INTERNET The open internet at risk? Tech companies sound alarm on piracy blocking 7 November 2024
Muhammad Zulhusni
@
All stories
The open Internet at risk? Tech companies sound alarm on piracy blocking (Source - Pixabay)
Amazon and Google warn anti-piracy measures could disrupt trade.I2Coalition notes that broad piracy blocks often lack oversight.
Companies like Amazon, Google, and Cloudflare are raising concerns with the US government over the potential downsides of anti-piracy measures. While such measures might have good intentions, tech companies argue that initiatives in countries like France and Italy could disrupt international trade, push up costs for US businesses and lead to unintended censorship.
Every year, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issues the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. The report includes feedback from industry players including copyright groups such as the MPA, which frequently advocate for tougher anti-piracy measures abroad. The groups contend that stricter site-blocking policies can help protect American companies' intellectual property.
But not everyone in the tech industry is on the same page. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (I2Coalition), which includes major organisations such as Amazon and Google and smaller tech companies, has raised concerns. In the past, it's reminded the USTR that its members are neutral intermediaries in piracy issues, not enforcers.
READ NEXTHow children navigate the internet and technology
In its latest submission for the USTR's report, I2Coalition highlighted the problems with broad blocking orders imposed by courts and governments. "These restrictions, often introduced under the guise of protecting national interests or preventing illegal content, pose a fundamental threat to the free and open Internet," the group said. While the measures may be meant to prevent illegal activities, they come with major consequences.
The coalition pointed out that site blocking isn't always about piracy. Similar strategies are used in Myanmar, Iran, and Russia to limit access to certain information. This demonstrates how blocking strategies can easily be used for broader control. The coalition also cited anti-piracy measures in France, Italy, and India, highlighting how approaches are becoming increasingly troublesome for global technology.
Site-blocking was intended to prevent residential ISPs from accessing infringing sites. But now, orders have since expanded to include DNS providers, CDNs, and VPNs. This broader reach raises big concerns as a single blocking order intended for one infringing site can have an impact on legitimate services and businesses that use the same infrastructure.
"These blocking regimes often lack adequate oversight or independent controls, leading to significant collateral damage where untargeted content is blocked with no chance for correction," the coalition said. It cited cases where ISPs blocked cloud infrastructure IPs to restrict a single site, inadvertently disrupting thousands of unrelated sites. For businesses that depend on uninterrupted online access, this kind of overreach can be a huge problem.
Italy's Piracy Shield is a prime example. This system requires compliance with blocking orders within 30 minutes and often doesn't involve judicial review. With such tight deadlines, mistakes are almost inevitable. The coalition cited incidents in which legitimate services, such as Google Drive and Cloudflare's infrastructure were blocked, affecting many users and businesses.
READ NEXTCourt orders Cloudflare to take action against pirate streaming site
Instead of backing down and implementing safeguards, Italian authorities have increased Piracy Shield's reach to include DNS services and VPNs. This has led some VPN providers to pull their services from the Italian market. "The system has frustrated users and cloud providers alike and has pushed some VPN services to exit the Italian market," the coalition said.
France has seen similar moves. A recent court decision extended existing site-blocking orders to include companies such as Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco, forcing them to modify their DNS configurations to block pirate sites. Even though the companies raised valid concerns -- including evidence that the impact on piracy would be minimal and compliance might mean global blocking -- the court pushed ahead. Faced with penalties, OpenDNS chose to halt its services in France instead of complying.
The I2Coalition's submission emphasises that the blocking measures are not only restrictive but have considerable technical and financial costs. It is urging the USTR to look at the broader implications while reviewing policies. "We encourage USTR to recognise the potential harm these measures pose to the global flow of information, trade, and innovation," it wrote. The coalition advocates for more balanced site-blocking policies that include oversight and due process to avoid fragmenting, or "Balkanizing," the internet.
To address the concerns, the I2Coalition invites the USTR to collaborate with international partners to uphold norms that support an open and secure internet. It claims that cooperation can help lessen the negative impact of excessive site blocking, boost cross-border digital trade, and prevent online networks from becoming isolated.
"By collaborating, we can protect both innovation and the free flow of information while ensuring fair measures are in place to fight piracy," it concluded.
Looking to revamp your digital transformation strategy? Learn more about Digital Transformation Week taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with IoT Tech Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, Cyber Security & Cloud Expo, and other leading events.
Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.
Security SHARE
Muhammad Zulhusni
@
All stories
The state of CSS in 2024: what developers need to know
7 November 2024
Cisco aims to revolutionise data centres with quantum technology
6 November 2024
Trump claims private support from tech giants, but is it just flattery?
5 November 2024