Alicia Gomez
Android Headlines

Biometric security has long been desired on our phones to provide the most secure way to protect your phone from unwanted intrusion. BluePlanet Apps, maker of RoboPrint and dTor, has been developing this app for quite some and is nearly ready for a Beta release.

At the Apps World Conference, BluePlanet Apps CEO Jason Braverman presented BioLock to an audience including Samsung, who he says are interested in having it on their phones. BioLock is a truly futuristic concept brought to life by scanning either your iris, recognizing your face, or using a password to unlock your phone.

The app uses Army-grade algorithms for face modeling when doing facial recognition and even has blink detection and pupil dilation to prevent someone from merely using a photo of you.

Without you physically there to scan your face or iris, no one can have access to your phone. Perhaps you do not need to lock down your phone completely but just prohibit access to specific apps, for example, your text messages. Whenever entering the app, Biolock is activated before opening.

Read Full Article

Ian Munroe
CTV News

Officials from 18 countries held an impromptu, late-night meeting earlier this month at the United Nations office in Geneva, and made a decision that rattled Internet technocrats around the world.

Autocratic governments like China and Iran attended the meeting, as did several democratic ones. Despite protests by Portugal and the United States, they voted to staff a working group on the future of the Internet Governance Forum — an important theatre of discussion on matters of cyberspace — by governments alone.

The seemingly arcane move reverberated through a community of technical experts, academics and civil society groups who felt they had been unfairly excluded.

Fourteen technical organizations that help oversee how cyberspace runs wrote an open letter asking the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) to reverse its decision. Meanwhile the Internet Society, an umbrella group that helps manage technical standards online, posted a petition to its website in protest.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Globalists Can Win Cyber War, But Not Information War

Eva Galperin
EFF

Your digital camera may embed metadata into photographs with the camera’s serial number or your location. Your printer may be incorporating a secret code on every page it prints which could be used to identify the printer and potentially the person who used it. If Apple puts a particularly creepy patent it has recently applied for into use, you can look forward to a day when your iPhone may record your voice, take a picture of your location, record your heartbeat, and send that information back to the mothership.

This is traitorware: devices that act behind your back to betray your privacy.

Perhaps the most notable example of traitorware was the Sony rootkit. In 2005 Sony BMG produced CD’s which clandestinely installed a rootkit onto PC’s that provided administrative-level access to the users’ computer. The copy-protected music CD’s would surreptitiously install its DRM technology onto PC’s. Ostensibly, Sony was trying prevent consumers from making multiple copies of their CD’s, but the software also rendered the CD incompatible with many CD-ROM players in PC’s, CD players in cars, and DVD players. Additionally, the software left a back door open on all infected PC’s which would give Sony, or any hacker familiar with the rootkit, control over the PC. And if a consumer should have the temerity to find the rootkit and try to remove the offending drivers, the software would execute code designed to disable the CD drive and trash the PC.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
10 Ways We’re Being Tracked, Traced, and Databased

Editor’s Note:  The Internet was born in Stanford; it might as well end there.

all ready to go from Siemens

Declan McCullagh
CBS News Tech

STANFORD, Calif. – President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.

It’s “the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government” to centralize efforts toward creating an “identity ecosystem” for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said.

That news, first reported by CNET, effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.

The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Schmidt spoke.

The Obama administration is currently drafting what it’s calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months. (An early version was publicly released last summer.)

“We are not talking about a national ID card,” Locke said at the Stanford event. “We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities.”

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLES:
The Cybersecurity Directive Goes Viral
WikiLeaks Being Used to Justify “Patriot Act” Legislation For Internet

Daniel Tencer
Raw Story

A bill giving the president an Internet “kill switch” during times of emergency that failed to pass Congress last year will return this year, but with a revision that has many civil liberties advocates concerned: It will give the president the ability to shut down parts of the Internet without any court oversight.

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act was introduced last year by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) in an effort to combat cyber-crime and the threat of online warfare and terrorism.

Critics said the bill would allow the president to disconnect Internet networks and force private websites to comply with broad cybersecurity measures. Future US presidents would have those powers renewed indefinitely.

According to a report Monday at CNET News, the bill will be back on the Senate agenda in the new year. But a revision introduced into the bill in December would exempt the law from judicial oversight. According to critics, this change would open the law to politically-motivated abuse by any administration, no matter how narrowly the law is interpreted.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLES:
Globalists Can Win Cyber War, But Not Information War
Google Seeks to Weaken Search Engine Results for ‘Content Farming’ Websites

© AFP/File Jim Watson

AFP

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – Overblown talk of full-on cyber war between nations fueled by recent attacks like the computer worm Stuxnet could hamper Internet security efforts, officials and experts warned Tuesday.

Serious attention should be paid to threats of cyber attacks from hackers, spies and terrorist groups but not to the extent of mass hysteria, speakers at the premier RSA computer security conference in San Francisco said.

“Cyber war is a terrible metaphor,” said White House cybersecurity czar Howard Schmidt. “Don’t make it something it’s not.”

Online espionage and hacking are not new, and hyping incidents as warfare distracts computer security champions from critical jobs such as safeguarding power grids, financial systems, and medical networks, he contended.

“We are in the midst of a cyber war of words,” Schmidt said. “Let’s quit pointing fingers and start cleaning up the infrastructure.”

Renowned computer security specialist Bruce Schneier of BT Group said that use of warlike tactics in online conflicts is fueling hysteria that has the world on the brink of a “cyber arms race.”

“We are not necessarily seeing cyber war, but increasing use of warlike tactics in more general cyber conflicts,” Schneier said. “I think that is what’s confusing us.”

He cited a Stuxnet computer virus evidently crafted to find and disrupt an Iranian nuclear facility as an Internet Age attack that smacks of warfare but arguably falls short.

“It is not war,” Schneier said. “It is in the middle somewhere.”

Fears of cyber war are driving a needless cyber arms race that  brings with it the danger that software weapons might accidentally be released, he argued.

“We haven’t seen offensive cyber weapons companies, but they are coming,” Schneier said. “Big defense contractors are working on this; you know they would be dumb not to.”

The most prevalent cyber threat has been theft of information from networks, US Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn said in a keynote address to the gathering.

Foreign spy agencies have accessed military plans and weapons systems designs, while source codes and intellectual property have been swiped from businesses and universities, according to Lynn.

 

Attacks on computer networks have thus far been “relatively unsophisticated” and short in duration, the defense official said.

An emerging threat is that cyber tools will cause real-world damage, according to Lynn.

“The threat is moving up a ladder of escalation, from exploitation to disruption to destruction,” he said.

Foreign spies have focused on mining US networks instead of disrupting them, according to Lynn.

“Although we cannot dismiss the threat of a rogue state lashing out, most nations have no more interest in conducting a destructive cyber attack against us than they do a conventional military attack,” Lynn said.

“The risk for them is too great.”

US defense officials are more worried about an accidental release of “toxic malware,” he explained.

“Perhaps the greatest concern in our judgement is a terrorist group that gains the level of disruptive and destructive capability currently possessed by nation-states,” Lynn said.

Secret $1.8 Million Cryptocurrency Script

Terrorist groups could craft their own cyber weapons or buy them on the black market, he added.

“As you know better than I, a couple dozen talented programmers wearing flip-flops and drinking Red Bull can do a lot of damage,” Lynn told the gathering of software savants.

“We have to assume that if they have the means to strike, they will do so.”

Cyber commandos are being trained in the military, and the US is reaching out to allies to form collective online defenses, he said.

Lynn called on specialists in the computer security industry to team with the military to defend the nation’s networks.

“The government cannot protect our nation alone,” Lynn said. “It is going to take a public-private partnership to secure our networks.”

© AFP — Published at Activist Post with license

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

It was so nice to hear Hillary give a speech, claiming that America stands against global Internet oppression. Words, words, words.  But aren’t her words empty if America is going to act like a digital dictatorship itself?

Dutch blogger Willemien Groot calls the Secretary of State’s words “two-faced.”  Recent evidence suggests that she has a point.

Congress is once again considering modeling itself after bastions of freedom like Egypt by arming the government with an Internet kill switch that continues to draw the ire of free speech advocates.  Also, the Department of Homeland Security has also been on quite the rampage lately, seizing domain names and shutting down websites for merely linking to sites accused of infringing copyright.  Then, as recently as this past weekend, DHS mistakenly suspended 84,000 websites when the government cast too wide a net as it seized domain names accused of child pornography.  No decent person is in favor of child porn, but if the U.S. government continues to play it fast and loose with due process rights, American warnings about Internet oppression will continue to crumble under the weight of their own hypocrisy.

David Makarewicz is a lawyer specializing in Internet law concerning privacy rights and copyright defense for websites and blogs.  Visit his new blog to keep up with breaking Internet news.

© AFP/File David Furst

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Republican members of the US Senate and House of Representatives are seeking to quash rules approved by US telecom regulators designed to ensure an open Internet.

The five-member Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in a vote split on party lines, agreed in December to the rules aimed at safeguarding “network neutrality,” the principle that lawful Web traffic should be treated equally.

Supporters have argued that the rules are needed to ensure an open Internet but opponents have decried them as unnecessary government intervention.

Republicans in the Senate and House formally introduced a matching “resolution of disapproval” on Wednesday seeking to reverse the rules.

House majority leader Eric Cantor, a Republican from Virginia, said the resolution is intended to “debunk the FCC’s harmful and partisan plan to regulate the Internet.”

“From the Internet’s inception we have taken a hands-off approach,” added Representative Greg Walden, a Republican from Oregon.

“The Internet did not become the explosive driver of communications and economic growth it is today until we turned it over to free enterprise,” Walden said. “Changing direction now will only harm innovation and the economy.”

US carrier Verizon Communications filed a legal challenge to the FCC’s rules last month, calling them an “assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself.”

The rules are a balancing act by the FCC between support for consumers and the cable and telephone companies that are the US Internet service providers.

The FCC drafted the rules after suffering a legal setback in April when a court ruled that it had not been granted the authority by Congress to regulate the network management practices of Internet service providers.

© AFP — Published at Activist Post with license

NSA Chief Keith Alexander: © AFP/File Mandel Ngan

AFP

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – The US National Security Agency (NSA) chief on Thursday urged top computer security specialists to harden the nation’s critical infrastructure against inevitable destructive cyber attacks.

“This is an important time,” NSA and Cyber Command director Gen. Keith Alexander said during a presentation at a premier RSA Conference in San Francisco.

“Most of the destructive tools being developed haven’t been used; we need to use this window of opportunity to develop defenses.”

Two days earlier, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn gave a similar warning, saying the capability clearly exists for malicious software to cause real-world damage at power plants, water supplies and other vital points.

“Few weapons in the history of warfare, once created, have gone unused,” Lynn said during a speech at RSA.

“It is possible to imagine attacks on military networks or critical infrastructure-like our transportation system and energy sector-that cause severe economic damage, physical destruction, or even loss of life.”

Last month, Russia called on NATO to track down the culprits behind a Stuxnet computer worm that targeted a Russian-built Iranian nuclear power plant, saying the incident could have triggered a new Chernobyl.

Secure military networks will matter little if power grid cuts or other government systems are disabled by cyber attacks, according to Lynn.

He called for extending military computer defenses to privately held parts of the infrastructure key to the nation functioning.

“During a natural disaster, like a hurricane, military troops and helicopters are often used by FEMA to help deliver relief,” Lynn said.

“In a similar vein, the military’s cyber capabilities will be available to civilian leaders to help protect the networks that support government operations and critical infrastructure.”

Private operations that the government wants to guard include companies that supply defense department equipment, according to Alexander.

He argued that the military network’s “secure zone” needed to be extended to all critical resources in partnerships with the private sector.

Alexander maintained that national security agents and the computer wizards running company networks could work together without infringing on people’s rights.

“I believe we have the talent to build cyber security that protects our civil liberties and privacy,” he said. “We can and must do both.”

Alexander added that the nation’s security depended on the education of coming generations as well as today’s software and hardware innovations.

“Our nation needs to push science, technology, engineering and mathematics,” Alexander said. “It is absolutely vital to our future.”

As in past years at the annual RSA gathering, US defense officials called on computer security specialists to help them keep the nation safe.

“Securing our nation’s networks is a team sport,” Alexander said. “We need your help.”

© AFP — Published at Activist Post with license

RELATED ARTICLES:
Too much hysteria over cyber threats, US experts
Wikileaks Being Used to Justify Internet Control Legislation

Why a decentralized network is the answer to the internet “kill switch”

Source

Douglas Ruchkoff
Reality Sandwich

The moment the “net neutrality” debate began was the moment the net neutrality debate was lost. For once the fate of a network — its fairness, its rule set, its capacity for social or economic reformation — is in the hands of policymakers and the corporations funding them — that network loses its power to effect change. The mere fact that lawmakers and lobbyists now control the future of the net should be enough to turn us elsewhere.

Of course the Internet was never truly free, bottom-up, decentralized, or chaotic. Yes, it may have been designed with many nodes and redundancies for it to withstand a nuclear attack, but it has always been absolutely controlled by central authorities. From its Domain Name Servers to its IP addresses, the Internet depends on highly centralized mechanisms to send our packets from one place to another.

The ease with which a Senator can make a phone call to have a website such as Wikileaks yanked from the net mirrors the ease with which an entire top-level domain, like say .ir, can be excised. And no, even if some smart people jot down the numeric ip addresses of the websites they want to see before the names are yanked, offending addresses can still be blocked by any number of cooperating government and corporate trunks, relays, and ISPs. That’s why ministers in China finally concluded (in cables released by Wikileaks, no less) that the Internet was “no threat.”

I’m not trying to be a downer here, or knock the possibilities for networking. I just want to smash the fiction that the Internet is some sort of uncontrollable, decentralized free-for-all, so that we can get on with the business of creating something else that is.

That’s right. I propose we abandon the Internet, or at least accept the fact that it has been surrendered to corporate control like pretty much everything else in Western society. It was bound to happen, and its flawed, centralized architecture made it ripe for conquest.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Globalists Can Win Cyber War, But Not Info War

Why a decentralized network is the answer to the internet “kill switch”

Source

Douglas Ruchkoff
Reality Sandwich

The moment the “net neutrality” debate began was the moment the net neutrality debate was lost. For once the fate of a network — its fairness, its rule set, its capacity for social or economic reformation — is in the hands of policymakers and the corporations funding them — that network loses its power to effect change. The mere fact that lawmakers and lobbyists now control the future of the net should be enough to turn us elsewhere.

Of course the Internet was never truly free, bottom-up, decentralized, or chaotic. Yes, it may have been designed with many nodes and redundancies for it to withstand a nuclear attack, but it has always been absolutely controlled by central authorities. From its Domain Name Servers to its IP addresses, the Internet depends on highly centralized mechanisms to send our packets from one place to another.

The ease with which a Senator can make a phone call to have a website such as Wikileaks yanked from the net mirrors the ease with which an entire top-level domain, like say .ir, can be excised. And no, even if some smart people jot down the numeric ip addresses of the websites they want to see before the names are yanked, offending addresses can still be blocked by any number of cooperating government and corporate trunks, relays, and ISPs. That’s why ministers in China finally concluded (in cables released by Wikileaks, no less) that the Internet was “no threat.”

I’m not trying to be a downer here, or knock the possibilities for networking. I just want to smash the fiction that the Internet is some sort of uncontrollable, decentralized free-for-all, so that we can get on with the business of creating something else that is.

That’s right. I propose we abandon the Internet, or at least accept the fact that it has been surrendered to corporate control like pretty much everything else in Western society. It was bound to happen, and its flawed, centralized architecture made it ripe for conquest.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Globalists Can Win Cyber War, But Not Info War

Declan McCullagh
CNET News

A Senate proposal that has become known as the Internet “kill switch” bill was reintroduced this week, with a tweak its backers say eliminates the possibility of an Egypt-style disconnection happening in the United States.

As CNET reported last month, the 221-page bill hands Homeland Security the power to issue decrees to certain privately owned computer systems after the president declares a “national cyberemergency.” A section in the new bill notes that does not include “the authority to shut down the Internet,” and the name of the bill has been changed to include the phrase “Internet freedom.”

“The emergency measures in our bill apply in a precise and targeted way only to our most critical infrastructure,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said yesterday about the legislation she is sponsoring with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn). “We cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government finally realizes the importance of protecting our digital resources.”

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
DHS Seizes Websites for Linking to Copyrighted Content

Activist Post

Many of us believe the Internet to be open and free for us to explore all known information.  Indeed, it is true that we currently can surf to any active website with our browser, and we can start a website or blog on any topic we wish to discuss.  And it is quite a profound concept that everyone with a smart phone literally has all of the world’s knowledge in the palm of their hand.

Ben Franklin knew well the importance of free access to information when he founded the first public library in America to share knowledge with those without the means to their own books.  Today, he surely would consider the Internet’s unprecedented access to information, and ability to communicate it instantly, as the ultimate level playing field of economic mobility and freedom.

However, this access is now under threat of authoritarian control.  First, it is important to note that the gears of the Internet have always been controlled by central authorities, as Douglas Rushkoff recently wrote, “From its Domain Name Servers to its IP addresses, the Internet depends on highly centralized mechanisms to send our packets from one place to another.”

Therefore, the idea that our movements on the Web are even remotely private or untraceable is false.  The central “authorities” who control the gears of the machine know exactly where you have been, while Google and the CIA have even developed ways of knowing where you’re going next as well.  It’s very creepy to know that our every move is being tracked, traced, and databased, but it has been happening from day one on the Internet, and will likely continue to happen despite the violation of basic rights to our privacy.

Because Internet privacy has never been possible in the current web infrastructure, any proposed “privacy law” would just seem to pay lip service to the idea if it doesn’t address decentralizing the control grid.  As Rushkoff pointed out, “I’m not trying to be a downer here, or knock the possibilities for networking. I just want to smash the fiction that the Internet is some sort of uncontrollable, decentralized free-for-all, so that we can get on with the business of creating something else that is.”

The focus here will be on the multitude of threats to our free access to the current Internet.  As Ben Franklin understood, information should be free and open to all, not just the select few.  Although the books in Franklin’s first library were indeed copyrighted material, they were freely shared.  We should think of the Internet as a gigantic open-source public library.  A place where information such as news, books, movies, and music should be free to view while we’re visiting the library.

Unfortunately, those who have control over the grid and influence over policymakers do not view the Internet in the same light.  It appears that they view it as an economic and propaganda playground — the last one that they don’t fully control.  Well, given the blight of proposed Internet control laws and web censorship tactics, it seems there is a calculated effort to control the free flow of information.

Below are 6 threats to our free and open access to the World Wide Web:

Legislation: The Protecting Cybersecurity as a National Asset Act, aka the “Internet Kill Switch” bill, has recently been reintroduced with a new Orwellian name, the Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act. This bill would give government the unchecked power to restrict access to the Internet if they declare a “national cyberemergency.”  CNET recently reported:

But the revised wording (PDF) continues to alarm civil liberties groups and other critics of the bill, who say the language would allow the government to shut down portions of the Internet or restrict access to certain Web sites or types of content. Even former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak didn’t actually “shut down” the Internet: at least at first, a trickle of connections continued.

The second piece of legislation that’s being reintroduced this year is the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA).  This bill, clearly written by the mega-media entertainment cartel, would empower the U.S. Department of Justice to shut down, or block access to, websites found to be illegally sharing copyrighted material.  It gives the government the authority to force Internet Service Providers to block access to websites from certain IP addresses, much like how the U.S. recently blocked the Al Jazeera feed during the Egyptian protests.  COICA has also been referred to as the “Blacklist” bill because it allows the government to blacklist or seize any domain name suspected of infringement — even if located outside the United States.

DHS Seizures: Who needs there to be laws on the books when the Department of Homeland Security appears to already be above the law. DHS has been on a rampage of arbitrarily seizing websites without due process.  In November 2010, they seized over 70 websites suspected of copyright infringement.  Just before the Super Bowl, DHS seized another lot of domains for illegally share-streaming sporting events — some merely for linking to copyrighted material.  Most recently, DHS erroneously seized 84,000 domains accused of being affiliated with child porn in some way which the DHS later admitted was done by accident.  

Attorneys say the Righthaven lawsuits are unprecedented in recent memory because, in the past, newspapers dealt with online copyright infringement by simply asking infringing websites to remove the infringing material and to replace it with a link to the source newspaper. Most Righthaven defendants say they were sued without warning.

Net Neutrality: It would seem that net neutrality should fall under the legislative category. However, it is actually considered more of a “market based” regulation than actual law, yet the taxpayer still funds its enforcement through the FCC.  Before identifying the reasoning behind and specific aspects of net neutrality rules, it’s worth noting that Internet futurist, Douglas Roshkoff, views the details as irrelevant because:

The moment the ‘net neutrality’ debate began was the moment the net neutrality debate was lost. For once the fate of a network — its fairness, its rule set, its capacity for social or economic reformation — is in the hands of policymakers and the corporations funding them — that network loses its power to effect change. (source)

The concept behind net neutrality is just what it says; to keep Internet access neutral for all users. But again, it is a very Orwellian term where true supporters of a free an open Internet can be tricked into supporting so-called neutrality rules.  Blogger Timothy Karr wrote, “The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it’s become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users.”

What they are, in fact, are rules to allow service providers to charge tiered price levels depending on the amount of broadband used by individual web-surfers or websites.  In other words, certain access will be discriminated against through reduced access speeds or additional fees.  Besides limiting size of the surfer’s information wave, this tiered approach to the Internet will likely make it very difficult for smaller websites to compete with the big boys who can afford to pay ISPs for unadulterated access.

Technical Censorship:  Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Wikipedia have become the most powerful information sharing tools the world has ever known. Combined, these five websites could literally rewrite history or shape the entire flow of current information if they chose to do so. Indeed, each of these virtual libraries has been repeatedly accused of censorship in many various forms; from blatant removal of content to manipulating the searchable strength of disapproved content.

Google, who seems so powerful that they may actually run the world, recently revealed that they are tweaking their search algorithm to weaken the search engine ranking of information aggregating websites referred to as “content farms.”  It seems that Google seeks to reduce websites with little original content to the level of spammer status in their search results. What’s more, Google can wield the power of their Google Page Ranking for individual sites.  Their constantly changing algorithm may actually penalize websites for search engine optimization, as with the recent case of JC Penney losing business due to Google penalizing them for SEO.

Taxes:  If Congress or local governments elect to tax websites, the level playing field on the Internet is finished.  In May 2010, the Federal Trade Commission proposed the “Drudge Tax” which would seek to tax news aggregators as if they are brick and mortar media companies. The FTC report also suggested that news aggregators be forced to pay copyright fees to link to mainstream news sources.  And in perfect wealth distribution fashion the report also discusses the “possibility of offering tax exemptions to news organizations, establishing an AmeriCorps for reporters and creating a national fund for local news organizations.”

More recently, some states have proposed taxing online retailers such as Amazon, arguing that it’s not fair for local retailers who must pay taxes for selling the exact same items.  In the past, Amazon has terminated its contracts with third-party affiliates in states who have adopted online tax laws. California Congressman, Dan Lungren, introduced the resolution Supporting the Preservation of Internet Entrepreneurs and Small Businesses aimed at preventing states from imposing these new taxes on online retailers.

What’s more, some states and even municipalities are beginning to impose a blogger fee referred to as a “privilege license” as a sort of business license for blogs.  Philadelphia has forced bloggers to pay a $50/year, or $300 lifetime, fee for the privilege of expressing ideas online.

Conclusion
It seems clear that the powers-that-be are engaged in an all-out assault the free flow of information on the Internet.  Blogs and websites must be prepared to combat the coming onslaught of news laws, regulations, and fees.  For those who believe information should be free for all who pay for Internet access, we must fight to maintain this liberty.  Stay tuned to the new blog Sites & Blogs for breaking Internet news and legal commentary about online copyright and privacy rights.

AFP image

Jeff Stein
Washington Post

The U.S. Central Command says its new “Persona” social media “infiltration” software is designed to cozy up to extremist bloggers overseas, not law-abiding Americans chatting on Facebook or similar sites.

Earlier this month, the Web buzzed with a report that the software was designed to “manage ‘fake people’ on social media sites and create the illusion of consensus on controversial issues,” implying that the Defense Department was targeting critics of the war in Afghanistan and other conflicts.

Further compounding a sinister view of the software was the discovery of e-mails from the head of a company implicated in “dirty tricks” against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and a pro-labor organization, which discussed how such technology could be used.

Read Full Article

“Blacklisting entire sites out of the domain name system” is a “reckless scheme that will undermine global Internet infrastructure and censor legitimate online speech,” it (EFF) said.

Senator Patrick Leahy © AFP/File Mandel Ngan

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Democratic and Republican members of the US Congress pledged Monday to pass legislation that would give US authorities more tools to crack down on websites engaged in piracy of movies, television shows and music and the sale of counterfeit goods.

Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would introduce a new version “soon” of a bill designed to combat so-called “rogue websites.”

A previous bill co-sponsored by Leahy, called the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 19-0 vote in November, but never made it to the Senate floor.

Leahy, speaking to reporters on Monday, said: “Online infringement and the sale of counterfeit goods costs American creators, producers, and businesses billions of dollars and results in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.

“This theft is unacceptable at any time; it is devastating in our current economic climate,” he said.

House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, said: “The success of our economy is in part tied to the success of America’s intellectual property industries.

“From movies and music to software and medicine, IP theft drains our economy and puts lives at risk,” Smith said.

Leahy and Smith were joined by other lawmakers at the event along with representatives of the entertainment industry and labor organizations.

“The Internet has regrettably become a cash-cow for the criminals and organized crime cartels who profit from digital piracy and counterfeit products,” said Representative John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan.

The Obama administration has come in for some criticism for shutting down dozens of websites in recent months as part of a crackdown known as “Operation in Our Sites.”

US authorities in November shut down 82 websites selling mostly Chinese-made counterfeit goods, including golf clubs, Walt Disney movies, handbags and other items.

Leahy said the bill would ensure a judicial review for websites accused of engaging in illegal activities and dismissed claims it threatened First Amendment protections of free speech.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) last year decried the previous version of Leahy’s legislation as an “Internet censorship” bill.

“Blacklisting entire sites out of the domain name system” is a “reckless scheme that will undermine global Internet infrastructure and censor legitimate online speech,” it said.

“I’m very concerned about the First Amendment,” Leahy said Monday. “I’m also concerned about theft.

“There is no First Amendment right that protects thieves.”

© AFP — Published at Activist Post with license

Communications Minister Ed Vaizey has held talks behind closed doors with rights holders and ISPs about introducing web blocking for sites that breach copyright

DHS in the US has already seized thousands of domains “suspected” of violating Copyright laws.

Dinah Greek
Computer Active

The Government is considering forcing internet service providers (ISPs) to block websites that make it possible for people to illegally share copyrighted material.

Communications Minister Ed Vaizey confirmed on the Open Rights Group blog that he has been involved in behind-closed-doors discussions with copyright holders and ISPs about introducing these measures after a legal challenge from BT and Talktalk to the Digital Economy Act (DEA).

The entertainment industry wanted the law to force ISPs to write warning letters to alleged file sharers but ISPs say they fear this would breach data protection laws.

This issue is now subject to a judicial review in the High Court and the Government has put on hold the requirement for ISPs to write warning letters.

Read Full Article

Editor’s Note: Nice headline, but we don’t trust these two senators as far as we can throw them. Guaranteed the bill is flawed or full of loopholes.

AFP file image

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US senators John Kerry and John McCain introduced an online privacy bill Tuesday that seeks to strike a balance between protecting the personal information of Web users and the needs of businesses to conduct electronic commerce.

The former Democratic and Republican presidential candidates said the bipartisan legislation would require companies gathering data to allow a consumer to “opt-out” of having their information collected.

“Protecting Americans’ personal, private information is vital to making the Information Age everything it should be,” said Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts who lost the 2004 White House race to George W. Bush.

Kerry, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, said “Americans have a right to decide how their information is collected, used, and distributed and businesses deserve the certainty that comes with clear guidelines.”

The Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 “makes fair information practices the rules of the road, gives Americans the assurance that their personal information is secure, and allows our information driven economy to continue to thrive in today’s global market,” he said.

McCain, the Republican from Arizona who lost the 2008 presidential election to Barack Obama, said “consumers want to shop, browse and share information in an environment that is respectful of their personal information.

“Our legislation sets forth a framework for companies to create such an environment and allows businesses to continue to market and advertise to all consumers, including potential customers,” McCain said.

“However, the bill does not allow for the collection and sharing of private data by businesses that have no relationship to the consumer for purposes other than advertising and marketing,” he said. “It is this practice that American consumers reject as an unreasonable invasion of privacy.”

The bill would direct state attorney generals and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce its provisions and put a cap on fines for violations.

The legislation met with a mixed reaction from digital privacy groups.

“This is an important step toward the enactment of a comprehensive privacy law for this country,” said Justin Brookman, director of the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Consumer Privacy Project.

“With the proliferation of tracking technologies in recent years, consumers need basic protections to allow them to see how their data is being used, and to give them control over their own information,” Brookman said.

A coalition of consumer groups and privacy advocates welcomed the bipartisan effort but said in a letter to the senators that the legislation needs to be “significantly strengthened if it is to effectively protect consumer privacy rights in today’s digital marketplace.”

Secret $1.8 Million Cryptocurrency Script

“Consumers need strong baseline safeguards to protect them from the sophisticated data profiling and targeting practices that are now rampant online and with mobile devices,” they said.

“We cannot support the bill at this time,” said the letter signed by the Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Action, Consumer Watchdog, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and Privacy Times.

© AFP — Published at Activist Post with license

var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;

linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’

A man surfing the web at an internet cafe © AFP/File Amro Maraghi

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The White House unveiled a plan on Friday designed to boost confidence and business in cyberspace through the creation of a single, secure online credential.

“By making online transactions more trustworthy and better protecting privacy, we will prevent costly crime, we will give businesses and consumers new confidence, and we will foster growth and untold innovation,” President Barack Obama said in a statement.

“That’s why this initiative is so important for our economy,” Obama said.

The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) proposes the creation of secure and reliable online credentials that would be available to consumers who want to use them.

It would be private-sector driven and participation would be voluntary.

The “identity ecosystem” would involve the use of a single credential — unique software on a smartphone, a smart card or a token that generates a one-time digital password, for example, — and would eliminate the need to remember multiple passwords.

“The consumer can use their single credential to log into any website, with more security than passwords alone provide,” the White House said.

“Consumers can use their credential to prove their identity when they’re carrying out sensitive transactions, like banking, and can stay anonymous when they are not,” it said.

“The Internet has transformed how we communicate and do business, opening up markets, and connecting our society as never before,” Obama said. “But it has also led to new challenges, like online fraud and identity theft, that harm consumers and cost billions of dollars each year.”

The White House said the goal is to “make online transactions more trustworthy, thereby giving businesses and consumers more confidence in conducting business online.”

In addition to providing more security for consumers, the White House said the proposed system could also provide better privacy protections.

“Today, a vast amount of information about consumers is collected as they surf the Internet and conduct transactions,” it said. “How organizations handle that information can vary greatly, and more often than not, it is difficult for consumers to understand how their privacy will (or will not) be protected.

“The NSTIC seeks to drive the development of privacy-enhancing policies as well as innovative privacy-enhancing technologies to ensure that the ecosystem provides strong privacy protections for consumers,” it said.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, speaking at an event at the US Chamber of Commerce here, said “we must do more to help consumers protect themselves, and we must make it more convenient than remembering dozens of passwords.

Secret $1.8 Million Cryptocurrency Script

“Working together, innovators, industry, consumer advocates, and the government can develop standards so that the marketplace can provide more secure online credentials, while protecting privacy, for consumers who want them,” Locke said.

The Washington-based Center for Democracy & Technology issued a statement emphasizing that the NSTIC was not proposing a national identification program.

“There are two key points about this strategy: First, this is NOT a government-mandated, national ID program; in fact, it’s not an identity ‘program’ at all,” said CDT president Leslie Harris.

“Second, this is a call by the administration to the private sector to step up, take leadership of this effort and provide the innovation to implement a privacy-enhancing, trusted system,” Harris said.

© AFP — Published at Activist Post with license

var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;

linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’

Joe Plummer, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

On Friday April 15th, the U.S. government showed again just how easily it can completely “shut down” any website it wants. By seizing a domain name, the Department of “Justice” can cut the public off from access to products, services or information in the blink of an eye. Case in point: Today, the DOJ seized FullTiltPoker.com, PokerStars.com and AbsolutePoker.com.

No doubt, everyone in America can rest more easily now knowing that that the government is “protecting them” from the unspeakable dangers of online gambling. (An “unspeakable danger” that nobody asked to be protected from. In fact, the legislation that made this possible was so unpopular that, after years of failing, Congress rammed it through under a PORT SECURITY bill!)

As a result of the government’s actions, these enormously popular multi-billion dollar companies, and the millions of customers they served, are now met with the DOJ message below when they try to access the former websites. (Note: The FBI / DOJ message has not propagated across all U.S. servers yet. The screencapture below was taken from megaproxy.com where the “shut down” of all sites is visible.)

I was asked earlier today: “What’s the story with the government seizing these gambling sites?” My reply, more or less, went like this:

No story really. It’s just the government doing what it does. (Using its “regulatory power” to destroy businesses and people engaged in non-violent and voluntary activities while ignoring enormous REAL crimes. …Using its power to benefit the “few” at the expense of the many.) 

Not to worry. After they’re done destroying all the competition, they’ll launch their own profitable “legal” online gambling sites. (Or, they’ll dole out licenses to the well-connected for a nice fee and a slice of the action.) Either way, once they’re in a position to get their cut, the horrible “dangers of online gambling” will scarcely be heard of again.

Cynical? Yes. But sadly, it’s par for the course.

Now, the bigger problem is this: What happens when, instead of creating unasked-for and unwanted “internet gambling laws,” the government starts passing “unlawful news” or “unlicensed information” laws? Today they’re seizing and shutting down those evil poker players. Tomorrow, it could very well be the evil “alternative media” that’s “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”

I regularly make backup copies of important documents, audio and video that I find online. Hopefully everyone else is doing this too.

Joe Plummer is the author of Dishonest Money: Financing the Road to Ruin and the webmaster for StopTheLie.com and HowToStopDrinking.org.

Cape Fear Business

In an effort to enhance online security and privacy, the Obama administration has proposed Americans obtain a single ID for all Internet sales and banking activity. But a new Rasmussen Reports poll finds most Americans want nothing to do with such an ID if the government is the one to issue it and hold the information.

The Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 13% of American Adults favor the issuing of a secure government credential to replace all traditional password protection systems for online sales and banking activities. Sixty percent (60%) oppose such a credential. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure.

Only eight percent (8%) of Americans would be willing to submit their personal financial and purchasing information to the government or a government contractor to receive a secure government credential for online transactions. Seventy-six percent (76%) would not be willing to submit this information for that purpose. Sixteen percent (16%) are undecided.

Aware of concerns that have been raised in the past about a national ID card, the administration appears to be downplaying the government role in the process but is clearly encouraging the development of a single personal credential to limit the security risks from multiple – and more easily hacked – passwords.  Unclear is the role that the Department of Homeland Security, a key mover behind the single credential, will play in the future.

Read Full Article

A major cyber attack on the US military in 2008 prompted major changes in how the Pentagon handles digital threats © AFP/File Atta Kenare

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The Pentagon has adopted a new strategy that will classify major cyber attacks as acts of war, paving the way for possible military retaliation, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.

The newspaper said the Pentagon plans to unveil its first-ever strategy regarding cyber warfare next month, in part as a warning to foes that may try to sabotage the country’s electricity grid, subways or pipelines.

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

The newspaper, citing three officials who had seen the document, said the the strategy would maintain that the existing international rules of armed conflict — embodied in treaties and customs — would apply in cyberspace.

It said the Pentagon would likely decide whether to respond militarily to cyber attacks based on the notion of “equivalence” — whether the attack was comparable in damage to a conventional military strike.

Such a decision would also depend on whether the precise source of the attack could be determined.

The decision to formalize the rules of cyber war comes after the Stuxnet attack last year ravaged Iran’s nuclear program. That attack was blamed on the United States and Israel, both of which declined to comment on it.

It also follows a major cyber attack on the US military in 2008 that served as a wake-up call and prompted major changes in how the Pentagon handles digital threats, including the formation of a new cyber military command.

Over the weekend Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s largest defense contractors, said it was investigating the source of a “significant and tenacious” cyber attack against its information network one week ago.

President Barack Obama was briefed about the attack.

© AFP — Published at Activist Post with license