By Michael Weinberg | July 10, 2012
A mere 5 months after SOPA and PIPA met their very public demise, a new intellectual property enforcement bill is on the fast track through the House Judiciary Committee. The bill, which was largely secret until a day before it was scheduled to be marked up, is an attempt to revive an idea that was killed as part of SOPA earlier this year. In addition to being a surprising attempt to develop intellectual property (IP) legislation in secret again, it highlights a phenomenal waste of taxpayer resources. After all, what is going to improve our copyright system more: international IP attaches or being able to look up who actually owns a copyright?
The bill itself establishes an “intellectual property attaché program.” Among other things, the program creates a new Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and seeds intellectual property attaches in U.S. embassies across the world. The people in this program will basically be tasked with patrolling intellectual property rights for private US rightsholders.
Secret Bills Are a Nonstarter
Before getting to the substance of the bill, perhaps the most shocking thing about it is how it is being handled by Committee Chairman Smith (who was a driving force behind SOPA). If Congress learned no other lesson from SOPA and PIPA, you would think that they got the message about not developing IP-related laws in secret. But you would be wrong. This bill leaked, fully formed, over the weekend and was scheduled for markup today. Needless to say, this came as a surprise to just about everyone not directly involved with drafting it and provided a very limited opportunity to meaningfully participate in the markup process. Step zero for any new IP bill should be a transparent drafting process.
Do We Really Need More Officials In Charge of IP?
While the intellectual property attaché program may be new, the idea of using government officials to police intellectual property rights for rightsholders is not. We already have, to name a few examples, an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Office of Intellectual Property Rights at the Department of Commerce, Office of International Intellectual Property Enforcement at the State Department, Office of the Administrator for Policy and External Affairs – Enforcement at the Patent and Trademark Office, National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation at the United States Trade Representative, and Intellectual Property Task Force at the Department of Justice.
And remember, we still do not have anything approaching an Office of Innovation.
Cost Effective Ways to Improve Copyright
The real embarrassment here is that this entire debate is playing out while the Copyright Office is desperately trying to modernize our system for registering and tracking who actually owns copyrights. Today, there is no way to electronically search the Copyright Office’s records for works registered before 1978 (some of which will still be protected by copyright in 2070). In order to search those records you have to pay the Copyright Office $165/hour (2 hour minimum). Additionally, the electronic registration process for new works has a months-long processing backlog. As a result, only a tiny fraction of copyrights that are actually registered are easily searchable by the public. This means that it is hard to find rightsholders in order to license their work or pay them for use.
And for most things the Copyright Office does not take credit cards - check or money order only.
These shortcomings are only the tip of the iceberg.
If we were serious about making the copyright system work better, step one should be to make sure that there is any easy way to figure out who actually owns what. After all, it is hard to pay a creator if you can’t find them. But instead, Rep. Smith decided to prioritize a secret bill to send government officials hither and yon in search of, well, something
Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday July 10, @04:30PM
from the will-be-hard-to-blackout-the-internet-every-other-week dept.
bricko sends this disappointing but not unexpected news from Techdirt:"While it didn't get nearly as much attention as other parts of SOPA, one section in the bill that greatly concerned us was the massive expansion of the diplomatic corp.'s 'IP attaches.' If you're unfamiliar with the program, basically IP attaches are 'diplomats' (and I use the term loosely) who go around the globe pushing a copyright maximalist position on pretty much every other country. Their role is not to support more effective or more reasonable IP policy. It is solely to increase expansion, and basically act as Hollywood's personal thugs pressuring other countries to do the will of the major studios and labels. The role is literally defined as pushing for 'aggressive support for enforcement action' throughout the world. ... In other words, these people are not neutral. They do not have the best interests of the public or the country in mind. Their job is solely to push the copyright maximalist views of the legacy entertainment industry around the globe, and position it as the will of the U.S. government. It was good that this was defeated as a part of SOPA... but now comes the news that Lamar Smith is introducing a new bill that not only brings back this part, but appears to expand it and make it an even bigger deal."
Mozilla, reddit, lawmakers, even a Tea Party activist team to protect the Web.
by Jon Brodkin - Jul 19, 2012 5:45 pm UTC
When the Internet is in danger, the cat signal will appear.
Internet Defense League
You've heard of the bat signal—now get ready for the cat signal. A diverse crew of Internet businesses, advocacy groups, and lawmakers has banded together to create something called the Internet Defense League. The organization seeks to save the 'Net from bad laws like SOPA. And a cat signal—modeled after the signal used to rouse Batman each time Gotham City is threatened—is what the group will use to alert the world when it's protest time.
When the SOPA blackout day helped convince Congress that the Stop Online Piracy Act was a bad idea that would threaten Internet freedom, it showed how democracy can be used in the digital age to preserve the interests of people above the interests of corporations lining the pockets of politicians. But can the Internet rally to save itself each time it's threatened?
Enter the cat signal. A piece of code supporters of the Internet Defense League can embed in their websites, the presence of the cat signal will tell you another bad law threatening Internet freedom is making the rounds, and that it's time to call your local member of Congress. The cat signal is also being broadcast today on sites like Fight For the Future to announce the Internet Defense League's creation:
[Image]
Yes, the signal was inspired by all those funny cat pictures on the likes of reddit and I Can Haz Cheezburger (two of the founding members of the Internet Defense League). But the League has prominent members who take Internet regulation very seriously.
"I recently gave a talk about being Batman or being Batwoman for your respective Gotham," said Alexis Ohanian, cofounder of reddit (a sister company of Ars). "This is like a call to arms for all the people who are creating something online. Whether they have a Twitter account with 20 followers, or they have a website with 35 million visitors, they all have a Gotham, so to speak, to protect. They all have a community they want to keep strong."
Internet Defense League founders said spotlights will be used to project actual cat signals into the sky today at live kick-off events in New York City, San Francisco, Washington DC, and Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. But the cat signal will more importantly be a digital signal that can be planted on websites to protest future attempts to censor the Internet.
"This digital signal is a critical component of how IDL works; it's code that lets any website or individual broadcast messages to their personal networks in an 'emergency alert system,'" the group said in its announcement. "When the Internet's in danger and we need millions of people to act, the League will ask its members to broadcast an action. (Say, a prominent message asking everyone to call their elected leaders). With the combined reach of our websites and social networks, we can be massively more effective than any one organization."
reddit is just one of many members in the Internet Defense League. It also includes a Tea Party activist, Mozilla, WordPress, Fark, Imgur, Tor, BoingBoing, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, advocacy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Marietje Schaake, a Dutch member of the European Parliament (which recently rejected the AntiCounterfeiting Trade Agreement). Congressmen including US Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), US Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), and US Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) are also on board.
Ohanian and several other members got the word out about the Internet Defense League this morning in a somewhat chaotic conference call with reporters. (Imagine lots of noisy people not on mute and everyone trying to speak over everyone else because there's no established order for reporters to ask questions).
Moran said he wasn't necessarily expecting Internet freedom fighters to win the war against SOPA, but thought the battle was worth fighting anyway. The protest's ultimate success was gratifying, and helped preserve the abilities of businesses to innovate by using the Internet, he said.
"We have patted each other on the back and congratulated each other for that success, but I would say these battles, including the ones specifically related to SOPA and PIPA, are not behind us," Moran said. "And Congress has the habit of doing things without much forethought, without understanding these issues, particularly these tech issues, are ones many members of Congress don't have a complete understanding of. I think… individuals with expertise, knowledge, and a passion for the Internet have a great role to play in making certain the policies developed by Congress are ones that are advantageous to the Internet, and from my perspective advantageous to innovation."
Mozilla Foundation Executive Director Mark Surman said the scale of the Internet makes it possible—for the first time in human history—for anyone to publish anything, speak to anyone, or start a business without permission from someone else, and that right needs to be preserved. "We've made a huge bet on the Internet," Surman said, calling the Internet Defense League "a group of creative people who are excited about what the Internet can be as an open system."
Mark Meckler, co-founder and former national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, said the Internet Defense League's nonpartisan, people-centered approach is ideal for protecting the Internet from the tendency of politicians to over-regulate. "The Internet is not the problem. The Internet is the solution, so the Internet Defense League is here to help be the solution and prevent government from intruding on that which has the chance to save society," Meckler said.
The Internet Defense League has the code ready for download. But there are questions about just how it will work in practice, such as who decides when to broadcast the cat signal, and how the decision made. Group leaders didn't present a specific method, but said it will be modeled on the way things become memes or viral on the Internet.
Just how to measure "viralness" hasn't been determined. But group members will hold discussions amongst themselves, and pay attention to what's happening on the Web at large. For example, if posts about a bill on Internet issues make it to the front page of reddit ten times in a row, there's a good chance the Internet Defense League would take a look and see if it's worthy of action.
One threat being monitored by group members is the Senate version of CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). One reporter asked if net neutrality is on the agenda, but no specific commitments were made.
There's always the possibility that not every member of the group will agree that a certain threat is actually a threat. While the cat signal code can be automatically triggered, members can also choose to turn it on a case-by-case basis, deciding for themselves which events are actually worth protesting.
Another one happening now.Blimey, yes, so there is. I think @Renegade's term - "like cockroaches" - could be applied.-cmpm (July 21, 2012, 11:03 AM)
The Senate version of CISPA looks like it'll be voted on later THIS WEEK. We need senators to OPPOSE the bill, but SUPPORT pro-privacy amendments to it.
Please click here email your Senators right away. (http://act.demandprogress.org/go/666?t=2&akid=1439.2137847.JG-8ok)
But let's highlight some good news: Our efforts to secure Internet freedom and privacy protections have largely worked -- and frankly, far better than we'd expected. Provisions have been added to:
Keep the data in the hands of civilian agencies (as opposed to the National Security Agency);
Restrict the government's use of the information to cyber security issues and the prevention of immediate physical harm;
Require annual reporting on the data's use;
Let Americans sue the government for abuse; and
A clandestine attack on Net Neutrality has been removed.
Now these changes are under attack by pro-surveillance forces.
Please click here to urge your senators to vote no on the cyber-security bill, and to help us protect privacy rights. (http://act.demandprogress.org/go/666?t=3&akid=1439.2137847.JG-8ok)
And then use these links to share the image at right, so everybody knows how urgent this effort is:
[fb] If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends. (http://act.demandprogress.org/go/664?t=4&akid=1439.2137847.JG-8ok)
[fb] If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet (http://act.demandprogress.org/go/665?t=5&akid=1439.2137847.JG-8ok)
Thanks.
--Demand Progress
...
People who work in the tech space in Iran acutely feel the threats posed by this environment. Take for instance the horror confronted by Saeed Malekpour, a Canadian-Iranian facing the death penalty because a file-sharing program he developed was used to upload pornography to the web. His innocuous programming is considered a crime because software developers can be held liable if consumers “inappropriately” use their products.
Being active online today in Iran is fraught with risks that most readers living in democratic societies cannot imagine. This may be the most important reason for world leaders and diplomatic representatives of the free world to put digital freedom on the agenda. Only with sustained pressure can Iran’s netizens get the tools they need to fight for a better future.
SOPA/PIPA Wakes Up Internet Giants To Realize They Need To Be More Engaged In DC
from the unfortunate-reality dept
Earlier today it was announced that a new industry trade association representing large internet companies, called The Internet Association, is going to be launching this fall, with Google, Amazon, eBay and Facebook as the charter members. Part of the thinking behind this group stemmed from the realization of how little influence various internet companies had in DC when SOPA/PIPA came along last year -- and a concerted effort to change that.
Former Congressional staffer Michael Beckerman was officially named this morning as the organization's president. I got to meet with Beckerman last week and hear some of the details about the group. To be honest, I have very mixed feelings about all of this. I tend to believe that this group will be a force for good in supporting an open internet and related issues. Beckerman was quite frank about why this new group absolutely needs to be focused on supporting the views of the public (because unlike in some other industries, when an internet company diverges from the public interest, it's very easy for its users/customers to go elsewhere). One of the major concerns we discussed was where the interests of internet users and the large internet companies might diverge, and how this organization would deal with those situations. He was pretty adamant that if they're not doing a good job representing the public's interest as well, then the organization isn't doing its job. Hopefully that is true, but obviously it's a claim that deserves close scrutiny as this organization ramps up. Hopefully, Beckerman will model the organization on the success of organizations like CEA, who have built up a very strong reputation in recognizing that by fighting to protect consumers they do the best in the long run for the electronics companies they represent. CEA has a long history of putting consumers first on various issues (even when you could make the argument that their own members feel differently), and it's done well for itself. The Internet Association would do good to follow that lead.
So while I think that this organization is likely to be very helpful in various fights to protect the open internet, I'm a bit disappointed that the state of politics today means that something like this is even needed. And, as always, I worry about large industry players working towards efforts to maintain their position, rather than supporting actual innovation. We've certainly seen large companies who were once innovative later turn around and fight against disruption and defend the status quo. Hopefully that's not what will happen with the Internet Association. Beckerman appears to have a good grasp on the issues, so I'm encouraged by the idea that there will be an organization like this in DC, focused exclusively on internet-related issues, even as I'm disappointed that it's necessary.
One bit of advice, since I know many folks here will automatically be allergic to the idea of any sort of new DC-based trade group, even if it's likely to be fighting against groups that seek to harm the open internet: one way to hopefully avoid a bad result is to engage with this new group. Help them continue to fight the good fight by working with them, rather than automatically dismissing them. Beckerman definitely seems interested in engaging people well beyond just the companies that are members of the association (which, as I understand it, is looking for additional members), and hopefully the more he engages with people who have a personal interest in an open internet, the more he'll be able to help.
Posted by samzenpus on Monday July 30, @12:32PM
from the lost-cause dept.
jfruh writes "One of the arguments against the now-dormant SOPA legislation was that, in addition to eroding Internet freedom, it would also be ineffective in stopping music piracy. Well, according to a leaked report, the RIAA agrees with the latter argument (http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/287788/riaa-knew-sopa-and-pipa-were-useless-against-piracy-and-supported-them-). The proposed laws would 'not likely to have been an effective tool for music,' according to the report. Another interesting revelation is that, despite the buzz and outrage over P2P sharing, most digital music piracy takes place via sneakernet, with music moving among young people on hard drives and ripped CDs."
Yeah I saw that one too, why can't "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" matter OUTSIDE expensive court rooms? What's the deal with blatant lies carrying the day?Beats me. I don't really understand the nuances between US laws, politics and the apparent tolerance/sanction of what sometimes (to me) looks like unchecked corporate corruption. But then I do not live in the US and am relatively ignorant of the US way of life and its legal system. For example, I still can't understand how the heck the Cyber Security bill can have a gun amendment tucked away inside of it (per the video above). Amazing. :tellme:-TaoPhoenix (July 31, 2012, 01:04 AM)
Let Your Senator Know Right Now That You Are Watching If They'll Vote To Protect Privacy
from the speak-up dept
On Friday, we mentioned that this week is the week in which the Senate will wrangle over the new Cybersecurity bill. The current bill has some privacy safeguards, but not nearly enough. Senators Al Franken and Rand Paul have put together an amendment to strengthen the privacy safeguards even more -- and over the weekend, Senator Chuck Schumer agreed to co-sponsor the Franken/Paul amendment after talking to various folks in the tech industry and the civil liberties community. That adds more weight to the amendment. Unfortunately, Senators John McCain and Kay Bailey Huchison and a few others, who have been carrying water for the NSA throughout this fight, are looking to move the bill very far in the other direction, wiping out tons of privacy protections. It's really shameful.
Either way, this is the week to let your Senator know how you feel about all of this (and if you're a constituent of McCain or Huchison, please ask why they're so against protecting the privacy of the American public). The American Library Association has kindly set up a simple one-click tool to call your Senator and let them know how you feel.
The EFF has a page with some more info as well, noting that it's basically too late to email your Senators, so please call. If you want some more info, check out Fred Wilson's analysis of the situation, which matches almost exactly with mine. We still have not been given a compelling reason why any such legislation is needed. We keep hearing scare stories about mushroom clouds and planes falling from the sky if information can't be shared. But... what no one has done yet is explain which existing regulations block the necessary sharing of information. If they did that, we could look at fixing those laws. Instead, we're just told scare stories and given a massive 211-page bill that wipes out all sorts of previous laws, and adds all sorts of other things to the law. Given the length of the bill, it's quite likely there are some awful "easter eggs" in there that we'll only discover years down the road.
That said, if the bill is going to pass, it would be much better if it had very strong privacy protections in it, and the Franken/Paul amendment go a long way towards putting such protections in. The McCain/Huchison proposal do the opposite, and basically seek to take away privacy protections, while giving the NSA much more ability to access your data. Don't let the Senate trample your privacy rights. Go ahead and use the ALA's tool to contact your Senator today.
Add Argentina To The List Of Countries Looking To Censor The Internet (For The Children, Of Course)
from the growing-list dept
We've noted that both Russia and China recently pushed for even more internet censorship, and both did so while claiming that it was really to "protect the children." Of course, lots of other countries are following suit. For example, Argentina is now considering a bill that appears to created a blacklist of websites that ISPs must block. Once again, this is done "for the children," as the list is supposed to include sites dealing with child porn. The problem, of course, is that such lists rarely seem to stick to just child porn -- and with little oversight, the over-blocking and over-filtering of legitimate content becomes way too easy. In the meantime, we're still at a loss as to how censorship is a better solution than actually going after those responsible if they're posting illegal content.
12. Anonymous Coward, Jul 30th, 2012 @ 11:33pm
none of the countries that are going down this road are doing so for any reasons other than to invade privacy and take away freedoms. they are in the main more like dictatorships than anything but supposed democratic countries like the USA and UK are jumping on the band wagon, whilst condemning those other countries of course. the way things are going, the internet as we know it is going to stop completely, then, as far as ordinary people are concerned, we will only be able to access emails which will be checked first for 'illicit' content and sites that the individual governments allow, the rest of the internet being blocked completely. think back to what started all this censorship and put the blame squarely where it belongs, at the door of the entertainment industries.
On the international front, also from Techdirt, a thought-provoking piece about Canadian innovation: Canadian Cities Looking To Opt-Out Of CETA Rather Than Get Roped Into An ACTA-Like Situation (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/00143019803/canadian-cities-looking-to-opt-out-ceta-rather-than-get-roped-into-acta-like-situation.shtml)
by Wendy Cockcroft, 2012-07-27.
Crafty Canucks. Worth a read.-IainB (July 31, 2012, 07:58 AM)
^ +1 Wot @Renegade said in the spoiler... :o-IainB (August 01, 2012, 02:58 AM)
^ +1 Wot @Renegade said in the spoiler... :o-IainB (August 01, 2012, 02:58 AM)
you can add me to that list as well-tomos (August 01, 2012, 05:42 AM)
Great work on the calls and emails yesterday.
Staffers on Capitol Hill tell us there was a big uptick in constituent pressure today.
But they also say we need to push even harder to win the Franken-Paul amendment, and other privacy amendments, when they come up for votes this week.
Pro-privacy changes have been added to the cyber-security bill, but they don't go far enough to protect us from surveillance by the government and corporations.
There are three things that you can do to help us pressure the Senate:
- 1) If you haven't yet, click here to email your senators to ask them to support the Al Franken-Rand Paul amendment. It would make sure companies can't spy on their users' private communications. (http://act.demandprogress.org/go/670?t=2&akid=1446.2137847.I5TxQQ)
- 2) Please call your senators. Click here to get their phone numbers and a call script -- it'll just take a minute or two. (http://act.demandprogress.org/go/673?t=3&akid=1446.2137847.I5TxQQ)
- 3) Then help us enlist others by using these links or forwarding this email to share info about this urgent campaign:
[fb] If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends. (http://act.demandprogress.org/go/671?t=4&akid=1446.2137847.I5TxQQ)
[fb] If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet (http://act.demandprogress.org/go/672?t=5&akid=1446.2137847.I5TxQQ)
We can win this one.
-Demand Progress
Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a Demand Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!
The Internet wins again!
The advocates for the cyber-security bill failed to get enough support to proceed to a final vote on the legislation.
They won't be reading your email and sharing your personal data -- anytime soon, at least.
Will you thank the senators who stood with us to protect privacy and Internet freedom? We'll need their help again soon (http://demandprogress.org/)
And then please use these links or forward this email (and Success Baby) to make sure your friends know too.
- If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends. (http://demandprogress.org/)
- If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet (http://demandprogress.org/)
You guys were amazing throughout this fight: Demand Progress members sent 500,000 emails to the Senate and made thousands of phone calls in opposition to the bill.
Countless other activists took up this fight too -- groups like the ACLU, EFF, Center for Democracy and Technology, Fight for the Future, and Free Press.
Just as important was the coalition of senators working on the inside to stand up for our rights:
There's a newly empowered corps of senators who've made it clear that they'll stand strong when the government threatens our privacy -- people like Ron Wyden (OR), Al Franken (MN), and Bernie Sanders (VT).
Please click here to make sure they know that we're grateful, and that we'll stand with them too -- we'll have to fight this battle again sometime soon. (http://demandprogress.org/)
Great work, everbody!
-Demand Progress
PS: Please share the great news with your friends and help us convert them into Internet activists. You can forward this email or use these links.
The Internet wins again!
Some measure of success from [email protected]:-IainB (August 03, 2012, 03:09 AM)
Don't forget gun freedom! They stuck gun control into that bill as well... Seriously. I'm not kidding.Yes, I know. I think I already pointed that out in two places:-Renegade (August 03, 2012, 04:51 AM)
(probably no big deal, but the two long links in the quote in your post are using your moniker)Thanks for telling me. I thought I had removed any personal links, but they evidently used a unique ID for me (it came from an email). I have removed the IDs, which rather breaks the links. They just go to the Demand Progress website now.-tomos (August 03, 2012, 05:32 AM)
Don't forget gun freedom! They stuck gun control into that bill as well... Seriously. I'm not kidding.Yes, I know. I think I already pointed that out in two places:-Renegade (August 03, 2012, 04:51 AM)(My comment in each was "Huh?")
- this thread above - here (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=31569.msg295175#msg295175).
- in the NRA thread that you started up in The Basement.
-IainB (August 03, 2012, 08:31 AM)
MPAA "embedding is infringement" theory rejected by court
Judge calls on Congress to update copyright law for the online video era.
by Timothy B. Lee - Aug 3, 2012 10:15 pm UTC
A federal appeals court has decisively rejected a legal theory that would have placed anyone who embeds a third-party video on her website in legal jeopardy. In a Thursday decision, Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the "video bookmarking" site myVidster was not liable to the gay porn producer Flava Works if users embedded copies of Flava videos on myVidster.
Judge Posner's reasoning is interesting. He argues that when you view an infringing video on a site such as YouTube, no one—not you, not YouTube, and not the guy who uploaded the infringing video—is violating copyright's reproduction or distribution rights. And since simply viewing an infringing copy of a video isn't copyright infringement, he says, myVidster can't be secondarily liable for that infringement.
Viewing an infringing video online may lead to a violation of copyright's public performance right, Posner goes on, but here the law is murky. The judge called on Congress to help clarify exactly how copyright law should apply in the age of Internet video.
And if even one of copyright's most respected jurists is confused, it's a clear sign that copyright law needs work.
Embedding is not infringement
Flava Works sued myVidster because users kept adding links to Flava videos to the myVidster site. myVidster is a "video bookmarking" site that automatically embeds bookmarked videos on its site and surrounds them with ads. To the untrained eye, it looks like myVidster itself serves up the infringing copies of the videos. Based on that perception, the trial court judge ruled that myVister was directly infringing Flava's copyrights and granted a preliminary injunction.
Of course, if embedding is direct infringement, then anyone who embeds a video without first researching its copyright status is at risk of being a direct infringer. That would put a damper on the practice of embedding, which has made the Web a more convenient and interactive place.
The Motion Picture Association of America, of course, was thrilled with this initial result. But as Google and Facebook pointed out (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/mpaa-you-can-infringe-copyright-just-by-embedding-a-video/) in an amicus brief late last year, the lower court's decision was inconsistent with the relevant precedents.
Judge Posner, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, overruled the lower court's judgment. While it might appear that videos embedded on myVidster are being distributed by myVidster, the underlying data is actually being streamed directly from third-party servers to user computers. Hence, Posner wrote, neither myVidster nor its users are guilty of direct copyright infringement.
"Viewing" is not copying
Still, myVidster could be liable for secondary copyright infringement for assisting, benefitting from, or "inducing" the infringing activities of others. But Judge Posner rejected that argument as well, and his reasoning was interesting:As long as the [myVidster] visitor makes no copy of the copyrighted video that he is watching, he is not violating the copyright owner’s exclusive right, conferred by the Copyright Act, “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies” and “distribute copies ... of the copyrighted work to the public.” His bypassing Flava’s pay wall by viewing the uploaded copy is equivalent to stealing a copyrighted book from a bookstore and reading it. That is a bad thing to do (in either case) but it is not copyright infringement. The infringer is the customer of Flava who copied Flava’s copyrighted video by uploading it to the InternetSo a user who streams an infringing video from a website does not violate copyright's reproduction or distribution rights. But what about the uploader—isn't myVidster contributing to his initial act of infringement? Surprisingly, Posner suggests the answer is no.Flava contends that by providing a connection to websites that contain illegal copies of its copyrighted videos, myVidster is encouraging its subscribers to circumvent Flava’s pay wall, thus reducing Flava’s income. No doubt. But unless those visitors copy the videos they are viewing on the infringers’ websites, myVidster isn’t increasing the amount of infringement. An employee of Flava who embezzled corporate funds would be doing the same thing—reducing Flava’s income—but would not be infringing Flava’s copyrights by doing so. myVidster displays names and addresses (that’s what the thumbnails are, in effect) of videos hosted elsewhere on the Internet that may or may not be copyrighted.In Posner's view, no matter how many people view a video on a video sharing site, there's only one violation of the reproduction and distribution right: the original uploading of the video.
The distinction between "downloading" a video and "streaming" seems tenuous to us, though. Modern Web-based video streaming software typically caches a "streamed" video so that by the end of it the user has a complete copy of the video on his computer and can re-watch it as many times as he wants. That copy may stay on the user's computer for hours if the user leaves that browser window open. Posner did not examine how long an infringing video could be stored on a user's computer before it infringed the reproduction right.
Public performance
Copyright holders also have the right to control public performances of their work, and Posner argues that argument may be more promising for Flava Works. But here the law is ambiguous:The Copyright Act makes it unlawful “to perform the copyrighted work publicly,” defined, so far as relates to this case, as “to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance... of the work... to the public... whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance... receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.” One possible interpretation is that uploading plus bookmarking a video is a public performance because it enables a visitor to the website to receive (watch) the performance at will, and the fact that he will be watching it at a different time or in a different place from the other viewers does not affect its “publicness,” as the statute makes clear... An alternative interpretation, however... is that the performance occurs only when the work (Flava’s video) is transmitted to the viewer’s computer.Posner says the first interpretation is "hopeless for Flava" since myVidster had nothing to do with uploading the video. He argues that the second interpretation might prove more fruitful for the plaintiff, but then said that Flava had not proven its case was strong enough to win a preliminary injunction. myVidster will be allowed to continue operating its site while Flava and myVidster deal with other issues raised by the lawsuit.
"Legislative clarification of the public-performance provision of the Copyright Act would be most welcome," Posner wrote. Given the contentiousness surrounding copyright, we're not going to hold our breaths waiting for Congress to respond.
Interesting legal decision reported by arstechnica: MPAA "embedding is infringement" theory rejected by court (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/mpaa-embedding-is-infringement-theory-rejected-by-court)
(The text of the post is in the spoiler below.)-IainB (August 04, 2012, 06:51 PM)
There's many a true word spoken in jest...Interesting legal decision reported by arstechnica: MPAA "embedding is infringement" theory rejected by court (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/mpaa-embedding-is-infringement-theory-rejected-by-court)...Ooops. Looks like someone in the MAFIAA forgot to buy off that judge... :P
(The text of the post is in the spoiler below.)-IainB (August 04, 2012, 06:51 PM)-Renegade (August 04, 2012, 06:56 PM)
Interesting legal decision reported by arstechnica: MPAA "embedding is infringement" theory rejected by court (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/mpaa-embedding-is-infringement-theory-rejected-by-court)
(The text of the post is in the spoiler below.)-IainB (August 04, 2012, 06:51 PM)
Ooops. Looks like someone in the MAFIAA forgot to buy off that judge... :P-Renegade (August 04, 2012, 06:56 PM)
MPAA leak: O'Dwyer, TVShack.net case "isn't about Internet freedom."
Memo suggests film org wants to remind its colleagues—paint this kid as a crook.
by Nathan Mattise - Aug 6, 2012 1:15 am UTC
Don't let the Mickey Mouse shirt fool you. As far as the MPAA is concerned, the public needs a reminder of who Richard O'Dwyer really is.
“Being 24, posing for newspaper photo shoots in a cartoon sweatshirt, and having your mother and Jimmy Wales speak for you, does not mean you are incapable for breaking the law.”
The reminder above comes from a supposedly leaked MPAA memo obtained by TorrentFreak. It outlines talking points when discussing the much publicized O'Dwyer case, involving the 24-year-old and the "link site" he used to run. TVShack.net didn't directly host possibly infringed materials, but the site did link to such videos. While this would likely be legal under UK law, O'Dwyer landed squarely in the crosshairs of US copyright enforcers. This spring, news broke that O'Dwyer would be extradited to the US for this alleged copyright infringement despite no locally illegal activities being performed in his UK home. O'Dwyer is currently appealing this decision, but the July timeline for an appeal decision was delayed without concrete rescheduling.
O'Dwyer's fight sparked Internet activism of the strongest kind, with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales pushing an online petition. Wales referenced the SOPA-PIPA derailment as the public's "first big victory" in the realm of Internet freedom, and sees preventing O'Dwyer's extradition as a potential second. To date, more than a quarter of a million people have signed the petition. But the MPAA takes a clearly different view (while reassuring all that they are pro-Internet freedom).
“This case isn’t about Internet freedom. It’s about a man profiting from theft. However, we do welcome a larger discussion about how best to protect intellectual property online while ensuring an Internet that works for everyone.”
In addition to some initial talking points, the memo contains a faux-Q&A to keep commentary along the party lines. These responses run the gamut, from thoughts on the Wales petition (“We think it’s presumptuous of Mr. Wales to claim to speak for the ‘general public") to the extradition itself ("Governments and law enforcement agencies make these decisions and we are not in a position to comment on the specifics of the extradition proceedings").
Ars will update this post if any additional information from the MPAA becomes available, and we'll continue to follow the O'Dwyer situation.
Previously on Richard O'Dwyer
- June 2012: Extraditing students for copyright claims? Jimmy Wales says it's wrong
- March 2012: Copyright wars heat up: US wins extradition of college kid from England
- January 2012: Copyright Wars escalate: Britain to extradite student to US over link site
- November 2011: British student fights extradition to US over TVShack link site
- July 2011: Big Content's latest antipiracy weapon: extradition
It's Judge Posner again (Hooray!)I didn't know about that. Good on Judge Posner! :Thmbsup:
Someone should do an indie animated anime about him, he's on a RAMPAGE trying to stop the IP madness all by himself!-TaoPhoenix (August 05, 2012, 03:53 AM)
Leaked: US proposal on copyright's limits
A TPP draft looks more restrictive than some had hoped.
by Megan Geuss - Aug 5, 2012 7:30 pm UTC
Late Friday, a few short paragraphs of text were leaked that revealed something of the terms on fair use being negotiated in secret by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP is a treaty currently being negotiated by nine Pacific Rim countries seeking to establish a new free-trade agreement on many issues, including intellectual property. The next negotiating round is set for early September in Leesburg, Virginia.
Much has been made of the secrecy in which the TPP has enshrouded its negotiations for an international trade agreement. In May, 30 scholars wrote to the US Trade Representative (USTR) asking for more transparency in the decision-making process, and critics have routinely claimed that such processes cater largely to narrow rightsholder interests.
The TPP met last in early July in San Diego, CA for a round of negotiations, but none of the draft texts were made public. After that round of negotiations concluded, the USTR sent an e-mail to the press announcing that it was proposing language on fair use and limitations to copyright in the international treaty, a first for the generally conservative agency. But the leaked text, revealed by Knowledge Ecology International, suggests that these exceptions to IP rules won't be quite as open as some fair use advocates had hoped.
Back in July, a USTR spokesperson said the trade agency would push for rules "that will obligate Parties to seek to achieve an appropriate balance in their copyright systems in providing copyright exceptions and limitations for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." But in the new leaked draft text, while very similar phrasing appears, there seems to be room to crack down on any anticipated broad terms of fair use.
The US and Australia, for instance, proposed what entities like the EFF and KEI fear could be a rightsholder-friendly three-step test to determine what exceptions to copyright are allowable. The leaked texts specifically say that the participating countries should confine these limitations "to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder."
It's important to note that the draft is just that—a draft. But the leak suggests that the US and Australia are pushing for more restrictive language, while countries like New Zealand, Chile, Malaysia, Brunei, and Vietnam are in favor of more open rules to allow "a party to carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in its domestic laws." The US and Australia opposed that wording, and sought to change the language to suggest, “that each party may, consistent with the foregoing, adopt or maintain... exceptions and limitations for the digital environment."
In other words, the US and Australia are saying a country can't just decide on "limitations and fair use" based on existing domestic IP laws, some of which may be quite broad. Instead, limitations must conform to international agreements, including the TPP, which can be more restrictive.
Another news item here re the TPP draft, from arstechnica: Leaked: US proposal on copyright's limits (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/international-trade-negotiations-reveal-uncertain-future-for-digital-fair-use)
I am confused by this. Is this really how easy it is for commercial lobbies to write their own laws and bypass the Senate? That would seem to emasculate the relatively democratic Senate approval processes and effectively make the commercial lobbyists unelected "lawmakers" - wouldn't it?-IainB (August 06, 2012, 02:32 AM)
After defeat of Senate cybersecurity bill, Obama weighs executive-order option
Senate Republicans recently blocked cybersecurity legislation, but the issue might not be dead after all.
The White House hasn't ruled out issuing an executive order to strengthen the nation's defenses against cyber attacks if Congress refuses to act.
The White House has emphasized that better protecting vital computer systems is a top priority.
Well, I've done my bit of activism in my corners of the net, I'm gonna have to take a break from all this junk for a while. The emotional roller coaster is wearing me out now.-TaoPhoenix (August 06, 2012, 10:25 AM)
Well, I've done my bit of activism in my corners of the net, I'm gonna have to take a break from all this junk for a while. The emotional roller coaster is wearing me out now.I wonder how many people feel/think the same?-TaoPhoenix (August 06, 2012, 10:25 AM)
Well, I've done my bit of activism in my corners of the net, I'm gonna have to take a break from all this junk for a while. The emotional roller coaster is wearing me out now.I wonder how many people feel/think the same?-TaoPhoenix (August 06, 2012, 10:25 AM)
I have a theory that a lot of this nonsense is designed to desensitize people by flooding them with incessant change - you get change-induced fatigue/narcosis and stop fighting it. Even the most stalwart activists could become more malleable, less resistant and more accepting.
This is how Scientology and various other brainwashing cults operate.-IainB (August 06, 2012, 11:41 AM)
Well, I've done my bit of activism in my corners of the net, I'm gonna have to take a break from all this junk for a while. The emotional roller coaster is wearing me out now.I wonder how many people feel/think the same?-TaoPhoenix (August 06, 2012, 10:25 AM)
I have a theory that a lot of this nonsense is designed to desensitize people by flooding them with incessant change - you get change-induced fatigue/narcosis and stop fighting it. Even the most stalwart activists could become more malleable, less resistant and more accepting.
This is how Scientology and various other brainwashing cults operate.-IainB (August 06, 2012, 11:41 AM)
Internet Archive Starts Seeding 1,398,875 Torrents
Ernesto - August 7, 2012
The Internet Archive has just enriched the BitTorrent ecosystem with well over a million torrent files, and that’s just the start of “universal access to all knowledge.” The torrents link to almost a petabyte of data and all files are being seeded by the Archive’s servers. Founder Brewster Kahle told TorrentFreak that turning BitTorrent into a distributed preservation system for the Internet is the next step.
The Internet Archive‘s mission statement is to provide “universal access to all knowledge,” which is not all that different from The Pirate Bay’s ethos.
BitTorrent is the fastest way to share files with large groups of people over the Internet, and this is one of the reasons that prompted the Internet Archive to start seeding well over a million of their files using the popular file-sharing protocol.
Starting today, all new files uploaded to the Archive will also be available via BitTorrent. In addition, a massive collection of older files including concerts from John Mayer, Jack Johnson and Maroon 5 and the Prelinger collection are also being published via torrents.
“I hope this is greeted by the BitTorrent community, as we are loving what they have built and are very glad we can populate the BitTorrent universe with library and archive materials,” Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle told TorrentFreak.
“There is a great opportunity for symbiosis between the Libraries and Archives world and the BitTorrent communities,” he adds.
At the time of writing the Internet Archive is seeding 1,398,875 torrents, but hundreds of new ones are being added every hour. The Internet Archive recognizes that BitTorrent is now the fastest way to download files.
“BitTorrent is now the fastest way to download items from the Archive, because the BitTorrent client downloads simultaneously from two different Archive servers located in two different datacenters, and from other Archive users who have downloaded these torrents already.”
Interestingly, the Archive’s plans for BitTorrent are not limited to providing an alternative download link for their files. Founder Brewster Kahle says that they are also working on turning it into a storage mechanism.
“The next step is to make BitTorrent a distributed preservation system for content like ours,” Kahle told us. Kahle believes that the Internet Archive and the BitTorrent community can help each other and hopes to get the discussion on the preservation idea started.
“I think this whole thing will be awesome, and possibly very important,” he adds.
In the wake of recent news featuring raids, crackdowns, DDoSes and lawsuits, this announcement from the Internet Archive brings some very welcome positive news about BitTorrent. For those who are interested in tracking how many people are leeching from the archive, here are some fancy graphs.
Anonymous donors bring Hollywood production values to anti-MPAA video (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/anonymous-donors-bring-hollywood-production-values-to-anti-mpaa-video/)
Video has been featured on the Pirate Bay, generating 10 million views.
by Timothy B. Lee - Aug 9 2012, 1:10pm NZST
A video accusing the American government of selling out to Hollywood has made a splash after being featured on the front page of the Pirate Bay, where it has garnered over 10 million views. Anti-Hollywood sentiment is nothing new, especially on The Pirate Bay, but what sets this video apart is its top-notch—one might even say Hollywood-caliber—production values.
On Wednesday, Ars talked to an individual behind the video. He said he and a friend paid for the video out of their own pockets. They are hoping to "raise awareness" of what they view as America's repressive copyright policies.
The video has three scenes. In the first, the "American Motion Picture Association" announces it has hired "Senator Chris Rodd" (clearly references to the MPAA and its chairman, former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)) to represent Hollywood. In the second scene, police carry out a military-style raid on a London home. The final scene takes place in an "undisclosed location." The kid arrested in London is now in chains, wearing an orange jumpsuit and a hood over his head. The young soldier guarding the prisoner asks an older American in a suit what the suspect did, and looks incredulous when he's told that he's been arrested for copyright infringement.
Obviously, the video is over-the-top. Nothing exactly like the incident depicted has happened in real life. The US government doesn't subject copyright defendants to the same harsh treatment as suspected terrorists. But after the commando-style raid on Kim Dotcom's mansion in January, it may be close enough to the truth to make effective propaganda.
The website associated with the video depicts Kim Dotcom, Richard O'Dwyer, and others as victims of a copyright regime run amok. The site is short on details about who's behind it, providing only an email address.
On Wednesday, Ars spoke to one of the producers, who identified himself as "Andrew," via Skype. He told us he's a financial professional outside the United States. He created the video with a friend who also works "on the stock exchange."
Believing a video would attract a wider audience than a text-based website, they hired a director and a sound professional to produce a 3-minute video. "Andrew" told us the whole video cost about $5000 to produce, and that he and his friend funded the project out of their own pockets. "We really don't have much to do with the Internet industry as a whole," he told us.
If this video is a hit, it could be the first in a series of videos focused on "online freedom and copyright." The next one might be tied to the American elections in November.
Why the secrecy? "You see what's happening with people who are involved in this kind of stuff," "Andrew" told us. "Especially when you're directly attacking against political figures. We don't want to attract unnecessary attention in our lives."
He said he was motivated by the sight of people being "getting arrested left and right in different countries for various copyright infringement 'offenses.'" He said that copyright issues "affect pretty much anybody."
Ask HN: Wikileaks is available from Tor. Who's blocking it?
9 points by alex_marchant 47 minutes ago | 6 comments
It looks like the DDoS isn't the main culprit here. I assume that if the site is available from Tor, then someone must be blocking the site.
Can ISP's block Wikileaks? What is their justification if so?
____________________________________________________
guns 24 minutes ago | link
That's pretty interesting. I can't reach wikileaks.ch from my home connection, or from one linode instance, but it is available through a second linode instance (in Dallas):
https://www.refheap.com/paste/4309
____________________________________________________
Udo 30 minutes ago | link
Can you give a little more context?
Wikileaks.org loads just fine using my standard ISP here in Germany. I once worked for a project that scraped WL periodically for content, so I can tell you from experience that Wikileaks uptime is not exactly stellar - that's why they have a million mirror sites.
______________________________Skalman 25 minutes ago | link____________________________________________________
Wikileaks has been having DDoS issues for quite a few days now[1], and wikileaks.org (88.80.2.33) is not available with my ISP in Sweden.
[1] http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/wiki...
____________________________________________________alex_marchant 23 minutes ago | link
Why would it be available so consistently in the Tor browser though?
____________________________________________________Skalman 19 minutes ago | link
I have no clue. It does seem like it's blocked selectively as guns seems to have it working from linode.
Edit: It also seems to work from an Amazon instance that I have access to.
Edit 2: It seems like it works from my university (Lund in Sweden).
alex_marchant 27 minutes ago | link
I'm in the US. If it doesn't load in any browser, and http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ says its down, but then loads instantly in Tor... I assume something is preventing me from seeing it.
The Continuing Assault on Internet Freedom - via US Statute - is evidently is not going to stop anytime soon.And now, there's this in confirmation: (part quote only, sans hyperlinks)
Article from publicknowledge.org:
Secret Bill Pushes Part of SOPA and Wastes Your Money (http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/secret-bill-pushes-part-sopa-and-wastes-your-)-IainB (July 10, 2012, 01:43 PM)
US Chamber Of Commerce Launches Ad Campaign For Son Of SOPA (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/14384820183/us-chamber-commerce-launches-ad-campaign-son-sopa.shtml)
from the of-course-they-are dept
Next to the MPAA, the main lobbying organization that pushed SOPA was the US Chamber of Commerce. The organization and its laughably inept "Global Intellectual Property Center" are infamous for the fact that they have absolutely no shame in using completely bogus numbers to argue for bad laws that their highest spending backers support. Not surprisingly, the USCoC did not take the loss over SOPA lightly, and it appears that they're gearing up for the next version of SOPA in 2013. As pointed out by Gautham Nagesh, the USCoC has kicked off a new ad campaign priming the pump for new legislation to "protect intellectual property."
(Read the link for the rest.)
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) endangers the Internet and digital freedoms on par with ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA, and it does so in two significant ways: First, its intellectual property (IP) chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedoms and innovation, and second, the entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy. The TPP is a major threat because it will rewrite global rules on IP enforcement and restrict the public domain.
Posted by samzenpus on Friday September 07, @03:33AM
from the keep-your-eyes-on-your-own-screen dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to British daily The Telegraph, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has warned that plans to monitor individuals' use of the internet would result in Britain losing its reputation as an upholder of web freedom. The plans, by Home Secretary Theresa May, would force British ISPs and other service providers to keep records of every phone call, email and website visit in Britain. Sir Tim has told the Times: 'In Britain, like in the US, there has been a series of Bills that would give government very strong powers to, for example, collect data. I am worried about that.' Sir Tim has also warned that the UK may wind up slipping down the list of countries with the most Internet freedom, if the proposed data-snooping laws pass parliament. The draft bill extends the type of data that internet service providers must store for at least 12 months. Providers would also be required to keep details of a much wider set of data, including use of social network sites, webmail and voice calls over the internet."
"What this shows is that anti-piracy companies aren’t even bothering to check content anymore – they’re simply searching Google, firing off notices without a second thought, and then expecting the search giant to clean up the mess."
White House Circulating Draft of Executive Order On Cybersecurity (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/2029245/white-house-circulating-draft-of-executive-order-on-cybersecurity)
Posted by Soulskill on Saturday September 08, @05:54PM
from the do-things-if-you-want-or-not-we-don't-care dept.
New submitter InPursuitOfTruth writes with news that the Obama administration has been circulating a draft of an executive order focused on cybersecurity. This follows the recent collapse of an attempt at cybersecurity legislation in the Senate. According to people who have seen the draft, the order would codify standards and best practices for critical infrastructure. That said, it's questionable how effective it would be, since participation would be voluntary, and the standards would be set by "an inter-agency council that would be led by the Department of Homeland Security." The other agencies involved would include NIST, the DoD, and the Commerce Dept. "It would be left up to the companies to decide what steps they want to take to meet the standards, so the government would not dictate what type of technology or strategy they should adopt."
And we all get to see it in our lifetime!
Republic > Democracy > Dictatorship > Tyranny-Renegade (September 09, 2012, 08:24 AM)
...Here's a nice hat for you to wear. After I plug it in, you'll feel a lot better. (Neurocranial stimulation of endorphins.)Those hats sound kinda gud!-TaoPhoenix (September 09, 2012, 10:14 AM)
Anti-Piracy Work Resulted In 14 Cases (http://articles.software.informer.com/anti_piracy_work_resulted_in_14_cases.html)
Nova Vozrak, Editor
Informer Technologies, Inc.
3 days ago (2012-09-06)
About two years ago, in 2010, a tool to fight digital piracy was created in France. The organization was called Hadopi. It was established to receive requests from copyright holders for takedowns of French IP addresses trying to download files with illegally obtained media via P2P.
According to the data presented by Mireille Imbert-Quaretta, the President of the Commission for Rights Protection (part of the Hadopi agency), for the period of almost two years, among 3 million IPs registered by Hadopi 1.15 million were found pirating data. These people were sent a letter notifying them about their infringement. Six percent of them communicated back to discuss the matter. The second wave of warning letters counted 102,854 cases, among which 24 percent responded. From these only 304 received the third warning. This time 75% interacted with the committee. As a result of these steps, on July 1, only 14 offenders of the law had a case filed with the French court, the legal measure Hadopi is allowed to use if the third warning is ignored. Still, none of them have been taken to the trial yet.
Even though the President of the Commission for Rights Protection considers these to be good results, in 2012 the existence of the committee is put under question. The new President of France, François Hollande, wants to replace Hadopi with something else. Upon taking the post, he has appointed a new French Minister of Culture, Aurélie Filippetti, who seemed to be intended on closing Hadopi. In August, she pointed out that this organization costs a lot: "In financial terms, [spending] €12 million (which is about $14.86 million) and 60 agents—that’s expensive [just] to send a million e-mails."
In general, if we believe the numbers, the project proved effective in teaching French people about legal matters of data spreading over the Internet. And according to Mireille Imbert-Quaretta's (http://articles.software.informer.com/go/go.php?go=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.numerama.com%2Fmagazine%2F23616-la-hadopi-defend-sa-vertu-pedagogique-et-plaide-pour-sa-survie.html) words that was the actual idea behind the project.
"In financial terms, [spending] €12 million (which is about $14.86 million) and 60 agents—that’s expensive [just] to send a million e-mails."
"In general, if we believe the numbers, the project proved effective in teaching French people about legal matters of data spreading over the Internet. And according to Mireille Imbert-Quaretta's (http://articles.software.informer.com/go/go.php?go=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.numerama.com%2Fmagazine%2F23616-la-hadopi-defend-sa-vertu-pedagogique-et-plaide-pour-sa-survie.html) words that was the actual idea behind the project."
Failing to Understand the Needs of the 21st Century: The TPP and Temporary Copies (http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/failing-understand-needs-21st-century-tpp-and)
By Sherwin Siy | September 10, 2012
This is the third post in our our series on how a US proposal for a copyright chapter in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) would hurt the rights of citizen’s in the 21st century. That proposal was leaked on the Internet in February last year. For more details on the TPP, check out tppinfo.org.
By reading this post, you have made copies of a copyrighted work. In fact, this is true of any copyrighted work you view on an electronic device. That copy is sitting in your computer or your phone's RAM, and likely also in a cache in its long-term storage. Streaming online video, even if you don't save it to your hard drive, still means that a copy of that video is made on your computer: bit by bit, the entire video is copied into a buffer before it gets played to you.
So are those everyday uses copyright infringement? It's highly unlikely under US law. But if the TPP has its way, they might.
The very first paragraph of the TPP's copyright section (at least as of February 2011, which was the last version of the agreement to be leaked to the public) says,Each Party shall provide that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms have the right to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, performances, and phonograms, in any manner or form, permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form).
It's that insistence that "temporary" reproductions, including "temporary storage in electronic form" be part of the author’s reproduction right that raises some real questions. Every digital file that's opened on a computer has reproductions made of it in RAM—temporary storage in electronic form. Even a CD player that has anti-skip protection does the same thing—music is copied into a digital buffer (temporarily) before it's streamed to the audio output. DVRs do the same thing with incoming TV signals. Every piece of software you run is also copied into your computer's RAM.
A few different legal principles prevent all of these things from being illegal under US copyright law. Some instances of a copyrighted work are so fleeting—lasting only fractions of a second, that they aren't even considered "copies" for the purposes of the law. Others might be considered fair uses, while still others might fall into specific exemptions written in to US copyright law for software use.
This doesn't mean that temporary copies can never infringe copyright, but the language in the TPP seems to say a lot more than that. It expressly defines temporary copies as infringing, and then reiterates that temporary electronic copies are infringing. It's certainly possible to read that as not making RAM copies and buffers illegal prima facie, but it's not the most intuitive reading of it. And potential interpretations are incredibly important in the context of international agreements. A particular phrase in a treaty can be easily read one way by an American lawyer, and completely differently in the context of Australian or Chilean law. This is particularly salient in copyright law, a field where very few countries have a system of limitations and exceptions to copyright as strong as US-style fair use.
And since proponents of the TPP are particularly concerned with its promised benefits for US industry, what effects would a ban on temporary copies have for the American tech sector? US-based makers and exporters of devices that make temporary electronic copies of everything they encounter as a matter of course (computers, smartphones, tablets, DVRs) could face liability for the copies they make of copyrighted material in other countries. The same is true for cloud-based services that make temporary copies, like search engines caching websites. Would Apple need to be concerned about running afoul of New Zealand copyright law when a user in Auckland streamed a rugby match? Would Google face liability in Singapore for caching an article on the Straits-Times website?
This isn't the first time that this temporary copy language has appeared in trade agreements—the US has signed bilateral free trade agreements with Colombia, Korea, Australia, and others that include similar language. Including it in a multilateral treaty simply further enshrines a bad idea, makes it even harder to fix, and creates more opportunities for harm from that language than has already been risked with bilateral trade partners. Removing the temporary copies language doesn't prevent those existing bilaterals from doing their current work, and it wouldn't create any inconsistency with other international agreements. It does, though, remain inconsistent with US law.
>:(
...just...
>:(-Renegade (September 11, 2012, 08:08 AM)
>:(
...just...
>:(-Renegade (September 11, 2012, 08:08 AM)
P.S. Who owns the copyright to those smileys?-TaoPhoenix (September 11, 2012, 10:27 AM)
This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120916/23445720397/this-is-not-transparency-tpp-delegates-refuses-to-reveal-text-refuse-to-discuss-leaked-text.shtml)
from the massive-fail dept
The folks over at the EFF have a decent summary of the travesty that was the "stakeholder" events at the latest TPP negotiating round, in which various groups (on all sides) were supposedly given an "opportunity" to express their thoughts on the TPP. We've already discussed some other aspects of it, but the one thing that the EFF writeup makes clear, is that the whole thing is a complete joke. The text, of course, remains "secret," and negotiators flat out refuse to discuss any points raised about the various leaked texts:The stakeholder engagement events in the morning were followed by a stakeholder briefing in the afternoon. The briefing allowed registered individuals from civil society and the public to ask questions of and make comments to eight out of the nine negotiators who represent a TPP country. The press was barred from the room. Roughly 25 people rose from the audience to ask questions to the trade delegates during the 90-minute briefing period. As predicted, they were not transparent about the talks, revealed little new information, and delegates also refused to make any comments based on leaked version of texts—the only text EFF and other public interest organizations have had access to. It is difficult for public stakeholders to ask accurate questions or receive any substantive answers when the content of the agreement continues to be shrouded in secrecy.
Rossini asked the USTR about its claims that the TPP’s intellectual property chapter will provide for fair use in its IP chapter, and how those public statements starkly contrast with the recent leaked TPP chapter that shows that the US delegation is in fact pushing for provisions that will restrict non-US countries from enacting fair use. Further, they neglected to comment on the fact that the leaked test has the potential to limit US fair use to the three-step test restrictions. In response, the lead negotiator for the USTR dodged the question and stated that they would not comment on issues raised by text EFF has “purportedly” received. The representative did acknowledge that fair use would be discussed during the week's meetings.
This is not "transparency," no matter how many times the USTR claims that they have "unprecedented" levels of transparency around the TPP negotiations. If negotiators won't share what they're even negotiating, and won't respond to any questions related to the actual text that's leaked, the only thing you can discuss are vague generalities not found in the leaked documents. That's insane. And because of that, the negotiators are focused on ridiculous ideas. For example, the EFF writeup notes that negotiators were asked how they could justify negotiating expansive copyright laws in secret after seeing what happened with SOPA and ACTA... and the response revealed just how out of touch the negotiators are. They don't even realize that the DMCA is controversial:The last question of the briefing came from EFF’s International Intellectual Property Coordinator, Maira Sutton, who raised from the crowd and asked the lead negotiator how they justify pushing for ever more restrictive copyright laws in the agreement even though it has become clear, with the defeat of ACTA in Europe, that users are sick and tired of international agreements regulating their Internet through overprotective intellectual property provisions... In response, the lead negotiator for the US stated that the standard for copyright regulation in international agreements has been the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). They claimed that the DMCA was legislated fairly and is an effective model for copyright enforcement in the US. The representatives' answer contradicted the fact that EFF and others have been arguing for years that the DMCA is fraught with problems. Sutton responded that based upon what we saw in the recent leaked text on fair use, developing countries would not be able to implement such copyright laws as soundly given that the three-step test language restricts signatory nations from determining and establishing fair use as they see fit.
So, the end result is that we have a completely secret back-room process, where the USTR pretends to listen to the public, but won't talk to them about what's in the actual negotiations, and refuses to comment on the little we actually know is in the document thanks to leaks. And because of that, we have completely clueless negotiators pushing something they think is sensible, totally ignorant of the reality.
This could be solved pretty easily: make the US positions and negotiating documents public and allow public comment on them. The USTR still hasn't given a reason why this can't be done. Though, the answer seems kind of obvious: actually being transparent would mean having to listen to the public and various experts point out where they're completely clueless. If USTR negotiators are so insecure in their positions, they shouldn't be in that job.
Stopping the Campaign of Misinformation: New Study Affirms Less Copyright Restrictions Benefit the Economy (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/copyright-and-campaign-misinformation-new-study-affirms-less-copyright)
A new study from Australia presents the latest evidence that loosening copyright restrictions not only enables free speech, but can improve an economy as well. The study, published by the Australian Digital Alliance, indicated that if Australia expanded copyright exceptions like fair use, along with strengthening safe harbor provisions, the country could potentially add an extra $600 million to their economy.
In addition, the report details how vital copyright exceptions are to the Australian economy as a whole. As ADA’s executive officer and copyright advisor Ellen Broad told EFF, "Australia's sectors relying on copyright exceptions currently contribute 14% of our GDP, around $182 billion and they're growing rapidly. It's essential that Australia's copyright policy framework adequately support innovation and growth of these sectors in the digital environment.”
Given how much Australia’s burdensome and confusing copyright law has held up innovation, EFF is encouraged by the fact that copyright reform is being considered and debated in the public sphere.
But more broadly, this is just the latest evidence disproving a major talking point used by the MPAA and RIAA anytime copyright laws come up for a vote: that tough copyright laws are good for the economy. During the SOPA debate, organizations such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) claimed over and over again that the restrictive law are needed to save and create jobs. Yet the Australian study confirms similar research done by CIAA in the US, showing how important fair use exceptions are to the economy. In fact, fair use accounted “for more than $4.5 trillion in annual revenue” in the US and exceeding the economic benefits of copyright laws themselves.
Unfortunately, this new evidence probably won’t stop the MPAA and RIAA from continuing to peddle misinformation about the economics of copyright law in Australia, the US, or elsewhere. Currently, the MPAA is distributing materials to members of the US Congress—perhaps in another attempt to gin up support for SOPA 2.0—extolling how important new, restrictive laws will allegedly to help them create jobs.
But these new talking points are short on statistics—perhaps for a reason. MPAA and RIAA have used drastically exaggerated numbers and discredited studies for years to claim that laws like SOPA and PIPA—or agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership—are vital for the economy. In reality, SOPA would’ve cost many more jobs than it saved, given it would have weakened or eliminated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbors that have allowed Internet companies like Google and Facebook to thrive for the last decade. That’s why when a survey was taken of venture capitalists, they “overwhelmingly” indicated they would stop investing in tech companies—the one of the economy’s fastest growing sectors—if SOPA were to pass.
Since the economic numbers don’t add up, advocates for draconian copyright laws have resorted to other misleading arguments. For example, this week, a Fox News editorial erroneously argued that intellectual property protection is a “forgotten” constitutional right and “it is the obligation” of Congress to pass laws like SOPA to protect rightsholders. Of course, the problem with SOPA was that it was written so broadly it would’ve ended up censoring millions of Americans who never even thought about copyright, but that’s beside the point. The US Constitution does mention intellectual property but not in the context of an individual right or mandate to Congress. Specifically, it says:Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.A plain reading of the clause indicates Congress has the authority to use copyright law to promote creativity—if they so choose. There’s no mandate for Congress to pass any copyright law that comes their way, and there’s no clause guaranteeing the rights of movie studios and record labels to maximize their profits. Meanwhile, creativity—far from being stifled without more copyright laws on the books—is currently thriving. There’s been a market increase in the amount of movies, music, and books produced over the last decade, as this comprehensive study done by CCIA and Techdirt’s Mike Masnick shows.
So while huge legacy corporations may find it harder to keep a grip on their market share, it’s not because people have stopped creating and selling art. It’s quite the opposite: they’re creating more by incorporating fair use, cutting out the middlemen, and bringing their art directly to their fans through the Internet.
Unfortunately, all too often copyright maximalists, like the author in the Fox News editorials, put forth the idea that “lawlessness” prevails on the Internet, even though in the US and abroad there are many copyright laws already on the books. In the US alone, Congress has passed fifteen separate laws in the last thirty years alone strengthening the powers of rightsholders.
Most notably, the US DMCA gives power to copyright holders to force websites to take down any of their protected material. In fact, the DMCA gives disproportionate power to the rightsholders, often leading to abuse, and in turn, censoring material that is clearly protected free speech. As Techdirt noted, in Australia, their outdated and burdensome copyright system “is ill-equipped to cope with key Internet activities like search and indexing, caching and hosting, since they all involve incidental copying.”
Both countries would be better served by evidence-based policy that promoted the intended balance of copyright. After decades of unbalanced legislation, the evidence is clear, and points to relaxing copyright restrictions, not strengthening them.
For more on the debate over the economics of copyright see here and here.
Digital Technologies vs. Truth Suppression (http://www.garynorth.com/public/10095.cfm)
Gary North
Reality Check (Sept. 21, 2012)
I am going to tell you some stories. To make it interesting, I will begin with one which could make one of my readers the deal of a lifetime. It ends on September 30. He who hesitates is lost.
I begin with the obvious: the falling cost of Internet communications is revolutionizing the spread of knowledge. In doing so, it is undermining every establishment. Every establishment rests mush of its power on official views of the past. This is seen in the novel by George Orwell, "Nineteen Eighty-Four." The tyrant who enforces the totalitarian state says this. "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
The cost of controlling the past has risen exponentially since 1995: the year that the graphics browser was introduced. Then came Google.
I know Orwell said this, because I just verified it on several websites. That took under one minute. There is some debate over punctuation: period, colon, or semicolon. I think I will not go to the trouble of looking it up in my library, which is in a special room miles away.
The cost of research is a tiny fraction of what it was in 1995. The Web has changed everything.
This leads me to my special offer. In the late nineteenth century, only those people who lived near Boston could research the history of American Puritanism. Only there were the primary sources available: Harvard University's library and the collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. You had to go to Yale after you were finished in Boston. There were other collections that were scattered across the region. The main one was at the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, Massachusetts. According to the AAS,Clifford K. Shipton, who became librarian in 1940, improved access to primary sources through partnerships with technology companies. The Early American Imprints microprint edition provided scholars with images of pages of books and pamphlets printed in America before 1801. Researchers around the world were soon eagerly reading the contents of imprints housed in libraries miles away.
Understand what this means: everything printed in colonial America from 1639 to early 1801. Then a follow-up collection was published: 1801-1811. I wrote my PhD. Dissertation in Riverside, California, based mainly on that microcard collection. That was over 40 years ago. I do not know how much the University of California's library paid for that set. I think it was a lot.
Then came microfiche. You could make crude photocopies of these microfiche. You could not with microcards. You had to take notes by hand. I still have mine in one long note card box. Historians never toss out their notes.
The price of the microcards fell to zero. A man I knew 20 years ago found out that the publishing firm was going to use the sets for land fill. They did not want competition for the microfiche edition. He made the company a deal. He would buy them. He wiuld sell them only to research organizations and private high schools that would not buy the microfiche sets. The company agreed.
My Institute for Christian Economics bought the set for $10,000. It paid $8,000 for a complete set of all the newspapers, 1780-1800. I got five readers. In today's money, that is at last $30,000. I overpaid.
Then came digitization and online searching. The microfiche are worth nothing.
ICE gave the microcard set to a private Christian day school. But it has run out of space in its library. It is going to give the set away. For the price of a trip to northwest Arkansas and renting a 16-foot truck, someone can own the set.
If no one wants it, it will return to land fill. Ashes to ashes, plastic to plastic.
With this set, you can train students to do primary source research. Or you can do such research yourself.
You have all the newspapers of the American Revolution. You can verify anyone's footnotes.
You get a complete index. This is an ideal tool for any day school that focuses on America's Christian history.
For a private high school that advertises itself as an academic institution for college-bound students. This set on the library's walls says "this institution is serious."
Deadline to apply: September 30, 2012. That is the email inquiry date deadline. If you are interested, send a note to Art Cunningham, [email protected].
CRITICS WITH DIGITS
It is getting close to impossible for any establishment group to get its version of the past accepted. There are rival sites that provide links to evidence that undermines the establishment's view.
In the good old days -- pre-1995 -- an establishment did not face a major challenge. It cost too much to research the facts. It cost too much to typeset a book, print it, store it, advertise it, and get distribution. The few that did this got a tiny market. It could be easily dismissed: "conspiracy theory." The old tactic is still used: "conspiracy theory." But it's a hard sell, because so many documents are online disproving the establishment's view. Too many people are not buying it.
The common man may not have an opinion about what did happen, but he has doubts about the official view. In the case of 9-11, people ask: "Where is the evidence that a plane crashed in one spot in Shanksville?" There was zero debris. There is video evidence of an empty hole. "Let's roll!" is inspiring. A missile shot by an Air Force jet isn't. But debris scattered over miles conveys a message: "This plane fell apart in the sky, not on the ground."
Conspiracy theory? You bet!
If the official view is clearly impossible regarding 25% of 9-11, how about 50%? Where was the debris at the Pentagon? Why was the hole so small? How did anyone navigate the required turn?
If we get to 50%, what about New York City? Why did Building 7 come down so fast? Why did a tiny paper fire bring down this building? And so forth.
Conspiracy theories? You bet!
Doubts regarding the official stories lead to doubts regarding all official stories. Doubt undermines legitimacy. Without legitimacy, an establishment must substitute power for authority, external government for self-government. The cost of forcing people to behave is too great for any government. Without widespread self-government to enforce its demands, an establishment becomes just another competing interest group.
This is why the World Wide Web is the biggest threat in history to every government-supported special-interest group. They all know this. There is hardly anything they can do about it. They rail against conspiracy theories, but the mantra is not working any more. It worked when the average person did not have access to books. He did not have access to supporting evidence one click away. Now he does. There is nothing that the various establishments can do about this, other than invoke the mantra: "Conspiracy theory."
It is a case of a government-subsidized pot calling a privately funded kettle black.
THE MISES INSTITUTE
The Ludwig von Mises Institute was the first comprehensive website to make available a comprehensive alternative to the Keynesian/monetarist establishment in the economics guild. It offers books, articles, and videos produced by scholars who reject this establishment view of economic cause and effect.
The department titled "Literature" offers hundreds of classic rejections of the Keynesian/monetarist outlook: in theory, in policy, and in economic history. Only the largest research libraries have even half of these books. These books are in PDF format and other e-book formats. The student can download all of them free of charge.
The student can also buy print-on-demand copies for about $20 each. This printing technology has broken the cartel of the book publishers. They never had to burn books. They only had to return the manuscripts to authors. This was so much more urbane than book-burning. Book-burning was so "National Socialist, 1936. "These days, any author can typeset his book with Microsoft Word $100) or Open Office Write (free). Or, if he wants to go big-time, he can buy a copy of inDesign and climb the learning curve. The point is, the barrier is merely a cheap software program and learning time. The barrier is no longer money.
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." That was what radical activist A. J. Liebling said in the 1950s. Now anyone with an Internet connection who wants one can lease one free of charge. You can post anything on Scribd. It stays up, free of charge.
The Mises Institute has found that giving way PDFs of books sells lots of printed books. Book readers suffer from what I call Picard's syndrome. They just have to hold a book to enjoy it. A PDF or a Kindle is not good enough. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north228.html)
Even worse from the Keynesian/monetarist establishment's outlook is the power of YouTube. The Mises Institute posts all lectures delivered at its meetings. Then the video manager uses the YouTube embed feature to post it on the Institute's site. Somehow, I never see any ads. The videos begin at the beginning of the lecture session.
Videos are a good way for people to get a quick overview of any topic. The student can decide if it's worth pursuing. If he thinks it is, he can use the Literature section of the site to get started.
People like videos. They watch lots of them. They can more easily and more rapidly pick up new information in a well-delivered speech than in a book. The speeches stay on the site permanently.
The traffic that the Mises.org site receives is greater than the traffic on the site of the American Economic Association, the most important academic organization in the field of economics. Its site is rated as 140,000 on Alexa. The Mises site is rated at 17,000. There is no comparison.
The strategy of the Mises Institute is to give everything away. This strategy is working.
CONCLUSION
The Internet has overcome the establishments' distribution systems. Information delivery systems present numerous outlets to anyone with an Internet connection. Very skilled communicators can now overcome what would have been nearly impenetrable barriers to entry in 1995.
The quality of the broad mass of digits is low, but the quality at the top is very high. Open entry has produced outlets for people with very great skills in both research and expression.
This process will accelerate. Every establishment will come under fire intellectually and rhetorically. They will eventually suffer major reversals.
It is happening today. The ability of any establishment to manipulate the relevant climate of opinion among younger Web users is limited and shrinking. As these users get older, they will pay less heed to the opinions of the establishments.
Simulated Cybersecurity Threats That Pave the Way for Internet Restrictions (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ActivistPost/~3/av5Y9afF9IM/simulated-cybersecurity-threats-that.html)
by Activist
Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post
Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, spoke to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee meeting this week and confirmed that the Obama administration is circumventing Congress and drafting an “inter-agency process” which is “close to completion depending on a few issues that need to be resolved at the highest levels.”
John Brennan, assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has planted the concept that a cybersecurity executive order will give the Obama administration power over the future of the internet in ways the passage of legislation would never be able to provide. In a letter to Senator Jay Rockefeller, Brennan said that Obama is “exploring issuing an executive order to direct federal agencies to secure the nation’s critical infrastructure by working with the private sector to develop security standards.”
(Read the rest at the link.)
Cleansing the Internet of Terrorism: Leaked EU Proposal Would Erode Civil Liberties (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/cleansing-internet-terrorism-leaked-eu-proposal-would-erode-civil-liberties)
by Jillian C. York and Katitza Rodriguez
A new project aimed at “countering illegal use of the Internet” is making headlines this week. The project, dubbed CleanIT, is funded by the European Commission (EC) to the tune of more than $400,000 and, it would appear, aims to eradicate the Internet of terrorism.
European Digital Rights, a Brussels-based organization consisting of 32 NGOs throughout Europe (and of which EFF is a member), has recently published a leaked draft document from CleanIT.
On the project’s website, its stated goal is to reduce the impact of the use of the Internet for “terrorist purposes” but “without affecting our online freedom.” While the goal may seem noble enough, the project actually contains a number of controversial proposals that will compel Internet intermediaries to police the Internet and most certainly will affect our online freedom. Let’s take a look at a few of the most controversial elements of the project.
Privatization of Law Enforcement
Under the guise of fighting ‘terrorist use of the Internet,' the “CleanIT project," led by the Dutch police, has developed a set of ‘detailed recommendations’ that will compel Internet companies to act as arbiters of what is “illegal” or “terrorist” uses of the Internet.
Specifically, the proposal suggests that “legislation must make clear Internet companies are obliged to try and detect to a reasonable degree … terrorist use of the infrastructure” and, even more troubling, “can be held responsible for not removing (user generated) content they host/have users posted on their platforms if they do not make reasonable effort in detection.”
EFF has always expressed concerns about relying upon intermediaries to police the Internet. As an organization, we believe in strong legal protections for intermediaries and as such, have often upheld the United States’ Communications Decency Act, Section 230 (CDA 230) as a positive example of intermediary protection. While even CDA 230’s protections do not extend to truly criminal activities, the definition of “terrorist” is, in this context, vague enough to raise alarm (see conclusion for more details).
Erosion of Legal Safeguards
The recommendations call for the easy removal of content from the Internet without following “more labour intensive and formal” procedures. They suggest new obligations that would compel Internet companies to hand over all necessary customer information for investigation of “terrorist use of the Internet.” This amounts to a serious erosion of legal safeguards. Under this regime, an online company must assert some vague notion of “terrorist use of the Internet,” and they will have carte blanche to bypass hard-won civil liberties protections.
The recommendations also suggest that knowingly providing hyperlinks to a site that hosts “terrorist content” will be defined as illegal. This would negatively impact a number of different actors, from academic researchers to journalists, and is a slap in the face to the principles of free expression and the free flow of knowledge.
Data Retention
Internet companies under the CleanIT regime would not only be allowed, but in fact obligated to store communications containing “terrorist content,” even when it has been removed from their platform, in order to supply the information to law enforcement agencies.
Material Support and Sanctions
The project also offers guidelines to governments, including the recommendation that governments start a “full review of existing national legislation” on reducing terrorist use of the Internet. This includes a reminder of Council Regulation (EC) No. 881/2002 (art. 1.2), which prohibits Internet services from being provided to designated terrorist entities such as Al Qaeda. It is worth noting that similar legislation exists in the US (see: 18 U.S.C. § 2339B) and has been widely criticized as criminalizing speech in the form of political advocacy.
The guidelines spell out how governments should implement filtering systems to block civil servants from any “illegal use of the Internet.”
Furthermore, governments’ criteria for purchasing policies and public grants will be tied to Internet companies’ track record for reducing the “terrorist use of the Internet.”
Notice and Take Action
Notice and take action policies allow law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to notify and act against Internet companies, who must remove “offending” content as fast as possible. This obligates LEAs to determine the extent to which content can be considered “offensive.” An LEA must “contextualize content and describe how it breaches national law.”
The leaked document contains recommendations that would require LEAs to, in some cases, send notice that access to content must be blocked, followed by notice that the domain registration must be ended. In other cases, sites' security certificates would be downgraded.
Real Identity Policies
Under the CleanIT provisions, all network users, whether in social or professional networks, will be obligated to supply their real identities to service providers (including social networks), effectively destroying online anonymity, which EFF believes is crucial for protecting the safety and well-being of activists, whistle-blowers, victims of domestic violence, and many others (for more on that, see this excellent article from Geek Feminism). The Constitutional Court of South Korea found an Internet "real name" policy to be unconstitutional.
Under the provisions, companies can even require users to provide proof of their identity, and can store the contact information of users in order to provide it to LEAs in the case of an investigation into potential terrorist use of the Internet. The provisions will even require individuals to utilize a real image of him or herself, destroying decades of Internet culture (in addition to, of course, infringing on user privacy).
Semi-automated detection
The plan also calls for semi-automated detection of “terrorist content.” While content would not automatically be removed, any searches for known terrorist organizations’ names, logos or other related content will be automatically detected. This will certainly inhibit research into anything remotely associated with what law enforcement might deem “terrorist content,” and would seriously hinder normal student inquiry into current events and history! In effect, all searches about terrorism might end up falling into an LEA’s view of terrorist propaganda.
LEA Access to User Content
The document recommends that, at the European level, browsers or operating systems should develop a reporting button of terrorist use of the Internet, and suggests governments draft legislation to make this reporting button compulsory for browser or operating systems.
Furthermore, the document recommends that judges, public prosecutors and (specialized) police officers be able to temporarily remove content that is being investigated.
Banning languages
Frighteningly, one matter up for discussion within the CleanIT provisions is the banning of languages that have not been mastered by “abuse specialists or abuse systems.” The current recommendation contained in the document would make the use of such languages “unacceptable and preferably technically impossible.”
With more than 200 commonly-used languages and more than 6,000 languages spoken globally, it seems highly unlikely that the abuse specialists or systems will expand beyond a select few. For the sake of comparison, Google Translate only works with 65 languages.
At a time when new initiatives to preserve endangered languages are taking advantage of new technologies, it seems shortsighted and even chauvinistic to consider limiting what languages can be used online.
What is terrorism, anyway?
While the document states that the first reference for determining terrorist content will be UN/EU/national terrorist sanctions list, it seems that the provisions allow for a broader interpretation of “terrorism.” This is incredibly problematic in a multicultural environment; as the old adage goes, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Even a comparison of the US and EU lists of designated terrorist entities shows discrepancies, and the recent controversy in the US around the de-listing of an Iranian group shows how political such decisions can be.
(Conclusion)
Overall, we see the CleanIT project as a misguided effort to introduce potentially endless censorship and surveillance that would effectively turn Internet companies in Internet cops. We are also disappointed in the European Commission for funding the project: Given the strong legal protections for free expression and privacy contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [PDF], it’s imperative that any efforts to track down and prosecute terrorism must also protect fundamental rights. The CleanIT regime, on the other hand, clearly erodes these rights.
New bill attempts to curb Big Brother’s ability to snoop and squelch free speech onlineWow! Let's hope they go through OK. Looks like it might be two seriously intelligent and hopeful pieces of proposed legislation:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2010610/new-bill-attempts-to-curb-big-brother-s-ability-to-snoop-and-squelch-free-speech-online.html-Tinman57 (September 26, 2012, 08:39 PM)
New bill attempts to curb Big Brother’s ability to snoop and squelch free speech onlineWow! Let's hope they go through OK. Looks like it might be two seriously intelligent and hopeful pieces of proposed legislation:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2010610/new-bill-attempts-to-curb-big-brother-s-ability-to-snoop-and-squelch-free-speech-online.html-Tinman57 (September 26, 2012, 08:39 PM)
- H.R. 6529 - ECPA 2.0 Act of 2012 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6529/text): This act seeks to reform the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which was enacted in 1986.
- H.R. 6530 - Global Free Internet Act of 2012 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6530): This bill seeks to establish a formal process for the U.S. government to evaluate policies that "pose threats to Internet users and online services".
If I was an American, their proposer, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (California Democrat) would get my vote for that.-IainB (September 26, 2012, 11:53 PM)
The text of this bill is not yet available. Please check back soon.
This bill seeks to establish a formal process for the U.S. government to evaluate policies that "pose threats to Internet users and online services".
New bill attempts to curb Big Brother’s ability to snoop and squelch free speech onlineWow! Let's hope they go through OK. Looks like it might be two seriously intelligent and hopeful pieces of proposed legislation:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2010610/new-bill-attempts-to-curb-big-brother-s-ability-to-snoop-and-squelch-free-speech-online.html-Tinman57 (September 26, 2012, 08:39 PM)
- H.R. 6529 - ECPA 2.0 Act of 2012 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6529/text): This act seeks to reform the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which was enacted in 1986.
- H.R. 6530 - Global Free Internet Act of 2012 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6530): This bill seeks to establish a formal process for the U.S. government to evaluate policies that "pose threats to Internet users and online services".
If I was an American, their proposer, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (California Democrat) would get my vote for that.-IainB (September 26, 2012, 11:53 PM)
Hmmm...The text of this bill is not yet available. Please check back soon.
Now let's see, what was that other little bit:This bill seeks to establish a formal process for the U.S. government to evaluate policies that "pose threats to Internet users and online services".
Kind of makes me think that "pose threats to Internet users" means "give them privacy", and "threats to online services", means "the possibility of disabling or disrupting surveillance"...
Not sure whether I'm being cynical or not.
Isn't the purpose of legislation to create a Trojan horse to slip in another step in the totalitarian tip-toe? Or am I being cynical?
But seriously - why can't the text of the bill be made available? What is there to hide? Oh... right... Greek soldiers... ;)-Renegade (September 27, 2012, 04:46 AM)
Okay, snarks aside, are there any new bills on the horizon?-TaoPhoenix (September 27, 2012, 07:39 PM)
Former Copyright Boss: New Technology Should Be Presumed Illegal Until Congress Says OtherwiseSome people (not me you understand) might say that all this probably proves is that some US departments and associated bureaucracies may employ more than the lion's share of congenital idiots, and that this could perhaps explain something about the US' apparent progressive spiral into a dysfunctional state over the last few decades.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120927/00320920527/former-copyright-boss-new-technology-should-be-presumed-illegal-until-congress-says-otherwise.shtml
"Commercial exploiters of new technologies should be required to convince Congress to sanction a new delivery system and/or exempt it from copyright liability. That is what Congress intended."-TaoPhoenix (September 29, 2012, 09:19 PM)
September 26, 2012
A dangerous and decidedly false meme has been floating around in media and elsewhere in recent days. It's actually not a new concept at all, but we're now seeing calculated efforts being deployed to leverage recent world events toward the achievement of an ancient and evil goal -- the control of public and private speech in their various guises and forms.
The catalyst for this newly energized push to muzzle the world is of course the vile anti-Islamic YouTube video, which I have discussed previously in YouTube Blocking the Anti-Islamic Video: Censorship or Responsible Stewardship? and elsewhere.
I will not here and now discuss this particular case in much more detail, except to note that trying to understand the reactions to this video, without a comprehensive understanding of the geopolitical and social history of the Mideast, is like attempting to figure out how a smartphone works by staring intently at its miniaturized circuit board components.
Of great concern are the comments and editorial opining now appearing, suggesting that the U.S. puts too much stake in "free speech" concepts, that we must be "tolerant" of other countries' sensibilities about speech restrictions, and that perhaps global censorship of unpopular concepts and ideas can be justified in the name of community good and world peace.
Implicit (and sometimes explicit) in these arguments is the assumption that censorship leads to happier, more peaceful populations, where conflicts that would otherwise occur will instead be tempered or eliminated by the unavailability of particular types of information and content.
Attempts to impose such controls on speech are now of global extent, and have massively accelerated with the evolution of the Internet.
Some countries ban what they consider to be "sacrilegious" materials in a religious context. Others ban Nazi imagery, or negative comments about the ruling government or monarchs. In some nations, violations of associated speech laws can result in decades-long prison sentences. Even here in the U.S., multiple legislative attempts have been made to try ban a wide variety of broadly defined content from the Net, on the grounds of it supposedly being "inappropriate" for children.
But the question that is hardly ever asked is fundamentally a simple one.
Ethical questions aside for the moment, does government-imposed censorship -- or government-inspired self-censorship -- actually have the "desired" results?
As a thought experiment, imagine that Google had acceded to demands that the anti-Islamic video be immediately blocked globally on YouTube, instead of taking what I believe was the appropriate course of instead only implementing highly targeted and narrow blocking.
Would global blocking have avoided the violence? Would the leaders calling for such blocking have then been satisfied?
The answer to both questions clearly appears to be no.
In fact, most of the violence in reaction to the video has been from persons who have not even seen it. Most don't even personally know anybody who has seen significant amounts of the actual video. Rather, they have "heard" about it -- second hand, third hand, characterizations, rumors, bits and pieces from other sources.
This is a clue to the Very Big Lie of censorship.
Censorship is not actually about preventing violence, or keeping people happy, or even improving the economy.
Censorship is essentially a *political* act. It is a mechanism of political control and political empowerment of existing leaders, not an effective mechanism for improving people's lives -- other than the lives of rulers and politicians themselves.
If YouTube had blocked the video in question globally, various leaders would have crowed that they had bullied Google into submission, but so long as the video existed anywhere, in any form, protests and violence would continue, with many of these leaders tacitly or even directly urging protesters on, fanning the flames of emotion.
For it is the very *existence* of information, not *access* to information per se, that is at the heart of censorship demands.
And in the age of the Internet, information has become much like energy itself. It can be hidden, changed in form, but information has become virtually indestructible. And like a chain reaction in a pit of uranium-235, the suppressed energy of information can explode across the Internet in a relative instant, impossible to control around the planet.
Demands to censor the Net, to somehow limit or marginalize free speech as some sort of American aberration, are ultimately doomed.
Censorship proponents dream of the days before the Net -- before television, radio, newspapers, and the printing press, when information could not be easily duplicated, transmitted, and widely disseminated.
When the printing press was invented, church leaders in particular were horrified. Much like politicians and leaders today, they knew that the technology could serve them well, but the last thing they wanted was such communications powers in the hands of the common folk.
The Internet of today has become the fulfillment of would-be censors worst nightmares. It provides the ability of virtual "nobodies" to reach vast audiences with unapproved ideas of all sorts, at any time, in all manner of ways -- written, audio, video.
Without the Internet, you would obviously not be reading these words, nor would you likely even be aware of my existence. Multiply this effect by millions -- that's the technological marvel that is a terror to those who would control information, communications, speech, and ideas themselves.
The U.S. has plenty of problems when it comes to its own handling of free speech. Related government hypocrisies are as old as the union, and largely independent of which political parties are ascendant at any given time.
But the Founding Fathers, fresh from the repression of monarchy, wrote words of genius when they created the First Amendment to the Constitution, and ensconced freedom of speech firmly into the fabric of their new nation. That their foresight, in a largely agrarian society, is even more valid and important today, in a time of instantaneous global communications within a highly technological milieu, is a wonder of the ages.
We must firmly reject the claims of persons who assert that there's too much free speech, that perhaps censorship isn't so bad, that the world at large must cower to the lowest common denominator of narrow minds and political expediencies.
They are wrong, and unless they're willing to cut themselves off from the Internet entirely -- and perhaps not even then -- the Net will ultimately foil their efforts to impose "dark ages" sensibilities onto our world of now.
We're all well into the 21st century -- not the 13th.
Get used to it -- or learn the lessons of history the very hard way indeed.
--Lauren--
More confusing stuff:
MPAA chief admits: SOPA and PIPA "are dead, they're not coming back."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/mpaa-chief-admits-sopa-and-pipa-are-dead-theyre-not-coming-back/
So is this classic Boiling Frog stuff where it looks like we won a tactical skirmish and then they sneak it in later?
Edit: First run of the net seems to be strong suspicion, with zero belief in the text of the announcement.-TaoPhoenix (October 03, 2012, 06:19 PM)
History does repeat itself......-Tinman57 (October 04, 2012, 07:50 PM)
While the occurrence of an event could (arguably) not be open to debate, the analysis of causes leading up to it - and the interpretation of its larger meaning - is very much open to individual interpretation. That is why History teaches us nothing.
History is nothing more than a story (mostly told by the "winners") in which the status quo of the winner is rationalized and justified. In short, things didn't just get to be the way they are "because." According to most historical accounts, things are the way they are today because some gifted and inspired individuals set in motion a chain of events in accordance with the Divine Plan for the Rightness of Things, and the rest...well...the rest is history.
That's why it's important to identify who is telling the story. It's not so much a history of something like WWII as it is who's history of WWII.
Humans tell stories about themselves in order to put themselves in the best possible light. And a frank admission we were lucky doesn't work too well when you're creating a mythos your nation or people can believe in.
People will kill each other over real or perceived threats, property, and money. But they will usually only go to war over an idea. Economics are almost always at the root of human conflict. But in most cases it takes the tinderbox of an idea (i.e. fatherland!, traditional family values!, blasphemy!, treason!, freedom!, evil!, communism!, terrorism!, capitalism!, ) to set the wheels in motion.
The US would have never marched into Iraq (as opposed to just Afghanistan) if it were justified purely in economic terms. It took about 3000 civilian deaths, a wave of national shock and outrage, several falsehoods and exaggerations promulgated through official channels, a challenge to conduct a global crusade against all that is evil - and a political cabal that was willing to put it to use. Our history books will tell that story our way. And it will always be told (by us to us) that way, whether or not we later decide to revise or reinterpret it (like we have the Civil War). It's OUR story. (People in the Mideast will have their own version too.)
So while it's good to look at history, don't expect it to teach us much. Most of what passes for history is a polite fib at best. And always will be. The actual fibs told will simply change with the tenor of the times. And most people, at some level, know that.
:) 8)-40hz (October 05, 2012, 12:00 PM)
History is fundamentally taught wrong...-Renegade (October 05, 2012, 10:51 AM)
Thank goodness for the Internet, where we can (at the moment) freely share information, like those pesky little history lessons that were so conveniently left out of oureducationindoctrination.-Renegade (October 05, 2012, 12:28 PM)
Whoever controls the information is the ones in control. Information is one of the most powerful tools. If your only allowed to know what the government wants you to know, your in the dark, whether you know it or not.
The very first thing we did when we went into Iraq was to blow up all communications, including the AT&T building. Cut off the information, cut off the head of the snake, no one knows what's going on or what to do.
This is exactly why I don't believe half the crap that I see on tv, hear on the news or read in the history books. History was written by the winners, they're only going to tell you the good (or bad) that they want you to know, or mix in some truth with the lies to baffle you.-Tinman57 (October 05, 2012, 08:47 PM)
'There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,' he said.
'Repeat it, if you please.'
'"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past,"' repeated Winston obediently.
'"Who controls the present controls the past,"' said O'Brien, nodding his
head with slow approval. 'Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has
real existence?'
Again the feeling of helplessness descended upon Winston. His eyes flitted
towards the dial. He not only did not know whether 'yes' or 'no' was the
answer that would save him from pain; he did not even know which answer he
believed to be the true one.
O'Brien smiled faintly. 'You are no metaphysician, Winston,' he said.
'Until this moment you had never considered what is meant by existence. I
will put it more precisely. Does the past exist concretely, in space? Is
there somewhere or other a place, a world of solid objects, where the past
is still happening?'
'No.'
'Then where does the past exist, if at all?'
'In records. It is written down.'
'In records. And----?'
'In the mind. In human memories.'
'In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all records, and we
control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?'
'But how can you stop people remembering things?' cried Winston again
momentarily forgetting the dial. 'It is involuntary. It is outside oneself.
How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!'
O'Brien's manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the dial.-Was supposed to be a book... Turned out it was a manual...
We need your help: Once again, the film studios and record companies that tried to censor the Internet are up to no good. The same business lobbyists who backed SOPA are trying to stop you from reselling most of the things that you own -- and President Obama has taken their side.
Arguments before the Supreme Court take place later this month: Please add your name at right to tell Obama to stand with consumers and Internet users.
A few months ago Demand Progress -- joined by over 100,000 Internet users and a coalition of public interest groups -- asked President Obama to take action and protect consumers' rights to resell their own things. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case (Kirstaeng v. Wiley) that will decide whether you have the right to sell your iPod, books, and other goods on eBay and Craigslist -- or even at your own yard sale.
But the entertainment industry lobbyists at the MPAA and RIAA have filed a brief in the Supreme Court mocking consumers' concerns -- just like they did during the SOPA Fight. These special interests admit that they want the Supreme Court to decide against the interests of ordinary Americans and protect the music and film industries' "ability to control entry into distinct markets."
You heard that right -- Hollywood thinks that controlling their CD and DVD markets is more important than consumer rights.
Amazingly, the Obama administration agrees and has rejected the pleas of thousands of ordinary consumers: The White House's solicitor general filed a legal brief rejecting our arguments and allowing big businesses to sue people for reselling their things online.
Just sign on at right to email President Obama and your lawmakers.
The Supreme Court will hear this case in a couple of weeks, so please get your friends involved right away:
If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.
If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign:
This seems seriously screwed-up, if true:
You've Been Owned: Tell Obama To Stop Siding With Copyright Trolls (http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/first_sale_obama/)-IainB (October 06, 2012, 04:38 AM)
Makes it hard to tell the difference between Obomney and Robama. :P-Renegade (October 06, 2012, 04:56 AM)
Just another in a long list of things that show that governments do not represent the people - they represent corporations. It's just what corporatists/fascists/socialists do - trample freedom "for the greater good". No big surprises there. Unfortunately.
Well, that is unless you believe that "Corporations are people, my friend."-Renegade (October 06, 2012, 04:56 AM)
Makes it hard to tell the difference between Obomney and Robama. :P-Renegade (October 06, 2012, 04:56 AM)
One is an Obamination and the other sounds like something from Japanese Animation?-TaoPhoenix (October 06, 2012, 06:31 AM)
Oh! That explains a lot! "We the People (Corps) of the United States of America..."
Meanwhile the Carbon Units posting comments on this site are Slave Pawns. I don't recall anything in the Constitution protecting the rights of Slave Pawns.
Though the Rule 34 implications of Corporations as People are disturbing. I'll leave that one to my betters. Or 4Chan.-TaoPhoenix (October 06, 2012, 06:35 AM)
Went a bit over my head there. Not sure what you meant. :huh:
Do you mean this?
http://www.xkcd.com/305/
(see attachment in previous post (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=31569.msg302354#msg302354))-Renegade (October 06, 2012, 06:49 AM)
Well, sorta, that's the Rule 34, "If something exists, either pr0n exists or it will eventually be made."
As a young'un, I always liked those little books about logic absurdities when you start with an "illegal" (mathematically/logically) premise, then various absurdities appear, such as proving that Renegade is a Grapefruit.-TaoPhoenix (October 06, 2012, 07:02 AM)
So if Corporations are People, we get funny things like: "So let me get this straight, 11 people get together in Delaware to have sex and out comes a Corporation-Person? So then before it is 18 years old, it can't vote, so why is it "Voting" (lobbying)? If two corporations get together, is that Corporation Sex?" On and on.
To which point the opponent says "well, not a PERSON, but ... uh... a Legal Person, but with more smileys." Or something.-TaoPhoenix (October 06, 2012, 07:02 AM)
Well, I'm not so sure that I'm a grapefruit, but can definitely be fruity at times~! :P-Renegade (October 06, 2012, 07:42 AM)
I'm starting to trust the Supreme Court less lately.-TaoPhoenix (October 06, 2012, 10:23 PM)
I'm starting to trust the Supreme Court less lately.-TaoPhoenix (October 06, 2012, 10:23 PM)
You mean you actually still have some faith in it? :o ;)-Renegade (October 06, 2012, 11:00 PM)
Superb speculative fiction short film about digital surveillance in the year 2023: PLURALITY-IainB (October 07, 2012, 06:07 AM)
Directed by: Dennis Liu
Written by: Ryan Condal
Produced by: Jonathan Hsu, Dennis Liu
Cinematography by: Jon Chen
Music by: Pakk Hui
Starring: Jeff Nissani, Samantha Strelitz, John Di Domenico
2 years of filmmaking with very little money and my friends and I made this.
We're a tiny production so please help spread the word! =) Please facebook/tweet/write to some big blogs so we can make more! (slash film, collider, gizmodo, engadget, wired., etc!)
And please watch my other videos! I promise that they're good! Thanks!!
[email protected]
http://www.facebook.com/pluralitythemovie
PRESS:
WORLD STAR HIP HOP -
210,000 VIEWS (As of 10/4/2012)
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhvTl8o0h8F5qwzAkZ
USA TODAY - 10-04-12 - TV ON THE WEB - OUR TOP PICKS, PAGE 6D
I09.COM - http://io9.com/5948472/welcome-to-new-york-2023-where-every-surface-is-a-dna-...
How bad could the loss of Intenet freedoms get?- I couldn't really have foreseen that a US "free-market" prototype version of the Iranian model - i.e., along the line of this Six Strikes model - was already on the drawing-board.
Try this for size - maybe coming to a State near you soon...
Google Users in Pakistan Suffer as ISPs Block Sites Without Reason (http://www.labnol.org/internet/google-users-in-pakistan-suffer/25734/)
I guess it couldn't be all that bad really - I mean, you'd at least still be able to browse the local government websites and government-approved websites.-IainB (October 02, 2012, 03:07 AM)
- I couldn't really have foreseen that a US "free-market" prototype version of the Iranian model - i.e., along the line of this Six Strikes model - was already on the drawing-board.-IainB (October 11, 2012, 07:00 AM)
Meanwhile in Canada,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson-the-quiet-death-of-the-internet-surveillance-bill/article4602164/
"John Ibbitson: The quiet death of the Internet surveillance bill ...
C-30, you will remember, would grant the federal government and law enforcement agencies the power to obtain information about individuals who are online without having to apply for a warrant."
Aka Canadian SOPA.
So we won another one. More attempts to follow.-TaoPhoenix (October 11, 2012, 04:14 PM)
AT&T Starts Six-Strikes Anti-Piracy Plan Next Month, Will Block Websites (http://torrentfreak.com/att-starts-six-strikes-anti-piracy-plan-next-month-will-block-websites-121012/)
by Ernesto
Last year the MPAA and RIAA teamed up with five major Internet providers in the United States to launch the Center for Copyright Information (CCI).
The parties agreed on a system through which subscribers are warned that their copyright infringements are unacceptable. After several warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures to punish the alleged infringers.
Thus far the participating Internet providers have refused to comment to the press on any of the details including the launch date. But, leaked internal AT&T training documents obtained by TorrentFreak provide a unique insight into the controversial plan.
The documents inform AT&T staff about the upcoming changes, beginning with the following overview.
“In an effort to assist content owners with combating on-line piracy, AT&T will be sending alert e-mails to customers who are identified as having been downloading copyrighted content without authorization from the copyright owner.”
“The reports are made by the content owners and are of IP-addresses that are associated with copyright infringing activities. AT&T will not share any personally identifiable information about its customers with content owners until authorized by the customer or required to do so by law.”
The papers further reveal the launch date of the copyright alerts system as November 28. A source connected to the CCI previously confirmed to TorrentFreak that all providers were planning to start on the same date, which means that Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon are expected to have a simultaneous launch.
The training documents also give insight into the measures AT&T will take to punish those who receive a 5th and 6th alert.
When repeated infringers try to access certain websites they will be redirected to an educational page. To lift the blockade, AT&T will require these customers to complete an “online education tutorial on copyright”.
The training does not give any information on what sites will be blocked temporarily, but it’s mentioned that “access to many of the most frequently visited websites is restricted”. What the copyright education tutorial entails remains a mystery.
...(Read the rest at the link.)
...threatening to moveIf the powers behind this have arranged it such that the consumer is likely to be stitched up sideways, then "threatening to move" could be infeasible or an empty threat. "Move where" exactly?-tomos (October 13, 2012, 05:45 PM)
How does this affect non torrent accesses like the old MegaUpload? Does a streamed copy count as a download?-TaoPhoenix (October 13, 2012, 10:53 PM)
...threatening to moveIf the powers behind this have arranged it such that the consumer is likely to be stitched up sideways, then "threatening to move" could be infeasible or an empty threat. "Move where" exactly?-tomos (October 13, 2012, 05:45 PM)-IainB (October 13, 2012, 08:28 PM)
Leaked AT&T training documents reveal anti-piracy plan (http://www.slashgear.com/leaked-att-training-documents-reveal-anti-piracy-plan-12251749/)
Brittany Hillen, Oct 12th 2012
A leaked batch of AT&T training documents reveal an anti-piracy plan in the books, which includes sending warning notices to flagged accounts. In what seems to be a completely draconian measure, any subscriber who’s account is flagged multiple times for copyright infringement will have access to frequently-visited websites (Facebook? YouTube?) blocked until they complete an online course on copyright. The warning notices will begin on November 28th.
This comes after the team-up of AT&T, Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon, who joined ranks with the MPAA and RIAA to form the Center for Copyright Information (CCI). The providers and MPAA/RIAA set out an agreement in which Internet subscribers would receive warnings for downloading copyrighted items. The subscriber will receive several warnings before the provider can then enact a harsher punishment.
None of the five providers have publicly commented on their involvement in the anti-piracy scheme. The leaked AT&T training documents provide the first glimpse into the plan, which is not without (extensive) controversy. The documents explain the upcoming changes to staff, and include this bit of info: “AT&T will not share any personally identifiable information about its customers with content owners until authorized by the customer or required to do so by law.”
An alleged source within the Center for Copyright Information told TorrentFreak that all five providers planned to launch the program on the same day. If true, this means that Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner customers will begin receiving piracy notices November 28th, in addition to AT&T subscribers. The “online education tutorial on copyright” will be triggered on the fifth or sixth warning notice, at which point access to certain frequently visited websites will be blocked until the tutorial is completed.
[via TorrentFreak]
CETA appears still to be kicking.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/ceta-replicates-acta
Canada-EU Trade Agreement Replicates ACTA’s Notorious Copyright Provisions-TaoPhoenix (October 15, 2012, 07:48 PM)
Canada is free and freedom is its nationality.-Wilfrid Laurier - 7th Prime Minister of Canada
Nothing will prevent me from continuing my task of preserving at all costs our civil liberty.-Wilfrid Laurier - 7th Prime Minister of Canada
As long as there is a drop of blood in my body they won't stop me from talking about freedom.-John Diefenbaker - 13th Prime Minister of Canada
Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong.-John Diefenbaker - 13th Prime Minister of Canada
I could be wrong, of course, but I thought Canada had long ago given away a lot of its civil liberties/freedoms, especially freedom of speech.-IainB (October 16, 2012, 01:24 AM)
I could be wrong, of course, but I thought Canada had long ago given away a lot of its civil liberties/freedoms, especially freedom of speech.-IainB (October 16, 2012, 01:24 AM)
Pretty close. Policy in Ottawa is mostly imported from Washington D.C. So, it usually takes a little bit longer for Canadians to have their freedom stripped than it does for the Americans, though that's not always true. Our Prime Minister is currently selling off large chunks of Canada to China. Not sure whether we'll be Chanada or Chinada in the near future. But, y'know... All the typical stuff that treason is made of, that's our PM.-Renegade (October 16, 2012, 02:21 AM)
...Last Thursday, after evening prayers, more than 60 people attended the first screening by the Red Wax secret cinema in a large warehouse in the south-western city of Abha. Directed to the clandestine event by text message, they crowded inside the hired space, which was then bolted shut.- from Secret cinema gently subverts Saudi Arabia's puritanism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/15/saudi-secret-cinema-red-wax)
Most sat on cheap red plastic chairs placed in rows before a makeshift screen made from a large white sheet, but as the audience was larger than the organisers had expected, some stood. As the lights dimmed, nervousness gave way to quiet anticipation and in silence they watched a film about the lives of migrant workers on one of the country's major building projects. After the screening the audience discussed the issues it raised and the ban on cinema in the kingdom.
"I was really nervous; everyone was nervous," said the film's director, one founder of Red Wax. "We didn't have a plan if [police came]. Everyone parked away from the place. We sent them directions by text message to their mobiles or rang them. Our fears are just to get caught or sent to jail."...
If a customer feels they are being wrongly accused, they can ask for a review, which will cost them $35 according to the Verge.
Thank you for your letter.
Please note that the use of my mailbox is subject to usage fees. Your unsolicited and unauthorized use carries with it a small additional surcharge in addition to some minor penalties.
You may remit the amount you owe, USD $150,000.00 (i.e. the cash equivalent to about 1 song), to <bank account details>, on or before the due date, i.e. today. Late fees and interest charges apply.
Also find enclosed, a payment for $35 for a case review. Your acceptance of payment is considered full acceptance of the terms of this communication.
Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation.
The CD therefore stands as a wonderful symbol of the music industry's inability to see the deeper, underlying trends in technology, and where they would take us. Back then, it meant that nobody was worried about the idea that people would copy digital files from CDs and share them, because they forgot that technology would make possible tomorrow the things that seemed impossible today. Now it means the copyright industries are still trying to preserve unsustainable 20th century business models instead of planning for the incredible technologies we will have in 10, 20 or even 30 years time. They only have to look at the history of the CD and digital piracy to see just how far things can go -- and how wrong our current assumptions can be.
"Encouraging Creativity and Innovation"
Very good points made in this post: 30 Years Of The CD, Of Digital Piracy, And Of Music Industry Cluelessness (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/10023520751/30-years-cd-digital-piracy-music-industry-cluelessness.shtml)
Here's an extract - read the rest at the link.The CD therefore stands as a wonderful symbol of the music industry's inability to see the deeper, underlying trends in technology, and where they would take us. Back then, it meant that nobody was worried about the idea that people would copy digital files from CDs and share them, because they forgot that technology would make possible tomorrow the things that seemed impossible today. Now it means the copyright industries are still trying to preserve unsustainable 20th century business models instead of planning for the incredible technologies we will have in 10, 20 or even 30 years time. They only have to look at the history of the CD and digital piracy to see just how far things can go -- and how wrong our current assumptions can be.-IainB (October 21, 2012, 05:58 AM)
My starting point when it comes to the consideration of any issue relating to free speech is my passionate belief that the second most precious thing in life is the right to express yourself freely.
The most precious thing in life, I think, is food in your mouth, and the third most precious is the roof over your head.
But a fixture for me in the number two slot is free expression, just below the need to sustain life itself.
That is because I have enjoyed free expression in this country all my professional life and fully expect to continue to do so.
Personally I suspect it highly unlikely to be arrested for whatever laws exist to contain free expression because of the undoubtedly privileged position that is afforded to those of a high public profile.
So my concerns are less for myself and more for those more vulnerable because of their lower profile, like the man arrested in Oxford for calling a police horse "gay", or the teenager arrested for calling the church of scientology a cult, or the cafe owner arrested for displaying passages from the bible on a TV screen.
When I heard of some of these more ludicrous offenses and charges, I remembered that I had been here before in a fictional context.
I once did a show called "Not The Nine O'clock News", some years ago, and we did a sketch where Griff Rhys Jones played constable Savage, a manifestly racist police officer, to whom I as his station commander is giving a dressing-down for arresting a black man on a whole string of ridiculous trumped-up and ludicrous charges.
The charges for which constable Savage arrested Mr. Winston Kodogo of fifty-five Mercer Road were these:
"walking on the cracks in the pavement; walking in a loud shirt in a built-up area during the hours of darkness;" and one of my favourites "walking around all over the place."
He was also arrested for "urinating in a public convenience and looking at me in a funny way".
Who would've thought that we would end up with a law that would allow life to imitate art so exactly?
I read somewhere a defender of the status quo claiming that the fact that the gay horse case was dropped after the arrested man refused to pay the fine, and that the scientology case was also dropped at some point during the court process was proof that the law was working well, ignoring the fact that the only reason these cases were dropped was because of the publicity that they had attracted.
The police sensed that ridicule was just around the corner, and withdrew their actions.
But what about the thousands of other cases that did not enjoy the oxygen of publicity, that weren't quite ludicrous enough to attract media attention?
Even for those actions that were withdrawn, people were arrested, Questioned, taken to court, and then released.
You know that isn't the law working properly.
That is censoriousness of the most intimidating kind, guaranteed to have, as Lord Deere says, the chilling effect on free expression and free protest.
Parliament's joint committee on human rights summarized, as you may know, this whole issue very well by saying:"While arresting a protester for using threatening or abusive speech may, depending on the circumstances be a proportionate response, we do not think that language or behaviour that is mainly insulting should ever be criminalized in this way."
The clear problem with the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such.
Criticism is easily construed as insult by certain parties, ridicule easily construed as insult, sarcasm, unfavourable comparison, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy can be interpreted as insult, and because so many things can be interpreted as insult, it is hardly surprising that so many things have been, as the examples I talked about earlier show.
Although the law under discussion has been on the statute book for over twenty-five years, it is indicative of a culture that has taken hold of the programs of successive governments that with the reasonable and well-intentioned ambition to contain obnoxious elements in society, has created a society of an extraordinarily authoritarian and controlling nature That is what you might call the new intolerance, a new but intense desire to gag uncomfortable voices of dissent.
"I am not intolerant" say many people - say many, softly-spoken highly-educated, liberal-minded people - "I am only intolerant of intolerance", and people tend to nod sagely and say "Oh yes, wise words, wise words", and yet if you think about this supposedly inarguable statement for longer than five seconds, you realize that all that is advocating is the replacement of one kind of intolerance with another, which to me doesn't represent any kind of progress at all.
Underlying prejudices, injustices or resentments are not addressed by arresting people.
They are addressed by the issues being aired, argued and dealt with, preferably outside the legal process.
For me, the best way to increase society's resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it.
As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed.
We need to build our immunity to taking offence, so that we can deal with the issues that perfectly justified criticism can raise.
Our priority should be to deal with the message, not the messenger.
As president Obama said in an address to the United Nations only a month or so ago,"Laudable efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics or oppress minorities.
The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech."
And that's the essence of my thesis - more speech.
If we want a robust society, we need more robust dialogue and that must include the right to insult, or to offend.
and as - even if - as Lord Deere says, you know, the freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.
The repeal of this word in this clause will be only a small step, but it will I hope be a critical one in what should be a longer term project to pause, and slowly rewind the creeping culture of censoriousness.
It is a small skirmish in the battle, in my opinion, to deal with what Sir Salmon Rushdie refers to as "the outrage industry".
Self-appointed arbiters of the public good, encouraging media-stoked outrage to which the police feel under terrible pressure to react.
A newspaper rings up Scotland Yard. Someone has said something slightly insulting on twitter about someone who we think a national treasure.
What are you going to do about it?
The police panic and they scrabble around and then grasp the most inappropriate lifeline of all, section five of the Public Order Act, that thing where you can arrest anybody for saying anything that might be construed by anyone else as insulting.
You know they don't seem to need a real victim, they need only to make the judgment that somebody could have been offended if they had heard or read what has been said.
The most ludicrous degrees of latitude.
The storms that surround twitter and facebook comment have raised some fascinating issues about free speech which we haven't really yet come to terms with.
Firstly, that we all have to take responsibility for what we say - which is quite a good lesson to learn - but secondly, we've learnt how appallingly prickly and intolerant society has become of even the mildest adverse comment.
The law should not be aiding and abetting this new intolerance.
Free speech can only suffer if the law prevents us from dealing with its consequences.
I offer my wholehearted support to the reform section five campaign.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
We're back to this thread. I don't even know the name of the item yet! :o
http://www.securityweek.com/showdown-set-bid-give-un-control-internet
Showdown Set on Bid to Give UN Control of Internet
"WASHINGTON - It is expected to be the mother of all cyber diplomatic battles.
When delegates gather in Dubai in December for an obscure UN agency meeting, fighting is expected to be intense over proposals to rewrite global telecom rules to effectively give the United Nations control over the Internet.
Russia, China and other countries back a move to place the Internet under the authority of the International Telecommunications Union, a UN agency that sets technical standards for global phone calls. "
-----
Backed by Russia and China hmm? Lovely.-TaoPhoenix (October 29, 2012, 11:07 AM)
Mueller said the ITU "already recognizes the sovereign right of nations to restrict communications into and out of the country."
@Renegade: Some people (not me, you understand) might say that when people use terms like "my 110%...", it is proof that there are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't. However, I couldn't possibly comment. ;)-IainB (October 29, 2012, 03:02 PM)
I'm just amazed, of all the sources of oppression, it's ... music and motion pictures? Really?! Not to commend an evil job well done, but really?! Of all the moneyed sources out there, it's those two that have managed to totally lock all of politics?!-TaoPhoenix (October 30, 2012, 07:54 AM)
I'm just amazed, of all the sources of oppression, it's ... music and motion pictures? Really?! Not to commend an evil job well done, but really?! Of all the moneyed sources out there, it's those two that have managed to totally lock all of politics?!As @Renegade says:-TaoPhoenix (October 30, 2012, 07:54 AM)
...It's not just the entertainment industry...Probably the most likely - and certainly the simplest - explanation is provided by the GCS "Good Corporate Psychopath" model. (Sorry, "GCS" being used phonetically.)
..."A lack of transparency is also at the origin of the current controversy as TorrentFreak learned that other than the RIAA, none of the CCI partners were aware of the link between Stroz Friedberg and the RIAA. It’s not unthinkable that CCI would have picked another company to start with if the RIAA had disclosed this relationship."...- you might be able to fall about laughing (as I did) because of the apparent naivety of the journalist. Why would the RIAA not wish to keep mum about the relationship for goodness' sake? It would surely be obvious to all but the most obtuse that to have their plant on the inside would mean that the odds would be stacked more highly in their favour.
But of the industries that are leading directly to measures which "conveniently" overstep the stated mandate, it's Entertainment that keeps showing up, along with the War On Terror and Protect the Kiddies finishing the triumvirate. Gene patents are icky, but they don't seem to immediately lead to "we must examine blood samples daily to be sure you are not eating illegal corn."Yes, but the explanation for that could be that there is a natural real/potential alliance over common ground between:-TaoPhoenix (October 31, 2012, 05:20 PM)
"The rule of thumb is that, if a business process can not stand the hard light of scrutiny, then there is probably something unethical about it". - Sir Adrian Cadbury (Chairman of the then Quaker family-owned Cadbury's) in his prize-winning article on Business Ethics for Harvard Business Review circa 1984.
"Becase we care about charitable work."Yeah, right.
Oh I'm sure there are lots of evil geniuses out there. I guarantee Monsanto has a few!
But of the industries that are leading directly to measures which "conveniently" overstep the stated mandate, it's Entertainment that keeps showing up, along with the War On Terror and Protect the Kiddies finishing the triumvirate. Gene patents are icky, but they don't seem to immediately lead to "we must examine blood samples daily to be sure you are not eating illegal corn."-TaoPhoenix (October 31, 2012, 05:20 PM)
More copyright fun:
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-pirate-ordered-to-pay-1-5-million-damages-for-sharing-10-movies-121101/
BitTorrent Pirate Ordered to Pay $1.5 Million Damages For Sharing 10 (porn!) Movies-TaoPhoenix (November 02, 2012, 09:45 AM)
More copyright fun:
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-pirate-ordered-to-pay-1-5-million-damages-for-sharing-10-movies-121101/
BitTorrent Pirate Ordered to Pay $1.5 Million Damages For Sharing 10 (porn!) Movies-TaoPhoenix (November 02, 2012, 09:45 AM)
Well, they better have been lesbian porn, because to my knowledge, the highest paid yet is $780,000.
http://www.news.com.au/news/brazilian-student-catarina-migliorini-sells-her-virginity-for-780000-in-online-auction/story-fnejlrpu-1226503001489
And that's for the real thing! :P-Renegade (November 02, 2012, 10:05 AM)
More copyright fun:
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-pirate-ordered-to-pay-1-5-million-damages-for-sharing-10-movies-121101/
BitTorrent Pirate Ordered to Pay $1.5 Million Damages For Sharing 10 (porn!) Movies-TaoPhoenix (November 02, 2012, 09:45 AM)
Well, they better have been lesbian porn, because to my knowledge, the highest paid yet is $780,000.
http://www.news.com.au/news/brazilian-student-catarina-migliorini-sells-her-virginity-for-780000-in-online-auction/story-fnejlrpu-1226503001489
And that's for the real thing! :P-Renegade (November 02, 2012, 10:05 AM)
I find something (ok...better make it many things) about that story extremely disturbing. Is it just me? :huh:-40hz (November 02, 2012, 03:34 PM)
More copyright fun:
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-pirate-ordered-to-pay-1-5-million-damages-for-sharing-10-movies-121101/
BitTorrent Pirate Ordered to Pay $1.5 Million Damages For Sharing 10 (porn!) Movies-TaoPhoenix (November 02, 2012, 09:45 AM)
Well, they better have been lesbian porn, because to my knowledge, the highest paid yet is $780,000.
http://www.news.com.au/news/brazilian-student-catarina-migliorini-sells-her-virginity-for-780000-in-online-auction/story-fnejlrpu-1226503001489
And that's for the real thing! :P-Renegade (November 02, 2012, 10:05 AM)
I find something (ok...better make it many things) about that story extremely disturbing. Is it just me? :huh:-40hz (November 02, 2012, 03:34 PM)
Hay, if somebody is willing to pay top dollar for a blank slate...what's the harm? It wasn't "special"?? 9 time out of 4 "special" is in reality defined as short, confusing, and on somebody's thigh. ...Yeah, getting paid well would ruin that memory... :)-Stoic Joker (November 02, 2012, 03:53 PM)
...Maybe I'm just tired?...Never mind. Just sit down, put your headphones on, and listen to this with your eyes closed. You'll feel more like your old self in a matter of minutes.-40hz (November 02, 2012, 04:04 PM)
by Rick Falkvinge
Diversity: Against all odds, former Italian prime minister Berlusconi was recently sentenced to one year in prison. This followed a long process where an Italian referendum had to be held to revoke his legal immunity, in order to indict him in the first place. We can learn a lot about the dangers of politically controlled media from how Berlusconi tried to defeat this referendum.
Silvio Berlusconi was sentenced to one year in prison for “notable tax evasion”, and prohibited from holding public office for five years. Experts say that this means that the 76-year-old’s political career is effectively over.
However, this case has been dragging on for a long time, and started out as a seemingly hopeless case since Berlusconi enjoyed legal immunity for acts committed during his prime ministry. To repeal this immunity, a referendum was required in Italy – a population-wide referendum just to allow the former prime minister – one man – to even stand trial.
To understand the complexity of this situation, three pieces of data are vital:
First, the functional illiteracy in Italy is 43% (yes, forty-three per cent). This means that almost half of the population can’t read an average-complexity newspaper article, or this blog post, and understand its content and use its information in their daily lives.
Second, referendums in Italy need two things to pass and take judicial effect. Out of the voting people, over 50% of the valid votes cast must be “yes” votes – simple enough; there must be a majority in favor of the referendum. But the second thing required is that the voter turnout must also be over 50%. This means that there are two mutually exclusive strategies for defeating an Italian referendum – either campaign heavily for a “no” vote, or not campaign at all in shooting for a voter turnout less than the required half.
Third, Silvio Berlusconi owns a controlling interest in six of the seven television networks in Italy.
Now, putting these three facts together, we observe that people in Italy do not get their daily news from newspapers (in fact, almost half of them are unable to do so), but from television and friends. We also observe that the programming on television is practically completely controlled by the single man in Italy who has anything to lose from the referendum passing.
So what happened?
The referendum wasn’t mentioned once on the televised news in six out of seven television networks. It was dismissed as “not newsworthy”, in all simplicity.
But the referendum passed anyway, reaching the required 50-percent voter turnout by and large thanks to the alternate newsflows of the net, which Silvio Berlusconi didn’t grow up with and which he hasn’t cared to understand. And so, Berlusconi was indicted. He stepped down from the prime ministry on practically the same day, and was sentenced to jail a few days ago, on October 26.
This story illustrates in a very straightforward way how media ownership, and the interest of the media owners, influences news valuation.
To put it bluntly, there is simply no such thing as “independent media” or “neutral media”. Ownership interests prevail; blood is thicker than water. Even public service channels choose to report from values in the middle lane. That’s not neutral; that’s in the middle lane.
Therefore, a plurality in reporting remains paramount – in order to hold elected leaders accountable, we need many reporters with many competing interests.
I find something (ok...better make it many things) about that story extremely disturbing. Is it just me? :huh:-40hz (November 02, 2012, 03:34 PM)
It sometimes seems as though quite a lot of the issues affecting Internet freedoms tend to be largely ignored or "under-reported" by the MSM (MainStream Media), so that we interested parties (Internet users) actually only find out about things at the last minute.I didn't try to answer my own question, but I have just read where Rick Falkvinge answers it for me - and very cogently, it seems: Why SOPA-supporting news networks don't mention SOPA. (http://falkvinge.net/2012/01/11/why-sopa-supporting-news-networks-dont-mention-sopa-at-all/)
Now why might that be?
...-IainB (November 02, 2012, 06:52 PM)
On these six [Italian] television networks, the referendum was simply not mentioned. Not once. Deemed not newsworthy.
At the end of the day, this enraged the Italian people enough to bump voter turnout over 50% anyway, and the referendum passed. Very shortly thereafter, having had his immunity revoked, Berlusconi stepped down.
Are we starting to see parallels to the SOPA blackout yet?
Conclusion
If you control what other people know, if you control the village newswell, then you control the entire village. The Catholic Church was in this privileged position before the printing press (which is also why they demanded harsher and harsher penalties — up to and including the death penalty — for unauthorized copying of knowledge in their time).
The one thing that can threaten TV news networks is the Internet and the ability for people to communicate directly, bypassing the judgment of the now-famous 1% to determine what knowledge befits the masses. We learn from history that all such power is always used to maintain and strengthen itself first. So, SOPA basically kills that ability of the everyday person to bypass the 1%.
Therefore, it is in the economic and political interest of today’s newswells to kill a strategic threat to their privileged position, and to act just like Berlusconi did in Italy: to actively not bring the topic up onto people’s radar.
In other words, Corporate United States is just as corrupt as Berlusconi’s Italy was, and is acting just like the Catholic Church did when they tried to kill the printing press.
I didn't try to answer my own question, but I have just read where Rick Falkvinge answers it for me - and very cogently, it seems: Why SOPA-supporting news networks don't mention SOPA. (http://falkvinge.net/2012/01/11/why-sopa-supporting-news-networks-dont-mention-sopa-at-all/)-IainB (November 04, 2012, 02:48 AM)
Anti-Piracy Group Threatens To Sue ISPs Over TV Show ‘Piracy’ (https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-group-threatens-to-sue-isps-over-tv-show-piracy-121102/)
enigmax, November 2, 2012
CIAPC, the anti-piracy group that has successfully forced ISPs in Finland to block The Pirate Bay, has threatened to sue the ISPs themselves over alleged TV show piracy. Local ISPs such as Elisa and TeliaSonera offer cloud services where their customers can store TV shows for later viewing over the Internet. CIAPC says the services fall outside the scope of private copying “fair use” and therefore require a license to operate legally. The ISPs are ignoring demands to shut down the services and now face legal action.
For decades TV companies lived in the moment, transmitting TV shows at a certain time and date and expecting their customers to adapt to their predetermined schedules. Be around when the show airs, be around for the repeat, or miss it forever, the business model used to dictate.
Technologies such as VHS and more recently home hard disc recorders went some way to bridging the accessibility gap but these days customers increasingly want everything “on demand”, at a time and place of their choosing, not one dictated by a TV company.
To fill this gap in the market, some ISPs such as Elisa and TeliaSonera in Finland are offering their subscribers personal cloud storage. As a TV show is aired it is recorded to the customer’s cloud account, ready to be watched over the Internet at a more convenient time.
The ISPs and their subscribers appear to be happy with the convenience of the services but perhaps unsurprisingly they are now coming under attack from rightsholders.
CIAPC, the anti-piracy group that successfully forced ISPs such as Elisa, TeliaSonera and DNA (around 80% of the Finnish Internet market) to block The Pirate Bay, insists these services are illegal and should be shut down.
“Storage services for TV shows are currently offered by around twenty companies, including major Internet service providers such as Elisa and TeliaSonera,” CIAPC explain. “None of the companies have licenses for the services. This is significant, because the issue concerns around 100 million euros worth of commercial services.”
CIAPC say they wrote to the companies advising them that their services breach copyright law and ordering them to be shut down, but thus far the warnings have gone unheeded. So this week CIAPC reiterated their threats that if the services remain operational, legal action will follow.
“None of the service providers has complied with the requirement of the ban. It appears that a legal solution needs to be considered,” says CIAPC managing director Antti Kotilainen.
The timing of the threats appears to be linked to an announcement last week that the operators of TVkaista, a company offering similar services, had been charged for illegally offering the content of several TV companies without permission.
TVkaista’s CEO and technical director are accused of copyright and intellectual property offenses plus aggravated fraud. The company’s legal adviser is charged with criminal copyright offenses and copyright fraud.
The accused all protest their innocence. They insist that their service is legal under current law which grants their customers a fair use exception for private copying of TV shows for personal use.
The service offered by TVkaista is, however, slightly different to that being offered by Elisa and TeliaSonera. TVkaista records all programs and stores them for a few weeks whether customers ask for them or not. The other services only record TV shows on demand.
CIAPC say that the Copyright Act only permits users to save content such as TV shows, movies and music locally within the home, and these cloud services don’t fit that description.
None of the ISPs are expected to give in without a fight.
None of the ISPs are expected to give in without a fight.
And @Renegade, yes, I do see that a lot of what David Icke says makes sense. This "ISP Piracy" nonsense is an example of what he was on about - Fascism. The rightsholders seem to want to have us all in a straightjacket where we get force-fed exactly what they want to feed us, when they want to, and we will have to pay them for the privilege every time.-IainB (November 04, 2012, 03:28 AM)
The rightsholders seem to want to have us all in a straightjacket where we get force-fed exactly what they want to feed us, when they want to, and we will have to pay them for the privilege every time.-IainB (November 04, 2012, 03:28 AM)
Royalties for online radio and other digital music services are a prominent topic for today’s recorded music industry, and the discussion has only grown with the recent introduction of the Internet Radio Fairness Act in the House and Senate. IRFA aims to revamp the parts of the Copyright Act that create licenses for online radio services to pay for transmitting sound recordings to their users. More specifically, IRFA would change the standard by which online radio royalty rates are set, alter the qualifications and appointment procedures for the Copyright Royalty Judges, and make several more changes to the process of setting online radio royalties.
Interesting: Federal judge blocks FBI’s attempts to hold back information on troubling surveillance program (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ActivistPost/~3/IThkuzGhLbc/federal-judge-blocks-fbis-attempts-to.html)
"Troubling"? Sounds like a newspeak euphemism.-IainB (November 04, 2012, 07:54 PM)
it's heartening to see BalkanLeaks and Bivol.org continuing to expose wrongs through the use of leaked information, despite the very clear risks.
I'll leave this one to my betters to see if this law is a Good Thing or not.-TaoPhoenix (November 07, 2012, 11:57 AM)
I'll leave this one to my betters to see if this law is a Good Thing or not.-TaoPhoenix (November 07, 2012, 11:57 AM)
Most times it's less an issue of the law as written - and more a matter of how it's interpreted (and abused) in practice.
In Canada's case, I think only time and future judicial decisions will show whether it was a good thing or not.-40hz (November 07, 2012, 02:59 PM)
Though the "tenor of the news" counts for a lot too.-TaoPhoenix (November 07, 2012, 05:34 PM)
Canberra says it will use Interpol's "worst of" list to block child abuse sites.
November 14, 2012
By Ante Wessels
On 13 November 2012 the FFII sent an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) to the Court of Justice of the European Union. A few hours later the registry of the court informed the FFII that only the Member States, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission may participate in the Opinion procedure and submit written statements. The Court does not accept amicus curiae briefs from third parties...
(Read the rest via the above link.)
"Mine ears are aking of thy drafty speech." (Chaucer's Melibus)
"the court informed the FFII that only the Member States, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission may participate in the Opinion procedure and submit written statements."
"A man from Aylesham has tonight been arrested on suspicion of malicious telecommunications," Kent police said in a statement after the arrest. "This follows a posting on a social network site of a burning poppy. He is currently in police custody awaiting interview."
Supreme Court Ruling Makes Chasing File-Sharers Hugely Expensive (http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/7fxhyt/torrentfreak.com/supreme-court-ruling-makes-chasing-file-sharers-hugely-expensive-110325/)
March 25, 2011
A court ruling has not only sharply reduced the amount of compensation rightsholders can expect from Danish file-sharing cases, but has also drawn a line on evidential standards. To accurately claim their losses in future, rightsholders will have to gain physical access to an infringer’s computer. A leading lawyer in the field says the costs will prove prohibitively expensive.
In 2005, anti-piracy group Antipiratgruppen (APG) and the underlying music group IFPI tracked a man who they say was sharing 13,000 music tracks via a Direct Connect network. The case moved through the legal system and went all the way to the Supreme Court.
The 6 year-old case has now been concluded and although the rightsholder plaintiffs in the case won their battle – albeit in a much smaller way than anticipated – the Court’s ruling is set to prove a huge setback to their overall war.
The case against the now 57-year-old was brought by APG on behalf of many IFPI-linked record labels and artists. As is so often in these cases, they had hoped for a punishing outcome in order to deter others. The rightsholders had originally demanded 440,000 kroner ($83,400) in compensation but that claimed amount was ultimately reduced to 200,000 ($37,900).
However, yesterday the Supreme Court decided that the defendant should pay only 10,000 kroner ($1,900), a major setback for the rightsholders who had hoped for a much higher precedent-setting amount on which to model future cases.
The compensation-limiting factor problem proved to be the reach of the evidence relied on by Antipiratgruppen. APG used techniques which scraped the index of the files said to be being made available by the defendant and then linked them back to his IP address, a method which has been acceptable in the past. But while the Court accepted that some sharing had occurred due to the defendant’s confession, it wasn’t satisfied that the index was an accurate representation of the files physically present on the defendant’s computer.
Per Overbeck, lawyer for the defendant, said that the lowered compensation award shows that it’s worth fighting back.
“The ruling demonstrates that it pays to be critical of Antipiratgruppen’s claims,” he said.
Speaking with Politiken, IFPI lawyer Johan Schlüter said that the Supreme Court decision to tighten the standard of proof in these cases could mean that Antipiratgruppen has to seize and investigate the defendant’s computer in any forthcoming cases, an expensive process that would require a bailiff, IT experts, and in some cases a locksmith.
“I will not directly say that we can not afford it, but it could be so expensive that it could mean we cannot pursue such matters,” said Schlüter. “We can not accept that we have become completely neutered, so we’ll now sit down with some IT people and think through what we can do to provide better documentation.”
Schlüter commented that the industry is in somewhat of a “cultural battle” with illegal copying and he could have a point. A recent moral standards study in Denmark found that a high percentage of the public found illicit downloading socially acceptable.
...So, given a magic wand, how would David solve the piracy dilemma – try to crush torrent sites like The Pirate Bay, or take a different approach?
“I would send the ISP of the websites an invoice for a small fee (say 5 dollars) for each torrent download to give to the rights holders. The ISP would have to collect from the customer or pay it themselves,” David concludes.
An update of sorts. According to this article, the U.S. and the European Parliment are now opposing the treaty. Personally I'll believe it when I see it.....Yes, and if you are right, then we have real cause for concern.
U.N. readies for protests on eve of secret Internet regulation treaty
With the potential of becoming SOPA and CISPA on steroids, a multinational U.N.-sponsored treaty will be decided behind closed doors in Dubai next weekend. Leaked documents show why everyone wants it stopped.
http://www.zdnet.com/u-n-readies-for-protests-on-eve-of-secret-internet-regulation-treaty-7000007962-Tinman57 (November 27, 2012, 07:09 PM)
The harassment of WikiLeaks and other Internet activists, together with attempts to introduce anti-file sharing legislation such as SOPA and ACTA, indicate that the politics of the Internet have reached a crossroads. In one direction lies a future that guarantees, in the watchwords of the cypherpunks, "privacy for the weak and transparency for the powerful"; in the other lies an Internet that allows government and large corporations to discover ever more about internet users while hiding their own activities. Assange and his co-discussants unpick the complex issues surrounding this crucial choice with clarity and engaging enthusiasm.There's a very droll plug for the book on YouTube, Secret Leaked Video of Petraeus Outburst. Made me laugh till I cried.
Love the free and open Internet? Tell the world's governments (https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=hpp&utm_campaign=12032012freeandopen_en) to keep it that way.If you follow the link, then you will be taken to the Google Take Action page, where you can read about:
..."House approves resolution to keep Internet control out of UN hands" ... by ... wait for it ... 397-0...Hard to believe, but true, by all reports.-TaoPhoenix (December 05, 2012, 06:23 PM)
..."House approves resolution to keep Internet control out of UN hands" ... by ... wait for it ... 397-0...Hard to believe, but true, by all reports.-TaoPhoenix (December 05, 2012, 06:23 PM)-IainB (December 06, 2012, 01:01 AM)
..."House approves resolution to keep Internet control out of UN hands" ... by ... wait for it ... 397-0...Hard to believe, but true, by all reports.-TaoPhoenix (December 05, 2012, 06:23 PM)-IainB (December 06, 2012, 01:01 AM)
"We need to send a strong message, blah blah blah. Now if you'll excuse us, we'll go back holding our country hostage before you rudely interrupted us." :o-TaoPhoenix (December 06, 2012, 03:43 AM)
From the Dept. of Hidden Agendas comes:
"House approves resolution to keep Internet control out of UN hands" ... by ... wait for it ... 397-0.
Can anyone say Hot Potato? This is the Congress that will gleefully wreck the country by letting us lose our AAA credit rating (so Bankers with short-derivative-whatevers can skim more cash) and play games with debt bankruptcy ceilings... and they can find it among themselves to vote 397-0 to keep the UN out of the internet?!
Ingredients: Barrel. Fish.
Directions: Leave in Sunlight to cure for 3 days until nice and rotten. Serve on top of legislation when they whine that they can't get consensus even though the country risks economic implosion. Serves 12 bills.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/271153-house-approves-resolution-to-keep-internet-control-out-of-un-hands-TaoPhoenix (December 05, 2012, 06:23 PM)
Considering how feckless and ineffective (by design) the UN has been for most of it's existence, it's probably just as well.
You can't have an effective world governing body when a tiny group of players (all armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons) individually hold absolute and unchallengeable veto power over anything and everything the UN "resolves."
But then again, the UN was never set up with the intent to be a governing body. It's never been more than a public forum and debating society at the best of times. Much like the Student Councils and Student Senates in most high schools and universities. It has all the trappings of a government body - but none of the real authority.
:-\-40hz (December 06, 2012, 08:23 AM)
Call me a liar. Tell me that I'm a crank/kook/nut/whatever.-Renegade (December 06, 2012, 09:16 AM)
But do look into it for yourself.-Renegade (December 06, 2012, 09:16 AM)
December 14, 2012________________________
Beware Godzilla Sleeping: The ITU's Internet Fiasco
A mainstay of science-fiction and horror films is the monster that you're led to believe has been vanquished, but reappears in even more horrific form (sometimes bringing along "friends" as well) in the final scene, or the sequels, or often both.
Godzilla appears to sink back into the sea to leave a battered Tokyo in peace, but he's merely snoozing, dreaming happy dreams of future destruction.
It's worth keeping Godzilla in mind as we scan reports of the ITU's new telecom treaty, which despite a glowing ITU press release was quite properly not signed by the U.S. and many other countries, rendering the entire exercise not even a Pyrrhic victory for the ITU.
The result is that we stand today regarding the open Internet in much the same place we stood a couple of weeks ago before the ITU's WCIT meeting in Dubai even began.
But like Alice in Through the Looking-Glass, we had to do an awful lot of running to end up very close to where we started. And while this can be celebrated in the short run, in the long run it is a very worrisome place to be.
Virtually all of the dangerous dynamics that we've talked about many times in the past -- which led us to this point -- still remain in play.
The existing DNS (Domain Name System) continues to be a focal point of contention. ICANN's escalating mismanagement of the Internet's naming resources, culminating in their extortionist, damaging, and nightmarishly mutating gTLD expansion scheme -- designed to enrich the existing domain-industrial complex -- has driven a stake through the heart of any possible global cooperation in this area.
The DNS has been warped from a simple addressing tool into a truncheon of copyright and censorship enforcement -- with the U.S. leading the way with both related police actions without normal due process, and the insane filings of millions of often hilariously inaccurate takedown demands with Google and others, made all the worse since there usually are no effective penalties for false takedown filings.
Governments around the world continue to eye the Internet and the open communications it fosters to be primarily a threat, with its technology ripe for surveillance, and its users to be controlled, censored, flogged, imprisoned, and even worse. The ITU's newfound fetish for DPI -- Deep Packet Inspection -- makes the wet dreams of tyrants and others in this sphere all the more explicit.
These dynamics are continuing going forward. The risks of Internet censorship, fragmentation, and other severe damage to the Internet we've worked so hard to build will continue to be exacerbated, despite our holding the ITU pretty much at bay this time around.
It's not as if better paths forward have not been suggested in the past. But in answer to most such suggestions, the response has usually been fear of tampering with the status quo, tied to concerns that any changes might end up being worse than the de facto situation in which we find ourselves today.
But as we've now seen with dramatic clarity, the current situation is not likely to be stable in the long run. It is in fact highly unstable, and the risks of this instability ripping the Internet apart in fundamental ways are now worse than ever.
In the past we've talked about the possibility of creating new, purpose-built multi-stakeholder organizations to better serve the entire Internet community -- not just the relatively few lucky entities currently suckling the bulk of the bucks from the DNS gravy train.
Alternatives to the existing DNS -- secure, fully distributed systems for Internet naming and addressing -- such as IDONS and others -- have already been proposed, and could potentially eliminate billions of dollars in associated waste, while simultaneously ending the kinds of naming and DNS abuse problems that now seem synonymous with the existing DNS ecosystem.
Pervasive Internet encryption systems -- that would make Internet connections routinely far more secure from attacks and surveillance abuses -- are possible but resisted, often in concert with much the same kinds of arguments that tyrants have spouted since the dawn of civilization.
The despicable behavior of ITU leadership at WCIT is but a shadow of what the future may be like, unless we seriously take proactive actions now to protect the global, open Internet -- and the open access to information and communications that it engenders -- against those forces who would turn the Net into a tool of political, economic, and other forms of oppression.
The Internet Godzilla may be heading off to sleep for now. But he'll be back, along with his brethren and multitude of minions as well.
And if we haven't prepared, if we haven't taken action by then -- woe to us all.
--Lauren--
Positive developments in UK copyright law: (http://c4sif.org/2012/12/uk-copyright-improvements/)
Video mash-ups and song parodies to be legalised (just as long as they are funny)
By MATT CHORLEY, MAILONLINE POLITICAL EDITOR
PUBLISHED: 07:18 EST, 21 December 2012 | UPDATED: 11:29 EST, 21 December 2012
- Copyright law shake-up to make it easier to transfer files between devices
- iPod and e-book users will not be criminalised if copy is for personal use
- Record companies will not be able to block song parodies
Film companies and record labels will not be able to force mash-ups and spoofs to be taken down from the internet under a major shake-up of copyright law.
Ministers have vowed to legalise parodies after countless viral hits have disappeared from sites like YouTube because multi-national firms failed to see the funny side.
It also means the creators of hits like the countless parodies of the Hitler film Downfall, Cassetteboy’s mash-ups of TV shows and the genius behind the Masterchef Synthesia (buttery biscuit base) will no longer be breaking the law by copying and editing popular TV shows.
Parodies of the 2004 film Downfall are now so widespread online there is even one which shows Hitler's fury at the number of spoof versionsParodies of the 2004 film Downfall are now so widespread online there is even one which shows Hitler’s fury at the number of spoof versions
The shake-up, ordered by Lib Dem Vince Cable, also means the hilarious video of his boss Nick Clegg ‘singing’ his tuition fees apology would be freed from copyright control.
Read more>> (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251617/Video-mash-ups-song-parodies-legalised-just-long-funny.html)
^^ Ok. I'll bite. What's the catch? A new 10% tax on all Internet connections to make up for their septillions of losses?@Hero: You are sooo cynical.-Renegade (December 24, 2012, 05:50 AM)
"This is exactly what happened with the NDAA. Harry Ried broke into proceedings a couple weeks ago and very quickly (almost too fast to understand) said a bunch of mumbo jumbo about amendments and extensions being added to some bill and then motioned for it to be accepted, it was, and then left and they went back to the former proceedings he had interrupted. In all, it took about 30 seconds. What was this bill he was so weirdly inserting something into? Bill 4310. The NDAA.
Nobody knows about it (unless they were watching CSPAN in the middle of the night during those 30 seconds and thought enough to ask what 4310 was). Nobody is accountable for it. And nobody has made a big deal about it."-TaoPhoenix (December 24, 2012, 08:09 AM)
Evidently, it is OK for movie corporations and the justice and other government authorities to pirate material, but not the proles.
What a hoot!-IainB (December 27, 2012, 05:01 AM)
More of a snort as some animals are more equal than others. :(-Renegade (December 27, 2012, 05:06 AM)
^^ It's not like ads really serve anyone except the advertisers. I think it was Tinman that pointed out that there is no truth in advertising. I don't particularly have all that much sympathy for purely ad supported businesses. If the product were that good, people would simply pay for it. There are other ways to make money without ads. Maybe they should stop whining and start trying to think about their business.-Renegade (January 04, 2013, 06:49 AM)
^^ It's not like ads really serve anyone except the advertisers. I think it was Tinman that pointed out that there is no truth in advertising. I don't particularly have all that much sympathy for purely ad supported businesses. If the product were that good, people would simply pay for it. There are other ways to make money without ads. Maybe they should stop whining and start trying to think about their business.When selling web hosting from my servers, I find consistently that I actually make more money by putting advertising on a free client's website than I would make selling them the same quota of resources on my servers.-Renegade (January 04, 2013, 06:49 AM)
Leveson Effect: Can You See What It Is Yet? (http://order-order.com/2013/01/05/leveson-effect-can-you-see-what-it-is-yet/)
Over the last few weeks the police Operation Yewtree has questioned a number of celebrities over allegations of sex crimes. Each time the papers have known the names of those arrested or questioned, each time the first the public knew about it was when this blog broke the story.
We scooped the press on the arrests of Max Clifford and Jim Davidson. Today we can report that Rolf Harris has also been questioned under caution by police from Operation Yewtree. This has been an open secret in media circles for weeks, journalists and newspaper editors alike have known about the story – yet none has published the news. Why?
No judge has ordered reporting restrictions in relation to Rolf Harris, no super-injunctions prevent the reporting of news concerning him, instead his lawyers Harbottle and Lewis are citing the Leveson Inquiry’s report in letters to editors of newspapers – cowing them into silence. The Leveson effect is real and curtailing the freedom of the press through fear.
In the case of Max Clifford a popular media commentator was our source, with Jim Davidson an ex-copper tipped us off and a local journalist gave us confirmation. This blog is nimble and prepared to take risks, so we are beating all the other news organisations who post-Leveson prefer to await for official police confirmation. This blog is in the news business, we want to beat the competition, we want to be first, we’re proud of breaking stories. We want our readers to be the first to know what is going on.
When the Leveson Inquiry began Guido upset the judge by publishing Alistair Campbell’s evidence before he gave it. Leveson responded by placing a restriction order on this blog. Neatly illustrating by example that the Leveson Inquiry could bring in an era of judicial censorship. It is more subtle than that currently, the chilling effect is that editors fear the prospect of a law rather than any actual new law.
This blog likes being the first to report the news, we would also like to win in a fair fight. The press has its hands tied. A free press ensures that the police do not go about their business in secret. A secret police is a dangerous thing, reporting the arrest of suspects is an important safeguard in a free society – for them and us. We are in danger of losing that safeguard.
See also: Post Leveson British Press Won’t Publish Naked Harry Pictures.
>> Well then sorry, you deserve to have your Internet shut off.
>> God forbid we pay money for things which have value
If it has ads and/or drm, it doesn't have value. The value was added by the pirates, who went to the trouble of removing those things. I'd be willing to pay them.
New Zealand Three-Strikes Law To Be Tested (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01/12/0056221/new-zealand-three-strikes-law-to-be-tested)
Dangerous_Minds writes "Next month, tribunals will begin for the first people receiving their third strikes in the New Zealand 'Three Strikes Law.' In all, 11 people will have their cases heard, including one who said that her connection was used without her knowledge. Freezenet notes that there has been a long history of controversy for the law from the Internet blackout protests of 2008 to the cablegate leak which revealed that the law was financed and pushed by the United States."
Death Twitches: Nokia Caught Wiretapping Encrypted Traffic From Its Handsets (http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/11/death-twitches-nokia-caught-wiretapping-encrypted-traffic-from-its-handsets/)
Nokia, the cellphone manufacturer, has been listening in to all encrypted communications from its handset’s browser. Every connection advertised as secure – banking, social networks, dating, corporate secrets – has been covertly wiretapped by Nokia themselves and decrypted for analysis.
Security researcher Gaurang Pandya posted an article in December about some unexpected behavior with their Nokia handset. It would appear that the browser traffic from the handset would get diverted through Nokia’s servers.
Then, a followup article on January 9 dropped the bomb, and the article goes into quite technical detail: It wasn’t enough that Nokia diverted all traffic from its handsets through its own servers, it also decrypted the encrypted traffic, re-encrypting it before passing it on, issuing HTTPS certificates on the fly that the Nokia phone has been instructed to trust as secure.
This means that Nokia has deliberately been wiretapping all traffic that has been advertised as encrypted on these Nokia handsets – including but not limited to banking, dating, credit card numbers, and corporate secrets – and looking at your secrets in cleartext.
This means that Nokia puts itself between your bank and you, and presents itself as YourBank, Inc. to your phone. This wouldn’t normally be possible, if it weren’t for the fact that the phone had been specifically designed for this deceptive behavior, by installing a Nokia signing certificate on the phone.
Nokia has confirmed this behavior in correspondence with TechWeek Europe (my highlights):
“The compression that occurs within the Nokia Xpress Browser means that users can get faster web browsing and more value [...blahblah...] when temporary decryption of HTTPS connections is required on our proxy servers, to transform and deliver users’ content, it is done in a secure manner”, a Nokia spokesperson told TechWeek Europe.
The issue affects at least the Nokia handsets with Nokia’s own browser, the Nokia Xpress Browser mentioned above.
So why is this a big deal?
It is a big deal because banks rely on having a secure connection all the way to you. As do corporate networks. As do news outlets’ protection of sources. Anybody listening in to the conversation in the middle breaks the whole concept of secrecy – and the phone was specifically designed by Nokia to allow Nokia to listen in without telling you.
My, my. Secure connections are presenting themselves as secure end-to-end, and a handset manufacturer breaches this most basic of trusts? We’d have a very hard time trusting a company that says “yes, we’re listening to all of your encrypted communications, yes, bank passwords and dating habits and all of it, but we’re not doing anything bad with it. No, really.”
If Nokia was in trouble over its handset sales already, this complete breach of trustworthiness has to be a death twitch.
UPDATE 1: [obsolete with Update 2]
UPDATE 2: Well, that was fast. Pandya has updated his original article where he discovered this so-called Man-in-the-Middle attack, stating that Nokia has pushed out a new version of their browser which removes the Man-in-the-Middle attack – the wiretapping of encrypted communications – from the browser’s behavior. Apparently, it took being caught with the hand in the cookie jar to stop this behavior in just hours.
You still have to remind yourself, though – if they can turn this wiretapping off with a simple browser update after having been discovered doing it, there’s not much stopping Nokia from turning it on just as silently again at some point in the future, is there?
Well, well, well, what a surprise! (NOT) :o
Now I wonder who could have put Nokia up to this naughty thing with their handset browsers, and how many other phones have the same "security" feature?
Hmm, tricky. Probably a criminal gang, or something? :tellme:-IainB (January 12, 2013, 06:39 PM)
... I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out the gov't was behind it all, paying them for the service. DHS has no bounderies...Goodness! Do you really think so? Surely not?... ;D-Tinman57 (January 12, 2013, 07:15 PM)
'I Have a Dream' Posted in Defiance of Copyright for Internet Freedom Day (http://mashable.com/2013/01/18/i-have-a-dream-internet-freedom/)
Alex Fitzpatrick
2013-01-18 16:06:00 UTC
As Friday is one year since the Internet blackout against the Stop Online Piracy Act, some Internet activists are marking the date by declaring "Internet Freedom Day."
How does one celebrate Internet Freedom Day? Fight for the Future, an advocacy group that played a key role in SOPA's defeat, is commemorating the date by uploading and sharing footage of Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I Have a Dream" speech.
Why is that a radical move? Footage of the speech is copyrighted by EMI, which has issued takedown notices several times after the speech has been uploaded to services such as YouTube.
Update: The video has been taken down from Vimeo. Fight for the Future is trying to learn more and is working to upload it elsewhere.
Update II: The video is back, now on YouTube (http://youtu.be/fIshI_qxxew):
- MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech is copyrighted. Share it anyway. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIshI_qxxew)
Uploading the speech in acknowledged defiance of the copyright simultaneously celebrates Internet freedom and the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., who advocated for civil disobedience as a means to effect change. Martin Luther King, Jr. day is Monday, Jan. 21.
Continue reading... (http://mashable.com/2013/01/18/i-have-a-dream-internet-freedom/)
The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) is an African-American civil rights organization. SCLC was closely associated with its first president, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The SCLC had a large role in the American Civil Rights Movement.[1]
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws," he famously wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail. "Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
"It's untenable to have a world where young people can't easily hear and watch Dr. King's message of racial justice because it is censored by broken copyright laws," said Tiffiniy Cheng, one of Fight for the Future's co-directors, in a statement. "We're asking everyone on the internet to honor Dr. King's legacy and take part in a small act of civil disobedience by sharing the full video of his speech today."
...I'm not sure, but I think this may be another example (my emphasis):West Point Think Tank: "Far Right" Groups Threaten America (http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/18/west-point-think-tank-far-right-groups-t)The implication presumably being that the absolute last things the US needs might include "...civil activism, individual freedoms...". This is clearly true.
West Point Think Tank: "Far Right" Groups Threaten America
January 18, 2013
A West Point think tank has issued a paper warning America about “far right” groups such as the “anti-federalist” movement, which supports “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.”
The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.”-IainB (January 19, 2013, 05:28 PM)
The King family and others believe that the assassination was carried out by a conspiracy involving the US government, as alleged by Loyd Jowers in 1993, and that James Earl Ray was a scapegoat. This conclusion was affirmed by a jury in a 1999 civil trial.[3]
Record Labels “Correct” Dotcom: Only Way to Stop Piracy is Suing File-Sharers (https://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-correct-dotcom-only-way-to-stop-piracy-is-suing-file-sharers-130118/)
enigmax, January 18, 2013
Last week Kim Dotcom posted a few lines on Twitter detailing his guidelines on how the piracy conundrum might be solved. The Megaupload founder said that offering a great product at a fair price, with the same release date worldwide should do the trick, as long as it’s playable on any device. In response today, the Kiwi version of the RIAA said that they’ve done all that and sadly, since people continue to pirate, the only solution is to sue them.
It was a single (re)Tweet on January 7 echoing the words of dozens of other digital observers this century. The advice from Dotcom was viewed by many as the key to solving a decade-long entertainment industry battle that began with an effort to force pirates offline and back into bricks-and-mortar stores.
But of course, that was their first big error.
When the downloading ‘problem’ first appeared people didn’t want to go back into the stores, they wanted access to media online in the most convenient form possible. Sick of being ripped off by two-track wonder albums padded out with junk at an inflated price, they wanted tomorrow’s world today. If the corporates weren’t going to provide it, they would make their own reality instead.
As soon as it became clear that people weren’t going to shelve their new-found freedoms, the record labels’ initial response wasn’t a creative one. Instead of coming up with a decent offering to tempt consumers back they chose to sue thousands of Americans instead. That campaign is still reviled today and did little to end the problem or win the hearts of consumers.
Of course, what they should’ve done – a full 10 years ago – is outlined in Dotcom’s Tweet.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Although it’s safe to assume that Dotcom’s comments were largely directed at Hollywood (who still have difficulty with DRM free, day and date releases, and making their product easy to buy), today a rather unexpected party has jumped in on the debate.
RIANZ, the New Zealand version of the RIAA representing the big recording labels, says “the music industry has delivered on all five points suggested by Dotcom.”
On “Create great stuff” RIANZ points out that while “great is obviously subjective” there are tens of millions of tracks now available for legal download. Twenty digital services available in New Zealand makes their product “easy to buy”, which includes the majority of music releases which are “available simultaneously worldwide.”
On the issue of price RIANZ says that “music has never been cheaper to buy or access” which may indeed be true. However, it is often argued that the price of music before the download revolution is hardly a realistic reference point – inflated prices due to restrictive market practices were another thing file-sharing turned upside down.
The final point – “works on any device” – is a reference to DRM and to their credit the recording industry did eventually respond to this big issue. A large proportion of downloaded music these days does tend to be playable on any device.
Nevertheless, while the music industry has finally come round to the needs of consumers with legal digital take-up coming on in leaps and bounds, the piracy bogeyman still exists.
“Despite [addressing all of the points outlined by Dotcom] music piracy continues unabated in New Zealand at one of the highest per capita rates in the western world. It has also grown every year since 2006 which is when iTunes opened for business in New Zealand,” RIANZ told NZHerald.
“Unfortunately it seems the only way to beat piracy is to take legal action against those who deliberately choose to deny songwriters and recording artists their basic human right to make a living from their creativity,” they conclude.
Here we go again……….
All in all, these comments show a consistent pattern. SOPA and PIPA might not come back as new legislation... but the issues are still very much with us. Those in power still don't understand the core issues, believing it's a commercial dispute between two mis-defined industries, while the focus on "voluntary" solutions seems to be attacking individual rights without people noticing.
They are making a move-
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-braces-online-piracy.html-cmpm (January 28, 2013, 01:59 PM)
<---- Waiting for the "Pound them into the sand" US response...-TaoPhoenix (January 29, 2013, 07:47 AM)
<---- Waiting for the "Pound them into the sand" US response...-TaoPhoenix (January 29, 2013, 07:47 AM)
You got that right! Once Hollywood, the pocket fillers of politicians starts crying, the U.S. will get nasty....-Tinman57 (January 29, 2013, 04:26 PM)
If it was, then presumably those of us who advocate the unfettering of restraints on, and an increase in Internet freedoms, might also fall into the same life-shortening, labelled bucket as MLK. Of course, killing lots of people is out, but if you can make life a living hell for them, then they just might oblige by killing themselves. But that surely couldn't happen, could it?
Oh, but wait...it just has: US justice system ‘overreach’ blamed in suicide of Internet-freedom activist (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/01/us-justice-system-overreach-blamed-in-suicide-of-internet-freedom-activist.html)-IainB (January 19, 2013, 08:07 PM)
Re: Investigation, etc.
Thanks so very much to all of you who've had a chance to donate. We have some real momentum now: Our allies in the House and Senate are on the verge of introducing a new-and-improved version of Aaron's Law, and an investigation in the House is moving forward.
We're asking for your help one more time, so we have the resources we need to keep pressing forward. Here's the email we sent a couple of days ago:
---
It's been a very tough few weeks, and there's a lot of work in front of us.
Please click here if you're able to chip in 5, 10, or 20 dollars so we can keep on fighting.
Millions of people across America -- and the world -- are calling for justice.
We're leading the charge for an investigation into Aaron's prosecution and the firing of his prosecutors, for reform to the CFAA and other cybercrime laws, and for Internet freedom and more open access.
We can't do all of this on our own: We need your support now more than ever.
"Our allies in the House and Senate?" This sounds like they are at war - they have allies in the US Government.
If it is a war, then who is the enemy? The US Government?
But that can't be right, can it? :tellme:-IainB (February 03, 2013, 06:36 PM)
"Our allies in the House and Senate?" This sounds like they are at war - they have allies in the US Government.
If it is a war, then who is the enemy? The US Government?
But that can't be right, can it? :tellme:-IainB (February 03, 2013, 06:36 PM)
... Others in the house/senate that have the opposite opinion...-Tinman57 (February 03, 2013, 08:09 PM)
...It might be such simple practicalities, or citizens' unfounded opinions, or their religio-political ideologies that make them potentially Enemies of the Constitution (http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/enemies-of-constitution.html): (refer the post in the spoiler below, and read the interesting comments too)
...One of the things that confuzzles me is that I had thought (perhaps mistakenly?) that US lawmakers and federal and local government officials - including the President, Senators, the judicary, sherifs, etc. - held office on condition/promise that they would serve and protect the people, and uphold and defend the Constitution, or something. So, if they are not doing that - for whatever reason - then does it mean that they secured their position in the first place under false pretences? If that is the case, then does that mean that they are removed from office and that the bad laws they pushed through will be repealed? I don't get any sense that either of these things happen in practice...-IainB (February 05, 2013, 06:00 PM)
It looks like The ACTA Blog is monitoring a developing EU-US situation:
ACTA rises? (http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1724)-IainB (February 06, 2013, 02:45 AM)
In the film The Corporation, they reviewed the personality disorder "psychopathy". (A psychopath is a person with chronic psychopathy, esp. leading to abnormally irresponsible and antisocial behaviour.)
They gave this checklist of criteria to identify the disorder:
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
3. Reckless disregard for the safety of others.
4. Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit/financial gain.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt.
6. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours.
In the film, these criteria were shown to be met by many/most of the legal entities (legal persons) known as "corporations", thus demonstrating that society has legalised these special kinds of psychopaths to operate in society, where they can and do cause tremendous harm - e.g., including such things as economic dependency and control of communities, or a deadly (toxic) environmental footprint - sometimes both, as in the case of the US corporation Exide in their factory in Mexico.
@Renegade: Yes, you may well be right, but the criteria are different:-IainB (February 06, 2013, 04:02 AM)
Psychopathy is defined as a personality disorder in which the following traits or exhibited:
- 1) Glib and superficial charm,
- 2) Grandiose exaggeration of self,
- 3) Need for stimulation,
- 4) Pathological lying,
- 5) Cunning and manipulativeness,
- 6) Lack of remorse or guilt,
- 7) Shallow affect,
- 8) Callousness and lack of empathy,
- 9) Parasitic lifestyle,
- 10) Poor behavioral controls
- 11) Sexual promiscuity,
- 12) Early behavior problems,
- 13) Lack of realistic long-term goals,
- 14) Impulsivity,
- 15) Irresponsibility,
- 16) Failure to accept responsibility for own actions,
- 17) Many short-term marital relationships,
- 18) Juvenile delinquency,
- 19) Revocation of conditional release,
- 20) Criminal versatility.
Furthermore, Psychopaths typically do not show signs of having a conscience and are highly intelligent individuals.
...Here's a good run-down (reformatted for clarity): ...Ah, that's the other list that I was looking for, thanks.-Renegade (February 06, 2013, 04:52 AM)
The European Court of Human Rights has declared that the copyright monopoly stands in direct conflict with fundamental Human Rights, as defined in the European Union and elsewhere. This means that as of today, nobody sharing culture in the EU may be convicted just for breaking the copyright monopoly law; the bar for convicting was raised considerably. This can be expected to have far-reaching implications, not just judicially, but in confirming that the copyright monopoly stands at odds with human rights.
Last year, we saw more battles in Congress over Internet freedom than we have in many years as user protests stopped two dangerous bills: the censorship-oriented SOPA, and the privacy-invasive Cybersecurity Act of 2012. In 2013, Congress will tackle several bills--both good and bad--that could shape Internet privacy for the next decade. Here's what's ahead in the upcoming Congress.
Defense Firm Develops Software That Tracks People on Social Media (http://reason.com/24-7/2013/02/11/defense-firm-develops-software-that-trac)
February 11, 2013
A multinational security firm has secretly developed software capable of tracking people's movements and predicting future behaviour by mining data from social networking websites.
A video obtained by the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/feb/08/raytheon-secret-software-tracking-personal-movements-video) reveals how an "extreme-scale analytics" system created by Raytheon, the world's fifth largest defence contractor, can gather vast amounts of information about people from websites including Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare.
Source: The Guardian. Read full article. (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/10/software-tracks-social-media-defence))
Sorry, duplication: I didn't realise that here was a separate post about this Raytheon software, on DCF: Rapid Information Overlay Technology (Riot) - Tracks Users from SNSes (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=33991.msg317645#msg317645)-IainB (February 12, 2013, 04:13 AM)
CISPA Wouldn't Actually Solve The Reasons Congress Is Giving For Why We Need CISPA (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130214/02084321967/why-wont-anyone-explain-why-we-need-cispa.shtml)
by Mike Masnick
As expected, Representatives Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger have reintroduced CISPA, exactly as it was when it passed the House last year. Incredibly, we've been hearing that they've brushed off the massive privacy concerns by claiming that those were all "fixed" in the final version of the bill that got approved. This is highly disingenuous. While it is true that they made some modifications to the bill at the very end before it got approved, most privacy watchers were (and are) still very concerned. They did convince one organization to flip-flop, and they seem to think that's all they need.
But, here's the thing that no one has done yet: explain why this bill is needed. With President Obama's executive order in place, the government can more easily share threat info with companies, so really the only thing that CISPA piles on is more incentives for companies to cough up private information to the government with little in the way of oversight or restrictions on how that information can be used. And given how frequently the government likes to cry "cyberattack" when it's simply not true, it's only a matter of time before they start using claims of "cyberthreat!" to troll through private information...
(Read the rest at the link.)
Posted by timothy on Saturday February 23, @04:30PM
from the accept-only-genuine-chocolate-chip dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Stanford researcher Jonathan Mayer has contributed a Firefox patch that will block third-party cookies by default. It's now on track to land in version 22. Kudos to Mozilla for protecting their users and being so open to community submissions. The initial response from the online advertising industry is unsurprisingly hostile and blustering, calling the move 'a nuclear first strike.'"
We've long criticized the vague language of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act(CISPA). One particularly dangerous provision, designed to enable corporations to obtain and share information, is drafted broadly enough to go beyond just companies, creating a government access loophole.
From the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation):
US Trade Office Calls ACTA Back From the Dead and Canada Complies (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/us-trade-office-calls-acta-back-dead-and-canada-complies)-IainB (March 02, 2013, 09:33 AM)
The financial data of American citizens is set to be open season for spy agencies as the fight against terrorism and cybercrime continues.
According to Reuters, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) may one day soon have the ability to access a central database which records and contains financial transactions made by American citizens — something that only law enforcement agencies have had unbridled access to.
Yeah I saw that, though I'd almost want to split that off from the more IP/internet thread.-TaoPhoenix (March 14, 2013, 08:57 PM)
But does it have any teeth? A long time ago some **AA type was saying that he was in it for the long game, so yeah maybe we beat SOPA, but they would just introduce another one.-TaoPhoenix (March 20, 2013, 12:46 AM)
Congress custard.
CISPA's second serving is even worse than the first (http://images.infoworld.com/t/cringely/cispas-second-serving-even-worse-the-first-215192)-IainB (March 25, 2013, 08:44 PM)
We need to beat back a bad proposal to expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) -- in a hurry. So we're asking Demand Progress members and the broader Internet Defense League to snap into action next week, especially Monday and Tuesday (April 8th and 9th.)
1) You can read more and grab code for our embeddable contact-Congress widgets by clicking here: www.FixTheCFAA.com
We'd ask you to post them to your site to help let your visitors know about this threat, and to spur them to get involved. You'll be joining Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, EFF, Boing Boing, Reddit, and other great groups and sites as we stand together against this awful proposal.
2) You can use these links to ask your friends to take part:
[fb] If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.
[fb] If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet
As many of you probably know, our friend (and friend to many of you) Aaron Swartz committed suicide earlier this year, while he was being prosecuted for downloading too many academic articles from the JSTOR cataloguing site. Prosecutors were hanging four decades in prison over his head!
Aaron was charged under the CFAA, a law that passed in the mid-80s, before more than a handful of Americans even had personal computers -- let alone Internet access.
Yet law enforcement interprets this statute so broadly that it claims it criminalizes all sorts of mundane Internet use: potentially even breaking a website's fine print terms of service agreement. Don't set up a Myspace page for your cat. Don't fudge your height on a dating site. Don't share your Facebook password with anybody, ever. You could be exposed to prosecution for a federal crime.
We've been pushing to change this, and have made some progress: Reps and Senators are pulling together a proposal called "Aaron's Law".
But... then last week members of the House Judiciary Committee floated an audacious proposal that would actually expand and harshen certain parts of the CFAA. Think of it as the opposite of Aaron's Law. And we're hearing that it could come up for a vote as soon as next week.
We need your helping mobilizing your visitors as we strive to beat back this awful proposal and to build momentum for Aaron's Law.
1) You can read more and grab code for our embeddable contact-Congress widgets by clicking here: www.FixTheCFAA.com
We'd ask you to post them to your site to help let your visitors know about this threat, and to spur them to get involved. You'll be joining Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, EFF, Boing Boing, Reddit, and other great groups and sites as we stand together against this awful proposal.
2) You can use these links to ask your friends to take part:
[fb] If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.
[fb] If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet
Reforming the CFAA is a real chance for the US Congress to make laws governing the Internet better and fairer. And it's a chance for the coalition that came together around SOPA to actually pass positive reform. If all of us take action next week, it won't just kill a bad bill, it will help us build real momentum to passing positive change in the wake of Aaron's death.
Thanks,
Demand Progress
Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a Demand Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!
demandprogress.org asks for action to block CFAA, in a circular email:
Already posted here: https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=34560.0-IainB (April 06, 2013, 02:10 AM)
IsoHunt Wants Jury to Rule on Free Speech Issues in MPAA Case (http://torrentfreak.com/isohunt-wants-jury-to-rule-on-free-speech-issues-in-mpaa-case-130406/)
April 6, 2013
Last month BitTorrent site isoHunt lost its appeal against the MPAA, meaning that the site has to continue filtering movie and TV related terms from its search engine. However, isoHunt founder Gary Fung is not giving up just yet and has asked for a jury to decide on the case. In a petition filed this week isoHunt argues that, among other things, the Ninth Circuit decision chills innovation and threatens free speech online.
mpaa isohuntFor more than seven years isoHunt and the MPAA have been battling in court, and it’s not over yet.
In 2010 the District Court ordered the owner of isoHunt to start censoring the site’s search engine based on a list of thousands of keywords provided by the MPAA, or cease its operations entirely in the US.
IsoHunt hoped to overturn this ruling in an appeal, but last month the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the lower court, ruling that the website does not qualify for safe harbor protection under the DMCA.
For now this means that the keyword filter stays in place, but for isoHunt founder Gary Fung this is not the end of the matter. This week isoHunt’s legal team petitioned the court for a re-hearing before a jury.
Among other things, isoHunt argues that the current verdict chills innovation and threatens free speech on the Internet.
“Fung contends that many of the items of evidence cited by the District Court should be protected as Free Speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution and would be inadmissible at trial. As a result of decisions herein, impermissible burdens are being imposed on Fung’s speech and on the speech of other Internet users,” the petition reads.
The MPAA used quotes from isoHunt’s founder dating back to 2003, to argue that he was aware of and liable for copyright infringing use of the site. As evidence the MPAA cited the following statements made by Fung in a forum thread discussing the RIAA.
“Agreed. they accuse us for thieves, and they r right. Only we r ‘stealing’ from the leechers (them!) and not the originators (artists),” Fung wrote.
IsoHunt’s founder later updated the IRC announce bot to say: “Files… are now being indexed for isoHunt.com…We completely OPPOSE RIAA & Co., so do not be alarmed by our indexing activities.”
In its petition for a re-hearing isoHunt argues that when these isolated statements are used to determine liability, without any connection to direct infringements, this could “severely chill free speech” and threaten innovation.
“The effect of decisions herein is to make sarcasm directed at copyright enforcement or statements in support of file-sharing a reason for later imposition of liability. Cautious individuals will practice self-censorship. Outspoken individuals will avoid certain areas of technological development,” isoHunt’s legal team writes.
The free speech concerns are not the only issue raised by isoHunt. The petition also contends that there is no evidence that isohunt’s founder promoted or facilitated direct copyright infringements.
In addition, the petition protests the ruling that Fung should not be entitled to safe harbor protection under the DMCA because he knew that isoHunt users were sharing copyrighted material. According to isoHunt’s legal team this goes directly against verdicts in other cases, such as the dispute between YouTube and Viacom.
With a re-hearing before a jury isoHunt is confident it can win the case as that will provide an opportunity to counter specific allegations of copyright infringement. If this request is granted the case is expected to continue for a few more years, perhaps making it to its 10th anniversary in 2016.
...The entry had existed on French-language Wikipedia for many years, but recently came to the attention of officials in France's Homeland Intelligence agency, known as the DCRI (Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur)... ;D
According to Wikiscan (http://wikiscan.org/?menu=dates&filter=main&sort=hits&date=20130406), which publishes statistics about Wikipedia.fr, the “Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_hertzienne_militaire_de_Pierre-sur-Haute)” entry is currently the most-viewed page in french-language Wikipedia, broadly beating “The September 11th Attacks (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentats_du_11_septembre_2001)” and “Jérôme Cahuzac (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Cahuzac)”, France's chief tax collector who is currently embroiled (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/jerome-cahuzac-tax-scandal-hollande_n_3006514.html?utm_hp_ref=world) in a tax-dodging scandal. :tellme:
...
Around the world, governments are attempting to remake the Web and the greater Internet in their own traditional images.
They have significant resources that can be brought to bear, especially when they succeed in redefining Internet-based freedom of speech as national security risks. Shackles, cells, even firing squads and other lethal methodologies are at their disposal.
Increasingly, we see vague and often highly suspect claims of "cyberwar" being bandied about as a predicate at least for vast diversions of power and money to the "cyberscare-industrial complex" -- and even as potential justifications for cyber or physical retaliations against the designated enemies of the moment.
We see this same class of fear tactics being deployed to justify government scanning of private computing and communications facilities, demands for purpose-built surveillance of encrypted communications systems that actually make these systems more vulnerable to black-hat hacking, and a range of other demands from authorities. Since the big cyber-security bucks are now in play, it's understandable why authorities would prefer to concentrate on theoretical computer-based infrastructure risks, rather than the very real risk of explosives in some empty desert area being used to bring down critical high voltage transmission towers.
With cybersecurity as with so much else, "money is honey."
In context, it's obvious that whether we're talking about overbearing government security services apparently using China and North Korea as their new operating paradigms, or the 21st century version of traditional power and money grabs via fear tactics deluxe, we can't help but return to the fact that governments are trying on various fronts to maintain their old authoritarian models of security and censorship in the new world of ubiquitous Internet communications.
And while today's story involved France and Wikipedia, these are only really placeholders of the moment that can be easily substituted with other countries and other organizations -- or individuals -- going forward.
The best of times, the worst of times. We dare not permit the distraction of seeming clowns in the foreground to blind us from the sharp and shiny falling blades of censorship and surveillance lurking just behind, aimed directly at our figurative (and in some horrific cases perhaps quite literal) naked necks.
Congress Wants to Make CFAA Penalities Worse -- We Need to Stop Them
Last week, Congress put forth a bill that would dangerously expand computer crime law to double or even triple the penalties prosecutors could use to threaten computer users -- people like digital rights activist Aaron Swartz. We've got to stop them and tell them this law needs real reform to protect visionary, talented, justice-driven individuals like Aaron. We're pulling out all the stops this week, and we need your help. We need the Internet to speak out with a voice so loud legislators have no choice but to listen.
Here's the game plan:
We have built a Twitter tool https://cfaa.eff.org/ that helps you to tweet at legislators. Staffers count these messages, so please tweet lots.
Call the House Judiciary Committee. We've collected their numbers and prepared an easy-to-follow script https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/why-its-important-call-your-representative-about-cfaa-reform-and-aarons-law for the phone call. If you've never called your legislators before, today is the day to start.
Change your Twitter icon to reflect that you're taking part in this cause. We've created an image https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/help-us-remember-aaron-swartz-participating-our-week-action-demanding-congress that can help spread the word.
Finally, if you haven't yet, please take our action alert https://eff.org/aarons-law to e-mail Congress about the specific changes we'd like to see in a reformed CFAA.
Congress can't get this right unless they hear from you. Please join us in taking action today.
^^ Yes, people seem to be waking up to this, albeit belatedly.
For example: CISPA Amendment Proves Everyone's Fears Were Justified While Failing To Assuage Them (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130410/15550522671/cispa-amendment-proves-everyones-fears-were-justified-while-failing-to-assuage-them.shtml)-IainB (April 13, 2013, 04:21 AM)
^^ Yes, people seem to be waking up to this, albeit belatedly.
For example: CISPA Amendment Proves Everyone's Fears Were Justified While Failing To Assuage Them (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130410/15550522671/cispa-amendment-proves-everyones-fears-were-justified-while-failing-to-assuage-them.shtml)-IainB (April 13, 2013, 04:21 AM)
The government has a knack for the "small print" and how they word things that leaves the door wide open for the government spooks to do their thing, all while sharing with local law enforcement and tech companies that benefit from private information. Most likely it's also another one of those "follow the money" bills.
No matter how you look at it, it's Orwellian.-Tinman57 (April 13, 2013, 07:22 PM)
16 April 2013 10:55
...It's on.
In anticipation of a full House vote in the House on Wednesday, industry giant IBM has sent nearly 200 senior execs to Washington to lobby in support of CISPA.
And their intentions couldn't be more clear. CISPA would empower them to share your private data with the military without a warrant -- and they wouldn't hesitate to do so.
Chris Padilla, IBM's VP of governmental affairs told TheHill.com that IBM and other corporations "should be able to work directly and share information directly" with the National Security Agency "because that's where the expertise is."
We have to stop this bill from becoming law and eviscerating our hard-won civil liberties and privacy rights. Click here to urge your reps to oppose CISPA on Wednesday.
Despite an outpouring of opposition from the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and over 100,000 Demand Progress members, the House Intelligence committee has voted to approve CISPA--a cyber-security bill that would give companies unprecedented power to share your private information with the government, including the intelligence agencies like the NSA, without a warrant.
Now the bill moves to the House for a full vote on Wednesday. We need to reiterate our opposition to this dangerous legislation loud and clear.
Click here to tell your representatives to protect online privacy and oppose CISPA on Wednesday.
Our collective efforts stopped CISPA from becoming law last year, and we can do it again. But we must be vigilant and keep putting our representatives on notice.
Now, as before, we cannot sacrifice our hard-won liberties and privacy rights in the pursuit of a misguided and over-broad conception of "security."
Click here to urge your representatives in Congress to oppose CISPA on Wednesday.
Thanks,
-Demand Progress
Email from Sam Adler-Bell <[email protected]>:
Go to https://act.demandprogress.org/letter/CISPA_IBM/ to support the protest.
(Most of the email is copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)16 April 2013 10:55
...It's on.
In anticipation of a full House vote in the House on Wednesday, industry giant IBM has sent nearly 200 senior execs to Washington to lobby in support of CISPA.
And their intentions couldn't be more clear. CISPA would empower them to share your private data with the military without a warrant -- and they wouldn't hesitate to do so.
Chris Padilla, IBM's VP of governmental affairs told TheHill.com that IBM and other corporations "should be able to work directly and share information directly" with the National Security Agency "because that's where the expertise is."
We have to stop this bill from becoming law and eviscerating our hard-won civil liberties and privacy rights. Click here to urge your reps to oppose CISPA on Wednesday.
Despite an outpouring of opposition from the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and over 100,000 Demand Progress members, the House Intelligence committee has voted to approve CISPA--a cyber-security bill that would give companies unprecedented power to share your private information with the government, including the intelligence agencies like the NSA, without a warrant.
Now the bill moves to the House for a full vote on Wednesday. We need to reiterate our opposition to this dangerous legislation loud and clear.
Click here to tell your representatives to protect online privacy and oppose CISPA on Wednesday.
Our collective efforts stopped CISPA from becoming law last year, and we can do it again. But we must be vigilant and keep putting our representatives on notice.
Now, as before, we cannot sacrifice our hard-won liberties and privacy rights in the pursuit of a misguided and over-broad conception of "security."
Click here to urge your representatives in Congress to oppose CISPA on Wednesday.
Thanks,
-Demand Progress-IainB (April 15, 2013, 10:41 PM)
...Of course it helps to have a link where you can send your letter in opposition:
[url]http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/CISPA_IBM-Tinman57 (April 16, 2013, 07:02 PM)
I presume this ArsTechnica news item is true (one can't be too sure, given some of their aparently mediocre journalism): Obama threatens CISPA veto, sponsor calls opponents basement-dwelling 14-year-olds (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/obama-threatens-cispa-veto-sponsor-calls-opponents-basement-dwelling-14-year-olds/)
If it is true, then:
- (a) It looks like the Obama administration are wanting to block this CISPA legislation that could threaten to erode citizens' statutory rights - whereas the same administration is at the same time apparently intent on shoving through other legislation that would ... threaten to reduce citizens' statutory rights!?
Is this some kind of "good cop, bad cop" play?- (b) Some people (not me you understand) might say that a senator who would malign in such a vitriolic and despising way any opponents to his proposed legislation to erode citizens' statutory rights would seem to be acting unprofessionally and against the interests of citizens, and that may indicate that he has a vested interest in the proposals getting pushed through - but I couldn't possibly comment.
-IainB (April 16, 2013, 07:39 PM)
...Of course it helps to have a link where you can send your letter in opposition:
[url]http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/CISPA_IBM-Tinman57 (April 16, 2013, 07:02 PM)
It does indeed! (That's why I it right at the start of the post and not as an embedded link in the copied email.) :tellme:-IainB (April 16, 2013, 07:43 PM)
CISPA sponsor Rep. Mike Rogers said something on camera that he will probably regret for a long time.
Rep. Mike Rogers admits that CISPA helps rich tech CEOs, then calls opponents of CISPA "14 year olds in their basements." And it's on video.
Not only is this piece of dirt for government spying, but he also thinks of freedom loving people as, well, read on...-Tinman57 (April 17, 2013, 06:31 PM)
(b) Some people (not me you understand) might say that a senator who would malign in such a vitriolic and despising way any opponents to his proposed legislation to erode citizens' statutory rights would seem to be acting unprofessionally and against the interests of citizens, and that may indicate that he has a vested interest in the proposals getting pushed through - but I couldn't possibly comment.-IainB (April 16, 2013, 07:39 PM)
[–]Selfcommit 4 points 8 hours ago
How is this not front page?
Hmm, I thought that I posted a link to CISPA passing the US House, but now I can't find it.-TaoPhoenix (April 18, 2013, 07:49 PM)
It’s time to get pissed. The U.S. law that would turn Google, Facebook, and Twitter into legally immune government spies just passed the House.
We expected CISPA to pass; that's why this spring, we’re going to organize the largest online privacy protest in history to make sure CISPA is gone for good.
And, in response to Rep. Mike Rogers' accusation that CISPA opponents are just "14 year-old tweeter(s) in the basement", we thought we'd also challenge Rep. Rogers to get on live national television and debate a 14 year-old in a basement on CISPA. The search for the 14 year-old begins. Are you or do you know a 14 year-old who could totally school a congressman on this issue? Please forward this email to them!
This bill affects everyone -- not just U.S. citizens. Anyone with a Facebook account could now have their data shipped directly to the U.S. government. That's why Internet users overwhelmingly oppose this bill. Over 1.5 million people signed petitions against it. But Congress didn’t listen.
Does this remind you of something? Yep, this is the exact position we were in with SOPA last year. Then the Internet rose up and we made history with the SOPA strike.
Join the largest online privacy protest in history to make sure CISPA goes the same route as SOPA and doesn’t become the law that breaks the 4th Amendment. Are you in?
CISPA threatens our most basic rights. Privacy is important not just for our security but for our rights to freedom of expression. The giant tech companies that stood with Internet users against SOPA are not going to help us this time (but some of the large sites like Mozilla, Imgur, and Reddit are all against CISPA and we love them).
Only a massive grassroots outcry will stop this bill. We’re starting to build the tools. But we need your help.
And, in response to Rep. Mike Rogers' accusation that CISPA opponents are just "14 year-old tweeter(s) in the basement", we thought we'd also challenge Rep. Rogers to get on live national television and debate a 14 year-old in a basement on CISPA. The search for the 14 year-old begins. Are you or do you know a 14 year-old who could totally school a congressman on this issue? Please forward this email to them!-Tinman57 (April 19, 2013, 07:30 PM)
And, in response to Rep. Mike Rogers' accusation that CISPA opponents are just "14 year-old tweeter(s) in the basement", we thought we'd also challenge Rep. Rogers to get on live national television and debate a 14 year-old in a basement on CISPA. The search for the 14 year-old begins. Are you or do you know a 14 year-old who could totally school a congressman on this issue? Please forward this email to them!-Tinman57 (April 19, 2013, 07:30 PM)
This part is epic!-TaoPhoenix (April 20, 2013, 12:38 AM)
Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but it's rather curious, and disturbing news:
Fox Censors Cory Doctorow’s “Homeland” Novel From Google (https://torrentfreak.com/fox-censors-cory-doctorows-homeland-novel-from-google-130420/)
(See link for details.)-IainB (April 21, 2013, 07:55 AM)
Brickbat: Here, Sir, The People Don't Govern (http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/23/brickbat-here-sir-the-people-dont-govern)Whilst this discussion thread has mainly related to evidence of existing/future potential Internet freedoms being restrained by government or **AA lobbies' and/or other "Big XXX" lobbies' actions, this is the first instance I can recall where there is evidence that the restraint is coming from the other end - i.e., by deliberately avoiding use of the Internet where it might improve citizens' freedoms and democratic rights and ability to more actively participate in civil matters, and make government (and senators) more open to scrutiny, and more accountable and transparent for whatever legislation they find themselves having to push or block.
Charles Oliver|Apr. 23, 2013 7:00 am
"I am the senator, you are the citizen. You need to be quiet."
That was what North Carolina state Sen. Tommy Tucker, R-Waxhaw, said to Hal Tanner. Tanner had just asked for a recorded vote from the State and Local Goverment Committee on a bill that would shift public notification of local government actions to the Internet and away from newspapers. The committee had just had a voice vote on the bill, and Tucker, the committee's co-chairman, said it had passed. Tanner, publisher of the Goldsboro New-Argus, said the bill failed the voice vote and asked for a vote on the record. Tucker denied telling Tanner to shut up, though the remark was confirmed by others at the hearing.
_____________________________
Plans to end warrantless email searches pass Senate committee
Summary: The privacy law governing how U.S. law enforcement can access email data after a certain time has been passed unanimously across both sides of the Senate.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday passed a bipartisan measure that would force U.S. law enforcement and government agencies to get a warrant before reading citizen emails.
The United States Department of Defense has “claimed ownership” of CAD drawings of a plastic, printable pistol. In doing so, they apparently believe they can stop the files from existing. The result is obviously the complete opposite, which calls into strong question the judgment and ability of United States Government to set Internet policy at all.
When the public received the means of production through 3D printing, it was obvious that you could no longer regulate which objects were allowed to exist and which didn’t, just as you can no longer regulate distribution of information. Well, obvious to anybody but bureaucrats in governments who insist they cannot lose any control.
The think tank Defense Distributed has been developing 3D printer drawings for weapons parts for some time. First, they published drawings for vital parts for the AR-15 rifle (the civilian version of the military Armalite M-16) which could be printed by anybody in their homes, and then moved on to creating an all-plastic weapon which could be printed by anybody without dependence on other manufacturers, the “Liberator” in 17 parts.
This was not a matter of breaking the law of weapons regulations – this was a matter of the law having become unenforceable and obsolete through advancements in technology.
Late yesterday, the United States’ Department of Defense contacted Defense Distributed and told them that the United States government were seizing the drawings and claimed ownership of the files. This move was utterly ridiculous, as the drawings had already been published. The immediate effect was that Defense Distributed complied, and everybody else started seeding the files like wildfire. This is cause for concern – not the fact that the files exist, but that the US Government can be so completely boneheaded to think they can prevent information from existing by saying so.
The pistol drawings exist in the form of a magnet link which picks the file from whoever has them, with no central repository. The other files from Defense Distributed have also been censored by the United States government, which contain vital (printable) parts for an AR-15 and similar things, but these files are similarly available through a simple link. Predictably, their distribution has gone absolutely stratospheric.
We have long seen how the US Government is completely boneheaded and unfit to set and shape Internet policy, due to their simply not understanding of what the Internet is and how it works. This episode underscores that conclusion strongly.
Part of the reason the US doesn’t understand the Internet is because of the country’s vastly substandard infrastructure, since they have allowed cable companies and telcos to dictate what the Internet should look like (and the US is therefore far, far behind countries like Romania and Lithuania – countries that were considered near-developing countries 20 years ago, a timeframe that policymakers in Washington are apparently stuck in. We’ll be returning to that in a separate article.)
In any case, this episode shows that the US government is simply unfit to even have an opinion on shaping the future Internet.
This week, New Zealand Commerce Minister Craig Foss bowed to pressure from software patent opponents. The latest language states clearly that "a computer program is not an invention," and is not eligible for patent protection. The Labour Party called it "a humiliating back down."
The decision was hailed by InternetNZ, a non-profit organization that promotes an open Internet. "Patenting software would not only make the continued development of the Internet more difficult, it would reduce innovation and could well stymie interoperability of various software platforms," the group wrote on Thursday.
New Zealand's Institute of IT Professionals also praised the move. "If you look at the New Zealand market, you would be hard pressed to find many people that were thinking patents would be a good idea," the organization's chief executive Paul Matthews told the New Zealand Herald.
In any case, this episode shows that the US government is simply unfit to even have an opinion on shaping the future Internet.-IainB (May 12, 2013, 06:27 AM)
This week, New Zealand Commerce Minister Craig Foss bowed to pressure from software ...-IainB (May 12, 2013, 09:13 AM)
Huh. But wait, there's more...
Blogger writes about predatory publishing, is threatened with $1B suit (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/blogger-writes-about-predatory-publishing-is-threatened-with-1b-suit/)-IainB (May 19, 2013, 04:38 AM)
"The law is an ass."
- Mr. Bumble, in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist
demandprogress.org have sent out an email from Aaron Swartz's father to their subscribers, asking for supporters to email a letter of thanks to senators Patrick Leahy, John Cornyn, and Al Franken, who apparently all pushed for answers when the US Justice Department appeared before the Judiciary Committee to discuss Aaron's case.
Supporters can send an email using a template at the demandprogress.org website.-IainB (June 05, 2013, 06:14 PM)
June 7, 2013Read the rest at the link.
By Ante
Corporate Europe Observatory writes (CEO):“Court ruling fails to stop business lobbies’ privileged access in EU-India trade talks
In a ruling delivered today following a lawsuit by lobby watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory, the EU’s General Court in Luxembourg concludes that the European Commission did not violate EU rules when withholding information about the EU-India free trade talks from the public, even though it had already shared the information with corporate lobby groups. Corporate Europe Observatory warns that this decision risks deepening the secrecy around EU trade negotiations and legitimises the Commission’s practice of granting corporate lobby groups privileged access to its policy-making, at the expense of the wider public interest.”
Edward Snowden's Motivation: Internet Freedom (http://mashable.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-internet-freedom/?utm_cid=Mash-Product-RSS-Pheedo-All-Partial)
By Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai2013-06-10 21:47:02 UTC
"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather."
Those are the words that open the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace, a seminal paper by John Perry Barlow. In the paper, the former Grateful Dead lyricist and founder of the online rights advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation argued governments should never meddle with cyberspace, a separate place where the real-world rules had no reason to exist.
SEE ALSO: PRISM: Does the NSA Really Get Direct Access to Your Data?
Barlow's declaration — the product of a time when Internet thinkers were perhaps a bit naive — might seem outdated now. Much has changed since then. Governments have indeed claimed sovereignty over the Internet, and nobody reasonably expects the Internet to be left alone anymore.
However, the Utopian ideals that shaped that declaration influenced an entire generation of kids who grew up messing around with a Windows 95 computer and a noisy 56k connection. Those ideals still resonate today.
And they're partly what pushed Edward Snowden to become a whistleblower by leaking a series of top-secret documents to The Guardian and The Washington Post. His leaks have revealed a secret court order that allows the NSA to collect the metadata of Americans' phone calls for months at a time; a secret system codenamed PRISM that intercepts Internet communications; a presidential directive asking for a list of targets for cyberattacks; and "Boundless Informant," a NSA tool to data-mine the world.
One of Snowden's reasons to leak those documents, according to his interview with The Guardian, was a belief that Internet privacy and freedom foster progress."I don't see myself as a hero," he said, "because what I'm doing is self-interested: I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."Snowden considers the Internet "the most important invention in all of human history." He thinks the NSA and the U.S. government are curtailing Internet freedom in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism. His views have deep roots: As a teenager, he spent hours and hours on the Internet, "speaking to people with all sorts of views that I would never have encountered on my own."
We can agree or disagree with Snowden's actions and argue for hours and days about whether he is a hero, the most important whistleblower in America's history or a villain. He did what he did at least partly because he wanted the Internet to remain free, and he thought the people of the Internet deserved to know more about the NSA surveillance programs.
Image via The Guardian via Getty Images
Topics: bradley manning, edward snowden, Internet freedom, U.S., US & World, WikiLeaks, World
Parsing PRISM denials: Could everyone be telling the truth?
06.07.2013 3:50 PM
A number of theories are still available to make all the carefully worded
statements and shifting facts sing harmoniously together today.
UPDATE, Saturday June 8, 2pm Pacific time: Since this report was originally
published Friday afternoon, new developments have added texture to the PRISM
saga. We have updated the story below with links to relevant material.
Bottom line: The world still doesn't know exactly how PRISM works, if the
technology companies implicated in the program are issuing earnest denials,
or if media outlets originally misinterpreted NSA documents. But piece by
piece, relevant information is falling into place.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2041075/parsing-prism-denials-could-everyone-be-telling-the-truth-.html
Prism leaker steps forward, cites 'massive surveillance machine'
06.09.2013 1:05 PM
The person responsible for disclosing details on the growth of U.S.
government surveillance programs that exploded into public view last week
has identified himself as 29-year-old Edward Snowden, a technology
contractor working at the U.S. National Security Agency.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2041144/former-cia-assistant-edward-snowden-outs-himself-as-nsa-whistleblower.html
The Internet and all those who care about Aaron Swartz took a big step forward today
Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Sen. Ron Wyden just introduced "Aaron's Law", which would fix some of the worst parts of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), including those which make it a potential crime to violate terms of service agreements -- that fine print that nobody reads at the bottom of a website.
The CFAA is the law under which Aaron and other innovators and activists have been threatened with decades in prison. It is so broad that law enforcement says it criminalizes all sorts of mundane Internet use: Potentially even breaking a website's fine print terms of service agreement. Don't set up a MySpace page for your cat. Don't fudge your height on a dating site. Don't share your Facebook password with anybody: You could be committing a federal crime.
It's up to us to keep the Internet open, a place for sharing ideas, exploration and activism -- not for stifling creativity and criminalizing innovators.
As the bill's sponsors put it in a Wired.com Op-ed, "The events of the last couple of years have demonstrated that the public can speak loudly thanks to the Internet. And when it does, lawmakers will listen."
Let's make sure they hear us. Join us in calling on Congress to pass "Aaron's Law."
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/aarons_law_intro
Told You So: If You Have Been Using A Centralized Comms Service, You Were Wiretapped[ (http://falkvinge.net/2013/06/07/told-you-so-if-you-have-been-using-a-centralized-comms-service-you-were-wiretapped/)
Saturday, June 29, 2013
tags: Headlines, Privacy
Rick Falkvinge
Privacy:
This night, news broke that the USA’s security agencies have been wiretapping essentially every major centralized social service for private data. Photos, video conferences, text chats, and voice calls – everything. We have been saying this for years and been declared tinfoil hat and conspiracy nuts; it’s good to finally see the documents in black on white.
This night, European time, the (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/) news (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data) broke (http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html) that the USA’s National Security Agency (NSA) has had direct access to pretty much every social network for the past several years, dating back to 2007, under a program named PRISM. Under the program, a number of social services voluntarily feed people’s private data to the NSA. In short, if you have been using/uploading
- video or voice chat
- videos
- photos
- stored data
- VoIP calls
- file transfers
- video conferencing
- (and more)
…from any of…
- Microsoft (incl. Hotmail et al), since Sep 11, 2007
- Google, since Jan 14, 2009
- Yahoo, since Mar 12, 2008
- Facebook, since June 3, 2009
- PalTalk, since Dec 7, 2009
- YouTube, since Sep 24, 2010
- Skype, since Feb 6, 2011
- AOL, since Mar 31, 2011
- Apple, since Oct 2012
…then you have been wiretapped, and still are.
This piece of news broke just after it was revealed that the same NSA is demanding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/06/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-nsa-scandal/) phone records from one of the major telco operators in the USA, and presumably all of them.
In short, practically every single service you have ever been using that has operated under the “trust us” principle has fed your private data directly to STASI-equivalent security agencies. Practically every single one. The one exception notably missing from the list is Twitter (but Twitter uses broadcast messages – you shouldn’t write anything secret on Twitter in the first place).
Carefully note that this PRISM program is not unique to the USA: Several European nations have the same wiretapping in place, Sweden among (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRA_law) them. Also, these agencies share raw data freely between them, trivially circumventing any restrictions against wiretapping the own population (“I’ll wiretap yours if you’ll wiretap mine”).
This piece of news practically detonated when it hit this night. We have been saying that this is the probable state of things for years – it’s good to finally get rid of those tinfoil hats, with facts on the table. Predictably, the social comms companies named in the NSA slides are out scrambling with statements and comments.
Google, for example, said in a statement to the Guardian: “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data.”
As a politician, what strikes me is how carefully crafted this statement is to give the appearance of denying the allegations, without doing so. It stops exactly short of saying “the presented allegations are lies”.
[UPDATE: The follow-up response from Google's CEO changes this picture completely. See the followup article (http://falkvinge.net/2013/06/08/so-just-exactly-what-is-nsas-prism-more-than-reprehensibly-evil/). You've still been wiretapped if you've been using a centralized communications service, but through no fault of Google.]
For example, a system could be in place that continuously fed the NSA data from Google servers in accordance with the NSA documents, and the above Google statement would still be true (if Google feeds data to the NSA, rather than the NSA fetching it from Google).
Microsoft – whose motto is “Privacy is our priority”, the Guardian notes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data) – was the first to join the PRISM program in 2007. On the other hand, that company was never trusted much, so I don’t see a lot of surprise.
What we learn from this is something that us net liberty activists have known and practiced all along: if you want your data to be private, you can trust no one with it. No one. You must make sure to encrypt it yourself. Only then can you place it in the custody of somebody else. Putting an unencrypted file on Dropbox, Google Drive, sending it in e-mail, etc., is and has been the equivalent of shouting it out to the entire world.
A system that requires privacy, but is built on the assumption on trust in a third party, is broken (http://falkvinge.net/2011/09/27/never-trust-a-vpn-provider-that-doesnt-accept-bitcoin/) by design.
You can only trust systems that are built around the principle of distrusting the entire world (like bitcoin, nota bene), or systems that are physically under your control. Note that I say physically: having virtual servers “in the cloud” is not enough, for an administrator of that cloud can trivially go in and take everything you’re processing there and feed it to whomever they like, and must be assumed to do so. For the same reason, having your own servers in a rented datacenter is not enough, either: an administrator of the datacenter can give access to your computers to whomever they like. That is the reason why I have servers for this site and other sites of mine running on my own balcony:
The servers for this journalistic site, and other sites with more sensitive personal information.
The servers for this journalistic site, and other sites with more sensitive personal information, are under my physical control.
This is the reason you cannot trust Dropbox and similar services with anything remotely sensitive. If you have sensitive data, you need your own servers to store and communicate it. Servers that are physically under your control. That is why you should be running encrypted SparkleShare (http://sparkleshare.org/) on your own file servers rather than Dropbox in the cloud; that is why you should be running default-encrypted Mumble (http://mumble.sourceforge.net/) on your own servers rather than using Skype; that is why you should be using RedPhone (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.redphone&hl=en) from your cellphone instead of regular voice calls.
It’s already a matter of life and death in many places on the planet. Also, do note that it may not be the laws today you have to worry about: Everything is recorded and stored, and your innocent words today (http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/) may come back to haunt you 30 years down the line under a different administration.
Privacy is your responsibility. You can trust no one.
As a final note, this shows very much why pirate parties are needed – worldwide – to kick politicians who authorize these egregious violations out of office, off the coast and into the ocean. (I usually write “next state”, but people from that state always complain how people there don’t want them either.)
...The Obama administration just revived one of the worst provisions in SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act).
The Commerce Dept's Internet Policy Task Force has proposed making it a felony to stream copyrighted content (aka Section 201 of SOPA). Interpreted broadly, this proposal would apply to anyone who puts copyrighted music in the background of their YouTube video or uploads a video of themselves covering a song without permission -- which means, under these rules, Justin Bieber would be a felon.
Even sharing a video of your friend's embarassing karoake performance or your family singing "Happy Birthday To You" could put you in jail! Click here to fight back.
This is all because the federal government wants to make streaming -- including material which falls under the "public performance" category -- punishable by years in prison.
Jail time for streaming videos? Tell the Obama administration: NO!
Obama apparently hasn't been paying attention the past two years: The American people don't want SOPA-style internet censorship or to open the door for more prosecutorial abuse. Period.
We've stopped them before -- from SOPA to PIPA to CISPA -- and we can stop them again.
Tell Obama: we still won't stand for SOPA-style censorship. ...
________________________
Whatever the country or governing political party, this form of protectionism would rather seem to indicate the actions of a puppet government, to me.-IainB (August 21, 2013, 03:08 AM)
You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind.
There is no true escape
I'm watching all the time.-Judas Priest - Electric Eye
Whatever the country or governing political party, this form of protectionism would rather seem to indicate the actions of a puppet government, to me.-IainB (August 21, 2013, 03:08 AM)
+1 - Me too. I just wonder when/if our corporate masters will decide to come out of the shadows.-Stoic Joker (August 21, 2013, 06:43 AM)
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.
...
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.-Tyrannical asshat
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable-JFK
Whatever the country or governing political party, this form of protectionism would rather seem to indicate the actions of a puppet government, to me.-IainB (August 21, 2013, 03:08 AM)
+1 - Me too. I just wonder when/if our corporate masters will decide to come out of the shadows.-Stoic Joker (August 21, 2013, 06:43 AM)
Anyone think the figures in the shadows give a crap about how many people die when they force a violent revolution? They won't be on the front lines.-Renegade (August 21, 2013, 07:26 AM)
CISPA is back. Again.
Don’t worry, you’re not losing it. You didn’t just dream the past year and half. It all happened: We did kill CISPA in 2012. And we killed it earlier this year. Hundreds of thousands of you signed petitions. We forced Obama to issue TWO separate veto threats. The bill died in the Senate. Twice.
And when the Snowden leaks hit, everyone, even the New York Times, agreed there was no way a bill granting more invasive power to the NSA would ever pass Congress.
We weren't sleeping. But they must have been.
Because we learned this week that a group of Senators are pushing a new version of CISPA. Tell your Senators: the NSA has enough power, oppose CISPA!
Senators Diane Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss, the Senate intelligence Committee leaders who’re behind the new CISPA, are also staunch defenders of the NSA’s mass surveillance programs.
Which makes sense: CISPA would make it easier for the NSA to see your private data, and provide legal protection for corporations that violate your rights, their user agreements, and existing law to cooperate with the NSA.
We have to act now. CISPA's supporters are already soliciting help from defense industry lobbyists to get this thing passed. Click here to send a message to your Senator.
Again and again the anti-privacy goons in Congress have circled the wagons to try and pass CISPA. And again and again, we have completely shut them down.
We’ve done it before. We will do it again. Click here to fight back.
Please urge your friends to take action by forwarding this email or using these links:
[fb] If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.
[fb] If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet
Thanks,
Demand Progress Team
Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
...I only see one reasonable solution to put this to rest.Yeah. Pass the ruddy bill.-Renegade (October 16, 2013, 10:00 AM)
...I only see one reasonable solution to put this to rest.Yeah. Pass the ruddy bill.-Renegade (October 16, 2013, 10:00 AM)-IainB (October 17, 2013, 10:22 PM)
US politics are a complete mystery to me.-IainB (October 18, 2013, 06:19 AM)
^^ I don't really understand what you wrote there @TaoPhoenix...-IainB (October 18, 2013, 06:19 AM)
OIC, I think.
I am seriously concerned that US pressures are likely to screw up the Internet for everyone else and that it could become just another tool for US economic hegemony/colonisation.-IainB (October 18, 2013, 10:03 AM)
US Fails To Close TPP Deal As Wikileaks Exposes Discord - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2013/12/10/us-fails-to-close-tpp-deal-as-wikileaks-exposes-discord/)
12/10/2013 @ 9:28AM
Emma Woollacott, Contributor - I cover the control of content on the internet.
The latest round of talks over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have failed to lead to a resolution, with ministers confirming that debate is likely to continue into next year.
The announcement comes as Wikileaks releases an internal memo and spreadsheet, revealing that the US is putting heavy pressure on other nations to conform with its demands.
Cropped picture of Joseph Stiglitz, U.S. econo...
Joseph Stiglitz, U.S. economist. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Following four days of talks in Singapore, the heads of the various delegations have today released a statement saying that while they’ve identified what they call “potential landing zones” for the areas that remain contentious, they have failed to reach a resolution as hoped.
“Therefore, we have decided to continue our intensive work in the coming weeks toward such an agreement,” they say. “We will also further our consultations with stakeholders and engage in our respective political processes. Following additional work by negotiators, we intend to meet again next month.”
The statement coincides with the release of two more documents from Wikileaks which reveal just how far apart the US is from the other nations involved in the treaty, with 19 points of disagreement in the area of intellectual property alone. One of the documents speaks of “great pressure” being applied by the US.
Australia in particular is standing firm, objecting to the US’ proposals for copyright protection, parallel importation proposals and criminalization of copyright infringement. It’s also opposed to a measure supported by all the other nations involved to limit the liability of ISPs for copyright infringement by their users. Japan, too – which only joined the talks in March – has vowed to protect its agricultural markets, which the US wishes to see opened up.
But the TPP is causing increasing disquiet in the US, as well as around the world. Over the weekend, campaign group Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) revealed that Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of the Columbia University School of Business has written to the negotiators, calling on them to resist a tranche of measures that he says would weaken the 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.
These include extending patent terms and lowering the threshold for patentability of medicines, making surgical procedures patentable and mandating monopolies of 12 years on test data for biologic drugs. He also objects to the granting of compulsory licenses on patents, increasing damages for patent and copyright infringement, placing lower limits on injunctions, narrowing copyright exceptions and extending copyright protection to life plus 70 years.
“The TPP proposes to freeze into a binding trade agreement many of the worst features of the worst laws in the TPP countries, making needed reforms extremely difficult if not impossible,” he writes.
His sentiments are echoed by 29 organizations and more than 70 other individuals in a separate letter.
“The primary harm from the life + 70 copyright term is the loss of access to countless books, newspapers, pamphlets, photographs, films, sound recordings and other works that are ‘owned’ but largely not commercialized, forgotten, and lost,” they say. “The extended terms are also costly to consumers and performers, while benefiting persons and corporate owners that had nothing to do with the creation of the work.”
The failure of the talks to reach agreement is a major blow for the US, which hoped to see the deal largely wrapped up by now. The ministers say they’ll meet again next month, but haven’t set any new timeline for completion. And with many of the outstanding issues having been aired for months, it’s hard to see how full agreement will be reached any time soon.
From: http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/
If the TPPA goes ahead, we risk:
medicines costing more
GM labelling being scrapped
internet access being criminalised
copyright law being expanded
parallel importing being banned
te Tiriti o Waitangi being overridden
We would also be committing to special new rights for foreign investors, and to giving those investors the power to sue our government for making laws which they oppose.
And as if to substantiate the point...
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)How The Copyright Industry Made Your Computer Less Safe (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140206/11054426119/how-copyright-industry-made-your-computer-less-safe.shtml)
from the welcome-to-the-world-of-drm dept
I've already written one piece about Cory Doctorow's incredible column at the Guardian concerning digital rights management and anti-circumvention, in which I focused on how the combination of DRM and anti-circumvention laws allows companies to make up their own copyright laws in a way that removes the rights of the public. Those rights are fairly important, and the reason we have them encoded within our copyright laws is to make sure that copyright isn't abused to stifle speech. But, anti-circumvention laws combined with DRM allow the industry to route around that entirely.
But there's a second important point in Doctorow's piece that is equally worth highlighting, and it's that the combination of DRM and anti-circumvention laws make all of our computers less safe. For this to make sense, you need to understand that DRM is really a form of security software.
- The entertainment industry calls DRM "security" software, because it makes them secure from their customers. Security is not a matter of abstract absolutes, it requires a context. You can't be "secure," generally -- you can only be secure from some risk. For example, having food makes you secure from hunger, but puts you at risk from obesity-related illness.
- DRM is designed on the presumption that users don't want it, and if they could turn it off, they would. You only need DRM to stop users from doing things they're trying to do and want to do. If the thing the DRM restricts is something no one wants to do anyway, you don't need the DRM. You don't need a lock on a door that no one ever wants to open.
- DRM assumes that the computer's owner is its adversary.
But, to understand security, you have to recognize that it's an ever-evolving situation. Doctorow quotes Bruce Schneier in pointing out that security is a process, not a product. Another way of thinking about it is that you're only secure until you're not -- and that point is going to come eventually. As Doctorow notes, every security system relies on people probing it and finding and reporting new vulnerabilities. That allows the process of security to keep moving forward. As vulnerabilities are found and understood, new defenses can be built and the security gets better. But anti-circumvention laws make that almost impossible with DRM, meaning that the process of making security better stops -- while the process of breaking it doesn't.
- Here is where DRM and your security work at cross-purposes. The DMCA's injunction against publishing weaknesses in DRM means that its vulnerabilities remain unpatched for longer than in comparable systems that are not covered by the DMCA. That means that any system with DRM will on average be more dangerous for its users than one without DRM.
And that leads to very real vulnerabilities. The most famous, of course, is the case of the Sony rootkit. As Doctorow notes, multiple security companies were aware of the nefarious nature of that rootkit, which not only hid itself on your computer and was difficult to delete, but also opened up a massive vulnerability for malware to piggyback on -- something malware writers took advantage of. And yet, the security companies did nothing, because explaining how to remove the rootkit would violate the DMCA.
Given the post-Snowden world we live in today, people are suddenly taking computer security and privacy more seriously than they have in the past -- and that, as Doctorow notes, represents another opportunity to start rethinking the ridiculousness of anti-circumvention laws combined with DRM. Unfortunately, politicians who are way behind on this stuff still don't get it. Recent trade agreements like the TPP and ACTA continue to push anti-circumvention clauses, and require them around the globe, thereby weakening computer security.
This isn't just an issue for the "usual copyright people." This is about actually making sure the computers we use are as secure and safe as they can be. Yet, in a world with anti-circumvention provisions, that's just not possible. It's time to fix that.
Some people (not me you understand), might say that through **AA-driven DRM, SOPA/PIPA and NSA surveillance, the US Corporatist-led government has been and still is deliberately facilitating a prolonged and hugely successful pincer move on Internet freedom and privacy, making a hypocritical travesty of the American Constitution in the process, but I couldn't possibly comment.-IainB (February 07, 2014, 01:10 AM)
Mark Zuckerberg Says The US Has Become A Threat To, Rather Than A Champion For, The Internet | Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140313/13450726570/mark-zuckerberg-says-us-has-become-threat-to-rather-than-champion-internet.shtml)I find this rather amusing. These people are creeping out of the woodwork professing to be "Shocked, I tell you! Shocked!"
from the indeed dept
Better late than never: it appears that Mark Zuckberberg is finally really pissed off about the NSA surveillance efforts.
(Read the rest at the link.)
___________________________
Yeah, right.
Pass the popcorn.
Like we didn't already know that the US has become a threat to, rather than a champion for, the Internet. ...
Goodness gracious! Has it really? :tellme:-IainB (March 14, 2014, 05:37 AM)
Copyright As Censorship: Turkey's Prime Minister Copyrights His Recorded Calls To Get Them Off YouTube | Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140313/17054426573/copyright-as-censorship-turkeys-prime-minister-copyrights-his-recorded-calls-to-get-them-off-youtube.shtml)
Copyright As Censorship: Turkey's Prime Minister Copyrights His Recorded Calls To Get Them Off YouTube
from the copyright's-not-about-cenosrship? dept
Just recently, we noted that Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has tried to shut down social media sites in the past, was once again threatening to ban YouTube and Facebook. The main issue: recordings of some of his phone calls were put online by those opposed to him. Erdogan has supported banning those sites by claiming that the recordings were "fabricated." Of course, it appears he's figured out there's a more modern and efficient way to censor content you don't want people to see: copyright.
Via Ankarali Jan comes the news that Erdogan has "taken out a copyright" in his own phone calls in an attempt to get them removed from those sites. Of course, that more or less admits that the calls are "real" -- though, as some have pointed out, he's never argued that the calls weren't his voice, just that they were edited inaccurately. Still, while more narrowly targeting the calls, rather than banning the whole site, may be seen as a slightly better path, the fact that his tool of choice is copyright should certainly remind us, once again, how frequently copyright is a tool for censorship, rather than having anything to do with its stated purpose.
The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown' | Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140313/17470826574/rebranding-sopa-now-called-notice-staydown.shtml)
from the catchy-and-stupid dept
On Thursday morning, the House Judiciary Committee held its latest in a long series of hearings concerning potential copyright reform -- sometimes referred to as "the Next Great Copyright Act" after the Copyright Office kicked off the process with a talk on that topic (I'd quibble with the word "great" in there given how things are going so far). The latest hearing focused on Section 512 of the DMCA, better known as the "notice and takedown" provisions, or, more broadly, as the "safe harbor" provisions, which (mostly) protect service providers from being held liable for infringement done by their users. You've heard all of the arguments concerning this on both sides before -- and we had a post describing 5 myths likely to come up during the hearings (which did not disappoint). If you missed it, you can live through the torture below:
Or, if reading is your thing, Professor Rebecca Tushnet did her usual amazing job of taking insanely detailed notes of both the speechifying section and the Q&A section. There's a lot to cover, so we're going to break it down into a few different posts. This one is going to focus on the catchy phrase that came up repeatedly throughout the hearings: the idea that rather than the "notice and takedown" provision we have today, there should be a "notice and staydown." While mentioned repeatedly during the hearing, the concept was also outlined by two of the more maximalist (and clueless) defenders of extreme copyright law, Reps. Judy Chu and Tom Marino, in an opinion piece pushing for such a "notice and staydown" concept.
The idea is, more or less, that if a site receives a takedown notice concerning a particular copy of a work, it should then automatically delete all copies of that work and, more importantly, block that work from ever being uploaded again. This may sound good if you're not very knowledgeable about (a) technology and (b) copyright law. But if you understand either, or both, you quickly realize this is a really, really stupid solution that won't work and will have all sorts of dangerous unintended consequences that harm both creativity and the wider internet itself.
First, as was pointed out in the 5 myths piece, content itself is not illegal. It's actions concerning a piece of content. So, by doing a notice and staydown, you're guaranteeing that perfectly legitimate uses -- including both licensed uses and fair uses -- get blocked as well. That's because to determine if something is infringing, you have to view it in the full context. No matter how much some copyright maximalists want to believe that copyright is a strict liability law, it is not. The very same content may be infringing in some cases and not infringing in others. Not checking the context of each use would clearly block forms of perfectly legitimate expression. That's a big problem.
Second, and perhaps even bigger, is the fact that such a law would more or less lock in a few big players, like YouTube, and effectively kill the chance of any startup or entrepreneur to innovate and offer a better solution. Throughout the hearing, you hear people refer to Google's ContentID system -- which takes fingerprints of audio and video works and matches new uploads against it -- as an example of a proactive system "done right." Except, that system cost Google somewhere around $50 or $60 million to build. No startup can replicate that. And, even then, if you ask plenty of regular YouTube users, ContentID is really, really bad. It kills off fair use work all the time, it creates tremendous problems for legitimate and licensed users of content who suddenly find their content pulled and strikes on their account. It more or less proves that even if you have all the money in the world, no one can yet build a fingerprinting system that is particularly accurate.
If such a rule did get put in place, however, it would basically just guarantee that the few big players who could afford both the technology and the legal liability/insurance over the inevitable lawsuits, would be able to continue hosting user generated content. That's more or less ceding much of the internet to Google and Facebook. Considering how often copyright maximalists like to attack big companies like Google for not "sharing the wealth" or "doing their part," it's absolutely ridiculous that their biggest suggestion is one that would effectively give the big internet players more power and control.
The reality of the situation is that "notice and staydown" is really just SOPA 2.0 in disguise. The whole goal of SOPA was to basically to shift the issue of copyright infringement to the tech industry from the MPAA/RIAA. The idea was that if you add liability to the tech players, then it would magically force the tech companies to figure out a way to "clean up" infringement (leaving aside all the collateral damage). That's the same thing with "notice and staydown." The real issue is trying to shift the liability burden to tech companies.
It's the same story over and over again. The business model that the legacy players used to rely on has melted away in the age of the internet. Rather than truly adapt and change, they just get jealous of successful tech companies, and think that those companies somehow "owe" them money. And the best way to legally do that is to get politicians to magically place legal liability on those companies, so they have to pay up. Notice and staydown has nothing to do with actually stopping copyright infringement. It's about taking the burden off of the legacy players, easing the need for them to adapt and change, while trying to force big tech companies to pay up. The irony, of course, is that in the process it would harm much needed innovation from startups and entrepreneurs (the companies that the content creators really need the most) and lock in bigger, more powerful internet players.
Even The German Government Wants Corporate Sovereignty Out Of TAFTA/TTIP | Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140313/10571526568/even-german-government-wants-corporate-sovereignty-out-taftattip.shtml)
from the well,-at-the-moment dept
As we've noted, if there's one aspect of TAFTA/TTIP that practically everyone agrees is a bad idea, it's corporate sovereignty. Even against that background, it's still slightly surprising to read in the well-regarded German newspaper Die Zeit that the German government too wants it out of TTIP (via @FSchweitzer, original in German):The German federal government rejects special rights for corporations in the free trade agreement between the EU and the USA. "The federal government is doing all it can to ensure that it doesn't come to this," said the Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry of Economics, Brigitte Zypries, on Wednesday during question time in parliament. "We are currently in the consultation process and are committed to ensuring that the arbitration tribunals are not included in the agreement," said Ms Zypries.
_________________
The Secretary of State then went on to make a point many others have emphasized:"The German federal government's view is that the U.S. offers investors from the EU sufficient legal protection in its national courts," said the SPD politician Zypries. Equally, U.S. investors in Germany have sufficient legal protection through German courts. "From the beginning, the federal government has examined critically whether such a provision should be included in the negotiations for a free trade agreement," Zypries said.Corporate sovereignty measures were added to earlier bilateral agreements when the legal systems of the country receiving foreign investment raised issues about their independence or where there was a fear that local governments might expropriate property with impunity. Neither can seriously be considered a risk in the case of the EU and US, and so investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is redundant, as the German government recognizes here.
_________________
If this really is Germany's view, it will have major consequences for the negotiations, since the European Commission won't be able to get TAFTA/TTIP accepted by the EU without Germany's full support. There remains some room for doubt, though, as the German Secretary of State also said:arbitration tribunals of this kind should only be brought in as a last resort after exhausting all legal remedies brought in national courts.
_________________
If ISDS is excluded from TTIP, then that comment makes no sense, since there won't be the option to turn to supra-national tribunals after exhausting the legal process in national courts. So maybe Germany expects to be "persuaded" by concessions from the European Commission to change its mind at some point. But even if the German government is not totally abandoning the idea of corporate sovereignty, the fact that a senior politician is prepared to go on the record with the comments quoted above is significant. Germany's leaders obviously feel the need to distance themselves from ISDS, which is fast turning into a serious political liability.
email from: David Moon, Demand Progress <[email protected]>
This is urgent. The TPP Internet censorship plan is being finalized in secret meetings right now. We're teaming up with several other organizations and millions of people to block it.
We need all hands on deck at this crucial moment. We'll be delivering millions of petition signatures in about a week, and we want your name to be one of them -- just click here.
Here’s the situation: President Obama himself is in secretive meetings with key political figures and lobbyists in Asia to lock the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s Internet censorship plan into place.
We know from leaked documents that this secretive plan will censor your use of the Internet and strip away your rights. If finalized, this plan would force ISPs to act as “Internet Police”, monitoring our Internet use, censoring content, and removing whole websites.
It will give media conglomerates centralized control over what you can watch and share online.
We urgently need your help to fight back. Add your voice right now and we’ll project a Stop the Secrecy message on key buildings in Washington D.C. to ensure Obama, the media, and everyone else knows this censorship plan must be stopped.
Once key leaders finalize TPP Internet censorship plans it will be used to globalize censorship across the world. This may be our only chance to stop it.
Our attention-grabbing message will shine a light on their secret plan and will make clear to Washington lobbyists that the Internet community will never accept the TPP’s secrecy or censorship. The more who speak out, the larger our projection will become, and the more people we can reach.
This is a decisive moment: we need to act right now -- join us, OpenMedia, and DailyKos as we fight back.
Join with millions of people all over the world to shine a light on the TPP’s job-killing Internet censorship plan. Let’s send decision-makers and the lobbyists pulling the strings a message they can’t ignore: "Stop the secrecy now."
With every voice that is added to our call the Stop The Secrecy projection in Washington bigger and brighter.
We’ve stalled them before and we can kill this censorship plan if we act together at this critical moment.
The bureaucrats and lobbyists think they can ram through this damaging binding plan behind your back and without your consent.
Click here to help make sure they don't let them get away with it.
Thank you for being a part of history,
Demand Progress
The TPP is huge: It covers 40% of the global economy and will overwrite national laws affecting people around the world.3
The worst of the TPP threatens everything we care about: democracy, jobs, health, the environment, and the Internet. That's why decision-makers are meeting in Asia under extreme secrecy and pushing 'Fast Track' laws to cement the plan into place.
This is no way to make decisions in the 21st century. We need to raise a loud global call to expose this dangerous secrecy now.
With every voice that is added to our call, a donor will contribute to make the Stop The Secrecy projection on buildings in Washington D.C. bigger and brighter. We need to make this as big as possible when Obama returns to Washington on April 30th.
Please add your voice to help us build one of the largest online campaigns the world has ever seen.
Maximize Our Impact by Spreading the Word:
Image: StopTheSecrecy spotlight
Are you in the U.S.? Check out 'Save the World: Stop Fast Track' from Global Trade Watch:
Save The World: Stop Fast Track
Click here if you haven't added your voice yet.
Aaron's Law sounds like some good legislation, if it gets passed....The Internet and all those who care about Aaron Swartz took a big step forward today
Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Sen. Ron Wyden just introduced "Aaron's Law", which would fix some of the worst parts of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), including those which make it a potential crime to violate terms of service agreements -- that fine print that nobody reads at the bottom of a website.
The CFAA is the law under which Aaron and other innovators and activists have been threatened with decades in prison. It is so broad that law enforcement says it criminalizes all sorts of mundane Internet use: Potentially even breaking a website's fine print terms of service agreement. Don't set up a MySpace page for your cat. Don't fudge your height on a dating site. Don't share your Facebook password with anybody: You could be committing a federal crime.
It's up to us to keep the Internet open, a place for sharing ideas, exploration and activism -- not for stifling creativity and criminalizing innovators.
As the bill's sponsors put it in a Wired.com Op-ed, "The events of the last couple of years have demonstrated that the public can speak loudly thanks to the Internet. And when it does, lawmakers will listen."
Let's make sure they hear us. Join us in calling on Congress to pass "Aaron's Law."
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/aarons_law_intro-Tinman57 (June 20, 2013, 07:21 PM)
More than seven years ago, Aaron Swartz, the cofounder of Demand Progress, convinced me to give up my work on copyright and Internet policy, and take up the fight against corruption.
That fall, we started Change Congress, and for the next five years, we conspired on the best way to build a grassroots movement around this issue — because we both realized that was the only way we could ever win. Washington will not fix itself. We have to fix it for it.
Then a federal prosecutor distracted him. And then destroyed him. And the hope that I had — that someday he would return to this fight, and help us win it — was over.
All of us know how difficult that loss was. But when I had recovered enough to think, I resolved again to do everything that I could to win the fight that he had started me on.
I spoke at TED 6 weeks after he died, laying out the argument as clearly as I could for the reform we needed. And last March, again at TED, I announced the most ambitious plan this reform movement has ever had: that by Aaron’s 30th birthday — election day, 2016 — we would win a Congress committed to fundamental reform.
I’m writing you today to ask you to join this movement — now, because we now face a critical challenge that we must meet if this plan is going to work.
Our idea is to run this campaign in two stages — in 2014, with a pilot to test the strategy and prove we can win, and then in 2016, with a full scale campaign to win.
We estimate the cost of the 2014 plan will be $12 million, and we decided to raise at least 1/2 through a kickstarter-like campaign.
I set the initial goal at $1 million in 30 days.
We raised it in 13 days.
Now we have launched a second, and insanely more difficult campaign to raise $5 million by July 4. If we meet that goal, and I get it matched, then we have the funds we need to win the campaigns we need in 2014, on our way to winning in 2016.
We need your help. If you can pledge, please do. We will only collect you pledge if we hit the $5 million goal. And just as important, if you can spread this, please please do.
Very few believe we can do this. But I do. If we can get a million people to view our site, we will meet our goal.
You are part of the million person army that Aaron helped to build, and that the Demand Progress team now continues to grow. Aaron pushed me to make this my cause. Let me push you now to at least pledge.
Thank you for all you have done. And thank you especially if you can help us to do this critical bit too.
-Lawrence Lessig
Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a Demand Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!
Details Leak On How Secret Global Treaty Will Force Countries To Further Deregulate Financial Sector (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140619/09394627627/wikileaks-reveals-tisas-deregulation-plans-financial-services.shtml)
from the yet-another-ratchet dept
WikiLeaks has been rather quiet recently -- probably something to do with Julian Assange being stuck in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for the last two years. But today, we saw a flash of the old, dangerous WikiLeaks, with its publication of a major leak concerning the Trade In Services Agreement (TISA). Although Techdirt wrote about this in April, for many this is the first time they have heard about this secretive deal, which has probably come as something of a shock given the global scale of its ambitions and its likely impact. Here's how WikiLeaks describes its latest release:
Today, WikiLeaks released the secret draft text for the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) Financial Services Annex, which covers 50 countries and 68.2%1 of world trade in services. The US and the EU are the main proponents of the agreement, and the authors of most joint changes, which also covers cross-border data flow. In a significant anti-transparency manoeuvre by the parties, the draft has been classified to keep it secret not just during the negotiations but for five years after the TISA enters into force.
Despite the failures in financial regulation evident during the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis and calls for improvement of relevant regulatory structures, proponents of TISA aim to further deregulate global financial services markets. The draft Financial Services Annex sets rules which would assist the expansion of financial multi-nationals -- mainly headquartered in New York, London, Paris and Frankfurt -- into other nations by preventing regulatory barriers. The leaked draft also shows that the US is particularly keen on boosting cross-border data flow, which would allow uninhibited exchange of personal and financial data.
The leaked document itself is pretty dry and inscrutable, so wisely WikiLeaks has asked an expert in the field, Professor Jane Kelsey of the Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, New Zealand, to provide a detailed commentary, and this is the best place to start when coming to grips with the leak. Here's her chilling summary:
The secrecy of negotiating documents exceeds even the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and runs counter to moves in the WTO towards greater openness.
The TISA is being promoted by the same governments that installed the failed model of financial (de)regulation in the WTO and which has been blamed for helping to fuel the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).
The same states shut down moves by other WTO Members to critically debate these rules following the GFC with a view to reform.
They want to expand and deepen the existing regime through TISA, bypassing the stalled Doha round at the WTO and creating a new template for future free trade agreements and ultimately for the WTO.
TISA is designed for and in close consultation with the global finance industry, whose greed and recklessness has been blamed for successive crises and who continue to capture rulemaking in global institutions.
A sample of provisions from this leaked text show that governments signing on to TISA will: be expected to lock in and extend their current levels of financial deregulation and liberalisation; lose the right to require data to be held onshore; face pressure to authorise potentially toxic insurance products; and risk a legal challenge if they adopt measures to prevent or respond to another crisis.
One of the most worrying features of the TISA proposals is the following:
The crucial provision is Art X.4, which would apply a standstill to a country's existing financial measures that are inconsistent with the rules. That means governments must bind their existing levels of liberalization for foreign direct investment on financial services, cross-border provision of financial services and transfers of personnel. The current rules will be the most restrictive of financial services that a government would be allowed to use. They would be encouraged to bind in new liberalization beyond their status quo.
This is the familiar "ratchet" that we see in copyright law. Here, it means that restrictions on the financial industry can only be reduced, never increased, no matter how badly they screw up the global economy (again). Doubtless proponents of TISA will claim that signatories to the agreement will -- of course -- retain their sovereignty and ability to take "prudential measures" for the good of their people, just as they have said regarding corporate sovereignty in TPP and TAFTA/TTIP. But as Kelsey points, part of the leaked document shows that is simply not true:
the article is comprised of two sentences that contradict each other. If a government takes a prudential measure that is inconsistent with the agreement, it cannot do so as a means to avoid its commitments under the agreement! So any prudential measures must be consistent with the other provisions in the agreement.
Put another way, governments will have total freedom to legislate in any way they please provided it is compatible with TISA -- which means that it must be in favor of the financial industry, not the public. Another section that is written entirely for the benefit of the financial companies, not the public, concerns the protection of personal data:
nothing shall be construed to require a Party to disclose information regarding the affairs and accounts of individual consumers. That means TISA does not affect states' ability to require disclosure of information, presumably to the government, about individuals. It is not concerned with protecting personal privacy or preventing those who hold the personal data from abusing it for commercial or political purposes.
Given the sensitivity of data protection issues in Europe, this is likely to become a major stumbling block to the ratification of TISA by the European Parliament, assuming it gets that far. Indeed, it's significant that one of the leading German newspapers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, used the headline "U.S. grab account data of European citizens" when reporting on the leak (original in German.) That underlines the fact that alongside the new information that the WikiLeaks document reveals about the secret negotiations, another important aspect of the leak is that the mainstream media in Europe are finally aware of TISA, and are likely now to start exploring critically its effect on key areas like privacy and public services.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Rust never sleeps.-IainB (June 23, 2014, 10:31 AM)
http://cryptome.org/2014/06/webcom-netsol-attack.htmSurely not censorship? Just a set of unlucky coincidences, I would think. (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/esmileys/gen3/4Medium/TFR1EA.gif)
Of interest as it's about censorship of Cryptome (an important leak/info site). The reason for them being taken offline is a bit ridiculous.-Renegade (July 01, 2014, 03:47 AM)
24 hours to do something meaningful about it | OpenMedia (https://openmedia.org/blog/24-hours-do-something-meaningful-about-it)
We have just 24 hours until key decision-makers behind the Trans Pacific Partnership’s (TPP) Internet Censorship plan begin meeting in Ottawa, Canada.1
Please Note: This is your last chance to use our easy-to-use “Internet Voice” to get your comment right in the hands of those crafting this extreme and secretive plan.
Your diligence over time has allowed your OpenMedia team to get a face-to-face meeting with them.
It’s crucial that we have as many original comments as possible to show TPP insiders when we meet them.
Nj, will you take this last opportunity to join Internet users across the globe and have your comments put in the hands of TPP decision-makers?
–Steve
Footnotes
[1] Trans Pacific Partnership deal elusive as talks set for Ottawa. Source: CBC News.
Refer link: TPP - Save Free Expression | OpenMedia (https://openmedia.org/expression?src=156462)
The email says:
Our window is closing
Meghan Sali [email protected] via mail.salsalabs.net
05:38 (10 hours ago)
- images from [email protected]
TPP negotiators received citizen comments in a face-to-face meeting with OpenMedia just hours ago but now chief negotiators are stepping in to ram the censorship plan into place. We only have 48 hours before negotiations end; now, more than ever, we need you to stand up for Free Expression. Amplify our voices here, and take action to end Internet Censorship.
Take action!
Dear XX,
Revealed: “Chief negotiators” are now stepping in to finalize a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) plan that could censor expression online for generations.1 2
We only have 48 hours before their meetings in Ottawa, Canada conclude: Let’s raise a loud global call for TPP chief negotiators to back off and save free expression now --->
In just the last few days, tens of thousands of pro-Internet Citizens spoke up using our Face-to-Face tool3 to defend the right to access the Internet in their day to day lives without fear of censorship and surveillance.
As Harold Jaffe from the U.S. shared with us using our Internet Voice Tool:
“The proposed mechanisms of the TPP undermine some of our most valued principles--the equitable and transparent rule of law, the sovereignty of nations, and the authority of the people to determine how we are governed, among others. It is imperative that negotiations be brought into the light and the unjust, unconstitutional consequences of the plan be exposed.”
Make your voice louder, and make all our voices louder to Save Free Expression Online.
*If enough people speak out now we’ll put up a giant “Save Free Expression” banner in front of the TPP meeting building – a banner that decision makers and the media can’t ignore.
Negotiators have now heard your voices loud and clear, but they’re feeling the pressure from Big Media lobbyists and government officials to push ahead with this irresponsible plan.
Demand decision-makers and world leaders remove Internet Censorship from the TPP. Speak out today.
Thank you for recognizing that we need your help – we need your voice to protect the possibilities of the open Internet.
–Meghan, Josh, and Steve, on behalf of your OpenMedia Team
P.S., We’ve been fighting hard against the TPP’s extreme censorship, and we won’t stop until negotiators have abandoned their plans to censor the Internet. It’s the generous support we receive from the pro-Internet community - people like you - that’s made this fight possible. Help us defend your rights online by chipping in today.
Footnotes
[1] Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Source: EFF
[2] TPP talks in full gear as chief negotiators join working-level meeting. Source: Mainichi
[3] Face to Face with Internet Censorship. Source
Mind you, if one was a proponent of Transnational Progressivism, one might not want to stop TPP just yet.-IainB (July 10, 2014, 11:45 PM)
The Senate is giving more power to the NSA, in secret. Everyone should fight it
Politicians are still trying to hand over your data behind closed doors, under the guise of 'cybersecurity' reform. Have we learned nothing?
One of the most underrated benefits of Edward Snowden's leaks was how they forced the US Congress to shelve the dangerous, privacy-destroying legislation– then known as Cispa – that so many politicians had been so eager to pass under the guise of "cybersecurity". Now a version of the bill is back, and apparently its authors want to keep you in the dark about it for as long as possible.
Now it's called the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (Cisa), and it is a nightmare for civil liberties. Indeed, it's unclear how this kind of law would even improve cybersecurity. The bill was marked up and modified by the Senate intelligence committee in complete secrecy this week, and only afterward was the public allowed to see many of the provisions passed under its name.
Cisa is what Senator Dianne Feinstein, the bill's chief backer and the chair of the committee, calls an "information-sharing" law that's supposed to help the government and tech and telecom companies better hand information back and forth to the government about “cyberthreat” data, such as malware. But in reality, it is written so broadly it would allow companies to hand over huge swaths of your data – including emails and other communications records – to the government with no legal process whatsoever. It would hand intelligence agencies another legal authority to potentially secretly re-interpret and exploit in private to carry out even more surveillance on the American public and citizens around the world.
'Hidden From Google' Remembers the Sites Google Is Forced To Forget (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/07/14/2319252/hidden-from-google-remembers-the-sites-google-is-forced-to-forget)
Posted by Unknown Lamer on Monday July 14, 2014 @08:12PM
from the freedom-eagle dept.
Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) (http://tech.slashdot.org/~Daniel_Stuckey) writes "Hidden From Google (http://hiddenfromgoogle.com/), the brainchild of a web programmer in New Jersey, archives each website that Google is required to take down from European Union search listings (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hidden-from-google-remembers-the-sites-google-is-forced-to-forget) thanks to the recent court decision that allows people to request that certain pages be scrubbed from Google's search results if they're outdated or irrelevant. That decision has resulted in takedown requests from convicted sex offenders and huge banking companies, among thousands of others."
Bot Tweets Anonymous Wikipedia Edits From Capitol Hill (http://yro-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/07/14/0110207/bot-tweets-anonymous-wikipedia-edits-from-capitol-hill)
samzenpus posted yesterday | from the noting-the-changes dept.
89
mpicpp writes about a new Twitter bot that reports all of the anonymous Wikipedia edits being made from the US Senate and House of Representatives. Ed Summers, an open source Web developer, recently saw a friend tweet about Parliament WikiEdits, a UK Twitter "bot" that watched for anonymous Wikipedia edits coming from within the British Parliament's internal networks. Summers was immediately inspired to do the same thing for the US Congress. "The simplicity of combining Wikipedia and Twitter in this way immediately struck me as a potentially useful transparency tool," Summers wrote in his personal blog. "So using my experience on a previous side project [Wikistream, a Web application that watches Wikipedia editing activity], I quickly put together a short program that listens to all major language Wikipedias for anonymous edits from Congressional IP address ranges and tweets them." The stream for the bot, @congressedits, went live a day later, and it now provides real-time tweets when anonymous edits of Wikipedia pages are made. Summers also posted the code to GitHub so that others interested in creating similar Twitter bots can riff on his work.
Openness and transparency.
Here is something else of interest along similar lines as the above:
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)-IainB (July 15, 2014, 12:54 AM)
POLITICAL STAFFERS TRIED TO DELETE THE SENATE SCANDAL (AND OTHER BAD BEHAVIOUR) FROM WIKIPEDIA
I detest the whole idea of censorship of legitimate publicly available information - in hardcopy media or on the Internet - by those who have something they are ashamed of or simply wish to hide, or would rather the public did not see.
There is such a thing as publicly accepting responsibility and accountability for one's actions, or the actions of one's family or company - something that a great many criminals, perverts, political/financial/scientific fraudsters, ne'er-do-wells and media and other corporates tend to refuse to do. Allowing these miscreant people/organisations to draw a veil over their past sins is an attempt at rewriting history and risks being a step down a slippery slope to Totalitarianism by the dirty-handed (also in the legal sense) members of society.
Sorry, I didn't mean to duplicate anything you had posted - in fact I wasn't aware of that other discussion thread (hadn't seen it).-IainB (July 16, 2014, 06:14 AM)
Deja vu the Lernaean Hydra.-IainB (August 28, 2014, 10:08 AM)
For those as may be interested and for your action: There is a potentially useful crowdsourced(?) report at OpenMedia.org to push back against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Internet censorship plan with a positive alternative from the pro-Internet community: OUR DIGITAL FUTURE (https://openmedia.org/DigitalFuture?src=156846#action)
I actually think it may be like the proverbial "p#ss#ng in the wind" as the TPP rather looks like it was a done deal at the outset.
Democracy it ain't.-IainB (October 18, 2014, 01:08 AM)
...ACTA looked the same way until protesters in Europe buried it in a matter of weeks.-Vurbal (October 18, 2014, 07:54 PM)
...ACTA looked the same way until protesters in Europe buried it in a matter of weeks.-Vurbal (October 18, 2014, 07:54 PM)
Yes, but, like hydra that seems to be rising again. The potential "Internet freedom killers" are remorseless and, like rust, never seem to sleep - plus, they are apparently extremely well-organised, despising of democracy, powerful and highly motivated.
I'm not sure whether Internet freedomnicks are up to it for the long haul - whether they have the stamina or motivation, or even really understand/care all that much about what is going on.
Would loss of Internet freedoms really be so bad? "Freedom" is, after all, just something that can be likened to a feel-good concept that people have been taught to believe is their natural right, and we know that a "belief" is an irrational thing. They could easily unlearn that if they become sufficiently fatigued by the battle and its creeping, incremental erosion of individual/democratic freedoms predicated on "for the sake of the good of the many", or something. There could be some sense of security, after all, in benevolent collective enslavement to what seems to be a form of state corporatism - a sense of all being the same and having a trust in the masters. Most Western democracies and many other nation states have arguably already gone, or are going through this process, which is apparently being spearheaded by the US.-IainB (October 19, 2014, 03:09 AM)
...Fundamentally, what we're experiencing today is almost identical to what the British colonists went through leading up to the American Revolution. ...
_________________________-Vurbal (October 19, 2014, 12:20 PM)
...Though only the UK has had the strength of vision and fortitude to suggest re-education camps... so far. ...
_________________________-Renegade (October 19, 2014, 05:17 AM)
This is the last email we send before Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Ministers meet at the APEC summit in Beijing.1 This meeting is “...seen as an occasion for concluding the TPP talks”.2
We need you to please take this final opportunity to contribute so we can reach people with our powerful new free expression video.
We know that the more people know about TPP Internet censorship, the harder it will be for political leaders to advance it.
That’s why we need our video to spread like wildfire -- Will you take this last chance make sure it goes viral?
$10 will mean our video is seen by 100 people
$20 will mean 200 people watch our video
$50 will get us 500 views
$100 will get us 1000 views
Any amount at all will help
Recent leaks show that negotiators are closer than ever to reaching agreement,3 and sadly, the TPP is still pushing reckless Internet censorship that will make the Internet more expensive and policed.
Your support today will mean we can buy the social media advertising we need to make sure our powerful new video goes viral. Can you chip in today?
For Free Expression,
Meghan & Jason, on behalf of your OpenMedia team
P.S.: The APEC Summit starts tomorrow, and trade ministers are meeting this weekend. We have to act quickly to get our message out -- please help us tell the world what’s at risk in the TPP by donating today.
Footnotes
[1] ‘TPP Ministers to meet Nov. 8th in Beijing: minister.’ Source: Global Post
[2] ‘Japan, U.S. trade chiefs seek to clinch bilateral TPP deal.’ Source: Mainichi
[3] ‘Wikileaks’ free trade documents reveal ‘drastic’ Australian concessions.’ Source: The Guardian
REVEALED: “Chief negotiators” are stepping in to finalize a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) plan that could censor expression online for generations.1 2
Your comments on mobile platforms, content on YouTube, and posts on Facebook could be censored. Whole websites could even be blocked.3
They are trying to finalize this censorship plan in secretive TPP meetings from which the public and civic interest groups are completely excluded: Let’s raise a loud global call for TPP chief negotiators to back off and save free expression before it's too late ------>
TPP negotiators received citizen comments in a recent face-to-face meeting with OpenMedia,4 but now chief negotiators are stepping in to ram the censorship plan into place.
62,780 signatures (and counting)!
How did that happen? Why did he have it taken down?
Jim-J-Mac (November 15, 2014, 12:24 AM)
www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/trans-pacific-partnership-a-recipe-for-corporate-dictatorship-mun-loong-won
Highly relevant info there.-Renegade (November 16, 2014, 04:30 AM)
www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/trans-pacific-partnership-a-recipe-for-corporate-dictatorship-mun-loong-wonyes, that's a scary one.
Highly relevant info there.-Renegade (November 16, 2014, 04:30 AM)
There's also the related EU/USA version TTIP or TAFTA :-(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#Controversy-tomos (November 16, 2014, 09:03 AM)
rom the well-played dept
Freedom of information requests are a powerful way of finding out things that governments would rather not reveal. As a result, requests are often refused on a variety of grounds, some more ridiculous than others. The Netzpolitik blog points us to a rather unusual case concerning a request by the politician Malte Spitz for a letter from the Chief of Staff of the German Chancellery to members of a commission investigating intelligence matters. The request was refused on the grounds that the document was already freely available (original in German):The information you requested may be obtained free of charge on the Internet by anyone, in a reasonable manner. The letter from the Chief of the Federal Chancellery, Federal Minister Peter Altmaier, to the chairman of the first committee of inquiry of the 18th legislature, Professor Dr. Sensburg, is publicly available and published in full at the following link:
https://netzpolitik.org/2014/drohung-des-bundeskanzleramtes-wir-veroeffentlichen-den-brief-in-dem-uns-altmaier-mit-strafanzeige-droht/
The Netzpolitik link included there leads to an article that a few weeks earlier had not only leaked the document requested by Spitz, but also noted wryly that the letter from Altmaier threatens anyone leaking documents with legal action.
The German bureaucracy should be applauded for taking the adult view that once a document is leaked, it is publicly -- and officially -- available. This contrasts with the childish attempts by the British government to pretend that Snowden's leaks never happened, and its refusal even to pronounce the name of some of the surveillance programs he revealed.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
SOPA is back,
In 2012, millions of Americans rose up to help defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The public sent a clear message to Congress: don't censor the web.
Now movie industry lobbyists at the MPAA are trying to resurrect web censorship via a back door. As revealed in the press, they've organized a campaign to achieve SOPA by other means, and are still more than eager to break the way the Internet works to achieve their agenda.
The MPAA was worried this strategy would "invigorate and galvanize ... the SOPA debates." Let's prove them right!
Together we defeated online censorship once—let's do it again. Share this graphic and tell the MPAA to kill the #ZombieSOPA.
Help defeat web censorship once and for all.
The MPAA needs to know that all of us who truly care about the Internet won't just stand aside and let them ruin what we love.
Thanks for stepping up,
Derek Slater
Google Inc.
P.S. Here's what we had to say today.
© 2014 Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
You are receiving this email because you asked to receive updates on Internet legislation and initiatives from Google. To opt out of future communications, please click here.
German bureaucracy is pragmatic - and ironic, but honest with it:
German Government Refuses FOI Request By Pointing Out Document Already Leaked | Techdirt (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141120/03151129201/german-government-refuses-foi-request-pointing-out-document-already-leaked.shtml)
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)rom the well-played dept
Freedom of information requests are a powerful way of finding out things that governments would rather not reveal. As a result, requests are often refused on a variety of grounds, some more ridiculous than others. The Netzpolitik blog points us to a rather unusual case concerning a request by the politician Malte Spitz for a letter from the Chief of Staff of the German Chancellery to members of a commission investigating intelligence matters. The request was refused on the grounds that the document was already freely available (original in German):The information you requested may be obtained free of charge on the Internet by anyone, in a reasonable manner. The letter from the Chief of the Federal Chancellery, Federal Minister Peter Altmaier, to the chairman of the first committee of inquiry of the 18th legislature, Professor Dr. Sensburg, is publicly available and published in full at the following link:
https://netzpolitik.org/2014/drohung-des-bundeskanzleramtes-wir-veroeffentlichen-den-brief-in-dem-uns-altmaier-mit-strafanzeige-droht/
The Netzpolitik link included there leads to an article that a few weeks earlier had not only leaked the document requested by Spitz, but also noted wryly that the letter from Altmaier threatens anyone leaking documents with legal action.
The German bureaucracy should be applauded for taking the adult view that once a document is leaked, it is publicly -- and officially -- available. This contrasts with the childish attempts by the British government to pretend that Snowden's leaks never happened, and its refusal even to pronounce the name of some of the surveillance programs he revealed.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+-IainB (November 24, 2014, 04:08 PM)
...I have to disagree with their refusal to comply on the grounds that it already leaked. This becomes a means of defeating freedom of information requests. ...Yes, that was the ironic thing about it.-SeraphimLabs (December 21, 2014, 02:42 AM)
I have to disagree with their refusal to comply on the grounds that it already leaked. This becomes a means of defeating freedom of information requests.
To exploit this, they accidentally on purpose leak a fake version of the document that is either censored or contains a different message than the actual message being requested.
Compliance should be required anyway as per the law, and since it already apparently leaked they should have no problems in doing so because people already know what it should say.-SeraphimLabs (December 21, 2014, 02:42 AM)
The New CISPA Bill Is Literally Exactly the Same as the Last One
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. That's a cliche, but politicians often follow the hoariest routes to power, and attempting to enact change by doing the same thing repeatedly is one of them. When word broke last week that the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, the twice-defeated bill known as CISPA, was being re-revived by Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), it wasn't clear if the zombie legislation would be updated to address the myriad concerns with previous versions. We combed through the full text of the bill and, nope, it's exactly the same, word for word for overly broad data-scooping power-granting word.
The psychopaths never give up.
http://gizmodo.com/the-new-cispa-bill-is-literally-exactly-the-same-as-the-1679496808The New CISPA Bill Is Literally Exactly the Same as the Last OneMore at the link.
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. That's a cliche, but politicians often follow the hoariest routes to power, and attempting to enact change by doing the same thing repeatedly is one of them. When word broke last week that the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, the twice-defeated bill known as CISPA, was being re-revived by Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), it wasn't clear if the zombie legislation would be updated to address the myriad concerns with previous versions. We combed through the full text of the bill and, nope, it's exactly the same, word for word for overly broad data-scooping power-granting word.-Renegade (January 14, 2015, 07:50 PM)
The people sponsoring this thing need to be removed from authority as soon as practical.-SeraphimLabs (January 16, 2015, 04:16 PM)
It truly is astonishing how these fools who were put in place to enact the will of the people...-Stoic Joker (January 16, 2015, 04:56 PM)
Yes, the feds can compel magazines and websites to cough up user information about obviously non-threatening trolls, while barring them from even acknowledging it.
Nick Gillespie & Matt Welch|Jun. 19, 2015 5:08 pm
5495 417 128
Spritz
For the past two weeks, Reason, a magazine dedicated to "Free Minds and Free Markets," has been barred by an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from speaking publicly about a grand jury subpoena that court sent to Reason.com.
The subpoena demanded the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website about the federal judge who oversaw the controversial conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. Shortly after the subpoena was issued, the government issued a gag order prohibiting Reason not only from discussing the matter but even acknowledging the existence of the subpoena or the gag order itself. As a wide variety of media outlets have noted, such actions on the part of the government are not only fundamentally misguided and misdirected, they have a tangible chilling effect on free expression by commenters and publications alike.
Yesterday, after preparing an extensive legal brief, Reason asked the US Attorney's Office to join with it in asking that the gag order - now moot and clearly an unconstitutional prior restraint - be lifted. This morning, the US Attorney's Office asked the Court to vacate the order, which it did. We are free to tell the story for the first time.
On May 31, Nick Gillespie published a post at Reason.com's Hit & Run blog discussing Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht's "haunting sentencing letter" to District Court Judge Katherine Forrest, and the judge's harsh response. Gillespie noted that Forrest "more than threw the book" at Ulbricht by giving him a life sentence, which was a punishment "beyond even what prosecutors...asked for."
In the comments section of the post, six readers published reactions that drew the investigative ire of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In a federal grand jury subpoena dated June 2, the U.S. District Court commanded Reason.com to turn over "any and all identifying information" we had about the individuals posting those comments.
This is the first time Reason.com has received such a subpoena from any arm of government.
From press accounts of similar actions at other news publications and social media sites, we know that it is increasingly common for the federal government to demand user information from publications and websites while also stifling their speech rights with gag orders and letters requesting "voluntary" confidentiality. Exactly how common is anyone's guess; we are currently investigating just how widespread the practice may be.
The federal government's command for information—and request for silence—ironically came just days after the Supreme Court, in Elonis v. United States, strongly limited the scope of what counts as a true "threat" online. In that case, the Court voided the conviction of Anthony Elonis, who had published on Facebook rap lyrics depicting violence against his estranged wife and as a result been sentenced to 44 months in prison for making threats. The Court ruled that context needs to be taken into account when evaluating the true nature of the threatening actions being described. "Federal criminal liability," the justices wrote, "generally does not turn solely on the results of an act without considering the defendant’s mental state."
Unfortunately, that precedent is mostly irrelevant in our case. In America, grand juries have almost limitless ability to investigate whatever they want, regardless of whether that investigation has any chance of producing a constitutionally permissible conviction. Grand juries are widely regarded as playthings of ambitious prosecutors, who famously are able to indict "ham sandwiches"—at least, as long as those sandwiches aren't police officers accused of brutality.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara subpoenaed all of the identifying information we had about the authors of such comments as, "Its (sic) judges like these that should be taken out back and shot." And, "Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first." This last comment is a well-known Internet reference to the Coen brothers' movie Fargo.
The subpoena also covered such obviously harmless comments as: "I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for that horrible woman," and "I'd prefer a hellish place on Earth be reserved for her as well."
The comments are hyperbolic, in questionable taste–and fully within the norms of Internet commentary.
It's worth stressing that, under established legal precedent, Reason.com (like any other website) is generally not legally responsible for reader comments posted at our site. Still, the chilling effect on Reason and our commenters is tangible. It takes time, money and resources to challenge, or even simply to comply with, such intrusive demands.
The original subpoena, received late on Tuesday, June 2, did not come with a gag order. However, it came with a letter from Bharara and Assistant U.S. Attorney Niketh Velamoor requesting that we refrain from informing any other parties about the subpoena so as to "preserve the confidentiality of the investigation," and that we notify his office in advance if we intended to do so, even though it also said that we were under "no obligation" to keep the subpoena confidential.
We had three options: We could 1) abide quietly with the subpoena, 2) attempt to quash it, and/or 3) alert the commenters named in the subpoena.
Option 1, quietly abiding, was a non-starter for us.
As for Option 2, our chances of prevailing in that sort of legal challenge—given the extremely wide-ranging authority of federal grand juries, and the precedents set in cases such as In re Grand Jury Subpoena No. 11116275, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012), involving an anonymous poster on Twitter—was in practical effect, virtually nil.
In the Twitter case, an anonymous poster moved to quash a grand jury subpoena to Twitter that arose from online postings of a sexual nature about then-congresswoman Michele Bachmann. In that case, Twitter received the subpoena and notified the anonymous poster about it, letting him know that the company would comply with the subpoena unless he filed a motion to quash. The court denied his motion, holding that the poster's First Amendment right to comment anonymously must yield to the government's "compelling interest" in knowing his identity.
So we decided, against the government's request but well within our legal rights, to choose Option 3: notify and share the full subpoena with the six targeted commenters so that they would have a chance to assert their First Amendment rights to anonymity and defend themselves legally against the order.
At about 10:30 am ET on Thursday, June 4, our attorney Gayle Sproul (of Levine, Sullivan, Koch, & Schulz) called Velamoor to discuss the subpoena. The call did not go well. Sproul asked Velamoor to consider scaling back the scope of the subpoena by omitting the more benign commenters. Velamoor said simply, "No." Then Sproul informed him that we would be notifying our commenters about the subpoena to give them the chance to defend their rights to remain anonymous, and that we would not comply with the subpoena as it related to any commenters who moved to quash the subpoena before our compliance deadline. Sproul explained to him that there is case law firmly establishing that these commenters have the right to speak anonymously, and that we would withhold the information of anyone fighting the subpoena. Velamoor disputed that any such free speech rights exist. He asked that we delay notifying the commenters so he could get a court order prohibiting us from disclosing the subpoena to them. We refused. Sproul pointed out that we were perfectly within our rights to share the subpoena given the law and the wording of his own letter. Velamoor then suggested that Reason was "coming close" to interfering with the grand jury investigation. The call ended abruptly.
Immediately following that conversation (at about 11:00 am ET on June 4), Reason Publisher Mike Alissi sent the subpoena to the six email addresses associated with the user accounts for the comments identified in the subpoena. The email stated:
I am unhappy to report that Reason has received the attached grand jury subpoena from the US District Court/Southern District of New York demanding that we provide all identifying information that we have for several commenters who posted comments in a recent Reason.com thread about the Silk Road case. I am writing you because your email address is associated with one or more of the comments at issue.
Please be aware that we must provide the information that is being demanded by June 9 at 10 am eastern. Please let us know no later than Monday, June 8 at 5 pm eastern if you have filed any motion(s) with the Court opposing the grand jury subpoena. Our attorney has notified the US Attorney's Office that we are notifying you about this subpoena.
Later that day, at approximately 5:35 pm ET, Velamoor sent Reason a gag order he had later secured blocking us from discussing the subpoena or the order itself with anyone outside of Reason, other than our attorney.
The gag order was accompanied by this email:
Mr. Alissi,
Regarding this subpoena, I spoke to someone who said she was an attorney representing Reason in connection with this subpoena. The attorney indicated that Reason intended to notify the individuals referenced therein about the subpoena. The attorney further refused to provide me any time to take steps to protect the confidentiality of the investigation.
I have obtained the attached Court Order prohibiting Reason from notifying any third party about the subpoena.
Please forward the Order to the attorney and any other individuals who should be aware of it.
Thank you
Niketh V. Velamoor
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
(Sproul had identified herself and provided contact information to him.)
Since receipt of the gag order on June 4, and until this moment, Reason has not spoken with any outside parties about the subpoena or the gag order. We originally intended to publish the subpoena as part of a Reason.com story about it after the reply deadline; unfortunately, the gag order put those plans on ice.
Having already suggested that Reason might have interfered with a grand jury investigation, Velamoor contacted Sproul on the afternoon of Friday, June 5, in response to a letter from her explaining the commenters' constitutional rights and laying out the timeline of Reason's notification to them. Velamoor told her that he now had "preliminary information" suggesting that Reason was in violation of the court order. Sproul said we were not and asked for further information. Velamoor refused to give any specifics, saying simply that he was "looking into it further."
So as of this point in the saga, Reason had been subpoenaed, we had been vaguely—and falsely—accused by a United States Attorney's office of actions verging on obstruction of justice and contempt of court, and we were now told that we were being investigated further.
None of the six commenters informed us that they would be filing motions to oppose the U.S. Attorney's subpoena. Therefore we complied with the subpoena on the deadline of June 9.
Providing the subpoena to the commenters before the gag order was issued is what presumably enabled it to become public. That has had the effect of bringing to light what these compulsory grabs for information look like, launching a wide number of conversations about a grand jury process in which the government can target individuals, platforms, and publications for data about users.
(For a relatively comprehensive list of coverage of the matter go to this post at the legal blog Popehat, which published the first article on the subpoena and its implications.)
Reason's experience needs to be understood in a larger context. Especially since the 9/11 attacks, there has been a mounting conflict between the values of free speech and constitutional due process, with government making increasing demands–often under threat of punishment–for all sorts of information from innocent citizens. Coupled with the rise of a secretive and pervasive surveillance state, this tension means that Americans have no way of knowing just how unfree their speech really is.
While it is impossible to fully ascertain the frequency of information requests from local, state, and federal law enforcement, there is every reason to believe websites are subjected to thousands of demands each year. It is also not clear how other websites interpret the type of letter requesting "voluntary" confidentiality that Reason received. How often is that letter sent along with subpoenas? And how often does it achieve its intended effect of securing silence? In other words, does it have the same effect as a gag order?
In 2013, for instance, Mother Jones reported that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft have between them received "tens of thousands of requests for user data from the US government annually," covering hundreds of thousands of accounts. Using corporate transparency reports, the magazine estimated that the companies complied with the demands between 72 percent and 89 percent of the time, and that it's impossible to know how many of those requests were filled without the affected users ever knowing their information had been targeted.
Also confusing the discussion about these orders is that different categories of cases have different rules and procedures, with some granting more power to targets than others. "Unlike grand jury subpoenas, subpoenas for commenter information in civil cases and in public criminal prosecutions are easier for websites to deflect. The information sought there may be truly tangential and the parties may be willing to negotiate," Sproul told Reason. "But, as in this case, when a grand jury subpoena targets specific information that it contends is necessary to an investigation and can demonstrate the link, any fight is going to be a seriously uphill battle."
Regardless of the legal details, the growing government demand for user data and our own experience with court-enforced silence on a self-evidently ridiculous investigation raise important questions about free speech and the abuse of power.
Reason's unmoderated comment space is rare among comparable publications and has, over the years, developed into a forum that is by turns exciting, intellectually advanced, outlandish, cringe-inducing, and more foul-mouthed than any locker room this side of the Crab Nebula. It is something to be celebrated as a voluntary community that can be engaged or ignored as the spirit moves you (we say that as writers whose work and physical shortcomings rarely escape unscathed from any thread). However trollish many of our commenters can be, they have created a sphere of free speech that delivers on one of the great promises of the Internet, which is unbridled expression, dialogue, and argument.
We took risks by creating an autonomous zone in which our readers are left to their own devices. Some of the risk is reputational—how many other serious outlets allow anonymous commenters to run riot as we do? Some of the risk is legal, as in the current situation.
One further note about anonymity in our comment threads. Commenting on our site requires registration using a working email address (which is hidden from public view unless a commenter chooses to have it displayed). We also log IP addresses. We do both of these things in order to fight spammers and trolls–people who have shown enormous determination in their efforts to disrupt the discussion.
Our commenters are generally a tech-savvy bunch. It is likely that those who have a desire for a very high degree of anonymity are taking control of that themselves, using anonymous email addresses and tools to prevent us from logging IPs connected to them.
But Reason.com is not the dark web. Many of our regular commenters voluntarily display either personal website information or their email addresses. In fact, three of the six commenters subject to this very subpoena voluntarily displayed public links to personal blogs at Blogger as part of their comments, one of which further links to a Google+ page. Raising the question: How can the government view these so-called "threats" as so nefarious when people posted them in such a non-anonymous fashion?
Due in part to the government's secrecy and possible gag orders or requests for "voluntary" confidentiality, we don't know whether Google or other media outlets have been subpoenaed in this particular case. Judge Forrest's sentencing and comments in the Silk Road trial have drawn widespread criticism in corners of the Internet that value privacy and oppose the ruinous drug war. The potential number of critical comments subject to the District Court's low bar for investigative compulsion is enormous. Now multiply that number by the number of controversial court cases, and you could quickly get to the point where federal courts were doing nothing but investigating online trolls. Surely there are more pressing tasks, ones that don't involve suppressing the speech of journalistic outlets known to be critical of government overreach.
Reason's guiding principle over 47 years has been to expand the legal and cultural space for free expression, as the bedrock value behind human flourishing. As libertarians who believe in "Free Minds and Free Markets," Reason takes seriously an obligation to our audience and to our critics not simply to hold on to what we've got but to increase the rights of everyone to speak openly and without figurative or literal prior restraint.
To live in a world where every stray, overheated Internet comment—however trollish and stupid it may be—can be interpreted as an actionable threat to be investigated by a federal grand jury is to live in a world where the government is telling the public and media to just shut up already. As we gather and publish more information on just how often this sort of thing happens, we pledge to always be on the side of more speech rather than less.
Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason TV and the co-author of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America, just out in paperback.
Follow Nick Gillespie on Twitter
Matt Welch is editor in chief of Reason magazine and co-author with Nick Gillespie of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America.
Follow Matt Welch on Twitter
XXX,
We’ve seen the leaked version1 of the roadmap for copyright reform, and oh boy is it sneaky. And although these proposals are coming from Europe, Internet users everywhere will be affected.
It could open the door to absurd new rules that would kill our ability to link freely – copyrighting hyperlinks and charging to link to freely accessible content online.2
This makes no sense. And we need EU Digital Economy Commissioner Oettinger to hear from us loud and clear that we think so.
EU parliamentarian and copyright rapporteur Julia Reda has declared this a “full frontal attack on the hyperlink, and that “each weblink would become a legal landmine and would allow press publishers to hold every single actor on the Internet liable."3
Does that sound like the Web you want? If it isn’t, now is the time to send your message. If enough of us speak out, we can convince the Commission to listen to Internet users instead of to the big media giants pushing this plan.
The most offensive part of this leaked plan? Decision-makers are setting the direction of copyright reform before the end of their own public consultation on this issue.
That’s right. Experts at Copyright for Creativity have said clearly stated this denies "citizens and relevant stakeholders the right to be heard" and would "prejudge the outcomes of these consultations."4
We’ve already seen over 9000 Internet users5 submit their comments using our tool – now is the time to make sure those in charge can’t ignore them.
Send a message right now to the commissioners leading on the digital agenda. Our best chance to stop this is by creating a loud public outcry.
Consider this: the link tax has already been implemented twice, and both times it’s been a disaster.6 The European Parliament even rejected it (twice!) mere months ago.7 But this is the bad idea that Just. Won’t. Die.
It’s simple: this is nothing more than twisting copyright in knots to justify propping up outdated business models.
Let’s put an end to this, once and for all.
–Meghan, on behalf of your OpenMedia team
PS: Want to do more? Tweet at the commissioners leading the charge on digital policy to make sure they get the message.
Footnotes
[1] Leaked copyright communication: Towards a modern, more European copyright framework.
[2], [3] Ancillary Copyright 2.0: The European Commission is preparing a frontal attack on the hyperlink. Source: Julia Reda.
[4] Dear European Commission, could you at least pretend you’re listening to us? Source: Copyright for Creativity.
[5] Tell the European Union: protect the Web and Save Hyperlinks. Source: SaveTheLink.org.
[6] MEP Petra Kammerevert's Open Letter on copyright. Source: OpenMedia.
[7] Reda report adopted; amendment rejected! Source: Initiative Against Ancillary Copyright.
__________________________________
response tool: put an end to this copyright zombie once and for all (https://savethelink.org/listen)-IainB (December 07, 2015, 10:13 PM)
If we're so far down Rabbit Holes this is even about to be passed, what is a "mere" 9000 responses going to do?-TaoPhoenix (December 08, 2015, 09:44 AM)
According to a draft communication on copyright reform leaked yesterday (via IPKat), the Commission is considering putting the simple act of linking to content under copyright protection.
"Voluntary"
This is one of the more strange and dangerous words in English vs Legalese.
In English we think it means "optional"". But in many legal contexts it means "you provide something, rather than us sending a representative to take it". (That's the answer to the famous '80 's junk scam 'taxes are voluntary!!' No, they're not optional. However, you also don't get your very own rep at your door most times either.)-TaoPhoenix (June 22, 2015, 02:04 AM)
European nations lost millions of lives in WWII fighting to retain sovereignty, independence, freedom and liberty, and against Nazi totalitarianism and fascism. Within 60 years their governments would seem to have achieved national and legal subordination to an unelected totalitarian EU body that takes away their sovereignty and freedoms. Go figure.-IainB (December 07, 2015, 10:13 PM)
Hillary Clinton wants “Manhattan-like project” to break encryption
US should be able to bypass encryption—but only for terrorists, candidate says.
"I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners," Clinton continued. "It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after. There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology, Martha, to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts."
Imagine if the government went after corruption as hard as it goes after guys who run filesharing sites. Priorities.
The European Commission has launched a consultation on an investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) variant: a multilateral investment court. 1 In an email the commission confirms the consultation has a narrow scope. The commission does not want feedback on the system as a whole. This way the system’s social and environmental impacts will go unmentioned in the consultation results.Regardless as to whether one is skeptical of climate alarmism in general, for those who are concerned about it, the above question is valid and (presumably) deserves an articulate response.
This is irresponsible, as the system as a whole will strengthen investments vis-à-vis democracy and fundamental rights. This undermines our values and ability to respond to crises, including climate change.
Mankind faces its biggest challenge ever: climate change. For the commission it’s business as usual. Give multinationals their own court and keep the social and environmental impacts out of sight.
That’s surreal, not?
I asked the commission two questions about the consultation; below the commission’s answer, with inline comments. ...
___________________________________
Hardware maker: Give up your privacy and let us record what you say in your home, or we’ll destroy your property (https://falkvinge.net/2017/08/30/hardware-maker-give-privacy-let-us-record-say-home-well-destroy-property/)
PRIVACY
POSTED ONAUGUST 30, 2017 • UPDATED AUGUST 30, 2017 • BY RICK FALKVINGE 74 0
Image: guy-with-sledgehammer-1280x720-istockphoto
Hardware maker Sonos has a new privacy policy, and is telling users that unless they agree to it, their devices may cease to function entirely. Of course, since people bought these objects, they’re those people’s property. And since Sonos is taking an action that they know will break these devices, Sonos is effectively saying they’ll willfully destroy your property unless you comply and give up your privacy. This is a new low.
Sonos is a high-end sound system maker, famous for being the first brand to have synchronized music in different rooms with an off-the-shelf device system. This week, they announced a new privacy policy, where they say they’ll be collecting a lot of data about you, including listening in to your room and (in a roundabout way) recording it. People were justifiably quite upset. It is in response to this community reaction that Sonos does the unforgivable: Sonos states that if people don’t accept “the new privacy policy” — meaning give up their privacy in their own home completely — Sonos is going to willfully destroy those people’s property.
“The customer can choose to acknowledge the policy, or can accept that over time their product may cease to function,” the Sonos spokesperson said, specifically.
Sonos is particularly sneaky about the part where they record sound. They say in their blog post that they “don’t keep the recordings” of sound recorded in your home, with the new Voice Assistant. However, they point out that they share their collected data with a large number of parties, the services of which you have “requested or authorized” — where people tend to read “requested”, but where “authorized” is the large part. Further, they point out that they share recorded sound with Amazon under all circumstances, and Amazon is already known to keep recordings for later use by authorities or others, so the point is kind of moot. “We don’t keep the recordings, we let others do it for us” would be a more straightforward wording.
As ZDNet notes, the community’s reaction has been quite hostile to the manufacturer who threatens to destroy their property, and not without justification.
For my personal purchasing choices, behaving like this is enough to get on my blacklist of manufacturers, just like when Sony willfully infected its customers with rootkit malware in 2005, and Sony made it onto my blacklist. (It’s a high bar to get there, and still, hardware makers keep inventing new audacious ways to clear that bar.)
SYNDICATED ARTICLE
This article was previously published at Private Internet Access.
___________________________________
Try it. Love it. Keep it.
Try any Sonos speaker risk-free, for up to 100 days. Keep it if you love it. Get your money back if you don’t.
___________________________