Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...

[muyuu]

Ops http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2355606/government-surveillance-bill-passed-438-51-in-the-house-of-commons

[Lego]

How British Spies "Seed the Internet With False Info, Control YouTube Pageviews and Manipulate Online Polls"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-18/how-british-spies-seed-internet-false-info-control-youtube-pageviews-and-manipulate-

[muyuu]

Esto han hecho en la Embajada de EEUU en Berlín.

NSA in da House, Berlin

[muyuu]

https://news.yahoo.com/us-terrorist-database-growing-rapid-rate-223303875.html

La Base de Datos de "terroristas" de EEUU ya tiene 1 millón y medio de "terroristas" y crece rápidamente.

[Dan]

Snowden revela el toolset de la inteligencia britanica para manipular stats en internet. Desde el numero de visitas hasta los resultados de una encuesta online:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/documents_show_gchq_manipulating_online_information_like_web_polls_and_traffic.html

U.K. Intelligence Agency's Bag of Tricks Includes Ability to Manipulate Online Polls
94
164
8
By Lily Hay Newman
gchq Software spy tools.

Screencap from the Intercept.



Even something as seemingly innocuous as an online poll could be compromised by government initiatives. New documents show that the U.K. intelligence agency GCHQ has a set of tools for manipulating what people see online and even spreading misinformation.
Lily Hay Newman Lily Hay Newman

Lily Hay Newman is lead blogger for Future Tense.

    More on Slate Plus

According to documents leaked by Edward Snowden and examined by Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept, GCHQ can skew online poll results, artificially inflate a website's pageview statistics, put two unsuspecting strangers on a phone call with each other, and even censor “extremist” video content. The software suite comes out of GCHQ’s Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), which the Intercept has already reported on for behavior like monitoring YouTube and Facebook users, and tracking people the agency perceives to be activists, like those who visit WikiLeaks.

Initiatives described in the JTRIG documents include:

GATEWAY: “Ability to artificially increase traffic to a website.”

SLIPSTREAM: “Ability to inflate page views on websites.”

CHANGELING: “Ability to spoof any email address and send email under that identity.”

UNDERPASS: “Change outcome of online polls.”

ANGRY PIRATE: “A tool that will permanently disable a target’s account on their computer.”

The Intercept is hosting the complete document here. This week the U.K. Parliament is spending three days debating emergency legislation that would expand government surveillance to “help keep us safe from those who would harm UK citizens,” according to Prime Minister David Cameron's Twitter. Apparently even your office picnic Survey Monkey could be of interest to international governments.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University.

[muyuu]

Todos los editores de medios saben que esta medida es una barbaridad como una casa, pero también saben que pueden sacar una buena tajada de ello

http://blogs.elconfidencial.com/tecnologia/emprendedorfurioso/2014-07-22/el-canon-aede-o-por-que-los-periodistas-queremos-vivir-del-aire_165881/

El Canon AEDE o por qué los periodistas queremos vivir del aire

Lo diré de entrada: estoy en contra del canon AEDE. Total y absolutamente en contra. Esta tasa me parece una de las mayores sandeces que se nos ha ocurrido a los periodistas en los últimos tiempos.

En realidad, lo cierto es que casi ningún periodista de abajo, casi ningún soldado raso, está a favor de esta medida. El apoyo suele venir más desde los cargos directivos de algunos medios, que, viendo el apoyo que en su momento se le dio a la SGAE y a sus intentos de querer cobrar hasta el aire que respiraban los músicos, les pareció buena idea eso de ganarse un dinero extra sin mover, básicamente, un solo dedo.

Ser periodista y estar en contra del canon AEDE no me parece algo revolucionario, ni mucho menos, sino de sentido común. En primer lugar porque si a un medio no le gusta que Google News lo enlace, es tan sencillo como darse de baja. Y en segundo lugar, porque el hecho de que un agregador enlace nuestras informaciones, cobre o no por ello, siempre nos beneficia.

Se quejan de Google, pero matan por salir en él

Dice el presidente de AEDE, José María Bergareche, que los agregadores “ponen en peligro el acceso de los ciudadanos a una información libre y de calidad en internet”, llevando a cabo un ejercicio al que menudo recurrimos los periodistas: en cuanto algo nos afecta mínimamente al bolsillo, decimos que es un atentado contra la libertad de prensa, la democracia y hasta la existencia humana.

También dice que estos agregadores “ponen en peligro la consolidación y el futuro de los diarios digitales”, una frase con la que aún se carcajean en los nuevos medios online que tantas visitas consiguen gracias a Google, Menéame, las redes sociales y otros agregadores.

Se ve que la crisis de los medios no se debe a que algunos medios (cada vez menos, por suerte) no estén haciendo una reconversión industrial, ni a que hayan perdido credibilidad, ni a que publiquen informaciones sesgadas en sus portadas, ni a que vendan sus intereses al primero que pase con un cheque en la mano. No, hombre, no. Los medios están en crisis porque Google nos enlaza y no nos paga.

A lo largo de mi brevísima trayectoria profesional trabajé con editores que ahora no quieren que Google News les enlace sin pagar, pero que a mí me pedían que escribiese titulares pensando en la indexación de Google. Porque todos los periodistas conocemos a jefes así. Son los mismos que reniegan de Menéame, pero pierden el culo por llegar a su portada e incluso llegan a sugerirte que te hagas un perfil falso para subir tus propias noticias al portal. Ese es el nivel.

¿Quién recaudará ese canon?

El colmo del despropósito llega cuando nos enteramos de quién va a gestionar el cobro de esa tasa (que ningún medio podrá rechazar, por cierto) a Google y demás agregadores. La labor será llevada a cabo por Cedro, una entidad de gestión de derechos que en su momento, junto a la SGAE, también se encargó de cobrar el extinto canon digital (que ahora es asumido por el Gobierno con cargo a los Presupuestos Generales del Estado).

Como nos cuenta el periodista Antonio Delgado basta con echar un ojo a la memoria anual de Cedro para comprobar que, mientras en 2008 obtuvo 37,88 millones de euros en este concepto, en 2012 la cantidad bajó hasta unos exiguos 4,89 millones (que siguen pendientes de abono).

En realidad estoy convencido de que todos los editores de medios saben que esta medida es una barbaridad como una casa, pero también saben que pueden sacar una buena tajada de ello. Al fin y al cabo, Google es una empresa nada amiga de meterse en follones, con lo que no es descabellado pensar que al final, para que se acaben los llantos, Google acabe sacando la chequera y pagando un dinero simbólico para que algunos editores dejen de lloriquear.
Y lo peor no es que Google o los agregadores tengan que soltar dinero, sino que estamos creando un peligrosísimo precedente. Porque si ahora queremos que nos paguen los agregadores, ¿cuánto tardaremos en pedir que nos paguen directamente los buscadores como pedía César Alierta hace tiempo?
Y ya puestos, también podemos reclamar la mordida a los fabricantes de ordenadores, a los fabricantes de móviles, a las empresas de hosting, a las de correo electrónico o incluso al propio Whatsapp, oiga, que hay gente que se pasa noticias por Whatsapp. ¿Quiénes se creen que son para cobrar 0,76 euros por una aplicación en la que la gente se pasa nuestras noticias? ¿No deberían darnos algunos de esos céntimos?

[wanderer]

Es un despropósito, y porque hay que compensar a la prensa en papel "por la competencia desleal de Intenné"...  En fin, precisamente las citas y los agregadores crean más tráfico hacia sus webs.

Pues que las desindexen, y que las cite su p*** madre, y que su tráfico se desplome. A ver quién ríe entonces.

Cuando vean que tienen mucho más que perder por ése modo, se sacarán de la chistera alguna otra cosa para aligerar la cartera del personal, y tanto si enlaza somo si no...

Más allá del desprecio... 

[notengodeudas]

Próxima estación: canon a las conexiones

[muyuu]

Demoledor: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/23/blacklisted/

The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist

[muyuu]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/26/net-neutrality-dead-age-of-digital-discrimination-is-here

Net neutrality is dead – welcome to the age of digital discrimination
A US appeal court ruling that undermines the principle of net neutrality could spell the end for the ideal of an open internet

Want to know if someone is internet-savvy? Just ask them why anyone should care about net neutrality. If they understand the technology, stand by for a lecture on why it is vital that all data on the network should be treated equally by ISPs, and why it is essential that those who provide the pipes connecting us to the network should have no influence on the content that flows through those pipes.

On the other hand, if the person knows no more about the net than the average LOLcat enthusiast, you will be greeted by a blank stare: "Net what?"

If, dear reader, you fall into neither category but would like to know more, two options are available: a visit to the excellent Wikipedia entry on the subject or comedian John Oliver's devastatingly sharp explication of net neutrality on YouTube.

The principle that all bits traversing the network should be treated equally was a key feature of the internet's original design. It was also one of the reasons why the internet became such an enabler of disruptive innovation. Net neutrality meant that the bits generated by a smart but unknown programmer's application, for instance the web, file-sharing, Skype and Facebook, would be treated the same as bitstreams emanating from a giant corporation. Neutrality kept the barrier to entry low.

So far, so good. But the problem with general principles, however admirable, is that they sometimes create inflexibility. In that sense, net neutrality is like the principle that one should never, ever, tell a lie, not even a small one: excellent in principle, unfeasible in practice. The internet works by breaking each communication into small data packets and dispatching them, often by different routes, to their destination, where they are reassembled into the original communication. This was fine in the early days, when most communications were files and emails, and it didn't matter if the packets failed to arrive in an orderly stream. But once innovations such as internet telephony, streaming audio and video emerged, it looked like a good idea to give them privileged treatment because otherwise quality was degraded.

When media corporations such as Netflix came along, they were outraged that their bits had to travel in the same third-class carriages as everybody else's. Which, of course, led big ISPs to the idea that they could put those bitstreams into a fast lane and charge their owners accordingly, thereby earning more revenue and throwing neutrality out of the window.

In the US, the neutrality buck stops with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), historically a doughty supporter of the principle. Since last January, however, the FCC has been impaled on the horns of an appeal court decision. Verizon, the huge US ISP, successfully challenged the FCC's rules on neutrality. The court ruled that the commission did not have the right to prevent Verizon from charging a fee for traffic carried on its network and since that point Verizon has been billing Netflix for providing a fast lane for its content to Verizon subscribers.

Mulling its options in April, the FCC concluded that, to stay within the law, it would have to allow ISPs to charge for providing fast lanes so long as the terms were "commercially reasonable". Anticipating the outrage that this violation of the neutrality principle would generate, the commission put the draft ruling out for a period of public consultation that closed on 15 July.

You can imagine what happened. The commission was deluged by public comments, most of them online. It had to add extra capacity to cope with the fallout from Oliver's broadcast. By deadline day, it had received nearly a million submissions, the vast majority of which were probably hostile to the proposed new ruling.

Also received were a much smaller number of submissions from corporations. Verizon, for example, filed a 184-page comment written by five lawyers. Comcast, another huge ISP, submitted a 71-page document. Other companies (internet giants and telecoms mainly) did much the same.

Guess which submissions the FCC will take seriously?

You know the answer. All the public submissions will be read and most of them rejected. This not because FCC officials are biased or corrupt. It's just that they can't do anything with expressions of outrage or affirmations of values. They're charged by Congress with making rules that can stand up to legal challenge. They need submissions that have evidence and arguments, things that most laypeople are not in a position to provide. Sad but true: even in a democracy, rulemaking can't be done by plebiscite, online or off. And that noise you're hearing is the ghost of Edmund Burke cheering.

Enlaces y referencias en el artículo.

[muyuu]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/googles-satellites-could-soon-see-your-face-from-space

Google's Satellites Could Soon See Your Face from Space

Google will soon have an unprecedented ability to spy on you from space. Theoretically, at least. How?

Two months ago, after much lobbying by the biggest satellite company in North America, DigitalGlobe, the US government relaxed restrictions to allow for commercially available satellite imagery up to 25 cm resolution—twice as detailed as the previous limit of 50 cm.

Now, the first commercial satellite set to capture these high-res images, DigitalGlobe's Worldview-3, will launch this Wednesday. Six months after that, private businesses willing to fork over the money will be able to get their hands on hyper-detailed photos and videos of the globe.

That, of course, includes Google.

Google—along with Microsoft, NASA, and numerous US federal agencies such as National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which played a pivotal role in the seizure of Osama Bin Laden—is a regular DigitalGlobe customer. It signed a multiyear imagery contract with the colossus satellite company in February to use satellite imagery for apps like Google Earth, Maps, and Street View.

Google's Robo-Selfies Break Street View's Fourth Wall

The extra sharp images from Worldview-3 will greatly increase the maps' level of detail to the point where it can make out 10-inch objects, which means Google will soon be able to see “manholes and mailboxes” from its hired eyes in the sky.

WorldView-3: Ready for Launch

So, when you get that panicked feeling mid-flight that you forgot to turn off your coffee maker before leaving on vacation, Google will have resolution adequate enough for you to see a recent image of your slowly singeing house. You could also hypothetically pull up Google Maps and see a real-time image of your actual plane, rather than a blue dot, soar further and further away from your fiery abode.

The satellite behemoth is now making a push to relax the rules even further, down to 10 cm resolution, about the height of an iPhone 4.

DigitalGlobe currently has five birds in the sky, and one, GeoEye-1, has the ability to capture images at 41 centimeters. The company lobbied hard to loosen restrictions to 25 centimeters so that it could compete with foreign firms that will be blasting their own satellites into orbit soon. According to Reuters, the ability to commercially sell hi-res images this small, it can possibly increase the DigitalGlobe’s revenue by $400 million.

Meanwhile, coincidentally or not, Google acquired its own private satellite company, Skybox Imaging, shortly after the US government relaxed its satellite imagery restrictions in June.

Google’s Skybox intends to launch a constellation of 24 satellites by 2018, which will survey the globe by taking pictures of its entirety three times a day. This too will eventually, undoubtedly, upgrade the picture quality on its map applications. Google’s own birds can capture 90-second video clips and imagery at 30 frames per second. But how much can they actually see?

At this point, considerably less than the shots the Worldview-3 will be snapping. Skybox’s satellites deliver high-res imagery "better than 1-meter resolution,” said Sara Blask, a company spokesperson. “Which means you can clearly discern features such as the size of car windshields, road markings and car colors.”

Skybox founder Dan Berkenstock echoed this claim in a TED Talk he gave right before the launch of SkySat1: “From our own computer simulations we quickly found that one-meter really was the minimum viable product to be able to see the drivers of our global economy,” he said. “For the first time being able to count the ships and cars and shipping containers and trucks that move around our world on a daily basis while conveniently still not being able to see individuals.”

That last bit is the salient point: Skybox’s satellites cannot capture details as small as license plate numbers or someone’s face—yet. But DigitalGlobe’s might. At 25 centimeters, the images will be detailed enough to classify the make of a car. If the restrictions relax further, the plate number or owner's face could come into clear view.

Naturally, the mere speculation of how this new powerful view will impact privacy is already raising concern. But how the Silicon Valley company actually intends to use  its new detailed view of Mother Earth is still a looming question.

Google, for its part, claims it will use satellite image and video capabilities for the greater good. The technology can be extremely helpful in regards to natural disaster relief and it could provide internet access to places where it was previously unavailable.

In all likelihood, Google acquired Skybox not to spy on your mailbox number but to help it achieve something it has not yet been able to do: create a competitive cloud service. Skybox plans to combine its snap-happy satellites’ images with a collection of public data it has already gathered, like historical weather reports and satellite imagery, and create a vast archive, or a “cloud for the Earth” for other companies to run their own software and algorithms on.

But that raises another question: What kind of companies will utilize this “cloud for the Earth?” What could they potentially create with this vast amount of knowledge that, until now, seemed only obtainable and appropriate for super powers or leather-clad spies in action movies? If Google can make out your face from space, will it? And how might it capitalize on that ability?

Despite much of society’s indifference about sharing personal data—proven through social media’s mass archive of photos and information—perhaps it’s time we begin to have an open conversation, on an international level, about these new technological developments that can impact the world and public’s privacy. The sky is no longer the limit.

[Currobena]

El Martes 9 de Septiembre hay una audiencia pública del Consejo Asesor de Google sobre el Derecho al Olvido en Madrid, por si alguien quiere asistir.

http://www.eventosjuridicos.es/es/eventos/audiencia-publica-del-consejo-asesor-de-google-sobre-el-derecho-al-olvido/5497/

Si alguno de los foreros no puede asistir pero quiere hacer preguntas, que las ponga aquí y si alguno podemos ir intentaremos hacerlas, si hubiera turno de preguntas durante la reunión.

[wanderer]

No sé si esto es cierto o es una campaña subliminal, pero por una vez, aplaudiré una decisión de las grandes compañías:

El FBI critica a Apple y Google por cerrar sus teléfonos a la policía

• La policía asegura que es muy útil acceder a datos personales (fotos, mensajes...) para resolver crímenes.
  
• Los nuevos smartphone van a incorporar una encriptación que frena el acceso a adtos sin permiso del usuario.

http://noticias.lainformacion.com/ciencia-y-tecnologia/electronica/el-fbi-critica-a-apple-y-google-por-cerrar-sus-telefonos-a-la-policia_aUb9ov7KVy3etslvbCTXa6/

[wanderer]

Pá mear y no echar gota: 

Algunos periódicos de AEDE que rechazaban Google News ahora pagan por anunciarse en el buscador

El agregador de noticias de Google cerró en España el 16 de diciembre, después de que la nueva Ley de la Propiedad Intelectual impusiera a este tipo de páginas un canon por utilizar contenidos de periódicos digitales. Algunos de los medios que hicieron presión a favor de este impuesto, ahora pagan por anunciarse en Google, cuando en News aparecían gratis.

http://vozpopuli.com/economia-y-finanzas/54798-algunos-periodicos-de-aede-que-rechazaban-google-news-ahora-pagan-por-anunciarse-en-el-buscador

Vaya forma de hacer el ridículo, y además, pagando... 

[NosTrasladamus]

El atentado de Charlie Hebdo les ha dado a los gobiernos europeos la excusa perfecta para hacer lo que tanto tiempo llevaban ansiando, el control de todas nuestras comunicaciones a través de internet:

http://www.xataka.com/aplicaciones-y-servicios/el-gobierno-de-reino-unido-quiere-prohibir-las-comunicaciones-cifradas-en-2016

Dentro de poco será obligatorio navegar con un sistema operativo y un navegador aprobado por el gobierno e ilegal hacerlo con uno que no lo esté (y por supuesto prohibiran cualquier sistema de cifrado que no hayan podido reventar http://www.eldiario.es/turing/criptografia/Nuevas-revelaciones-Snowden-resisten-NSA_0_340515951.html ) :

http://www.genbeta.com/web/naenara-el-navegador-de-redstar-os-revela-como-funciona-la-red-en-corea-del-norte
https://blog.whitehatsec.com/north-koreas-naenara-web-browser-its-weirder-than-we-thought/
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censura_de_Internet_en_la_Rep%C3%BAblica_Popular_China