tagged w/ Cybersecurity
Six years after the White House first started running amok on the computer networks of its adversaries, US President Barack Obama has signed off on a top-secret order that finally offers blueprints for the Pentagon’s cyberwars.
Pres. Obama has autographed an executive order outlining protocol and procedures for the US military to take in the name of preventing cyberattacks from foreign countries, the Washington Post reports, once and for all providing instructions from the Oval Office on how to manage the hush-hush assaults against opposing nation-states that have all been confirmed by the White House while at the same time defending America from any possible harm from abroad.
According to Post’s sources, namely “officials who have seen the classified document and are not authorized to speak on the record,” Pres. Obama signed the paperwork in mid-October. Those authorities explain to the paper that the initiative in question, Presidential Policy Directive 20, “establishes a broad and strict set of standards to guide the operations of federal agencies in confronting threats in cyberspace.”
Confronting a threat may sound harmless, but begs to introduce a chicken-and-the-egg scenario that could have some very serious implications. The Post describes the directive as being “the most extensive White House effort to date to wrestle with what constitutes an ‘offensive’ and a ‘defensive’ action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism,” but the ambiguous order may very well allow the US to continue assaulting the networks of other nations, now with a given go-ahead from the commander-in-chief. Next in line, the Post says, will be rules of engagement straight from the Pentagon that will provide guidelines for when to carry out assaults outside the realm of what is considered ‘American’ in terms of cyberspace.
“What it does, really for the first time, is it explicitly talks about how we will use cyber operations,” one senior administration official tells the paper of the policy directive. “Network defense is what you’re doing inside your own networks. . . . Cyber operations is stuff outside that space, and recognizing that you could be doing that for what might be called defensive purposes.”
When The New York Times published an exposé on the White House’s so-called Olympics Games program earlier this year, the world became fully aware for once of America’s involvement in international cyberwar, but much to the chagrin of Washington. Officials including members of Pres. Obama’s national security team spoke on condition of anonymity to tell the Times that his predecessor, then-Pres. George W. Bush, began the program in 2006 to target Iran’s nuclear facilities and then passed it along to the current administration to continue under the leadership of the current commander-in-chief.
“From his first months in office,” David Sanger wrote for the Times, Pres. Obama “secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons.”
Congress has fought tooth-and-nail in the months since to plug any leaks that could potentially spill the beans regarding any further secrets with the potential of effecting national security, but those efforts appear unsuccessful given this week’s Post report on Presidential Police Directive 20.
Now take the example of Iran: according to the Post, Pres. Obama’s signature on last month’s directive means the US now has rules and regulations when it comes to protecting its own infrastructure from cyberattack, and can do so by means of launching what appear to be pre-emptive assaults of their own.
“It should enable people to arrive at more effective decisions,” a second senior administration official tells the Post. “In that sense, it’s an enormous step forward.”
That comment echoes US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s insistence earlier this year that “defense alone is not enough” in terms of keeping the country safe. But what it also seems to do is put on the books a presidential policy that equates an overzealous offense with a solid defense. While the US has cited Iranian hackers as the key players behind a recent attack on the websites of Capital One Financial Corp. and BB&T Corp., two of the biggest names in the American banking industry, the US has done little — on the record — to reveal any similar assaults from abroad. Instead, rather, it’s relied on fear-mongering to try and convince the country to accept a cybersecurity legislation that will assure American’s safety from foreign hackers, all for the small price of sacrificing their digital-age privacy.
While the Obama White House has failed to acknowledge the Olympic Games program or any involvement in the Stuxnet or Flames viruses linked to the initiative, computer researchers in both the US and Russia have tied Washington to the cripplingly malicious coding. Earlier this month, California-based Chevron, one of the world’s leaders in the oil sector, went public with claims that Stuxnet had infected — but not affected — their computers after the virus was unleashed.
The ability to slow down or speed up centrifuges in nuclear facilities from thousands of miles away made Stuxnet a virus that had very substantial powers. Refusing to speak of the Olympic Games program specifically, former CIA chief Michael Hayden told the Times, “This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect physical destruction.”
According to the Post’s latest, though, future assaults by way of Stuxnet or similar worms could be considered by Washington as defense mechanisms to make sure Iran doesn’t retaliate for what America has long-been lashing out with. One source tells the Times that, before last month’s directive, severing any link between a US-computer and an overseas server by any means possible would be an act that would put America on the offensive. Now even a preemptive attack that disconnects other countries could be considered a defensive ploy according to the president.
“That was seen as something that was aggressive…particularly by some at the State Department,” one defense official tells the Post. With the signing of Pres. Obama’s latest order, though, the paper writes that the directive “effectively enables the military to act more aggressively to thwart cyberattacks on the nation’s web of government and private computer networks.”
It is thought that, through the directive, any systems linked even remotely with America’s can be fair game for an assault. Given the expansion of cloud computing and the ever-expanding interconnection of communities across the globe on the Web, though, that could essentially enable Uncle Sam’s cybersquad to get away with a whole new slew of tricks to try and topple adversaries of any kind that threaten the American way of life. When and where those actions are necessary, of course, remains another topic of discussion. Will those orders be signed in secrecy as well, though?
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-directive-20-cyber-715/Six years after the White House first started running amok on the computer networks of... more
Obama administration needs to take on Facebook and Google: cybersecurity under the COPPA cabana | Scholars and RoguesThe Obama administration made its mark as a campaign of technology, and as such they’ve made it a point to take on issues of broadband coverage and cybersecurity in legislation. But their latest set of changes has a hurdle to jump – and it’s not Congressional gridlock or stubborn Republicans. For maybe the first time, the Obama administration has to take on a force that helped win the election in the first place.
They have to take on Facebook and Twitter.
The fight is breaking out over a Clinton-era law called the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 – more commonly known as COPPA, because all Internet laws get catchy acronyms. The law was designed to protect children 13 or younger from having personal information collected by Web sites, as well as to set standards for all Web site privacy policies. It also sets guidelines of verifiable consent from parents or guardians and sets restrictions on online marketers advertising to Internet users under the age of 13.The Obama administration made its mark as a campaign of technology, and as such... more
Tsze-lu said, "The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?” The Master replied, “What is necessary is to rectify names.” (Confucius, Analects XIII, 3, tr. Legge)
http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2012/09/smartworld-identity-ecosystem.htmlTsze-lu said, "The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to... more
This week, comments from Democratic Senators, a panel of witnessses, and the director of the National Security Agency (NSA) called on the Senate to enact cybersecurity legislation. But a new poll shows that Americans don't want to sacrifice civil liberties by allowing unfettered data exchanges between corporations and the government. Discussions this week were part of an effort to break the partisan stalemate over the Cybersecurity Act, a bill that would allow Internet companies to monitor the sensitive communications of users and pass that data to the government without any judicial oversight. The Cybersecurity Act would also give companies the right to "modify or block data packets" if they do it with "defensive intent," while offering little in the way of liability for companies that overstep their authority.
http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2012/07/when-it-comes-to-cybersecurity-scare.htmlThis week, comments from Democratic Senators, a panel of witnessses, and the director... more
For years now, Defense Department officials have refused to discuss the details of the Pentagon’s offensive capabilities in the cyber arena, even as they railed against all the cyber attacks against the United States’ ever-vulnerable networks.
It seems however, that the Pentagon is happy to let actions speak for it. Earlier this spring, news reports emerged saying that it was indeed the U.S. and Israel who were behind the Stuxnet worm that famously wreaked havoc on Iran’s attempts to enrich uranium for its nuclear program. That worm was designed to make its way accross copmuter networks around the globe before infiltrating the specific type of Seimens-made SCADA computer that controlled the speeds at which Iran’s uranium enrichment centrifuges spun at. Once inside said computers, the infamous worm reprogrammed the centrifuges to spin at the wrong speeds where they would wreck the enrichment process.
At its time, Stuxnet was considered one of the most sophisticated cyber-weapons ever discovered. It was so sophisticated that analysts speculated that it had to have been made by an organization with the backing of significant government and/or corporate resources.
Well, as you know, Stuxnet has just been topped in sophistication by another American and Israeli-made virus that targeted Iran’s nuclear program. Flame.
So it seems that the virus that has been described as ushering in a new era cyber-warfare by experts at places like Kaspersky Labs, was one of the U.S.’ cyber weapons.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/06/20/were-slowly-starting-to-see-u-s-cyber-weapons/#ixzz1yP7B6f29
Defense.orgFor years now, Defense Department officials have refused to discuss the details of the... more
Recently in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg proposed a ban on super-sized drinksand it seems more Americans are upset over the proposed prohibition than theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act. On Thursday, US lawmakers deliberated whetheror not the bill's overseas spying power should be re-established and used athome. FISA is one of several bills that are aiming at Internet freedom's forAmericans. David Seaman, host of The DL Show, gives us his take.
http://youtu.be/X6z9c5RmIgERecently in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg proposed a ban on super-sized drinksand it... more
Even after the Stuxnet computer worm became public, President Obama accelerated cyberattacks against Iran that had begun in the Bush administration, temporarily disabling 1,000 centrifuges.
“From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program — the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision,” a senior administration official said. “And it’s safe to say that whatever other activity might have been under way was no exception to that rule.”
But the good luck did not last. In the summer of 2010, shortly after a new variant of the worm had been sent into Natanz, it became clear that the worm, which was never supposed to leave the Natanz machines, had broken free, like a zoo animal that found the keys to the cage. It fell to Mr. Panetta and two other crucial players in Olympic Games — General Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Michael J. Morell, the deputy director of the C.I.A. — to break the news to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden.
An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer’s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users.
“We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.”
Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. “It’s got to be the Israelis,” he said. “They went too far.”
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/06/01/world/jp-cyber1/jp-cyber1-articleInline.jpgEven after the Stuxnet computer worm became public, President Obama accelerated... more
Ok the next time you hear about some bs about cybersecurity or the fake war on cyber terror, just remember who are the creators of the terror are. Also, remember which country in the Middle East is still trying to provoke and threatening to attack another country in the Middle East.
In 2011, the US government rolled out its "International Strategy for Cyberspace," which reminded us that "interconnected networks link nations more closely, so an attack on one nation’s networks may have impact far beyond its borders." An in-depth report today from the New York Times confirms the truth of that statement as it finally lays bare the history and development of the Stuxnet virus—and how it accidentally escaped from the Iranian nuclear facility that was its target.
The article is adapted from journalist David Sanger's forthcoming book, Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power, and it confirms that both the US and Israeli governments developed and deployed Stuxnet. The goal of the worm was to break Iranian nuclear centrifuge equipment by issuing specific commands to the industrial control hardware responsible for their spin rate. By doing so, both governments hoped to set back the Iranian research program—and the US hoped to keep Israel from launching a pre-emptive military attack.Ok the next time you hear about some bs about cybersecurity or the fake war on cyber... more
Kim DotCom isn't too big to cry.
In court yesterday, the MegaUpload founder choked up when he recalled how New Zealand police in January raided the Auckland mansion where he lived and when, as his lawyer, said he was "ripped him away from his family." The U.S. Attorney's office accuses MegaUpload of being a front for a massive piracy operation and lawyers there are trying to extradite him to this country to face criminal copyright, money laundering and wire fraud charges.
MegaUpload was one of the Web's most popular cyberlocker services before U.S. authorities shut it down. The U.S. government is trying to send a message that turning a blind eye to piracy can land site operators in jail. Critics say U.S officials are overreaching and at most the case is a civil dispute.
Back in court, as DotCom was tearing up, his lawyers seethed. DotCom, who has denied being a pirate, was in a New Zealand courtroom Wednesday seeking a judicial review of the search warrants served on him and MegaUpload. His attorneys argued that New Zealand authorities illegally seized data that wasn't relevant to the case and DotCom wants some of his possessions returned, according to Ira Rothken, the U.S.-based lawyer leading DotCom's worldwide defense.
But that's only one part of the U.S. government effort that has angered the DotCom side. According to Rothken, when DotCom's lawyers asked authorities to give them a copy of the data taken from him, they learned that New Zealand officials had shipped the information to the FBI for analysis.
Paul Davison, DotCom's lead attorney in New Zealand, told the media that he was assured by authorities that none of the data seized would leave the country without warning. Without the data, DotCom can't properly defend himself, his attorneys argue, and they feel betrayed.
"The court will determine whether the United States and New Zealand had the authorization to remove data from New Zealand absent a court order," Rothken told CNET. "This is a serious international issue and we believe it requires proportional remedy... It seems as though the United States is trying to win on tactics rather than on merits."
Some of the data seized from DotCom's personal computers was also encrypted and authorities have asked him for the passwords. He has refused to hand them over.
"On certain conditions, Kim DotCom would consider supplying them," Rothken said. "But not when data was secreted away from New Zealand, away from a New Zealand court and judicial supervision. His password on some of the data is his only protection against unreasonable intrusion."
This is going to be a significant case for the future of communication and privacy laws, if anybody cares...Kim DotCom isn't too big to cry. In court yesterday, the MegaUpload founder... more
H.R. 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (On Passage of the Bill):
Number: House Vote #192 [primary source: house.gov]
Date: Apr 26, 2012 (112th Congress)
Related Bill: H.R. 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act Introduced by Rep. Michael "Mike" Rogers [R-MI8] on November 30, 2011 Current Status: Passed House
This was a vote to approve or reject a bill or resolution.
http://youtu.be/gcNfSyrXLU4H.R. 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (On Passage of the Bill):... more
Ben Swann takes a look at SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, ACTA and even the so called Legal Intercept. Sorry about the commericals but you can forward past. http://youtu.be/yL6kTIV99tMBen Swann takes a look at SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, ACTA and even the so called Legal... more
Ben Swann takes a look at the issues with CISPA and where it stands in Part 1 of this half hour reality check special. http://youtu.be/8VWCj_WeVsABen Swann takes a look at the issues with CISPA and where it stands in Part 1 of this... more
Microsoft is no longer as enthusiastic about a controversial cybersecurity bill that would allow Internet and telecommunications companies to divulge confidential customer information to the National Security Agency.
The U.S. House of Representatives approved CISPA by a 248 to 168 margin yesterday in spite of a presidential veto threat and warnings from some House members that the measure represented "Big Brother writ large." (See CNET's CISPA FAQ.)
In response to queries from CNET, Microsoft, which has long been viewed as a supporter of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, said this evening that any law must allow "us to honor the privacy and security promises we make to our customers."
Microsoft added that it wants to "ensure the final legislation helps to tackle the real threat of cybercrime while protecting consumer privacy."
That's a noticeable change -- albeit not a complete reversal -- from Microsoft's position when CISPA was introduced in November 2011.
In a statement (PDF) at the time, Microsoft vice president for government affairs Fred Humphries didn't mention privacy. Instead, Humphries said he wanted to "commend" CISPA's sponsors and "Microsoft applauds their leadership." He added: "This bill is an important first step towards addressing significant problems in cyber security."
That wasn't exactly an full-throated endorsement of CISPA, but it was enough for the bill's author, House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), to list Microsoft as a "supporter" on the committee's Web site.
And it was also enough for news organizations, including the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, to list Microsoft as having an unqualified pro-CISPA stand.
To be sure, Microsoft's initial reaction to CISPA came before many of the privacy concerns had been raised. An anti-CISPA coalition letter (PDF) wasn't sent out until April 16, and a petition that garnered nearly 800,000 signatures wasn't set up until April 5.
What makes CISPA so controversial is a section saying that, "notwithstanding any other provision of law," companies may share information with Homeland Security, the IRS, the NSA, or other agencies. By including the word "notwithstanding," CISPA's drafters intended to make their legislation trump all existing federal and state laws, including ones dealing with wiretaps, educational records, medical privacy, and more.
CISPA would "waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity," Rep. Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat and onetime Web entrepreneur, said during yesterday's floor debate. Its sponsors, on the other hand, say it's necessary to allow the NSA and Homeland Security to share cybersecurity threat information with the private sector.
What Microsoft appears to favor is a Senate bill introduced in February called the Cybersecurity Act.
At a Senate hearing in February, Microsoft vice president Scott Charney was more effusive about the Cybersecurity Act than his colleague was about CISPA three months earlier. The Senate bill provides "an appropriate framework to improve the security of government and critical infrastructure systems," one which will be "flexible enough to permit future improvements to security" over time, Charney said (PDF).
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has been active in an anti-CISPA coalition, welcomed Microsoft's new statement.
"We're excited to hear that Microsoft has acknowledged the serious privacy faults in CISPA," said Dan Auerbach, EFF staff technologist. "We hope that other companies will realize this is bad for users and also bad for companies who may be coerced into sharing information with the government."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-33062_3-57423580/microsoft-backs-away-from-cispa-support-citing-privacy/Microsoft is no longer as enthusiastic about a controversial cybersecurity bill that... more
April 03, 2012 Russia Today News http://youtu.be/KoM_tKfwDWA
Using cryptography to protect communications could be taken as a way to defeat an operational control. Measuring the performance of one's ISP or analyzing whether packets are being modified maliciously could all be seen as security threats under this definition...
http://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/20766-Vague-Cybersecurity-Legislation-Threatens-Civil-Liberties.htmlUsing cryptography to protect communications could be taken as a way to defeat an... more
Ten years after 9/11, the National Security Agency (NSA) is close to putting the finishing touches on what will be the single biggest spy center in the country. According to James Bamford of WIRED, this new one million-square foot spy complex in the Utah Desert will actually be capable of monitoring, intercepting and de-encrypting just about any message sent over any communication network in the country. It will be capable of keeping tabs on any civilian in the U.S. or any foreigner visiting the USA. And it will all be hooked up to federal computers in Washington, giving it access to the records and databases of the most powerful government agencies in the country. If all this is starting to sound a lot like Skynet in the Terminator movies, that’s because, well, it is - minus the Schwarzenegger robots, of course.
The sheer amount of data that the NSA – and by extension the CIA, FBI and Pentagon – will be able to collect on both foreigners and its own civilians is staggering. The $2 billion center, which goes by the disarmingly bland name of the Utah Data Center, is the final piece in the puzzle for the Pentagon, which has been attempting to build a Global Information Grid ever since 9/11. Remember the Total Information Awareness program of 2003? Well, it’s now here in physical form – and it’s heavily guarded. In military parlance, it’s not a “soft” target - the facility has been hardened to the point where a 15,000-pound vehicle traveling at 50 miles per hour couldn't muscle its way inside. At its peak, this new surveillance center will be able to handle so much data that the NSA practically had to coin a new word to describe it: yottabytes. There are so many servers running this system that the annual cooling costs are estimated to be $40 million.
That’s quite an electricity bill for a "data center."
That's because this federal spy center goes far beyond what’s already being collected about us online, to explore the “Deep Web” that’s all but invisible to typical search engines. The spy center will also delve into the world of code-breaking and reverse-encryption. Even things that we think are far beyond any type of cyber-penetration will be readily available to the powers-that-be. That’s where things get downright scary. We assume that spambots and spiders slither behind us everywhere we go online, but what do we really know about all the other information that is being tracked about us? What information is being collected about us by security monitors in the streets and satellites overhead? The scope of what's being collected by the NSA is breathlessly thorough in detail, reaching into every area of our lives:
"Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy."
This digital "pocket litter" that each of us leaves behind us may sound harmless – but that's until all of this highly unstructured data gets dumped into a supercomputing capable of mining all this data and producing patterns and insights. This “pocket litter” is no longer trash once it can be used to construct ever-more precise profiles of everyday civilians and predict future behaviors.
“Cybersecurity” and “the war on terror” are handy little buzzwords for enabling governments to extend their cyber-surveillance over every aspect of our lives. At the end of the day, pure democracy and absolute authoritarianism are really just flip sides of the same coin. This is precisely why dystopian novels such as George Orwell’s 1984 and Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We are so terrifying. Authoritarian regimes always start out with a willingness to help - not enslave - its civilians. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. A government that claims to protect its citizens by spying on them is a government that needs to be watched, monitored and held under strict surveillance by its own citizens.
http://bigthink.com/endless-innovation/we-just-built-skynet-in-the-desert-now-whatTen years after 9/11, the National Security Agency (NSA) is close to putting the... more
The spring air in the small, sand-dusted town has a soft haze to it, and clumps of green-gray sagebrush rustle in the breeze. Bluffdale sits in a bowl-shaped valley in the shadow of Utah’s Wasatch Range to the east and the Oquirrh Mountains to the west.The spring air in the small, sand-dusted town has a soft haze to it, and clumps of... more
On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year’s end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish "international control over the Internet" through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.
If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet’s flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.
Since the Net’s inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a "multi-stakeholder" governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net’s phenomenal success.
In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online—and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere.
Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly—and more fundamentally—than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards.
Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods. Worried parents are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and organize support to break down the walls of tyranny.
The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government control.
Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:
• Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;
• Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;
• Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as "peering."
• Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;
• Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work;
• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.
Many countries in the developing world, including India and Brazil, are particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control.
And let’s face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly....
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=18658On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new... more
Anonymous is 100% total and complete bullshit. Attacking the CIA and other establishment giants is only going to bring us internet restrictions.
Online collective Anonymous has pledged a “crusade” against Israel. Claiming the country is committing “crimes against humanity” and gearing for “nuclear holocaust”, the group promised a campaign against the Israeli government.
In their statement issued early on Friday, Anonymous accused Israeli leaders of creating false democracy, serving the interests of a “select few” while “trampling the liberties of the masses.” The group said that Israel manipulates public opinion with a combination of “media deception” and “political bribery”.
Addressing the Israeli leaders, Anonymous stated that their “Zionist bigotry” is to blame for killings and displacements, adding that “as the world weeps” they are planning their “next attack”. The group pledged not to allow the attack to happen.
"You label all who refuse to comply with your superstitious demands as anti-Semitic and have taken steps to ensure a nuclear holocaust,” said the Anonymous. “We will not allow you to attack a sovereign country based upon a campaign of lies."
The group promised a three-step campaign against the current government of the country.
These will include “systematically” removing it from the internet and turning Israel into a free state, the third step remaining undisclosed.
However, in announcing the news, Israeli daily Haaretz comforted its readers by saying that the group is far from putting all of its threats into reality. The group previously threatened to attack the Knesset’s website but failed to fulfill the promise.
Still, in one of the recent developments Anonymous did crash the CIA website, which remained down hours after the attack. The group said it did this for “lulz”, meaning “for laughs”.Anonymous is 100% total and complete bullshit. Attacking the CIA and other... more
Janet Napalitano doesn't inspire any confidence in her bloated bureaucracy's ability, or possibly lack-there-of to protect the nation's most critical infrastructure. Perhaps she is in the wrong line of work.
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano discusses the importance of bilateral and multilateral security efforts with the Council on Foreign Relation's (CFR) James M. Lindsay, detailing some of her department's most recent international collaborations in Europe and the Middle East.
"The things we know about don't keep me up at night as much as the things that are the unknown," Napolitano said, identifying themost concerning security threats as "the safety of travels, the security of cargo moving around the world, the ability to spot potential terrorists early before they can be successful, the ability to respond to a terrorist attack, and then the whole area of the protection of cyberspace."Janet Napalitano doesn't inspire any confidence in her bloated bureaucracy's... more