Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

by **JackRiddler** » Mon May 16, 2011 10:41 pm

.

Just yesterday:

Protests in Turkey against Internet controls
The Turkish government wants users to install filters before accessing the Internet

By John Ribeiro, IDG News Service | Government Add a new comment

May 15, 2011, 11:25 PM — Thousands of Turks protested Sunday both online and on the streets against new Internet controls proposed by the Turkish government.

The controls will require users to choose one of four filters before accessing the Internet, according to media reports. The family, children, domestic or standard filters will result in different levels of filtering. The list of websites that will be blocked by each filter is classified, said Reporters Without Borders.

The new rules from Turkey’s Information and Communication Technologies Authority, which is commonly known as BTK, come into effect from August 22.

"This measure is a complete violation of both the European Convention on Human Right and Turkey’s own constitution," Reporters Without Borders said earlier this month. "Everyone should be guaranteed unrestricted access to the Internet."

The Turkish government earlier abandoned a plan in April to filter content based on 138 keywords, Reporters Without Borders said.

On some Internet sites, users have posted videos which they said are of a march on Sunday at Taksim Square in Istanbul.

Users are suspicious that the BTK will filter web sites even when the standard option is selected. BTK could not be immediately reached for comment.

In a petition on Avaaz.org, an online forum for mobilizing support for a cause, petitioners called on BTK to withdraw any regulations that include mandatory content filtering for Internet users in Turkey, and immediately reverse the new "Rules and Procedures on the Safe Use of the Internet".

Under the new rules, the BTK would have total control over which internet sites are blocked under the filters and could add or remove sites without users’ knowledge, giving it the power to ban thousands of websites without any good reason, the petition said.

It questioned the BTK’s claim that they are providing families with an important service, and added that the filters are already available for download by anyone who wishes to install them.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro@idg.com

The last few months (recycling an old rant, with revisions)...

The copyright cops shutting down entire domains. Net neutrality weakened by FCC compromise and on the brink as ISPs like Comcast look to impose tiered service. Proposals to enforce uniform fair-use rules and copyright claims by law rather than court suit. Attack on Wikileaks and its mirrors and potentially anyone even quoting the damn cables. Countries like Australia setting up lists of forbidden sites. Making ISPs liable for hosted content. US military's Cybercom is officially activated. Plans for a "kill switch." Crazy private military contractors spying on and harrassing domestic dissidents, on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce and other corporate nasties. Sock-puppet armies shouting down discourse. Cass Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" idea, and yesterday, Clinton's idea for a UN or independent agency to issue corrections of "untruthful" sites.

These are mostly separate campaigns but now it's all speeding up at the same time, as the interests who want to end or control the free Internet for various reasons are on convergent offensives. It's not one master plan, it's many interests with the potential for imposing control regimes that might as well have been master plans.

Bill Clinton: we need "agency" to verify internet "truth"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32080&p=401993
... Oh wait, that doesn't affect your personal fortune or ego, but by golly we need something to deal with all that bad info on the internet! After all, it might be embarrassing if the truth were to come out. Bill Clinton doesn’t like all the misinformation and rumors floating on ...
by Nordic
Sat May 14, 2011 6:21 pm

Facebook Hypothesis: Intel Domesticates the Internet
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31810&p=395750
... steered in part and as best as intel can claw its way in, to domesticate, to render controllable, if not altogether harmless, the promise that was Internet. We all get the Internet we deserve, and right now that's Facebook. Idiots. Discuss.
by JackRiddler
Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:25 am

How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31176
Learned today from Democracy Now! that a group of security firms offered a plan to destroy Wikileaks, including an attack on Glenn Greenwald, to Bank of America. It's unclear whether the banksters accepted the offer. For two news stories on this, go to the Wikileaks thread, here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30362&p=382665#p382665
by JackRiddler
Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:37 am

Communicate if Your Government Shuts Off Your Internet
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31140&p=382161
Communicate if Your Government Shuts Off Your Internet Scenario: Your government is displeased with the communication going on in your location and pulls the plug on your internet access, most likely by telling the major ISPs to turn off service. ...
by seemslikeadream
Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:56 am

CANADA CAPS INTERNET USAGE AT 25GIGS/MONTH
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31035&p=379997
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/tec ... le1882339/ Didn't see a thread on this yet. I'm so pissed off about this I can't write coherently about it. But for those who don't live in this joke of a ...
by Fresno_Layshaft
Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:59 pm

The Companies Who Support Censoring The Internet
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30963&p=379046
So this should be a good thread to maintain, among other things, a boycott list. The Companies Who Support Censoring The Internet from the censorship-is-good-for-business dept A group of companies sent a letter to to Attorney General Eric Holder and ICE boss John Morton today (with ...
by justdrew
Sat Jan 22, 2011 5:50 pm

Astroturf libertarians a threat to internet democracy
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30854&p=377054
... board including this one. -- http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e27233.htm These Astroturf Libertarians are the Real Threat to Internet Democracy As I see in threads on my articles, the online sabotaging of intelligent debate seems organised. We must fight to save this precious ...
by wintler2
Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:36 pm

The first global cyber war has begun
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30523
this is not about wikileaks, much bigger
WikiLeaks backlash:The first global cyber war has begun, claim hackersAs Julian Assange is held in solitary confinement at Wandsworth prison, the anonymous community of hacktivists takes to the cyber battlefields
by seemslikeadream
Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:01 pm

War on the Internet -- What's the RI game-plan?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30492&p=370362
... and these are mostly separate campaigns but now it's all speeding up at the same time, as the interests who want to end or control the free Internet for various reasons are on convergent offensives. It can hit RI, too. Can we copy-paste State Department cables? Articles? It's all up in the ...
by JackRiddler
Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:44 am

Internet: It's been real, people, but the boom is lowering.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30071&p=363747
NINETY-FIVE candidates for political office in 2010, all of them Democrats, signed the pledge to strongly protect Net neutrality at http://netneutralityprotectors.com/
On Tuesday, every single one of them lost. Obviously not because of their stand on net neutrality, which I doubt was a primary issue in any of their election fights. But ZERO for NINETY-FIVE?! That's more than three perfect games in a row. And NOW you're going to see the truly unlimited anonymous corporate money go to work, starting RIGHT NOW. There will be more corporate political ads next year by far, and one of the big items will be to allow "freedom" for Internet carriers. Some alliance of wireless carriers invoking images of "American freedom" against regulation already had a campaign going last night. The commercial didn't make any sense or advance a specific anything, which doesn't matter. The TV networks know who's buying the ads, and why. So do the politicians.
by JackRiddler
Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:21 am

organized right-wing trolling over the entire internet
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29260&p=353954
I've said it before but I'll say it again... someorg with software assistance is trolling pro-hate/fascist messages on EVERY god damn site I look at. I just don't believe it's random angry posters. There's not a god damn thing that can be done about it either. and what the only solution to bad speec...
by justdrew
Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:17 pm

The Proposed "Internet Kill Switch" and the President
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28584&p=343622
Internet 'Kill Switch' Would Give President Power To Shut Down The Web A new Senate bill, sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman, proposes to give the president the authority "to seize control of or even shut down portions ...
by Simulist
Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:14 pm

Losing the Internet as We Know It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26649
Losing the Internet as We Know It by Megan Tady How much have you already used the Internet today? We don't think twice about how much we rely on the Internet. Imagine not being able to map directions on Google or check the weather online. A business that doesn't have a Web site? Forgettable. Or rather, unsearchable. Remember when we didn't have e-mail? Would you want to go back to those Dark Ages? Me neither. The Internet is in the very fabric of how we communicate, learn, shop, conduct business, organize, innovate and engage. If we lost it, we'd be lost. But did you know that we're at risk of losing the Internet as we know it? Millions of Americans don't know that a battle over the future of the Internet is being played out right now in Washington. How it ends will have deep repercussions for decades to come.
by Simulist
Wed Jan 13, 2010 12:43 am

Israel to hire warriors in "internet warfare"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24497&p=274260
... to post pro-Israel responses on websites worldwide. A total of NIS 600,000 (roughly $150,000) will be earmarked to the establishment of an “Internet warfare” squad. The Foreign Ministry intends to hire young people who speak at least one language and who study communication, political science, ...
by Nordic
Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:32 pm

Telecoms Helped Iran Government Censor Internet
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24398&p=271734
I think this may have been posted in multiple threads but ... it seems VERY IMPORTANT Telecoms Helped Iran Government Censor Internet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_aqlTPRg_U Deep Packet Inspection: Telecoms Aided Iran Government to Censor Internet, Technology Widely Used in US http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/23/d ... aided_iran ...
by elfismiles
Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:10 pm

The End Of The Internet As We Know It?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=23919&p=264541
WHAT??? NO MORE 4CHAN??? OH THE HORROR!!! Has anyone else been following whats going on behind the scenes re: The Internet and its future? Excerpt from Senator Jay Rockefeller's Cyber Security Bill 773 (recently introduced into the Senate): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY ...

Take Over the Internet and RULE THE WORLD!!!
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=23880&p=263797
1. WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN: THE PICAYUNE-TRIBUNE AS INTERNET PROVIDER In the early 1990s established media companies (the newspapers, for instance) could have moved to take shares in Internet ISPs, and history might have worked out differently. Imagine ...
by JackRiddler
Thu May 14, 2009 3:20 pm

Serious Question: How bad is your Internet addiction?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=22848&p=247986
. Mine is very, very, very bad, as the timestamps on my many, many posts here (and on several other boards) may well indicate. So here's an opening for a sincere & serious discussion on this subject. Which may be the hidden main subject for many of us on this board. What are we doing here? .
by JackRiddler
Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:45 pm

U.S. Military To Patrol The Internet
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19037&p=198005
http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/200 ... 214841029/ WASHINGTON, June 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. military is looking for a contractor to patrol cyberspace, watching for warning signs of forthcoming terrorist attacks ...
by vigilant
Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:26 pm

2012: End of the Internet
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18434&p=191891
... Update: Bell Canada and TELUS (formerly owned by Verizon) employees officially confirm that by 2012 ISP's all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every ...
by Truth4Youth
Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:27 pm

'The Internet ... perfect mirror image of global capital'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18224&p=190598
... of voting for Barack Obama: ... Even in the ’80s I said I’m waiting for my turkey and my turnips. I want some material benefits from the Internet. I want to see somebody set up a barter network where I could trade poetry for turnips. Or not even poetry—lawn cutting, whatever. I want to ...

The Internet and its effect on the global economy...
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16683&p=172869
What do you think? It seems to me that the internet could serve as a major enemy to the global economy. Information as a resource is changing. For those inclined, and more and more are figuring it out, most of the information out there is now ...
by NaturalMystik
Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:30 am

U.S. Lawmaker: Criminalize Anonymous Internet Posts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16638&p=172200
Lawmaker: Criminalize Anonymous Internet Posts Monday March 10th, 2008 12:13 PM by BHDC Staff Filed under: Internet, Tim Couch Kentucky Rep. Tim Couch has filed a bill aimed at making anonymous commenting on Web sites illegal. “The bill ...
by AlicetheKurious
Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:01 pm

How to wipe the internet from Egypt to India
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=15967&p=163986
LINK Today, Internet users from Cairo to Calcutta are either without the Web or their service is operating at a fraction of its normal capacity. The culprit? A ship off the coast of Alexandria, Egypt, dragged its anchor and snagged ...
by jingofever
Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:01 pm

Ex-AT&T employee:NSA snooping Internet traffic too(11/11
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14575&p=146117
Ex-AT&T employee: NSA snooping Internet traffic too By Eric Bangeman | Published: November 11, 2007 - 09:01PM CT In addition to listening in on phone calls, the National Security Agency has also been monitoring the Internet traffic of ...
by §ê¢rê†§
Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:06 am

Italy Proposes Law To Register All Internet Bloggers...
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14109&p=140370
... Franco Levi, Prodi’s right hand man , undersecretary to the President of the Council, has written the text to put a stopper in the mouth of the Internet. The draft law was approved by the Council of Ministers on 12 October. No Minister dissociated themselves from it. On gagging information, ...
by vigilant
Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:32 am

Richard Clarke calls for "closed Internet"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13698&p=134234
... reasons) man who declared on 9/11 without evidence that Osama Bin Laden was responsible. Microsoft-loving (former) security czar calls for closed internet By Cade Metz in Santa Clara Published Tuesday 2nd October 2007 22:24 GMT Richard Clarke, the man who served President Bush as a special adviser ...
by judasdisney
Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:51 am

Internet is "the new Afghanistan": NY police commi
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12847&p=125210
link By Michelle Nichols and Edith Honan NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Internet is the new battleground against Islamist extremism because it provides ideology that could radicalize Westerners who might then initiate home-grown attacks, New York police commissioner ...
by tal
Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:34 pm

Rebuilding the Internet, surveillance-ready
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11466&p=113031
Researchers explore scrapping Internet By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer 55 minutes ago NEW YORK - Although it has already taken nearly four decades to get this far in building the Internet, some university ...
by nomo
Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:26 pm

Gingrich: "Curb free speech + internet to fight terror.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9526&p=92928
Gingrich said this at an award dinner for Free Speech advocates in New Hampshire, too. Um, who invited him? The meme 'internet = terrorist' will keep being floated.[url] Link Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech By RILEY YATES Union Leader ...
by Hugh Manatee Wins
Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:19 pm

AT&T Forwards ALL Internet Traffic Into NSA
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=7402&p=70828
... NSA program came to light in December, when the New York Times reported that the President had authorized the agency to intercept telephone and Internet communications inside the United States without the authorization of any court. Over the ensuing weeks, it became clear that the NSA program ...
by hmm
Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:10 am

by **JackRiddler** » Thu May 19, 2011 2:26 pm

.

AUSTRALIA

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... 1esm7.html

Cyber law risks making the 'ordinary' criminal: expert

Asher Moses
May 18, 2011 - 3:57PM

The moment a journalist was arrested. Fairfax journalist Ben Grubb recorded this audio as he was arrested by Queensland Police after writing a story about a Facebook security breach.

Grubb's story: the strong arm of the law

Full transcript of Ben Grubb's police interview
[Python-worthy]

Police say receiving photos like taking stolen TVs

A senior lecturer in internet law says the arrest of a Fairfax journalist over his receipt of an unauthorised Facebook photo "defies sensible explanation" and the entire matter exposes serious failings in Australian cyber crime laws.

Peter Black, senior lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology, said Australian laws on cyber crime were so broad that they criminalised much "ordinary activity". He said it was very unusual for police to spring into action over an alleged theft of digital photos.

'We're still cutting our teeth' ... QLD Police fraud squad head Brian Hay this morning. Photo: Munir Kotadia/ZDNet.com.au

Fairfax deputy technology editor Ben Grubb was arrested by Queensland Police yesterday and threatened with charges relating to the receipt of "tainted material". The material pertained to a story Grubb published yesterday revealing that a security researcher managed to bypass Facebook's privacy settings to access someone's private photos.

At a press conference this morning, the head of the Queensland police fraud squad, Brian Hay, admitted that police were "still cutting our teeth" in the rapidly evolving online environment.

However, he equated receiving an unauthorised photograph from someone's Facebook account with receiving a stolen TV.

Online users lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia has taken particular issue with this statement, saying comparing a digital photo to a stolen TV was unhelpful.

"Unhelpful"? Time comes when all must use euphemism in the service of the struggle.

Mr Black said security researcher Christian Heinrich, who obtained the Facebook photos, potentially breached section 477 of the Commonwealth Cyber Crime Act.

"It is possible based upon a reading of [the Act] that the original action to access that private Facebook page may actually constitute a criminal offence because it does provide that a serious offence is one where a person has gained unauthorised accesss," he said.

"The phrase 'unauthorised access' may include the activity that was done in this instance even though there was no hacking in the traditional sense."

Despite investigating this matter, Queensland police confirmed that it had not referred it to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. An AFP spokeswoman said that, despite the Cyber Crime Act being a Commonwealth law, state police would still be able to charge Heinrich without AFP involvement.

Mr Black said the Cyber Crime Act was at odds with Facebook's terms of service, which says there are no guarantees private photos will not be accessed. He said when users upload photos to Facebook they were granting the company a "non-exlusive licence" to use the photo but Facebook did not obtain ownership of it.

The way the Cyber Crime Act was drafted was so broad that a whole range of "more or less ordinary activity" could attract criminal charges, Mr Black said.

"This is a common criticism of the Cyber Crime Act, that it has been drafted too broadly ... basically it could encompass any activity whereby someone gains access to someone else's website or social networking platform even in the absence of what anybody would consider to be hacking," he said.

"They might guess a password, they might obtain it by accident ... all of these things could be nonetheless considered a criminal offence with a penalty of up to 10 years."

Mr Black said that Grubb, by receiving one of the photos taken by Heinrich, potentially breached Queensland state laws regarding receiving "tainted property".

He said the speedy and heavy response of police in targeting Grubb was "totally inconsistent" with how police would usually respond to this sort of matter and it "just defies sensible explanation".

"[Typically] if someone called up the police saying someone has accessed my Facebook page and taken my photos, they wouldn't get very far," Mr Black said.

lol. Let's dial 911 with that one.

Colin Jacobs, chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia, said security professionals explosing flaws in services such as Facebook should be given "a little leeway" by police and that went double for a journalist covering the story.

Mr Jacobs said police comparing a digital photo to a stolen TV was unhelpful.

"It's obvious that physical theft is a completely different beast to the movement of information online. Nobody can email you a stolen television without your foreknowledge," Mr Jacobs said.

"It reminds me of how we are constantly told downloading a pirated movie is theft. It's not, but comparing it to a physical theft will compromise our ability to think clearly about the issue and the new challenges these events place on our traditional methods of dealing with them."

Mr Jacobs also criticised Queensland Police for spreading "misinformation" on Twitter when it initially denied that Grubb was arrested.

After Grubb had tweeted about his arrest, the media unit tweeted that he had not been officially arrested, but it was forced to retract that statement this morning.

"Our bad @bengrubb was arrested for questioning briefly Our tweet last night was based on information provided at the time Apologies," it said this morning.

"Oops, 'our bad' isn't a good enough response. If the police are going to be responding to real-time events on Twitter they'd better make sure they aren't misleading the public by doing so," Mr Jacobs said.

Grubb's iPad is still in police custody and there has been no word on when it will be returned.

"Unless the police are sure there's a very good case to answer we hope Ben gets his gear back as soon as possible," Mr Jacobs said.

This reporter is on Twitter: @ashermoses

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Thu May 19, 2011 9:20 pm

JackRiddler wrote:.

AUSTRALIA

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... 1esm7.html

Cyber law risks making the 'ordinary' criminal: expert

Asher Moses
May 18, 2011 - 3:57PM

The moment a journalist was arrested. Fairfax journalist Ben Grubb recorded this audio as he was arrested by Queensland Police after writing a story about a Facebook security breach.

Grubb's story: the strong arm of the law

Full transcript of Ben Grubb's police interview
[Python-worthy]

Police say receiving photos like taking stolen TVs

A senior lecturer in internet law says the arrest of a Fairfax journalist over his receipt of an unauthorised Facebook photo "defies sensible explanation" and the entire matter exposes serious failings in Australian cyber crime laws.

Peter Black, senior lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology, said Australian laws on cyber crime were so broad that they criminalised much "ordinary activity". He said it was very unusual for police to spring into action over an alleged theft of digital photos.

'We're still cutting our teeth' ... QLD Police fraud squad head Brian Hay this morning. Photo: Munir Kotadia/ZDNet.com.au

Fairfax deputy technology editor Ben Grubb was arrested by Queensland Police yesterday and threatened with charges relating to the receipt of "tainted material". The material pertained to a story Grubb published yesterday revealing that a security researcher managed to bypass Facebook's privacy settings to access someone's private photos.

At a press conference this morning, the head of the Queensland police fraud squad, Brian Hay, admitted that police were "still cutting our teeth" in the rapidly evolving online environment.

However, he equated receiving an unauthorised photograph from someone's Facebook account with receiving a stolen TV.

Online users lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia has taken particular issue with this statement, saying comparing a digital photo to a stolen TV was unhelpful.

"Unhelpful"? Time comes when all must use euphemism in the service of the struggle.

Mr Black said security researcher Christian Heinrich, who obtained the Facebook photos, potentially breached section 477 of the Commonwealth Cyber Crime Act.

"It is possible based upon a reading of [the Act] that the original action to access that private Facebook page may actually constitute a criminal offence because it does provide that a serious offence is one where a person has gained unauthorised accesss," he said.

"The phrase 'unauthorised access' may include the activity that was done in this instance even though there was no hacking in the traditional sense."

Despite investigating this matter, Queensland police confirmed that it had not referred it to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. An AFP spokeswoman said that, despite the Cyber Crime Act being a Commonwealth law, state police would still be able to charge Heinrich without AFP involvement.

Mr Black said the Cyber Crime Act was at odds with Facebook's terms of service, which says there are no guarantees private photos will not be accessed. He said when users upload photos to Facebook they were granting the company a "non-exlusive licence" to use the photo but Facebook did not obtain ownership of it.

The way the Cyber Crime Act was drafted was so broad that a whole range of "more or less ordinary activity" could attract criminal charges, Mr Black said.

"This is a common criticism of the Cyber Crime Act, that it has been drafted too broadly ... basically it could encompass any activity whereby someone gains access to someone else's website or social networking platform even in the absence of what anybody would consider to be hacking," he said.

"They might guess a password, they might obtain it by accident ... all of these things could be nonetheless considered a criminal offence with a penalty of up to 10 years."

Mr Black said that Grubb, by receiving one of the photos taken by Heinrich, potentially breached Queensland state laws regarding receiving "tainted property".

He said the speedy and heavy response of police in targeting Grubb was "totally inconsistent" with how police would usually respond to this sort of matter and it "just defies sensible explanation".

"[Typically] if someone called up the police saying someone has accessed my Facebook page and taken my photos, they wouldn't get very far," Mr Black said.

lol. Let's dial 911 with that one.

Colin Jacobs, chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia, said security professionals explosing flaws in services such as Facebook should be given "a little leeway" by police and that went double for a journalist covering the story.

Mr Jacobs said police comparing a digital photo to a stolen TV was unhelpful.

"It's obvious that physical theft is a completely different beast to the movement of information online. Nobody can email you a stolen television without your foreknowledge," Mr Jacobs said.

"It reminds me of how we are constantly told downloading a pirated movie is theft. It's not, but comparing it to a physical theft will compromise our ability to think clearly about the issue and the new challenges these events place on our traditional methods of dealing with them."

Mr Jacobs also criticised Queensland Police for spreading "misinformation" on Twitter when it initially denied that Grubb was arrested.

After Grubb had tweeted about his arrest, the media unit tweeted that he had not been officially arrested, but it was forced to retract that statement this morning.

"Our bad @bengrubb was arrested for questioning briefly Our tweet last night was based on information provided at the time Apologies," it said this morning.

"Oops, 'our bad' isn't a good enough response. If the police are going to be responding to real-time events on Twitter they'd better make sure they aren't misleading the public by doing so," Mr Jacobs said.

Grubb's iPad is still in police custody and there has been no word on when it will be returned.

"Unless the police are sure there's a very good case to answer we hope Ben gets his gear back as soon as possible," Mr Jacobs said.

This reporter is on Twitter: @ashermoses

This is mind boggling. I was gonna post it yesterday but got distracted.

Mind you it is the Queensland Police. Its not like they have a reputation for fairness or honesty/honour.

Pack of dumbfuck fascist power tripping racist bastards. (Tho they did a great job of being human and helping people during the floods this year.)

Brisbane is also where Darren, our drummer, was picked out of a crowd of about 15 white people, and arrested for drinking in public, even though his can of beer was unopened. When Ray, our guitarist, tried to intervene, he was thrown in another police car and taken away. Also, Bjelke-Petersen's people are trying to take away the Aborigine's right to vote and own land, claiming they "haven't gotten that far up the evolutionary scale." And still, his party is kept in office. Some of his cronies, in fact the head of the Chamber of Commerce, wants to enact forced sterilization laws to kill off the Aborigines.

Summing up Brisbane, all I can say is it was the closest thing to a heavy, heavy, junta-style police state I've ever been in. I was looking over my shoulder a lot!

Thats Jello Biafra on Queensland.

http://www.blogotariat.com/node/213326

by **82_28** » Thu May 19, 2011 10:24 pm

These fucking "Kapersky" commercials drive me fucking nuts. They should be PSAs of the safety in Linux and open-source, vetted GPL operations and getting to know the built-in secureness of the *nix. Not, OMFG a new fucking advent of security software for my Windows machine, I must buy! And subscribe to for yay much a month in order for them to keep me and my data safe! All of it a scam. If you ever think you must buy this Kaspersky crap, please, before you do, look into Linux.

Keep it safe on your own and get to know your OS and networks.

by **JackRiddler** » Fri May 20, 2011 12:23 am

http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-sexting-s ... 7818.story

Sexting Case At Middle School Could Lead To Arrests
Police say child porn charges await anyone found with X-rated image on their phone

By JAMES FORD
PIX11.COM

7:54 a.m. EDT, May 19, 2011

NEW YORK (PIX11)— Some local middle schoolers could face child pornography charges Thursday for texting sexually graphic images of themselves.

Police in Wyckoff, New Jersey say that beginning Thursday, if they find any X-rated images on the cellphones of students or adults connected to Eisenhower Middle School, they will put them under arrest.

It comes in the wake of a sexting incident at the school. Earlier in the week, a 13 year-old girl at the school sent a naked photo of herself to some boys. They forwarded it to their friends, and to stop it from going viral, Wyckoff Police said that from this point forward, they will arrest anyone with the image on their phone, and the charge will be possessing child pornography. Cops say they will even arrest juveniles, even though detectives would prefer not to.

The issue came to light when teachers at the Bergen County school looked into why four students were fighting. The teachers confiscated the students' cellphones, and saw the explicit photo. The school's principal contacted police, who issued the erasure order and arrest warning.

Wyckoff cops did the same thing in 2008 when they had a similar incident at Eisenhower Middle School. There are no reports of arrests following that incident.
NEW YORK (PIX11)— Some local middle schoolers could face child pornography charges Thursday for texting sexually graphic images of themselves.

Police in Wyckoff, New Jersey say that beginning Thursday, if they find any X-rated images on the cellphones of students or adults connected to Eisenhower Middle School, they will put them under arrest.

It comes in the wake of a sexting incident at the school. Earlier in the week, a 13 year-old girl at the school sent a naked photo of herself to some boys. They forwarded it to their friends, and to stop it from going viral, Wyckoff Police said that from this point forward, they will arrest anyone with the image on their phone, and the charge will be possessing child pornography. Cops say they will even arrest juveniles, even though detectives would prefer not to.

The issue came to light when teachers at the Bergen County school looked into why four students were fighting. The teachers confiscated the students' cellphones, and saw the explicit photo. The school's principal contacted police, who issued the erasure order and arrest warning.

Wyckoff cops did the same thing in 2008 when they had a similar incident at Eisenhower Middle School. There are no reports of arrests following that incident.

Copyright © 2011, WPIX-TV

by **JackRiddler** » Fri May 20, 2011 1:14 am

http://act.demandprogress.org/act/prote ... rce=typ-tw

Oppose PROTECT-IP Act: U.S. Government Wants To Censor Search Engines And Browsers

Tell Congress to Kill COICA 2.0, the Internet Censorship Bill

UPDATE: Great news. We don't always see eye-to-eye with Google, but we're on the same team this time. Google CEO Eric Schmidt just came out swinging against PROTECT IP, saying, "I would be very, very careful if I were a government about arbitrarily [implementing] simple solutions to complex problems." And then he went even further. From the LA Times:

"If there is a law that requires DNSs, to do X and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it," he said, according to the report. "If it's a request the answer is we wouldn't do it, if it's a discussion we wouldn't do it."

Big content is irate. The Motion Picture Association of America released a statement saying, "We’ve heard this ‘but the law doesn’t apply to me’ argument before – but usually, it comes from content thieves, not a Fortune 500 company. Google should know better."

ORIGINAL: We knew that members of Congress and their business allies were gearing up to pass a revised Internet Blacklist Bill -- which more than 325,000 Demand Progress members helped block last winter -- but we never expected it to be this atrocious. Last year's bill has been renamed the "PROTECT IP" Act and it is far worse than its predecessor. A summary of it is posted below.

Senators Leahy and Hatch pretended to weigh free speech concerns as they revised the bill. Instead, the new legislation would institute a China-like censorship regime in the United States, whereby the Department of Justice could force search engines, browsers, and service providers to block users' access to websites, and scrub the American Internet clean of any trace of their existence.

Furthermore, it wouldn't just be the Attorney General who could add sites to the blacklist, but the new bill would allow any copyright holder to get sites blacklisted -- sure to result in an explosion of dubious and confused orders.

Will you urge Congress to oppose the PROTECT IP Act? Just add your name at right.

PETITION TO CONGRESS: The PROTECT IP Act demonstrates an astounding lack of respect for Internet freedom and free speech rights. I urge you to oppose it.
Just sign on at right and we'll forward the petition to Congress.

Here's the bill summary:
http://act.demandprogress.org/act/prote ... rce=typ-tw

The PROTECT IP Act

Copyright infringement and the sale of counterfeit goods are reported to cost American creatorsand producers billions of dollars and to result in hundreds of thousands in lost jobs annually.This pervasive problem has assumed an especially threatening form on the Internet. Consumersare increasingly lured to well-designed websites that are devoted almost exclusively tounauthorized downloads and streaming of copyrighted content or sale of counterfeit goods.These rogue Internet sites are often outside the reach of U.S. law enforcement because they areforeign-owned and operated, or reside at domain names that are not registered through a U.S.-based registry or registrar. The illegal products offered at these websites are wide-ranging, fromthe latest movie or music hits to pharmaceuticals and consumer products.Today, both the Justice Department and rights holders are limited in the remedies available toblock these infringing websites, even when the website is directed at American consumers andsteals American owned intellectual property. Even those infringing domestic Internet sites thatthe Justice Department seized through its Operation In Our Sites initiative are at risk forreconstituting under an identical, but foreign-registered, domain name, which would then falloutside the reach of American authorities. The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (“PROTECT IP Act”)
authorizes the Justice Department to file a civil action against theregistrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or theforeign-registered domain name itself, and to seek a preliminary order from the court that the siteis dedicated to infringing activities. For an order to issue, the Justice Department must also showthat the Internet site is directed at U.S. consumers and harms holders of U.S. IntellectualProperty. The Department would be required to serve notice of the action promptly after filing.If the court issues an order against the registrant, owner, or domain name, resulting from theDOJ-initiated suit, the Attorney General is authorized to serve that order on specified U.S. basedthird-parties, including Internet service providers, payment processors, online advertisingnetwork providers, and search engines. These third parties would then be required to take appropriate action to either prevent access to the Internet site (in the case of an Internet serviceprovider or search engine), or cease doing business with the Internet site (in the case of apayment processor or advertising network).The Act similarly authorizes a rights holder who is the victim of the infringement to bring anaction against the owner, registrant, or Internet site dedicated to infringement, whether domesticor foreign, and to seek a court order against the domain name registrant, owner, or the domainname.

However, if the order issues, the rights holder must seek the court’s permission to
servethat order and may only do so on a payment processor or online advertising network, and not anInternet service provider or search engine (as available for a DOJ-initiated action).The Act ensures that third-parties are not overly burdened to comply with an order by stipulatingthat the party is not required to take action beyond what is technically feasible and reasonable.Additionally, an Internet service provider is never required to modify its network or facilities to

comply with a court order. The plaintiff can request the court to compel third-party complianceonly where the third party does not make reasonable and good faith efforts to comply with anorder. The third-party would not be liable for any action or inaction, unless in contempt of court.The Act includes safeguards to allow the domain name owner or site operator to petition thecourt to suspend or vacate the order, including in the situation in which the Internet site at issueis no longer, or never was, dedicated to infringing activities; or the interests of justice require it.Similarly, as site operators subject to an order transition the infringing websites to new domainnames, the Justice Department or private party is authorized to bring a related action against thereconstituted domain name, site owner, or registrant, in the same Federal court.The Act further protects payment processors and Internet advertising networks that voluntarilycease doing business with infringing websites, outside of any court ordered action. Those partiesare immunized from damages resulting from actions taken against an Internet site where theyhave a good faith belief on credible evidence it is dedicated to infringing activities.Additionally, the legislation protects consumers against counterfeit, adulterated, or misbrandedpharmaceutical products sold on the Internet by providing a safe harbor for domain nameregistries, registrars, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks to takevoluntary action against any infringing website that
“endangers the pub
lic health
”
by offeringsuch dangerous medication.The Act includes a savings clause explicitly stating that it does not limit or expand civil orcriminal remedies, or enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability under title 17(including section 512). Additionally, failure to take voluntary action under the Act does notconstitute liability for any party, including vicarious or contributory liability. The Act alsoprovides that nothing in the Act shall serve as a basis for determining the application of section512 of title 17.The Act will also help law enforcement identify and prevent counterfeit products from beingimported into the Unites States by ensuring law enforcement can share samples of packaging orlabels of suspected counterfeits with the relevant rights holders to determine whether theshipment should be seized at the border. Similarly, it ensures that law enforcement can shareanti-circumvention devices that have been seized with affected parties.

Last Congress, the following organizations supported S. 3804:

Co-Chairs of the National Association of Attorneys General Intellectual Property Committee, JimHood of Mississippi and Rob McKenna of WashingtonThe International Trademark AssociationThe United States Chamber of CommerceThe Vermont Chamber of CommerceThe Coalition Against Counterfeiting and PiracyThe International Anticounterfeiting CoalitionThe National Music Publishers AssociationThe American Federation of Television and Radio ArtistsThe Directors Guild of AmericaThe International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists,and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories, and CanadaThe Screen Actors GuildThe Recording Industry Association of AmericaThe Motion Picture Association of AmericaViacomThe Entertainment Software AssociationThe American Federation of MusiciansThe California Teamsters UnionThe Coalition Against Domain Name AbuseMasterCardThe Software & Information Industry AssociationAssociation of American PublishersThe Writers Guild of America, WestThe American Association of Independent MusicSony Pictures

The American Society of Composers, Authors, and PublishersPublishers, including: Cengage, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Pearson Education, Penguin, RRDonnelley, and the Association of American PublishersNewspaper Association of AmericaThe International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersThe International Brotherhood of TeamstersThe Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International UnionBuilding and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIOThe American Federation of MusiciansThe International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, andHelpers, AFL-CIOThe Property Rights AllianceCommunication Workers of AmericaInternational Association of Fire FightersInternational Union of Painters and Allied TradesAlliance of Automobile ManufacturersThe Songwriters Guild of AmericaBMISESACCALinnovates.orgChanelFortune BrandsImaging Supplies CoalitionMoet Hennessy Louis VuittonMajor League BaseballNational Basketball AssociationNational Football League

NBCNintendoThe Recording AcademyOakleyOpSecPersonal Care Products CouncilReed ElsevierTrue Religion Jeans1-800-PetMedsActivisionAcushnet Golf Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia (CASBAA)
Church Music Publishers’ Association
Copyright AllianceDisneyEMIEntertainment Software AssociationFashion Business Inc.Guru Denim, Inc.Johnson and JohnsonMerckMotion Picture Association of AmericaNagraStarNagravisionNational Music Publisher's AssociationNBC Universal

Nervous Tattoo Inc., dba Ed HardyNewscorpNikePremier LeagueSony Music EntertainmentSports Rights Owners CoalitionSTOP Streaming GroupTiffany and Co.Time WarnerUltimate Fighting ChampionshipUnderwriters LaboratoryUniversal Music GroupWarner Music GroupXeroxZondervanCreative Coalition CampaignCommercial Photographers International/Society of Sports and Event PhotographersNational Association of Theatre Owners, IncProfessional Photographers of America/Student Photographic SocietyAssociation of Magazine MediaThe Independent Film and Television AllianceAssociation of Test PublishersGospel Music Association

by **Canadian_watcher** » Fri May 20, 2011 1:51 am

that last one is just a big pity party for the big corporations.
I've always wondered why the handbag industry (if I can call it that) is SO friggin powerful. I used to sell quite a lot on ebay and though I didn't sell purses or anything of the sort there are plenty of people in the discussion board who get suspended without warning for selling any kind of purse with a big name. It's very strange. And just the other day I saw a news article about a bust of counterfeit handbag sellers.

WTF? Who CARES??? And why women pay as much as they do for a leather sack is beyond me in the first place.

sorry :backtotopic:

by **JackRiddler** » Sat May 21, 2011 6:21 pm

.

Two items I missed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 41_pf.html

White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, July 29, 2010; A01

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

(FBI access to e-mail and web records raises fears)

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

(FBI and Department of Justice join forces, investigate Wikileaks)

But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.

(Facebook hits 500 million users, but at what cost?)

Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL."

(NSA whistleblower now works at Apple store)

Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data.

To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.

The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. "You're bringing a big category of data -- records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information -- outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms.
Privacy concerns

The use of the national security letters to obtain personal data on Americans has prompted concern. The Justice Department issued 192,500 national security letters from 2003 to 2006, according to a 2008 inspector general report, which did not indicate how many were demands for Internet records. A 2007 IG report found numerous possible violations of FBI regulations, including the issuance of NSLs without having an approved investigation to justify the request. In two cases, the report found, agents used NSLs to request content information "not permitted by the [surveillance] statute."

One issue with both the proposal and the current law is that the phrase "electronic communication transactional records" is not defined anywhere in statute. "Our biggest concern is that an expanded NSL power might be used to obtain Internet search queries and Web histories detailing every Web site visited and every file downloaded," said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T for assisting the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program.

He said he does not object to the government obtaining access to electronic records, provided it has a judge's approval.

Senior administration officials said the proposal was prompted by a desire to overcome concerns and resistance from Internet and other companies that the existing statute did not allow them to provide such data without a court-approved order. "The statute as written causes confusion and the potential for unnecessary litigation," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said. "This clarification will not allow the government to obtain or collect new categories of information, but it seeks to clarify what Congress intended when the statute was amended in 1993."

The administration has asked Congress to amend the statute, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, in the fiscal year that begins in October.

Administration officials noted that the act specifies in one clause that Internet and other companies have a duty to provide electronic communication transactional records to the FBI in response to a national security letter.

But the next clause specifies only four categories of basic subscriber data that the FBI may seek: name, address, length of service and toll billing records. There is no reference to electronic communication transactional records.
Same as phone records?

The officials said the transactional information at issue, which does not include Internet search queries, is the functional equivalent of telephone toll billing records, which the FBI can obtain without court authorization. Learning the e-mail addresses to which an Internet user sends messages, they said, is no different than obtaining a list of numbers called by a telephone user.

Obtaining such records with an NSL, as opposed to a court order, "allows us to intercede in plots earlier than we would if our hands were tied and we were unable to get this data in a way that was quick and efficient," the senior administration official said.

But the value of such data is the reason a court should approve its disclosure, said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's much more sensitive than the other information, like name, address and telephone number, that the FBI gets with national security letters," he said. "It shows associational information protected by the First Amendment and is much less public than things like where you live."

A Nov. 5, 2008, opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, whose opinions are binding on the executive branch, made clear that the four categories of basic subscriber information the FBI may obtain with an NSL were "exhaustive."

This opinion, said Sussmann, the former Clinton administration lawyer, caused many companies to reevaluate the scope of what could be provided in response to an NSL. "The OLC opinion removed the ambiguity," he said. "Providers now are limited to the four corners of what the opinion says they can give out. Those who give more do so at their own risk."

Marc Zwillinger, an attorney for Internet companies, said some providers are not giving the FBI more than the four categories specified. He added that with the rise of social networking, the government's move could open a significant amount of Internet activity to government surveillance without judicial authorization. "A Facebook friend request -- is that like a phone call or an e-mail? Is that something they would sweep in under an NSL? They certainly aren't getting that now."

© 2010 The Washington Post Company

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... 27/privacy

Monday, Sep 27, 2010 06:28 ET
The Obama administration's war on privacy

By Glenn Greenwald

In early August, two dictatorial (and U.S.-allied) Gulf states -- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- announced a ban on the use of Blackberries because, as the BBC put it, "oth nations are unhappy that they are unable to monitor such communications via the handsets." Those two governments demand the power to intercept and monitor every single form of communication. No human interaction may take place beyond their prying ears. Since Blackberry communication data are sent directly to servers in Canada and the company which operates Blackberry -- Research in Motion -- refused to turn the data over to those governments, "authorities [] decided to ban Blackberry services rather than continue to allow an uncontrolled and unmonitored flow of electronic information within their borders." That's the core mindset of the Omnipotent Surveillance State: above all else, what is strictly prohibited is the ability of citizens to communicate in private; we can't have any "uncontrolled and unmonitored flow of electronic information."

That controversy generated substantial coverage in the U.S. media, which depicted it as reflective of the censorship and all-consuming surveillance powers of those undemocratic states. But the following week, The New York Times published an Op-Ed by Richard Falkenrath -- a top-level Homeland Security official in the Bush administration and current principal in the private firm of former Bush DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff -- expressing support for the UAE's Blackberry ban. Falkenrath asserted that "[a]mong law enforcement investigators and intelligence officers [in the U.S.], the Emirates’ decision met with approval, admiration and perhaps even a touch of envy." New Internet technologies -- including voice-over-Internet calls (such as Skype) and text messaging -- are increasingly difficult for governments to monitor, and Falkenrath noted, correctly, that the UAE "is in no way unique in wanting a back door into the telecommunications services used inside its borders to allow officials to eavesdrop on users." The U.S. Government is every bit as eager as the UAE and Saudi Arabia to ensure full and unfettered access to everyone's communications:

New Internet technologies -- including voice-over-Internet calls (such as Skype) and text messaging -- are increasingly difficult for governments to monitor . . . . Hence the envy some American intelligence officials felt about the Emirates’ decision. . . .

Companies can sometimes evade government intrusion for a while. In many cases, governments fail to keep pace with telecommunications innovation; in others, governmental intrusion into ostensibly private communications offends liberal sensibilities.

But in the end, it is governments, not private industry, that rule the airwaves and the Internet. The Emirates acted understandably and appropriately: governments should not be timid about using their full powers to ensure that their law enforcement and intelligence agencies are able to keep their citizens safe.

The tyrannical mentality of the UAE, Saudi and Bush DHS authorities are far from aberrational. They are perfectly representative of how the current U.S. administration thinks as well: every communication and all other human transactions must be subject to government surveillance. Nothing may be beyond the reach of official spying agencies. There must be no such thing as true privacy from government authorities.

Anyone who thinks that is hyperbole should simply read two articles today describing efforts of the Obama administration to obliterate remaining vestiges of privacy. The first is this New York Times article by Charlie Savage, which describes how the Obama administration will propose new legislation to mandate that the U.S. Government have access to all forms of communications, "including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct 'peer to peer' messaging like Skype." In other words, the U.S. Government is taking exactly the position of the UAE and the Saudis: no communications are permitted to be beyond the surveillance reach of U.S. authorities.

The new law would not expand the Government's legal authority to eavesdrop -- that's unnecessary, since post-9/11 legislation has dramatically expanded those authorities -- but would require all communications, including ones over the Internet, to be built so as to enable the U.S. Government to intercept and monitor them at any time when the law permits. [b]In other words, Internet services could legally exist only insofar as there would be no such thing as truly private communications; all must contain a "back door" to enable government officials to eavesdrop:

Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is "going dark" as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone. . . . .

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had "huge implications" and challenged "fundamental elements of the Internet revolution" -- including its decentralized design.

"They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet," he said. "They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function."

In other words, the Obama administration is demanding exactly that which the UAE demanded: full, unfettered access to all communications. Amazingly, the administration had the temerity to condemn the UAE's ban on Blackberries on the ground that it impedes "the free flow of information," but in response, the UAE correctly pointed out how hypocritical that condemnation was:

Yousef Al Otaiba, the UAE Ambassador to the United States, said [State Department spokesman P.J.] Crowley's comments were disappointing and contradict the U.S. government's own approach to telecommunication regulation.

"In fact, the UAE is exercising its sovereign right and is asking for exactly the same regulatory compliance -- and with the same principles of judicial and regulatory oversight -- that Blackberry grants the U.S. and other governments and nothing more," Otaiba said.

"Importantly, the UAE requires the same compliance as the U.S. for the very same reasons: to protect national security and to assist in law enforcement."

And that was before the Obama administration's plan to significantly expand its surveillance capabilities by essentially banning any Internet communications which it cannot monitor.

Then there is this article in The Washington Post this morning, which reports that "[t]he Obama administration wants to require U.S. banks to report all electronic money transfers into and out of the country, a dramatic expansion in efforts to counter terrorist financing and money laundering." Whereas banks are now required to report all such transactions over $10,000 or which are otherwise suspicious, "the new rule would require banks to disclose even the smallest transfers." "The proposal also calls for banks to provide annually the Social Security numbers for all wire-transfer senders and recipients." It would create a centralized database enabling the U.S. Government to monitor a vastly expanded range of financial transactions engaged in by people who are under no suspicion whatsoever of criminal activity:

"This regulation is outrageous," said Peter Djinis, a lawyer who advises financial institutions on complying with financial rules and a former FinCEN executive assistant director for regulatory policy. "Consider me old-fashioned, but I believe you need to show some evidence of criminality before you are granted unfettered access to the private financial affairs of every individual and company that dares to conduct financial transactions overseas."

That concept -- that the U.S. Government should not be monitoring, surveilling and collecting data on individuals who are not under criminal investigation -- was once the hallmark of basic American liberty, so uncontroversial as to require no defense. But decades of effective fear-mongering over everything from Communists to drug kingpins -- and particularly the last decade of invoking the all-justifying, Scary mantra of Terrorism -- has reduced much of the American citizenry into a frightened and meek puddle of acquiescence which not only tolerates, but craves, a complete deprivation of privacy. Needless to say, both articles this morning are suffused with quotes from government officials tossing around the standard clichés about Scary Terrorists, Drug Lords, and other cartoon menaces hauled out to justify every expansion of government power and every reduction of individual privacy (that, of course, was the same rationale invoked by UAE and Saudi officials: "The UAE issued a statement explaining the decision, saying it had come because 'certain Blackberry services' allow users to avoid 'any legal accountability', raising 'judicial, social and national security concerns'.").

Leave aside the fact that endlessly increasing government surviellance is not only ineffective in detecting Terrorist plots and other crimes, but is actually counterproductive, as it swamps the Government with more data than it can possibly process and manage. What these Obama proposals illustrates is just how far we've descended in the security/liberty debate, where only the former consideration has value, while the latter has none. Whereas it was once axiomatic that the Government should not spy on citizens who have done nothing wrong, that belief is now relegated to the civil libertarian fringes. Concerns about privacy were once the predominant consensus of mainstream American political thought. Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote in dissent in the 1928 case Olmstead v. United States (emphasis added):

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.

For much of the 20th Century, fears of government surveillance into the private domestic sphere dominated mainstream political debates. To underscore how true that is, consider what Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho) said after leading a mid-1970s Senate investigation into the spying abuses of the prior decades and the growing surveillance technologies of the NSA:

"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."

He added that if a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. "could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."

Church's investigation led to many of the intelligence reforms which have been progressively eroded over the last decade (such as FISA). He was a hero to liberals and Democrats generally. But today, people who speak the way he did -- who warn of the dangers of unfettered government surveillance -- are deemed shrill, unSerious paranoids and civil liberties extremists, including by much of the Democratic establishment. That's why we see not the Bush administration -- but a Democratic President -- simultaneously proposing laws that would literally abolish many remaining vestiges of privacy in the communications and finance sectors. The fact that this comes in the wake of numerous reports that law enforcement agencies repeatedly abuse their spying powers makes little difference. Church's warning of "the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide" is exactly what these new laws, copying our Saudi and UAE friends, would enable.

by **JackRiddler** » Thu May 26, 2011 10:43 am

American Dream wrote:
What Facebook Is Hiding From You
By Jonathan Matthew Smucker, AlterNet
Posted on May 24, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/151058/wh ... g_from_you

Eli Pariser's new book The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You is a must-read for pretty much anyone who uses the Internet. Eli breaks down troubling trends emerging in the World Wide Web that threaten not only individual privacy but also the very idea of civic space.

Of key concern to Eli is "web personalization": code that maps the algorithms of your individual web use and helps you more easily find the things that the code "thinks" will pique your interest. There's a daunting amount of information out there, and sometimes it can feel overwhelming to even begin sorting through it. Personalization can help. For instance, I can find music that fits my tastes by using Pandora, or movies I like through Netflix. The services provided by companies like Pandora, Netflix, Amazon, et al are designed to study us—to get to know us rather intimately—to the point where Netflix can now predict the average customer's rating of a given movie within half a star. Eli paints a picture of your computer monitor as "a kind of one-way mirror, reflecting your own interests while algorithmic observers watch what you click."

Whatever the benefits, the intent of these services isn't just to benevolently help us find the things we're looking for. They're also designed to help companies find unwitting customers. When you open your web browser to shop for a product—or really for any other reason—you yourself are a product whose personal information is literally being sold. Companies that you know, like Google and Facebook, and companies you've probably never heard of (e.g. Acxiom) are using increasingly sophisticated programs to map your personality.

And it's not just creepiness and individual privacy that's at issue here. Personalization is also adding to a civic crisis. It's one thing for code to help us find music, movies and other consumer products we like. But what about when code also feeds us our preferred news and political opinions, shielding us from alternative viewpoints? Personalization now means that you and your Republican uncle will see dramatically different results when you run the same exact Google news search. You're both likely to see results that come from news sources that you prefer — sources that tend to reinforce your existing opinions. Maybe your search will pull articles from NPR and Huffington Post, while his will spotlight stories from FOX News. Both of you will have your biases and worldviews fed back to you — typically without even being aware that your news feed has been personalized.

Web personalization is invisibly creating individual-tailored information universes. Each of us is increasingly surrounded by information that affirms—rather than challenges—our existing opinions, biases, worldviews, and identities.

This filter bubble impacts everyone. And it poses big challenges for grassroots activists and organizers in particular.

Values reflected back: the illusion of doing something

If you're an activist, then probably a lot of your Facebook friends are activists too. Your friend Susan has been posting all week about the public workers in Wisconsin. Jacob posted an insightful read about white privilege that's at the top of your newsfeed — 50 of your friends "like" it. Sam is a climate activist, and her Facebook presence reflects it. And you just posted an article about an upcoming protest to end the U.S. occupation in Afghanistan.

When you log in on Facebook as an activist, it might feel like you're part of a mass movement. Social justice issues are front and center — as if that were the main thing people used Facebook for. That's how web personalization works on Facebook. When you click on a lot of posts about gay marriage, you will start seeing more similar posts. When you check out certain people's profiles, they'll show up more often in your newsfeed. If these folks think a lot like you do, you'll see a lot of stuff that reinforces your worldview.

It's fun and validating to see a lot of stuff you agree with. But consider the implications. People who are opposed to gay marriage are seeing a lot of articles that reinforce their beliefs too. And, perhaps more important, folks who aren't that interested in the issue probably won't see anything about it at all. Maybe you fancy yourself an agitator with your Facebook posts, but the folks who might feel agitated—and the more persuadable folks in the middle—typically aren't seeing those posts at all. Furthermore, even if you think you're right about all your beliefs, how are you going to be equipped to persuade others if you're not exposed to their views?

You can spend your whole day expressing your political identity on Facebook. You can also use it to mobilize the usual suspects to take some online action — or maybe even to get some of them out to an "offline" political event. But to mistake this kind of thing for grassroots organizing is a big problem.

Grassroots organizing is a process that happens within—and within deep relationship to—already constituted social blocs. It's a process of articulating demands in language that means something to the community and making those demands actionable. It is moving the community into action as a community — not just fishing for a handful of radicals who come out as individuals. But most activist spaces today are spaces for self-selectors, where folks do enter as individuals. And to really enter these spaces, you often have to assimilate to an activist subculture, and check some aspects of your identity at the door.

I don't know of any mass movement in the history of the world that was composed of all self-selecting individuals (at least no movement that lasted longer than a flash). Take the Civil Rights Movement. If Bob Moses, Ella Baker, Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks had been oriented toward the center of a small circle of self-selectors, they would not have been the leaders of a movement. (Picture them inspiring each other with status updates like, "No one should have give up their bus seat because of the color of their skin. Please post as your status if you agree.") It only became a movement when these and other good leaders helped to move whole communities—most notably black churches and schools—into action as communities. Membership in these communities came to imply movement participation. This is how movements become movements.

SNIP

by **JackRiddler** » Thu May 26, 2011 1:42 pm

§ê¢rê†§ wrote:Video and Links in The Next Web source article

Wikileaks Founder: Facebook is the most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented

Despite awaiting extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is still the subject of much media interest.

Russia Today (RT) interviewed Assange, getting his viewpoint on political unrest in Egypt and Libya, particularly probing what the Wikileaks founder makes of social media’s roles in the recent revolutions in both countries. In his interview, Assange focuses particularly on Facebook calling it the “most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented”.

Explaining in more detail, Assange affirms:

Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, and their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US Intelligence.”

According to Assange, it doesn’t stop with Facebook. He believes the social network is joined by Google, Yahoo and other major US organisations that have “built in interfaces for US Intelligence”:

It’s not a matter of serving a subpoena, they have an interface they have developed for US Intelligence to use. Now, is the case that Facebook is run by US Intelligence? No, it’s not like that. It’s simply that US Intelligence is able to bring to bear legal and political pressure to them.

It’s costly for them to hand out individual records, one by one, so they have automated the process.

The Wikileaks founder then warns Facebook users, stating that if a user adds their friend to Facebook, they are “doing free work for US Intelligence agencies, in building this electronic database for them”.

Assange says his website’s revelations are “just the tip of the iceberg”, adding that it’s only a matter of time before more damaging information becomes known.

by **JackRiddler** » Mon May 30, 2011 7:04 pm

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/27/o ... ship-bill/

Oregon Senator Wyden freezes second Internet censorship bill

By Stephen C. Webster
Friday, May 27th, 2011 -- 10:32 am

A U.S. Senator from Oregon has once again taken a stand against his own party to defend what he sees as the inherent right to free speech on the Internet, placing a hold on a bill that could force search engines and Internet service providers to block websites deemed to be "infringing" on copyrights.

The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act -- or "PROTECT IP" for short was part of a second attempt to pass provisions of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), which failed to clear Congress during its last session thanks to a parliamentary maneuver by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

And once again, Wyden has stepped forward to ensure those measures do not pass.

"In December of last year I placed a hold on similar legislation, commonly called COICA, because I felt the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits," he said in a prepared statement. "After careful analysis of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, I am compelled to draw the same conclusion."

"I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective," Wyden added.

Internet freedom advocates claim the proposed laws could be used to shut down websites that link to other websites that authorities claim to be carrying out infringing activities. Internet advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation said it was "no less dismayed by this most recent incarnation than we were with last year’s draft."

The PROTECT IP Act was supported by businesses and organizations across the political spectrum, from labor unions to the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, to the National Association of Broadcasters and the cable industry.

It was also widely supported by Republicans and Democrats in Congress -- meaning that if it weren't for Sen. Wyden, the bill would likely have passed.

Sen. Wyden's full statement follows.

####

Consistent with Senate Standing Orders and my policy of publishing in the Congressional Record a statement whenever I place a hold on legislation, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act.

In December of last year I placed a hold on similar legislation, commonly called COICA, because I felt the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits. After careful analysis of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, I am compelled to draw the same conclusion. I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective. At the expense of legitimate commerce, PIPA's prescription takes an overreaching approach to policing the Internet when a more balanced and targeted approach would be more effective. The collateral damage of this approach is speech, innovation and the very integrity of the Internet.

The Internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st century. It is increasingly in America's economic interest to ensure that the Internet is a viable means for American innovation, commerce, and the advancement of our ideals that empower people all around the world. By ceding control of the Internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the Internet, PIPA represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives. Until the many issues that I and others have raised with this legislation are addressed, I will object to a unanimous consent request to proceed to the legislation.

by **82_28** » Mon May 30, 2011 7:30 pm

JackRiddler wrote:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/27/o ... ship-bill/

Oregon Senator Wyden freezes second Internet censorship bill

By Stephen C. Webster
Friday, May 27th, 2011 -- 10:32 am

A U.S. Senator from Oregon has once again taken a stand against his own party to defend what he sees as the inherent right to free speech on the Internet, placing a hold on a bill that could force search engines and Internet service providers to block websites deemed to be "infringing" on copyrights.

The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act -- or "PROTECT IP" for short was part of a second attempt to pass provisions of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), which failed to clear Congress during its last session thanks to a parliamentary maneuver by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

And once again, Wyden has stepped forward to ensure those measures do not pass.

"In December of last year I placed a hold on similar legislation, commonly called COICA, because I felt the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits," he said in a prepared statement. "After careful analysis of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, I am compelled to draw the same conclusion."

"I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective," Wyden added.

Internet freedom advocates claim the proposed laws could be used to shut down websites that link to other websites that authorities claim to be carrying out infringing activities. Internet advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation said it was "no less dismayed by this most recent incarnation than we were with last year’s draft."

The PROTECT IP Act was supported by businesses and organizations across the political spectrum, from labor unions to the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, to the National Association of Broadcasters and the cable industry.

It was also widely supported by Republicans and Democrats in Congress -- meaning that if it weren't for Sen. Wyden, the bill would likely have passed.

Sen. Wyden's full statement follows.

####

Consistent with Senate Standing Orders and my policy of publishing in the Congressional Record a statement whenever I place a hold on legislation, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act.

In December of last year I placed a hold on similar legislation, commonly called COICA, because I felt the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits. After careful analysis of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, I am compelled to draw the same conclusion. I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective. At the expense of legitimate commerce, PIPA's prescription takes an overreaching approach to policing the Internet when a more balanced and targeted approach would be more effective. The collateral damage of this approach is speech, innovation and the very integrity of the Internet.

The Internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st century. It is increasingly in America's economic interest to ensure that the Internet is a viable means for American innovation, commerce, and the advancement of our ideals that empower people all around the world. By ceding control of the Internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the Internet, PIPA represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives. Until the many issues that I and others have raised with this legislation are addressed, I will object to a unanimous consent request to proceed to the legislation.

This is going out on a limb here, but Linus Torvalds (creator of the first Linux kernel) and his GPL of the most used server software on Earth is now a Portland resident and has been for some time. His corporate influence could be a factor with Wyden's stance.

This underscores the importance of the GPL and all things, everything, opensource, if indeed the above is the case. GPL means nobody loses, anyone can profit, but no one can control.

by **JackRiddler** » Tue May 31, 2011 7:36 pm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/31 ... print.html

Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/31 ... ct_of_war/

Pentagon: Hack attacks can be act of war

Military response possible

By Dan Goodin in San Francisco

Posted in Security, 31st May 2011 19:44 GMT

Agile Project Management tool. Get a free hosted trial now

For the first time, the Pentagon has formally concluded that computer sabotage carried out by another nation can constitute an act of war that warrants a response of traditional military force, according to published media reports.

The determination, included in the Pentagon's first ever “formal cyber strategy,” represents an attempt to address the growing reliance on computers and computer networks by military and civilians alike, according to [1] The Wall Street Journal, which first reported on the circulation of the 30-page classified document. The policy is in part intended to act as a deterrent by showing other countries there could be serious consequences for attacks that target gas pipelines, military networks and other infrastructure considered critical to national security.

“If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,” the WSJ quoted an unnamed military official as saying.

According to [2] NBC News, not every attack would lead to military retaliation. To qualify, hacks would have to be carry the same kinds of threats to American lives, commerce, or infrastructure as traditional military attacks. And even then, because it's often impossible to detect the true origins of so-called cyber attacks [3], commanders would have to present indisputable evidence that a particular country was behind a specific incident.

One idea under consideration is known as “equivalence.” It holds that a computer attack that results in the same level of death, destruction or high-level disruption produced in a traditional military attack could be grounds for “use of force,” under established military doctrines.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration released its own policy that put the world on notice that hack attacks directed against US assets might be met with military action [4].

The reports come as a UK military official admitted his country is developing a toolbox of offensive hacking weapons [5] that could be used against other countries. A few days earlier, China admitted that it has poured huge amounts of resources into an elite hacking team dubbed the Blue Army [6]. ®
Links
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 82718.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43224451/ns ... -security/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/29 ... e_keynote/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/17 ... _strategy/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-co ... -programme
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/austral ... 6064132826
Related stories
Military set to lead on US domestic cyber-security (25 May 2011)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/25 ... _security/
Hack attacks on US could spark military action (17 May 2011)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/17 ... _strategy/
Obama gov wants 3 yrs porridge for infrastructure hackers (16 May 2011)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/16 ... ty_policy/
Cyberwarriors on the Eastern Front: In the line of fire packet floods (25 April 2011)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/25 ... interview/
EU and US agree to run joint cyberwar exercise in 2011 (15 April 2011)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15 ... _exercise/
DARPA wants secure Droids, iPads, iPhones (11 April 2011)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/11 ... ios_droid/
Israel mulls creation of elite counter-cyberterrorist unit (6 April 2011)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/06 ... cker_unit/
Cyberwar hype is obscuring real security threats (17 January 2011)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/17 ... ecd_study/
Body of murdered cyberwar expert found in landfill (5 January 2011)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/05 ... _homicide/
Missing piece completes Stuxnet jigsaw (15 November 2010)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/15 ... completed/

© Copyright 1998–2011

by **hanshan** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:42 am

...

bumping

JackRiddler wrote:.

Two items I missed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 41_pf.html

White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, July 29, 2010; A01

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

(FBI access to e-mail and web records raises fears)

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

(FBI and Department of Justice join forces, investigate Wikileaks)

But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.

(Facebook hits 500 million users, but at what cost?)

Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL."

(NSA whistleblower now works at Apple store)

Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data.

To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.

The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. "You're bringing a big category of data -- records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information -- outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms.
Privacy concerns

The use of the national security letters to obtain personal data on Americans has prompted concern. The Justice Department issued 192,500 national security letters from 2003 to 2006, according to a 2008 inspector general report, which did not indicate how many were demands for Internet records. A 2007 IG report found numerous possible violations of FBI regulations, including the issuance of NSLs without having an approved investigation to justify the request. In two cases, the report found, agents used NSLs to request content information "not permitted by the [surveillance] statute."

One issue with both the proposal and the current law is that the phrase "electronic communication transactional records" is not defined anywhere in statute. "Our biggest concern is that an expanded NSL power might be used to obtain Internet search queries and Web histories detailing every Web site visited and every file downloaded," said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T for assisting the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program.

He said he does not object to the government obtaining access to electronic records, provided it has a judge's approval.

Senior administration officials said the proposal was prompted by a desire to overcome concerns and resistance from Internet and other companies that the existing statute did not allow them to provide such data without a court-approved order. "The statute as written causes confusion and the potential for unnecessary litigation," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said. "This clarification will not allow the government to obtain or collect new categories of information, but it seeks to clarify what Congress intended when the statute was amended in 1993."

The administration has asked Congress to amend the statute, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, in the fiscal year that begins in October.

Administration officials noted that the act specifies in one clause that Internet and other companies have a duty to provide electronic communication transactional records to the FBI in response to a national security letter.

But the next clause specifies only four categories of basic subscriber data that the FBI may seek: name, address, length of service and toll billing records. There is no reference to electronic communication transactional records.
Same as phone records?

The officials said the transactional information at issue, which does not include Internet search queries, is the functional equivalent of telephone toll billing records, which the FBI can obtain without court authorization. Learning the e-mail addresses to which an Internet user sends messages, they said, is no different than obtaining a list of numbers called by a telephone user.

Obtaining such records with an NSL, as opposed to a court order, "allows us to intercede in plots earlier than we would if our hands were tied and we were unable to get this data in a way that was quick and efficient," the senior administration official said.

But the value of such data is the reason a court should approve its disclosure, said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's much more sensitive than the other information, like name, address and telephone number, that the FBI gets with national security letters," he said. "It shows associational information protected by the First Amendment and is much less public than things like where you live."

A Nov. 5, 2008, opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, whose opinions are binding on the executive branch, made clear that the four categories of basic subscriber information the FBI may obtain with an NSL were "exhaustive."

This opinion, said Sussmann, the former Clinton administration lawyer, caused many companies to reevaluate the scope of what could be provided in response to an NSL. "The OLC opinion removed the ambiguity," he said. "Providers now are limited to the four corners of what the opinion says they can give out. Those who give more do so at their own risk."

Marc Zwillinger, an attorney for Internet companies, said some providers are not giving the FBI more than the four categories specified. He added that with the rise of social networking, the government's move could open a significant amount of Internet activity to government surveillance without judicial authorization. "A Facebook friend request -- is that like a phone call or an e-mail? Is that something they would sweep in under an NSL? They certainly aren't getting that now."

© 2010 The Washington Post Company

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... 27/privacy

Monday, Sep 27, 2010 06:28 ET
The Obama administration's war on privacy

By Glenn Greenwald

In early August, two dictatorial (and U.S.-allied) Gulf states -- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- announced a ban on the use of Blackberries because, as the BBC put it, "oth nations are unhappy that they are unable to monitor such communications via the handsets." Those two governments demand the power to intercept and monitor every single form of communication. No human interaction may take place beyond their prying ears. Since Blackberry communication data are sent directly to servers in Canada and the company which operates Blackberry -- Research in Motion -- refused to turn the data over to those governments, "authorities [] decided to ban Blackberry services rather than continue to allow an uncontrolled and unmonitored flow of electronic information within their borders." That's the core mindset of the Omnipotent Surveillance State: above all else, what is strictly prohibited is the ability of citizens to communicate in private; we can't have any "uncontrolled and unmonitored flow of electronic information."

That controversy generated substantial coverage in the U.S. media, which depicted it as reflective of the censorship and all-consuming surveillance powers of those undemocratic states. But the following week, The New York Times published an Op-Ed by Richard Falkenrath -- a top-level Homeland Security official in the Bush administration and current principal in the private firm of former Bush DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff -- expressing support for the UAE's Blackberry ban. Falkenrath asserted that "[a]mong law enforcement investigators and intelligence officers [in the U.S.], the Emirates’ decision met with approval, admiration and perhaps even a touch of envy." New Internet technologies -- including voice-over-Internet calls (such as Skype) and text messaging -- are increasingly difficult for governments to monitor, and Falkenrath noted, correctly, that the UAE "is in no way unique in wanting a back door into the telecommunications services used inside its borders to allow officials to eavesdrop on users." The U.S. Government is every bit as eager as the UAE and Saudi Arabia to ensure full and unfettered access to everyone's communications:

New Internet technologies -- including voice-over-Internet calls (such as Skype) and text messaging -- are increasingly difficult for governments to monitor . . . . Hence the envy some American intelligence officials felt about the Emirates’ decision. . . .

Companies can sometimes evade government intrusion for a while. In many cases, governments fail to keep pace with telecommunications innovation; in others, governmental intrusion into ostensibly private communications offends liberal sensibilities.

But in the end, it is governments, not private industry, that rule the airwaves and the Internet. The Emirates acted understandably and appropriately: governments should not be timid about using their full powers to ensure that their law enforcement and intelligence agencies are able to keep their citizens safe.

The tyrannical mentality of the UAE, Saudi and Bush DHS authorities are far from aberrational. They are perfectly representative of how the current U.S. administration thinks as well: every communication and all other human transactions must be subject to government surveillance. Nothing may be beyond the reach of official spying agencies. There must be no such thing as true privacy from government authorities.

Anyone who thinks that is hyperbole should simply read two articles today describing efforts of the Obama administration to obliterate remaining vestiges of privacy. The first is this New York Times article by Charlie Savage, which describes how the Obama administration will propose new legislation to mandate that the U.S. Government have access to all forms of communications, "including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct 'peer to peer' messaging like Skype." In other words, the U.S. Government is taking exactly the position of the UAE and the Saudis: no communications are permitted to be beyond the surveillance reach of U.S. authorities.

The new law would not expand the Government's legal authority to eavesdrop -- that's unnecessary, since post-9/11 legislation has dramatically expanded those authorities -- but would require all communications, including ones over the Internet, to be built so as to enable the U.S. Government to intercept and monitor them at any time when the law permits. [b]In other words, Internet services could legally exist only insofar as there would be no such thing as truly private communications; all must contain a "back door" to enable government officials to eavesdrop:

Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is "going dark" as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone. . . . .

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had "huge implications" and challenged "fundamental elements of the Internet revolution" -- including its decentralized design.

"They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet," he said. "They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function."

In other words, the Obama administration is demanding exactly that which the UAE demanded: full, unfettered access to all communications. Amazingly, the administration had the temerity to condemn the UAE's ban on Blackberries on the ground that it impedes "the free flow of information," but in response, the UAE correctly pointed out how hypocritical that condemnation was:

Yousef Al Otaiba, the UAE Ambassador to the United States, said [State Department spokesman P.J.] Crowley's comments were disappointing and contradict the U.S. government's own approach to telecommunication regulation.

"In fact, the UAE is exercising its sovereign right and is asking for exactly the same regulatory compliance -- and with the same principles of judicial and regulatory oversight -- that Blackberry grants the U.S. and other governments and nothing more," Otaiba said.

"Importantly, the UAE requires the same compliance as the U.S. for the very same reasons: to protect national security and to assist in law enforcement."

And that was before the Obama administration's plan to significantly expand its surveillance capabilities by essentially banning any Internet communications which it cannot monitor.

Then there is this article in The Washington Post this morning, which reports that "[t]he Obama administration wants to require U.S. banks to report all electronic money transfers into and out of the country, a dramatic expansion in efforts to counter terrorist financing and money laundering." Whereas banks are now required to report all such transactions over $10,000 or which are otherwise suspicious, "the new rule would require banks to disclose even the smallest transfers." "The proposal also calls for banks to provide annually the Social Security numbers for all wire-transfer senders and recipients." It would create a centralized database enabling the U.S. Government to monitor a vastly expanded range of financial transactions engaged in by people who are under no suspicion whatsoever of criminal activity:

"This regulation is outrageous," said Peter Djinis, a lawyer who advises financial institutions on complying with financial rules and a former FinCEN executive assistant director for regulatory policy. "Consider me old-fashioned, but I believe you need to show some evidence of criminality before you are granted unfettered access to the private financial affairs of every individual and company that dares to conduct financial transactions overseas."

That concept -- that the U.S. Government should not be monitoring, surveilling and collecting data on individuals who are not under criminal investigation -- was once the hallmark of basic American liberty, so uncontroversial as to require no defense. But decades of effective fear-mongering over everything from Communists to drug kingpins -- and particularly the last decade of invoking the all-justifying, Scary mantra of Terrorism -- has reduced much of the American citizenry into a frightened and meek puddle of acquiescence which not only tolerates, but craves, a complete deprivation of privacy. Needless to say, both articles this morning are suffused with quotes from government officials tossing around the standard clichés about Scary Terrorists, Drug Lords, and other cartoon menaces hauled out to justify every expansion of government power and every reduction of individual privacy (that, of course, was the same rationale invoked by UAE and Saudi officials: "The UAE issued a statement explaining the decision, saying it had come because 'certain Blackberry services' allow users to avoid 'any legal accountability', raising 'judicial, social and national security concerns'.").

Leave aside the fact that endlessly increasing government surviellance is not only ineffective in detecting Terrorist plots and other crimes, but is actually counterproductive, as it swamps the Government with more data than it can possibly process and manage. What these Obama proposals illustrates is just how far we've descended in the security/liberty debate, where only the former consideration has value, while the latter has none. Whereas it was once axiomatic that the Government should not spy on citizens who have done nothing wrong, that belief is now relegated to the civil libertarian fringes. Concerns about privacy were once the predominant consensus of mainstream American political thought. Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote in dissent in the 1928 case Olmstead v. United States (emphasis added):

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.

For much of the 20th Century, fears of government surveillance into the private domestic sphere dominated mainstream political debates. To underscore how true that is, consider what Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho) said after leading a mid-1970s Senate investigation into the spying abuses of the prior decades and the growing surveillance technologies of the NSA:

"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."

He added that if a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. "could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."

Church's investigation led to many of the intelligence reforms which have been progressively eroded over the last decade (such as FISA). He was a hero to liberals and Democrats generally. But today, people who speak the way he did -- who warn of the dangers of unfettered government surveillance -- are deemed shrill, unSerious paranoids and civil liberties extremists, including by much of the Democratic establishment. That's why we see not the Bush administration -- but a Democratic President -- simultaneously proposing laws that would literally abolish many remaining vestiges of privacy in the communications and finance sectors. The fact that this comes in the wake of numerous reports that law enforcement agencies repeatedly abuse their spying powers makes little difference. Church's warning of "the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide" is exactly what these new laws, copying our Saudi and UAE friends, would enable.

by **JackRiddler** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:18 pm

.

Pick-up thanks to seemslikeadream!

Cyber Combat: Act of War
Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military Force

By SIOBHAN GORMAN And JULIAN E. BARNES

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.

The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.

In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," said a military official.

Reuters
The Pentagon is studying when cyber attacks justify military action. An Air Force security center in Colorado.

Recent attacks on the Pentagon's own systems—as well as the sabotaging of Iran's nuclear program via the Stuxnet computer worm—have given new urgency to U.S. efforts to develop a more formalized approach to cyber attacks. A key moment occurred in 2008, when at least one U.S. military computer system was penetrated. This weekend Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor, acknowledged that it had been the victim of an infiltration, while playing down its impact.

The report will also spark a debate over a range of sensitive issues the Pentagon left unaddressed, including whether the U.S. can ever be certain about an attack's origin, and how to define when computer sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war. These questions have already been a topic of dispute within the military.

One idea gaining momentum at the Pentagon is the notion of "equivalence." If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a "use of force" consideration, which could merit retaliation.

The War on Cyber Attacks

Attacks of varying severity have rattled nations in recent years.

June 2009: First version of Stuxnet virus starts spreading, eventually sabotaging Iran's nuclear program. Some experts suspect it was an Israeli attempt, possibly with American help.

November 2008: A computer virus believed to have originated in Russia succeeds in penetrating at least one classified U.S. military computer network.

August 2008: Online attack on websites of Georgian government agencies and financial institutions at start of brief war between Russia and Georgia.

May 2007: Attack on Estonian banking and government websites occurs that is similar to the later one in Georgia but has greater impact because Estonia is more dependent on online banking.

The Pentagon's document runs about 30 pages in its classified version and 12 pages in the unclassified one. It concludes that the Laws of Armed Conflict—derived from various treaties and customs that, over the years, have come to guide the conduct of war and proportionality of response—apply in cyberspace as in traditional warfare, according to three defense officials who have read the document. The document goes on to describe the Defense Department's dependence on information technology and why it must forge partnerships with other nations and private industry to protect infrastructure.

The strategy will also state the importance of synchronizing U.S. cyber-war doctrine with that of its allies, and will set out principles for new security policies. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization took an initial step last year when it decided that, in the event of a cyber attack on an ally, it would convene a group to "consult together" on the attacks, but they wouldn't be required to help each other respond. The group hasn't yet met to confer on a cyber incident.

Pentagon officials believe the most-sophisticated computer attacks require the resources of a government. For instance, the weapons used in a major technological assault, such as taking down a power grid, would likely have been developed with state support, Pentagon officials say.

The move to formalize the Pentagon's thinking was borne of the military's realization the U.S. has been slow to build up defenses against these kinds of attacks, even as civilian and military infrastructure has grown more dependent on the Internet. The military established a new command last year, headed by the director of the National Security Agency, to consolidate military network security and attack efforts.

The Pentagon itself was rattled by the 2008 attack, a breach significant enough that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs briefed then-President George W. Bush. At the time, Pentagon officials said they believed the attack originated in Russia, although didn't say whether they believed the attacks were connected to the government. Russia has denied involvement.

The Rules of Armed Conflict that guide traditional wars are derived from a series of international treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, as well as practices that the U.S. and other nations consider customary international law. But cyber warfare isn't covered by existing treaties. So military officials say they want to seek a consensus among allies about how to proceed.

"Act of war" is a political phrase, not a legal term, said Charles Dunlap, a retired Air Force Major General and professor at Duke University law school. Gen. Dunlap argues cyber attacks that have a violent effect are the legal equivalent of armed attacks, or what the military calls a "use of force."

"A cyber attack is governed by basically the same rules as any other kind of attack if the effects of it are essentially the same," Gen. Dunlap said Monday. The U.S. would need to show that the cyber weapon used had an effect that was the equivalent of a conventional attack.

James Lewis, a computer-security specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has advised the Obama administration, said Pentagon officials are currently figuring out what kind of cyber attack would constitute a use of force. Many military planners believe the trigger for retaliation should be the amount of damage—actual or attempted—caused by the attack.

For instance, if computer sabotage shut down as much commerce as would a naval blockade, it could be considered an act of war that justifies retaliation, Mr. Lewis said. Gauges would include "death, damage, destruction or a high level of disruption" he said.

Culpability, military planners argue in internal Pentagon debates, depends on the degree to which the attack, or the weapons themselves, can be linked to a foreign government. That's a tricky prospect at the best of times.

The brief 2008 war between Russia and Georgia included a cyber attack that disrupted the websites of Georgian government agencies and financial institutions. The damage wasn't permanent but did disrupt communication early in the war.

A subsequent NATO study said it was too hard to apply the laws of armed conflict to that cyber attack because both the perpetrator and impact were unclear. At the time, Georgia blamed its neighbor, Russia, which denied any involvement.

Much also remains unknown about one of the best-known cyber weapons, the Stuxnet computer virus that sabotaged some of Iran's nuclear centrifuges. While some experts suspect it was an Israeli attack, because of coding characteristics, possibly with American assistance, that hasn't been proven. Iran was the location of only 60% of the infections, according to a study by the computer security firm Symantec. Other locations included Indonesia, India, Pakistan and the U.S.

Officials from Israel and the U.S. have declined to comment on the allegations.

Defense officials refuse to discuss potential cyber adversaries, although military and intelligence officials say they have identified previous attacks originating in Russia and China. A 2009 government-sponsored report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said that China's People's Liberation Army has its own computer warriors, the equivalent of the American National Security Agency.

That's why military planners believe the best way to deter major attacks is to hold countries that build cyber weapons responsible for their use. A parallel, outside experts say, is the George W. Bush administration's policy of holding foreign governments accountable for harboring terrorist organizations, a policy that led to the U.S. military campaign to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

Iran Vows to Unplug Internet

By CHRISTOPHER RHOADS and FARNAZ FASSIHI

Andres Gonzalez for The Wall Street Journal
An Iranian engineer who helped design and run the country's Internet filters says he subtly undermined some censorship until fleeing into exile

Iran is taking steps toward an aggressive new form of censorship: a so-called national Internet that could, in effect, disconnect Iranian cyberspace from the rest of the world.

The leadership in Iran sees the project as a way to end the fight for control of the Internet, according to observers of Iranian policy inside and outside the country. Iran, already among the most sophisticated nations in online censoring, also promotes its national Internet as a cost-saving measure for consumers and as a way to uphold Islamic moral codes.

In February, as pro-democracy protests spread rapidly across the Middle East and North Africa, Reza Bagheri Asl, director of the telecommunication ministry's research institute, told an Iranian news agency that soon 60% of the nation's homes and businesses would be on the new, internal network. Within two years it would extend to the entire country, he said.

The unusual initiative appears part of a broader effort to confront what the regime now considers a major threat: an online invasion of Western ideas, culture and influence, primarily originating from the U.S. In recent speeches, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials have called this emerging conflict the "soft war."

On Friday, new reports emerged in the local press that Iran also intends to roll out its own computer operating system in coming months to replace Microsoft Corp.'s Windows. The development, which couldn't be independently confirmed, was attributed to Reza Taghipour, Iran's communication minister.

Iran's national Internet will be "a genuinely halal network, aimed at Muslims on an ethical and moral level," Ali Aghamohammadi, Iran's head of economic affairs, said recently according to a state-run news service. Halal means compliant with Islamic law.

Mr. Aghamohammadi said the new network would at first operate in parallel to the normal Internet—banks, government ministries and large companies would continue to have access to the regular Internet. Eventually, he said, the national network could replace the global Internet in Iran, as well as in other Muslim countries.

A spokesman for Iran's mission to the United Nations declined to comment further, saying the matter is a "technical question about the scientific progress of the country."

There are many obstacles. Even for a country isolated economically from the West by sanctions, the Internet is an important business tool. Limiting access could hinder investment from Russia, China and other trading partners. There's also the matter of having the expertise and resources for creating Iranian equivalents of popular search engines and websites, like Google.

Few think that Iran could completely cut its links to the wider Internet. But it could move toward a dual-Internet structure used in a few other countries with repressive regimes.

Myanmar said last October that public Internet connections would run through a separate system controlled and monitored by a new government company, accessing theoretically just Myanmar content. It's introducing alternatives to popular websites including an email service, called Ymail, as a replacement for Google Inc.'s Gmail.

Cuba, too, has what amounts to two Internets—one that connects to the outside world for tourists and government officials, and the other a closed and monitored network, with limited access, for public use. North Korea is taking its first tentative steps into cyberspace with a similar dual network, though with far fewer people on a much more rudimentary system.

Iran has a developed Internet culture, and blogs play a prominent role—even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has one.

Though estimates vary, about 11 of every 100 Iranians are online, according to the International Telecommunication Union, among the highest percentages among comparable countries in the region. Because of this, during the protests following 2009's controversial presidential election, the world was able to follow events on the ground nearly live, through video and images circulated on Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere.

"It might not be possible to cut off Iran and put it in a box," said Fred Petrossian, who fled Iran in the 1990s and is now online editor of Radio Farda, which is Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Iranian news service. "But it's what they're working on."

The discovery last year of the sophisticated "Stuxnet" computer worm that apparently disrupted Iran's nuclear program has added urgency to the Internet initiative, Iran watchers say. Iran believes the Stuxnet attack was orchestrated by Israel and the U.S.

"The regime no longer fears a physical attack from the West," said Mahmood Enayat, director of the Iran media program at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications. "It still thinks the West wants to take over Iran, but through the Internet."

The U.S. State Department's funding of tools to circumvent Internet censorship, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent speeches advocating Internet freedom, have reinforced Iran's perceptions, these people said.

Iran got connected to the Internet in the early 1990s, making it the first Muslim nation in the Middle East online, and the second in the region behind Israel. Young, educated and largely centered in cities, Iranians embraced the new technology.

Authorities first encouraged Internet use, seeing it as a way to spread Islamic and revolutionary ideology and to support science and technology research. Hundreds of private Internet service providers emerged. Nearly all of them connected through Data Communications Iran, or DCI, the Internet arm of the state telecommunications monopoly.

The mood changed in the late 1990s, when Islamic hardliners pushed back against the more open policies of then-president Mohammad Khatami. The subsequent shuttering of dozens of so-called reformist newspapers had the unintended effect of triggering the explosion of the Iranian blogosphere. Journalists who had lost their jobs went online. Readers followed.

Authorities struck back. In 2003, officials announced plans to block more than 15,000 websites, according to a report by the OpenNet Initiative, a collaboration of several Western universities. The regime began arresting bloggers.

Iran tried to shore up its cyber defenses in other ways, including upgrading its filtering system, for the first time using only Iranian technology. Until around 2007, the country had relied on filtering gear from U.S. companies, obtained through third countries and sometimes involving pirated versions, including Secure Computing Corp.'s SmartFilter, as well as products from Juniper Networks Inc. and Fortinet Inc., according to Iranian engineers familiar with with the filtering.

Such products are designed primarily to combat malware and viruses, but can be used to block other things, such as websites. Iranian officials several years ago designed their own filtering system—based on what they learned from the illegally obtained U.S. products—so they could service and upgrade it on their own, according to the Iranian engineers.

A Fortinet spokesman said he was unaware of any company products in Iran, adding that the company doesn't sell to embargoed countries, nor do its resellers. McAfee Inc., which owns Secure Computing, said no contract or support was provided to Iran. Intel Corp. recently bought McAfee, which added that it can now disable its technology obtained by embargoed countries. A Juniper spokesman said the company has a "strict policy of compliance with U.S. export law," and hasn't sold products to Iran.

The notion of an Iran-only Internet emerged in 2005 when Mr. Ahmadinejad became president. Officials experimented with pilot programs using a closed network serving more than 3,000 Iranian public schools as well as 400 local offices of the education ministry.

The government in 2008 allocated $1 billion to continue building the needed infrastructure. "The national Internet will not limit access for users," Abdolmajid Riazi, then-deputy director of communication technology in the ministry of telecommunications, said of the project that year. "It will instead empower Iran and protect its society from cultural invasion and threats."

Iran's government has also argued that an Iranian Internet would be cheaper for users. Replacing international data traffic with domestic traffic could cut down on hefty international telecom costs.

The widespread violence following Iran's deeply divisive presidential election in June 2009 exposed the limits of Iran's Internet control—strengthening the case for replacing the normal Internet with a closed, domestic version. In one of the most dramatic moments of the crisis, video showing the apparent shooting death of a female student, Neda Agha-Soltan, circulated globally and nearly in real time.

More Censorship Inc.

U.S. Products Help Block Mideast Web (03/28/2011)
Some of the holes in Iran's Internet security blanket were punched by sympathetic people working within it. According to one former engineer at DCI, the government Internet company, during the 2009 protests he would block some prohibited websites only partially—letting traffic through to the outside world.

Since the 2009 protests, the government has ratcheted up its online repression. "Countering the soft war is the main priority for us today," Mr. Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, said November 2009 in a speech to members of the Basij, a pro-government paramilitary volunteer group. "In a soft war the enemy tries to make use of advanced and cultural and communication tools to spread lies and rumors."

The Revolutionary Guard, a powerful branch of the Iranian security forces, has taken the lead in the virtual fight. In late 2009, the Guard acquired a majority stake of the state telecom monopoly that owns DCI. That put all of Iran's communications networks under Revolutionary Guard control.

The Guard has created a "Cyber Army" as part of an effort to train more than 250,000 computer hackers. It recently took credit for attacks on Western sites including Voice of America, the U.S. government-funded international broadcasting service. And at the telecom ministry, work has begun on a national search engine called "Ya Hagh," or "Oh, Justice," as a possible alternative to popular search engines like Google and Yahoo.

Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Re: Threats to Internet Freedoms (consolidation thread)

Who is online