Page 29 of 37 FirstFirst ... 19252627282930313233 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 725 of 901
  1. #701
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,926
    While most folks are looking elsewhere, it appears that Congress is trying to see if it can sneak an absolutely awful "cybersecurity" bill through Congress. We've discussed how there's been some fighting on the Senate side concerning which cybersecurity bill to support, but there's a similar battle going on in the House, and it appears that the Rogers-Ruppersberger bill, known as CISPA (for Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) or HR 3523 is winning out, with a planned attempt to move it through Congress later this month. The bill is awful -- and yet has somehow already gained over 100 sponsors. In an attempt to pretend that this isn't a "SOPA-like" problem, the supporters of this bill are highlighting the fact that Facebook, Microsoft and TechAmerica are supporting this bill.

    However, this is a terrible bill for a variety of reasons. Even if we accept the mantra that new cybersecurity laws are needed (despite a near total lack of evidence to support this -- and, no, fearmongering about planes falling from the sky doesn't count), this bill has serious problems. As CDT warned when this bill first came out, it's way too broad and overreaching:
    However, the bill goes much further, permitting ISPs to funnel private communications and related information back to the government without adequate privacy protections and controls. The bill does not specify which agencies ISPs could disclose customer data to, but the structure and incentives in the bill raise a very real possibility that the National Security Agency or the DOD’s Cybercommand would be the primary recipient.
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ity-bill.shtml

  2. #702
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Well, I'm not going to try to understand this legalese at the moment, running low in time... maybe someone else?

    SECTION 1. SHORT LE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011'.

    SEC. 2. CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION SHARING.

    (a) In General- le XI of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 442 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

    `CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION SHARING

    `Sec. 1104. (a) Intelligence Community Sharing of Cyber Threat Intelligence With Private Sector-

    `(1) IN GENERAL- The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector en ies and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence.

    `(2) SHARING AND USE OF CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE- The procedures established under paragraph (1) shall provide that classified cyber threat intelligence may only be--

    `(A) shared by an element of the intelligence community with--

    `(i) certified en ies; or

    `(ii) a person with an appropriate security clearance to receive such cyber threat intelligence;

    `(B) shared consistent with the need to protect the national security of the United States; and

    `(C) used by a certified en y in a manner which protects such cyber threat intelligence from unauthorized disclosure.

    `(3) SECURITY CLEARANCE APPROVALS- The Director of National Intelligence shall issue guidelines providing that the head of an element of the intelligence community may, as the head of such element considers necessary to carry out this subsection--

    `(A) grant a security clearance on a temporary or permanent basis to an employee or officer of a certified en y;

    `(B) grant a security clearance on a temporary or permanent basis to a certified en y and approval to use appropriate facilities; and

    `(C) expedite the security clearance process for a person or en y as the head of such element considers necessary, consistent with the need to protect the national security of the United States.

    `(4) NO RIGHT OR BENEFIT- The provision of information to a private-sector en y under this subsection shall not create a right or benefit to similar information by such en y or any other private-sector en y.

    `(b) Private Sector Use of Cybersecurity Systems and Sharing of Cyber Threat Information-

    `(1) IN GENERAL-

    `(A) CYBERSECURITY PROVIDERS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cybersecurity provider, with the express consent of a protected en y for which such cybersecurity provider is providing goods or services for cybersecurity purposes, may, for cybersecurity purposes--

    `(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such protected en y; and

    `(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other en y designated by such protected en y, including, if specifically designated, the Federal Government.

    `(B) SELF-PROTECTED EN IES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected en y may, for cybersecurity purposes--

    `(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such self-protected en y; and

    `(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other en y, including the Federal Government.

    `(2) USE AND PROTECTION OF INFORMATION- Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)--

    `(A) shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of such information by the protected en y or self-protected en y authorizing such sharing, including, if requested, appropriate anonymization or minimization of such information;

    `(B) may not be used by an en y to gain an unfair compe ive advantage to the detriment of the protected en y or the self-protected en y authorizing the sharing of information; and

    `(C) if shared with the Federal Government--

    `(i) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of le 5, United States Code;

    `(ii) shall be considered proprietary information and shall not be disclosed to an en y outside of the Federal Government except as authorized by the en y sharing such information; and

    `(iii) shall not be used by the Federal Government for regulatory purposes.

    `(3) EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY- No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in Federal or State court against a protected en y, self-protected en y, cybersecurity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a protected en y, self-protected en y, or cybersecurity provider, acting in good faith--

    `(A) for using cybersecurity systems or sharing information in accordance with this section; or

    `(B) for not acting on information obtained or shared in accordance with this section.

    `(4) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION- The submission of information under this subsection to the Federal Government shall not satisfy or affect any requirement under any other provision of law for a person or en y to provide information to the Federal Government.

    `(c) Report on Information Sharing- The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board established under section 1061 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) shall annually submit to Congress a report in unclassified form containing--

    `(1) a review of the sharing and use of information by the Federal Government under this section and the procedures and guidelines established or issued by the Director of National Intelligence under subsection (a); and

    `(2) any recommendations of the Board for improvements or modifications to such authorities to address privacy and civil liberties concerns.

    `(d) Federal Preemption- This section supersedes any statute of a State or political subdivision of a State that restricts or otherwise expressly regulates an activity authorized under subsection (b).

    `(e) Savings Clause- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any other authority to use a cybersecurity system or to identify, obtain, or share cyber threat intelligence or cyber threat information.

    `(f) Definitions- In this section:

    `(1) CERTIFIED EN Y- The term `certified en y' means a protected en y, self-protected en y, or cybersecurity provider that--

    `(A) possesses or is eligible to obtain a security clearance, as determined by the Director of National Intelligence; and

    `(B) is able to demonstrate to the Director of National Intelligence that such provider or such en y can appropriately protect classified cyber threat intelligence.

    `(2) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE- The term `cyber threat intelligence' means information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private en y, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from--

    `(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

    `(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

    `(3) CYBERSECURITY PROVIDER- The term `cybersecurity provider' means a non-governmental en y that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes.

    `(4) CYBERSECURITY PURPOSE- The term `cybersecurity purpose' means the purpose of ensuring the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguarding, a system or network, including protecting a system or network from--

    `(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

    `(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

    `(5) CYBERSECURITY SYSTEM- The term `cybersecurity system' means a system designed or employed to ensure the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguard, a system or network, including protecting a system or network from--

    `(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

    `(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

    `(6) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION- The term `cyber threat information' means information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system or network of a government or private en y, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from--

    `(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

    `(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

    `(7) PROTECTED EN Y- The term `protected en y' means an en y, other than an individual, that contracts with a cybersecurity provider for goods or services to be used for cybersecurity purposes.

    `(8) SELF-PROTECTED EN Y- The term `self-protected en y' means an en y, other than an individual, that provides goods or services for cybersecurity purposes to itself.'.

    (b) Procedures and Guidelines- The Director of National Intelligence shall--

    (1) not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, establish procedures under paragraph (1) of section 1104(a) of the National Security Act of 1947, as added by subsection (a) of this section, and issue guidelines under paragraph (3) of such section 1104(a); and

    (2) following the establishment of such procedures and the issuance of such guidelines, expeditiously distribute such procedures and such guidelines to appropriate Federal Government and private-sector en ies.

    (c) Initial Report- The first report required to be submitted under subsection (c) of section 1104 of the National Security Act of 1947, as added by subsection (a) of this section, shall be submitted not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    (d) Table of Contents Amendment- The table of contents in the first section of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

    `Sec. 1104. Cyber threat intelligence and information sharing.'.

  3. #703
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,926
    Labeling the criminal prosecution of seven top Megaupload operatives “unduly adventurous,” attorneys for the indicted file-sharing service claim the U.S. government wants to destroy “exculpatory” evidence so it can prevail in the largest criminal copyright case ever brought.


    “In essence, the government has taken what it wants from the scene of the alleged crime and is content that the remaining evidence, even if it is exculpatory or otherwise relevant to the defense, be destroyed,” defense attorney Paul Brinkman wrote (.pdf) the Virginia federal judge presiding over the case.


    The court filing, lodged Friday, focuses on an unprecedented amount of data — 25 petabytes in all — that was seized by the government from Megaupload’s 1,100 servers in January. A hearing on the issue is scheduled for Friday before U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady in Virginia.


    The government has said it has copied “selected data” from the servers and said the 25 million gigabytes of data stored on hosting service Carpathia’s servers can be wiped out. Brinkman claims the government “cherry picked” relevant data “to support its theories of criminal misconduct.”
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...fense-hobbled/

  4. #704
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    9,152
    German Pirate Party overtakes Greens, survey by Forsa shows

    Germany's upstart Pirate Party has overtaken the Greens to become the third strongest political grouping in the country, according to a new poll.

    The survey by Forsa for broadcaster RTL showed support for the Pirates, whose platform is based on internet freedom and more direct participation in politics, pushing up to 13 percent and outstripping the Greens for the first time.

    An off-shoot of a party that was founded in Sweden six years ago, the German Pirates came out of nowhere last September to win seats in the city government in Berlin.

    At first dismissed as a passing fad by the established parties, the Pirates followed up their success in Berlin with a strong showing in the state of Saarland last month and now look on track to make it into regional assemblies in two other states -- North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig Holstein -- next month.

    more

  5. #705
    right about pizzagate Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    83,642
    I'm wondering if that pirate party is as similar to Ron Paul as it appears.

  6. #706
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,926
    Nicholas Merrill is planning to revolutionize online privacy with a concept as simple as it is ingenious: a telecommunications provider designed from its inception to shield its customers from surveillance.



    Merrill, 39, who previously ran a New York-based Internet provider, told CNET that he's raising funds to launch a national "non-profit telecommunications provider dedicated to privacy, using ubiquitous encryption" that will sell mobile phone service and, for as little as $20 a month, Internet connectivity.



    The ISP would not merely employ every technological means at its disposal, including encryption and limited logging, to protect its customers. It would also -- and in practice this is likely more important -- challenge government surveillance demands of dubious legality or cons utionality.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...-first-always/

  7. #707
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    Good luck with that... even blackberry had to bend over, and they're a canadian company...

  8. #708
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    26,358
    China to the rescue?

  9. #709
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    9,152
    I'm wondering if that pirate party is as similar to Ron Paul as it appears.
    They are both getting support because people are getting tired of corrupt mainstream politics. Beyond that i doubt there are any similarities.

  10. #710
    right about pizzagate Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    83,642
    They are both getting support because people are getting tired of corrupt mainstream politics. Beyond that i doubt there are any similarities.
    Yeah, I simply meant similar in cult status.

  11. #711
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,926
    The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland), passed (in the US House) on a vote of 248 to 168.
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...-passes-cispa/

  12. #712
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,926
    Up until this afternoon, the final vote on CISPA was supposed to be tomorrow. Then, abruptly, it was moved up today—and the House voted in favor of its passage with a vote of 248-168. But that's not even the worst part.


    The vote followed the debate on amendments, several of which were passed. Among them was an absolutely terrible change (pdf and embedded below—scroll to amendment #6) to the definition of what the government can do with shared information, put forth by Rep. Quayle. Astonishingly, it was described as limiting the government's power, even though it in fact expands it by adding more items to the list of acceptable purposes for which shared information can be used. Even more astonishingly, it passed with a near-unanimous vote. The CISPA that was just approved by the House is much worse than the CISPA being discussed as recently as this morning.


    Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.


    Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power.


    Somehow, incredibly, this was described as limiting CISPA, but it accomplishes the exact opposite. This is very, very bad.
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...hed-vote.shtml

  13. #713
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    9,152
    The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK ISPs, court rules

    File-sharing site The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK internet service providers, the High Court has ruled.

    The Swedish website hosts links to download mostly pirated free music and video.

    Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site.
    ...
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17894176

  14. #714
    right about pizzagate Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    83,642
    Poor pirate bay

  15. #715
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,926
    The FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a controversial proposal that would require firms, including Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, to build in backdoors for government surveillance.



    In meetings with industry representatives, the White House, and U.S. senators, senior FBI officials argue the dramatic shift in communication from the telephone system to the Internet has made it far more difficult for agents to wiretap Americans suspected of illegal activities, CNET has learned.



    The FBI general counsel's office has drafted a proposed law that the bureau claims is the best solution: requiring that social-networking Web sites and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly.



    "If you create a service, product, or app that allows a user to communicate, you get the privilege of adding that extra coding," an industry representative who has reviewed the FBI's draft legislation told CNET. The requirements apply only if a threshold of a certain number of users is exceeded, according to a second industry representative briefed on it.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-574...web-sites-now/

  16. #716
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    9,152

  17. #717
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,926

  18. #718
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,926

  19. #719
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    9,152
    Reddit Founder And Activists Aim To Build A 'Bat-Signal For The Internet'

    The “blackout” of Web sites to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in January was an unprecedented show of Internet solidarity against bad legislation. But with new net-threatening bills like ACTA and CISPA popping out of Congress on a practically monthly basis, one online entrepreneur and a group of net activists want to enable regular SOPA-style mass protests at the push of a button.
    ...
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygree...-the-internet/

  20. #720
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    9,152
    Kim Dotcom wins right to FBI files

    A Kiwi judge has overruled the wishes of the US Government and granted internet millionaire Kim Dotcom the right to information gathered by the FBI in the copyright case against him.

    The US had stringently opposed the piracy-accused's application for "disclosure", citing its treaty agreements with New Zealand which meant the process was not mandatory.

    In making his decision, in the Auckland District Court yesterday, Judge David Harvey said Dotcom's right to a fair trial was at risk if he was not given disclosure.

    "A denial of the provision of information that could enable a proper adversarial hearing, in my view, would amount to a denial of the opportunity to contest and that would effectively mean that the process is one sided and in reality becomes more of an administrative one," Judge Harvey said.
    ...
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...t-to-FBI-files

  21. #721
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751
    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201...#ixzz1wkLDLgEi

    Couples expecting to wed should budget a little more for their big day, as the Copyright Board of Canada recently approved new fees to play recorded music at large gatherings, including weddings.

    The fees -- which also apply to events and venues such as parades, festivals, and karaoke bars -- are being charged in an effort to protect and compensate performers and record labels for their work.

    The fees range in price depending on the size of the event and how the music will be used. At events with fewer than one hundred people, the fees start at $9.25 per day.

    For couples planning a wedding, a reception of 400 guests will cost them $27.76. If dancing is involved, that fee doubles to $55.52.

    ...

    The new fees are retro-active to 2008, meaning people may receive a bill for an event they've thrown in the past. There will also be inspectors who will work to ensure the new rules are being followed.

  22. #722
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Supreme Court Lets Student’s $675,000 File-Sharing Fine Stand



    The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a $675,000 file-sharing damages award that a jury levied against a college student for making 30 music tracks available on a peer-to-peer network.

    Without comment, the high court, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer not participating, declined an appeal brought by former Boston college student Joel Tenenbaum. His pe ion (.pdf) claimed that Congress did not intend "unrestrained discretionary jury damage awards against individual citizens for copyright infringement."


    http://gizmodo.com/5912226/supreme-c...ing-fine-stand

  23. #723
    right about pizzagate Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    83,642
    The strange part of that is the dance fee.

    That part makes no sense.

  24. #724
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    9,152
    This is a good development, the more absurd the laws and rules will be - the quicker copyrights will go the way of the dodo.

  25. #725
    right about pizzagate Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    83,642
    This is a good development, the more absurd the laws and rules will be - the quicker copyrights will go the way of the dodo.
    wrong, imo.

    other than the dance fee, it's not absurd. People are spoiled, imo.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •