Wartime Is a Bad Time to Mess with the Internet
eff.org
eff.org
Should we then terminate all of the domains and tlds hold by any USA based entity. Reclaim all of the IP space hold by them too? Surely it would solve some starvation issue, and be just, but do we want that?
If anything, I'd say that Bin Laden actually mostly met his goals here - He mired the US in an unpopular and horrendously expensive set of wars, that made a LOT of everyday Americans much more mindful of the military industrial machine that is the US state (and I say that as an American). Not to mention we're seeing a more clear decline in US influence abroad because of it.
Did we face a similar set of retaliatory sanctions? No, but that's because the cost/reward structure is hugely different. It's hard to sanction the largest economy in the world, which owns and prints the currency most of the world uses as its reserve, and which is also the military backer that has mostly kept Europe from becoming another series of land wars after WW2.
Thats... just so significantly different from the challenges present with sanctioning Russia.
Even this discussion about the internet - The ICANN is an american company. Hell - well more than half the sites people want to take action here are American companies. If you tried to saction the US by cutting off their internet... are you sanctioning the US or yourself?
"It's interesting how the world rallied immediately to the aid of Ukraine in a big way, compared to the middle eastern countries that have been destroyed by the likes of the US and allies, or the South American countries that have been completely destabilized by the US government.
Really makes you think..."
People always seem to forget that when they bring up Afghanistan and Iraq. That doesn't make it right but if you are going to condemn the US for it then you also have to condemn the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Belgium, Japan, Korea and a slew of other nations as well.
And if you do also condemn them then cool, good for not being a hypocrite. But it was still legal under international law so sanctions of any kind don't really make sense.
[0] Look at some wikipedia articles describing various armed conflicts and see which ones mention the UN acting in a significant capacity.
This is a pretty absurd statement and use of the no true Scotsman fallacy. If that's the case, you'd just say "No diplomacy from the US ever 'counts' because they are bigger/more powerful / whatever".
You are a liar. The Iraq War was illegal under international law. It violated every conceivable UN procedure and norm of diplomacy.
No, they didn't, in some of the most notable cases (particularly Iraq 2003.) They made some gestures in the direction of seeking that, did a whip count and knew it would not receive the required support, and went and invaded anyway.
And that takes this to a whole different level as well. The idea that the 174 intelligence agencies intentionally "believed" what they knew were lies, because those lies could be used as justification with some measure of plausible deniability, seems a far more likely explanation. But that likely brings this was from the realm of an illegal war to crimes against humanity as you're looking at the deaths of hundreds of thousands based on intentional, malicious, lies.
If another nation did anything even remotely comparable, those involved would undoubtedly find themselves at The Hague.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
[2] - https://thehill.com/policy/international/596693-biden-weighi...
ICC actions are almost exclusively limited to things that happen in Africa, although their ongoing investigations appear to include some middle eastern countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the...
https://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/explore/icc-situations-an...
It's hard to talk about international justice when USA refuses people to be tried at the ICC(like Saddam Hussein) and has a law to invade the Netherlands should an American service member be indicted[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
There is a conceivable universe—not a likely one; the war was both malevolent and stupid—in which setting up a democracy in Iraq made life better for millions of people. Saddam Hussein was a brutal and ruthless dictator. Volodymyr Zelenskyy is an elected president.
It's true that my assessment is based on the view that democracies are inherently more just than autocracies, and not any sort of international law regarding sovereignty. I'm not defending the US's invasion of Iraq. However, I do think democracies are better than autocracies, and I think the world should react differently depending on which is at stake.
Again: bear in mind that the invasion was a bad idea and some Americans at the time said so, but there was also some sense that non-involvement was selfish or immoral. There was much less understanding that the pain it would inflict could so far exceed the intended benefits. We have - I hope - now internalized as a country how wrong that viewpoint is.
I'm not sure that we have. The single most important concept of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is the vast, yawning difference between going to war primarily to stop one organized government from attacking another and going to war to effect regime change on a country. The former is very easy to do with a powerful professional military and the latter is effectively impossible. I don't think the difference has sunk in for most Americans.
Saddam is known to have had chemical weapons, the line between which and "true WMDs" is pretty thin, if it exists at all.
I don't think that there's much of a "disinformation" campaign here if the New York Times (as well as a third-party international organization) repeatedly documented the existence of said weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/world/middleeast/question...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/world/middleeast/thousand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middlee...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middlee...
To my knowledge USA had no treaty with Irak even between the two wars.
The difference between Ukraine and all the other countries invaded in the last 50 or so years is that Ukraine is a real democracy and liberal, modern society.
Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc... are not the same as Ukraine.
We can talk about failed US policy when Russia isn't bombing apartment blocks and nuclear power plants... Or even their lack of an attempt to stop this war when they apparently knew it was coming...
You say you're not pro-US but it seems like you're trotting out the usual defenses for US foreign policy. Which is really just Raytheon policy. I'd love to see the US, Russia, NATO, etc. stop killing civilians. Really shouldn't be controversial, but I guess you could at the very least tell the victims of the families when is the "right time" to get justice.
Or is the issue that people in the Middle East are more deserving of war and strife than a country of blonde hair and blue eyed fair-skinned Europeans?
So that's what it's about. Ukrainians are white so fuck em, right? Too privileged, only been invaded and oppresed like every generation for 1000 years..
A lot of power over the internet is controlled by Western nations that have demonstrated self-interest time and time again, so at some point there will be more and more breakaway groups to escape that one potential method of control.
[0] it's actually already happened, of course, just not in a way most Westerners are impacted by.
who are we? The US government defacto invented the internet. Russia can have their "own internet" if they wanted to, and so does China and these countries probably will.
Whatever US foreign policy is, USA can force corporations making businesses in US to basically do anything US wants. This isn't about equality or justice or whatever here. This is about economic power, who has it and who doesn't. Regardless what war is being waged.
Right now Russia is finding out they have very little economic power.
Organizations such as the EFF wouldn't be allowed to exist in Russia, at least in a form that independent from the whoever seats in the Kremlin.
Edit - Further, his "successor" might have his exact title, but still not quite have the same powers and sway as Putin. My point is their government is something distinctly different in its own right.
The reason we oppose the Ukraine war is because of economic power? That's not the reasoning being used to justify and lionize this particular conflict
>USA can force corporations making businesses in US to basically do anything US wants.
Perhaps, but if the USA government makes businesses do something people find unjustifiable or even objectionable they'll soon find there aren't many more businesses. Not to mention they'll probably find themselves with a lot of protests and legal battles to deal with.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/timeline-of-20th-and-21st-cen...
A better heuristic is to not make policy when upset or angry, and the existence of war is a poor proxy of that. And even that rule can be a hindrance to adequately and rapidly responding to novel stimuli.
Now present in European-MSM 'The Weakening Of Russia', Hint: 'Initially, the Energy Charter process aimed to integrate the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe'
The 'EU' broke the contract (one-sided) September'21 (with 'a grain' of 'Green-Deal' (1,8 metric billions in Euro) euphoria ^^)
regards,
They were also pointing out that the internet is likely to do more good than harm as far as de-escalating tensions goes, if you want to end a war, then turning off the internet is probably not a good policy, since it closes off an opportunity for dialogue and shared perspectives, so could do more harm than any potential good caused by the economic/social pressure.
So "[As a sanction during] Wartime is a Bad Time to Mess with the Internet [if the eventual intent is to de-escalate the war]" is a more reasonable interpretation of the title.
It is not a political tool to beat those we disagree with.
If we use it like that it will cease to become reliable, and therefore useful, to a large contingent of the planet who might take their ball and go home.
E.g. Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran
Sources of malware, DoS attacks based on who their governments currently have a disagreement with, scams, ransomware.
This reason always gets trotted out but Chinese and Russians have no interest in our internet / news sources / information.
Allowing them to connect to us just opens a point of attack, and is a weakness.
Cut the fibre, remove them from DNS. Let them build their own internet if they can.
Russia has invaded Ukraine with full force of military. But, it did not invade %your country% yet. If you participate in hostile actions against Russia while being in %your country%, why don't you expect the retaliation of some kind?
Imagine some country such as the USA doing a large damage to Russia's connectivity. This will lead to direct loss of life in Russia, such as by disruption of cellular networks, 911 not working, hospital domain not resolving, etc. What would then prevent Russia from starting a cyberattack against that country's vital infrastructure which will, too, lead to loss of life before your doorstep?
People in some countries are seen humiliating or even attacking regular russians (some of them already on the local citizenship). Ask yourself, is there a chance %your country% own people are in Russia right now, and what happens if Russia pays back with the same coin?
There's a built-in assumption that Russia will observe some red lines whereas %your country% doesn't need to. This assumption may fail eventually if you try it.
You are saying that a military invasion is before the red line, and taking away TLDs is across the red line?
There's a built-in assumption that Russia will observe some red lines with regards of %your country% whereas %your country% doesn't need to. This assumption may fail eventually if you try it.
Most people are indoctrinated and unaware why russia is invading ukraine. When you study the history of the conflict it's easy to see why Russia is doing what it is doing.
No, but we shouldn't forget Ukrainians also love their children, and they're getting bombed and driven from their homes. The world isn't perfect, and there's always going to be some collateral damage in any resistance to injustice.
There are only losers here.
What surprises me is not that people, companies and governments are threatening to cut off internet services from certain groups, but the fact that these entities have that kind of power in the first place.
I think those who have built their foundations based on enemy technology deserve what is coming to them. However, I hope it helps others at the sideline think hard about their own reliance on enemies and work more towards independence.
They should put on the front page of russian google: "current events in Ukraine", or something like it.
Surely they meant to say "Also , unlike most people on the internet" :p
It was a miatake for ICANN deny the petition, and I think it’s a political decision for EFF to take this position.
It's called having principles. What do you call it when you say that you stand for x but do a 180 when x doesn't suit your agenda (ie. "just cause to do so")?
>because it undermines their position on net neutrality domestically
Can you elaborate? I fail to see the connection here.
This comes after ICANN responded to Fedorov. They even mention that at the bottom. It's a dunk. So who is this blog post for? And why does it feel like a copy-and-paste job of totally generic ideological boilerplate, without any more than a cursory attempt to apply to the situation at hand?
The Russian government doesn't need anyone's help building or defending an information bubble. See, e.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60600487 Channel One is still on YouTube, if you can stomach it: https://www.youtube.com/c/1tv/ I haven't seen a Levada Center poll since the invasion, but we can guess what we might see: https://www.levada.ru/2022/02/24/putin-uveren-chto-grazhdane... The Kremlin didn't succeed with Internet-isolation tests on schedule, but has recently got around to publishing its whitelist of Internet services, with legal provisions ensuring all citizens access, even when they fall behind on their bills. Essentially, it's home-grown, state-run Free Basics.
The precedent argument is nothing more than a dressed up slippery slope. If we take countermeasure X in exceptional situation Y---the Russian Federation invading Ukraine and overtly threatening the world with its nuclear arsenal is hardly a seasonal political staple---we will immediately lose our minds, void all accountability, topple all balancing notions, and overdue it thenceforth, forevermore.
How does the RPSL and RPKI stuff even apply here?
The vague security, privacy, and "trust" arguments are pure hand waving. Nobody is convinced by language like that. It's just there to nod along with, for existing true believers.
Ukraine citizens use the internet to communicate and evade the Russian Military while Russian citizens using it to play league. Who's use is more legitimate seems pretty easy to answer if you ask me.
The fear that the west will appear as hippocratic if they condemn Russia because of the Iraq invasion doesn't make sense to me. The Iraq invasion was completely unjustified, we lied about weapons of mass destruction the same way Russia lie about a holocaust. We don't gain nor lose any ground by acknowledging our past.
Both invasions are unjustified and easy to condemn. If we can't condemn unjustified actions because in the future we might wan't to do the same then we are truly worthy of condemnation.
I don't know about where you got this from, but my father (who currently lives in Russia) uses internet to communicate with me (I live in the US) and to consume news and information about the war outside of the Russian government propaganda.
Thanks to internet still being generally available there, I didn't need to spend any time trying to drop all that info on him myself, as he already came into the call fully aware of all Zelenskyy speeches and other atrocities Russian government is committing during this invasion. And thanks to internet again, he gave me a perspective on the amount of brainwashing going on in Russian media regarding the situation right now, as well as first hand boots-on-the-ground info regarding protests in major Russian cities right now. I am extremely glad for that, as my other side of the family (the one I don't communicate with) has completely fallen for Putin's propaganda, but that's on them given that internet is still accessible. I wouldn't be able to stand to lose my father to this, and I believe that with no internet access there would have been much less choice in the matter.
Want to cut off access to Russian governmental portals and cripple network capabilities of Russian government/military systems? I am all for it. Want to cut off access to some specific internet resources that might directly assist Russian military with the invasion (e.g., certain Google Maps features and such)? Also fully on board with this.
But I am extremely against cutting off general internet access for russian population en masse, as that's their only window into the reality that isn't Putin's propaganda machine. For once, internet is also used by Russians to communicate with their friends/relatives in Ukraine (and in the west in general) who can give them a direct view into the atrocities happening there and slowly sway the general population.
P.S. a silly nitpick, but you must be getting some really strange info, if you think that League was ever even nearly as popular in Russia as Dota/Counter-Strike.
100% agreed.
> your dad doesn't need to talk to you he needs to go outside and talk to putin
The simplicity and reductionist types of views that some people like you espouse here never fail to remind me how sheltered and unexposed to reality some people can be.
Of course you can have the position that all invasions are equally bad, but that is not how things are in reality.
I assume that most people in Europe had studied geography at the school, had heard about the breadbasket of Europe, and know what is Chernobyl.
It come across more like attempt to make it impossible to be refugees from Ukraine anywhere then anything else. Because if EU does not take them, it means no surrounding country is taking them. There is nothing in between. And if more west countries don't take some, Poland, Slovakia, etc will break internally because they are not nearly as rich as these people make it be.
Same with "Russians are nice to them because they are white" stuff. All it amounts to is a wish for war against civilians to escalate faster. There is nothing more in it.
These two take together amount to "I wish genocide of Ukranians and closed borders around Ukraine".