“I didn’t want the password to live in an email somewhere. I started thinking, what if there was something that would allow me to destroy the email?” Robbins said in an interview.

The thought stayed with him, and by summer, Robbins had dropped the other project to turn his full attention to building a service for hyper-secure email exchanges. He named the service Burn Note.

Burn Note, which opens up to the public today, allows the sender of an email to set a time frame in which the receiver can read an email before the email disappears.

At that point, the email no longer exists — anywhere.

Burn Note’s Web site says the service uses no binary logging, which means there are no standby servers, or backup copies of emails. The company uses a storage engine that has no journaling capabilities, and an underlying file system that logs metadata but not the content of the notes themselves.

While grabbing an image of the email might seem like a simple workaround, Robbins said he has introduced two methods to the service that make it extremely difficult for recipients to quickly copy the text of an email for posterity. Burn Notes can include Web links, but can’t send attached files, though Robbins has said attachments are in the works.

“I think there are a lot of legitimate uses for why people would want an off-the-record conversation,” Robbins said. “The message goes away, but it’s still been communicated to the recipient, which is the point.”

Robbins most recently served as the head of software development for Facebook-acquired Drop.io; he said the Burn Note service was partly inspired by that cloud-storage service. “There was a feature that we considered, but ultimately didn’t turn on, where a file could have a certain number of views before it self-destructed,” Robbins said.

While there currently aren’t any mobile apps for Burn Note, Robbins said that it’s a mobile-optimized Web site, so it can be accessed from a phone with a Web browser.

Highly encrypted or “vanishing” email services aren’t new. In 1999, Canada-based Hush Communications launched Hushmail, a free Web-based email system for individuals and businesses that sent PGP — Pretty Good Privacy — encrypted emails. As Wired reported, it was originally stated that “uniquely-coded” Hushmails were so encrypted that not even Hush employees with access to servers could read the emails.

But in 2007, Hush turned over a dozen CDs of emails, following a court order obtained through a mutual assistance treaty between the U.S. and Canada. The evidence was requested as part of a U.S. federal prosecution of alleged steroid dealers. The company subsequently acknowledged that Hushmails could, in some instances, be decrypted.

In 2009, the New York Times wrote about a group of scientists at the University of Washington who developed software that would make email messages disappear after a period of time. The software, called Vanish, would rely on a key-based encryption system that differed from the usual key cryptography used in digital communications, by making the “keys” erode over time.

A couple of months after that, “Freedom to Tinker,” which is hosted by Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy, released a paper detailing a series of experimental attacks against the Vanish prototype. The paper stated that Vanish should be considered too risky to rely on.

On a Web site for Vanish, the group acknowledged that the implementation on which Vanish was based was not adequately protected against attacks, and says it’s “investigating new directions and architectures for self-destructing data.”

Burn Note’s Robbins says Hushmail’s service and the Vanish project are different from Burn Note because those products rely on encryption keys, while Burn Note is effectively reengineering the default settings of computer systems and server systems so that nothing at all is saved.

When asked what Burn Note’s protocol would be for handling requests from law-enforcement officials for email exchanges, Robbins replied, “Burn Notes aren’t emails.”

He went on to say that the exchange of Burn Notes is more comparable to phone calls in that, unless they’re recorded, the exchange itself can’t be retrieved.

But Burn Note — unlike phone companies — doesn’t keep a log of who is communicating with whom. Robbins said the company plans to compile and study anonymous usage data, but will keep two separate logs — incoming messages and outgoing messages — rather than a log of messages exchanged between users. According to the company’s explanation of its technical procedures, even the time stamp on the message is anonymized: Burn Note rounds the times to the nearest hour so that timing cannot be used as a unique identifier.

“A lot of services launch to acclaim that they’re going make digital communications disappear,” said Paul Ohm, an associate professor of law focused on information privacy at the University of Colorado Law School. “But they sometimes become that place where bad people go to exchange information, or a haven for criminals. In order for this work, you have to stay on the side of legitimacy.”

“It’s never a complete dead end,” Ohm added. “There has to be data living somewhere, and there’s always a way to engineer around these systems.”

While Burn Note will at first be marketed to the average email user, Robbins said he hopes to attract attention from the enterprise market. “I think there’s a really interesting set of use cases around banks, especially if it can be made to plug in to existing systems,” he said.

When asked how Burn Note might comply with the record-keeping obligations of U.S. financial institutions have, Robbins said it would require a case-by-case evaluation.

“I don’t have a good answer for that, because it will require review by a legal professional before we can fully work through that type of situation,” Robbins said. He pointed to the company’s privacy policy, which plainly states:

“If you have a legal obligation to preserve data, do not use Burn Note.”

From big defense contractors to smaller, specialized start-ups, companies are cashing in on healthy demand for software and other technology that can sort through and analyze mountains of government and private-sector data to help track down criminals or look for signs of terrorist activity.

Police, for example, might use video-analysis software to spot a suspicious package in a crowded train station and correlate it to the license plates on a nearby car to find a potential suspect.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The accounts in question belong to Birgitta Jónsdóttir, an Icelandic lawmaker who assisted with WikiLeaks’ release of a U.S. military video that had been classified; Jacob Applebaum, a WikiLeaks volunteer based in Seattle; and Rop Gonggrijp, a Dutch citizen who is co-founder of the Internet service provider XS4ALL.

The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia had filed an order in December seeking IP address and other Twitter account information relating to several users connected to WikiLeaks, including its head, Julian Assange.

Buchanan turned away arguments by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and private attorneys saying that the privacy of their accounts were protected by established federal law and the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment.

Twitter account holders have “no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in their IP addresses,” Buchanan said, and federal privacy law was not relevant because prosecutors weren’t seeking the contents of the communications and, aside from direct messages, their tweets are public already anyway.

Twitter said in a statement that its policy is “designed to allow users to defend their own rights,” and that it will “let the judicial process run its course.” An appeal to a higher court is expected.

This case emerged in January, when Twitter notified several users that federal prosecutors had obtained a court order for their account information.

Law-enforcement agencies said they are investigating the incidents, which McAfee said have been going on at least since late 2009 but may have started as early as 2007. The company said the attacks, which it dubbed “Night Dragon,” were still occurring.

McAfee said the hackers targeted five multinational firms, but wouldn’t identify the companies by name because some of them are clients. McAfee said it was sharing the findings “to protect those not yet impacted and to repair those who have been.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Enter the Facial Profiler. The Profiler is a new Facebook application that lets members upload photos of themselves and match them with a similar-looking Facial Profiler user. The idea is that you can find your mirror image, just the way Coke has found its reflection in Coke Zero.

The app, which launches today, has been soliciting submissions to build a database with enough photos to reach critical mass. Once a photo is uploaded, its features are analyzed and rated. Users can then vote on the results, which the developers hope will improve its ratings over time. The software is based on the same kind of technology used by law-enforcement agencies to locate individuals within large pools of people.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

“The Internet is an extraordinary platform for innovation, job creation, investment, and opportunity,” Genachowski said during an event at the Brookings Institute. “It has unleashed the potential of entrepreneurs and enabled the launch and growth of small businesses across America. It is vital that we safeguard the free and open Internet.”

To that end, Genachowski proposed that the FCC formalize its four principles of network openness. To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled:

• to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
• to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

To these, Genachowski proposed adding two more: The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement.

Under Genachowski’s proposal, all six principles would apple to all platforms that access the Internet, something that will likely prove controversial with the likes of AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ), whose wireless operations haven’t yet been subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as, say, Comcast (CMCSA), which ran afoul of the FCC last year when it was caught throttling Bit Torrent traffic.

These companies will no doubt argue that the FCC is overstepping its bounds in working to implement such principles. But Genachowski says that’s not the case. “This is not about government regulation of the Internet,” he said. “It’s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet.”

Below, Genachowski’s speech in full:

Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity
Prepared Remarks of Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission
The Brookings Institution
Washington, DC
September 21, 2009

I’d like to thank Brookings for hosting me and this discussion about the future of broadband and the Internet.

We’ve just finished a summer of big-ticket commemorations, celebrating the 40th anniversaries of the Apollo landing and of Woodstock; 1969 was also a good year to be a kid in New York, with Joe Namath calling the Super Bowl, and the Knicks’ season that ended with the legendary Willis Reed in Game 7. I grew up a long fly ball from Shea Stadium and soaked up every minute of the Miracle Mets’ season. Maybe that’s why I tend to believe in miracles.

But perhaps the most momentous birthday from that famous summer of 1969 went by just a couple of weeks ago with little mention. Just over forty years ago, a handful of engineers in a UCLA lab connected two computers with a 15-foot gray cable and transferred little pieces of data back and forth. It was the first successful test of the ARPANET, the U.S.-government-funded project that became the Internet–the most transformational communications breakthrough since the printing press.

Today, we can’t imagine what our lives would be like without the Internet–any more than we can imagine life without running water or the light bulb. Millions of us depend upon it every day: at home, at work, in school–and everywhere in between. The Internet has unleashed the creative genius of countless entrepreneurs and has enabled the creation of jobs–and the launch of small businesses and the expansion of large ones–all across America.

That’s why Congress and the President have charged the FCC with developing a National Broadband Plan to ensure that every American has access to open and robust broadband. The fact is that we face great challenges as a nation right now, including health care, education, energy, and public safety. While the Internet alone will not provide a complete solution to any of them, it can and must play a critical role in solving each one.

Why has the Internet proved to be such a powerful engine for creativity, innovation, and economic growth? A big part of the answer traces back to one key decision by the Internet’s original architects: to make the Internet an open system.

Historian John Naughton describes the Internet as an attempt to answer the following question: How do you design a network that is “future proof”–that can support the applications that today’s inventors have not yet dreamed of? The solution was to devise a network of networks that would not be biased in favor of any particular application. The Internet’s creators didn’t want the network architecture–or any single entity–to pick winners and losers. Because it might pick the wrong ones. Instead, the Internet’s open architecture pushes decision-making and intelligence to the edge of the network–to end users, to the cloud, to businesses of every size and in every sector of the economy, to creators and speakers across the country and around the globe. In the words of Tim Berners-Lee, the Internet is a “blank canvas”–allowing anyone to contribute and to innovate without permission.

It is easy to look at today’s Internet giants–and the tremendous benefits they have supplied to our economy and our culture–and forget that many were small businesses just a few years ago, founded on little more than a good idea and a no-frills connection to the Internet. Marc Andreessen was a graduate student when he created Mosaic, which led to Netscape, the first commercially successful Web browser. Mark Zuckerberg was a college student in 2004 when he started Facebook, which just announced that it added its 300 millionth member. Pierre Omidyar originally launched eBay on his own personal website. Today more than 600,000 Americans earn part of their living by operating small businesses on eBay’s auction platform, bringing jobs and opportunity to Danvers, Massachusetts, Durham, North Carolina and Lincoln, Nebraska, and many other communities in both rural and urban America. This is the power of the Internet: distributed innovation and ubiquitous entrepreneurship, the potential for jobs and opportunity everywhere there is broadband.

And let us not forget that the open Internet enables much more than commerce. It is also an unprecedented platform for speech, democratic engagement, and a culture that prizes creative new ways of approaching old problems. In 2000, Jimmy Wales started a project to create a free online encyclopedia. He originally commissioned experts to write the entries, but the project only succeeded after moving to volunteers to write them collaboratively. The result is Wikipedia, one of the top 10 most visited websites in the world and one of the most comprehensive aggregations of human knowledge in our history. The potential of collaboration and social media continues to grow. It is changing and accelerating innovation. And we’ve seen new media tools like Twitter and YouTube used by democratic movements around the globe.

Even now, the Internet is beginning to transform health care, education, and energy usage for the better. Health-related applications, distributed over a widely connected Internet, can help bring down health care costs and improve medical service. Four out of five Americans who are online have accessed medical information over the Internet, and most say this information affected their decision-making. Nearly four million college students took at least one online course in 2007, and the Internet can potentially connect kids anywhere to the best information and teachers everywhere. And the Internet is helping enable smart grid technologies, which promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by hundreds of millions of metric tons.

At the same time, we have also seen great strides in the center of the network. Most Americans’ early exposure to the Internet was through analog modems, which allowed a trickle of data through the phone lines to support early electronic bulletin boards and basic email. Over the last two decades, thanks to substantial investment and technological ingenuity, companies devised ways to retrofit networks initially designed for phones and one-way video to support two-way broadband data streams connecting homes and businesses across the country. And a revolution in wireless technologies–using licensed and unlicensed spectrum–and the creation of path-breaking devices like the Blackberry and iPhone have enabled millions of us to carry the Internet in our pockets and purses.

The lesson of each of these stories, and innumerable others like them, is that we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the Internet, except that it will be unexpected; that the genius of American innovators is unlimited; and that the fewer obstacles these innovators face in bringing their work to the world, the greater our opportunity as citizens and as a nation.

Notwithstanding its unparalleled record of success, today the free and open Internet faces emerging and substantial challenges. We’ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet’s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks) and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen at least one service provider deny users access to political content. And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons to be concerned about the future of openness.

One reason has to do with limited competition among service providers. As American consumers make the shift from dial-up to broadband, their choice of providers has narrowed substantially. I don’t intend that remark as a policy conclusion or criticism–it is simply a fact about today’s marketplace that we must acknowledge and incorporate into our policymaking.

A second reason involves the economic incentives of broadband providers. The great majority of companies that operate our nation’s broadband pipes rely upon revenue from selling phone service, cable TV subscriptions, or both. These services increasingly compete with voice and video products provided over the Internet. The net result is that broadband providers’ rational bottom-line interests may diverge from the broad interests of consumers in competition and choice.

The third reason involves the explosion of traffic on the Internet. With the growing popularity of high-bandwidth applications, Internet traffic is roughly doubling every two years. Technologies for managing broadband networks have become more sophisticated and widely deployed. But these technologies are just tools. They cannot by themselves determine the right answers to difficult policy questions–and they raise their own set of new questions.

In acknowledging the existence of challenging competitive, economic, and technological realities for today’s Internet, I want to underscore that this debate, as I see it, isn’t about white hats or black hats among companies in and around the network. Rather, there are inevitable tensions built into our system; important and difficult questions that we have an obligation to ask and to answer correctly for our country.

When I worked in the private sector I was fortunate to work with some of the greatest innovators of our time. That taught me some lessons about the importance of innovation and investment. It also taught me the importance of developing clear goals and then being focused and practical in achieving them, making sure to have the best input and ideas from the broadest group possible.

I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet. I also know that achieving this goal will take an approach that is smart about technology, smart about markets, smart about law and policy, and smart about the lessons of history.

The rise of serious challenges to the free and open Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see the Internet’s doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised. Or we could take steps to preserve Internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation, and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.
I understand the Internet is a dynamic network and that technology continues to grow and evolve. I recognize that if we were to create unduly detailed rules that attempted to address every possible assault on openness, such rules would become outdated quickly. But the fact that the Internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can, or should, abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network, or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open Internet.

Saying nothing–and doing nothing–would impose its own form of unacceptable cost. It would deprive innovators and investors of confidence that the free and open Internet we depend upon today will still be here tomorrow. It would deny the benefits of predictable rules of the road to all players in the Internet ecosystem. And it would be a dangerous retreat from the core principle of openness–the freedom to innovate without permission–that has been a hallmark of the Internet since its inception, and has made it so stunningly successful as a platform for innovation, opportunity, and prosperity.

In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.

This is how I propose we move forward: To date, the Federal Communications Commission has addressed these issues by announcing four Internet principles that guide our case-by-case enforcement of the communications laws. These principles can be summarized as: Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.

The principles were initially articulated by Chairman Michael Powell in 2004 as the “Four Freedoms,” and later endorsed in a unanimous 2005 policy statement issued by the Commission under Chairman Kevin Martin and with the forceful support of Commissioner Michael Copps, who of course remains on the Commission today. In the years since 2005, the Internet has continued to evolve and the FCC has issued a number of important decisions involving openness. Today, I propose that the FCC adopt the existing principles as Commission rules, along with two additional principles that reflect the evolution of the Internet and that are essential to ensuring its continued openness.

The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination–stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers’ homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed.

This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications–not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist.

I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement–but must not supplant–free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet.

I will propose that the FCC evaluate alleged violations of the non-discrimination principle as they arise, on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that the Internet is an extraordinarily complex and dynamic system. This approach, within the framework I am proposing today, will allow the Commission to make reasoned, fact-based determinations based on the Internet before it–not based on the Internet of years past or guesses about how the Internet will evolve.

The sixth principle is a transparency principle–stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. Why does the FCC need to adopt this principle? The Internet evolved through open standards. It was conceived as a tool whose user manual would be free and available to all. But new network management practices and technologies challenge this original understanding. Today, broadband providers have the technical ability to change how the Internet works for millions of users–with profound consequences for those users and content, application, and service providers around the world.

To take one example, last year the FCC ruled on the blocking of peer-to-peer transmissions by a cable broadband provider. The blocking was initially implemented with no notice to subscribers or the public. It was discovered only after an engineer and hobbyist living in Oregon realized that his attempts to share public domain recordings of old barbershop quartet songs over a home Internet connection were being frustrated. It was not until he brought the problem to the attention of the media and Internet community, which then brought it to the attention of the FCC, that the improper network management practice became known and was stopped.

We cannot afford to rely on happenstance for consumers, businesses, and policymakers to learn about changes to the basic functioning of the Internet. Greater transparency will give consumers the confidence of knowing that they’re getting the service they’ve paid for, enable innovators to make their offerings work effectively over the Internet, and allow policymakers to ensure that broadband providers are preserving the Internet as a level playing field. It will also help facilitate discussion among all the participants in the Internet ecosystem, which can reduce the need for government involvement in network management disagreements.

To be clear, the transparency principle will not require broadband providers to disclose personal information about subscribers or information that might compromise the security of the network, and there will be a mechanism to protect competitively sensitive data.

In considering the openness of the Internet, it is also important to recognize that our choice of technologies and devices for accessing the Internet continues to expand at a dizzying pace. New mobile and satellite broadband networks are getting faster every day, and extraordinary devices like smartphones and wireless data cards are making it easier to stay connected while on the go. And I note the beginnings of a trend towards openness among several participants in the mobile marketplace.

Even though each form of Internet access has unique technical characteristics, they are all are different roads to the same place. It is essential that the Internet itself remain open, however users reach it. The principles I’ve been speaking about apply to the Internet however accessed, and I will ask my fellow Commissioners to join me in confirming this.

Of course, how the principles apply may differ depending on the access platform or technology. The rulemaking process will enable the Commission to analyze fully the implications of the principles for mobile network architectures and practices–and how, as a practical matter, they can be fairly and appropriately implemented. As we tackle these complex questions involving different technologies used for Internet access, let me be clear that we will be focused on formulating policies that will maximize innovation and investment, consumer choice, and greater competition.

I’ve talked about what we need to do; now I’d like to talk about how we should do it. I will soon circulate to my fellow Commissioners proposed rules prepared by Commission staff embodying the principles I’ve discussed, and I will ask for their support in issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. This notice will provide the public with a detailed explanation of what we propose to do and why.

Equally importantly, the notice will ask for input and feedback on the proposed rules and their application, such as how to determine whether network management practices are reasonable, and what information broadband providers should disclose about their network management practices and in what form. And–as I indicated earlier–it will pose a series of detailed questions on how the Internet openness principles should apply to mobile broadband.

While my goals are clear–to ensure the Internet remains a free and open platform that promotes innovation, investment, competition, and users’ interests — our path to implementing them is not pre-determined. I will ensure that the rulemaking process will be fair, transparent, fact-based, and data-driven. Anyone will be able to participate in this process, and I hope everyone will. We will hold a number of public workshops and, of course, use the Internet and other new media tools to facilitate participation. Today we’ve launched a new website, www.openinternet.gov, to kick off discussion of the issues I’ve been talking about. We encourage everyone to visit the site and contribute to the process.

Some have argued that the FCC should not take affirmative steps to protect the Internet’s openness. Let me be clear about what this is about, and what it isn’t.

The fundamental goal of what I’ve outlined today is preserving the openness and freedom of the Internet. We have an obligation to ensure that the Internet is an enduring engine for U.S. economic growth, and a foundation for democracy in the 21st century. We have an obligation to ensure that the Internet remains a vast landscape of innovation and opportunity.

This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It’s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity.

This is not about protecting the Internet against imaginary dangers. We’re seeing the breaks and cracks emerge, and they threaten to change the Internet’s fundamental architecture of openness. This would shrink opportunities for innovators, content creators, and small businesses around the country, and limit the full and free expression the Internet promises. This is about preserving and maintaining something profoundly successful and ensuring that it’s not distorted or undermined. If we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late.

Some will seek to invoke innovation and investment as reasons not to adopt open Internet rules. But history’s lesson is clear: Ensuring a robust and open Internet is the best thing we can do to promote investment and innovation. And while there are some who see every policy decision as either pro-business or pro-consumer, I reject that approach; it’s not the right way to see technology’s role in America.

An open Internet will benefit both consumers and businesses. The principles that will protect the open Internet are an essential step to maximize investment and innovation in the network and on the edge of it–by establishing rules of the road that incentivize competition, empower entrepreneurs, and grow the economic pie to the benefit of all.

I believe we share a common purpose–we want the Internet to continue flourishing as a platform for innovation and communication, with continued investment and increasing deployment of broadband to all Americans. I believe my fellow Commissioners share this purpose, and I look forward to working collaboratively with them in this endeavor.

In closing, we are here because 40 years ago, a bunch of researchers in a lab changed the way computers interact and, as a result, changed the world. We are here because those Internet pioneers had unique insights about the power of open networks to transform lives for the better, and they did something about it. Our work now is to preserve the brilliance of what they contributed to our country and the world. It’s to make sure that, in the 21st century, the garage, the basement, and the dorm room remain places where innovators can not only dream but bring their dreams to life. And no one should be neutral about that.

Craigslist this morning turned the tables on South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, suing him for threatening to file criminal charges over its adult classifieds. The suit seeks declaratory relief and a restraining order against McMaster, who alleges that those classifieds often display advertisements for prostitution and graphic pornographic material.

“Despite craigslist’s legal immunity from criminal or civil liability under State law for unlawful third-party content on its Web site, and despite the numerous good-faith actions that craigslist has voluntarily taken to deter abuse of its service by third parties notwithstanding its legal immunity, McMaster has persisted in threats to criminally prosecute craigslist on the basis of third-party content appearing on the craigslist Web site,” the suit reads. “…Given Defendant McMaster‘s persistent and continuing public threats, craigslist is presently faced with the untenable choice of either completely shutting down all portions of its website that are directed at South Carolina or else putting itself and its management at risk of imminent criminal prosecution by Defendant McMaster.”

Or calling McMaster’s bluff, as craigslist has so excellently done here. And with great success, apparently. Within a few hours of the suit’s announcement, McMaster backed down, issuing a rather remarkable statement proclaiming himself victor in the spat. “The defensive legal action craigslist has taken against the solicitors and my office is good news,” he wrote. “It shows that craigslist is taking the matter seriously for the first time. More importantly, overnight they have removed the erotic services section from their website, as we asked them to do. And they are now taking responsibility for the content of their future advertisements. If they keep their word, this is a victory for law enforcement and for the people of South Carolina.”

Craigslist this morning turned the tables on South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, suing him for threatening to file criminal charges over its adult classifieds. The suit seeks declaratory relief and a restraining order against McMaster, who alleges that those classifieds often display advertisements for prostitution and graphic pornographic material.

“Despite craigslist’s legal immunity from criminal or civil liability under State law for unlawful third-party content on its Web site, and despite the numerous good-faith actions that craigslist has voluntarily taken to deter abuse of its service by third parties notwithstanding its legal immunity, McMaster has persisted in threats to criminally prosecute craigslist on the basis of third-party content appearing on the craigslist Web site,” the suit reads. “…Given Defendant McMaster‘s persistent and continuing public threats, craigslist is presently faced with the untenable choice of either completely shutting down all portions of its website that are directed at South Carolina or else putting itself and its management at risk of imminent criminal prosecution by Defendant McMaster.”

Or calling McMaster’s bluff, as craigslist has so excellently done here. And with great success, apparently. Within a few hours of the suit’s announcement, McMaster backed down, issuing a rather remarkable statement proclaiming himself victor in the spat. “The defensive legal action craigslist has taken against the solicitors and my office is good news,” he wrote. “It shows that craigslist is taking the matter seriously for the first time. More importantly, overnight they have removed the erotic services section from their website, as we asked them to do. And they are now taking responsibility for the content of their future advertisements. If they keep their word, this is a victory for law enforcement and for the people of South Carolina.”

Prodded into action by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Verizon (VZ), Sprint (S) and Time Warner Cable (TWX) have agreed to block Web sites identified by Cuomo as ones that disseminate child pornography. They’ve also agreed to restrict access nationwide to most, and in the case of Time Warner Cable all, of Usenet’s discussion groups, most of which are not repositories of illegal material. To repeat, Time Warner will now block all of USENET.

“It’s going to make a significant difference,” Cuomo said of the agreement. “It’s like the issue of drugs. You can attack the users or the suppliers. This is turning off the faucet. Does it solve the problem? No. But is it a major step forward? Yes. And it’s ongoing. No one is saying you’re supposed to be the policemen on the Internet, but there has to be a paradigm where you cooperate with law enforcement, or if you have notice of a potentially criminal act, we deem you responsible to an extent. This literally threatens our children, and there can be no higher priority than keeping our children safe.”

Of course. A noble effort, this curtailing of access to child pornography. It would just be unfortunate if it became the first step in widespread Internet censorship.