The recent news that ISPs were port-blocking Vonage has generated a lot of deep thought over the last few days. Concern over uneven architecture on the ‘net is spreading and the chatter is hardening. I first encountered these ideas when I read Lessig’s books but I never really gave serious thought to the possibility that it might happen. Well, it’s here.
Copyfight has a great post on the topic that discusses the impact that QoS can have on preferential treatment of ISP approved traffic.
Michael Geist writes this week under the title "What Do You Want the Internet to Be" about various developments, including initiatives of the Canadian Government, that forebode an internet dangerously unlike what most of us have in mind. One of them is the so-called "lawful access" initiative. Quote:
Leading the way is the federal government’s “lawful access†initiative. While the term lawful access sounds innocuous, the program, which dates back to 2002, represents law enforcement’s desire to re-make Canada’s networks to allow for lawful interception of private communications.
If lawful access becomes reality, Canada’s telecommunications service providers (TSPs) will be required to refit their networks to allow for real-time interception of communications, to have the capability of simultaneously intercepting multiple transmissions, and to provide detailed subscriber information to law enforcement authorities without a court order within 72 hours.
Moreover, Canada’s TSPs will be subject to inspections and required to provide the government with reports on the technical capabilities of their networks. All of these activities will be shrouded in secrecy with TSPs facing fines of up to $500,000 or sentences of up to five years in jail for failing to keep the data collection confidential.
All of these changes come at an enormous cost – both financially (hundreds of millions of dollars in new technology) and to our personal privacy. While some changes may be needed for security purposes, the government has yet to make the case for why the current set of powers, which include cybercrime and wiretapping provisions, are insufficient. Moreover, there has been no evidence provided that this approach is the least privacy invasive alternative.
There is much, much more in Michael’s article. He’s also posted on his blog in response to questions about how people can get involved to make the Government aware of their disagreement with the steps it’s taking. His thoughts on that are here.
It’s clear that Michael has decided to become a more vocal commentator on developments concerning intellectual property and the internet and that’s a very good thing. We still do not have in this country a robust grassroots system of responding to the lobbying by moneyed interests such as CRIA, the telcomms and others, and voices like his are critical to ensuring that the public policy debate is even. A few weeks ago I saw him speak at the University of Toronto’s "Sound Bytes" conference on the current state of Canadian copyright law and he made a point, at the end of his presentation, of declaring that we are at a crossroads and that he intends to be silent no longer. It was, to many in the room, a dramatic moment, and nicely punctuated his presentation with a note that we have important work to do now in Canada.