INTERNET

AN 3110 Culture, Society, and Technology

HOW IT WORKS
 Internet has two main components
 Hardware – includes everything from cables to the computer
 Other types of hardware – include routers, servers, cell phone
towers, satellites, radios, smart phones, and other devices
 Protocols – sets of rules that machines follow to complete
tasks
 Establish rules for how info passes through the internet. Without
them, you would need direct connections between computers to
access info from them.
 Devices that store the information we seek on the Internet
are servers.
 Other elements are nodes which serve as a connecting points

 Transmission lines can be physical, as in cables and fiber

optics, or they can be wireless signals from satellites, cell
phone or 4G towers, or radios.
 TCP/IP protocols allow you to send a message or retrieve
information from another computer

Process of opening a Website

 First, you open the web browser and connect to a website

 Your computer sends an electronic request over your internet

connection to your ISP (internet service provider)
 The ISP routes the request to a server further up the chain on
the internet
 Eventually the request will hit a domain name server
 This server will look for a match for the domain name
you typed in
 If it finds a match, it directs your request to the proper
server's IP address. If it doesn't find a match, it sends the
request further up the chain to a server that has more
information.
 The request will eventually come to a web server, which
will respond by sending the requested file in a series of
packets (these are like puzzle pieces that fit together to
make a file)
 The data might travel a completely different path to get back
to you. This is part of what makes the Internet so powerful
 When the packets get to you, your device arranges them,
and you are able to see the website that you requested
FIBER OPTIC CABLES
 Made of plastic or glass
 Thin as a human hair

 Conducts 10 billion light pulses of 0s and 1s per second

 Mirrored surface keeps light inside the cable

 The internet boom financed the building of cable

infrastructure
(Optical fiber is used as a means
to transmit data for computer
networking and is very efficient
for long-distance
communications. Therefore, this
use of fiber optics as a data
transmission system is very
important for the future in
computer networking.)
 TCP/IP CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS
• Addressing
• Distinguishes one device from another
• Examples include IPv4 which is running out of addresses, and IPv6, which is
incompatible with IPv4.
• NAT (Network Address Translation) developed to address depletion by assigning
one external address to several computers that have unique internal addresses
• Protocols
• Specific, well defined formats in which data is transferred
• Examples include DNS, HTTP, HTTPS, FTP
 WHAT IS AN IP ADDRESS? (IPV4)
• Each section is more
specific then the previous
• Allows for 4,294,967,296
Addresses

An IP Address is
like a street
address
 WHAT IS AN IP ADDRESS? (IPV6)
IPv6 works like IPv4 but with more addresses

• Allows for
3.40282367x1038 Addresses
• Modern operating systems
support IPv6 and IPv4
• Very few web sites provide
IPv6 service
• Very few ISP’s provide
IPv6 to customers
• Most consumer routers and
modems cannot handle
IPv6

IPv6 Address: 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334

IPv4 Address: 192.168.100.1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
DNS (DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM)

 Used to determine IP
Address(s) of domain
names
• Think of it as a phone
book
 DNSSEC (Domain
Name System Security
Extensions) was created
prevent falsification
 Domain Names are
structured

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System
DNS (CONTINUED)
 DNSSEC
• Makes tampering evident
• OSes, Apps, and DNS servers must be modified to support it
• Fundamentally conflicts with SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act)
• Comcast customers experienced a blackout of nasa.gov when
NASA administrators incorrectly configured records
 URL (UNIFORM RESOURCE LOCATOR)

Uniform Resource Locators

are internet website or
webpage addresses that
consist of:
• Protocol (IE: http, https,
ftp)
• Address (Domain Name or
IP Address)
• URN (Uniform Resource
Name, IE: index.html)
An example URL is
“http://moodle.oakland.edu/”
 Scenario:
Home computer user directs
web browser to “facebook.com”
 Computer asks the Router the
location of “facebook.com”

Where is facebook.com?
Request #1
 Router asks ISP DNS Server the
location of “facebook.com”

#2

Where is
facebook.com?
Request #2
ISP DNS Server asks DNS Root Server the
location of “facebook.com”

#3

#3

#3
#2

#2

#1
Where is facebook.com
Request #3
DNS Root Server responds to ISP DNS Server

Response #3
Response #3

#3
Response #3 Response #3:
#3 Facebook.com is at
#3
69.171.224.11

#3
#2

#2

#1
ISP DNS Server responds to Home Router

Response #3
Response #3

#3
Response #2: Response #3 Response #3
Facebook.com is at
#3 #3
69.171.224.11

#3
#2
Response #2

#2

#1
 Home Router responds to Computer

Response #3
Response #3

#3
Response #3 Response #3
#3 Response #2 #3

#3
#2
Response #2

#2

#1
Response #1:
Facebook.com is at
69.171.224.11
 Web browser connects to 69.171.224.11

Alternate Path

Connect to 69.171.224.11 69.171.224.11

Preferred Path
PURPOSE AND USES OF THE INTERNET

 The internet is used for

many reasons
 As a source of news
 Connecting with
family/friends
 Research
 Shopping
 Playing games
 Sending files to others
 And many more reasons
 TIMELINE:
Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE)

1958: Used flight simulator as central computer for SAGE project which connected radar
installations all over the U.S. and Canada. Considered first computer network.

SAGE Equipment SAGE Data Flow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Automatic_Ground_Environment http://ed-thelen.org/digest1.html
IN 1965 THE FIRST WORKING FIBER OPTIC DATA
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM WAS BUILT BY MANFRED BORNER.
IN 1966 IT WAS PATENTED.

(Optical fiber is used as a means

to transmit data for computer
networking and is very efficient
for long-distance communications.
Therefore, this use of fiber optics
as a data transmission system is
very important for the future in
computer networking.)
 1969-1971
Dept. of Defense ARPANET
(Advanced Research Projects Agency Network)

Leonard Kleinrock: influenced the US Dept. of Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency NET, which went online with four terminals. Switched to TCP/IP in 1983.

Leonard Kleinrock with the first IMP ARPANET: DEC. 1969

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_Message_Processor http://som.csudh.edu/cis/lpress/history/arpamaps/
 1971

Ray
Tomlinson:
sends first e-
mail across
ARPANET

KA10’s used to send the first email ARPANET: SEP. 1971

http://openmap.bbn.com/~tomlinso/ray/ka10.html http://som.csudh.edu/cis/lpress/history/arpamaps/
 1974
• Vinton Cerf, Yogen Dalal and Carl Sunshine: make first use of the
word “Internet.”
• Telenet: the first public network service, goes online. (ISP)

ARPANET/TELENET: JUN 1974

http://som.csudh.edu/cis/lpress/history/arpamaps/
1974 TELENET BECOMES THE FIRST PUBLIC
NETWORK SERVICE.

 Telenet was the first

commercial network
service and some
consider it to be the first
Internet Service
Provider.

Founder of Telenet, Larry Roberts

April 4th, 1975 • Microsoft is founded by Bill Gates

and Paul Allen.
 1976

• Presidential candidate Jimmy Carter and running mate Walter Mondale use
email to plan campaign events.

Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale

ARPANET: JULY 1976

http://vermontdailybriefing.com/?p=697 http://som.csudh.edu/cis/lpress/history/arpamaps/
 1976
 Apple Inc. is founded by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and
Ronald Wayne
 Queen Elizabeth sends her first email. She's the first state
leader to do so.

Steve Jobs Steve Wozniak

 1980 USENET

 Usenet was a global Internet

discussion system. It was
distributed amongst a vast
amount of alternating servers
that would store and then
forward messages to each other
in a ‘news feed’ of sorts. Users
could read posts and post their
own to their own local server
gained by their Internet service
provider which would forward
the message to other servers
across the world.
 1980 ETHERNET

In 1980 the Ethernet cable was

introduced to the commercial market
(though it had been developed in
1974 it was not applied until 1980)
and it quickly became the universal
standard for LAN (local area
network) connections by 1985
replacing alternative wired LAN
devices.

 In 1981, the Computer Science Network (CSNET) was

established. It was a network used for connecting computer
science departments who could not obtain or afford ARPANET.
(CSNET had a hand in spreading awareness about national
networking, and thus the Internet.)
 1981 IBM PC• IBM announces that it will sell its first personal
computer. Only $1,565 dollars! Increases access to
1984 DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM (DNS) IS
computers.
ESTABLISHED ALONG WITH NETWORK
ADDRESSES.

1984: Writer William Gibson

These network addresses were popularizes the word
identified by extensions such “cyberspace.”
as .com, .org, and .edu.
TIMELINE: 1985

Quantum Computer Services, which later changes its name to

America Online, debuts. It offers email, electronic bulletin boards,
news, and other information.

“Current” AOL Logo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL
TIMELINE: 1986
NSFNET: a university network, goes online. In two years was
opened up to commercial interests. In 3 years connected to MCI
mail.

NSFNET: 1986
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation_Network
 TIMELINE: 1990
Tim Berners-Lee: a scientist working at CERN, proposes a
hypertext project called the World Wide Web.

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>HTML
EXAMPLE</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P>Content Here</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>

An example of HTML First Web Server

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_World_Wide_Web
 1993 – Mosaic, the first web browser, is created by the
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
(NCSA)

 1995 – Yahoo! is incorporated and the company

produces one of the very first search engines for use on
the World Wide Web.
 Javais introduced
 Amazon.com is founded by Jeff Bezos
 Ebay is founded by Pierre Omidyar
 Hotmail is founded by Jack Smith and Sabeer Bhatia
 US TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1996

This act allowed cable companies, home phone service

companies, Internet service providers, and other companies to
compete in each other’s markets. This spurs the growth of
technologies needed to provide high speed Internet service to
users. However, Comcast and Verizon agree not to compete in
each others’ territory, so they are monopolies in their areas,
resulting in huge growth of their profits.
 TIMELINE: 1996-7
 1996 – Google.com is launched by Sergey Brin and Larry
Page and eventually becomes the most widely used search
engine on the World Wide Web.
 Paypal is founded by Peter Thiel and Max Levchin

 1997 – Broadband internet is introduced to homes with the

invention of the cable modem (before this dial-up internet
was the only method of access)
 1997 – DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) is introduced to homes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paypal
The giant company Google has one of the most complex systems in the world of
data storage today. Not only is the location of many of their sites kept off public
record but the high levels of security prevent even the top CEO’s from taking a
walk through their buildings. If you are really craving to do so though, go ahead on
Google Maps where they set up a tour for us.
 TIMELINE: 1999

College student Shawn Fanning invents Napster, a

computer application that allows users to swap music
over the Internet.

MySpace.com is launched

Napster Logo Myspace Logo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Napster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace
TIMELINE: 2000
 2000 – To the chagrin of the Internet population, deviant
computer programmers begin designing and circulating viruses
with greater frequency.
 “Love Bug” and “Stages” are two examples of self-replicating viruses
that send themselves to people listed in a computer user's email
address book.
 TIMELINE: 2001
Wikipedia is created.

• Wikipedia is a reworking of Nupedia.

• Unlike Nupedia, Wikipedia had no strict control of
editors or content.
• Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger took over the
Wikipedia project. However, they are not truly the
developers. Wikipedia's content is written by the
general public. So, as for developing content -
everyone did that.
• The programming behind Wikipedia is an open-
source program called Media Wiki. Being open-
source, it has many developers who volunteer time to
work on the code. So, again, there are many
anonymous programmers who developed that.
• In the end, most people say Jimmy Wales started and
developed Wikipedia - which mainly means that he
got a lot of other people to help.

Wikipedia Logo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
 TIMELINE: 2002-4

• As of January 2002, 58.5% of the U.S.

population (164.14 million people) uses the
Internet. Worldwide there are 544.2 million users
• 2003: It's estimated that Internet users illegally download about 2.6 billion music files
each month
• Spam, unsolicited email, becomes a server-clogging menace. It accounts for about
half of all emails
• Apple Computer introduces Apple iTunes Music Store, which allows people to
download songs for 99 cents each
• 2004: Online spending reaches a record high—$117 billion in 2004, a 26% increase
over 2003

Itunes Logo Spam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itunes Self Taken
 TIMELINE: 2005-7 WikiLeaks Logo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

 2005 – YouTube.com is launched

 2006 – Wikileaks.org domain name was registered Oct. 4. Julian
Assange says he is on the advisory board and news reports in The
Australian have called him the founder. Wikileaks.
 More then 92 million websites online
 2007 - Legal online music downloads triple to 6.7 million downloads
per week
 2008 - In a move to challenge Google's dominance of search and
advertising on the Internet software giant Microsoft offers to buy
Yahoo for $44.6 billion
 2010 WIKILEAKS CONTROVERSY

 WikiLeaks is a website that posts previously private information, such as

government documents, U.S. Army and Marine Corps documents, etc.
 Bradley Manning, a previous U.S. soldier, was charged of 34 counts,
convicted to 35 years in prison in 2013.
 Accused of illegally downloading thousands of secret military and State
Department documents and giving them to WikiLeaks
 These papers showed that the government lied to Congress and the public about
the progress of the war
 In prison Bradley transitioned to Chelsea Manning

 Some say he is a hero, some say he is a traitor

 She claims trying to help the general public learn more about the secrecies of the
government and improve democracy in the U.S.?
 Do the citizens have a right to know this information? Does this website
have the right to post such information for the general public? There is a
lot of controversy throughout this case.
WHAT BRADLEY MANNING LEAKED
 “There were 15,000 more civilian casualties in the Iraq war than
previously known.
 • While the U.S. has given money to Pakistan and publicly called
it an ally, Pakistani intelligence has allegedly helped Islamic
extremists, including members linked to Al Qaeda.
 • The documents show widespread corruption in the Afghanistan
government was hurting the U.S. mission there, and the
classified materials revealed details about covert so-called death
squads working for the U.S. and Britain.
 • The most significant result of the leaks, [the interviewee]
insists, were diplomatic cables that spurred the uprisings in
Tunisia, toppling a corrupt government and paving the way for a
governmental overthrow in Egypt and protests to oust corrupt
leaders in North Africa and the Middle East” (CNN)
ANOTHER WIKILEAKS STORY
 Three soldiers stationed in Baghdad released
footage, videos, and stories in 2010 about how
citizens and soldiers were treated in Baghdad
 Soldiers were told to fire at any citizen who
was causing “trouble”
 There was an ambush, and one of the soldiers
saved two wounded children from the firing
 He was yelled at and was told to quit
worrying about the **** kids
 When he asked for mental health care after
the incident, he was yelled at and was told
that if he didn’t “get the sand out of [his]
vagina…there would be repercussions”
 For fear of severe punishment, he never
asked again
(CONTINUED)
 The soldier ended up going home early for spinal and
brain damage after a bomb exploded, and the military
refused to allow him the treatment he needed, and then
discharged him with a pre-existing personality disorder,
which then prevented him from receiving disability
benefits from the military
 Leaking this information was in support of the soldiers’
plans to stop the war and bring everyone back home
before more civilians and soldiers died
 2013: ED SNOWDEN NSA WIKILEAKS

 Former systems administrator for the CIA, Snowden later worked for Dell
inside a National Security Agency outpost in Japan, and early in 2013 joined
the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm inside the NSA center in Hawaii.
 June 2013 Snowden released 1000s of classified documents about many NSA
global surveillance programs with assistance from telecommunication
companies and European governments. Snowden flew to Hong Kong and
then Russia.
 Charged with espionage, stealing US government property

 Snowden revealed the following NSA programs:

 PRISM collects internet communications and phone calls

 FASCIA database of trillions of location records from cellphones, even when

off.
 DISHFIRE collected over 200 million text messages.

 German leader Angela Merkel was outraged that her private phone
2013 SNOWDEN NSA WIKILEAKS
Programs MUSCULAR, INCENSOR, PINWALE collected over 14 billion
Records by directly tapping into Google and Yahoo private internet clouds.
NSA employee diagram shows insertion of SSL in server.
 FACEBOOK
 Largest database of people ever built
 Facebook has been accused of selling personal
information from its users to marketing companies
without the knowledge of the Facebook users
 They require each user to set their own privacy controls, but
they do very little to advertise when they change the privacy
policies
 CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK
 2008-10 Complaint from CIPPIC (Canadian Internet Policy and Public
Interest Clinic ). Facebook violates the Personal Information Protection
and Electronic Documents Act.
 Alleged 22 violations, including not telling users that their
information is given to third parties for marketing, ads
 Facebook default privacy settings allow sharing of personal
information with “everyone”
 Even if a person has the highest privacy settings, their information is
shared if friends have lower privacy settings
 To use third-party applications, facebook members must share
personal information that the application developer, who may use it
or sell it to marketers, advertisers or data-miners.
 Data mining
 Facebook supposedly looks through private messages on their site to
sell information to advertisers, marketers, and data-miners (Google
has also been sued for this)
 PRIVACY CONCERNS CONTINUED

 News Feed and Mini-Feed

 Appear on home pages of users and show what others post
 There were no settings on what a person could see in their news feed,
which allowed certain people and groups to be targeted
 Inability to voluntarily terminate accounts
 When Facebook users try to delete their account, their information is
not deleted. Facebook agreed to delete all information under “special
requests”
 Memorials
 After someone has died, their friends and family can turn their pages
into a “memorial” where they write nice things about the person
 There have been multiple cases where memorial groups have posted
information about deceased people without the permission of the
family or of the government
 WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF YOUR PERSONAL
INFORMATION WAS SOLD TO A CRIMINAL
ORGANIZATION

 The criminal organization could steal your identity.

The criminal organization would have access to your

bank accounts.
The criminal organization could share the information
with scammers and botnet operators.
The criminal organization would have access to cameras
and microphones on your device.
The criminal organization would have access to your
location.
 WAYS TO PROTECT YOUR PERSONAL
DATA/INFORMATION
 Create different passwords for each website that has your personal data,
such as banks and medical offices
 Create complex passwords that are not easy to guess
 Set privacy settings as high as possible on devices such as social media
sites and on devices such as cell phones
 Do not provide your social security number to doctors or others who
request it but don’t require it
 Provide as little personal information as possible to app developers
 Only download apps from the Apple app store or the Google Play store and
not directly from the internet
 Only allow the use of cookies if the website you are using is considered a
"safe" website, for instance with a URL including https
 Change your password at least every 90 days for accounts that have your
personal data stored, such as banks and medical offices
ARGUMENTS OF INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER
COMPANIES (ISPS) AGAINST REGULATION OF
THEIR PRACTICES
 ISPs argue that net neutrality regulations requiring them to provide
equal access and therefore the same prices to all companies would
not allow them to make enough profit to interest investors needed to
expand broadband buildout of fiber optic networks
 ISPs argue that open internet regulations requiring them to provide
equal access would require them to lower prices for higher speed
internet and not allow them to make enough profit to continue to
innovate
 ISPs argue regulation decreases profits, resulting in lower quality
services
 ISPs fear regulation of charges or services would be unreasonable
and a detriment to customers
 ISPs claim regulation will decrease competition (but cable co.s are
monopolies in many areas)
PRACTICES OF ISPS THAT THEY FEAR
WOULD BE CURTAILED BY
REGULATION
 Internet Service Provider companies (ISPs) want to remain
monopolies
 ISPs want to continue extorting companies by slowing service to
them until they pay higher prices
 ISPs want to continue charging customers more for faster internet
 ISPs want to be able to require use of proprietary websites or
partners while blocking competing websites.
 ISPs fear regulation could prevent deals with other companies
 ISPs fear regulation that will allow lawsuits against them for
defamation, and hate speech against LGBTQIA, African-
Americans, Latinx immigrants, jews and Muslims that has led to
violence against these groups.
 ISPs fear regulation classifying them as publishers who are
responsible for providing accurate news
ISP PRACTICES TO PREVENT
REGULATION
 Writing legislation proposed by Republicans prohibiting
the FCC from controlling ISP consumer prices
 Lobbying the FCC and legislators

 Challenging the new FCC regulations in court

 Writing legislation proposed by Republicans to prohibit

the FCC from implementing regulations until court cases
are decided
 Donating money to Republican legislators' campaigns,
PACs
 Funding the Hands Off the Internet website campaign

 Signing petitions to legislators to pass laws preventing

reglation
 RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN THE 2016
ELECTION USING SOCIAL MEDIA
MESSAGES
 “Russia’s overt media outlets sought to sideline opponents of Trump on both sides of the
political spectrum,” Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told
the Senate Intelligence Committee in March 2017.
 Russia’s social media campaign influencing the election for Trump was incredibly
successful, according to University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson.
Experts disagree about how to quantify the impact of Russia’s social media campaign,
but Jamieson, who did a forensic analysis of online activity in 2016 for her book 
Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President—What We Don’t,
Can’t, and Do Know 
argues that it’s very likely Russia did sway the outcome of the 2016 election.
 Russia’s plans to affect the U.S. election began in April 2014 with a “troll farm” that
spread false disparaging messages on social media about Trump’s opponents, as
confirmed by special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s February 2018 indictment charging 13
Russian nationals and 3 Russian companies — including the Russian Internet Research
Agency — with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit bank
fraud and identity theft.
 The Russian Internet Research Agency and its employees, the indictment said, sought to
conduct “information warfare against the United States of America” in order to spread
distrust and support Trump’s election.
Russia’s use of Social Media platforms to
help elect Republican President Trump
Report prepared for the Senate provides an analysis of Russia’s disinformation campaign
around the 2016 election, found on different social media platforms and tailored to the
voters’ interests, to help elect Trump.

1st Report (by Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda and Graphika, a

network analysis firm) found the Russian Internet Research Agency, in an operation
that cost millions of dollars, studied U.S. political groups, traveled to gather
intelligence in several states and developed a network of fake accounts that they used
to infect the American electorate. Throughout 2016, they posted divisive content about
topics such as Black Lives Matter, immigration and gun control; they bought political
ads criticizing Clinton; and they pumped out hashtags like #Hillary4Prison and
#TrumpTrain to their masses of followers.
Their data sets were provided by Facebook, Twitter and Google, covering several years
up to mid-2017.
“What is clear is that all the messaging sought to benefit the Republican Party- and
especially Donald Trump... Messaging encouraged Republicans to support his campaign.
The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought
to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting.”
Warner said it serves as “a wake up call… [requiring] some much-needed and long-
overdue guardrail when it comes to social media.”
Russia’s use of Social Media platforms to
help elect Republican President Trump
2nd Report (for US Senate Intelligence Committee by researchers for
New Knowledge, Columbia University & Canfield Research), it
emphasized the Russian operations saying “The IRA [Russian
Internet Research Agency] created an expansive cross-platform
media image targeting the Black community, which shared and
cross-promoted authentic Black media to create an immersive
influence ecosystem”
It offered some new statistics which include 1,000 YouTube videos
posted by Russians for their disinformation campaign and that
Instagram generated more than twice the “engagement” among users
than either Facebook or Twitter. Such metrics track user comments,
shares, likes and other actions that go beyond having an item merely
appear on their screens.
 RUSSIA HACKED STATE VOTER
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AND
WEBSITES
 U.S. intelligence agencies found Russia did not alter actual votes during the 2016
election. But the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report said that in a small number of
states, Russians “were able to gain access to restricted elements of election infrastructure”
and “were in a position to, at a minimum, alter or delete voter registration data.”
 Russians targeted voter registration systems or state websites in at least 21 states before
Election Day, fully accessed some states’ systems and stole personal information of
voters, including 500,000 voters in one state.
 The FBI alerted states about two months before the 2016 election, when hackers accessed
voter registration databases in Illinois and Arizona. 
 In January 2017, the government issued its first report on election interference and
blamed Russia for the hacks. However, DHS did not tell top state officials that their
systems were scanned by hackers until nearly a year after the election.
 In July of 2018, special prosecutor Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian nationals for their
part in allegedly hacking into U.S. election systems.
 Russians visited the websites of counties in Georgia, Iowa and Florida, according to the
indictment. The hackers also hacked a voter registration software vendor and posed as the
company sending malicious emails to several Florida election administrators.
RUSSIAN HACKS INTO THE 2016 DEMOCRATIC
CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THE DCCC
 In July of 2018, special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s indictment of 12
Russian nationals included agents of the Russian military intelligence
agency, GRU, for stealing tens of thousands of emails from staff in Hilary
Clinton’s campaign, including chairman John Podesta.
 The GRU sent phishing emails that looked like Google security
notifications with a link to change passwords that when clicked gave the
GRU access to that email account.
 GRU officers also used malicious emails to gain access to the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee computer network, according to the
special counsel indictment. Once inside, the hackers installed malware that
allowed them to access more computers and steal thousands of emails and
documents related to the election. In April of 2016, for example, the
indictment said the hackers searched a DCCC computer for terms including
“hillary,” “cruz” and “trump,” and copied a folder titled “Benghazi
Investigations.”
 2016 TRUMP CAMPAIGN COLLUSION WITH RUSSIAN
HACKS INTO CLINTON CAMPAIGN
 In a July 27, 2016 news conference, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump
said about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s government emails on
her personal server: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
Clinton’s staff said the deleted emails were personal, and the Dept. of Justice found
Clinton had not violated the law.
 On or around the same day, according to Robert Meuller’s 2018 indictments, Russian
actors sent phishing emails to 76 addresses used by Clinton campaign staff.
 President Trump hypocritically used his own personal phone for some official
government communications, after falsely claiming Clinton had illegally used her
personal computer server for some official government emails.
 Donald Trump Jr. emailed “I love it” about an email from Rob Goldstone that stated:
“The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their
meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and
information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be
very useful to your father.This is obviously very high level and sensitive information
but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
 Trump Jr. held a meeting June 9, 2016 with Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort,
Jared Kushner and two Russian lobbyists, which he first falsely claimed was about
adoption, and later claimed was legitimate as “opposition research.”
 RUSSIAN 2016 HACKS INTO THE DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE NETWORK
  Access to the DCCC allowed Russian military intelligence GRU hackers to penetrate
the Democratic National Committee network.
 In early June of 2016, the Russian officers launched DCLeaks.com and posted
thousands of stolen documents and emails there. Days later, the DNC announced it had
been hacked
 To cover their tracks the GRU agents then created a fake online group called Guccifer
2.0 and used that persona to share 20,000 emails with WikiLeaks, which released the
stolen emails July 22, just before the Democratic convention.
 In early October, Steve Bannon, then Trump’s campaign chairman, reached out to
Trump’s confidant and advisor Roger Stone to express concern after WikiLeaks
delayed releasing emails. But Stone reassured him and when WikiLeaks released
Podesta’s emails on Oct. 7, 2016, just after the Washington Post published audio from
“Access Hollywood” of Trump bragging about assaulting women, Bannon sent Stone a
message: “well done.”
 Special prosecutor Robert Mueller indicted Roger Stone for telling the Trump
campaign the dates of Wikileaks releases of Clinton emails and damaging information
Wikileaks had about the Clinton campaign.
 RUSSIANS HACKED INTO CAMPAIGNS
OF REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES VS
TRUMP
 “Russia’s overt media outlets sought to sideline opponents of Trump on both sides of
the political spectrum as early as the 2016 primary season.,” Clint Watts, a fellow at the
Foreign Policy Research Institute, told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2017.
 In 2016 the Russian military intelligence DC Leaks website published some emails
hacked from presidential campaigns of Republicans running against Trump.
 In December, just after the 2016 election, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
said his presidential campaign’s emails had been hacked.
 in March 2017, Sen. Marco Rubio told the Senate Intelligence Committee that his
presidential campaign was targeted by IP addresses with an unknown location within
Russia. That effort was unsuccessful,” Rubio told them.
 IN 2019 FACEBOOK BANS
HATE SPEECH
 Promotion of hate speech and violence on Facebook and Instagram has led
the company to ban extremists from its social media platform. Hate speech
is coming mostly from the far right, resulting in mostly far right accounts
being banned.
 Extremists such as Alex Jones from Infowars, religious leader Louis
Farrakhan, 2018 Congress candidate Paul Nehlen, Milo Yiannopoulos,
Laura Loomer, and conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson have had their
accounts removed and banned.
 Disinformation within social media has been a topic of debate since reports
of false propaganda were used to sway votes in the 2016 presidential
election. Facebook has stated that it has removed 1.3 billion fake accounts
since the incident.
 In contrast, the bans have come with controversy from the far-right.
President Trump has accused Facebook, Google, and Twitter for being
biased in favor of Democrats. In response, Facebook claims that the bans
and regulations are not based on politics, but on hate speech promoting
violence.
https://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/56351-facebook-bans-alex-jones-milo-and-others-for-hate-speech
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/15/17349790/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-fake-accounts-content-policy-update
 ONLINE
CRYPTOCURRENCY
 Facebook plans to release a financial system that is based solely on cryptocurrency in the year
of 2020.
 Called Libra, Facebook’s cryptocurrency is currently backed by 27 business partners.
Facebook executives, Mark Zuckerburg and David Marcus intend to have that number to 100
by 2020.
 Some of Libra’s business partners include Mastercard, Visa, Spotify, Ebay, Uber, and
PayPal.
 Unlike Bitcoin, Libra cryptocurrency will be backed directly by government currencies. This
decision was made to prevent high fluctuations to Libra’s value on the global market.
 However, privacy concerns related to Libra have been brought into question due to Facebook’s
involvement in selling private information to third party corporations. Nevertheless, Facebook
reassures users that the Libra project will be run independently by the non-profit organization,
the Libra Association.
 The Libra Association vows to keep all Libra transactions and accounts confidential.
 People who decide to use the Libra cryptocurrency will be able to spend it within a multitude
of online websites and even local business. You will also have the option to convert Libra back
to regular currency. If Libra becomes popularized throughout the world, Facebook intends to
expand the financial system to include avenues for loans, investments, and discounts.
NYT Facebook Plans Global Financial System Based on Cryptocurrency:
 BITCOIN: ONLINE
CRYPTOCURRENCY
 Bitcoin origins: Created by the group named Satoshi Nakamoto, the online currency was initally
released as an open-source software in 2009.
 Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency that has been utilized primarily for online purchases.
 Stored within “virtual wallet” apps, Bitcoin can be exchanged throughout an online network.
 The Bitcoin network records every single transaction on a public record called the blockchain.
 What is the purpose of the blockchain?
 To prevent counterfeiters from making fake Bitcoin.
 To prevent users from spending Bitcoin they do not own.
 To prevent users from opting out of ongoing Bitcoin transactions.
 How does someone obtain Bitcoin?
 Purchase Bitcoin directly with centralized money.
 Trade items of value for Bitcoin currency.
 Create Bitcoin utilizing mining.
Sensationalized image of Bitcoin
 Mining is process of verifying Bitcoin transactions and adding them to the blockchain network.
 Mining requires highly advanced computers and technology to calculate sums for the Bitcoin transactions on the
blockchain.
 To prevent a high influx of Bitcoin, which would inevitably reduce the value of Bitcoin, the sums are becoming more
difficult to calculate.
 It can take bitcoin miners years to receive only one Bitcoin.
 There have been thefts of bitcoins stored on websites

BBC What is Bitcoin and How Does it Work?: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/25622442

 ANALYSIS OF COPS' SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS FINDS 1
IN 5 HAVE POSTED RACIST, VIOLENT CONTENT
 The Plain View Project, started by Philadelphia lawyer Emily Baker White,
attempts to compile bigoted social media posts from law enforcement.
 This database will collect posts, comments, and other public activity that could alter
the public trust of police across the nation.
 It has systematically studied 2,900 police officers and 600 retired police officers from
eight different departments.
 Locations for the Plain View Project were chosen to display a large range of geography
and size. The locations include Phoenix, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Dallas, New York,
Twin Falls, Denison, and Lake County.
 Plain View researchers identified that 1 in 5 police officers and 2 in 5 retired
police officers posted racist or violent content.
 Out of the 328 police officers that were identified posting racist statements on social
media within Philadelphia, 139 of the officers have had federal civil lawsuits against
them.
 On the same merit, 64 of the Philadelphia officers held considerable rank in the police force.
 Federal civil lawsuits against police officers have awarded millions to the victims
involved with the altercations.
 For example, lawsuits against 5 police officers have cost the city of Philadelphia $1.3 million.

https://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/56963-major-analysis-of-cops-soci
al-media-accounts-finds-1-in-5-have-posted-racist-violent-content
 Anecdotes of claimed Internet Bias against
Republicans that could be computer glitches
Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other popular websites
David Harris Jr. (Conservative commentator)- posted on
Facebook but a photo of a letter that accompanied the video he
posted vanished, and showed up in his feed days later.
Miles Ranger (Owner of Maine motel)- noticed a change on the
Facebook political account Maine for Trump 2020. Posts and
shares from his conservative friends dropped precipitously.
Some of his posts and shares were deleted immediately without
explanation, but some of his posts showed up 5-6 days later.
This might have been the result of checking for Russian bots
3 Conservative Republican House Members (Mark Meadows
NC, Jim Jordan OH & Matt Gaetz FL)- Their names are not
showing up in the drop-down menus in Twitter searches, but it
can still be accessed on a full search result, it is a kind of
“Shadow banning” which is claimed not experienced by
Democrats. A day after the story appeared the problem stopped.
 Claimed Internet Bias against Republicans
Is Due to algorithms against controversy, violence,
inflammatory content and conspiracy theories
US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R) of Tennessee- run an ad for her Senate
bid, “the sale of baby body parts” (fetal-tissue research). Twitter
deemed that “inflammatory” and “likely to evoke a strong negative
reaction” so they did not run the ad but tweeted it out instead.
California House candidate Elizabeth Heng- Twitter and Facebook
initially rejected her ad. It showed a footage of the Cambodian
genocide participant who killed her parents, then escaped. Both
services reversed their decision few days later.
Lack of visibility of these sites in the news feeds from Google News.
But studies of Google News have found that liberals and conservatives
get almost exactly the same stories in their news feeds, all from
reputable professional news outlets like the New York Times and the
Washington Post, which many conservatives consider left-leaning
although they are in fact centrist
The conservative conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is banned on social
media platforms due to his inflammatory hate rhetoric
Social media block controversial, inflammatory and violent content
Problems with Claims of Social Media Bias against
Republicans
To demonstrate bias against Republicans a study is required that
statistically compares the treatment of Republicans and Democrats
on Internet platforms. There may be explanations other than bias.
Social media platforms use automated algorithms that may
accidentally provide mismatches of suggestions such as those
experienced below. In this case the algorithm may make suggestions
based on the statistical information that most DC voters are
Democrats. Algorithms operate on knowledge like statistics.
South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan (R) staffer made a Twitter Test account.
Identifying herself only with email address and a phone number with a
202 area code.
She received suggestions to follow:
Democratic politicians
Pundits
Former officials
Journalists Jim Acosta (CNN) & Chuck Todd (NBC)
MANY SCHOLARS WHO STUDY SOCIAL
MEDIA AGREE IT IS NOT BIASED
 “It’s a false narrative that conservatives are bearing the brunt of
some kind of campaign against them,” Ari Waldman, director of the
Innovation Center for Law and Technology at New York Law
School, writes in an email. “Platforms also mistakenly ban pictures
of women breastfeeding. They also ban civil rights activists who
post photos in order to protest police brutality. They also ban drag
queens…. Content moderation is simply a difficult business.”
 Problems are caused by heavy reliance on technology of algorithms
to make human judgements about inflammatory content to block
 Another factor is social media’s clampdown on fake news and
accounts used by Russia to meddle with US elections has resulted in
stricter domestic standards against fake news, conspiracy theories
 Social media companies have done a poor job of making clear
what’s acceptable and not acceptable on their sites
 In the vacuum due to lack of transparency, conspiracy theories about
social media can emerge that appear plausible
 Social media companies are suppressing inflammatory content
PROS OF INTERNET
 Increasing connectivity
with people around the  Development of larger
world personal networks
 Increased sharing of ideas
 Faster communication
and information
and spread of
 Increased individual and
information
group knowledge  Faster exchange of ideas
 Increased rate of
increasing the speed of
innovations building on
developing new ideas
each other
and inventions
 More diverse, and
 Faster dissemination of
therefore democratic,
sources of news
information to followers
in political campaigns
PROS CONTINUED
 Online dating (lots of marriages
now come from online dating
sites)
 Easier communication between
different cultures
 Online services such as Online
Banking, Online Shopping, and
Online Training. (Convenience)
 Ability to Telecommute-
Distance no longer an issue
 Online College Degrees/Online
Learning or Tutoring
 Data Storage on the Cloud
 Wikileaks creates
government transparency
previously lacking
 Cultures can easily find out
about different cultures
 SPEED! (information can
be accessed within seconds)
 Interactive medium.
(Unlike TV or Radio which
is a passive medium.)
 Directions/Online Maps
(No longer Lost!)
CONS
 Rapid spread of computer
viruses and worms  Uses a huge amount of
 Computer hacking crimes
electricity
 Scammers, phishing emails  Servers require huge rooms
misrepresented as banks, of computers for storing
etc asking for personal data
information and passwords  Cyber bullying leads to
 Identity theft from online many suicides
databases  Online dating (creepy
 Emails misrepresenting people)
themselves as banks etc.,  Less face-to-face interaction
asking for personal  Large-scale centralized data
information and passwords
storage and huge use of
 More impersonal and lack
electricity
of social skills
CONS CONTINUED
 Becoming Dumber? (When you
can just look up and answer,
why should you need to
understand anything?)
 Cheating. Schools have to use
preventive measures to keep
students from using the
Internet.
 Plagiarism/stealing. Anyone
can take what you say and
claim it is their own if you post
it freely on the internet without
protection.
 Child Predators
 Questionable reliability of
information, misinformation
 Freedom. People can post
WHATEVER they want. (How to
build bombs, etc.)
 Cost- Have to keep buying newer
technology to use efficiently. (More
RAM, more computing power, etc)
 TOO much information? Hard to
find what you want because you
have to sift through infinite
webpages.
ETHICAL ISSUES
 Children need protection from access to everything on the
internet, good or bad
 The amount of information that companies and other people can
get from us is astounding; we might not even know that they are
taking the information and photos from facebook pages, etc.
 There are many possibilities of becoming addicted parts of the
internet, or radicalized to believe false conspiracy theories.
 “Replacement theory” online led a white 18

year-old boy to drive 300 miles to murder

13 African-Americans in a Buffalo
supermarket.
 Face-to-face social interactions do not

happen as frequently or efficiently

EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

 From an environmental perspective it is better to shop

online than driving to a store and read documents online
versus printing them and chat over Facebook versus drive
to a friends house.
 Several recent studies and articles, however, have shown
that a simple Google search can result in 1-10 grams of
CO2 emissions.
 “Most computers create 40-80 grams of greenhouse gas
emissions per hour through their electricity use (depending
on computer type and if the electricity source is coal or
gas), so the aggregated greenhouse gas emissions just from
computers is quite sizable, never mind the servers and
fiber optic lines.”
 ACCESS
 Well-off children, teenagers, and adults can all access the internet
around the world
 Minorities and poor are less likely to own computers and have
home internet access than whites and wealthier people
 There is a matter of income for whether or not a person can afford
the internet, but US libraries provide access to internet for free
 Many rural people, especially in 3 rd world countries, do not have
internet access or libraries
 UNEQUAL ACCESS

 European internet is faster than in the U.S.

 U.S. ranks 28th in internet connection speed (according to a 2009
report by Communications Workers of America) because ISPs charge
higher fees for high speed internet in America to maximize profits
 Comcast and other providers charge more for faster access

 Pres. Obama has pledged to put broadband in every home

 FCC subsidy to provide internet in rural areas of US

 Gender inequalities of access from elementary to high school

 boys monopolize computers in schools, so girls have less access
 Less access by girls to computers in school and their perception
computers is a male field has led to fewer women obtaining computer
science degrees in college
 On some internet forums, massive amounts of sexism discourage
women from contributing.
EMPLOYMENT INEQUALITIES AT

 5/28/2014 Google released employment figures:

 Men are 70% of workers overall, 83% of techs, 79% of leadership
 Women are 30% of all workers, 17% of techs, 21% of leadership
 Whites are 61% of all workers, 60% of techs, 72% of leadership
 Asians are 30% of all workers, 34% of techs, 23% of leadership
 Latinos are 3% of all workers, 2% of techs, 1% of leadership
 African-Americans are 2% overall, 1% of techs, 1.5% of leadership
 Average of 20-24% women in computer/internet companies
 Young men dominate computer companies and tend to hire other young men
 More women leave computer jobs than men, due to discrimination
 Fewer women in computer industry than ever before
 BUT diverse work teams are more innovative than homogenous ones
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE LAWS
 1978: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
 Was introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy and signed

by President Carter
 The Director of National Intelligence and the

Attorney General can jointly authorize up to one

year of warrantless electronic surveillance through
internet or phones of foreigners abroad or US
citizens suspected of being foreign agents engaging
in espionage or terrorism.
 2001 FISA was amended by the Patriot Act, which

permitted electronic surveillance on US citizens

suspected of assisting terrorists, or engaging in
espionage.
 2008 FISA Amendment Act reduced warrantless

electronic surveillance to 7 days on US citizens

suspected of being connected with terrorist
organizations. The Occupy movement is classified as
a terrorist organization in UK and US, resulting in
arrests violating the US constitutional amendment
allowing peaceful assembly.
LAWS AND REGULATIONS

 Connecticut and Delaware have laws that an employer must

provide written documentation that provides understanding
that they will regulate internet traffic.
 Tells employees that the employer will be monitoring emails and
internet usage
 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
 This act makes it unlawful under certain conditions for an
individual to reveal the information from electronic
communication.
 Exception:
 One clause allows the ISP to view private email if the sender is
suspected of attempting to damage the internet system or attempting
to harm another user.
 LAWS
1994 CALEA

 The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement

Act
 This act was passed in 1994 and requires providers of
phone and internet to have built in surveillance
capabilities in all of their equipment, services and
facilities so as to help law enforcement to monitor these
devices in real time.
 LAWS AND REGULATIONS:
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE

 U.S.A. Patriot Act

 Enacted October 26, 2001 by President Bush
 Purpose to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, investigate
online activity, and discourage terrorist acts both within the U.S. and
around the world.
 Reduced restrictions for law enforcement to search various methods
and tools of communication, such as telephone, email, personal records
(including medical and financial), as well as reducing restrictions with
obtaining of foreign intelligence
 The National Security Agency requires Google, Yahoo, Facebook,
AT&T, Verizon, etc. to provide customer emails, internet traffic and
calls to search for anyone associating with terrorists, including
journalists interviewing them.
HOW OUR GOVERNMENT AND TECH
COMPANIES WORK TOGETHER TO GATHER
INFORMATION ON INTERNET USERS
 Companies can access a user’s location based on IP address, which
can be used to find criminals
 Buildings that can be accessed by key fobs and smartphones can
track daily routines for a given individual.
Facial recognition and fingerprint scanners can be used to build a

database of the population, allowing the government to identify more

individuals.
Call logs on cell phones can be provided to the government by
cellular service providers.
Social media can be a significant source of information for law
enforcement, allowing them to see who your family and friends are as
well as places you visit and where you live
 NSA INTERNET ACCESS
 National Security Agency and the FBI, using National
Security Letters have required internet data sharing by
Google, Yahoo, and Facebook, and phone data from AT&T
Nicholas
and Verizon. Merrill
 National Security Letters also require companies to not talk
about the letters and providing data
 Only Nicholas Merrill, owner of Calyx Internet Access, a
private browser with business clients, in 2004 refused to
sign an NSL and turn over customer records without a
warrant
 Merrill got the American Civil Liberties Union to go to
court and get a ruling that NSLs are unconstitutional
because they infringe on our
1st amendment right to freedom of speech
 PRIVACY AND THE QUANTUM
INTERNET

 Everything that we search online is recorded for advertisers and is

taken by the NSA, which has copied all traffic off server networks
of Google, Yahoo, facebook and twitter, who were already
cooperatively providing some customer data. The traffic is not
encrytped (See PBS Frontline: US of Secrecy Pt. II).
 Google is researching encryption for its customers’ traffic.

 Quantum Internet is an idea that stems from physics. It would

encrypt everything that was sent into the web search and encrypt
everything sent back, so it would all be privatized
 We’d be able to search things on the Internet without our
information being seen by anyone else
 This technology is still decades away because quantum bits are hard
to control and do not fit with computers easily.
 A BRIEF HISTORY OF HOW YOUR PRIVACY WAS
STOLEN
 1982: IBM was ready to ship it’s first PC, pushing the personal computer to the forefront of the
consumer market. Steve Jobs considered the PC as a “Bicycle for the mind.”
 Mid-2000s: The forefounders of the PC were replaced by a younger generation of men and
women. Called Web 2.0, the primary focus was to maximize profits and to create monopolies in
the tech world.
 Mid-2000s: Free apps like Google, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Zynga, and many others
emerge on the WWW. Funded by advertisements and in-app purchases, these free apps would
collect user’s personal information to store into databases.
 2002: Google realizes that private information was not only useful to predict online purchases.
Shortly after, Google would launch Gmail, a email service that could help them continue
privacy invasion. Google maps would continue this endeavor by tracking people’s locations and
movements. Data from third parties would be combined with Google’s data to construct full
profiles on individuals.
 2010: Facebook adopts Google’s marketing strategy and begins to compile user data. Unlike
Google, Facebook was able to track the emotional state of people on its platform, which opened
up an entirely new realm of behavior prediction.
 2014: The success of Google and Facebook attracts other corporations into surveillance
capitalism. Corporations like Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, telecom carriers, and auto
manufacturers continue to collect data. The data collected is used to enable filter bubbles and
recommendation engines that push people towards specific directions on the WWW.
 Present: Online platforms are no longer responsible for keeping user information private.
 THE EUROPEAN UNION’S GENERAL DATA
PROTECTION REGULATION (GDPR) 5/25/18
 Scope: GDPR applies to any organization worldwide that collects the data of, or intends to
target, EU citizens.
 It is illegal to collect, process, store or sell personal data Unless justified as one of the
following circumstances:
 The person gives unambiguous consent
 The person’s data is needed to prepare or execute a contract that the person is a party to
 The person’s data is required for a legal obligation (court order)
 The person’s data is needed to save human life (medical personnel)
 The person’s data is required to perform official or public interest tasks, such as garbage collection
 If you have a legitimate interest in processing a person’s data, BUT this is always overridden by the
rights of the person to delete their data
 Principles and Compliance: Corporate integrity and accountability; Lawfulness; Informed
consent; people’s personal rights to review, restrict or delete their data; data minimization,
protection and accuracy; technical security measures for confidentiality; limitations on
purpose, personally identifiable data, and storage.
 Penalties: Violations of GDPR result in penalties up to €20 million or 4% of the global
revenue (whichever is higher), plus individuals have the right to seek compensation.
 Issues: Primary criticism of inadequate funding, resulting in a low level of enforcement,
which favors multinational corporations.
THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN ON
CLEARVIEW AI BY MELISSA HEIKKILÄ MIT
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 5/24/22

 Clearview AI, a facial recognition company, has been fined almost $10
million by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The
ICO is a data protection watchdog in the UK, and it found that
Clearview AI has been breaching data protection laws by collecting
people’s personal data, including photos, without their consent.
 This isn’t the first time that Clearview AI has been fined for this issue.
Italian data protection authorities fined them earlier this year for $21
million.
 The ICO’s investigation was carried out with the Australian
information commissioner. John Edwards, the UK’s information
commissioner, will also be meeting with European regulators in
Brussels this week, stating that “international cooperation is essential to
protect people’s privacy rights in 2022”.
 THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN ON
CLEARVIEW AI BY MELISSA HEIKKILÄ MIT
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 5/24/22

 Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, a UK digital rights group,
said this will stop Clearview AI from operating in the UK. She also said that
the UK government should ban facial recognition surveillance.
 Even though the US doesn’t have federal data protection laws, action has
been taken against Clearview AI. The ACLU won a settlement in May 2022,
restricting the company from selling their data to most US businesses. Illinois
has a biometric data law, so Clearview AI can’t sell its database to any entity
there for 5 years.
 Europe is working on a law that could ban the use of “real-time remote
biometric identification systems”, which includes things like facial
recognition, in public places. It would also restrict law enforcement from
using facial recognition unless it is for crimes such as terrorism or
kidnappings.
 Influential data protection watchdogs in the EU have called for the banning of
law enforcement use of web-scraped databases.
APPLE’S 14.5 IOS PRIVACY UPDATE
 Apple’s iPhone operating system (iOS) had long been tracking the behavior of its users in
order to sell targeting information to advertisers
 While Apple had offered a method for disabling tracking, it was complicated and difficult
for most iPhone users to turn it off, and many of them didn’t even know the level of tracking
that was occurring while they were using their phone
 Apple’s recent iOS 14.5 update requires iPhone users to explicitly confirm that they want to
be tracked across the internet
 While the update is relatively new and users are slowly upgrading their iOS versions, some
experts estimate that over 90% of iPhone users will opt out of tracking
 Apple has received significant pushback from advertisers and data collection businesses
about this change, largely because they have significantly profited on the buying and selling
of consumer data
 The data that is collected by tracking software is used to run online advertising’s Real Time
Bidding (RTB) competitive system for online ads, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars
in revenue each year, but which is also legally questionable – specifically under the EU’s
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
 This change in Apple’s iOS will push this issue to the forefront and challenge other tech
companies to address their policies and approaches to tracking, managing, sharing, and
securing users’ private data

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/22/if-apple-is-the-only-organisation-capable-of-defending-our-privacy-it-really-is-time-to-worry
PRIVACY ISSUES WITH GOOGLE’S ANDROID OS
 As part of a lawsuit brought by the Arizona Attorney General, documents revealed that
Google actively sought to hide or obstruct from users the ability to turn location sharing off
on their Android smartphones
 When Google tested versions of its Android OS that made turning off and on location
settings more easily accessible, users took advantage of them and regularly turned off the
functionality
 Google considered this behavior a “problem” and sought to hide these settings deep within
the OS, making it harder for users to take control of their private data
 Not only did Google force users to opt-in to location sharing with Google in order to use
third-party apps or WIFI functionality, they also made the process of opting out of location
sharing so obscure that not even their own employees understood how to do it
 Google also pressured manufacturers to hide location settings in order to prevent users from
turning off location data collection
 Google employees suggested that this type of behavior was one reason that Android-based
phones aren’t as popular as the iPhone, as users want to have more control over their data,
especially location-specific information

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/unredacted-google-lawsuit-docs-detail-efforts-to-collect-user-location-2021-5
SOCIAL NET SPEECH IS
PROTECTED (NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLES)
 After some workers were fired for information on their facebook pages,
the Labor Relations Board ruled in 2011 that firing for information on
social media sites is illegal.
 New laws allow workers to discuss their workplace in a negative fashion
on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, which was previously
forbidden
 There are restrictions:
 The posts cannot be personal vents
 They must be aimed at getting better conditions and working toward
helping the employees they work with
 One news reporter was fired because, fed up with having no news stories
lately, she posted on Twitter, “You stay homicidal, Tucson,” among other
comments about her disappointment that no one had been killed the
previous night.
 The new law did not protect this reporter from being fired because she
was encouraging violence and was venting her feelings, as opposed to
trying to help people in the workforce
THINGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL TO POST OR PARTICIPATE
IN ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR OTHER INTERNET WEBSITES

Child pornography is illegal to protect children from sexual exploitation

Obscene material to protect children viewing social medial
Promotion or solicitation of prostitution is illegal in any context
Inciting a crime is illegal wherever it occurs
Plans to commit a crime are illegal wherever they occur
Personal information about a person without their permission is illegal

to post under the Electronic Privacy Act

Falsehoods about a person that violate laws against slander, libel or

defamation
Harassing or threatening harm to another person is illegal anywhere
Hate speech slandering a racial or religious group. Slander is illegal.
Perpetrating a fraud is illegal using whatever means
Infringement of Intellectual property law, such as copyright, trademarks

and patents
 WHAT IS ILLEGAL UNDER SECTION 230
OF THE 1934 COMMUNICATIONS ACT
 Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which amended
the 1934 Communications Act in order to encourage the growth of the
internet, exempts interactive computer services such as social media from
being held accountable for what is posted by content providers, whether
users, or companies providing content such as news or videos.
 However, section 230 states that interactive computer services are still
liable for infringements of federal criminal laws; intellectual property laws
protecting copyrights, trademarks and patents; the 1996 Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and similar state laws; and laws against sex
trafficking, prostitution and child pornography. They could also be
prosecuted under the Patriot act for providing assistance to terrorist
organizations if they are allowed to post.  
 To avoid prosecution, interactive computer services need to block
organizations from posting that are involved in criminal activity, including
sex trafficking, prostitution, child pornography, terrorism, and infringing
intellectual property law.
 Protect IP Act – PIPA would give the government the
ability to block access to websites considered to have
stolen content
 SOPA – Stop Online Piracy Act – would require search
engines to remove content infringing on copyrights –
notices are put up in case of this.
 Hundreds of websites blacked out their sites on January
18th, 2012 to show what would happen if the Senate
passed these bills
 Neither bill was passed
GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES SUPPORTING
THE INTERNET
 Government development of ARPANET
 1998 – E-Rate provides $2.25 billion yearly subsidies to
promote affordable internet connections for schools and
libraries
 2013 – FCC spends $115 million to subsidize broadband
internet providers to extend services to rural parts of the
U.S.
UNDERLYING BELIEFS INVOLVED IN
DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNET
 Open access
 Free sharing of information

 Easier communication in personal and professional

networks
 To open access add free equal access

 More information is better

 Constant growth and progress can be achieved through

technology – the technofix
 More technology is better

 Internet is important for international

Connectivity, intercultural understanding

 INTERNET DEFINITIONS
 FCC: Federal communications commission regulates internet providers
 Open Internet: the principle that information across the World Wide Web (WWW) is
equally free and available to all consumers.
 Net Neutrality: the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all
content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking
particular products or websites.
 Broadband Internet Access Service (BIAS): The service that uses an access network to
provide the ability to transmit and receive data from all or substantially all endpoints of
the internet. This term is used by the FCC to describe the mass market high-speed
internet access offerings that internet service providers sell to private consumers.
 Broadband: wide bandwidth data transmission internet connection that transports
multiple signals at a wide range of frequencies and Internet traffic types, enabling
messages to be sent simultaneously in fast internet connections.
 Access network: The network that connects private consumers to the rest of the
internet. This may be an internet service provider or mobile carrier (cellphone)
network.
 Digital Subscriber Line/Loop (DSL): High-speed internet that you connect to via Wi-Fi
or an ethernet cable through a modem and copper telephone wire as a communication
medium that receives data
 Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity): A Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) that uses radio
frequencies to send signals between devices
 INTERNET DEFINITIONS
 Internet Service Provider (ISP): A network operator company, such as Comcast,
Verizon, AT&T or WOW, that provides broadband internet access service and controls
private consumer access to the internet as well as internet company access to
consumers. They deliver IP packets between a consumer’s IP address and the other
parts of the internet where consumers connect. They monetize access in both directions
by charging internet company customers to use their network and by charging private
consumers to subscribe to their network to gain access to the internet.
 Local Area Network (LAN): a computer network that links devices within a building or
group of adjacent buildings.
 Internet Protocol (IP) packet: The basic unit of traffic on the internet. Packets are
limited in size and labelled with layers of routing and processing information.
 Edge providers: a website, web service or application, hosting or delivering online
content that consumers connect to by using their Internet service providers.
 Network Throttling: intentional slowing of internet speed by a BIAS provider or ISP
 Internet Blocking: BIAS providers or ISPs prevent access to specific websites,
domains, IP addresses, protocols or services for reasons such as illegal or violent
content.
 Paid prioritization: when a BIAS provider or ISP accepts payment (monetary or
otherwise) to manage its network in a way that benefits particular content.
2002 FCC ORDER OF INTERNET
CLASSIFICATION AFFECTING
REGULATION

 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that

was established by the 1934 Communications Act, used
Title I of this Act to classify the provision of cable
modem service (i.e., BIAS provided by a cable TV ISP)
and Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service as
information services, which are less regulated than
Telecommunication services under Title II
 The US Supreme Court upheld the information service
classification of BIAS in the 2005 case National Cable
& Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet
Services (Brand X, 545 U.S. 967)
 2005 FCC OPEN INTERNET POLICY STATEMENT

 four principles to “encourage broadband deployment and

preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of
[the] public Internet”:
 Consumers are entitled to access the lawful internet content of
their choice.
 Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of
their choice (subject to the needs of law enforcement).
 Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices
that do not harm the network.
 Consumers are entitled to competition among network
providers, application and service providers, and content
providers.
 FCC approved mergers of ISPs on condition of upholding
these and more principals of net neutrality
 2010 FCC OPEN INTERNET ORDER OF
RULES TO MAINTAIN NET NEUTRALITY
 BIAS (Broadband Internet Access Service) providers were required to publicly disclose
accurate information regarding their network management practices, network
performance, and commercial terms to consumers, as well as to content, application,
service, and device providers;
 BIAS providers were banned from blocking to differing extents. After the 2014 US
Court of Appeals for DC negative ruling in Verizon vs FCC, blocking was reinterpreted
as a requirement to provide edge providers with a minimum level of access to their end-
user consumers or subscribers.
 fixed BIAS providers were subject to a “no unreasonable discrimination rule” stating
that they shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over
a consumer’s broadband internet access service.
 Paid prioritization (internet companies pay for better access) was ruled “probably” an
“unreasonable discrimination” that would not be allowed
 The order did not prohibit tiered or usage-based pricing, in which consumers pay less
for using the internet less and more for using the internet more.
 An Open Internet Committee was established to review the effects of the new rules at
least every 2 years
 A formal and informal complaint process was established
PARTS OF 1934 COMMUNICATIONS ACT USED AS
LEGAL BASIS FOR FCC AUTHORITY

 Title I was used by the FCC to classify internet companies as

information services, which are regulated less than Title II “common
carrier” public utility telecommunication services
 Title II was used by the FCC for its role in protecting competition and
consumers of telecommunications services;
 Title III gives the FCC the authority to license spectrum, subject to
terms that serve the public interest, to provide fixed and mobile
wireless services;
 Title VI, requires the FCC to protect competition in video services.
 Amendment of the 1934 Communications Act with Section 706 of the
1996 Telecommunications Act, directs the FCC to “encourage the
deployment on a reasonable and timely basis” of “advanced
telecommunications capability” to all Americans and to take action if it
finds that such capability is not being deployed in a reasonable and
timely fashion”
 COMPARISON OF THE 1934 COMMUNICATIONS
ACT TITLE I VS TITLE II
 Title I merely provides the FCC with “ancillary authority.” This allows the
FCC some latitude to regulate information service providers, but only when
such regulation is tied to another, explicit delegation of authority elsewhere
in the Act. For instance, when ISPs provide video services, the FCC is
mandated to make sure there is competition under Title VI of the act.
 Title II gives the Commission explicit rulemaking authority to prevent
“unjust or unreasonable” practices, such as high prices, throttling, blocking
or paid prioritization, by Telecommunications providers because they are
classified under Title II as public utility “common carriers.”
 Utility companies, like ISPs, often hold “natural monopolies” over a certain
service in an area, even when they are privately owned. To compensate for
this, federal, state or municipal government regulations heavily superintend
public utilities to protect consumers against undesirable monopolistic
practices, such as high prices or inadequate service. Government agencies
can regulate the prices utility companies charge their customers, their
budgetary process, their ability to construct new facilities, the services they
are allowed to offer, and their energy efficiency programs.
FCC CONTINUED
 The commission categorizes ISPs as information services, but the FCC has
more control over telecommunication services
 If they were to consider ISPs as telecommunication services, they could
have the control they need to regulate internet speeds and what ISPs can
do
 In January 2014 nonprofits handed in petitions with over a million
signatures urging the FCC to reclassify ISPs as telecommunication
services subject to common carrier rules of neutrality
 3.7 million people argued for net neutrality during the comment period

 President Obama, in a statement released on November 10, 2014, urged

the FCC to establish rules that would reclassify consumer broadband
service as “common carrier” public utility telecommunication service
under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. Further, the statement
called for regulations that prohibit blocking; prohibit throttling; ban paid
prioritization; and increase transparency. It was also stated that these rules
should be fully applicable to mobile broadband and if necessary to
interconnection points.
 2014 FCC PROPOSED RULES CREATE
INTERNET INEQUALITY
 Our tax dollars paid for the development of the internet and now
corporations are trying to privatize it for their profit, appropriating
the benefits from our tax dollars. An Open Internet provides
equal access to all consumers.
 There are constant attempts by many large corporations to control
the internet and regulate what information is available for the
taking from each user of the internet. The FCC is the one that
should be regulating the internet, but the chairman of the FCC,
appointed by Pres. Obama, used to work for the internet cable
industry and in May 2014 proposed rules that would allow
internet company monopolies such as Comcast the Verizon to
charge customers higher rates for faster access, and charge
website providers more to maintain reasonable internet operating
speed, violating net neutrality. Comcast already required higher
fees from Netflix and because internet companies are monopolies
in their areas internet customers and providers have no choice.
 PROBLEMS CAUSED BY MONOPOLIES
 Companies become monopolies by forcing out competitors through strategies such as
bundling, lower prices, making deals with other companies and buying their
businesses at unfairly low prices, exemplified by the monopoly created by Microsoft,
which resulted in an antitrust case by the government against the company
 Once a company is a monopoly it can raise prices without any competition from other
companies
 Consumers have no choice of company or product when one company has a
monopoly in an area, which internet companies have created by colluding to make
one company a monopoly in each area of the country.
 Monopolistic ISPs charge consumers more for faster internet connections, not
providing the equal access involved in an open internet
 Monopolistic ISPs slow internet connections to companies (throttling) until they pay
more for service, creating a tiered pricing system that destroys the ideal of equal
access in net neutrality
 Monopolistic ISPs may require consumers to use proprietary or partner companies
while blocking access to competing companies.
 Monopolies lack the competition that provides incentive to innovate
 THE 2015 FCC OPEN INTERNET ORDER
 Feb 26 the FCC voted along party lines, 3 Democrats vs 2 Republicans, to adopt the
following open internet rules, implemented June 12.
 The 1934 Communications Act Title II was used to classify Broadband Internet
Access Service (BIAS) as a public utility telecommunications service subject to
“common carrier” neutrality rules. BIAS is the internet access network ISPs (cable,
Wi-Fi or mobile) provide consumers
 Applies major provisions of Title II, requiring consumer privacy, disability access,
consumer complaint and enforcement processes, fair access to poles and conduits,
and no unjust and unreasonable practices or discrimination.
 enhances existing ISP transparency rules for both end users and edge providers (with
a temporary exemption for small fixed and mobile providers) and creates a “safe
harbor” process for the format and nature of the required disclosure to consumers;
 Banned blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization by ISPs, preventing them from
charging edge providers like Google, Netflix and social media websites, a toll to
reach consumers at high speeds
 created a general conduct standard that ISPs could not harm consumers or edge
providers (e.g., Google, Netflix) and gives the FCC the authority to address
questionable practices on a case-by-case basis.
 THE 2015 FCC OPEN INTERNET ORDER, CON’T
 Permits an ISP to engage in “reasonable network management” (other
than paid prioritization) and will take into account the specific network
management needs of mobile networks and other technologies such as
unlicensed Wi-Fi networks
 Does not apply the open internet rules to interconnection but does gives
the FCC authority to hear complaints and take enforcement action, if
necessary, on a case-by-case basis, under the 1934 Communications Act,
Sections 201 and 202, regarding interconnection activities of ISPs if
deemed unjust and unreasonable;
 Comcast and other internet providers appealed the rules, but lost their
cases from the US Court of Appeals in D.C., to the Supreme Court that
refused to consider the lower court ruling in favor of the FCC.
 The ISP court cases were attempts to drain the FCC of funds in a lengthy
court battle, wasting time and taxpayer money, while delaying
enforcement of the ruling, but the courts ruled against the ISPs and the
rules went into effect June 12, 2015.
 NET NEUTRALITY VICTORY
 June 14, 2016 : The United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia rejected an appeal from corporations (AT&T,
Comcast, and Verizon Wireless) that oppose net neutrality.
 We could not have won this fight without the leadership of a new
generation of civil rights leaders who put Net Neutrality at the
heart of their equality agenda. ColorOfChange, a group CREDO
has long funded, is a powerful voice for protecting civil rights
online. Their advocacy, and that of groups like the Center for
Media Justice, the Media Action Grassroots Network, and the
National Hispanic Media Coalition, was crucial to pressuring
President Obama, his FCC, and Democrats who in the past have
sided with corporate lobbyists, to support the strongest possible
Net Neutrality rules.
 2018 FCC IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
REVERSES OBAMA-ERA NET NEUTRALITY RULES

 In December 2017 the FCC, chaired by Ajit Pai appointed in 2017, voted 3
Republicans to 2 Democrats to reverse the rules adopted under the Obama
administration. Went into effect June 11, 2018.
 BIAS and ISPs again are classified as less regulated information services
under Title I of the 1934 Communications Act.
 the general conduct standard was eliminated.

 ISPs can offer paid prioritization and can throttle or block access to the
internet for edge providers, etc.
 The FTC assumed the major role in taking action against ISPs that undertake
anticompetitive acts or unfair and deceptive practices
 ISPs are still subject to enhanced transparency requirements and must
publicly disclose, via a publicly available, easily accessible company website
or through the FCC’s website, information regarding their network
management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service
 The Trump Justice Department filed a lawsuit to block California’s state net
neutrality law from taking effect in January 2019.
 2018 US SUPREME COURT ENDS FIGHT OVER
OBAMA-ERA NET NEUTRALITY RULES

 The new rules, which give ISPs greater power to regulate the content
that customers access, are now the subject of a separate legal fight after
being challenged by many of the groups that backed net neutrality.
 US Supreme Court refused a request by the Trump administration and
the telecommunications industry to wipe away a lower court decision
that had upheld Obama-era net neutrality rules aimed at ensuring a free
and open internet, though the justices’ action does not undo the 2017
reversal of the FCC policy.
 FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, appointed by President
Biden in 2021 to replace Ajit Pai, said President Trump “actually
petitioned the Supreme Court to erase history and wipe out an earlier
court decision upholding open internet policies. But today the Supreme
Court refused to do so.”
 Democratic President Obama’s attempt to safeguard equal access to the
internet, was overturned by Republican President Trump, a Republican.
 COMPANIES PRO AND CON 2018 FCC REPEAL
OF OBAMA-ERA NET NEUTRALITY RULES
 The net neutrality repeal was a win for providers like:
 Comcast Corp.
 AT&T Inc.
 Verizon Communications Inc.
 It was opposed by internet companies like:
 Facebook Inc.
 Amazon.com
 Alphabet Inc.
Which have said the repeal could lead to higher costs to
customers.
 1934 COMMUNICATIONS ACT SECTION 230
EXEMPTS INTERNET COMPANIES FROM LEGAL
LIABILITY FOR USERS’ POSTED CONTENT
 To encourage growth of the internet, Section 230 c.1, was added from the 1996
Communications Decency Act that was Title V of the Telecommunications Act
states:
 “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the
publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content
provider [user or company].”
 This means that providers of interactive computer services such as social media
platforms are considered distributors of information from other information content
providers, meaning users or internet companies providing content such as news feeds
or videos, etc. As distributors, the providers of interactive computer services are not
accountable or liable for content on their websites, in contrast to publishers, who are
liable for the accuracy of information that they publish.
 Definitions
 Interactive computer service: Any information service that provides or enables
access to the internet and ability to post by multiple users
 Information content provider:  Any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in
part, for the creation or development of information provided through any interactive
computer service.
 1934 COMMUNICATIONS ACT SECTION 230
EXEMPTS INTERNET COMPANIES FROM LEGAL
LIABILITY FOR RESTRICTING ACCESS TO
OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT
 “Civil liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held
liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access
to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd,
lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or
not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or
make available to information content providers or others the technical means to
restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).1 (d) Obligations of interactive
computer service. At the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the
provision of interactive computer service, the provider shall notify such customer that
parental control protection computer hardware, software, or filtering services are
commercially available.”
 This part of section 230 is called the “Good Samaritan” clause and exempts social
media companies and users such as parents from lawsuits opposing blocking of
objectionable speech over freedom of speech rights in the 1 st amendment of the US
constitution, which don’t apply to private companies such as social media platforms.
 Section 230 provides internet service providers safe harbors to operate as
intermediaries of objectionable content without fear of being liable for that content as
long as they take reasonable steps to delete or prevent access to objectionable
content.
 WAYS 1934 COMMUNICATIONS ACT SECTION 230
EXEMPTS INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICES
FROM ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WHAT IS POSTED ON
THEIR WEBSITES
Providers of interactive computer services cannot be held accountable for content
posted by users on their platforms because they are considered distributors and NOT
publishers or speakers, who would be responsible for the accuracy of information they
provide.
Providers of interactive computer services cannot be held accountable for content
posted on their platforms by other companies providing content such as newsfeeds or
videos.
Interactive computer services are immune from lawsuits based on claims related to
content published by third-parties (users or companies) using their service.
Interactive computer services are immune from lawsuits for blocking posts or banning
accounts for hateful, inflammatory, violent or obscene language.
Users of an interactive computer service shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker
of any information provided by another information content provider
WHAT IS ILLEGAL UNDER SECTION 230
OF THE 1934 COMMUNICATIONS ACT
 Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which amended
the 1934 Communications Act in order to encourage the growth of the
internet, exempts interactive computer services such as social media from
being held accountable for what is posted by content providers, whether
users, or companies providing content such as news or videos.
 However, section 230 states that interactive computer services are still
liable for infringements of federal criminal laws; intellectual property laws
protecting copyrights, trademarks and patents; the 1996 Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and similar state laws; and laws against sex
trafficking, prostitution and child pornography. They could also be
prosecuted under the Patriot act for providing assistance to terrorist
organizations if they are allowed to post.
 To avoid prosecution, interactive computer services need to block
organizations from posting that are involved in criminal activity, including
sex trafficking, prostitution, child pornography, terrorism, and infringing
intellectual property law.
 COURT CASES NARROW SECTION 230
 The first major challenge to Section 230 was the 1997 case Zeran v.
 AOL, in which a person sued American Online (AOL) for failing to
remove, in a timely manner, libelous ads posted by AOL users that
inappropriately connected his home phone number to the Oklahoma
City federal office building bombing. The court found for AOL and
upheld the constitutionality of Section 230, stating it "creates a federal
immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers
liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service.”
 US Naval Academy Law professor Jeff Kosseff contrasted the majority of
cases 2001-2 that upheld website immunity under Section 230; Versus more
than half of 27 cases 2015–2016 that denied the service provider immunity
under section 230. Kosseff asserted the Roommates.com decision was the key
factor that led to this change.
  In the 2008 case Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v.
Rommates.com LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that the
mandatory questionnaire on the website made Roommates.com a content
provider ineligible for Section 230 protections when they facilitated
discrimination and violated the Fair Housing Act by including gender and
race on profiles of people seeking roommates.
 COURT CASES ON SECTION 230
 The family of US citizen Nawras Alassaf, who died in 2017 during an ISIS
affiliated attack in Istanbul, sued Twitter, Google and Facebook for failing
to control terrorist content on their sites.
 Twitter appealed the lower court decision, claiming it improperly
expanded the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333 to make
the social media companies liable for providing material assistance to a
terrorist organization
 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not consider protections under
Section 230, and affirmed the lower court ruling that stated Twitter,
Google and Facebook could be liable for "aiding and abetting" a
designated foreign terrorist organization in an "act of international
terrorism", on account of recommending such content posted by users,
under Section 2333 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996.Twitter appealed to the US Supreme Court,
 In the case of Gonzalez v. Google LLC, the Supreme Court ruled in 2022
that Google was not liable under Section 230 for its YouTube
recommendation options that appeared to promote recruitment videos for
ISIS that led to the death of a U.S. citizen in a 2015 Paris terrorist attack.
 THINGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL TO POST OR PARTICIPATE
IN ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR OTHER INTERNET WEBSITES

Child pornography is illegal to protect children from sexual exploitation

Obscene material is illegal to protect children viewing social medial
Promotion or solicitation of prostitution is illegal in any context
Inciting a crime is illegal wherever it occurs
Plans to commit a crime are illegal wherever they occur
Personal information about a person without their permission is illegal to

post under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986

Falsehoods about a person that violate laws against slander, libel or

defamation
Harassing or threatening harm to another person is illegal anywhere
Hate speech slandering a racial or religious group. Slander is illegal.
Perpetrating a fraud is illegal using whatever means
Infringement of Intellectual property laws protecting copyrights,

trademarks and patents

WAYS THAT SOMEBODY COULD BE CAUGHT
POSTING OR VIEWING ILLEGAL CONTENT ON THE
INTERNET

 Viewing the profile of the person who posted the illegal content.
 Tracing the IP address of the person who posted the content.
 Viewing likes/comments on the illegal content.
 Viewing the IP addresses that visited the page with the illegal
content
 Viewing the usernames and passwords saved by cookies on
webpages with illegal content
 Definition of Internet Cookie: a packet of data, including username
and password, that a computer receives, Saves, and then sends back
without changing or altering it. Saving personal information is
potentially very dangerous. In an ideal world, you never accept the
use of cookies.
THE DANGERS OF BIG CITY
SUBSIDIES

 Private companies are given subsidies by the federal government to provide

internet access to areas deemed too expensive to build
 These include rural areas too remote to attract private companies to make
an investment
 But the government does not regulate the quality of the infrastructure, so very
little transparency and accountability
 US consumers currently subsidize rural providers with $4.5 billion per year to
the FCC’s Connect America Fund
 CAF includes a flat-rate fee paid by consumers regardless of their income
 Therefore, low-income people in urban areas pay a tax to rural ISPs regardless of the
wealth of their area
 THE DANGERS OF BIG CITY SUBSIDIES CONTD.
 In
March 2018, the Federal Communications
Commission launched a “reverse auction”
 Companies can apply to bid for $2 billion in subsidies
to provide internet access to underserved areas in
America
 These companies can then provide subpar services,
such as the minimum 10 Mbps download speeds
 Billions of these funds go to big companies such as
AT&T and CenturyLink
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
 The US never considered basic telecommunication services as a public
service to be regulated by the government
 Public subsidies do not always have to be in the form of payments
 Subsidies can also be disguised as legislation
 They can also be private or public partnerships
 Some statehouses are considering or have passed bills removing city
discretion over infrastructure companies must access
 This allows for city infrastructure to be used as an ATM for carriers
without a guarantee of quality services
 Results: old fashioned telephone lines instead of high-quality optic
cables installed in rural areas while big companies make massive
profits
 THE DANGERS OF BIG CITY SUBSIDIES
CONTD.
 What’s the big deal?

 The problem is the privatization of taxpayer-financed inventions and

subsidies intended to build infrastructure that services the
underserved has instead become an opportunity for large companies
to make huge profits while providing inferior services at high prices
for the consumer
 What can consumers do:
 Since the taxpayers are paying these subsidies to ISPs, the
consumer has the right to demand fair prices and quality speed
from the ISPs as opposed to the high prices and subpar speeds we
currently have
 In Europe, the internet and telecommunications are run by
governments, which results in fair prices and quality services,
including faster speeds than in the US.
REASONS THAT US INTERNET IS SLOWER AND
MORE EXPENSIVE FOR CONSUMERS THAN
EUROPEAN INTERNET

 The internet was created with federal funding but was then given to
private companies without any standards for level of service or
prices
 Major US internet companies such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T
have been given federal grants to provide internet service to
underserved areas and have only provided minimal connections to
the internet while pocketing most of the large grants as profits
 There are no federal controls on prices charged by ISPs because
they are classified under Title I of the 1934 Communication Act as
information rather than under Title II as telecommunications service
public utilities that have to charge reasonable prices
 In Europe the internet is operated by governments that provide
faster speeds at lower prices than in the US
SOURCES
 http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/internet.htm
 http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/how-facebook-sells-your-personal-information-1301241.htm

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/facebook-lawsuit-private-messages_n_4536154.html

 http://mashable.com/2006/09/08/facebook-gets-egg-on-its-face-changes-news-feed-feature/

 https://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2009/2009_008_0716_e.asp

 http://guycodeblog.mtv.com/2010/10/01/facebook-privacy-identity-theft-data-mining/

 http://www.voanews.com/content/wikileaks-organization-sparks-controversy-99311219/122708.html

 http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/19/wikileaks.ellsberg.manning/

 http://guardianlv.com/2013/10/online-dating-becoming-more-popular-than-ever/

 http://scoiltalbot.scoilnet.ie/blog/cyber-bullying/

 http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140219-709059.html

 Lloyd, Seth. 2009. Privacy and the Quantum Internet. Scientific American Volume 301 Number 4, Pp. 80-85.

 Lazare, Sarah and Ryan Harvey. 2010. WikiLeaks in Baghdad: Soldiers come forward to tell their story. The
Nation, Vol. 291, No.s 7 & 8, Pp. 24-7.
 http://inventors.about.com/od/istartinventions/a/internet.htm

 http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm

 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/telecomm_handbook/chapter2_01.htm

 http://upthehillandthroughthewoods.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/when-the-pulsing-of-light-become-friends/

 http://www.pixuffle.net/?p=41

 Greenhouse, Steven. 2013. Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech Is Protected. The New York Times.

 Greenhouse, Steven. 2010. Company Accused of Firing Over Facebook Post. The New York Times.

 http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/files/2013/03/Kuni-Takahashi-Baghdad-03-Lightbox.jpg

 http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/22352-whats-the-right-path-forward-on-net-neutrality

 http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DDMqAxTOl7Q/USxihknRX7I/AAAAAAAAB50/IC4FM7PiwVY/s1600/world+int
ernet.jpg
 http://oliveharveycollegelibraryguides.pbworks.com/f/1337012180/plagiarism.gif
SOURCES
 http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/07-08/ethics.aspx
 http://internetsafety1.wikispaces.com/2

 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/23/internet-will-oligarchs-control-it

 http://taxlady23.com/2013/03/

 http://www.fairobserver.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/featured/j.koerber/shutterstock_96754351.jpg

 http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2014/04/20a113880ffc03656785fbe586c5105ca6b0bcca.jpg

 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/08/19/opinion/rfd-censor/rfd-censor-sfSpan.jpg

 http://www.yops.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/easier-communication.png

 http://www.oecd.org/media/oecdorg/topics/internet/48405289.jpg

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/brand-connect/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/01/Internet1.jpg

 http://www.techpolicydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/brett-blog-pic.jpg

 http://www.nchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/amazon-logo.jpg

 http://man-and-van.me.uk/wp-content/uploads/ebay_logo_gross.jpg

 http://www.the-digital-reader.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Fcc_logo1.gif

 http://blog.delicious.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/facebook_logo.jpg

 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2xGuOStxLDU/TY3sSl13OSI/AAAAAAAABFU/d7qES6IcC6A/s1600/images_
chron_com_photos_2011_01_24_25639322_600xPopupGallery.jpg
 http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/27/article-0-0A539A5D000005DC-57_468x286.jpg

 http://bpmforreal.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/information-security.jpg

 http://www.gyanvihar.org/infra/internet_1.jpg

 https://www.evidon.com/sites/default/files/ECPA-scroll_0.png

 http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/quantum-computer-internet-illos-660x433.jpg

 http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/quantum-computer-internet-illos-660x433.jpg

 https://d320ze5h7gg57a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/news_image/files/news_images/
patriotact_infographic_butt_0.jpg
SOURCES
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html?_r=0
https://act.credoaction.com/me/update/?t=3&akid=18646.2793229.Rb0Gwy
 Belsie, Laurent. Beyond Alex Jones: Twitter and Facebook Face Heat Over Alleged Bias. RSN. 10 September 2018.
https://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/52209-beyond-alex-jones-twitter-and-facebook-face-heat-over-alleged-bias.
Accessed 12 December 2018

 Lakeoff, George. Two Years in, Trump Can Still Count on News Media to Do His Bidding. RSN. 28 October 2018.
https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/53065-focus-two-years-in-trump-can-still-count-on-news-media-to-do-his-bidding.
Retrieved 13 December 2018
 Timberg & Romm, Tony. Russia Used Every Major Social Media Platform to Help Elect, Support Trump, Report Says. RSN. 17
December 2018. https://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/53962-russia-used-every-major-social-media-platform-to-
help-elect-support-trump-report-says. Retrieved 19 December 2018
 Hurley, Lawrence. US Supreme Courts Ends Fight Over Obama-Era Net Neutrality Rules. 5 November 2018. RSN. https://
readersupportednews.org
/news-section2/318-66/53213-us-supreme-court-ends-fight-over-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules. Retrieved 11 December 2018.
 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/22/if-apple-is-the-only-organisation-capable-of-defending-our-privacy-it-real
ly-is-time-to-worry

 Gross, Grant. 2010. Canadian Law Clinic Files Privacy Complaint Against Facebook. ABC News. IDG News Service.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=4964718
 Center for Democracy and Technology. 2018. Cybersecurity and Standards. Tech Explained: The Glossary. July 31. https://cdt.org/insights/tech-explained-the-
glossary/
1.  "Supreme Court to hear challenge to law that shields internet companies from lawsuits". USA Today.
2. ^ Robertson, Adi (October 3, 2022). "The Supreme Court will determine whether you can sue platforms for hosting terrorists". The Verge. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
3. ^ McCabe, David (January 19, 2023). "Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online Speech". The New York Times.
: https://act.credoaction.com/me/update/?t=3&akid=18646.2793229.Rb0Gwy