As Michael Geist is pointing out, if you’d like to talk about network neutrality to the CRTC, now is the time to do it, but you have until the 23rd to do it in.

The hearings are, of course, on network neutrality. Should an ISP have the power to prioritize the internet in Canada? Canadian ISPs have certainly been saying so for a long time now. In fact, early last year, they were claiming that the networks were completely overloaded and on the verge of a total breakdown due to overcapacity.

They were then asked to prove their claims and they weren’t exactly forthcoming about the actual details, only to ask that their word alone should be believed. Nevertheless, papers were produced and it ultimately undermined their arguments. The papers then showed that at peak hours, the network was running at up to 33% capacity. Not exactly the most convincing statistic that supports Bells argument.

This, of course, was all going on when wholesalers found out that their services was being throttled by Bell (since they resell bandwidth to their customers) So later on, Bell Canada tried to prove again that they were overloaded and ended up passing along another statistic which said that they had two instances where they were 8% congested. Another not-so convincing statistic.

So now, almost a whole year later, Canadian ISPs are arguing that they need to throttle certain high-bandwidth applications to keep their network stable. So after waiting until almost the last moment, they finally forked over the information (anonymously). The statistics, according to the CBC podcast Search Engine, showed that the rise in bandwidth consumption went down 45%. In other words, after having a history of showing that they haven’t really been that overcapacity, ISPs bandwidth consumption has slowed down its growth.

Net neutrality advocates were unsurprisingly happy about the new finding. SaveOurNet.ca had another highligh on the news:

According to the CBC, the figures reveal “annual growth in total traffic volume declined for two consecutive years from 2005-06 to 2007-08 for five of the seven ISPs.” This data significantly undermines arguments made by the ISPs that they need to manage networks in order to prevent congestion.

SaveOurNet.ca co-founder Steve Anderson had this to say today, “If traffic growth is slowing, then it is hard to imagine why the ISPs need to suddenly selectively throttle Internet traffic. The fact that ISPs are slowing access to Internet technologies that compete with their own services seems like more than just a coincidence”.
If you’re Canadian, and you support the views of SaveOurNet.ca, you can contact the CRTC and have your voice heard through their submission form. You can also find out more information through the CRTC public notice or you can find out more information through Michael Geists blog posting on the subject.

It is suppose to be a first of it’s kind case – at least, that’s what a Korean news site is reporting currently. The report says that two website operations were not complying with copyright complaints, so the local copyright industry in Korea is now taking the site operators to court for assisting copyright infringement. While copyright infringement cases have occurred in the country against individual users, it hasn’t happened to website operators until now.

The websites, according to the report, are NHN and Daum. NHN, according to Wikipedia, is a company that operates popular search engine Naver. Daum, according to Wikipedia, is merely a web portal that rivals Naver. Both operate in South Korea.

While BitTorrent website operators in other countries were similarly charged, it’s not clear if a general search engine was ever sued up until now. Search engines have been targeted before for copyright infringement, one of the biggest cases being Google vs. Perfect 10 over thumbnail pictures. Another related case was the number of broadcaster complaints against Google’s YouTube website in spite of having a DMCA system which would otherwise seemingly make them a legal operation.

If the search engine portals lose, it may set in motion a new wave of pressure from the copyright industry. Already, ISPs in Australia, Europe and the United States face similar pressure to implement a three-strike policy based on allegations of copyright infringement.

A report from The Wall Street Journal has gotten numerous people talking recently. The article says that network neutrality is losing major supporters. One of the prominent figures that the WSJ says is losing support for network neutrality is Google because, allegedly, they are negotiating with internet service providers for preferential treatment. Other claims include Microsoft and Yahoo withdrawing from a coalition to keep the network neutral, that Lawrence Lessig is also “shifting gears” on the subject and that advisers to President Elect Barack Obama who support network neutrality are now changing their views on the subject. Quite a news story and certainly news to many including some of the figures that were mentioned in the story.

Epicenter points to a Google blog posting which didn’t exactly fill the posting with praise for the Wall Street Journal. Richard Whitt called the news article “confused” and denied making comments about Obama advisers, suggesting that the Obama teams stance really hasn’t changed. Whitt also said that the company is currently setting up caches for ISPs to help speed up web page loading times, improving the network by delivering content closer to the user – not interfering with competing traffic.

BoingBoing points to Lawrence Lessig’s blog posting. Lessig said that the story was a “made-up drama” and that his views on network neutrality isn’t new. His view is that internet service providers have a right to charge different rates for different services.

BoingBoing updated the posting to include a blog posting explaining in depth why the Wall Street Journals article is “bogus”.

What makes this story so scandalous is the fact that the Wall Street Journal has been around for years and, as such, collected so much credibility that pretty much everything printed in the Journal is perceived as fact. These people go from casual readers all the way up to University scholars which have used articles from the Journal to write scholarly articles (which works its way down to essay pieces written by College and University students) No doubt that the accuracy of the Journal is currently being brought into question by some, though it’s also possible that the Journal is written by human beings who will eventually screw up sooner or later.

Wired’s Threat Level has made an interesting find today – Tor2Web. The concept comes from the anonymizing concept of the Tor network (AKA the Union Router) which anonymizes web surfers and prevents information about them from being recorded. More from the report:

Aaron Swartz, one of the founders of Reddit, and Virgil Griffith, creator of WikiScanner have teamed up to provide users with a new service that gives them access to anonymized content posted through the Tor network.

The article says that the concept of anonymously posting content through the TOR network has been on the back-burner for years, but recently brought back to life over the fact that Wikileaks, a website devoted to people who either want to publish suppressed information or want to access suppressed information (often reporters), was facing legal pressure to take content down.

Since it’s based off of Tor technology, chances are, the content would be difficult to trace back to the source since it’s obfuscated through different routers. It’s unclear whether or not the content would be hosted on multiple servers as is the case with ThePirateBay after they got raided.

An interesting part was located further down the article:

The service is new, so there are a few drawbacks. There are only a couple hundred hidden sites currently available to peruse (many of them are file-sharing and storage services) but Swartz hopes that number will grow as more users become aware that they can publish information anonymously through Tor.

So it appears as though that not only is file-sharing possible, but is already being used as such. Anonymizing file-sharing has been an extremely difficult task since it’s either slow or not popular enough to hold many sought after files to become popular in the first place. Still, with the MPAA hoping to enact world-wide surveillance on the internet, such a system may ultimately prove popular. Here’s hoping that the founders don’t wind up on the wrong end of a lawsuit as a result of all of this.

In the mean time, with the advent of BitTorrent, eMule and MegaUpload/Rapidshare, there’s plenty of users happily file-sharing through other means, so it’s unlikely that Tor2Web will become a popular file-sharing means.

Tor2Web Homepage

There’s an interesting report on Wired’s Threat Level which details Sony getting sued by the FTC for $1 million. While a previous lawsuit against the company proved to be hilarious over the hypocrisy of being sued for software piracy, this lawsuit may be of interest to many web developers who have a website that has any form of profiles.

According to court papers, over 1,000 Sony music sites asked whether an end user was under the age of 13 (section 16 on page 6). Those who said they were under the age of 13 would be restricted from participation. In spite of this warning, users below the age of 13 were able to interact with people of all ages. The sticky part was the fact that users were able to create public profiles which included photos of themselves, their age, gender, and city or country they come from (section 17, page 6) As a result, Sony didn’t, as required by law, obtain verifiable consent from a parent or legal guardian before the information was collected and disclosed (section 20 and 21, page 7) publicly.

As a result, the FTC was able to win the court case with the following:

25. In numerous instances, including the acts and practises describes above, Sony Music collected, used, and/or disclosed personal information from children in violation of the Rule, including:

a. Failing to provide sufficient notice on the Sony Music websites of what information the defendant collects online from children, how it uses such information, its disclosure practises, and all other required content, in violation of Section 312.4(b) of the Rule, 16 C.F.R. [section] 312.4(b);

b. Failing to provide direct notice to parents of what information the defendant collects online from children, how it uses such information, its disclosure practises, and all other required content, in violation of Section 312.4(c) of the Rule, 16 C.F.R. [sec] 312.4(c);

c. Failing to obtain verifiable parental consent before any collection, use, and/or disclosure of personal information from children, in violation of Section 312.5 of the Rule, 16 C.F.R. [sec] 312.5(a)(1); and,

d. Failing to provide a reasonable means for parents to review the personal information collected from their children and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance, in violation of Section 312.6 of the Rule, 16 C.F.R. [sec] 312.6.

The question is, how does a web administrator actually obtain “verifiable consent” in the first place since something like that could easily be faked via e-mail. This ruling may be of particular concern considering that any website that has a forum (whether it be PHPBB or VBulletine, etc) does merely have the ‘over 13 years old’ check box, but users can type in their location, gender, etc. in their profiles. It’s not exactly clear how many websites in the United States are now legally liable.

David Kravets of Threat Level notes the positive side of the ruling: “Businesses often use information they collect from web users for marketing purposes.”

Such a ruling might prove to be a good deterrent for major corporations who want to collect private and personal information for marketing purposes. One might wonder, though, at what cost?

They count domain names with content in this number, says Rich Miller. He does acknowledge that some are busier than others and of course, updated more often, and those numbers are around 47 to 48 million. Amazing numbers if you go back in time and realize the Internet was born with a lowly site that represented sharing of ‘high energy particle physics data’ after creator Tim Berners-Lee worked on it so that experts could share data.

Bloggers and small businesses have proven how simple it is to create a site and make it popular to others. Information sharing and simplicity have merged, creating a huge push of new sites and domains. Reports say much of that increase happened in the last two years.

The cost and complexity of learning to build a site has decreased and many are taking it upon themselves to get creative and learn. Sharing photos on Flickr.com, reconnecting with friends or sharing music on the social networking site, MySpace, or delving into sites that offer video sharing, matchmaking services and more has made life a very different story than 10 years ago when information was hard to come by. How many times do you hear “oh, I’ll just Google it” when a question is asked with no answer?

Many feel the URL market will only increase because of celebrities like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, who have already purchased registered domains for all three of their children. Is this going to be the next step after registering for a Social Security number after the birth of a child? I think so…along with GPS tracking chips and other new things.

Three decades after they began appearing on desktops, PCs are about to start showing up in vehicles. They will let people check e-mail, avoid traffic jams or make restaurant reservations via the Web while on the job or at play.

The idea could prove especially popular among younger drivers. A September survey found that 14% of prospective buyers under 30 want in-car e-mail and Web access, more than double the number who said they wanted it in 2004, says CNW Marketing Research.

“We’re going to see a lot of explosive changes,” predicts Robert Wray, CEO of StreetDeck, a maker of mobile commuting software. Some of the technology will be showcased at a trade show opening today in Las Vegas.

The New York Times said on Tuesday it had blocked British Internet readers from seeing a story detailing elements of the investigation into a suspected plot to blow up airliners between Britain and the United States.

The story was published in Monday’s paper. Under British laws, courts will punish media organizations that publish material that judges feel may influence jurors and prevent suspects receiving a fair trial.

“There has not been a prosecution for contempt over anybody publishing outside this jurisdiction (Britain), but logically there is no reason why there should not be,” said Caroline Kean, partner at UK media law firm Wiggin.