One Article Review
| Source |  taosecurity |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 1324464 |
| Date de publication | 2019-09-13 11:00:00 (vue: 2019-09-13 17:00:58) |
| Titre | Five Thoughts on the Internet Freedom League |
| Texte |  In the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Richard Clarke and Rob Knake published an article titled "The Internet Freedom League: How to Push Back Against the Authoritarian Assault on the Web," based on their recent book The Fifth Domain. The article proposes the following:The United States and its allies and partners should stop worrying about the risk of authoritarians splitting the Internet. Instead, they should split it themselves, by creating a digital bloc within which data, services, and products can flow freely, excluding countries that do not respect freedom of expression or privacy rights, engage in disruptive activity, or provide safe havens to cybercriminals...The league would not raise a digital Iron Curtain; at least initially, most Internet traffic would still flow between members and nonmembers, and the league would primarily block companies and organizations that aid and abet cybercrime, rather than entire countries. Governments that fundamentally accept the idea of an open, tolerant, and democratic Internet but that struggle to live up to such a vision would have an incentive to improve their enforcement efforts in order join the league and secure connectivity for their companies and citizens. Of course, authoritarian regimes in China, Russia, and elsewhere will probably continue to reject that vision. Instead of begging and pleading with such governments to play nice, from now on, the United States and its allies should lay down the law: follow the rules, or get cut off.My initial reaction to this line of thought was not encouraging. Rather than continue exchanging Twitter messages, Rob and I had a very pleasant phone conversation to help each other understand our points of view. Rob asked me to document my thoughts in a blog post, so this is the result.Rob explained that the main goal of the IFL is to create leverage to influence those who do not implement an open, tolerant, and democratic Internet (summarized below as OTDI). I agree that leverage is certainly lacking, but I wondered if the IFL would accomplish that goal. My reservations included the following.1. Many countries that currently reject the OTDI might only be too happy to be cut off from the Western Internet. These countries do not want their citizens accessing the OTDI. Currently dissidents and others seeking news beyond their local borders must often use virtual private networks and other means to access the OTDI. If the IFL went live, those dissidents and others would be cut off, thanks to their government's resistance to OTDI principles.2. Elites in anti-OTDI countries would still find ways to access the Western Internet, either for personal, business, political, military, or intelligence reasons. The common person would be mostly likely to suffer.3. Segregating the OTDI would increase the incentives for "network traffic smuggling," whereby anti-OTDI elites would compromise, bribe, or otherwise corrupt Western Internet resources to establish surreptitious methods to access the OTDI. This would increase the intrusion pressure upon o |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | governments instead of 2003 2018 @robknake @taosecurity abet about accept access accessing accomplish activity affairs against agree aid allies an open analysis anti apply are arguments article asked assault authoritarian authoritarians back based begging bejtlich below between beyond bloc block blog blogspot book borders bribe business businesses but can cannot certainly china citizens clarke com commercial common companies compromise connectivity continue conversation copyright corrupt countries course create creating currently curtain; cut cybercrime cybercriminals data democratic desired differentiate digital discussion disentangle disruptive dissidents document does domain down each efforts either elites elsewhere encouraging enforcement engage entire establish exchanging excluding expect expected explained expression fifth find first five flow follow following following:the foreign form freedom freely from fundamentally further get global goal government governments grounds groups had happy have havens heavy help how idea ifl implement improve incentive incentives included increase influence initial initially intelligence internet intrusion iron issue its join knake know lacking law: lay league league: least let leverage likely line live lobbies local locations lose magazine main manner many markets means members messages methods might military most mostly must neatly net network networks neutrality news nice nonmembers not now off often only open order organizations otdi other others otherwise partners person personal phone platform play pleading pleasant points political possible post pressure primarily principles privacy private probably products proposes provide published push raise ranging rather reaction reasons recent regimes reject reservations resistance resources respect result richard rights risk rob rules russia safe second secure seeking segregate segregating september/october services should similar smuggling split splitting states stop strongly struggle such suffer summarized surreptitious taosecurity technically than thanks themselves these think those thought thoughts titled tolerant too traffic twitter two understand united upon use very view virtual vision vocal want ways web went western what whereby which who wide will within wondered worrying would written www |
| Tags | Guideline |
| Stories | |
| Notes | |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.