Published on May 22, 2013
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is being negotiated in secret between more than 12 countries around the Pacific region. Find out why it’s the biggest threat to the Internet you’ve probably never heard of.
Category: Internet Neutrality
The reversal was requested in papers [PDF] filed last week in the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia by Cox Communications; Bright House Networks, which is owned by Time Warner; and Verizon.
Wants subscriber names
In the case—AF Holdings v. Does 1-1058 and Cox Communications, et. al.—the copyright holders allege that 1058 “John Does” engaged in file-sharing through BitTorrent of a sexually explicit film.
As part of the discovery process in the case, AF Holdings wants Cox and the other ISPs to turn over to them personal information on the John Does. The order came from a federal district court judge, Beryl A. Howell, a former lobbyist for the RIAA and Senate staffer who worked on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a federal law aimed to protect the rights of copyright holders in cyberspace.
The ISPs are asking the appeals court to overturn Howell’s decision ordering the disclosure of subscribers’ names as part of evidence discovery.
According to the ISPs, AF Holdings and its attorneys aren’t interested in obtaining the names of the alleged infringers to pursue their case in court, but in order to squeeze settlement money from the subscribers.
Related articles
- Porn troll case prompts ISPs to fight to protect customer IDs (pcadvisor.co.uk)
- EU anti-piracy law overhaul under attack; ISPs warn against site blocking, censorship (zdnet.com)
- Cox Communications isn’t joining anti-piracy system (cjonline.com)
- Vampires and Copyright Trolls Suck – The Thompsons LLC v. Does 1-155 (6:13-cv-00469 (OR)) (dietrolldie.com)
- Cox Targets Pirates With “10+ Strikes” Program (informationliberation.com)
- If You’re Still Downloading Copyrighted Material Stop Now (alleywatch.com)
- Guest Post: A look at the new notice and takedown regime under the Copyright Rules, 2013 (spicyipindia.blogspot.com)
- Judge Slams ‘Troll’ Lawsuit Against Illegal Porn Downloaders (embargozone.com)
- Prenda Expert Declaration – AKA: No Absolute Certainty Of Identifying Infringer – 2:12-cv-08333 (dietrolldie.com)
- Courts Want $9,250 Per Pirated Song, But BMG Will Settle For $20 (hypebot.com)
Bastiat Institute.org Facebook page
**************************************************************************************
OVERNIGHT MONEY: Online sales tax bill gets boost
– 04/22/13 06:58 PM ET
TUESDAY’S BIG STORY:
Online tax bill on the move: The Senate overwhelmingly agreed, 74-20, on Monday to end debate on a bill that would allow states to tax online purchases from Internet retailers located outside their borders, seemingly setting up passage of the bill as early as Tuesday.
Despite the support in the upper chamber, the bill could face resistance in the House. So far, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has said he is going to take a close look at the legislation before giving it an all-clear.
Meanwhile, the White House gave the legislation a thumbs-up on Monday with Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, saying the bill would put online retailers on the same footing with businesses that have a physical presence in states.
“This administration has carefully considered the legislation, and our team has met with a broad array of people on the issue,” Carney said. “And we have heard overwhelmingly from governors, mayors and the business community on the need for federal legislation to level the playing field for our businesses and address sales tax fairness.”
Under current law, states can only collect sales taxes from retailers with a physical presence. Consumers using the Internet to buy goods are supposed to declare the purchases on their tax forms, although few follow through. Some online businesses have begun to voluntarily add the state taxes.
The Supreme Court ruled more than two decades ago that companies only have to collect from in-state customers, but also said that Congress could weigh in on the issue.Retail groups have long supported the issue and put their weight behind the measure, propelling it to this point.
Supporters say that the proposal could give billions in extra revenue to struggling state and local governments. The bill would also exempt small businesses with less than $1 million in out-of-state sales.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who has been pressing for passage of the bill for at least two years, said the bill is needed to help states refill their coffers depleted by a lingering economic downturn.
“What it means is a lot of money for the states and localities,” he said.
Still, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said Monday that the online sales tax bill would create a new tax and leads America down a “dark path.”
Supporters’ efforts were revived by a vote last month on the Senate’s budget proposal in which 75 senators voted in support of the plan, giving them the go-ahead to press for a quick resolution of the bipartisan bill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced last week he planned to bring the bill straight to the floor, bypassing the Senate Finance Committee and setting the stage for a vote.
Related articles
- U.S. Senate moves forward with proposal to tax Internet sales (stltoday.com)
- [News] Debate rages over contentious Internet sales tax proposal (pcworld.in)
- Debate rages over contentious Internet sales tax proposal (pcworld.com)
- Senate passes “online sales tax” by 74-20 vote (arstechnica.com)
- Internet Sales Tax on Fast Track (hispanicbusiness.com)
- Bill Jeopardizes Tax-Free Web Shopping (abcnews.go.com)
- White House Comes Out In Favor of Online Sales Tax Bill (webpronews.com)
- U.S. Senate OKs online sales-tax legislation (timesfreepress.com)
- Online sales tax bill advances in Senate (blogs.marketwatch.com)
- Vote shows strong support to collect taxes from Internet sales (timescolonist.com)
The bill still needs to pass the Senate and get Obama’s signature before becoming law
IDG News Service – The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to approve a controversial cyberthreat information-sharing bill, despite opposition from the White House and several privacy and digital rights groups.
The House on Thursday voted 288-127 to approve the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a bill that would allow U.S. intelligence agencies to share cyberthreat information with private companies. It would also shield private companies that voluntarily share cyberthreat information with each other and with government agencies from privacy lawsuits brought by customers.
[ BACKGROUND: Reddit co-founder calls out Google, Twitter, Facebook over CISPA ]
The bill would still need to be passed by the U.S. Senate before heading to President Barack Obama for his signature. The Senate declined to act on another version of CISPA during the last session of Congress, and earlier this week, Obama’s advisors threatened a veto, although that was before the House approved a handful of amendments intended to address privacy concerns.
CISPA would allow private companies to share a broad range of customer data with each other and with government agencies, privacy groups have complained.
Supporters, however, argued the legislation is needed to encourage better information sharing about active cyberattacks, resulting in better defense of U.S. networks. Federal law now prohibits intelligence agencies from sharing classified cyberthreat information with private companies.
The bill will help protect the U.S. against cyberattacks from China, Iran and other countries, supporters said. Cyberespionage has cost the U.S. tens of thousands of jobs, as foreign companies steal the blueprints of U.S. products, said Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and primary sponsor of CISPA.
“If you want to take a shot across China’s bow, this is the answer,” he said to applause on the House floor.
The bill correctly balances privacy concerns with the need for security, added Representative Dan Maffei, a New York Democrat. Rogue nations and “even independent groups like WikiLeaks” are taking aggressive measures to attack the U.S. power grid, air-traffic control systems and customer financial data, he said.
“Every day, international agents, terrorists and criminal organizations attack the public and private networks of the United States,” he said. “While I do always have some concern that the U.S. government may access our private information in the cyber sphere, I am more concerned that the Chinese government will access our private information.”
The House on Thursday voted for a handful of amendments to the bill intended to improve privacy protections in the bill. Lawmakers approved an amendment designating the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of Justice as the primary repositories of cybertheat information shared by private companies, addressing a concern by several privacy groups that CISPA would give the U.S. National Security Agency unfettered access to customer data.
************************************************************************************************************************
04/02/2013
CISPA Explainer #1: What Information Can Be Shared?
By Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 10:05am
We’ve written extensively about CISPA over the last year, but since the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is set to mark the bill up next week, and the full House to vote on it the week after that, we’re posting in more depth about its shortcomings. Information sharing isn’t offensive per se; it’s really a question of what can be shared, with whom, and what corporations and government agencies can do with it. First up:
What information does CISPA allow companies to share?
The short answer: any information that “pertains” to cybersecurity, broadly defined to include vulnerabilities, threat information, efforts to degrade systems, attempts at unauthorized access, and more. You can see the full list on page 20 of the bill. You’ll see that it’s not tied to the criminal definition of hacking but instead forges new ground.
The bill sponsors will tell you that CISPA is only about the “ones and zeroes,” but it certainly isn’t drafted that way. There’s nothing limiting CISPA in that manner and personally identifiable information (PII) could be shared right along with some inconsequential code that doesn’t impact privacy at all. So, if your communications or records are somehow caught up in a cybersecurity data dump, they might possibly include information that identifies the real-world you, even if that information is not necessary to combat a cyber threat. Under CISPA, you’ll just have to trust that the corporations holding your very personal information do what’s best. Good luck with that.
Related articles
- Lawmakers Defend Controversial CISPA Bill (tomshardware.com)
- CISPA is back: worst Internet law since SOPA needs you to fight it! (boingboing.net)
- Privacy Group Calls for Changes in CISPA Cyberthreat Sharing Bill (cio.com)
- CISPA voting session slated for this week (zdnet.com)
- CISPA Debate Will Happen Behind Closed Doors (leaksource.wordpress.com)
- CISPA Is Looking Better, But Privacy Proponents Still Aren’t Satisfied (webpronews.com)
- Lawmakers, business execs defend privacy in CISPA (cio.com)
- Intelligence Officials See Cyberattacks As a Top US Threat (cio.com)
- Stephen Lendman – CISPA Is Back (prn.fm)
- The internet says no to CISPA, but will Congress? (constitutioncampaign.org)
This serves as a strong warning to those who value their anonymity. If you aren’t already accessing the Internet through VPN or another deidentifying service, you may be ‘on the list.’ Go silent today! VPN is one effective option. I use TOR. VPN will allow you to use some services that TOR blocks to protect you, but VPN costs money and TOR is free.
Important Message From JWR: The FBI’s Cookie Caper and the VPN Imperative
It has just come to my attention that from August of 2011 to November of 2011, the FBI secretly redirected the web traffic of more than 10% of SurvivalBlog’s US visitors through CJIS, a sprawling data center situated on 900 acres, 10 miles from Clarksburg, West Virginia. There, the Feebees were surreptitiously collecting the IP addresses of my site visitors. In all, 4,906 of 35,494 connections ended up going to or through the FBI servers. (Note that this happened several months before we moved our primary server to Sweden.) Furthermore, we discovered that the FBI attached a long-lived cookie that allowed them to track the sites that readers subsequently visited. I suspect that the FBI has done the same to hundreds of other web sites. I find this situation totally abhorrent, and contrary to the letter of 4th Amendment as well as the intent of our Founding Fathers.
I recognize that I am making this announcement at the risk of losing some readers. So be it. But I felt compelled to tell my readers immediately, because it was the honorable and forthright course of action.
Working on my behalf, some volunteer web forensics experts dissected some cached version histories. (Just about everything is available on the Internet, and the footprints and cookie crumb trails that you leave are essentially there for a lifetime.) The volunteers found that the bulk of the FBI redirects were selected because of a reader’s association with “Intellectual Property” infringing sites like the now defunct Megaupload. But once redirected, you were assigned a cookie. However, some of these were direct connections to the SurvivalBlog site (around 4% of the total.) So if they had kept this practice up long enough and if you visited us enough times then the FBI’s computers would have given you a cookie. This has been verified with sniffer software.
Bad Cop, No Cookies
For your privacy, I strongly recommend that you disable cookies when web browsing. Here are some detailed instructions on how to do so for the most popular web browsers:
•Disabling Cookies in MS Internet Explorer
•Disabling Cookies in Firefox
•Disabling Cookies in Safari
•Disabling Cookies in Netscape
•Disabling Cookies in Google Chrome
•Disabling Cookies in Opera
•Disabling Cookies in KonquerorBut beyond that, more must be done to protect your privacy. You need to be proactive.
Install and Use VPN!
I am now imploring all SurvivalBlog readers to immediately install and use Virtual Private Network (VPN) on their computers. This will allow you to surf the Internet anonymously. Anyone that tries to track web site visitors e-mails will see your visit as originating from one of dozens of anonymous URLs in Europe, or elsewhere in the United States. (With most VPN services, you may pick the city of your choice.) With VPN active, your connection to the Web is “tunneled”, emerging at a far-distant IP address, and it it would be very difficult to track back to your home IP address. Setting up VPN takes just a few minute to accomplish. Once installed, you can set VPN to turn on automatically by default when you start your PC, Mac, or Linux computer. Most VPN providers charge $5 to $20 per month. You can toggle off VPN with the click of your mouse. (You will find this necessary if you visit any of the few web site that disallow overseas IP addresses, such as Netflix). But I recommend that you leave VPN turned on, as much as possible. Set it up to turn on each time that you start up your computer. It is crucial that you use VPN whenever you visit web sites, blogs, and forums that are deemed politically incorrect, or whenever you purchase storage food or firearms accessories on the Web. For those of you that are not tech savvy, ask a friend or relative under age 25 to set up VPN for you. It is not difficult.
Some recommended VPN service providers include:
- StrongVPN ($55 to $240 per year. One of the most flexible in reassigning the far end of your tunnel on the fly. Superior speed.)
- 12VPN ($79 per year.)
- AceVPN ($55 per year. A bare bones service, but one of the least expensive.)
- HideMyAss. (Just under $79 per year.)
- PureVPN. ($75 per year for their basic service.)
(Some reviews of the various services are available here. )
Note that some of the lower cost services might see your connection speed suffer. Your Internet connect will seem noticeably slower than using your original ISP, alone.
It is my hope that in the next two months SurvivalBlog’s site visit map will shift substantially, giving the appearance that most of my readership has moved to Switzerland. Say “Ein Glück, dass wir den los sind” to the FBI’s snooping! It would warm my heart to soon see SurvivalBlog ranked as one of the most popular web sites for readers with Swiss IP addresses.
Beyond VPN
Because government agencies have access to lots and lots of computing power, VPN is not completely impenetrable. It is vulnerable to penetration during the key exchange phase. With the resources available to a state actor, sniffing the entirety of the traffic into and out of a web site is trivial these days. (They can use massively scalable horizontally-scaled virtual sniffers — i.e. using a visualization engine and a template they can keep adding more virtualized instances of a windows or Linux based sniffer program and not even impact the performance of the connections.) I believe that the next loop of the threat spiral in the privacy wars will be Quantum Key Distribution (QKD). But I must clarify that this will become important only for the most high profile media commentators, bloggers, and activists. This is because all the spook legions with all of the mainframe computers in the world simply cannot backtrack everyone’s VPN tunnels. (And, as VPN becomes more and more popular, this supposed goal will become even more elusive.) And if you are high profile, don’t worry. Some very bright people are already working on QKD. Stay tuned.
Our Liberty is Stake
I want apologize for the cost, inconvenience and time required in implementing the foregoing security measures. But you can sleep a little better, knowing that you’ve added a layer of anonymity to your Internet presence. We need to recognize that the early 21st Century is a delicate time for individual liberty. Technology is leapfrogging while at the same time databases are filling at an alarming rate. These databases could provide dossiers on demand, for nefarious purposes. How you vote and how you “vote with your feet” (physically or virtually) are both of tremendous importance. Pray hard. Choose wisely. Act accordingly.
P.S.: For those who are web software savvy, I had originally planned to post the latest version of the actual “foresee-alive.js” Javascript code that the FBI used to attach the cookies. But then it was pointed out to me that ironically, revealing this might constitute copyright infringement, opening me up to a intellectual property lawsuit. That has an odd sort of irony that got me thinking. This predicament somehow dovetails with two bits of history. The first instance is from the First World War: I have read that the U.S. Government paid patent license fees to Mauser before and during the hostilities of the Great War with Imperial Germany. This was because the M1903 Springfield rifle was correctly adjudged a patent infringement on the Mauser Model 1898. During the war, the patent payments continued, conveniently handled by Swiss bankers, acting as middlemen. The U.S. taxpayers paid Mauser of Germany about $1 per rifle plus additional penalties that would have eventually totaled $250,000 USD, up until the U.S. entered the war. It has also been rumored that some payments continued to arrive even after the U.S. Congress declared war on the Kaiser’s Germany. (We’ll have to wait for the release of Jon Speed’s next Mauser book to read the details.) This historical tidbit is just once notch below what happened two decades later when Germany’s Nazi regime had the temerity to sell full fare train tickets to some Jews, to cover the costs of their forced relocation to the designated ghettos before their planned extermination. Oh, but the Nazi bureaucrats were so conciliatory. They only charged children half fare to be sent to their deaths. (If you doubt this, then read the book Fathoming the Holocaust by Ronald J. Berger.)
Related articles
- Japanese student sets up free VPN service (net-security.org)
- Cannot access all network resources over vpn (community.spiceworks.com)
- Spotflux: Finally, A Free VPN (mac.appstorm.net)
- Iran blocks use of tool to get around Internet filter (en.trend.az)
- Japan’s VPN Gate Brings Free VPNs to the Masses (techinasia.com)
Published on Mar 29, 2013
Web users’ online communications may be about to get a wider and possibly unwanted audience. The FBI is seeking more powers to spy on people’s emails and internet chats in real time. The proposals have already been met with criticism, that they are a complete breach of privacy. RT’s Marina Portnaya reports.
Related articles
- Zero Privacy? FBI to spy in real-time on web chats (activistpost.com)
- FBI Pushing Hard for Realtime Email, Gchat, Skype, and Dropbox Spying Powers (gizmodo.com)
- FBI Making Real-Time Gmail Spying “Top Priority” (philadelphia.cbslocal.com)
- FBI Makes ‘Real Time’ Gmail Spying ‘Top Priority’ (latinospost.com)
- FBI Wants The Power To Monitor Emails, Online Chat In Real Time (webpronews.com)
- FBI Pursuing Real-Time Gmail Spying Powers as “Top Priority” for 2013 (slate.com)
- Real-Time Gmail Spying FBI’s ‘Top Priority’ for 2013 – FBI Once Again Beating CALEA Update Drum (dslreports.com)
- FBI Pursuing Real-Time Gmail Spying Powers as “Top Priority” for 2013 (blacklistednews.com)
- FBI Pursuing Real- Time Gmail Spying Powers as “Top Priority” for 2013 #privacy (darkactsbible.wordpress.com)
- Do we have any rights left? NO rights to Privacy. FBI spy real time on emails and chats (sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com)
Rebel of Oz – March 15, 2013
This is my eighth year as a full time Internet activist. The longer I’m fighting this “War on Evil”, the more I’m concerned with the effectiveness of resistance. No matter what our cause, liberty, false-flag terrorism, free Palestine, debt-free currency, New World Order, Illuminati, chemtrails, vaccination, cancer cures, drug prohibition, or historic revisionism, we must first and foremost make a conscience decision about what’s more important to us, being right or resisting effectively.
While copyright trolls in the United States are doing their very best to file lawsuits against as many alleged file-sharers as possible, their counterparts in Germany will take some beating.
Hundreds of thousands of Internet account holders have been targeted with so-called pay-up-or-else letters over the past few years and although there are no official figures available, settlements paid run into scores of millions of dollars.
Un-frikkin-believable
Credit: Getty Imagesby TOBY STERLING / Associated Press
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 6:41 AM
Updated yesterday at 9:54 AM
AMSTERDAM — The European Union has fined Microsoft (euro) 561 million ($733 million) for breaking a pledge to offer personal computer users a choice of Internet browsers when they install the company’s flagship Windows operating system.
The penalty imposed by the EU’s executive arm, the Commission, is a first for Brussels: no company has ever failed to keep its end of a bargain with EU authorities before.
In 2009, Microsoft Corp. struck a broad settlement with the Commission to resolve disputes over Microsoft’s abuse of the dominance of Windows, which had spanned more than a decade.
The company agreed to pay (euro) 860 million and promised to give Windows users the option of choosing another browser rather than having Microsoft’s Internet Explorer automatically installed on their machines.
Which Internet browser do you use? Join the Facebook discussion
But Microsoft failed to stick to the deal for some 15 million installations of Windows 7 in Europe from May 2011 until July 2012. The company admitted the failure last year, adding that it was an oversight.
The Commission’s top regulator, Joaquin Almunia, said at a press conference in Brussels, Belgium, Wednesday that the fine reflected the size of the violation and the length of time it went on. It was also intended to make an example of Microsoft and deter other companies from doing same thing.
Related articles
- EU fines Microsoft $733M for breaking browser pact (mysanantonio.com)
- EU fines Microsoft $733M for breaking browser pact (news.yahoo.com)
- Microsoft Hit With Unprecedented Fine (abcnews.go.com)
- Microsoft fined $733 million for breaking browser pact (nwcn.com)
- Microsoft fined $733M by EU for breaking browser promise (ctvnews.ca)
- EU fines Microsoft $733M for breaking browser pact (cnsnews.com)
- Microsoft fined $879m for breaking EU deal (nzherald.co.nz)
- Microsoft fined $733 million by the European Union (oregonlive.com)
- EU fines Microsoft $733M for breaking browser pact (usatoday.com)
- Microsoft fined £484m by EU Commission over Internet Explorer browser glitch (metro.co.uk)
