At first glance, this book looks like another history of the Internet, but it is much, much more. The authors use their engineering and scholarly understanding of what constitutes Internet history to identify forks in the digital road and key past decisions that shaped the Internet's path. The first part of the book maps out the core technical and policy decisions that created the Internet.
The "Decoding Internet Governance Stakeholders" series of articles invites the community to ponder what underlies the labels that define our interactions, roughly 20 years after the "Tunis Agenda for the Information Society" called for the "full involvement of governments, business entities, civil society and intergovernmental organizations," as well as to "make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities."
Do human rights come into the picture when technology and policy work are involved? If so, where? This is a question that has come up multiple times during the last dozen years, and occasionally even before, in Internet Governance discussions. These discussions have included debates on whether human rights were specifically applicable to protocol design or to the organizations developing protocol standards.
There are many inconvenient truths about radio spectrum sharing and transceiver interoperability that require full ventilation and resolution. Spectrum users want exclusive access and - news flash - they do not like to share! Campaign events, like the Trump Bulter, PA rally, require short notice, forced cooperation between and among federal, state, and local law enforcement officers, as well as a variety of other government agencies.
Interisle Consulting Group today released its fourth annual Phishing Landscape report investigating where and how cybercriminals acquire naming and hosting resources for phishing. Our study shows that cybercriminals evolved their tactics for obtaining attack resources, including sharply increasing their exploitation of subdomain and gateway providers.
In an era where our lives are increasingly intertwined with digital technologies, a recent development in the realm of digital sovereignty has sparked a pressing concern for nations and individuals alike. The concept of digital self-determination, once hailed as a great equalizer, has become a battleground for power, privacy, and control, with governments and tech giants vying for dominance in the digital realm.
On July 22, the FCC's open Internet order - which transforms Internet access service from a lightly regulated information service into a heavily regulated telecommunications service - will take effect. This article describes the policies and legal theories underlying the Order and the Order's effect on consumers of Internet services and providers of the service, including a number of entities that had previously escaped FCC regulation.
Anybody not involved in the telephone business will probably be surprised to find that the old TDM telephone networks are still very much alive and in place. The old technologies were supposed to be phased out and replaced by digital technologies. The FCC started talking about this before 2010. In 2013, Tom Wheeler, the FCC Chairman at the time, announced an effort to force the needed changes, which was dubbed the IP Transition.
On June 9 CircleID published an insightful article by Thomas Rickert entitled "Demystifying Art 28 NIS2." In that piece Thomas set forth two alternative interpretations of Article 28(6) of NIS2, and argued that TLD registries should not be required to maintain a separate database of the registrant data under NIS2. In my view, Thomas' approach is inconsistent with the remainder of Article 28, and would not achieve the goals of NIS2 to improve cybersecurity across the EU member states.
On December 14, 2022, the European Parliament adopted the Directive on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union (Directive (EU) 2022/2555) hereinafter referred to as "NIS2"), which was published in the official journal on December 27, 2022. Being a directive, NIS2 requires transposition into national law. According to Art. 41 of NIS2, the transposition into national law must take place by October 17, 2024 and the measures must be applied as of October 18, 2024.