Atlas of internet surveillance maps ownership of network infrastructures worldw

https://techxplore.com/news/2024-03-atlas-internet-surveillance-ownership-network.html

by wglb • 2 years ago

131 40 2 years ago

crotchfire• 2 years ago

The characteristic pattern: In authoritarian states, more influential internet service providers are predominantly state-owned, whereas in democracies they are largely privatized.

This is basically irrelevant as long as there are only a small number of gigantic providers. If the shareholders disagree with the government, the company will do what the government wants.

This all played out with crystal clarity over two decades ago, when the CEO of Qwest (then one of the five largest carriers) refused to spy for the NSA. So they threw the CEO in prison and drove the company to the edge of bankruptcy (it no longer exists).

That was the last time a "privately owned" telecom giant ever said "no" to the NSA.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pgg7q7/the-telecom-exec-who-...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished...

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30...

rekttrader• 2 years ago

I can’t upvote this more, kudos to realization that the evolution of the apranet has not ever been anything less than a military network controlled by the US.

cookiemonsieur2• 2 years ago

Exactly. So called "liberal western democracies" are essentially running the same game as the oh so bad "authoritarian states", just in a roundabout way (Protect the children, the war on "terror" etc ...) .

These "privately owned" companies have always been in bed with the military industrial complex. I'm glad more and more americans and westerners are waking up to this reality and this false dichotomy.

verisimi• 2 years ago

Yes, corporations and the state working together is concealed fascism. We can choose red or blue, but nothing changes.

WarOnPrivacy2• 2 years ago

concealed fascism. We can choose red or blue

Presuming this, I can see distance between dominant and recessive fascism. Elements of recessive fascism can be whittled down - if enough of society is conscientious.

nonrandomstring6• 2 years ago

The article begins by assuming a world split into two camps; freedom-loving liberal democracies and authoritarian hell-holes, each delimited by strong national borders.

That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs. That should be evidence enough that for 80 years since the last world war we've maintained an alliance of ideals that were worth fighting for. Indeed, it's why we have concepts like "national security", although the common meaning of that has been perverted and its reputation dragged into the mud.

Our more subtle problem is the supposed perimeters are no longer clear. We have fascists amongst us on our own soil. They are well ensconced in both government and private enterprise. Globalism and the Internet allowed the spread of authoritarianism which has taken root "at home", sadly much assisted by the technology we've built.

I think it's cynical and does us a disservice if you suggest that every company who disagrees with what the government wants has their CEO thrown in jail. When bullied, providers like Lavabit, TrueCrypt and others chose to shut down their companies and tell everybody why rather than collude in fascism. Much as I dislike Apple (because they are duplicitous) they also put on a show of principles. They may even sincerely believe that "protecting" their customers is a core value.

80 years ago people chose to make the "ultimate sacrifice" by giving their lives. Today the ultimate sacrifice is to forgo money. Qwest folded because they were weak on fascism and put money first, but they are not the only example to hold up. There are more important things than money in this world.

pydry• 2 years ago

That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs.

This is possible in many if not most oppressive countries too. It's simply not worthwhile to throw every critic in prison. This doesn't mean they are protecting freedom, it just means that they've made a cost/benefit trade off that left somebody who wasn't that much of a threat to begin with out of prison.

When you see how we treat dissidents who are a threat to the powers that be (Assange, Snowden, Gonzalo Lira) I don't see a huge difference in how we treat them and how our geopolitical rivals treat theirs. We're slightly better than them at not doing it, but that could just be because our elites feel less threatened.

That should be evidence enough that for 80 years since the last world war we've maintained an alliance of ideals that were worth fighting for.

Not very well, and we get more like Russia with every passing year. Sometimes the similarities are a little too on the nose - like when we bring down a jet to try and grab one dissident and then a year or two later they do it too.

lukan2• 2 years ago

"TrueCrypt"

Maybe not the best example as it was very likely build and run by a criminal to aid his crime cartel buisness, not someone acting on ideals.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux

And TrueCrypt did officially recommend switching to BitLocker, where I am sure the NSA has backdoors for. So not sure what do you mean here.

coldtea• 2 years ago

That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs.

Mostly when the outcome of the criticism happening doesn't matter.

And one can still very well be fired, fined, thrown off their college, for saying the wrong things in their "criticism of society", it's just that the establishment has those consequences distributed now.

digging• 2 years ago

We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs.

Sure, but try doing in person and it can be a very different story.

simpletone3• 2 years ago

We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs.

In the US because we have constitutional freedom of speech. But plenty of people in 'freedom-loving liberal democracies' are arrested for criticizing their societies. Unless you think the UK and Germany are authoritarian?

Besides, there are things we cannot even criticize in this forum.

That should be evidence enough that for 80 years since the last world war we've maintained an alliance of ideals that were worth fighting for.

What alliance of ideals? What are the ideals? Other than maintaining the european domination of the world?

80 years ago people chose to make the "ultimate sacrifice" by giving their lives.

What? You sound like the morons that think we invade iraq to bring freedom and democracy.

1oooqooq2• 2 years ago

i don't have time to address all the wrong assumptions and bad knowledge in your comment. but your crown your ignorance by praising apple marketing against all common sense.

betaby• 2 years ago

The thole 'paper' is a trash-level 'research', adds no knowledge at all. Typical in that area: 'I run ping from random places here are random graphs', let's assume some nonsense and there are bizarre conclusions.

pcw7321• 2 years ago

There is another motivation for the state to run isps other than censorship. Socialists may consider the internet infrastructure, just like roads. This article does feel a bit like propaganda for truth justice and the American way..

lukan2• 2 years ago

"Socialists may consider the internet infrastructure"

In general yes, but which countries in question would you judge socialist?

And the socialist countries from before, well I rather would describe them as a constructs, where everyone was employed by a state owned company.

cookiemonsieur2• 2 years ago

I came here to just say that

PeterStuer• 2 years ago

I'm confused by their methodology. If I can put a tap on the AMS=IX, that gives me access to a huge % of EU traffic regardless of wheter private or public entities own some adress space. In practice the Internet is full of these points of concentration. Whether these were more often born out of traditional network effects of peering in commercial settings or because of authocratic enforcement, the resulting surveillance and control centralization remains the same.

hulitu• 2 years ago

A German-American research team led by the University of Konstanz has mapped the ownership of network infrastructures in democratic and authoritarian states worldwide to show how autocrats control the internet via state-owned service providers.

They "forgot" to look at the nodes, who are all controlled by NSA.

Faaak• 2 years ago

Since when is, CIXP for example, controlled by the NSA?

varjag2• 2 years ago

You can demonstrate in countless ways that democracies are freer than dictatorships but that will never stop a huge swath of online population from claiming that they are, in fact, the same.

whearyou• 2 years ago

Case in point, this thread.

I wonder what it is about people in the West over the last generation that eliminates their ability to distinguish between “not ideal” and “terrible”, if the “not ideal” is their home base.

FrustratedMonky• 2 years ago

The internet itself is often cited as the cause. "Social Medial"

Income inequality is probably more likely, with internet making it easier to see.

In the US, while economy is "good", it ignores a large % of population struggling, and if they are on Social Media, they see the differences.

Then popular uprising, and boom, revolution, dictatorship.

The people that are suffering, don't have the bandwidth to think about "not ideal" versus "terrible".

zabana2• 2 years ago

Ironically, the internet and the free access to information that comes with it have essentially removed the veil.

salawat• 2 years ago

I think it's a class thing. I've told juniors that at a certain point in the social ladder, people start using language funny. Someone saying something is "not ideal" tends to translate to "it's terrible", but specifically when used by management/political types it picks up the real consequent of: "but I'll subject my people to it if that's what it takes, and no one can come up with anything better".

I've increasingly found that the more life manages to centralize around just a few people being in those types of positions, the worse it gets.

123yawaworht456• 2 years ago

the problem is, the democracies are adopting the worst practices of dictatorships at an alarming rate.

it is all veiled in a thin veneer of legitimacy, of course - protecting children, fighting terrorists, fighting nazis, fighting disinformation, etc, etc, etc, and there are plenty of people who will foam at the mouth to defend such measures as absolutely necessary and morally just.

I live in an authoritarion shithole myself, and I'm watching EU/US/CA/ANZ rapidly become more and more like my country with a mix of amusement and dismay.

chickazama• 2 years ago

I've been hit so many times by the 'you have freedom of speech - as long you agree with us' line in the last 5 or 6 years... and can't believe how many friends also think along similar lines.

buran772• 2 years ago

Many people haven't experienced dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. So their view of this is painted in relative terms, not absolute. Things got worse, things look more and more like what they hear from dictatorships so they draw a conclusion that democracies doing the same means they are the same.

But in fact in such cases they're more right that you think. If a force is powerful enough to push a healthy democracy towards authoritarianism you damn well should be very, very concerned. Because it takes an enormous amount of will and effort do do this but it gets easier at every step. This is far more power than most dictators have to just maintain the status quo.

Like a train slowly rolling out of the train station, don't think it's barely moving, think that the motor behind it can move the whole damn thing from a standstill. By the time you figure out what's happening it's too late to fix anything without a lot of collateral damage.

varjag2• 2 years ago

I somewhat disagree. Folks who are aware of authoritarian trends in societies are generally nuanced enough to see that there's still a chasm to be crossed. So you don't get to hear the "USA is on the way to become $dictatorship" near as often as "actually $dictatorship is just as free or freer than the USA".

zabana2• 2 years ago

Please make that demonstration then.

1oooqooq2• 2 years ago

dictatorship are freedom paradises for the people in power and those around them. likewise democracies, you also probably never experienced being poor and black in the usa.

nothing is simple. most immigrants praising usa do from your moneyed family leaving Yugoslavia or Persia or something.

everything can be demonstrated in countless ways. not just a point based on your limited personal experience.

hosteur• 2 years ago

Link to the actual study: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/3/pgae069/76081...

Atlas of internet surveillance maps ownership of network infrastructures worldw

Related Stories