Indian Government demands access to encrypted Blackberry information
Net neutrality is under attack... At stake is the concept that every website – be it a commercial enterprise or not for profit – operates from the same level playing field. A recent suggestion by Google and Verizon to distinguish wireless services from its fixed line counterparts, a move which would allow carriers to prioritise high profit services, has mobilised campaigners to “stand up and fight back.”
The Indian government has pressed Blackberry manufacturer Research in Motion to provide “lawful access” to its encrypted email and text message services… or face a ban. It is the latest salvo in an international struggle to assert authority over digital communications, one in which the handset maker has found itself centre stage.Several nations, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, now claim that the security which makes these devices popular with consumers and businesses is also a threat to national security. They point out that, unlike other smartphones, Blackberries encrypt such data and route it overseas, primarily Canada, where RIM is based. As such they are demanding access for their counter terrorism and criminal investigation teams, but RIM attest that it do not do “specific deals” with specific nations and has instead proposed to lead an “industry forum” to develop “policies and processes” to prevent the misuse of encrypted services. Insisting that it does not possess a ‘master key’ or ‘back door’ access to such encrypted information, RIM points out that it was unfair to single out Blackberry when several other networks employed similar encryption techniques.NATIONAL SECURITYIn a statement designed to balance these competing interests RIM stressed that it: “…tries to be as cooperative as possible with governments in the spirit of supporting legal and national security requirements, while also preserving the lawful needs of citizens and corporations.”Over weaning government regulation is of course nothing new though, as digitalAim’s Scott Howard told The Drum: “I visited Laos in 1998 and the internet was a rumour that no-one wanted to talk about. In fact at the time the government had blocked all content except its own website. China still has large scale censorship at the ISP level and since 9/11 the CIA uses the best in tracking software to monitor threatening content. Fortunately western governments have been unable to find ways of controlling the flow of free information online. This threat I believe is now behind us. They do have an important part however to play in ensuring that national and EU privacy legislation is kept both up to date with technology and implementable.”But government regulation is just one facet of a wider ongoing ideological debate in technology circles in which Google and Skype are also seen as targets in a drive to enable interception and monitoring of all internet based traffic.Indeed Google itself has been at the heart of the debate over whether the internet should remain free and open after exposing a rift between some of the internet’s biggest players with contentious plans, drawn up in association with Verizon, to rework one of the founding principles of the internet, that of net neutrality. In a “policy for an open internet” Google director of public policy Alan Davidson and Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, outlined their dual vision for the web, saying: “The original architects of the internet got the big things right. By making the network open, they enabled the greatest exchange of ideas in history. By making the internet scalable, they enabled explosive innovation in the infrastructure.”But, and it’s a BIG but, the pair stress that it has now become necessary to “protect” that openness. Describing their proposals as a “principled compromise”, they state that for “wireline” broadband they would enshrine in law the right of consumers to access content using “whatever applications, services and devices they choose” and also mandate against providers discriminating against or prioritising “lawful” internet content. A measure that has stoked fears that centralised agencies could shutdown websites deemed to be unlawful, such as WikiLeaks.NASCENTCrucially however these pledges do not encompass wireless, an omission excused by the statement by describing the service as “still nascent” and “different”. As such, with the single exception of transparency rules on the presentation of information they “…would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless.” As all other principles would be fair game this implies that wireless providers would be allowed to discriminate against some content or favour some traffic over others. Effectively this would sanction the creation of competitor networks to the internet to allow broadband providers to introduce “differentiated online services” such as healthcare monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services and new entertainment and gaming services. But this has stirred fears that broadband providers could, in effect, create private online fiefdoms, fragmenting the universality which gives the current set up such power.With wireless internet rapidly emerging as the dominant platform for web use, and maxi-fi networks enabling city-wide connectivity at council level on the horizon, campaigners are keen to see the openness to innovation of the wired platform maintained for wireless so as to leave consumers as the ultimate arbiters of content. It is a notion which has secured heavyweight industry backing with titans such as Facebook, which flourishes on the open internet, scathing of plans which it sees as putting at risk the ability of people to remotely access all content.Such a loosening of constraints could undermine the great strength of the web, that all internet users enjoy equal access to all online sources of information, irrespective of their medium of access. It would allow mobile carriers to charge content providers a toll for faster access to customers or even block access to specific services entirely. Taken to extremes this could create a two-tier internet, the public one we know today and a private one with faster speeds and expensive tolls. But Howard observes: “Legitimately, content providers such as Google and the BBC already automatically serve alternative content to mobile users through device detection and redirection. They do this to improve the browsing experience on small screens. This area of customisation is one that Google needs to be seen to continue to develop to maintain its search leviathan status as we become ever more active on mobile internet devices.”Recently a 300,000 signatory petition was handed to Google by protestors angered by the search giant’s plans. Using the slogan “net neutrality is under attack, stand up and fight back” the fired up group mingled with reporters at the weekend meeting.This hullabaloo centres on a recent joint statement by Google and Verizon which suggested distinguishing wireless services from their fixed line counterparts, a move which would allow carriers to prioritise high profit services. At stake is the concept of net neutrality whereby every website, be they commercial enterprises or non profit, all operate from the same level playing field by broadband providers.It is perhaps the latest manifestation of a slow creep toward segregated services with the gradual introduction of pay walls, where before most content was free and easy to reach, now much of it comes ring fenced and with cost.MOTIVESHoward is rather more sanguine however, observing: “Google’s motives are under question. Its senior management has been looking for new revenue streams (beyond Adwords) for some time and with the growth of film, TV and telecommunication online it is advantageous to highlight ‘premium’ customers for top tier paid services such as Gmail Telephone services. Can this undermine the neutrality of the internet? I do not think it can, but much like stem cell research and cloning debates we need to be wary of where this priority channelling could lead to in the future.”Whatever the outcome Google’s informal corporate motto, “Don’t be Evil”, has been tarnished. Perhaps for good.