
Facebook Opens Internet․Org to All Developers Due to Net Neutrality Concerns - shahocean
http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/04/facebooks-internet-org-project-is-now-a-platform/
======
dest
"Facebook expects partner services to be optimized for smartphones and feature
phones, and be free from JavaScript or SSL/TLS/HTTPS elements"

No HTTPS? Really??

~~~
dfabulich
Facebook does NOT have to follow this rule today in its zero-rated India
service.

[https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-
org/platform-t...](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-
technical-guidelines)

> Your service will be proxied by Internet.org. Since we cannot support SSL,
> TLS, or HTTPS as part of proxying, your content or service should not rely
> on passing or collecting encrypted information — resources that do so will
> not be accessible within Internet.org or will be dropped altogether. While
> we would prefer to support fully encrypted connections between user and
> website in all cases, proxying for third-party sites does not allow for this
> in its current implementation without introducing man-in-the-middle
> capabilities.

Catch that? They can proxy HTTPS for themselves, but they won't proxy HTTPS
for "third-party sites."

Thus, Internet.org isn't even neutral between Facebook and other developers;
Facebook gets special HTTPS treatment that nobody else can get!

Related, in an interview on Scroll.in:
[http://scroll.in/article/724975/facebook-opens-up-
internet-o...](http://scroll.in/article/724975/facebook-opens-up-internet-org-
to-developers-hoping-to-pacify-net-neutrality-critics)

> Q: Isn’t it strange that Internet.org wants to offer free basic services but
> has no email?

> A: If an email provider wants to comply with the platform guidelines that we
> are announcing, Internet.org would be glad to have it.

Well, yeah, but if that means someone would have to offer email service
without HTTPS, so anybody can read my email unencrypted or even send email as
me, is that even useful?

~~~
macns
> _proxying for third-party sites does not allow for this in its current
> implementation without introducing man-in-the-middle capabilities_

Since they're just proxying, it makes sense to abandon encryption all
together, not? I mean after all, HTTPS is supposed to protect from man-in-the-
middle attacks, but aren't they themselves exactly that?

~~~
pjc50
You can have HTTPS proxies which only connect to a predefined list of IPs if
you want. Because this is a surveillance-value-based product, they don't want
to do that.

(Given the Indian govt vs Blackberry, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that
they had a hand in this somewhere. Very convenient if all mass political
organisation goes through unencrypted facebook...)

------
pmontra
Better than their first attempt but still not the real thing. If you want to
give internet for free to some people there are no alternatives than paying
them a full blown data connection with no artificial limits.

I believe that my original comment of 2 weeks ago is still relevant:

"Dear Mark, this open-to-ISP initiative is one way to look at what you're
doing. Another one is closed-to-most-of-the-Internet. Let's turn it into an
open-to-all-Internet initiative (web sites, mail, etc - all protocols), with
no other costs for service providers (web sites, etc) than the amount of money
they're paying to get online right now. Then I'll believe you're really trying
to help those poor people by giving them free access to the full Internet, not
only to what you think they must be allowed to access. Forgive me if I'm
skeptical about how unbiased you are about it. Thanks."

(Edit: typo)

~~~
madez
Facebook is a business. Don't be naive. They don't care for poor people, they
care about getting money. They are even obligated to do so.

Don't expect business to solve all issues for humanity, because they won't.

A government is needed to take responsability we don't want to entrust
business with and to do necessary things no business wants to do, and it needs
to be strong to be able to do it even if business opposes.

~~~
patrickaljord
That's an old debate, are businesses more effective than governments at taking
people out of poverty? I don't think people will ever agree on that, I believe
businesses are more effective for the simple reason that they create things of
value that people want to buy and work for, unlike governments.

It could also be said that although businesses primary motive is making money
and not helping the poor, a politician's primary motive is getting elected and
helping himself, his party, his cronies, his electors and than at the bottom
of the list comes the poor. So don't be naive either in believing politicians
have better motives and are more efficient at pulling the poor out of misery.

~~~
Trombone12
I agree that (some) people will probably never agree on the government vs
private enterprise debate, but I will point out that prior to the welfare
state and world war 2 wealth inequality was either high or growing rapidly:
these are the historical facts.

So from history we learn that private enterprise reduces relative poverty
primarily by destroying the capital of the wealthiest, not by distributing or
generating wealth in the poorest part of the population.

Also to claim that governments that produces such things as the law, education
systems, and national defence have no valuable products is a bit odd.

~~~
patrickaljord
I don't think inequality is a problem, when people are completely free to
exploit their full potential to succeed in life, this means some people will
do way better than others. I'm very bad at playing the piano, basketball,
painting of creating huge corporations, some people are very good at those
things and a free economy allows them to do so. Good for them.

As for inequalities being a problem, as long as the quality of life improves
for all, I don't see where's the problem. The poorest in America live longer
and are more educated than the richest men in the world less than a century
ago. Not bad.

> Also to claim that governments that produces such things as the law,
> education systems, and national defence have no valuable products is a bit
> odd.

If it's so valuable then why force people to pay for it? Nobody was ever
forced to buy an iphone or a volkswagen. Anyway, my point is that government
is not synonymous with goodness and corporations evil, which was parent's
point. Both are made up of people who usually are not evil.

------
personjerry
I think despite all our criticisms (especially noting that we as a community
are far more aware of the consequences of net neutrality), we are missing the
big picture. There is no net neutrality without the net. The idea of bringing
internet access worldwide is a noble one, and though there certainly might be
problems that arise in the attempt to get there, the entire Internet.org
project, in my opinion, is a step forward in some fashion. Consider
additionally the intentions of the project. While corporations do need to be
profitable, ultimately I have the impression that Mark Zuckerberg is one of
the less soulless CEOs, and I like that of all the ways he could've attempted
to make more money, he chose one that has great benefits for people.

~~~
anonbanker
The man that called the world "fucking idiots" for trusting him with their
personal information is somehow "less soulless" than other CEO's.

Somehow, that statement seems equal with, as Doug Stanhope put it, being the
prettiest Denny's waitress.

But this is the top voted comment at this time, so HN seems to have a very
short memory.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
If it's a choice between Wikipedia and Facebook, or nothing at all, telling
poor Indians they should only be allowed to have the latter seems quite cruel.

Yes, it's unfortunate they can't be given the whole Internet, but the fact
they can get anything at all should be celebrated.

~~~
captn3m0
As an Indian, believe me when I say this: "We already have good internet". Our
data rates are extremely cheap. I paid less than 1 INR per day (it costs more
to get a cup of coffee, which costs around 5-10 bucks) while using Opera Mini
on a Nokia dumbphone.

India has progressed beyond the point where rich corporations need to help our
country. We have amongst the world's largest telecom industry and usage
statistics. Everyone owns a cellphone, and more and more people are realizing
the benefits of a smartphone (Whatsapp primarily, which is way cheaper than
SMS).

A basic android smartphone costs 100 USD in India. If a person can purchase a
smartphone that costly to "access the internet", they are rich enough to
afford a data plan (which costs around 3 USD/month).

No, we should not be celebrating this.

(I hope this did not come across as a rant, slightly furious now).

~~~
mkagenius
>As an Indian, believe me when I say this: "We already have good internet".
Our data rates are extremely cheap. I paid less than 1 INR per day (it costs
more to get a cup of coffee, which costs around 5-10 bucks) while using Opera
Mini on a Nokia dumbphone.

I don't know which part of the country you live in but most of rural India
can't even pay Rs. 1 per day for the internet. Also they can't even afford
smartphones.

~~~
captn3m0
And how will they access internet.org without a smartphone?

------
nphyte
Can someone talk about why no SSL, HTTPS etc. Wth happened to we care abut
your privacy?

~~~
aestetix
To be fair, this is consistent with Facebook's track record on privacy...

~~~
aestetix
For whoever downvoted this comment, I would love to know why.

------
eridal
> We’re building an open platform _and anyone who meets these guidelines will
> be able to participate_ ,

They are _anything_ but open.

They have already proven that they only care about "open" to get some traction
about their new platform; once they have many people using it, they will lock
down the garden.

open-graph anyone?

~~~
chdir
More like, _> We’re building a platform to open up your privacy... and decide
which app is good for you_.

------
higherpurpose
This makes it seem more like a Internet.org is just a technical decision
rather than Facebook trying to become the "new Internet" in emerging
countries. However, I don't think this alleviates the net neutrality problems
at all.

Too many types of Internet services are being excluded, which means it will
inevitably create a "two-tier" Internet. There will be the 80-percenters in
India who will only have access to "info sites" and then the 20-percenters who
will be able do everything else. Maybe this wouldn't be so bad if it was a
_temporary_ 10-year solution. But what if this becomes permanent?

~~~
captn3m0
There is also the issue that internet.org is exclusively available to Reliance
customers. You want free internet? Well, you will get it, but you have to
accept the shitty telecom policies (non-internet) that reliance brings with
it.

Reliance is also known to be trigger-happy ISP, with lots of censorship
issues. (Reliance also owns a media company, and often bans torrent websites
right after a release of their own films).

------
Garbage
Can somebody please point me to the technical guidelines section? The link
mentioned[1] in the original article[2] is giving 404.

[1] [https://www.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-
technica...](https://www.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-
guidelines)

[2] [https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/05/announcing-the-
internet...](https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/05/announcing-the-internet-org-
platform/)

~~~
dfabulich
The link should be [https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-
org/platform-t...](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-
technical-guidelines) (they used "www.facebook.com" where they should have
used "developers.facebook.com")

------
chisleu
They want it unencrypted so they can snarf all of the data. You can tunnel SSL
over HTTP though. App developers have no real worries, but regular content
delivery via http isn't going to fly.

------
thomasfoster96
A step in the right direction, but it seems a bit half hearted. I'm not really
sure what services HTTP-only, no JavaScript and few images gets you, but it's
going to be a tiny subset of what's possible for most people in countries
where Internet.org is targeted. The best solution as far as I'm concerned
would be to give x gigabytes of data a month away for free, regardless of the
protocol or type of data being transmitted.

------
philippnagel
Does someone want to partner up to create the Internet.org that should have
been?

~~~
nphyte
That depends on what you have in mind and what principals one doesn't
compromise on?

~~~
philippnagel
What principals would you like to see?

I would go for something like this:

· Non-profit · Only enable full access, do not monitor traffic, restrict
access, etc. · Distribution off access through sim-cards (?)

Thoughts?

~~~
nphyte
Well finding a sustainable affable way to make money to sustain operations is
essential. Offcourse privacy is important however providing access to the non
biased internet should be a priority.

~~~
philippnagel
Definitely.

We should think about an innovative business model or employ traditional non-
profit funding methods. You can e-mail me at phil@philippnagel.com if you
wish.

~~~
tw04
I think you'll find "please donate to give free internet access to poor people
in India" will be met with harsh, harsh feedback from the general public.

Unless you've got a rabbit in your hat, I don't see any way you're going to
give people complete privacy while still providing free internet access. If
there were a solution, don't you think we'd already have it in one of the
western nations as an alternative to paid internet access?

~~~
philippnagel
You are probably right. Simply throwing money at the problem and obtaining
money to throw in the first place might not be working.

One has to come up with a business model that is sustainable while providing
free internet access. Sort of like Zenefits
([http://www.zenefits.com](http://www.zenefits.com)) gives away their SaaS HR
platform for free and makes money through insurance brokering.

------
pastycrinkles
I saw an article today, and it made me think right away of this whole mess;

[http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2015/05/04/report-facebook-
to...](http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2015/05/04/report-facebook-to-start-
hosting-other-sites-content-this-month/)

------
methou
Too sad, there's no service for China.

