Facebook’s free Internet initiative Internet.org came under fire again this week from activists accusing it of violating net neutrality.
In a blog post on Monday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) questioned whether Internet.org is the right way to go about extending Internet access to the unconnected.
"There’s a real risk that the few Websites that Facebook and its partners select for Internet.org (including, of course, Facebook itself) could end up becoming a ghetto for poor users instead of a stepping stone to the larger Internet," the EFF said.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s counter argument is that having some Internet access is better than none at all, and that Internet.org supports the principles of net neutrality.
"We agree that some Internet access is better than none, and if that is what Internet.org actually provided – for example, through a uniformly rate-limited or data-capped free service – then it would have our full support," said the EFF. "But it doesn’t. Instead, it continues to impose conditions and restraints that not only make it something less than a true Internet service, but also endanger people’s privacy and security."
Indeed, in order for Internet.org’s zero-rated Web service to work, traffic is routed through a proxy server, which makes it more difficult for users of basic handsets – ie, Internet.org’s likely end users – to access data over an encrypted HTTPS connection.
"Any information users send or receive from Internet.org’s services could be read by local police or national intelligence agencies," the EFF warned. "While Facebook is working to solve this problem, it’s extremely difficult from a technical perspective."
Meanwhile, also on Monday, no fewer than 67 international digital rights activists sent an open letter to Zuckerberg accusing Internet.org of misleading the public about net neutrality.
"It is our belief that Facebook is improperly defining net neutrality in public statements and building a walled garden in which the world’s poorest people will only be able to access a limited set of insecure Websites and services," said the group, in a letter that, incidentally, it published on Facebook.
The group said it has "always sought to provide non-discriminatory access to the full open Internet, without privileging certain applications or services over others and without compromising the privacy and security of users. Internet.org appears to be taking another route."
The group called on Facebook to assert its support for a true definition of net neutrality, and to protect "privacy, security and other user rights."
