WingMakers Forum
Visit SUMBOLA - The Social Reading Platform
Publishers, Authors, Readers, and Talent wanted.


All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 316 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:28 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
February 17, 2012 | By Gwen Hinze
EU Court of Justice: Social Networks Can’t Be Forced to Monitor and Filter to Prevent Copyright Infringement


In another important victory for Internet users’ fundamental rights and the open Internet, the highest court in Europe ruled yesterday that social networks cannot be required to monitor and filter their users’ communications to prevent copyright infringement of music and movies. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) found that imposing a broad filtering obligation on social networks would require active monitoring of users’ files in violation of EU law and could undermine citizens’ freedom of expression.

The SABAM v. Netlog decision follows a landmark ruling by the ECJ in the SABAM v. Scarlet Extended case in November 2011, where the Court held that a Belgian ISP (Scarlet) could not be required to adopt a system to filter and block the transfer of potentially copyright infringing music files on its network. In that case, the Belgian copyright collective management organization SABAM had obtained an injunction (a court order) against the ISP, requiring it to install a system that would filter all of its users’ communications for potential copyright-infringing material.

Yesterday’s ruling also involved SABAM. It had sought a similarly broad injunction against Belgian social media platform Netlog. The 2001 EU copyright directive mandates that copyright holders be able to obtain injunctions against intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe copyright, but that is bounded by other EU obligations, including protection of citizens’ fundamental rights. The ECJ was asked to rule on the permissible scope of these injunctions, given their impact on Internet users’ fundamental rights and online service providers’ businesses.

The ECJ found that forcing Netlog to install a filtering system that would identify and prevent its users from making available any potentially copyright infringing files would require “active observation” of Netlog’s users. Following the 2011 SABAM v Scarlet decision, it held that implementing such a system would fall afoul of the key principle in Article 15 of the EU e-Commerce Directive, which prohibits EU member states from imposing a general obligation on ISPs and hosting services to monitor information they transmit or store, or to actively seek facts or circumstances that indicate illegal activity.

The Court also criticized the injunction on a second basis. In the 2011 Scarlet ruling and the 2008 Promusicae v. Telefonica decision, the ECJ held that in adopting measures to protect copyright holders, EU member states and courts must strike a fair balance between the protection of copyright, and the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals and businesses who are affected by those measures. The Court found that the filtering system being sought by SABAM required the identification, systematic analysis, and processing of information connected with the profiles of Netlog’s users. This would violate Netlog’s users’ right to protection of their personal data, enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In addition, because the filtering system could not effectively distinguish between lawful and unlawful content, it could block lawful content, and undermine Netlog users’ right to receive and impart information protected under Article 11 of the Charter.

Given the protection required of citizens’ fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the ECJ concluded that courts in EU countries can’t issue injunctions against hosting service providers that require them to install a filtering system with features as broad as the one in this case which (a) was directed at information stored on the hosting platform’s servers by its users, (b) applied indiscriminately to all its users, (c) was installed as a preventative measure (requiring hosting services to decide whether content is infringing), (d) was at the sole expense of the hosting provider, and (e) for an unlimited period of time.

So what does all this mean? Here’s a couple of our thoughts.

The ECJ ruling is directed at EU member countries, but it will have significant implications for the future of the global Internet. Injunctions are one of several strategies that intellectual property rightsholders have been pursuing to force Internet intermediaries to become copyright police. In countries around the world, IP rightsholders have used injunctions to impose filtering, blocking and user termination obligations on Internet intermediaries. These efforts are likely to expand under ACTA, because it requires signatory countries to make available broad injunctions to IP rightsholders, including temporary injunctions while a case is pending. By precluding pre-emptive filtering and blocking injunctions, the SABAM v. Scarlet and SABAM v. Netlog rulings set an important limit on this strategy for EU countries.

Because injunctions are issued by courts, usually after a process of weighing up all affected parties’ interests, measures imposed in this way theoretically provide better protection for Internet users than those adopted in private party voluntary agreements such as those we’ve seen in Ireland and Belgium. As we’ve noted elsewhere, Internet intermediaries are not competent to make legal determinations about whether particular content or conduct infringes copyright. Copyright holders’ efforts to require Internet intermediaries to take on this role under the guise of greater “co-operation” raise serious concerns about due process, transparency and accountability, and online free expression. In that respect, we welcome the ECJ’s clarification on the scope of injunctions available under EU law.

At the same time, we recognize that the ECJ’s Scarlet and Netlog decisions will now lead to increased lobbying pressure from rightsholder groups to change EU law, perhaps as part of the European Commission’s review of the 2004 Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive. Let’s hope that EU policymakers approach this in as thoughtful and balanced a way as the ECJ.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/e ... l-networks


The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:39 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Free Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Link

Image

Speech on the Internet requires a series of intermediaries to reach its audience. Each intermediary is vulnerable to some degree to pressure from those who want to silence the speaker. Even though the Internet is decentralized and distributed, "weak links" in this chain can operate as choke points to accomplish widespread censorship.

The Internet has delivered on its promise of low-cost, distributed, and potentially anonymous speech. Reporters file reports instantly, citizens tweet their insights from the ground, bloggers publish to millions for free, and revolutions are organized on social networks. But the same systems that make all of this possible are dangerously vulnerable to chokeholds that are just as cheap, efficient, and effective, and that are growing in popularity. To protect the vibrant ecosystem of the Internet, it's crucial to understand how weaknesses in the chain of intermediaries between you and your audience can threaten speech.

Each of the links above represents a link in the chain of intermediaries that directly facilitate or indirectly support speech on the Internet. Click the names of the links to learn the role that these intermediaries play, and how and why they may be targeted.

(To be able to click onto links suggested above go to link below)

https://www.eff.org/free-speech-weak-link

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:01 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Why EFF Supports CSISAC's Decision Not to Endorse the OECD Communique on Internet Policy-Making Principles

Yesterday we reported that EFF and the other civil society members of the Civil Society Information Society Advisory Committee to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (CSISAC) had declined to endorse a draft Communique on Internet policy-making principles produced by the OECD. Since then, the OECD and key government representatives reopened negotiations with civil society, business and the technical industry stakeholders, in an effort to find mutually acceptable text to accommodate our concerns. Unfortunately that was not successful, and EFF and other members of the OECD's Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council have declined to endorse the full and final version of the Communiqué released on 29 June.

EFF and CSISAC are committed to continuing to participate in the OECD's multistakeholder policy development process. EFF has been actively involved in providing input into OECD's policy work through CSISAC for the last two years. We believe that OECD is a vital place for civil society to work and appreciate the genuine commitment of all involved in creating the Communique to engage with civil society and listen to our perspectives and concerns. EFF was involved in CSISAC's negotiation efforts over the last few weeks to find mutually acceptable text for the Communique's principles. We, along with all the other parties involved, participated in these discussions in good faith. Given that, EFF's decision not to endorse the final principles was not taken lightly.

We agree with much that is in the Communique. We support policies for fostering the open Internet, individual empowerment, evidence-based policy-making, and the commitment to multistakeholder policy development. However, we are troubled by the detailed framing of many of the principles, which are not compatible with several core CSISAC values, including respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms and the rule of law, and promotion of access to knowledge.

In our view, the Communiqué over-emphasizes protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms. At the same time, it fails to acknowledge the importance of balanced IP regimes –- including robust limitations like fair use -- to spur innovation. For EFF, the key concern was that the Communiqué could allow governments to use Internet intermediaries to police their networks and platforms for potential intellectual property infringement, which would impede citizens' access to information and freedom of expression.

The Communiqué envisages that Internet intermediaries will take voluntary measures to address and deter intellectual property infringement. These could include filtering or blocking of web content, or disconnection of Internet users upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement under a Three Strikes or Graduated Response policy. The Communiqué provides: "Sound Internet policy should encompass norms of responsibility that enable private sector voluntary co-operation for the protection of intellectual property. Appropriate measures include lawful steps to address and deter infringement, and accord full respect to user and stakeholder rights and fair process." Why would they do this? In order to limit their liability. While the Communique recognizes the need for limitations on Internet intermediary liability, that could be read as being conditioned on intermediaries taking particular actions. The Communique provides: "Limitations play an important role in promoting innovation and creativity, the free flow of information, and in providing the incentives for co-operation between stakeholders. Within this context governments may choose to convene stakeholders in a transparent, multi-stakeholder process to identify the appropriate circumstances under which Internet intermediaries could take steps to educate users, assist rights holders in enforcing their rights or reduce illegal content, while minimising burdens on intermediaries and ensuring legal certainty for them, respecting fair process, and more generally employing the principles identified in this document."

Various references throughout the text to "access to lawful content" would also require Internet intermediaries to make determinations about the lawfulness of online content, even though Internet intermediaries are neither competent to do this, nor the appropriate party to do so. Taken together, this could be read as a subtle effort to reopen or at least re-interpret one of the foundational principles that has allowed the Internet to flourish -- limitations on liability of Internet intermediaries who are "mere conduits" in facilitating Internet communications. This would be at odds with the protection against unbounded liability currently afforded to "mere conduit" Internet intermediaries in US and EU law.

And perhaps most troubling of all, this is taking place in a high-level intergovernmentally-agreed document at a time when there is vigorous ongoing debate in international, regional, and national fora about the appropriate role and responsibilities of Internet intermediaries and the scope of protection against liability afforded to intermediaries in various countries' laws.

"Because of the impact that Internet intermediaries can have over their users' freedom of expression online, how countries approach these issues really will determine the future of the single global Internet" noted EFF International IP Director Gwen Hinze. "Any changes to the conditions governing limitations on Internet intermediary liability will have a significant and detrimental impact on Internet users' ability to seek, receive and impart information, and could harm the Internet's end-to-end architecture."

The international context in which this is all taking place is also significant. In his recent landmark report, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion online recommended that censorship measures such as blocking or filtering content should never be delegated to private entities - and that no one should be held liable for content on the Internet which they did not author.

"At the international level, we are watching a lack of policy coherence among countries who are endorsing contradictory Internet governance principles in different international venues including at the Council of Europe, the OECD, the recent G8, and as proposed by European Commissioner Neelie Kroes recently." says EFF International Rights Director Katitza Rodriguez. "Any principles adopted should ensure the protection of international human rights standards that seek to protect freedom of expression and association on the Internet, as well as the rule of law – rather than supporting overbroad copyright enforcement measures that violate international human rights standards."

CSISAC's press release on the 29 June version of the Communique is here. and a complete account of CSISAC's concerns with the Communiqué is here.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/w ... dorse-oecd

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:15 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
...a complete account of CSISAC's concerns with the Communiqué is here.

CSISAC ISSUES STATEMENT ON OECD COMMUNIQUÉ ON PRINCIPLES
FOR INTERNET POLICY-MAKING

Paris – 29 June 2011. The Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council
(CSISAC) to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
affirms its commitment today to the multi-stakeholder policy making processes that
developed the Communiqué on Principles For Internet Policy-Making. We commend
the OECD for its leadership and extend our appreciation to representatives from
governments and the technical and business communities who were willing to reopen
the draft Communiqué for further negotiation on 28 June.
CSISAC remains committed to ongoing collaboration with the OECD Secretariat,
OECD member states and observers in all processes that follow from the
Communiqué and the High Level Meeting. We recognise the value of a set of agreed
principles to promote consistent Internet policy-making across OECD member
economies. CSISAC supports many of the principles included in the Communiqué,
and it is therefore with regret that we declined to endorse the full and final version of
the Communiqué released on 29 June 2011.
CSISAC's concerns are with the detailed framing of the itemized principles. In some
instances, the elaboration of these concepts appears to undermine the very principles
they are intended to engrain. We remain convinced that consensus could have been
reached on a document focused more on Internet policy-making principles and less on
finer details related to contentious areas of substantive law.
As developed in the Communiqué, several of these principles are not compatible with
CSISAC core values including respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms
and, the rule of law, promotion of access to knowledge, promotion of open standards,
Net Neutrality and balanced intellectual property policies and regimes.
(See: http://csisac.org/seoul.php)
A more complete account of CSISAC's concerns with the Communiqué is at:
http://csisac.org/CSISAC_Statement_on_O ... 11_FINAL_C
OMMENTS.pdf
CSISAC’s concerns include:
1. The Communiqué’s over-emphasis on protection and enforcement of
intellectual property rights at the expense of fundamental freedoms. Moreover,
the Communiqué fails to acknowledge the balance inherent in well-calibrated
intellectual property regimes and other factors that have allowed the Internet
to flourish and innovation to take place. We note that the words "intellectual
property" appear seven times, "enforcement" four times, and "liability" twice.
But "fair use/dealing”, “public domain”, “limitations and exceptions” are
absent. By comparison, the 2008 OECD Seoul Declaration on the Future of
the Internet Economy lists intellectual property rights as merely one of its
eight public policy objectives relating to online innovation and creativity.

2. At a time when the responsibilities of Internet intermediaries are being
extensively discussed in national, regional and international fora and before
the European Court of Justice, particular language in the Communiqué might
be seen to reinterpret a core principle that has underpinned Internet growth and
innovation to date – the limited liability of Internet intermediaries that are
mere conduits facilitating the interactions of others.

3. Various qualifications within the Communiqué limiting access guarantees to
'lawful' content raise concerns for freedom of expression. This language poses
questions about whether Internet intermediaries will be required to make
determinations of legality when they are not competent or appropriate parties
to do so. In regard to intellectual property, this would be inconsistent with
current legal norms in many OECD countries and could undermine the
Communiqué's commitment to due process, transparency and fundamental
rights.

4. The Communiqué does not adequately address foundational principles that are
integral to the openness of the Internet such as network neutrality and open
standards.

5. The impact that some of the Communiqué’s measures could have in countries
where there are weak democratic institutions and inadequate protection of
fundamental human rights and consumer interests.

About CSISAC:
CSISAC is a coalition of more than 80 civil society groups from across the globe that
provide input into the development of OECD policies relating to the Internet. Since
2009, CSISAC has formally represented the civil society perspective at certain OECD
meetings and defended the rights of Internet users worldwide.

More Information at: http://csisac.org/about.ph

Contact: liaison@csisac.org

(This is to inform people that the US is not the only country with internet and that Europe in particular and many countries there are involved in making any decisions about freedom of the internet. The US and British corporate owned government would have people in North America believe that they have the final say about what we can and cannot do on the internet. They are quickly finding out that this psychological ploy does not work anymore and that enough people are awake globally to not be bullied by them. Decentralization for individuated empowerment and access to information has become the elitists worst nightmare as it should be. How do you fight billions of people on the planet standing up for their freedom and not being afraid, intimidated or bullied any more? Nuking us is not an option for them.)

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:08 am 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at2FfQjT ... re=related

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:48 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Massive information dump by #Anonymous on hundreds of cops, including a ‘pedo cop’


Image

Anonymous has been extremely active over the last few weeks; for one, disclosing the inept state of Alabama’s privacy of 40,000 of its residents, after hacking into their site in just minutes. In addition to a mountain of website’s defaced and hacked, the group has surpassed themselves. Again. Imagine what you would expect to find after hacking into the databases of the Los Angeles Police Canine Association‘s website — certainly not disturbing images from an ‘alleged’ pedo cop of unclothed children with adults – the police officer in question, Jesse Flores, should have ‘EXPECTED US.’


http://pastebin.com/X88wx1aq



http://anonops.blogspot.com/

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:58 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Global DNS takedown plotters disowned by Anonymous

Alleged power grid threat also cobblers, say hacktivists

By John Leyden • Get more from this author

Posted in Security, 22nd February 2012 20:19 GMT


Anonymous has distanced itself from a plot to knock out critical systems in the backbone of the internet.

Documents posted on Pastebin and elsewhere warn of a planned attack against the main DNS root servers on 31 March as part of a protest against SOPA and other hated copyright enforcement measures. If successful, the attack would disable the core components of internet's systems for domain name to IP address lookup, hobbling web surfing and email delivery in the process.

"On March 31, anonymous will shut the Internet down. In order to shut the Internet down, one thing is to be done. Down the 13 root DNS servers of the Internet," according to a memo outlining the proposed assault, dubbed Operation GlobalBlackOut.

"By cutting these off the Internet, nobody will be able to perform a domain name lookup, thus, disabling the HTTP Internet, which is, after all, the most widely used function of the Web. Remember, this is a protest, we are not trying to 'kill' the Internet, we are only temporarily shutting it down where it hurts the most."

Established individuals associated with Anonymous have distanced the group from the plan.

"GlobalBlackOut is another Fake Operation. No intention of #Anonymous to cut Internet," an update to the @Anonops Twitter account on Tuesday states.

Anyone can declare themselves as members of Anonymous and use the groups's banner as a flag of convenience. In the absence of official spinners, let alone any recognised hierarchy, Twitter accounts and blogs act as the best guide for what's going on with the collective.

These accounts correctly predicted that there would be no attack on Facebook, so El Reg reckons Operation GlobalBlackOut - which doesn't make much sense in the first place - is a non-starter.

A minority of members of Anonymous have shown themselves prepared to leak the personal details of consumers in order to expose the insecurity of corporations in the past, but taking out the root DNS of the net is not the group's style. After all, such a action would throw a spanner in the works of the hacktivists' favourite playground.

In other Anon-related news, National Security Agency director Gen. Keith Alexander has warned the White House that Anonymous "could have the ability within the next year or two to bring about a limited power outage through a cyberattack", the Wall street journal breathlessly reports.

Various members of Anonymous denounced this warning as scare-mongering geared towards creating a climate in which Congress allows the passage of the 2012 cyber-security bill despite objections by Senate Republicans. They say it gives federal authorities too much power over private-sector infrastructure firms.

"We're pretty sure, that cyber bill is the reason for the renewed NSA fear-mongering," AnonymousIRC retorted. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/22 ... down_plan/

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:00 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
~~Meet more western companies that arm dictators and torturers with network spyware

~~By Cory Doctorow at 3:41 pm Tuesday, Feb 21 •


~~Canada's bull-moose civil libertarian on Canada's new domestic spying law

~~Canadian MP: if you oppose warrantless snooping, you "stand with child pornographers" :roll:


~~Leaked DHS internet watchlist lists msthirteen.com, skeevy German site about 13yo girls as MS-13 gang news :roll:


http://boingboing.net/tag/spying

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:09 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Rick Mercer rants about the online spying bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_3q_9_O ... e=youtu.be


Global News: Online spying bill includes 'gag order'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqnB5EnG ... re=related


Spy Bill Backlash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2DFg5oe ... re=related


Anonymous - Our Warning to Vic Toews & the Parliament of Canada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyOQFYeB ... re=related

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:53 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
The tories in Canada, especially Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, have always been exceptionally arrogant in assuming people in general are stupid and he can do whatever he pleases no matter how sleazy. He and his American counterparts have very much in common maybe, its their common tie to the British aristocracy that binds them. But, their deceptions aren't working any more and people are calling them on their blatant deception and lies, they are not getting away with anything at all anymore. There is a Canadian Wiki Leaks slow in coming, but, it is coming.... :wink:


Judges, not child pornographers, are the real Tory targets

Apparently, we really do need to #TellVicEverything.

“This is the first time that I am hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers,” the Public Safety Minister said Saturday, a full five days after he introduced the government’s controversial online-surveillance bill in Parliament. “In my opinion, it does not.”


In fact, it does. Mr. Toews’s tardy confusion makes a mockery of his bluster; when he told the House of Commons the choice was between the Tories and “the child pornographers,” he did not actually know what he was proposing.

But though the minister’s lack of grace launched a thousand quips, his rhetoric also obscured the most troubling aspect of the new law: its assault on judicial discretion. The online surveillance bill is the latest front in the Conservative government’s war on judges – a twilight struggle that the Canadian public seems destined to lose.

True, police can already access vast quantities of private information about our online activities – but they must first ask a judge for a warrant to do so. Under the new law, they would no longer need permission. The Conservatives apparently see judges as an obstacle to effective police work; the purpose of the proposed legislation is to get them out of the way.

This is part of a pattern. Within months of the 2006 election, the government introduced legislation to limit judges’ use of conditional sentences and impose mandatory minimums for gun crimes. More mandatory minimums followed in the Tackling Violent Crime Act, in 2008. In early 2011, Parliament abolished the “faint-hope clause,” which had allowed judges and juries to review and, if appropriate, reduce parole ineligibility for inmates serving life sentences. And last fall, the Tories tabled an omnibus crime bill that would, among other things, force judges to send people to prison for no less than six months for possessing as few as six marijuana plants.

Anyone who has dared to question these measures has been branded as “soft on crime.” But last week, the spin stopped working. The online-surveillance bill does not just put criminals in Conservative crosshairs – anyone with an Internet connection is now a target. And so, when Vic Toews asked Canadians to choose between the Conservatives and child [Censored], we chose the latter.

But behind the backlash is an inconvenient truth: We rarely stand up for civil liberties, except when our own are at stake. The vast majority of us don’t see ourselves as potential criminals, and so the impact of mandatory minimums seems remote, at best. When we are trying to get the bad guys off the streets, the thinking goes, who are judges to stand in the way?

Except that is exactly what judges are supposed to do. Last Monday, for instance, within hours of Toews’s child-porn pronouncement, Madam Justice Anne Molloy of the Ontario Superior Court struck down as unconstitutional one of the mandatory minimum sentences imposed by the Tackling Violent Crime Act of 2008.

The Prime Minister’s reaction was telling: “Canadians believe that the courts have not been tough enough in dealing with gun crime,” he told the House of Commons on Tuesday. “This government is determined to make sure that we have laws that can deal with serious gun crime.” In other words: laws that keep judges from judging.

But a free society needs judges like Anne Molloy: strong-willed jurists who defy political pressure. They are the ones who step in when our freedom, if not our individual self interest, is at stake. But the Conservative war on judges rejects this basic democratic principle. Instead, the government believes the judiciary should have little leeway in sentencing, and no leeway at all when police want private information about our online activities. All Canadians – not just criminals – will eventually pay the price.

The online-surveillance bill is the symptom, not the sickness. To protect our privacy, we must end the war on judicial discretion. Want to tell Vic Toews everything? Tell him this: Our judges are not standing with child pornographers when they protect our civil liberties.

Adam Goldenberg is a J.D. candidate at Yale Law School. He was chief speechwriter to Michael Ignatieff and served as a senior aide in the McGuinty government

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... nt=2345969

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:00 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Paying for our own surveillance

There's no way of knowing how much Bill C-30, colloquially known as the online snooping bill, will cost taxpayers, or boost monthly home internet and phone fees.

For the internet service providers, the toll it will take on their bottom line could be significant, because of the investment in equipment needed to allow real-time interceptions of online conversations or for preserving huge amounts of data.

"Even for my own small business, I think it would be tens of thousands of dollars. One of the things that jumped out at me (in the bill) is that the minister 'may' compensate us, not 'should' or 'will,' but 'may,'" says Tom Copeland, president of eagle.ca, a small internet provider with 3,500 customers.

Copeland says that ISPs won't be able to estimate the costs until the regublog-toews-nicholson-021341.jpglations for bill C-30 are written, possibly as long as a year away.

The costs could be huge, says Christopher Parsons, an internet writer and blogger, who's written about lawful access in the U.S. He says the U.S. Congress set aside $500 million dollars to compensate ISPs and mobile providers for equipping their networks with real-time surveillance capability. But was years ago, he says, and the upgrades aren't complete yet; the industry there is ballparking between $1.3 to $1.7 billion as the true cost.

The one area where the government has promised to pick up the tab is the ISPs' costs to comply with each request for subscriber data or an actual intercept.

What that means, says Parsons, is that the intercept business can become a cash cow for the big ISPs.

"In the U.S., interceptions have become a business model, so there are cases where large telecommunications companies have set up entire branches where 200 employees sit in a room, and all they do is assist law enforcement with interception and monitor requests, but they make money on every request that comes in."

In other words, he says, the government is paying private companies to spy.

But being paid for subscriber data requests wouldn't provide much revenue for a small enterprise like his, says Copeland, who is also Chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers. In 17 years, he's had one request from police.

"If we're being compensated on a per request basis, I may never be compensated for that investment in storage and wiretapping equipment."

Copeland adds that the request by police for subscriber data never came to fruition anyway. "I had a call from the local police asking if I could provide the information. I said I could but I would simply need a letter signed off by the officer and the chief, requesting it. I was told I'd have it in 20 minutes and it never arrived."

Under the new bill, Copeland would have no choice but to hand over the information. But, Copeland points out, the RCMP is supposed to pay the costs for phone wiretaps and phone companies often wait and wait for their bills to be paid.

It's hard to guess how often the police and CSIS will use the powers in the bill if it passes in its present form. Parsons estimates there will be hundreds of requests per day, because the information police can obtain without a warrant -- customer name, address, email. IP address -- is incredibly useful.

"If you (the customer) use various pseudonyms, that can be plugged in as well. So not only does that identify an individual, but who they're talking with, where they're talking, how often they're talking -- so who are the important individuals in that (online) community can be identified."

And he says, it's not just Rogers and Bell who'll be at the receiving end of the requests.

"We're talking Skype, we're talking web forums, it's a huge catchall -- Facebook, Google, all of them. Facebook provides all the services that a TSP would: there's chat, the wall post... If you provide a communications service to the public in some sense, then you will be captured by this bill."

So who will pay? The public will pay, says Parsons, one way or another.

"They'll pay for it when Rogers sends them a bill or they'll pay through their taxes ... Canadians will pay."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside- ... lance.html

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:04 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Quote:
Image Rep. Dan Gordon @RepDanGordon
The very notion that #Anonymous would shut down the pwr grid is silly. So they can sit in the dark with no pwr for their computers? #lulzy


:lol:

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:10 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
ACTA is part of a multi-decade, worldwide copyright campaign

Image
The World Intellectual Property Organization is a relatively representative body. Which might be why the US has been avoiding it.

Last week, we observed that major content companies have enjoyed a steady drumbeat of victories in Congress and the courts over the last two decades. The lobbying and litigation campaigns that produced these results have a counterpart in the executive branch. At the urging of major copyright holders, the Obama administration has been working to export restrictive American copyright laws abroad. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is just the most visible component of this ambitious and long-running project.

Ars Technica recently talked to Michael Geist, a legal scholar at the University of Ottawa, about this effort. He told us that rather than making their arguments at the World Intellectual Property Organization, where they would be subject to serious public scrutiny, the US and other supporters of more restrictive copyright law have increasingly focused on pushing their agenda in alternative venues, such as pending trade deals, where negotiations are secret and critics are excluded.

The growing opposition to ACTA in Europe suggests this strategy of secrecy may have backfired. But the US is not giving up. It has already begun work on its next secret agreement, ealled the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Geist told Ars that restoring balance to copyright law will require reformers to be as determined as their opponents have been. He said that donating to public interest groups that focus on international copyright issues is the best way to make sure that the public interest is well-represented.
Exporting copyright law

Countries have been negotiating international copyright treaties for more than a century, but the passage of two treaties in the 1990s represented a turning point in international copyright law.

The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, signed in 1994, made protection of copyrights a requirement of membership in the World Trade Organization. Countries that failed to meet international copyright standards could face trade sanctions. The 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty further ratcheted up the minimum requirements for copyright protection—requiring, for example, that signing countries regulate the circumvention of digital rights management schemes.

WIPO's relatively open structure meant that major copyright holders didn't get everything they wanted in the 1996 treaty. For example, Geist said, the United States was unable to get the strong anti-circumvention language it preferred into the WIPO treaty.

"WIPO is a place that's more open than it used to be," Geist told Ars. "Because of the consensus-based approach, there is a necessity to engage in negotiating." Indeed, in recent years reformers have begun to make headway themselves. Treaties to liberalize copyright in ways that benefit libraries and the blind are now under consideration at WIPO.

So, Geist said, the US has increasingly engaged in forum-shopping, bypassing WIPO and pushing for stronger copyright protection in a wide variety of other venues. For example, the United States has negotiated a series of bilateral trade agreements with nations such as South Korea, Australia, and Chile. While they're branded as free-trade deals, they also require the other country to adopt the more punitive copyright regime favored by the United States.

The negotiations over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement were part of this trend. In contrast to the relatively open WIPO process, ACTA was negotiated in secret by a relatively small number of mostly wealthy countries. The developing nations who would be the most likely to object weren't invited to participate. The plan was to present the finished treaty to the world on a "take it or leave it" basis.

Unfortunately, the plan didn't work as well as its backers had hoped. Early drafts of the treaty leaked, giving opponents time to organize against the most extreme provisions in the treaty. And the secretive and non-representative nature of the negotiation process created a bad taste in the mouths of many stakeholders. Concerns over ACTA's secretive drafting process may have been as important as any of the treaty's substantive provisions in generating European opposition. If Europe fails to ratify ACTA, it will dramatically weaken the treaty.
Try, try again

But the US isn't giving up. To the contrary, the US and its industry backers seem to have concluded the problem with ACTA was that they didn't try hard enough to lock down the negotiating process. So they're now plowing forward with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This time, the US has cut the leak-prone Europeans out of the process, limiting negotiations to eight countries such as New Zealand and Peru that are much easier for the United States to intimidate. Presumably, the goal is to enshrine the US's preferred copyright policies in the TPP and then use the TPP as a template for future agreements.

Once the US gets a critical mass of countries to sign a deal, it can then use other carrots and sticks to pressure additional countries to sign on. Geist said one important tool is the so-called "Special 301" list, an annual watchlist of countries Washington considers to have insufficiently strict copyright laws. Not only will countries be pressured to sign onto ACTA, the US may also press them to implement even those provisions of ACTA that the agreement itself labels as optional.

Geist believes that the interests behind SOPA and ACTA are likely to view recent defeats as temporary setbacks. "They're not playing for next year," he said. "They're playing for 10 years and 20 years in the future."

He said that reformers can resist their agenda, but only if they play the same "long game" as their opponents. Ordinarily, the most important thing a citizen of a democracy can do to stop bad public policies is to call their legislators. But in this case, most of the action is occurring in international organizations where individual legislators have little influence.

To fight agreements like ACTA requires organizations with the sophistication and resources to navigate the complex world of international diplomacy. Geist pointed to Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation as examples of organizations with a track record of resisting the drive toward ever-stronger copyright protection.These organizations are "WIPO regulars" well positioned to stay in the trenches and ensure the public interest is well-represented regardless of the venue. Geist said that donating to these organizations is the most effective way for ordinary voters to help resist the worldwide trend toward ever-more-extreme copyright laws.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... ated_right

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:15 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Anonymous message to the NSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-FaaWYIqgY

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:52 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
McCain to Introduce Cybersecurity Bill to Empower NSA, Military Domestically

By: Mickey McCarter

02/22/2012 (12:00am)



At a major Senate hearing on cybersecurity last week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced that Republicans would introduce a competing bill to the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (S. 2105) championed by the chairmen of the Senate homeland security, commerce and intelligence committees.

McCain decried rushing debate on the Cybersecurity Act, sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and called for expanding the role of the National Security Agency (NSA) in domestic cybersecurity matters.

Introduction of similar legislation in the past several years by Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) did not justify any action to speed up a vote on the bill, McCain said at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Feb. 16.

"To suggest that this bill should move directly to the Senate floor because it has 'been around' since 2009 is outrageous," McCain protested. "First, the bill was introduced two days ago. Secondly, where do Senate rules state that a bill's progress in a previous Congress can supplant the necessary work on that bill in the present one?"

Despite how much debate may have occurred on different versions of the bill in previous sessions of Congress, a different set of senators now must fully consider the bill, McCain urged. The homeland security committee itself now has four Republicans who were not even in the Senate in 2009.

"Respectfully, to treat the last Congress as a legislative mulligan by bypassing the committee process and bringing the legislation directly to the floor is not the appropriate way to begin consideration," McCain commented.

To move forward, Congress should deliberate a bill with transparency, holding markups and open debate on the bill instead of placing it on the legislative calendar as it has been, McCain said.

Moreover, McCain said the bill wrongly places emphasis on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to protect US information systems. While DHS would have to grow in mission and in size to accommodate the mandates of the legislation, the senator argued NSA and US Cyber Command already have the resources and the expertise to carry them out.

But NSA and the military currently do not have the legal authority to secure civilian networks, McCain said. He would introduce legislation that would change that.

In a statement, Lieberman said he welcomed debate and discussion of his bill.

"I am heartened that Republicans will offer their own cybersecurity proposal so that we can engage in rigorous debate and pass badly needed legislation this year, because to me it feels like it is Sept. 10, 2001," Lieberman said. "The system is blinking red -- again. Yet, we are failing to connect the dots -- again. We have come so far and in such a bipartisan way that we cannot allow this moment to slip away from us. We need to act now to defend America's cyberspace as a matter of national and economic security."

Collins agreed that Congress must act swiftly: "The warnings of our vulnerability to a major cyberattack come from all directions and countless experts and are underscored by the intrusions that have already occurred. Each day we fail to act, the threat increases to our national and economic security."

The Cybersecurity Act would task DHS with conducting risk assessments of critical infrastructure and then designate specific locations covered by regulations that it would promulgate. Businesses that must comply with the regulations, which would require them to certify the security of their information systems, could turn to DHS for assistance. Companies would require annual certification of their cybersecurity posture, which could consist of any technologies or methods they determine to be best.

Owners and operators of critical infrastructure designated under the act could appeal their designation. Companies in compliance with the regulations would receive liability protections for cyberattacks against their infrastructure, presuming they suffer no lapses in meeting their responsibilities.

McCain objected to this regime as too burdensome for US business, reflecting a stance articulated by the US Chamber of Commerce. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge spoke out against the Cybersecurity Act at the Feb. 16 hearing on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, which said more government regulation would be too costly and ineffective for protecting information systems.

"Additionally, if the legislation before us today were enacted into law, unelected bureaucrats at the DHS could promulgate prescriptive regulations on American businesses, which own roughly 90 percent of critical cyber infrastructure," McCain asserted. "The regulations that would be created under this new authority would stymie job creation, blur the definition of private property rights and divert resources from actual cybersecurity to compliance with government mandates. A super-regulator, like DHS under this bill, would impact free market forces, which currently allow our brightest minds to develop the most effective network security solutions."

Growing DHS to provide it with the capabilities to carry out the mandates of the bill also would cost more for US taxpayers, McCain remarked.

McCain vowed that fellow Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Charles Grassley (Iowa), and others soon would introduce alternate cybersecurity legislation offering a "fundamentally" different approach. The bill would prescribe a collaborative relationship with the private sector that focuses on information sharing rather than an adversarial relationship that offers regulations, McCain characterized.

The bill, to be introduced after senators return from their current recess, would not only improve information sharing but also would update the criminal code to punish cybercrime, reform the Federal Information Security Management Act, and focus federal investments in cybersecurity, McCain claimed.


http://www.hstoday.us/industry-news/gen ... Xo.twitter


Sigh....

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:30 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
This is the reason why no one or group of corporate governments anywhere will control the internet. And what they don't want you to know. It pays to inform yourself.

Quote:
In Brief

The Internet was designed to be a decentralized system: every node should connect to many others. This design helped to make the system resistant to censorship or outside attack.
Yet in practice, most individual users exist at the edges of the network, connected to others only through their Internet service provider (ISP). Block this link, and Internet access disappears.
An alternative option is beginning to emerge in the form of wireless mesh networks, simple systems that connect end users to one another and automatically route around blocks and censors.
Yet any mesh network needs to hit a critical mass of users before it functions well; developers must convince potential users to trade off ease of use for added freedom and privacy.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... shadow-web

Certian groups globally concerned about internet freedom are working on wireless mesh networks and soon we will see a net that cannot be controlled by corporate governments or a limited amount of ISP's. Perhaps, the "business' aspect about it is what is it's protection as well. Still, many other creative possibilities remain that could be implemented for the benefit of the majority of people. Wireless is a beautiful thing. Ya gotta think BIG. :wink:

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:11 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Image

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has created this Surveillance Self-Defense site to educate the American public about the law and technology of government surveillance in the United States, providing the information and tools necessary to evaluate the threat of surveillance and take appropriate steps to defend against it.

Surveillance Self-Defense (SSD) exists to answer two main questions: What can the government legally do to spy on your computer data and communications? And what can you legally do to protect yourself against such spying?

After an introductory discussion of how you should think about making security decisions — it's all about risk management — we'll be answering those two questions for three types of data:

First, we're going to talk about the threat to the data stored on your computer posed by searches and seizures by law enforcement, as well as subpoenas demanding your records.

Second, we're going to talk about the threat to your data on the wire — that is, your data as it's being transmitted — posed by wiretapping and other real-time surveillance of your telephone and Internet communications by law enforcement.

Third, we're going to describe the information about you that is stored by third parties like your phone company and your Internet service provider, and how law enforcement officials can get it.

In each of these three sections, we're going to give you practical advice about how to protect your private data against law enforcement agents.

In a fourth section, we'll also provide some basic information about the U.S. government's expanded legal authority when it comes to foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations.

Finally, we've collected several articles about specific defensive technologies that you can use to protect your privacy, which are linked to from the other sections or can be accessed individually. So, for example, if you're only looking for information about how to securely delete your files, or how to use encryption to protect the privacy of your emails or instant messages, you can just directly visit that article.

Legal disclaimer: This guide is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. EFF's aim is to provide a general description of the legal and technical issues surrounding you or your organization's computer and communications security, and different factual situations and different legal jurisdictions will result in different answers to a number of questions. Therefore, please do not act on this legal information alone; if you have any specific legal problems, issues, or questions, seek a complete review of your situation with a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.


more at...
https://ssd.eff.org/


The more informed we are and understand how this works the better able are we to protect ourselves and better yet, make our own creative contributions as well. :D

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:14 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Image

How Unique-and Trackable-is your Browser? Find out Here: https://panopticlick.eff.org/

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:33 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
This is about what is referred to in an earlier post about senator McCain is attempting to send through Congress...again(from 2009)...a bill allowing the corporate government to spy on you so as to know who is for and against them, (corporate government). Wow, when a new and different internet is introduced which can't be controlled by the elite, if anything they may not even be allowed on it; what can they do when the majority of people on the planet can access it?

Don’t Let Congress Use "Cybersecurity" Fears to Erode Digital Rights

Congress is considering legislation that would give companies a free pass to monitor and collect communications, including huge amounts of personal data like your text messages and emails, and share that data with the government and anyone else. All a company has to do is claim its privacy violations were for "cybersecurity purposes." Tell Congress that they can’t use vaguely-defined "cybersecurity threats" as a shortcut to bypassing the law.

H.R. 3523, also known as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011, would let companies spy on users and share private information with the federal government and other companies with near-total immunity from civil and criminal liability. It effectively creates a "cybersecurity" exemption to all existing laws.

There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by "cybersecurity purposes." That means a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop cybersecurity threats.

Worst of all, the stated definition of "cybersecurity" is so broad, it leaves the door open to censor any speech that a company believes would "degrade the network." The bill specifically mentions that cybersecurity can include protecting against the "theft or misappropriation of private or government information" including "intellectual property." Such sweeping language would give companies and the government new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement. It could also be a powerful weapon to use against whistleblower websites like WikiLeaks.

Congress wants to use the threat of "cybersecurity" to undermine our digital rights. Tell your lawmakers that we won’t stand for dangerous, unsupervised information sharing in this bill or any bill like it.

https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/ ... n_KEY=8444

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:47 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Image

https://www.eff.org/pages/when-governme ... -your-back

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:01 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
February 23, 2012 | By Marcia Hofmann

Obama Administration Unveils Promising Consumer Privacy Plan, but the Devil Will Be in the Details


Today the White House proposed a framework for protecting privacy in the digital age. The plan, laid out in detail in a white paper (pdf), includes a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights based on well-established fair information practice principles. EFF, which has previously proposed a Bill of Privacy Rights for Social Network Users, believes this user-centered approach to privacy protection is a solid one.

The Administration's bill of rights guarantees:

Individual Control. Consumers have a right to exercise control over what personal data companies collect and how they use it.

Transparency. Consumers have a right to easily understandable and accessible information about privacy and security practices.

Respect for Context. Consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data.

Security. Consumers have a right to secure and responsible handling of personal data.

Access and Accuracy. Consumers have a right to access and correct personal data in usable formats, in a manner that is appropriate to the sensitivity of the data and the risk of adverse consequences to consumers if the data is inaccurate.

Focused Collection. Consumers have a right to reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain.

Accountability. Consumers have a right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

The Administration vowed to push toward enacting these foundational principles into law, and encouraged Congress to give the Federal Trade Commission the sign-off to enforce them. The Department of Commerce will also bring together companies, consumer groups, and other stakeholders to develop legally enforceable codes of conduct for particular markets.

Finally, the Administration's framework will encourage global data protection by promoting mutual recognition of nations' privacy frameworks and cooperative enforcement among countries.

EFF applauds the principles underlying the White House proposal and believes it reflects an important commitment to safeguard users' data in the networked world without stifling innovation. Only time will tell whether the proposal will be implemented in a way that effectively protects user privacy, and that's where the rubber meets the road. We'll have more to say about that in the coming days.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/o ... il-details

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:43 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
February 23, 2012 | By Jillian C. York and Trevor Timm

Satphones, Syria, and Surveillance

Yesterday morning, journalist Marie Colvin of the Sunday Times of London was killed, along with French photographer Rémi Ochlik, in the beseiged city of Homs, Syria, where more than 400 people have been reported dead in recent weeks.

Disturbingly, the Telegraph, the Toronto Globe and Mail, and the AP all reported that Colvin and Ochlik were likely deliberately killed by the Syrian army and their location may have been tracked down through their satellite phones.

On Monday night, Colvin appeared on CNN telling Anderson Cooper that “the Syrian army is shelling a city of cold, starving civilians.” Responding to Syrian president Bashar Al Assad’s statement that he was not targeting civilians in the barrage of rocketfire raining on Homs, Colvin accused the regime of “murder” and said: “There are no military targets here…It's a complete and utter lie that they are only going after terrorists.” A few hours later, she was dead.

The Telegraph quoted Jean-Pierre Perrin, a journalist for the Paris-based Liberation newspaper who was with Colvin in Homs last week as saying: “The Syrian army issued orders to 'kill any journalist that set foot on Syrian soil'” and that the Syrian authorities were likely watching the CNN broadcast. The Telegraph then described how “[r]eporters working in Homs, which has been under siege since February 4, had become concerned in recent days that Syrian forces had ‘locked on’ to their satellite phone signals and attacked the buildings from which they were coming” (emphasis ours).

How could this happen?

At this point, we don’t know how Colvin and Ochlik were located, but based on the various reports, it is possible that they were located using surveillance technology that tracked their satellite phones.

There are a few different ways by which satellite phones can be tracked. The first—and easiest for a government actor—would be to simply ask or pressure a company to hand over user data. This is not beyond the realm of possibility (readers might recall an incident in which Yahoo handed over information about a Chinese dissident to his government, resulting in a ten year prison term), but is just one of several methods.

Satellite phones can also be tracked by technical means and there is ample technology already on the market for doing so. For example, this portable Thuraya monitoring system by Polish company TS2, which also counts several US government agencies as clients; these systems for monitoring Thuraya and Iridium phones, created by Singaporean company Toplink Pacific; or this satellite phone tracking technology from UK based Delma MMS.

Authorities can find the position of a satellite phone using manual triangulation, but in order to track a phone in this manner, the individual would need to be relatively close by. Nowadays, however, most satellite phones utilize GPS, making them even easier to track using products widely available on the market such as those mentioned above. Some of these products allow not only for GPS tracking, but also for interception of voice and text communications and other information.

Security researcher and Tor developer Jacob Appelbaum says that satellite communications systems do not respect user location privacy needs, and aside from surveillance without the cooperation of a satellite phone provider, “such a company may betray a user’s location on purpose or by accident.” Research published last year by the German Horst-Goertz Institute for IT Security, found that satellite phones use weak cryptographic ciphers that could easily be broken by sophisticated attacks. The research identified serious security flaws in the encrpytion systems used by the two competing satellite phone standards, GMR-1 and GMR-2.1

Appelbaum added via email:

Satellite phone systems and satellite networks are unsafe to use if location privacy or privacy for the content of communications is desired. These phone protocols are intentionally insecure and tracking people is sometimes considered a feature. Some high security users are given special access that merely send the spot beam ID, rather than the full GPS into space and thus to the satellite network. This privacy option should be available to everyone today without any action on their part - it would partially improve the location privacy needs of users. Sadly, direction finding would be entirely unaffected. Also sadly, it will not make the communications secure but it would probably save lives. It's too bad that journalists have had to die for this discussion to happen.

A Growing Problem

The news of this potentially deliberate attack on journalists, possibly using surveillance gear sold to them by Western companies, follows a report by CNN on Sunday which claimed that dozens of opposition activists in Syria have found their computers infected with malware that can spy on their every move. The virus, according to CNN, “passes information it robs from computers to a server at a government-owned telecommunications company.” And just today, the New Scientist quoted several Syrian activists fearful of the regime's technological capabilities.

Just this week, EFF profiled Italian mass surveillance company Area SpA, which in 2011 was rushing to install mass surveillance gear for Syrian intelligence agents just as the Syrian government was ramping up its violent crackdown on peaceful democratic protesters. As Bloomberg originally reported, Area SpA was to install “monitoring centers” that would give the Syrian government the ability “to intercept, scan and catalog virtually every e-mail that flows through the country” as well as “follow targets on flat-screen workstations that display communications and Web use in near-real time alongside graphics that map citizens’ networks of electronic contacts.” After a barrage of media attention and local protests at its Italian headquarters, Area SpA announced in late November that it would not complete the project as planned.

Previously, Syria was found to be using technology made by US company Blue Coat Systems to censor and surveil Internet users, despite initial denials from the company.

Colvin has put a human face on a problem that has plagued citizens of the Middle East for years now: surveillance equipment being used by despotic governments to track down journalists and activists, like provided to them by Western technology companies. Now it’s possible this equipment directly led the murder of an American journalist. The White House acknowledged Colvin’s death, saying, “It's a reminder of the incredible risks that journalists take...in order to bring the truth about what's happening in a country like Syria to those of us at home and in countries around the world.” It is time the President and Congress get serious about stopping these companies from selling this dangerous technology to authoritarian government who violate human rights.

To that end, EFF has proposed a “know your customer” framework, based on already existing legal frameworks in the U.S. and E.U. that can be implemented without significant overhead cost to government or businesses. Simply put, companies selling surveillance technologies to governments or government providers need to affirmatively investigate and "know their customer" before and during a sale. EFF has already detailed extensive framework for such regulations including questions, definitions, and procedures for how to accomplish it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/s ... rveillance

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:21 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
Shayalana wrote:
Image

How Unique-and Trackable-is your Browser? Find out Here: https://panopticlick.eff.org/



(When I tried the above with Tor and Desopa, separate and together when activated, it couldn't read me. If this is an example of what is used by others trying to track people then Desopa and Tor are effective as far as I can tell.)

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:46 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
February 24, 2012 | By Mitch Stoltz

What Does It Mean to be "Pro-Technology and Pro-Internet?"

Ahead of the Academy Awards this weekend, Chris Dodd, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, would like to assure you that "Hollywood is pro-technology and pro-Internet." But what does that mean? The comments filed at the Copyright Office this month by MPAA and RIAA, together with the Business Software Alliance, the Entertainment Software Association, and other copyright owners' groups, paint a clear picture of these groups' vision for the future of the Internet and digital technologies.

EFF is asking the Copyright Office for legal exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to allow jailbreaking (or "rooting") of smartphones, tablets, and game consoles, so that people can run their software of choice on the devices they own. EFF is also asking for exemptions that will allow noncommercial video remixers to use video clips from DVDs and online video services. Other organizations are asking for exemptions for various forms of digital video, accessibility for the disabled, and other important projects. Under the DMCA, exemptions expire every three years, and have to be justified all over again. Many of you sent comments and signed petitions in support of EFF's exemption requests, and the Copyright Office received almost 700 comments.

MPAA and friends don't approve of a single one of the exemption requests. "The risk associated with encouraging people to circumvent and test the limits of fair use is too high," they say, and the makers of computing devices should be able to stop "unintended uses" of their products. In fact, say the entertainment lobbies, giving you the ability to modify your own devices for your own use will "wreak havoc" on "markets for consumer access to works."

Let's unpack this. Almost everything we do on the Internet or with digital media makes a copy - even viewing a webpage. In many cases, the fair use rule of copyright law is what keeps these everyday activities from being copyright violations. But proving definitively that a use is fair often requires a courageous artist or entrepreneur to go to court and risk massive penalties for the chance of having a judge say that what they're doing is legal. According to the entertainment lobbies, the U.S. government should not encourage people to do this.

Ironically, most of the devices that let us create and experience movies, music, software, and so on "test the limits of fair use" - and many have wound up in court. If this were discouraged, we may never have had the VCR, the MP3 player, the digital video recorder, image-searching websites, or social networks - at least not without asking the entertainment industries' permission first.

And speaking of permission, MPAA regrets that "the Copyright Office missed an opportunity to endorse" the custom of "asking permission" before innovating.

So what should the Copyright Office be doing? MPAA et al. humbly suggest that the Office should be protecting the "ongoing viability of business models" that create "predictability with respect to how works will be accessed and how copyrighted software and technologies used to facilitate such access will be used and manipulated." You won't find that in any law, although it sounds a lot like the goals of the now-defunct SOPA and PIPA bills. Again, let's look behind the euphemisms: the entertainment lobbies want the U.S. government to protect their members' bottom lines by regulating how digital technologies can be used. Only uses that receive Hollywood's permission, and are "predictable," should pass muster.

Apparently this is what Mr. Dodd means when he says "Hollywood is pro-technology and pro-Internet": technology that blocks "unintended uses" and an Internet subject to Hollywood's veto power. SOPA and PIPA may be dead, but the agenda behind them seems alive and well.

https://69.50.232.54/deeplinks/2012/02/ ... o-internet

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: INTERNET FREEDOM FREEDOM PERIOD.
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:36 am 
Offline
Posting Freak
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:31 pm
Posts: 18442
Location: QUANTUSUM
@WikiLeaks Publishes Global Intelligence Files: Over 5 Million Emails

Image

WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files – more than five million emails from the Texas-headquartered “global intelligence” company Stratfor, a global security think tank, via the international Internet hacktivist collective Anonymous.

They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defense Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment-laundering techniques and psychological methods, for example:

“[Y]ou have to take control of him. Control means financial, sexual or psychological control… This is intended to start our conversation on your next phase” – CEO George Friedman to Stratfor analyst Reva Bhalla on 6 December 2011, on how to exploit an Israeli intelligence informant providing information on the medical condition of the President of Venezuala, Hugo Chavez.

The material contains privileged information about the US government’s attacks against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and Stratfor’s own attempts to subvert WikiLeaks. There are more than 4,000 emails mentioning WikiLeaks or Julian Assange. The emails also expose the revolving door that operates in private intelligence companies in the United States. Government and diplomatic sources from around the world give Stratfor advance knowledge of global politics and events in exchange for money. The Global Intelligence Files exposes how Stratfor has recruited a global network of informants who are paid via Swiss banks accounts and pre-paid credit cards. Stratfor has a mix of covert and overt informants, which includes government employees, embassy staff and journalists around the world.

Image

Image

http://anonops.blogspot.com/2012/02/wik ... gence.html

_________________
The SI IS.

"Oneness, Truthfulness and Equality"


Cathedral - CS&N
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaSU0ABrnY


Top
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 316 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Copyright © 2005-2012 WingMakers.co.uk