Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Discuss anything and everything relevant about Police Officers, Police Brutality or other Police Misconduct.

Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 13 Jun 2008, Fri 12:28 am

ISP's have resolved to restrict the Internet to a TV-like subscription model where users will be forced to pay to visit selected corporate websites by 2012, while others will be blocked, according to a leaked report. Despite some people dismissing the story as a hoax, the wider plan to kill the traditional Internet and replace it with a regulated and controlled Internet 2 is manifestly provable.

"Bell Canada and TELUS (formerly owned by Verizon) employees officially confirm that by 2012 ISP's all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit. These 'other' sites would then lose all their exposure and eventually shut down, resulting in what could be seen as the end of the Internet," warns a report that has spread like wildfire across the web over the last few days.

The article, which is accompanied by a You Tube clip, states that Time Magazine writer "Dylan Pattyn" has confirmed the information and is about to release a story - and that the move to effectively shut down the web could come as soon as 2010.

People have raised questions about the report's accuracy because the claims are not backed by another source, only the "promise" that a Time Magazine report is set to confirm the rumor. Until such a report emerges many have reserved judgment or outright dismissed the story as a hoax.

What is documented, as the story underscores, is the fact that TELUS' wireless web package allows only restricted pay-per-view access to a selection of corporate and news websites. This is the model that the post-2012 Internet would be based on.

People have noted that the authors of the video seem to be more concerned about getting people to subscribe to their You Tube account than fighting for net neutrality by prominently featuring an attractive woman who isn't shy about showing her cleavage. The vast majority of the other You Tube videos hosted on the same account consist of bizarre avante-garde satire skits on behalf of the same people featured in the Internet freedom clip. This has prompted many to suspect that the Internet story is merely a stunt to draw attention to the group.

Whether the report is accurate or merely a crude hoax, there is a very real agenda to restrict, regulate and suffocate the free use of the Internet and we have been documenting its progression for years.

The first steps in a move to charge for every e mail sent have already been taken. Under the pretext of eliminating spam, Bill Gates and other industry chieftains have proposed Internet users buy credit stamps which denote how many e mails they will be able to send. This of course is the death knell for political newsletters and mailing lists.
Last edited by WaTcHeR on 13 Jun 2008, Fri 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Postby WaTcHeR » 13 Jun 2008, Fri 12:29 am

"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Postby KC » 12 Sep 2008, Fri 4:45 pm

YouTube Bans Videos That Incite Violence

The video-sharing service YouTube is banning submissions that involve "inciting others to violence," following criticism from Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) that the site was too open to terrorist groups disseminating militant propaganda.

The company earlier this year removed some of the videos that Lieberman targeted, many of which were marked with the logos of al-Qaeda and affiliated groups. But the company refused to take down most of the videos on the senator's list, saying they did not violate the Web site's guidelines against graphic violence or hate speech.

Now that videos inciting others to violence are banned, more videos by the terrorist groups in question may be removed.

"YouTube reviews its content guidelines a few times a year, and we take the community's input seriously," YouTube spokesman Ricardo Reyes said. "The senator made some good points."

"YouTube was being used by Islamist terrorist organizations to recruit and train followers via the Internet and to incite terrorist attacks around the world, including right here in the United States," Lieberman said in a statement. "I expect these stronger community guidelines to decrease the number of videos on YouTube produced by al-Qaeda and affiliated Islamist terrorist organizations."

The standoff between the senator and the nation's largest video-sharing site aroused arguments that have become commonplace since Sept. 11, 2001: It pitted civil rights -- in this case, free speech -- against demands to crack down on terrorism.

In May, Lieberman issued a bipartisan report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs staff that described how al-Qaeda created and managed its online media.

Later that month, Lieberman wrote a letter to officials at Google [which owns YouTube] demanding that the company "immediately remove content produced by Islamic terrorist organizations from YouTube. This should be a straightforward task since so many of the Islamist terrorist organizations brand their material with logos or icons."

He also asked Google to explain what changes would be made to YouTube's guidelines to address "violent extremist material."

Because the volume of videos uploaded to YouTube is vast -- hundreds of thousands every day -- the company says it cannot monitor what gets posted. Instead, it relies on users to flag videos that violate its "Community Guidelines."

When the company removed videos after Lieberman's request in May, the company did so because they violated its existing guidelines prohibiting graphic violence and hate speech. Some of the videos depicted violent attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But most of the videos highlighted by Lieberman were not removed.

"While we respect and understand his[Lieberman's] views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view," the company said in a statement at the time.

The company's stance now appears to have changed.

Exactly what kind of videos will be deemed to be "inciting others to violence," will be considered on a case-by-case basis, though First Amendment experts said the company could run into trouble if the phrase is interpreted too broadly.

"We subscribe to the common sense rule," Reyes said. "Our guidelines are not written for lawyers."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... eheadlines
http://www.policecrimes.com

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against its government."
User avatar
KC
Assistant Moderator
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: 05 Mar 2007, Mon 11:12 pm

Postby KC » 12 Sep 2008, Fri 4:46 pm

What better way to shut down the internet, tell the public lies and install fear.
http://www.policecrimes.com

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against its government."
User avatar
KC
Assistant Moderator
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: 05 Mar 2007, Mon 11:12 pm

Postby WaTcHeR » 05 Mar 2010, Fri 5:07 pm

Cyberwar Scam Designed to Destroy Open Internet

On March 1, Ryan Singel, writing for Wired, accused the government of plotting to destroy the open and freedom-loving internet. Readers of Infowars and Prison Planet have known this for some time, but it is nice to know a quasi-establishment publication is now telling the truth and warning its readers about the threat to liberty posed by the government.

“The biggest threat to the open internet is not Chinese government hackers or greedy anti-net-neutrality ISPs, it’s Michael McConnell, the former director of national intelligence,” writes Singel. “McConnell’s not dangerous because he knows anything about SQL injection hacks, but because he knows about social engineering. He’s the nice-seeming guy who’s willing and able to use fear-mongering to manipulate the federal bureaucracy for his own ends, while coming off like a straight shooter to those who are not in the know.”

The former intel boss, now vice president of the spooky Booz Allen Hamilton corporation (notorious for connections to 9/11 and a key DARPA client), has been trotted out to sell “Cybaremaggedon” (as Singel appropriately characterizes it) to the American people. McConnell insists the internet needs to be re-engineered:

We need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace, identify intrusions and locate the source of attacks with a trail of evidence that can support diplomatic, military and legal options — and we must be able to do this in milliseconds. More specifically, we need to re-engineer the Internet to make attribution, geo-location, intelligence analysis and impact assessment — who did it, from where, why and what was the result — more manageable. The technologies are already available from public and private sources and can be further developed if we have the will to build them into our systems and to work with our allies and trading partners so they will do the same.

“He’s talking about changing the internet to make everything anyone does on the net traceable and geo-located so the National Security Administration can pinpoint users and their computers for retaliation if the U.S. government doesn’t like what’s written in an e-mail, what search terms were used, what movies were downloaded,” writes Singel. “Or the tech could be useful if a computer got hijacked without your knowledge and used as part of a botnet.”

McConnell says the government needs to create a new Cold War, “one complete with the online equivalent of ICBMs and Eisenhower-era, secret-codenamed projects.”

Not directed against Muslims in remote backwater caves, mind you, but the real enemy — the American people who are increasingly aroused, thanks in large part to the internet.

The Bush era intel boss hyped the overblown Chinese hacker threat in “breathless” stories published in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. The world’s largest security companies McAfee and Symantec have downplayed the story. Singel points out that such fear-mongering is almost completely void of facts.

The anti-open internet echo chamber includes a speech delivered by Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Commerce Secretary:

In fact, “leaving the Internet alone” has been the nation’s internet policy since the internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s. The primary government imperative then was just to get out of the way to encourage its growth. And the policy set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was: “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the world. But that was then and this is now.

Now? The Pentagon wants to take out enemies with the online equivalent of ICBMs in order to prevent cyberattacks, privacy intrusions and copyright violations (and, of course, take out the real threat — the alternative media overshadowing the staid establishment corporate media).

“As anyone slightly versed in the internet knows, the net has flourished because no government has control over it,” writes Singel. “But there are creeping signs of danger.”

The primary creeping sign is the cybersecurity bill now in the Senate under the direction of the renown internet hater, senator Jay Rockefeller. If passed, Obama would have the ability to initiate “network contingency plans to ensure key federal or private services did not go offline during a counterattack of unprecedented scope,” according to Tony Romm of The Hill.

“Too much is at stake for us to pretend that today’s outdated cybersecurity policies are up to the task of protecting our nation and economic infrastructure,” Rockefeller said. “We have to do better and that means it will take a level of coordination and sophistication to outmatch our adversaries and minimize this enormous threat.”

Rockefeller and the government have but one serious adversary — the American people who are circumventing establishment propaganda via the internet.

The recently passed House cybersecurity bill and the Senate’s version now under considered are peddled as urgent action against Russian and Chinese hackers hellbent on taking down the power grid and the smart phone network.

In fact, all the fear-mongering is a smoke screen for the real purpose of this legislation — to close down the free and open internet and viciously attack those who dare tell the truth and organize opposition to a predatory and dictatorial government.
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Postby WaTcHeR » 06 Jul 2010, Tue 4:16 pm

White House unveils system to create online identities

The White House is moving forward with a plan that will invite people to create online identities in order to streamline the online transaction process, combat identify theft and reduce the amount of personal information available on the Internet.

Information access groups are watching developments to see if the new system will have any negative affects on public access to information, particularly government-held information that identifies individuals.

The Obama administration introduced the new "Indentity Ecosystem" as a component of its National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace on June 25th. The effort is part of as part of President Obama’s Cyberspace Policy Review and the Department of Homeland Security assisted in developing the strategy.

“We want to create an environment, or an Identity Ecosystem as we refer to it in the Strategy, where individuals and organizations can complete online transactions with confidence, trusting the identities of each other and the identities of the infrastructure that the transaction runs on,” said the White House in a fact sheet outlining the program.

Under the system, users will obtain “digital credentials” such as a smart identity card or digital certificate on their cell phone, which will provide automatic authentication for a host of online transactions that includes banking, accessing health records and purchasing goods and services.

“No longer should individuals have to remember an ever-expanding and potentially insecure list of usernames and passwords to log into various online services,” said the White House in their blog.

The digital credentials would be provided by a variety of private and public organizations and an individual could choose the organization from which to obtain them. Each organization that supplies credentials would be responsible for validating the individual’s physical identity.

Participation in the Identity Ecosystem will be voluntary.

The White House also emphasizes that users will only have to disclose data that is necessary to the transaction. For example, when an individual shows a driver's license only for the purpose of verifying age, the individual is also disclosing other information, such as an address and full name, because that information is also included on the license. By using the new digital credentials, an individual would only need to disclose his or her age.

Even with the supposedly improved system, however, it is unclear whether identity thieves will truly be blocked from accessing personal data.

Alice Neff Lucan, a media law attorney, said that while she is not a technology expert, she did not see how the system would eliminate identity theft, particularly when a single set of digital credentials could be used to access a wide variety of personal information.

“If you have registered information on any type of record, it is always possible to find that record,” she said. “With a system of uniformity, you may actually be making it easier for hackers because you reduce the number of targets.”

The draft strategy will be posted on the web for public review and comments until July 19th. Approximately 70 industry advisory councils and associations gave input on the current draft.

The White House says the strategy should be finalized in October to coincide with National Cybersecurity Awareness Month.


http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11479
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Postby WaTcHeR » 06 Jul 2010, Tue 4:22 pm

The U.S. government is sticking its nose up too many ass holes trying to control citizens in this country and other countries. It's no fucking wonder that we have terrorists that want to go after America and I don't blame them.

Some fucking government half way around the World wants to control my life? Tell me what Religion I can and can't believe in? Start Wars in my country and then just pull their sorry ass's up and leave? Beat, torture and rape my family and friends? What about testing experimental drugs on my people? I leave no stone unturned until I found them all. Isn't that even a red blooded American would do if it happened to us?

Yeah I go after your ass also. Unfortunately these Terrorists as we all know are going after the wrong group of people. American citizens shouldn't be retaliated against. How about the ones who made these decisions and had them carried out?

I love my country, I love my U.S. Constitution. As far as the current "run away" government we have , well as Tar Baby put it "it's time for a change!"
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: The Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012

Postby WaTcHeR » 29 Jul 2010, Thu 4:47 pm

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.

Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL."

Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data.

To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.

The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. "You're bringing a big category of data -- records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information -- outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms.

Privacy concerns

The use of the national security letters to obtain personal data on Americans has prompted concern. The Justice Department issued 192,500 national security letters from 2003 to 2006, according to a 2008 inspector general report, which did not indicate how many were demands for Internet records. A 2007 IG report found numerous possible violations of FBI regulations, including the issuance of NSLs without having an approved investigation to justify the request. In two cases, the report found, agents used NSLs to request content information "not permitted by the [surveillance] statute."

One issue with both the proposal and the current law is that the phrase "electronic communication transactional records" is not defined anywhere in statute. "Our biggest concern is that an expanded NSL power might be used to obtain Internet search queries and Web histories detailing every Web site visited and every file downloaded," said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T for assisting the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program.

He said he does not object to the government obtaining access to electronic records, provided it has a judge's approval.

Senior administration officials said the proposal was prompted by a desire to overcome concerns and resistance from Internet and other companies that the existing statute did not allow them to provide such data without a court-approved order. "The statute as written causes confusion and the potential for unnecessary litigation," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said. "This clarification will not allow the government to obtain or collect new categories of information, but it seeks to clarify what Congress intended when the statute was amended in 1993."

The administration has asked Congress to amend the statute, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, in the fiscal year that begins in October.

Read more about how scary it will get....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html?hpid=topnews
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: The Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012

Postby WaTcHeR » 21 Aug 2010, Sat 12:46 pm

Since his election in the nail-bitingly close campaign against former Republican Senator Norm Coleman, former Saturday Night Live comedian Al Franken has emerged as one of the strongest voices in favor of so-called "Net Neutrality" policies being considered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Franken has called "Net Neutrality" the most pressing free speech issue in modern day America, and supports policies which would require Internet service providers to treat all legal traffic equally.

Speaking Thursday evening before an FCC public hearing on "Net Neutrality," Franken insisted that the U.S. government cannot allow companies to write the rules by which they'll later be forced to play.

"We don't just have a constitution problem here, we have a First Amendment problem, okay?" he said.

Search giant Google and telecom titan Verizon have both issued a series of "compromise" policy suggestions that would allow companies to create multi-tiered services over wireless networks offering specialty, premium service packages in what critics have called a plan to "cable-ize the Internet."

Critics of Google and Verizon's proposals were especially concerned that such services might become a non-public parallel wireless Internet where data could get special handling.

The proposal could simply be ignored by the FCC.

Advocacy group "Save the Internet," which promotes "Net Neutrality" policies, adds: "Our warnings are no longer speculation. Google, Verizon, ATT and Comcast are about to turn the Internet into cable TV --- where their favored websites and content will move fast, and everyone else will be left without a voice. These companies will kill the Web as an engine for free speech and equal opportunity. It is time for us all to stand up or get rolled."

Save the Internet is operating an online petition that asks Americans to send their thoughts on the issue of "Net Neutrality" to the FCC. Similarly, Sen. Franken also has an online petition advocating "Net Neutrality."

"What you're gonna have [if Net Neutrality does not become policy] is a handful of companies that own all the programming and provide all the Internet services," Franken said. "A handful of companies will have their hands on all of the information that all of us get, and that is very, very dangerous. All of these companies will have interests that are absolutely aligned, and this is very dangerous."

President Obama has said he is "committed" to ensuring "Net Neutrality" policies are implemented.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0819/watch- ... net-forum/
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Inf

Postby WaTcHeR » 25 Sep 2010, Sat 7:10 pm

Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement" Bill

Senator Patrick Leahy yesterday introduced the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA). This flawed bill would allow the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to break the Internet one domain at a time — by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. The bill would also create two Internet blacklists. The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second, more worrying, blacklist is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines — without judicial review — are "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well. (It's easy to predict that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist.)

COICA is a fairly short bill, but it could have a longstanding and dangerous impact on freedom of speech, current Internet architecture, copyright doctrine, foreign policy, and beyond. In 2010, if there's anything we've learned about efforts to re-write copyright law to target "piracy" online, it's that they are likely to have unintended consequences.

This is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet. Free speech is vitally important to democracy, which is why the government is restricted from suppressing speech except in very specific, narrowly-tailored situations. But this bill is the polar opposite of narrow — not only in the broad way that it tries to define a site "dedicated to infringing activities," but also in the solution that it tries to impose — a block on a whole domain, and not just the infringing part of the site.

We note that the DMCA already gives copyright owners legal tools to remove infringing material piece-by-piece, and to obtain injunctions requiring ISPs to block certain offshore infringing websites. The misuse of the existing DMCA provisions have had a tremendously damaging impact on fair use and free expression. By comparison, COICA streamlines and vastly expands this; it would allow the AG to shoot down a whole domain including all the blog posts, images, backups, and files underneath it. In other words, it's not just possible but probable that a great deal of legitimate, protected speech will be taken down in the name of copyright enforcement.

It is designed to undermine basic Internet infrastructure. When a user enters "eff.org" into their web browser, what responds is a domain name system server that tells the users' browser where EFF's website is located on the Internet. This bill would have the Attorney General prevent the players in that domain name system (possibly including your ISP) from telling you the truth about a website's location.

And it's not clear what a user would see in this situation — would it look like a "404 message," that simply says a site or page could not be found, without explaining why? Would users receive some kind of notice clarifying that the site they were seeking was made inaccessible at the behest of the government? Generally speaking, the bill forces all the Internet "middlemen" to act as if a part of the Internet doesn't exist, even though that page may otherwise be completely available and accessible.

COICA sends the world the message that the United States approves of unilateral Internet censorship. Which governments deny their citizens access to parts of the Internet? For now, it is mostly totalitarian, profoundly anti-democratic regimes that keep their citizens from seeing the whole Internet. With this bill, the United States risks telling countries throughout the world, "Unilateral censorship of websites that the government doesn't like is okay — and this is how you do it."

The bill's imbalances threaten to complicate existing laws and policies. The bill includes poorly drafted definitions that threaten fair use online, endanger innovative backup services, and raises questions about how these new obligations on Internet intermediaries are intended to fit with existing US secondary liability rules and the DMCA copyright safe harbor regime. Moreover, it seems easy to get on the blacklist — the bill sets up a seemingly streamlined procedure for adding domains (including a McCarthy-like procedure of public snitching) — but in contrast, it seems difficult to get off the list, with a cumbersome process to have a blacklisted domain removed.

And what do we get in exchange? Not much, if the goal is to actually limit unauthorized copying online. The bill gives the government power to play an endless game of whack-a-mole, blocking one domain after another, but even a relatively unsophisticated technologist can begin to imagine the workarounds: a return to encrypted peer-to-peer, modified /etc/hosts files (that don't rely on the domain name system for finding things on the Internet), and other tools, which will emerge and ensure that committed pirates have a way to route around the bill's damage to the DNS system.

To us, COICA looks like another misguided gift to a shortsighted industry whose first instinct with respect to the Internet is to try to break it. There are still many questions to be answered, but one thing is for sure — this bill allows the government to suppress truthful speech and could block access to a wealth of non-infringing speech, and the end result will do little to protect artists or mollify the industries that profit from them. Stay tuned for more analysis, information, and steps you can take to fight Internet censorship.


http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/ce ... age-online
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 25 Sep 2010, Sat 7:23 pm

"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 25 Sep 2010, Sat 7:28 pm

"With the Senate now looking to have the government block access to websites it deems to be bad (which seems to be called 'censorship' in other countries), it's worth pointing out that the Senate doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to deciding what technologies to ban. Back in 1930, some Senators came close to banning the dial telephone, because they felt that it was wrong that they had to do the labor themselves, rather than an operator at the other end."
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Proposed Bill Would Give President Emergency Cyber-Superpowe

Postby WaTcHeR » 25 Sep 2010, Sat 7:32 pm

Proposed Bill Would Give President Emergency Cyber-Superpowers

The bad guys who troll America’s digital infrastructure looking for networks to attack may have some problems coming their way if a proposed bill circulating through Capitol Hill goes through. The legislation would give the president the power to declare a national cyber-emergency if a huge network attack happened.

Reuters reported Tuesday, Sept. 21, that the presidential declaration, in case of an imminent threat to critical things like the electrical grid or water supply, could require companies to shut down temporarily or take certain steps, like enhancing their cyber-defenses. The declaration would last for 30 days, though the president could renew it, it couldn’t go longer than 90 days without congressional action.

The legislation in its current form merges two other cyber-security bills that came before. A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said backers in Congress hope to pass it before year’s end.

Some companies worry the bill would give the government too much power over their businesses, since it could give the public sector power to designate whether a company’s — or industry’s — technology operations would be shut down or altered, or just certain portions. Private-sector opposition could make it difficult for the bill to get through Congress before the year is over.



http://www.govtech.com/security/Propose ... owers.html
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

American government hacked Iran's nuclear computer

Postby KC » 28 Sep 2010, Tue 8:30 pm

American government hacked Iran's nuclear computer programs


WASHINGTON – A cyber worm burrowing into computers linked to Iran's nuclear program has yet to trigger any signs of major damage, but it was likely spawned either by a government or a well-funded private group, according to a new analysis.

The malicious Stuxnet computer code was apparently constructed by a small team of as many as five to 10 highly educated and well-funded hackers, said an official with the web security firm Symantec Corp. Government experts and outside analysts say they haven't been able to determine who developed the malware or why.

Stuxnet, which is attacking industrial facilities around the world, was designed to go after several "high-value targets," said Liam O Murchu, manager of security response operations at Symantec. But both O Murchu and U.S. government experts say there's no proof it was specifically developed to target nuclear plants in Iran, despite recent speculation from some researchers.

A number of governments with sophisticated computer skills would have the ability to create such a code. They include China, Russia, Israel, Britain, Germany and the United States. But O Murchu said no clues have been found within the code to point to a country of origin.

The Stuxnet worm infected the personal computers of staff working at Iran's first nuclear power station just weeks before the facility is to go online, the official Iranian news agency reported Sunday.

The project manager at the Bushehr nuclear plant, Mahmoud Jafari, said a team is trying to remove the malware from several affected computers, though it "has not caused any damage to major systems of the plant," the IRNA news agency reported.

It was the first clear sign that the malicious computer code, dubbed Stuxnet, which has spread to many industries in Iran, has affected equipment linked to the country's controversial nuclear program. The U.S. has been pressing international partners to threaten stiff financial sanctions against Tehran goes ahead with its nuclear program.

Symantec's analysis of the Stuxnet code, O Murchu said, shows that nearly 60 percent of the computers infected are in Iran. An additional 18 percent are in Indonesia. Less than 2 percent are in the U.S.

"This would not be easy for a normal group to put together," said O Murchu. He said "it was either a well-funded private entity" or it "was a government agency or state sponsored project" created by people familiar with industrial control systems.

The malware has infected as many as 45,000 computer systems around the world. Siemens AG, the company that designed the system targeted by the worm, said Stuxnet has infected 15 of the industrial control plants it was apparently intended to infiltrate. It's not clear what sites were infected, but they could include water filtration, oil delivery, electrical and nuclear plants.

Alexander Machowetz, a spokesman for Siemens' corporate industry business, said Monday that the company is "not involved in Iran's nuclear program either directly or indirectly" and that the Siemens ended all business relations with civilian companies in Iran in January.

The software is available and is bought and sold by resellers, so it could be in use at the plant in Iran.

Machowetz also said that the worm has been cleaned off all 15 of the infected plants, and none of those infections adversely affected the industrial systems.

U.S. officials said last month that the Stuxnet was the first malicious computer code specifically created to take over systems that control the inner workings of industrial plants.

The Energy Department has warned that a successful attack against critical control systems "may result in catastrophic physical or property damage and loss."

German security researcher Ralph Langner told a computer conference in Maryland this month that his theory is that Stuxnet was created to go after the nuclear program in Iran. He acknowledged, though, that the idea is "completely speculative."

O Murchu said there are a number of other possibilities for targets, including oil pipelines. He said Symantec soon will release details of its study in the hope that industrial companies or experts will recognize the specific system configuration being targeted by the code and know what type of plant uses it.

Machowetz said none of the 15 infected plants had the system configuration the worm was seeking, so they have not been able to tell yet exactly what the worm is designed to do.

Experts in Germany discovered the worm, and German officials transmitted the malware to the U.S. through a secure network. The two computer servers controlling the malware were in Malaysia and Denmark, O Murchu said, but both were shut down after they were discovered by computer security experts earlier this summer.

Unlike a virus, which is created to attack computer code, a worm is designed to take over systems, such as those that open doors or turn physical processes on or off.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_computer_attacks
http://www.policecrimes.com

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against its government."
User avatar
KC
Assistant Moderator
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: 05 Mar 2007, Mon 11:12 pm

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby KC » 28 Sep 2010, Tue 8:41 pm

Report: US would make Internet wiretaps easier

Report: White House wants to give law enforcers easier access to Internet, e-mail wiretaps.

Broad new regulations being drafted by the Obama administration would make it easier for law enforcement and national security officials to eavesdrop on Internet and e-mail communications like social networking Web sites and BlackBerries, The New York Times reported Monday (link).

The newspaper said the White House plans to submit a bill next year that would require all online services that enable communications to be technically equipped to comply with a wiretap order. That would include providers of encrypted e-mail, such as BlackBerry, networking sites like Facebook and direct communication services like Skype.

Federal law enforcement and national security officials say new the regulations are needed because terrorists and criminals are increasingly giving up their phones to communicate online.

"We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said FBI lawyer Valerie E. Caproni. "We're not talking about expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security."

The White House plans to submit the proposed legislation to Congress next year.

The new regulations would raise new questions about protecting people's privacy while balancing national security concerns.

James Dempsey, the vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the new regulations would have "huge implications."

"They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function," he told the Times.

The Times said the Obama proposal would likely include several requires:

_Any service that provides encrypted messages must be capable of unscrambling them.

_Any foreign communications providers that do business in the U.S. would have to have an office in the United States that's capable of providing intercepts.

_Software developers of peer-to-peer communications services would be required to redesign their products to allow interception.

The Times said that some privacy and technology advocates say the regulations would create weaknesses in the technology that hackers could more easily exploit.
http://www.policecrimes.com

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against its government."
User avatar
KC
Assistant Moderator
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: 05 Mar 2007, Mon 11:12 pm

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 29 Sep 2010, Wed 4:47 pm

Tell Your Senator: No Website Blacklists, No Internet Censorship!

Follow this link to voice your concern: http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11579

Tell your Senator to reject the entertainment industry's outrageous Internet censorship bill that would blacklist websites, interfere with the Internet's domain name system (DNS), and legitimize unilateral Internet censorship worldwide. We fear the Senate may move forward with this bill as early as Wednesday, so please act now!

In the name of fighting copyright infringement, the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA) would put in place dangerous, overbroad procedures that would take huge numbers of law-abiding websites offline, censor speech and curtail Internet freedom worldwide.

The bill would allow the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to break the Internet one domain at a time — by requiring ISPs, domain registrars, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. Chillingly, the bill also allows the Justice Department to create a blacklist of sites "dedicated to infringing activities" that ISPs and others will be encouraged to block.

And there is a serious danger that COICA could damage Internet freedom worldwide. In the past, the United States has tried to convince other countries to respect citizens' fundamental right to free speech. But with this bill, the United States risks telling countries throughout the world, "Unilateral censorship of websites that the government doesn't like is okay — and this is how you do it."

Reports say that the Senate is moving fast and may try to pass this bill by Wednesday, September 29. That's why it's crucial to act now and let your Senator know that COICA is unacceptable before any votes take place!


http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11579
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 29 Sep 2010, Wed 5:14 pm

BlackBerry CEO suggests route to eavesdropping

EW YORK – BlackBerry maker Research in Motion Ltd. says it has no way of providing government officials with the text of encrypted corporate e-mails its devices serve up. But if the companies that employ BlackBerry phones want to hand over the encryption keys to their e-mail, it won't object.

In a recent interview, RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie said he could envision countries that want access to BlackBerry e-mails setting up a kind of national registry where companies doing business within their borders would have to provide government officials with the ability to peek at encrypted messages.

"We would support that if it's applied equitably to everyone," Balsillie said, while warning that governments that use too heavy of a hand on the issue risk scaring away businesses.

The issue comes up as a growing list of countries — including the U.S. — raise concerns that communications technology has outpaced the ability of authorities to eavesdrop.

The controversy drew wide public attention last month when the United Arab Emirates announced plans to block BlackBerry e-mail, messaging and Web browsing services. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Indonesia and India are considering or planning similar steps.

In the U.S., the Obama administration plans to propose legislation next year that would require online communications providers to be technically equipped to comply with a wiretap order, according to a report in The New York Times on Monday. Along with BlackBerry service, the new rules would apply to social media sites including Facebook and direct person-to-person services such as Skype, the Times reported.

Balsillie took pains to emphasize that these security concerns extend beyond BlackBerry service. He pointed out that most corporate e-mail is encrypted in a similar way.

Because of how BlackBerry e-mail service is set up, it isn't technically possible for RIM to give government officials access to company e-mail that its users send back and forth. And RIM will not remove the layers of encryption that protect corporate e-mail because its customers put a high value on privacy.

While RIM won't give details of discussions with any particular government, the type of national registry that Balsillie mentioned helps outline one area of potential compromise.

The idea would leave RIM out of the decision-making process when it comes to government surveillance requests. A foreign government would collect the keys that it needs from companies whose employees use company e-mail on their BlackBerrys. It would be up to any individual company whether to hand over those keys.

"They're not ours to give," Balsillie said. "That's a decision for the company that is operating within that jurisdiction."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100927/ap_ ... _crackdown
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby KC » 05 Oct 2010, Tue 3:43 pm

Senators Ease Off Internet 'Censorship' Bill After Outcry


Senate sponsors have eased off a bill aimed at cracking down on online piracy after an outcry from Internet engineers who say the proposal would effectively censor the Web.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act still would contain some highly controversial provisions, but senators proposed an amendment Wednesday to strip from the bill language that allowed the Justice Department to publish a blacklist of websites "dedicated to infringing activities."

Under the original bill, the Justice Department would be able to green light Internet service providers to go after those sites by providing them legal immunity.

The amendment also would lessen requirements on service providers to clean up their networks. But the bill would still give the attorney general broad new powers to seek court approval to shut down websites deemed dedicated to counterfeit material.

Internet advocates have warned that the change in law would open a door for a handful of people in the federal government to wantonly power off entire websites that may be operating legally under current law. Though senators suggest the bill would save jobs by cracking down on piracy, critics say it will hurt the economy by threatening fledgling companies whenever copyrighted material shows up on their sites.

It's unclear whether the amendment will temper those concerns. The Senate Judiciary Committee was originally planning to call up the bill for a possible vote Thursday, but postponed that meeting as the chamber adjourned for the election.

Peter Eckersley, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said he and other civil rights advocates were caught off guard when senators introduced the bill last Monday and have scrambled to voice their concerns to Congress.

Eighty-seven engineers who played a role in the creation of the Internet sent a letter this week to the Judiciary Committee urging it to sideline the bill.

"All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended to restrict, but this bill will be particularly egregious in that regard because it causes entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just infringing pages or files. Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under this bill," they wrote.

But the bill's co-sponsors and supporters say it provides a critical tool to go after the worst-of-the-worst in the world of online piracy.

"No one would dispute that online infringement and counterfeiting of American intellectual property drains the American economy and costs American jobs," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who introduced the bill, said in a written statement. "No one would defend websites, primarily based overseas, that are dedicated to infringing activities. We continue (to) welcome input from everyone on the best way to attack the problem, but ignoring the problem, or saying it is too complicated, can no longer be an option."

The bill has broad bipartisan support on the committee, including that of Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch. Thirteen of the 16 committee members are co-sponsors, giving the bill a strong chance of passing should it come up for a vote after the election.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09 ... ip-outcry/
http://www.policecrimes.com

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against its government."
User avatar
KC
Assistant Moderator
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: 05 Mar 2007, Mon 11:12 pm

Microsoft Proposes Government Licensing Internet Access

Postby WaTcHeR » 19 Oct 2010, Tue 4:31 pm

Microsoft Proposes Government Licensing Internet Access

Thursday, October 7, 2010

A new proposal by a top Microsoft executive would open the door for government licensing to access the Internet, with authorities being empowered to block individual computers from connecting to the world wide web under the pretext of preventing malware attacks.

Speaking to the ISSE 2010 computer security conference in Berlin yesterday, Scott Charney, Microsoft vice president of Trustworthy Computing, said that cybersecurity should mirror public health safety laws, with infected PC’s being “quarantined” by government decree and prevented from accessing the Internet.

“If a device is known to be a danger to the internet, the user should be notified and the device should be cleaned before it is allowed unfettered access to the internet, minimizing the risk of the infected device contaminating other devices,” Charney said.

Charney said the system would be a “global collective defense” run by corporations and government and would “track and control” people’s computers similar to how government health bodies track diseases.

Invoking the threat of malware attacks as a means of dissuading or blocking people from using the Internet is becoming a common theme – but it’s one tainted with political overtones.

At the launch of the Obama administration’s cybersecurity agenda earlier this year, Democrats attempted to claim that the independent news website The Drudge Report was serving malware, an incident Senator Jim Inhofe described as a deliberate ploy “to discourage people from using Drudge”.

Under the new proposals, not only would the government cite the threat of malware to prevent people from visiting Drudge, they would be blocked from the entire world wide web, creating a dangerous precedent by giving government the power to dictate whether people can use the Internet and effectively opening the door for a licensing system to be introduced.

Similar to how vehicle inspections are mandatory for cars in some states before they can be driven, are we entering a phase where you will have to obtain a PC health check before a government IP czar will issue you with a license, or an Internet ID card, allowing you to access the web?

Of course, the only way companies or the government could know when your system becomes infected with malware is to have some kind of mandatory software or firewall installed on every PC which sends data to a centralized hub, greasing the skids for warrantless surveillance and other invasions of privacy.

Microsoft has been at the forefront of a bid to introduce Internet licensing as a means of controlling how people access and use the world wide web, an effort that has intensified over the course of the past year.

During this year’s Economic Summit in Davos, Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, said that the Internet needed to be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers licenses – in other words government permission to use the web.

“We need a kind of World Health Organization for the Internet,” he said, mirroring Charney’s rhetoric about controlling cyberspace in a public health context.

“If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance.”

“Don’t be surprised if it becomes reality in the near future,” wrote ZD Net’s Doug Hanchard on the introduction of Internet licensing . “Every device connected to the Internet will have a permanent license plate and without it, the network won’t allow you to log in.”

Just days after Mundie’s call for Internet licensing, Time Magazine jumped on the bandwagon, publishing an article by Barbara Kiviat, one of Mundie’s fellow attendees at the elitist confab, in which she wrote that the Internet was too lawless and needed “the people in charge” to start policing it with licensing measures.

Shortly after Time Magazine started peddling the proposal, the New York Times soon followed suit with a blog entitled Driver’s Licenses for the Internet?, which merely parroted Kiviat’s talking points.

Of course there’s a very good reason for Time Magazine and the New York Times to be pushing for measures that would undoubtedly lead to a chilling effect on free speech which would in turn eviscerate the blogosphere.

Like the rest of the mainstream print dinosaurs, physical sales of Time Magazine have been plummeting, partly as a result of more people getting their news for free on the web from independent sources. Ad sales for the New York Times sunk by no less than 28 per cent last year with subscriptions and street sales also falling.

As we have documented, the entire cybersecurity agenda is couched in fearsome rhetoric about virus attacks, but its ultimate goal is to hand the Obama administration similar powers over the Internet to those enjoyed by Communist China, which are routinely exercised not for genuine security concerns, but to oppress political adversaries, locate dissidents, and crush free speech.

Indeed, Internet licensing was considered by the Chinese last year and rejected for being too authoritarian, concerns apparently not shared by Microsoft.

Any proposal which allows the government to get a foot in the door on dictating who can and can’t use the Internet should be vigorously opposed because such a system would be wide open for abuse and pave the way for full licensing and top down control of the world wide web.


http://www.infowars.com/microsoft-propo ... et-access/
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

What They Know About You

Postby WaTcHeR » 19 Oct 2010, Tue 4:58 pm

What They Know About You

http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk/

Marketers are spying on Internet users -- observing and remembering people's clicks, and building and selling detailed dossiers of their activities and interests. The Wall Street Journal's What They Know series documents the new, cutting-edge uses of this Internet-tracking technology. The Journal analyzed the tracking files installed on people's computers by the 50 most popular U.S. websites, plus WSJ.com. The Journal also built an "exposure index" -- to determine the degree to which each site exposes visitors to monitoring -- by studying the tracking technologies they install and the privacy policies that guide their use.
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 19 Oct 2010, Tue 4:59 pm

An Obama administration taskforce is seeking to overhaul a federal law requiring telephone and broadband carriers to ensure their networks can be wiretapped, The New York Times reported Tuesday (link).

Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials from the Justice and Commerce Departments, the FBI and other federal agencies told the Times tougher legislation was necessary because some telecommunications firms have launched new services and system upgrades that impede surveillance.

As part of their draft legislation to expand and strengthen the 1994 law, the officials want more legal incentives and penalties to push AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other carriers to make sure any changes to their networks will not disrupt efforts to conduct wiretaps, the report added.

According to the Times, President Barack Obama's administration intends to submit a package of draft legislation to Congress next year. Citing officials familiar with the deliberations, it noted there was still no agreement over the details.

Officials cited two previously undisclosed episodes during which major carriers struggled for weeks or months when they tried to comply with court-approved wiretap orders in criminal or terrorism investigations.

The newspaper said the FBI spends about 20 million dollars a year on efforts to help companies fix such problems.

Last month, the Times reported that the White House is also pushing to require all online services that enable communications -- such as Gmail, Facebook, BlackBerry and Skype -- to be technically capable of complying with a wiretap order, bringing them under the law's mandate for the first time.

Among proposals floated by the Obama administration, one would increase the likelihood that a firm would pay a fine for wiretapping lapses, while another would create incentives for companies to show new systems to the FBI before implementing them, the Times said.
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Next

Return to Police and Other Law Enforcement Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests

cron