The opinions expressed in Over the Edge are those of the writers alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the editorial staff or newspaper society. Feedback can be e-mailed to over-the-edge@unbc.ca. On the Digital Front Jeremy JOHNSON - Starr Wrirer To say it has been a very long two weeks on the internet would be an understatement. Admittedly, things simply go around faster on the internet, but it seems like there have been so many dramatic turns lately, it has left me wondering how _ long it'll take before surveillance society simply takes over. I may have made the mistake of insinuating that the internet will never be stopped and any form of censorship will just be routed around in the past. No, there really is a way to do some serious damage to the internet — disconnecting internet back- bones. That prospect became very real recently when Wired’s ‘Threat Level’ reported on internet backbone company Cogent Communications shutting down their pipes to Swedish-based ISP (Internet Service Provider) Teslia all thanks to a “con- tract dispute”. The internet backbone serves as a central point where huge volumes of traffic flow through expensive fiber optic cables. Shut down a backbone and a major portion of the internet will either be slowed or stopped altogether (though there are still chances through longer routs to get around it) I'll agree with a lot of experts when they say that there actually are a number of central points that links major continents. Es- sentially speaking, if all the major backbones got shut down, good luck connecting to a site outside the continent, you’re going to need it. In the mean time, there has been an additional worfying trend to watch out for over the past several days — particularly. if you’re a p2p user. Rogers, one of Canada’s largest ISPs has recently announced that their “Express” paékagé will have a The War on Technology cap of 60GB monthly. The news coincided perfectly (yes, sar- casm) with the announcement by the CBC who said that they are going to release its show “Canada’s Great Prime Minister” for free and without DRM over BitTorrent. While it’s probably typical for Rogers to make these moves, a look at what is hap- pening around the world paints a worrying trend overall. In Britain, the major ISPs have agreed to roll out a technol- ogy called “Phorm” The technology will drop a cookie into your internet browse with a unique identifier, and then inter- cept browsing traffic and place ads onto websites. No word yet on how many advertisement based sites are reacting to the news that their ads will be competing with ISP ads, but privacy experts in Britain are furious — some even calling the technol- ogy illegal under privacy laws. Now; it may not be a surprise, but China’s government, on top of blocking foreign news reports about Tibet, have blocked websites like BoingBoing.net and YouTube suggest- ing that the sites carry harmful and inaccurate content on the situation in Tibet (though content in Tibet is still leaking onto the internet). Meanwhile, Japan is instituting an internet ban to repeat offenders of copyright infringement — and who said accusations weren’t enough for justice anyway? Meanwhile, Sweden has rejected the idea of banning P2P users in similar .a similar fashion despite the courts suggest- ing.they. take the measure of-letting record labels simply get customer information upon request for litigation purposes. It matches what Frarice had to say about spying on P2P users as well. At least there was a little bit of good news. Same couldn’t be said for Ireland where record labels have sued Irish ISPs for “allowing” copyright infringement to take place over their networks. This trend of holding ISPs liable for copyright infringement is a continuation of a saga where the move first hit France to get ISPs to become copyright cops on their networks and it spread to Britain and Australia. Privacy was a huge concern in the US since, in a dramatic turn of events, Congress shut down retroactive legal immun- ity for warrantless wiretapping being done by ISP’s — namely AT&T — since 2001. They shot the legislation down in spite of Bush’s veto threats. It was a last stand as the senate approved such legislation and now a showdown will be taking place in the government. I have to admit, in my years of following the news, I’ve never seen so many stories about ISPs being possibly liable for copyright infringement or so many moves to get ISPs to invade people’s privacy. Of course, many of these moves are’ being (no surprise) actively resisted for the time being, but I don’t doubt that there’ll be additional moves by record com- panies and governments to get ISPs to cave to pressure and fork out information. The only question is: which ones will crumble under the pressure if these moves keep appearing? It’s unreal watching these issues crop up so frequently all of a sudden. Some are even suggesting that this will be the year of ISP litigation. : With the reports of violence and repres- sion coming out of Tibet and its neighbouring territories over the last week, there has once again been renewed talk over whether or not countries around the world should, in fact, boycott the Beijing Olympics. The argument goes that doing so would send a clear message to China that these countries will not and do not tolerate the use of violence and repression against people exercising their basic human right to peaceful demonstrations. In response, a number of countries, sports officials, andthe International Olympic Committee itself have: responded that.a boycott should not happen, because it would be unfair to the athletes. Both sides are wrong. First: why should*individual coutitries not boycott the Olympics?. Because ‘doing so is just political posturing in which athletes are; in fact, being uséd as pawns. To not allow athletes to compete in the Olympics while businesses and investors continue to do mil- lions of dollars in trade and foreign govern- ments continue to recognize the Communist Party as the legitimate Chinese head of state would be hypocritical and unfair. If Canada, for example, ceased and or even scaled back trade with China and then coupled this with an Olympic boycott, it could be seen as a legitimate message. Otherwise, it’s just empty posturing that might make Beijing angry, but would not hurt. it in any real way. Basically, you're using thé athletes id'send your political messages while politicians and industry con- tinue to feed at China’s trough. The National Post recently published an editorial saying that countries such as Canada should make it clear that athletes who wish to exercise their conscience and not attend the Beijing Olympics. should be allowed to do “so without punishment. To quote: “no athlete should be denied a spot on future teams nor have his or her training funding cut if he or she chooses not to go to Beijing.” This would be a reasonable step to take. It may, however, put undue pressure-on individual athletes over whether {o “take a stand” or do what pretty Bi: ily individual athletes boycott the Olympics, the- Olympics still happen and China still wins. If the IOC decides they’re not going to hap- pen, they don’t/happen. It might suck, but at least everyone’s in the same boat. Heck, they’ can even hold the events at different venues or on different dates. People may miss out: on the Olympic village and all the hooplah that comes from having everyone in the same place at the same time, but at least you still get the chance to compete for the gold without implicitly supporting a major violator of hu- lt may, however, put undue pressure on indi- vidual athletes over whether to “take a stand” or do what pretty much every athlete dreams of doing: representing their country at the Olympic : games. much every athlete dreams of doing: repre- senting their country at the Olympic games. Still, it’s a better option than (a) being barred from competing, or (b) being unable to listen to your conscience without hurting your abil- ity to participate in future Olympics. There is, however, a fourth choice here that is best of all: a boycott by the IOC itself. After all, they’re the ones who have the capacity to truly punish China’s government without punishing athletes. If Canada or Australia or man rights. When individual countries say they don’t: want to individually boycott the Olympics because they don’t want to punish their ath-: letes, it makes sense. But when the IOC says it, they’re just making excuses. Back when people first criticized the decision to allow China to host the Olympics, the sound bite was that with so much pressure coming from; the international community, China would be; forced to ease up and allow for greater human, rights. In the intermediary years whenever China stepped out of line, the IOC would say that there was still time for reform to come. Now, when China starts shooting peaceful protestors, -the IOC says, “Ah, well, it’s too late to do anything about that now.” Still, one shouldn’t be too hard on the IOC. It’s true they’re not doing much to address the human rights issues in China (not to mention the environmental ones). But then, no one really is—from countries to, corporations. It has become increasingly clear that very few people in the public sphere, aside from some actors and human rights advocates, are will- ing to criticize anything China does for fear of missing out on some of the economic ac- tion. Whenever China fails to live up to inter- national standards or breaks promises, diplo- mats around the world say they won’t actually do anything, per se, but they hope that their continued trade with China will encourage the country to reform. Meanwhile, China just keeps on doing whatever the hell it wants be- cause it has realized no one has the guts to do anything about it. The Olympics were pretty much the last arena left where it seemed that maybe China was worried about what the rest of the world thought of it, where maybe China would be shamed and, yes, even punished for failing to live up to its obligations. Now that fear is gone, and any hope of reform is gone with it. The IOC saying “business as usual” simply serves as final confirmation of the fact that when it comes to doing business with Beijing, silence is golden.