Wayback Machine, la “máquina del tiempo” que te permite viajar por el internet de hace 20 años – El Mostrador

¿Cómo era internet hace dos décadas? Si quieres volver atrás en el tiempo, puedes hacerlo a través de una página web que almacena copias de páginas tal y como eran antes. Te explicamos en qué consiste y cómo funciona.

Fuente: Wayback Machine, la “máquina del tiempo” que te permite viajar por el internet de hace 20 años – El Mostrador

Someone Is Learning How to Take Down the Internet – Schneier on Security

Over the past year or two, someone has been probing the defenses of the companies that run critical pieces of the Internet. These probes take the form of precisely calibrated attacks designed to determine exactly how well these companies can defend themselves, and what would be required to take them down. We don’t know who is doing this, but it feels like a large nation state. China or Russia would be my first guesses.

Fuente: Someone Is Learning How to Take Down the Internet – Schneier on Security

How to survive the Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul and why bother? | Technology | theguardian.com

How to survive the Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul and why bother? | Technology | theguardian.com.

Maria Farrell on the inner workings of a conference where the gala reception has no alcohol and Ed Vaizey appears to have cracked the secret of popularity

'I can't go to bed honey, someone is wrong on the internet!'
‘I can’t go to bed honey, someone is wrong on the internet!’ Photograph: Lorenzo Rossi/Alamy

What’s the IGF?

The world’s ninth Internet Governance Forum (IGF), organised by the UN, is happening this week in Istanbul. The IGF is a free and open gathering of people from all over the world who have come to talk about how the internet is run. Last year’s IGF was in Bali. The year before was Azerbaijan. Turkey’s jailing of bloggers and recent attempt to ban Twitter are actually part of an established tradition of IGF host countries showing a certain carefree whimsy about human rights and the internet.

IGFs are a bit like weddings or London glass box house extensions. They’re all basically the same, but the tiny, barely discernible differences between them consume vast amounts of energy and generate heartache for everyone involved.

What’s the same about this IGF?

For participants, IGF Istanbul is much the same as all the IGFs that came before. It has the usual long, hot queues for a registration badge, extravagant security measures and slavish worship of alleged VIPs, the near-riots by participants not about the free flow of information but the free flow of coffee; the endless, paint by numbers speeches by a dozen or so communications ministers, a venue network that barely functions, and a gala reception with no alcohol.

These first world problems are actually a plus. They bring the 3,000 participants together, providing just enough shared moaning to break the ice between the different tribes of government, technical community, business and civil society.

What’s different?

Nothing overt, but the ground is shifting. This is the second IGF since the Snowden revelations shattered global confidence in the US’s leadership of the internet, and the first IGF since Brazil initiated a global dialogue about who should be in control. There is also the ongoing saga of howICANN can prove itself worthy of being cut loose by the US government before the Obama administration finishes. But no world-changing announcements are expected at this IGF.

As ever, countries including Russia that want to control the internet would prefer to have the discussion about it in a forum that governments dominate: the International Telecommunications Union. But those countries still come to IGF and take part, albeit grumpily. They see efforts to stop them getting their hands on the internet’s controlling levers as stemming from the west’s desire to keep it for itself, with freedoms and human rights simply a smokescreen. All the work-shopping and hand-shaking at IGF won’t mask the ugliness of the internet’s basic geopolitics, especially in a city straddling Europe and Asia, and looking up the Bosphorus to Ukraine, Crimea and Russia’s (other) Black Sea resorts.

A way forward to effectively regulate the trade in surveillance technology | Privacy International

A way forward to effectively regulate the trade in surveillance technology | Privacy International.

The market for surveillance technologies has expanded so much in recent years that oversight has been totally unable to keep up, which has led to devastating consequences in the lives of human rights defenders in repressive regimes around the world.

According to a new study released today by Privacy International, the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation, and Digitale Gesellschaft, international efforts to oversee the trade in surveillance technologies are out-dated and urgently need to be updated in order to keep up in the digital age. Ensuring that export regulations are fit for purpose is a vital part of an overall strategy to ensure the surveillance industry does not continue to trample upon human rights and facilitate internal repression.

Ineffective and outdated controls on these tools allow for authoritarian governments to acquire mass and intrusive spying in an uncontrolled market, enabling them to target political activists, silence opposition voices, suppress the media, and commit human rights abuses.

Go here to read the full report.

Uncontrolled Global Surveillance

The premise that export policies and export control systems should reflect the dangers related to the proliferation of surveillance technologies has been recognised by various national, regional, and international bodies. However, without an international agreement in place that commits states to ensuring companies operating within their jurisdiction do not sell surveillance technology to human rights abusers, current efforts to this end have been piecemeal and disparate.

The study, “Uncontrolled Global Surveillance: Updating Export Controls to the Digital Age”, looks at trade regulations related to surveillance technologies in the UK, US, and Germany, three countries with a large share of this market. It also details efforts made at EU level to control the trade in surveillance technologies, and provides an analysis of the key multilateral export control regime related to the industry – the Wassenaar Arrangement – and the implications of recent efforts by the forum to control surveillance technologies.

Exports controls by themselves will not fix the problem, nor should all surveillance technology be subjected to licensing requirements. Government regulation can have a negative impact on technology, innovation, and trade, as demonstrated by the “Crypto Wars” of the 1990’s. As a result, what is needed is targeted and careful policy analysis, with clear and carefully-crafted controls, as well as accompanied by regular updates and feedback loops allowing input from non-governmental sources.

The report is an invaluable source for understanding the current policy and regulatory landscape, and will prove instrumental for civil society, governments, and industry alike as they engage in this debate and explore or advocate for changes to existing regulations.