got manacles on but they're designer manacles and look at the comfy fur lining!!

But this "just works" thing is one of the big drivers behind piracy - find what you want, start the download - watch it on your computer right away or in a week or a month - put it on a flash drive, play it on your other machine, throw it on your tablet - still plays even if you don't have an internet connection to any "licensing servers" - beautiful. DRMSs just can't compete.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Sure I've got manacles on but they're designer manacles and look at the comfy fur lining!!
Click to expand...
Which you paid extra for! Well done!

And you're right about "just works" driving piracy as well. I could buy a movie from the Playstation Network, but it'll only work on Playstations (and perhaps the playstation portables). What if I want to watch it on my non-Sony tablet? I'm out of luck. That's why I can't understand why anyone would BUY a movie from PSN. I've rented a movie once or twice which was ok, but buying? That just makes no sense.
 
That's cute. I'm aware of the MPAA's claim that embedding is just as criminal as posting copyright material, but RT.com kinda goes overboard here. Almost looks like a cheap activist-marketing scheme to me. Embedding won't be a problem so long as the content isn't copyrighted, which shouldn't really pose an issue for RT.com so long as it decides to never go after people who embed. However this campaign does seem like a great way to attract new viewers.

I totally oppose the MPAA's argument here and hope the judge rules against them, but I can't say I support RT.com. Sorry.
 
Son of SOPA is on its way and more companies seem happy with it - is that because this version is now "Good"(TM)?
Probably not.
 
Btw, I looked up CISPA on wikipedia and by the looks of it isn't really a SOPA replacement, although it might end up being so. Some interesting bits:

The bill would give the U.S. government additional options and resources to ensure the security of networks against attacks and enforce copyright and patents, however, the most recent version of the CISPA bill has removed any reference to intellectual property[3].
Click to expand...

Due to the opposition the bill has experienced, the co-sponsors are planning to amend the bill to address many of the concerns of its opponents — including limiting its scope to a narrower definition of cyber-threats, and stating that the "theft of intellectual property" refers to the theft of research and development. In addition, there will now be penalties if private companies or the government uses data from CISPA for purposes "unrelated to cyberthreats."
Click to expand...

Of course there's still danger here, in particular with "vagueness", but courts really hate vagueness and tend to side on narrower, stricter definitions. But it only takes one judge to undo all that, just like they did with software patents. My question is, how do they define "cyberthreats"?

I can understand why companies may favor this and it may be because this bill seems to be addressing things like corporate espionage. Overall, the concerns with CISPA seem to be about privacy as opposed to criminal or civil litigation.
 
It seems like what the Harper gov is trying to (or has it already?) push down our throats. Warrantless eavesdropping under certain conditions. Actually, I think the Canadian version might be worse than CISPA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top