Difference between revisions of "Panel Subject 2019: Inclusion"

From IGF-USA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Related Submissions)
Line 22: Line 22:
==Survey Topic==
==Survey Topic==
'''Working Title: ''' An Internet for All Americans
'''Working Title: ''' How far do we take offensive cybersecurity?
'''Working Description:''' The stakes are higher than ever for those that who do not have access to the Internet. Connectivity has increasingly become a prerequisite to participation in society, including getting a quality education, access to economic opportunity, civic engagement and even physical world activities, such as parking in many city centers. Despite these realities, some rural, remote, indigenous and inner cities communities are still not online. Achieving the goal of an Internet for all Americans will require collaboration between all stakeholder groups, including local community members and governments, technology experts, civil society, the federal government, and more working together to look beyond mere connectivity to issues including affordability, digital literacy, and services on the Internet that are accessible and relevant to people’s lives.
'''Working Description:''' This session will discuss the logistics (waiting vs. following an active lead), legalities (law enforcement coordination, knowing when you’ve hit foreign cyber space and what to do, disclosure, reporting) and ethics (should anyone hack- back or does that exacerbate the problem) of who is responsible for cyber investigations: the government, a privatized cyber military, companies with critical infrastructure/public assets (public v. private networks), a hybrid of those, or anyone with a smartphone? Should the government explicitly legalize hacking- back; how so? Are there specific sectors (e.g., utilities, DNS, election infrastructure, mobile) that should permit hacking-back?
==Related Submissions==
==Related Submissions==
Line 31: Line 31:
  |fields=Timestamp,_pageName=Submission Number,Submission,Issue_Areas,Comments,SG
  |fields=Timestamp,_pageName=Submission Number,Submission,Issue_Areas,Comments,SG
  |where=Issue_Areas HOLDS 'Access' OR Issue_Areas HOLDS 'Digital Inclusion'
  |where=Issue_Areas HOLDS 'Access' OR Issue_Areas HOLDS 'Cybersecurity'
  |order by=_pageName ASC
  |order by=_pageName ASC
  |format=dynamic table
  |format=dynamic table

Revision as of 13:49, 29 March 2019

{{#invoke:Clickable button 2|main}}  {{#invoke:Clickable button 2|main}}  {{#invoke:Clickable button 2|main}}  {{#invoke:Clickable button 2|main}}

This page is for coordination among the panel team to openly discuss the topics that will be covered under the subject of the "Inclusion" The page includes the relevant survey results, Panel Guidelines and a section for the panel team to discuss in the comments.

Important Links

Important Links
Collaborative Planning Document
Panel Team Committees
Join the Team

Panel Guidelines

Panel teams should use this process to discuss the panel and get as close as possible to consensus on the following items by April 17.

  • Decide on a concrete subject for the panel based upon discussion and rough consensus. The subject and process should take into account:
    • The IGF-USA Principles
    • The working title, working description and related submissions. See Below
  • Assign team leader(s) and a representative to interface with the steering committee and provide ongoing up to date information to the wrangler and secretariat.

Survey Topic

Working Title: How far do we take offensive cybersecurity?

Working Description: This session will discuss the logistics (waiting vs. following an active lead), legalities (law enforcement coordination, knowing when you’ve hit foreign cyber space and what to do, disclosure, reporting) and ethics (should anyone hack- back or does that exacerbate the problem) of who is responsible for cyber investigations: the government, a privatized cyber military, companies with critical infrastructure/public assets (public v. private networks), a hybrid of those, or anyone with a smartphone? Should the government explicitly legalize hacking- back; how so? Are there specific sectors (e.g., utilities, DNS, election infrastructure, mobile) that should permit hacking-back?

Related Submissions

<- Back to All Topics

Timestamp Submission Number Submission Issue Areas Comments SG
Timestamp Submission Number Submission Issue Areas Comments SG
2019-01-28 8:38:05 AM 2019 Submission 1 AI, blockchain, AR/VR, and more global access were among the emerging technologies mentioned in the Global IGF 2018-Paris video survey. Access Nearly 150 attendees at Global IGF 2018-Paris spoke in video interviews on which new digital technologies will create the best opportunities for a better world for all over the next decade. The responses are displayed on the Imagining the Internet site http://www.elon.edu/e-web/imagining/event-coverage/global_igf_2018/best_new_digital_tech.xhtml; and you can also view the video responses in a YouTube playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN-aZ2WkIoU&list=PLf2o-VmxcSBeCFHcszREBIVjpgea41l0C Responses by far the most-mentioned were AI, blockchain and more access. While the Internet of Things, VR and others were mentioned by some, many were looking forward to developments in AI and Blockchain and to promoting more access to the internet to more people globally. Civil Society / Academia
2019-01-31 4:19:09 PM 2019 Submission 10 Digital Inclusion with a focus on fixed wireless deployments in rural America. Access Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-03 2:15:23 PM 2019 Submission 13 Protecting Consumers Against Phone Phising Cybersecurity As people have more information about themselves available online, with more data breaches occurring, it is simple for scammers to use credible information to build trust and initiate spear phasing attacks, leaving the victim with their personal identity information compromised and or financially distressed. Social engineering attacks are difficult to combat, and especially difficult to recover from in terms of financially, psychologically, and more. How might we help people protect themselves from theses phasing scams, particularly when they use social engineering tactics? This project will explore potential solutions to better protect consumers based on data collected on “VISHING’ (VOICE PHISING) attacks. The first phase will entail information gathering through in-depth interviews and scraping online sources, and the second phase will include designing a prototype of a tool for consumers to protect themselves against social engineering tactics and testing its plausibility with users. Source-Michelle Chen,, Master of Information Management and System (MIMS), School of Information, UC Berkeley Private Sector
2019-02-04 11:41:15 AM 2019 Submission 17 Cyber Threat Intelligence Capture and Response Cybersecurity I think the IGF might like to consider the current state of play on threat intelligence and how this critical area of WWW development might be developed to make the internet a safer place for everyone to interact with. Technical Community
2019-02-04 12:15:39 PM 2019 Submission 19 1. Merits and risks of consumer-driven privacy models.

2. Election infrastructure and security.

3. Info/ed session: device security/privacy
Cybersecurity Private Sector
2019-01-28 10:48:09 AM 2019 Submission 2 Network Security Cybersecurity Intrusion Prevention System Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-04 1:16:32 PM 2019 Submission 20 Standards for enforcement as to the differential between advertised Internet speed, actual speed, and attribution as to any differential. Access Enforcement as to speed differentials, and enhanced user confidence, may be best accomplished with a combination of private and public sector enforcement, including USG FTC, DOJ, and CFIUS action. None / Other
2019-02-04 2:16:21 PM 2019 Submission 21 Disinformation/Misinformation and Democracy, National Data Privacy Law Framework, Future of Online News, Broadband and 5G Access/Equality Access Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-04 3:01:47 PM 2019 Submission 22 The importance of Electricity in community networks Access Government / Intergovernmental Organization
2019-02-04 8:55:13 PM 2019 Submission 25 Unreasonable to have both public and private (Grid, ..) connected on the internet. There should be parallel structures like Intranet. Cybersecurity Private structures like the Grid, Power Plants and Banks should have its own and not provide access to their secure information and controls online. Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-05 3:06:13 AM 2019 Submission 27 Access and safety Access Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-06 9:33:51 AM 2019 Submission 31 Attribution and incontrovertible digital identity Cybersecurity Digital Identity to counter identity theft. Attribution, and provenance of sources and facts, to counter "fake news" and public opinion manipulation. Private Sector
2019-02-06 7:47:47 PM 2019 Submission 34 What government actions (e.g., legislation, funding) needed for local mesh networks for better bandwidth Access Civil Society / Academia
2019-01-28 4:57:24 PM 2019 Submission 4 Internet shutdown and the Digits Right in Africa Access None / Other
2019-02-08 5:30:37 PM 2019 Submission 42 Principles Underpinning Norms for Cyberstability Cybersecurity As part of its mission the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC, https://cyberstability.org) is documenting a set of principles that guide stakeholders in achieving cyber stability and that are the foundation for norms proposed by the commission. Norms such as "the Call to Protect the Public Core of the Internet" (https://cyberstability.org/research/call-to-protect/), and those published in the 'Singapore Norm Package"(https://cyberstability.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/GCSC-Singapore-Norm-Package-3MB.pdf) . During this session, members of the GCSC want to engage in a conversation with the US IGF community in order to inform their work. Technical Community
2019-02-10 10:16:03 PM 2019 Submission 44 Connecting the unconnected, digital inclusion and accessibility, can community networks solve connectivity issues, future of work. Access Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-11 8:44:39 AM 2019 Submission 45 Assume you will cover areas of cybersecurity policy, fake news vs. freedom of expression, GDPR vs. U.S. 'data as product' controversies, net Cybersecurity neutrality status. Note: I am moving to Washington end February, interested in participating in committee once the chaos of the move is over. Technical Community
2019-02-11 9:05:55 AM 2019 Submission 46 Internet of Things Governance Cybersecurity Norms of Internet governance (open standards, multistakeholder coordination, immunity from intermediary liability) are being challenged by cyber- physical systems. At the same time, these systems are creating unprecedented security and privacy problems with cascading effects on the entire Internet. What needs to happen now? Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-11 9:06:46 AM 2019 Submission 47 Broadband availability and adoption - what barriers exist & what policy reforms could encourage more widespread broadband access in the US? Access Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-11 9:16:08 AM 2019 Submission 49 DNS Hijacking Cybersecurity Consider the following: https://cyber.dhs.gov/ed/19-01/. The bottom line here is that it's time for an upgrade of security employed to protect domain name registrations. Even DNSSEC is weakened by this category of failure. At least "important" domain names should consider registration security requirements. Technical Community
2019-01-28 7:54:02 PM 2019 Submission 5 1) Impact of Culture & Language on Internet UX, architecture, and business opportunities 2) The need and importance of Authenticationf Cybersecurity 1) Culture and Language: How do these things impact what people want from the Internet and how Internet-centered businesses best deliver Internet experiences to the end-user? (Submitted last year resubmitting this year.) 2) Last year, trust was spoken about as a problem throughout the panel sessions, but the best possible solution is authentication. Can authentication (i.e., handshakes, access management, identities, verification of information, etc.) How can authentication be improved to provide better cybersecurity, functionality, data persistence, and help fight social problems (i.e., crime, fake news, psychological disorders etc.) arriving from the lack Authenticity. Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-11 9:20:26 AM 2019 Submission 50 1 IoT security

2 Importance of collaboration for rural & remote access 3 Unintended consequences of regulation

4 Impacts of consolidation
Access 1) There is a growing, global call for IoT security, and in many countries it is an area without partisan disagreement. Governments, civil society, technologists, and others are actively working together to ensure that users are protected from malicious attacks and botnets are prevented. The Canada, Senegal, France and many others have take a multistakeholder approach to IoT security, enlisting the help of all stakeholder groups to ensure they do their part. In the United States, home to one of the largest markets for IoT devices in the world, there is no comprehensive plan, label, or education campaign for IoT security. What can the stakeholders present for the IGF USA do to push forward in this space? Links: http://iotsecurity2018.ca https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2018/11/a-critical-first-step-for-iot-security-in-senegal/ https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/internet-society-advances-iot-security-in-france/ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/2018/iot-security-for-policymakers/ 2) In 2018, over half the world's population was said to have access to the Internet. And while that is a milestone to be celebrated, it makes the difference between those with and without Internet access even more stark. In the United States, rural, remote, and Indigenous communities are significantly less likely to have access to the Internet than their urban and non-Indigenous counterparts. And they can't get access alone. It will take coordination and collaboration between all stakeholder groups -- from local community members, to technology experts, civil society, the federal government, and more working together to close the digital divide in the US. This is a topic that was discussed at length at the 2018 Indigenous Connectivity Summit, and it will be discussed again at the 2019 Summit in Hawaii. This session could highlight times when collaboration has led to robust connectivity solutions in rural and remote areas, and what more the stakeholders in the room could do to ensure rural broadband is a reality. Links: https://www.internetsociety.org/indigenet/ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2019/2018-indigenous-connectivity-summit-community-report/ https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018-Indigenous-Connectivity-Summit-Community-Report_EN.pdf 3) Today, almost every country in the world is currently in the business of “regulating the Internet.” But regulation of the Internet can have unintended consequences. One such consequence is extra-territorial application. Another one is how regulation can impact the infrastructure of the Internet, challenging the characteristics of its original design. This becomes particularly important for what it means for a resilient, global Internet. The Internet was not designed to recognize physical boundaries or to comply with only one actor’s rules. Resiliency is ensured through diversity of infrastructure and this diversity comes from nodes located globally, in different parts of the world. Internet regulation that is unfocused, uninformed and disproportionate can provide the wrong incentives for state actors to engage in a regulatory race that will only result in a fractured, less resilient Internet. As the United States considers new regulations on privacy, security, and other important issues, this workshop will seek to advance a conversation about how policy makers should balance the need for user protection with the need to protect the integrity of the infrastructure of the Internet. Links: https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2018/10/splintering-the-internet-the-unintended-consequence-of-regulation/ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2018/the-internet-and-extra-territorial-effects-of-laws/ 4) Consolidation is not a new phenomenon, but often an expected evolution as industries and markets mature. Opportunities to reduce costs, expand market share, and enhance scalability are intrinsic incentives in any economic domain where companies acquire competitors or subsume parts of the production chain. Globally, trends of consolidation in the Internet Economy – including growing forces of concentration, vertical and horizontal integration, and fewer opportunities for market entry and competition – may shape not just the ways in which the Internet is used by people around the world, but its future technical evolution in the next three to five years. Today, such trends of consolidation are visible in almost all parts of the Internet economy, from access provision to services at the application layer. Looking from the national to the global level, what are the underlying drivers of these trends? What are the implications for the Internet’s technical evolution and its users? Links: https://www.internetsociety.org/globalinternetreport/2018/concept-note/ https://future.internetsociety.org/ None / Other
2019-02-11 9:25:40 AM 2019 Submission 52 IDN Homographic Attacks Cybersecurity Consider the following: https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/191691/1540208800.pdf?1540208800. That presentation is somewhat technical but the concern is easily motivated and described. We need better user tools and applications that account for this directly, and they are possible. This is a universal acceptance issue. Technical Community
2019-02-11 10:44:31 AM 2019 Submission 53 The Next Generation Internet: Investigating Community Networks as a Socio-Legal, Technical System and as a Public Trust Access SEEC Harlem (CNS-1737453) project involves research within the Harlem community in New York City, and with partner universities (University of Arizona, University of Virginia, and Fordham University). SEEC Harlem aims to exploit edge cloud computing in the dense urban environment of upper Manhattan to realize new affordable and accessible computing. Silicon Harlem and the mayor’s office of NYC are the primary community and government partners for both projects. From a local governance standpoint, we are working with a participatory technology assessment methodology to look next generation community internet as a public trust. Private Sector
2019-02-11 3:00:45 PM 2019 Submission 67 Weighing Security & Privacy Issues In Debate on DNS over HTTPS Cybersecurity Mozilla, CloudFlare, Tucows, British Telecom, and PowerDNS would be examples of great candidates to discuss this important issue, and I'd be happy to help pull something like this together. Private Sector
2019-02-11 3:27:49 PM 2019 Submission 70 Usage of Internet as an International Development Tool Access The internet is much widespread than ever; however, the pace of internet growth has also slowed down in the last few years; especially, in the underdeveloped countries where different kinds of infrastructure are needed. Some community networks, satellite connectivity and other projects by the likes of Facebook and Google had brought some hope but they soon vanished. The focus on the west is mainly on the usage of internet for developing solutions that are more centric to entertainment; the biggest internet companies are social media firms and internet devices manufacturers and they certainly don't have a vision for using the internet in a way that could benefit the most underdeveloped countries of the world. A great tool as internet can go much more beyond face-filters and 4K movies to becoming a tool for poverty reduction, quality education and beyond. Private Sector