Author Topic: Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates (Read 234501 times)

Tinman57 · « **Reply #225 on:** January 29, 2013, 04:26 PM »

<---- 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....

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #226 on:** January 29, 2013, 05:54 PM »

<---- 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)

But only *AFTER* the "Clickbait ad revenue comes in" - that's the new American Way!

AKA if this were serious they'd have responded to the *FIRST* Slashdot article. But it's not. So the Powers will let everyone get their click ads, THEN pummel them. Maybe in a week. Might even be 2-3 if they're lazy.

IainB · « **Reply #227 on:** January 31, 2013, 05:19 AM »

The draft trade agreement between the European Union and Canada (CETA) threatens the Internet, health and democracy. The agreement contains an investor-state arbitration clause, which gives multinational companies the right to directly sue states in international tribunals. CETA places these arbitration tribunals above the high courts of Europe and Canada.
Refer: CETA threatens Internet, health and democracy

Covers these points:

Bypass democracy.
Conflicts of Interest.
Block Reforms.
Agenda for EU trade commissioner.

IainB · « **Reply #228 on:** February 03, 2013, 06:36 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
-IainB (January 19, 2013, 08:07 PM)

Just received a relevant email from Demandprogress.org.

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?

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #229 on:** February 03, 2013, 08:02 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?
-IainB (February 03, 2013, 06:36 PM)

"Yes. Yes it can!"

Tinman57 · « **Reply #230 on:** February 03, 2013, 08:09 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?
-IainB (February 03, 2013, 06:36 PM)

Others in the house/senate that have the opposite opinion...

IainB · « **Reply #231 on:** February 06, 2013, 02:41 AM »

... Others in the house/senate that have the opposite opinion...
-Tinman57 (February 03, 2013, 08:09 PM)

I sort of referred to this here:

...It might be such simple practicalities, or citizens' unfounded opinions, or their religio-political ideologies that make them potentially Enemies of the Constitution: (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)

IainB · « **Reply #232 on:** February 06, 2013, 02:45 AM »

It looks like The ACTA Blog is monitoring a developing EU-US situation:
ACTA rises?

Renegade · « **Reply #233 on:** February 06, 2013, 03:04 AM »

It looks like The ACTA Blog is monitoring a developing EU-US situation:
ACTA rises?
-IainB (February 06, 2013, 02:45 AM)

Aaaaaannnnnddddd........ Right back to the point about having extreme, long lasting obsessions being a characteristic of a psychopath.

They will never stop. They are purely psychopathic. Such is the nature of "The Corporation".

IainB · « **Reply #234 on:** February 06, 2013, 04:02 AM »

@Renegade: Yes, you may well be right, but the criteria are different:

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.

IainB · « **Reply #235 on:** February 06, 2013, 04:03 AM »

(Left blank intentionally.)

Renegade · « **Reply #236 on:** February 06, 2013, 04:52 AM »

@Renegade: Yes, you may well be right, but the criteria are different:
-IainB (February 06, 2013, 04:02 AM)

Meh, close enough. Horse shoes & hand grenades & all.

Here's a good run-down (reformatted for clarity):

http://veracity83.hu...-Psychotic-Disorders

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,
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.

tomos · « **Reply #237 on:** February 06, 2013, 05:42 AM »

^ lol, that's a very callous smilie there Ren

IainB · « **Reply #238 on:** February 06, 2013, 08:11 AM »

...Here's a good run-down (reformatted for clarity): ...
-Renegade (February 06, 2013, 04:52 AM)

Ah, that's the other list that I was looking for, thanks.
One of my clients (a female and a departmental manager at a bank) was in a relationship with a psychopath, but she didn't discover the issue right away - they mask their behaviours very well. He fitted that list of criteria perfectly.
I met her a couple of years later and she described how the experience had been a terror and a horror, and how she found it difficult to leave him because she was so afraid of him and also worried about abandoning his two children (from a previous marriage) - who were terrified of their father. I feel sure that he knew how these things held her paralysed, and he was able to use them to manipulate and control her. He was apparently surprised and furious that she had dared to leave him. I don't know what became of the children.

The experience had evidently been one of destructive dissonance for her, and it had left its scars. I could see that she was quite changed from being a confident, capable person, to someone lacking in confidence and doubting her own capability. It took her some time to rebuild her life, but I gather she's fine now. He was a manager at another bank where I gather that his boss, after belatedly realising from his behaviours what sort of a problem the guy was then had a great deal of difficulty in getting him to leave. I think he was fired in the end.

IainB · « **Reply #239 on:** February 07, 2013, 06:25 AM »

Here's a turn up for the books:
Court Of Human Rights: Convictions For File-Sharing Violate Human Rights
(Part quote below. Read the rest at the link.)

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.

40hz · « **Reply #240 on:** February 07, 2013, 06:47 AM »

1. As soon as a court can rule against an unpopular and unjust law protecting powerful and well-connected financial interests, a new law will be drafted.

2. As soon as an unpopular and unjust new law can be drafted, people will quickly decide to defy or evade it.

3. As soon as people start defying or evading an unpopular and unjust new law, they will find themselves in court.

4. As soon as....

Tinman57 · « **Reply #241 on:** February 07, 2013, 06:55 PM »

Congress Will Battle Over Internet Privacy in 2013

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.

https://www.eff.org/...nternet-privacy-2013

IainB · « **Reply #242 on:** February 11, 2013, 06:04 PM »

Saw this post at reason.com:
(Copied below with main embedded hyperlinks.)

Defense Firm Develops Software That Tracks People on Social Media
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 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)

Curiously, the link to the video from the reason post gets a 404 (page not found), as does the same link from the source Guardian post...

cmpm · « **Reply #243 on:** February 11, 2013, 06:22 PM »

Probably the new agenda of drone attacks '404ing' at will.

http://openchannel.n...es-on-americans?lite

IainB · « **Reply #244 on:** February 12, 2013, 04:13 AM »

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

IainB · « **Reply #245 on:** February 12, 2013, 04:22 PM »

ARStechnica: EU data law draft uses language—word-for-word—from US, EU corporations

Well this is a surprise!

Tinman57 · « **Reply #246 on:** February 12, 2013, 08:35 PM »

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
-IainB (February 12, 2013, 04:13 AM)

I did the same thing. I looked but didn't see anything new posted....

IainB · « **Reply #247 on:** February 15, 2013, 03:39 AM »

More news from the warfront via Techdirt. Apologies if this is a "political" post, but the subject seems to have been made inherently political in the US and elsewhere.
A clip from the Techdirt post is copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images (my emphasis):

CISPA Wouldn't Actually Solve The Reasons Congress Is Giving For Why We Need CISPA
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.)

Tinman57 · « **Reply #248 on:** February 18, 2013, 08:47 PM »

CISPA, the Privacy-Invading Cybersecurity Spying Bill, is Back in Congress

It's official: CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, has been reintroduced in the House of Representatives. It's the contentious bill that would provide a poorly-defined "cybersecurity" exception to existing privacy law. CISPA offers broad immunities to companies who choose to share data with government agencies -- including the private communications of users -- in the name of cybersecurity. It also creates avenues for companies to share data with any federal agencies, including military intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency.
EFF is adamantly opposed to CISPA. Join us in calling on Congress to stop this and any other privacy-invasive cybersecurity legislation.

https://action.eff.o...lic/?action_KEY=9048

IainB · « **Reply #249 on:** February 23, 2013, 05:27 PM »

Full marks to Mozilla!
Firefox Will Soon Block Third-Party Cookies
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)

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.'"