INTERNET 2 - The Imminent Privatization of the World Wide Web / Censorship

[Brocke]

New ministers take to the floor at the anti-pirate party

August 16, 2009 5:23pm
by Tim Bradshaw

The debate over what to do with those caught swapping music and movies online has flared up again this weekend after the FT reported that the UK government was considering accelerating its anti-piracy plans.

Recent ministerial changes have given record labels and other rights holders fresh ears for their lobbying, after the departure of Lord Carter, whose Digital Britain report pledged to reduce piracy by 70 per cent.

A renewed push for tougher sanctions against filesharers seems to be working. Stephen Timms, the Treasury minister who took the Digital Britain reins this month, has hinted that Ofcom could be given its “backstop” powers to force ISPs to restrict offenders’ broadband connections or block access to certain sites sooner than expected.

The government is still consulting on the subject, and is likely to face opposition from broadband providers who would prefer to see more emphasis on legal alternatives to piracy. While some surveys suggest that free music streaming sites such as Last.fm, We7 and Spotify have stemmed the appetite for piracy, most digital music businesses bemoan the time it takes to secure the rights to create new services.

“It’s clear not all consumers are persuaded that the services available today provide a compelling alternative to illegal file sharing,” a Virgin Media spokesperson told the FT. Its own deal with Universal Music – to provide unlimited access to tracks in return for helping the label catch illegal filesharers – is one example of a better incentive to avoid piracy, Virgin says, although other labels do not appear to be close to joining the service. “The role of legislation should be to support and encourage such initiatives,” Virgin added.

But that’s the exact opposite of the rights holders’ lobbying agenda, Tom Watson, the Labour MP and friend of the geeks, says on his blog this weekend.

    “Challenged by the revolutionary distribution mechanism that is the internet, big publishers with their expensive marketing and PR operations and big physical distribution networks, are seeing their power and profits diminish. Faced with the choice of accepting this and innovating, or attempting, King Canute-style, to stay the tide of change, they’re choosing the latter option, and looking to Parliament for help with some legislative sand bags.”

Two more UK newspapers have picked up on the story today.

The Sunday Times claims that Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, has been persuaded that pirates should be deprived of internet access altogether after dining with “Hollywood mogul” David Geffen. Quite aside from the fact that Lord Mandelson’s press office denies the subject of piracy was even raised with Mr Geffen in Corfu last week, the European Union’s telecoms package proposes making internet access a human right. That has already scuppered French plans to cut off filesharers and would make any similar proposals difficult in the UK too.

The Independent on Sunday says that filesharing could be criminalised as part of the anti-piracy crackdown. Copyright infringement is a civil offence today, and under the existing proposals in Digital Britain, repeat offenders would be taken to court by record labels after obtaining their details from ISPs.

The Pirate Party – the anti-copyright group that Swedish voters elected to the European Parliament in June – says in a blog post today it would welcome criminalisation of filesharing.

    “Since nobody in power is willing to define exactly how evidence [against filesharers] will be gathered, I have to say that it would be of great help if the government would criminalise the offence and then the evidence would have to be gathered in a proper manner against each individual.”

With what little consensus there was between labels and ISPs falling away, the row is set to intensify before the government’s consultation ends next month.

http://blogs.ft.com/techblog/2009/08/new-ministers-take-to-the-floor-at-the-anti-pirate-party/

[Brocke]

130 million credit card numbers stolen in identity theft scheme

Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:21pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. authorities announced what they believed to be the largest hacking and identity theft case ever prosecuted on Monday in a scheme in which more than 130 million credit and debit card numbers were stolen.

Three men were indicted on charges of being responsible for five corporate data breaches in a scheme in which the card numbers were stolen from Heartland Payment Systems, 7-Eleven Inc and Hannaford Brothers Co, federal prosecutors said in a statement.

The suspects also hacked two unidentified corporate victims, the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey said in the statement.

Prosecutors allege Albert Gonzalez, 28, of Miami, and two unnamed Russian coconspirators targeted large corporations by scanning the list of Fortune 500 companies and exploring corporate websites before setting out to identify vulnerabilities.

The suspects would seek to sell the data to others who would use it to make fraudulent purchases, the statement said.

In one example, the suspects went to retail locations to identify the type of checkout machines, and after further investigation into the computer systems they uploaded information onto servers that worked as hacking platforms, the statement said.

"These servers, located in New Jersey and around the world, were used by the coconspirators to store information critical to the hacking schemes and subsequently to launch the hacking attacks," prosecutors said.

"The scheme is believed to constitute the largest hacking and identity theft case ever prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice," the statement said.

(Reporting by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Maureen Bavdek)

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57G4GC20090817

[Brocke]

iiNet uses Telecommunications Act to boost copyright case

Andrew Colley | August 19, 2009

PERTH-BASED internet service provider iiNet has put two new lines of legal defence before the Federal Court in its bid to stop a group of entertainment companies suing it for copyright infringement.

The group, represented by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), is running a landmark case against iiNet which will test whether ISPs can be held accountable for illegal activity carried out by their customers.

One of the key legal planks in AFACT's arguments is an allegation that iiNet breached copyright laws by failing to "take reasonable and appropriate steps" to stop its customers illegally sharing files over peer-to-peer networks.

AFACT is relying on evidence gathered by investigators prior to the trial. It sent the ISP requests to disconnect the customers it believed were illegally sharing files.

IiNet's barrister Richard Cobden today ventured a new defence in which he revealed the ISPs intent to argue that bowing to AFACT's demands to disconnect the customers for "unproven allegations of copyright breaches" would itself be in breach of privacy provisions of the Telecommunications Act.

Mr Cobden also told the court that the ISP intended to argue that any steps AFACT required it to take could not be considered reasonable unless its rivals in the telecommunications sector were also asked to pursue them.

In a statement released today, iiNet said: "There are very good public policy reasons why ISPs cannot use their customers' information in the manner AFACT has demanded.

"The existing law currently provides a process for investigating copyright theft or any other illegal activity using the internet, requiring court orders, warrants and due process. If AFACT is serious about copyright infringement they can, and should use, this process."

AFACT's barrister Christian Dimitriadis told the court that the argument was "novel" and said the group intended to argue that there were sufficient exceptions to the confidentiality laws contained in the Telecommunications Act that would allow iiNet to pursue its requests.

It would also argue that the ISP's own terms and conditions gave it safe legal ground to respond to the organisation's requests, AFACT lawyers said.

AFACT is also expected to argue that the Act provides for ISPs to carry out disconnections in the ordinary course of their business.

In a statement released later in the day AFACT said its lawyers argued that the Telecommunications Act did not apply for various reasons:

"The prohibition does not apply to information gathered outside the telecommunications provider -- such as information gathered on peer to peer networks. It doesn't apply to acts authorised by law -- the acts would be authorised by the safe-harbour provisions of the Copyright Act

"The prohibitions do not apply to acts to which the customer has consented -- by signing the terms and conditions that say that the customer must not engage in illegal activity, the customer has given consent."

An iiNet spokesman said that the Telecommunications Act had now become a core argument to its case.

The group pursuing iiNet includes Warner Bros. Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Disney Enterprises, Roadshow Films, Columbia Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Seven Network.

iiNet chief executive Michael Malone is expected to provide 60 pages of evidence arguing that complying with AFACT's case would impose an unreasonable burden on the ISP's business.

iiNet also named its key expert witness for the case, Northrop Grumman senior scientist Dr Michael Caloyannides. Dr Caloyannides is an experienced expert witness. He has presented testimony in patent infringement and criminal trials where cases hinged on evidence regarding communications technology and infrastructure.

The case is expected to proceed to a full hearing in October.

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25951841-15306,00.html




This is from the AFACT website...




Movie Piracy and Organised Crime

Movie piracy is sometimes just the tip of the iceberg. Evidence exists that movie piracy is linked to other criminal activity affecting local communities throughout Australia.

With well over 1000% profit margins DVD piracy can be more profitable than drug trafficking. DVD pirates are not merely a product of market forces and entrepreneurship, central to their business model is criminal behavior extending beyond copyright theft. Money laundering, protection rackets, and even violent territorial warfare are all practices not uncommon to piracy business operations.
VIDEO: Film Piracy, Organised Crime, and Terrorism

Gregory F. Treverton, Director, Center for Global Risk and Security




About AFACT

http://www.afact.org.au/

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft was established in 2004 to protect the film and television industry, retailers and movie fans from the adverse impact of copyright theft in Australia. AFACT works closely with industry, government and law enforcement authorities to achieve its aims.

AFACT acts on behalf of the 50,000 Australians directly impacted by copyright theft including independent cinemas, video rental stores and film and television producers across the country.



The link above to the Film Piracy, Organised Crime, and Terrorism video is hosted on the RAND Corporation's website.

http://www.rand.org/multimedia/video/2009/03/03/gregory_f_treverton_film_piracy_organized_crime_and_terrorism.html?ref=homepage&key=t_film_piracy

[wvoutlaw2002]

http://www.rand.org/multimedia/video/2009/03/03/gregory_f_treverton_film_piracy_organized_crime_and_terrorism.html?ref=homepage&key=t_film_piracy

Wow. So they're basically flat-out saying that if you use BitTorrent or Frostwire, you're al-Qaeda.

[Brocke]

Wow. So they're basically flat-out saying that if you use BitTorrent or Frostwire, you're al-Qaeda.

Privacy is The new Terrorism



NLP and other higher forms of mind control use of words that sound very similar. I.e. Privacy and Piracy. Very similar words with contrary and usefully confusing meaning.

With the rise in maritime and so called "digital" PIRACY the call for more restrictive legislation and harsher punishments is common in the main stream media. "Coincidentally" at the same time we have a growing concern for individual PRIVACY. The two words are used to describe opposite sides of a very important issue. The ownership of intellectual property by multinational corporations versus the invasion of individuals privacy by those same corporate entities for the purpose of protecting their "property".

It is a clever semantic setup that allows the publishers to confuse the issues privacy with piracy. Thus a pre-programmed cognitive dissonance is employed to cloud the issue of personal privacy with that of internet and maritime piracy.

It is an early phase of Orwell's "Newspeak" where you eventually have no option but to describe privacy as "PIRACY"! We are given the tools (vocabulary and propaganda) and left to destroy the meaning on our own.

There may come a day where you will be punished for being an advocate of PRIVACY because it will have the same meaning as piracy.

[mr anderson]

Internet filtering a farce: Minchin

Fran Foo | September 02, 2009
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,26016116-15306,00.html

THE federal Opposition has renewed calls for the controversial internet censorship plan to be buried but the government says the scheme is moving ahead.

Describing the mandatory ISP filtering program as a "farce", Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin said that almost two years after coming to office with a plan to censor the internet, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy hasn't even managed to release results for long overdue filtering trials.

"(He hasn't) come close to actually implementing this highly controversial policy," Senator Minchin said.

The nine internet service providers that have almost completed live trials of internet filtering technology are Unwired, Optus, Primus, Highway 1, Nelson Bay Online, Netforce, OMNIconnect, TECH 2U and Webshield.

The Opposition said not only were the trials delayed on several occasions, its methodology was beset with problems.

"Several of the participating ISPs announced are small in scale and there are serious questions about whether the relatively small number of customers that filtering technologies are being trialled on will produce any meaningful results.

"Senator Conroy has also failed to explain what metrics he will use to determine if the trials have been considered a success or failure, further undermining their credibility.

"It is time for Senator Conroy to end this farce and produce his long overdue trial results for independent assessment. It is looking increasingly like the Minister knows his mandatory internet censorship plan is simply unworkable, but is too embarrassed to admit it," Senator Minchin said in a statement.

A spokesman for Senator Conroy said: "The trial is expected to be completed around September with a report to be provided to the Minister following its conclusion."

Senator Conroy has called on Senator Minchin and the Liberal party to explain why they don’t support using the latest technology to restrict access to child abuse content and other refused classification (RC) material.

The government is examining the introduction of mandatory ISP level filtering for RC material as identified under the national classification scheme. This includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.

[Brocke]

Why they're taking sex out of Middlesex

Wed, September 9, 2009

County to change 'mouthful' of an address
   
By DEBORA VAN BRENK

There's no more sex in Middlesex -- at least not in the e-mail world.

Spam filters have been blocking so many computer messages from the County of Middlesex that the municipality has bought a new domain name.

The sex change means e-mail addresses will soon end in @mdlsx.ca, said CAO Bill Rayburn.

The current address -- with the suffix @county.middlesex.on.ca -- "is a mouthful" anyway, said Rayburn, who became aware of the problem when provincial officials occasionally told him they hadn't received his e-mails.

Then, when large batches of correspondence were returned as "undeliverable" a couple of years ago, it became clear others' e-mail filters -- which block unsolicited messages, including those from addresses selling sex aids and adult Internet sites -- were also stopping legitimate county mail.


Rayburn estimates 15% to 20% of outgoing mail has been subject to some glitch because of the address.

Most are resolved quickly and redirected to the proper in-box.

He expects the mdlsx.ca address will return less than 1% of outgoing mail, although he conceded, "even 'sx' is going to get caught by some spam filters."

Provincial ministries' filters seem to be tightest, Rayburn said.

"We're not the only one -- there are lots of 'sex'-es out there -- like Essex," Rayburn said.

The town of Essex hasn't had any issues, said CAO Wayne Miller. "We've had no complaints" that people aren't getting e-mails, he said, although the municipality did change its address from @townofessex.ca to @essex.ca because it's simpler.

West of London, in Middlesex Centre which includes Ilderton and Komoka, CAO/clerk Cathy Saunders said some mail has come back as undeliverable because of the "sex" in the address. But the problem isn't major enough that they would consider a name change.

"We would prefer to have people able to find us easily," she said.

And if people say they didn't get an e-mail they were expecting, she said, "we always tell people to check your junk mail, check your spam (filter) if you didn't get it."

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2009/09/09/10796701-sun.html

[Kilika]

Now that is funny! A government website getting filtered by it's own demands for filtering, and it's filtered because of sex! What a hoot.

...County to change 'mouthful' of an address...The sex change means...

I won't even go there!

[Brocke]

Pigeon transfers data faster than South Africa's Telkom

From correspondents in Johannesburg
Reuters
September 10, 2009 11:00am

    * Carrier pigeon moves faster than major ISP
    * Data card strapped to pigeon's leg for 80km
    * Technology: More gadget news, reviews

FRUSTRATED IT workers have shown that a pigeon can transfer data faster than a major internet service provider (ISP).

Workers at a South African information technology company this week proved it was faster for them to transmit data with a carrier pigeon than to send it using Telkom, the country's leading ISP.

Africa's largest economy has poor internet speed and connectivity – and high costs - because of a bandwidth shortage.

Local news agency SAPA reported the 11-month-old pigeon, Winston, took one hour and eight minutes to fly the 80 km from Unlimited IT's offices near Pietermaritzburg to the coastal city of Durban with a data card was strapped to its leg.

The transfer took two hours, six minutes and 57 seconds – including downloading from the pigeon's card.

During that time, only four per cent of the data was transferred using a Telkom line.

SAPA said Unlimited IT performed the stunt after becoming frustrated with slow internet transmission times.

The company has 11 call centres around the country and regularly sends data to its other branches.

Telkom could not immediately be reached for comment.

Internet speed is expected to improve once a new 17,000 km underwater fiber optic cable linking southern and East Africa to other networks becomes operational before South Africa hosts the soccer World Cup next year.

Local service providers are currently negotiating deals for more bandwidth.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,26053119-5014239,00.html

[Brocke]

 
EXCLUSIVE: W.H. collects Web users' data without notice

Originally published 04:45 a.m., September 16, 2009, updated 10:36 a.m., September 16, 2009
Audrey Hudson (Contact)

EXCLUSIVE:

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.

"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.

Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to "crawl and archive" all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.

Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to "social media" and to public comments "received by the president or immediate staff."

RELATED STORIES:
• Obama seeks Patriot Act extensions
• EXCLUSIVE: Wilson: Carter's racism claims a distraction
• U.S. envoys hesitate to report bad news

Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be "unprecedented" and "ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration."

An Obama campaign document on technology pledged that, as president, Mr. Obama "will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy."

In a June 5, 2008, article in PC Magazine, Mr. Obama said, "The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. We need sensible safeguards that protect privacy in this dynamic new world."

The National Legal and Policy Center, a government ethics watchdog, said archiving the sites would have a "chilling effect" on Web site users who might wish to leave comments critical of the administration.

Ken Boehm, a lawyer and chairman of the center, also disputed that the presidential records law applies, because the comments are pasted onto a third-party Web page and not official correspondence with the president.

"If the White House has nothing to hide, why is this cloaked in secrecy? Why won't they make the dollar amount this is going to cost public?" Mr. Boehm asked. "I don't think there is an expectation that this is being captured by the government and saved."

But Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, called the proposal "a positive development because it demonstrates a commitment from the Obama administration to meet its obligations under the Presidential Records Act."

"Additionally, I am encouraged to see the administration recognizing that it must find a way to handle the ever-expanding amount of data generated electronically. I hope the rest of the executive branch will learn from the president's leadership on this issue," Ms. McDermott said.

Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, called for congressional oversight of the practice of collecting data.

"Given the administration's disappointing secrecy in other contexts, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee encourages Congress to conduct oversight to ensure compliance with the law, maximize transparency and protect individual privacy," Mr. Buttar said.

According to the law, the term "presidential records" means documentary materials "created or received by the president, his immediate staff or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the president, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."

"It includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the president or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President," the law says.

David Almacy, who served as President George W. Bush's Internet director, said the Bush administration did not use the then-fledgling social-networking sites in the same manner as the Obama White House, except to upload presidential speeches onto iTunes. The White House, however, did archive comments posted to its official Web site.

The proposal issued Aug. 21 calls for a contractor to "crawl and archive" social-networking Web sites where the White House maintains an official presence on seven networks: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo and Slideshare.

The collection will include the comments, tags, graphics, audio and video posted by users who don't work for the White House.

The White House has more than 333,000 fans on Facebook, and posts updates several times a day that draw hundreds of thousands of comments, both positive and negative. The White House has more than 1 million followers on Twitter and more than 87,000 subscribers on YouTube, where more than 400 videos of the president and White House briefings are posted.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/16/obama-collecting-web-users-data/

[Brocke]

'Paranoid' China ramps up firewall

Agence France-Presse

September 30, 2009 03:57am

PRESS rights group Reporters Without Borders says a "paranoid" China has blocked tens of thousands of websites ahead of the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic.
The Paris-based group said that Chinese authorities had targeted Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and other ways that residents, including foreign reporters, used to circumvent controls on the internet.

The group said that "government security paranoia" in the run-up to tomorrow's anniversary was "turning into a major headache for internet users and reporters".

It estimated that tens of thousands of web addresses had become inaccessible in recent days and said it was even more difficult to reach Facebook, Twitter and other social networking and blogging sites that were already blocked.

"The Electronic Great Wall has never been as consolidated as it is now, on the eve of the October 1 anniversary, proving that the Chinese government is not so sure of its record," the group said.

It said that authorities particularly clamped down on websites linked to ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. Xinjiang in July saw China's deadliest ethnic unrest in decades that pitted the majority Uighur population against the nation's predominant Han ethnicity.
Related Coverage

    * China passes more web censorship lawsNEWS.com.au, 28 Sep 2009
    * China charges 21 over deadly riotsNEWS.com.au, 25 Sep 2009
    * Crackdown on 'ethnic separatists'NEWS.com.au, 19 Sep 2009
    * Syringe attacks rock Chinese provinceNEWS.com.au, 4 Sep 2009
    * Uighur 'terrorist' wants Rudd backingThe Australian, 30 Jul 2009

China's military plans a show of force tomorrow and is likely to parade its new intercontinental ballistic missiles as the Communist Party highlights the nation's transformation into a world power.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26145426-23109,00.html

[Brocke]

Web TV could come with a price tag after Comcast-NBC

Fri Oct 2, 2009 9:24pm EDT
By Yinka Adegoke - Analysis

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Free TV shows on the Internet could be harder to find if Comcast Corp succeeds in acquiring a majority stake in NBC Universal.

Comcast would become a partner in Hulu the video website which allows viewers to watch TV shows on the Web for free, a business potentially worth billions of dollars if consumers had to pay to watch the shows.

The video website is jointly owned by NBC Universal, News Corp and Walt Disney Co. Hulu is the most popular site in the United States for watching TV shows, according to comScore.

Comcast is in talks with General Electric Co, to buy 51 percent of NBC Universal, which would allow the cable operator to combine its cable assets with NBC's cable networks, movie studio and theme parks, according to people familiar with the talks.

Cable operators have downplayed investor fears that customers will drop cable for free TV on the Web. But privately they've warned TV networks they may stop paying affiliate fees if free TV shows keep cropping up on the Web.

Hulu had nearly 40 million unique viewers in August, web measurement company comScore said. That is more than Comcast's 24 million paying subscribers, which account for about $5 billion a quarter in revenue.

"We suspect Comcast believes it needs content to protect its landline distribution platform," Richard Greenfield, analyst at Pali Research, wrote in a note to investors on Friday. "It wants to mitigate the risk of becoming that scary 'dumb' pipe."

Comcast, the largest U.S. cable operator, has approached the Web's free TV threat by getting behind a service called TV Everywhere with Time Warner Inc. The idea behind TV Everywhere is to allow consumers to watch shows on the web -- so long as they are paying cable subscribers.

"This deal (Comcast-NBC) has major implications on the success of TV Everywhere," said Thomas Eagan, an analyst at Collins Stewart. "Comcast may decide to change Hulu to some degree to facilitate a premium Hulu service much faster."

Comcast has even tried to match Hulu with its own free TV website, Fancast. But while Hulu has come from nowhere to become the sixth most visited video site in the U.S. in just 18 months, Fancast hasn't even cracked the Top 10.

"Hulu was started by NBC and Fox so they could compete with Comcast. So this is a defensive move to some extent by Comcast," said Kaufman Bros. analyst Todd Mitchell. "Hulu will just become another choice of Comcast's pay-TV buffet."

If Comcast has a stake in Hulu's future, as Mitchell suggests, it effectively reduces competition to the cable sector.

Since web video is still a fledgling sector, however, it is unlikely to raise the hackles of U.S. regulators, said analysts.

Indeed, the Federal Communications Commission is likely to focus on other concerns if General Electric Co, which controls NBC Universal, decides to sell a 51 percent stake to Comcast, as sources have said the two sides are talking about.

Namely, the FCC may be concerned about combining NBC Universal's national broadcast network, NBC, and its huge range of cable networks, like Bravo and USA, with the largest cable operator in the country.

Paul Gallant, a telecom regulation analyst with Washington-based Concept Capital, said the deal would likely be approved by antitrust regulators and the FCC.

"The primary reason is that the two companies do not have a great deal of product overlap, and thus the competitive concerns appear to be fairly limited," Gallant said.

Gallant said the FCC already has program access rules that ensure that cable operators who own programing sell it to competitors at reasonable rates.

TV operators such as DirecTV Group, DISH Network, Verizon, AT&T may ask the FCC for a more effective enforcement process.

"Should the FCC pursue this angle, it could potentially hinder Comcast from realizing the full value of NBCU's programing," Gallant said.

(Additional reporting by John Poirier in Washington)

(Reporting by Yinka Adegoke; editing by Carol Bishopric),

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59208D20091003?sp=true

[Brocke]

Oh, the poor "military" they need to be "dragged" into the "21st century". Are they kidding? Who buys this BS? The military behind on technology...yeah right!   

Preemptive online strikes! You could destroy a country in a matter of hours by:

*shutting off all their power and water
*destroying their financial records
*cause mass confusion with disinfo
*knock out their satellite usage

It could be as deadly as any conventional weapon.


Elite Military Hacker Squad Would Stop Wars With Bits, Not Bombs
By John Herrman, 10:00 AM on Sat Oct 3 2009, 10,409 views (Edit, to draft, Slurp)



Efforts to drag our military's cybersecurity into the 21st century are well underway, but John Arquilla, professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, wants more: A preemptive international hacker force, which would cripple enemies before they even become a problem.

Existing plans for a new online defense strategy don't seem particularly bad, except for that first part: defense plans. The professor's idea is to deploy a much more proactive attack strategy:

        [Arquilla would] like the US military's coders to team up with network specialists abroad to form a global geek squad. Together,   
        they could launch preemptive online strikes to head off real-world battles.

        Armies (even guerrilla armies) are so dependent on digital communications these days that a well-placed network hit could hobble
        their forces. Do these cyberattacks right-and openly-and the belligerents will think twice before starting trouble. Arquilla calls his
        plan "a nonlethal way to deter lethal conflict."

The strategy makes the assumption that digital communications are completely vital to enemies big and small, which is generally true, and putting cyberwar directly before more traditional measures like sanctions could have a huge effect: If guerrilla groups can't organize, they won't be too effective; if governments can't use their vital defense networks, they're basically toothless. Wired's posted a few scenarios of how this could actually out, and even if they sound a little naive—they do—they're satisfying cinematic, for whatever that's worth.

http://gizmodo.com/5373257/elite-military-hacker-squad-would-stop-wars-with-bits-not-bombs

[Brocke]

Bill Would Give The President Control Of The Internet During a "Cybersecurity Emergency"

By Sean Fallon, 5:10 PM on Fri Aug 28 2009



A revised version of a bill first introduced in the Senate this past spring would give the President power to disconnect private sector computers from the internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency."

        The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer
        networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification
        programfor "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be
        managed by people who have been awarded that license.

Section 201 of the bill also seems to imply that the government can reserve the right to regulate "critical" private networks, which could include the disclosure of information.

        Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to
        the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic
        mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal
        government.

Naturally, there has been a lot of debate on both sides of the issue—some are calling the redraft unsettlingly "vague" while others insist that a bill of this nature is essential in order to protect our nation's digital infrastructure. What do you think? Is this crossing the line or should the government have the right to exercise its power over private networks?

[Brocke]

Travellers could be sued for hotel rants

By Angela Saurine
news.com.au
October 12, 2009 07:48am


    * Lawyers warn against online rants
    * Cases can be "extremely expensive"
    * All the latest travel news

TRAVELLERS who post scathing reviews or comments about hotels or restaurants could be exposing themselves to long and costly legal battles.

Media lawyer David Poulton, from MinterEllison Lawyers, said people making defamatory comments on sites such Tripadvisor and Twitter have little protection from the websites concerned.

He said there had been many cases where restaurant reviewers had been sued for harsh reviews in newspapers and magazines, and amateurs were also vulnerable.

"There's plenty of cases where what's been published on the internet has led to defamation proceedings," Mr Poulton said.

"In cases involving defamation law in some ways the exposure to damages might be the least of their worries because they're often extremely expensive and time consuming. They can drag on for months, if not years.

"You're certainly talking about hundreds of thousands in potential legal expenses and damages.

"You will probably find that most of these sites won't protect you and if they get sued as well, there will probably be terms and conditions that require you to indemnify them."

Mr Poulton also said people were not as anonymous as they thought they were when posting comments online.

"You can hope to get some degree of anonymity but if someone wants to complain about you they could track you down," he said.

Under Australia's libel laws, which cover written defamation, it is now extremely difficult for companies with more than 10 employees, such as large hotel chains, to sue.

But if the review deals with a small company - such as a family-owned bed and breakfast - there is the possibility of defamation.

If you defame an individual within a larger company, such as a hotel manager, that individual may decide to sue.

"People perhaps are not quite aware of the amount of power they have," Mr Poulter said.

"They may think their little story or clip on YouTube was just a bit of fun, but the power of the internet is it can be seen around the world.

"Individuals have the power to damage someone's reputation or put them out of business.

"That might not be their intention, but one of the things about defamation is your intention is irrelevant."

Associate Professor Barbara McDonald, of the University of Sydney, said people could be subject to the defamation laws of any country where their comment was downloaded.

"You could be subject to multiple defamation laws," she said.

"Your comment must be based on true facts and it's often hard to prove truth so you have to be careful.

"If you said a hotel was infested with cockroaches and it wasn't that could be defamatory."

Tripadvisor and Twitter did not respond to inquiries but a spokeswoman for social networking site Facebook said there was no obligation on behalf of the platform in terms of the comments users were making.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,26197059-5014090,00.html

[Brocke]

Melchert-Dinkel accused of encouraging people to commit suicide

By staff writers
news.com.au
October 17, 2009 05:15pm

    * Man "encouraged" suicide to web users
    * Would offer details on how to kill themselves
    * "Nothing is going to come of it," he says

A HOSPITAL nurse is under investigation for allegedly encouraging people he talked to on the internet to commit suicide.

As many as five people have either committed suicide or attempted to, leading authorities to place US man William Melchert-Dinkel under police investigation, ABC News reports.

The 47-year-old had his nursing license revoked in June after police started the investigation, but has not been charged with any offences yet.

Authorities said Mr Melchert-Dinkel messaged other users in chat rooms and forums pretending to offer sympathy before offering step-by-step instructions to them on how to kill themselves.

“Nothing is going to come of it,” Melchert-Dinkel told The Associated Press about the investigation.
“I've moved on with my life and that's it.”

Family members of the victims were frustrated he had not been arrested, with legal experts saying it would be difficult to convict him because he didn't physically help them die.

Mr Melchert-Dinkel allegedly used online handles such as “Li Dao,” “Cami” and “Falcon Girl” to talk to the victims.

He would enter suicide pacts with the users he chatted to, authorities said.

In a web conversation provided by the victim's mother, he allegedly gave a young woman, who was using the alias "Kajouji", sympathy before giving her technical details on how to hang herself.

One of the posts under the username “Cami” said: “I'm just trying to help you do what is best for you not me”.

Another post told “Kajouji”: “if you wanted to do hanging (sic) we could have done it together on line so it would not have been so scary for you.”

Mr Melchert-Dinkel was admitted into hospital in January 2009, with doctors noting he was “dealing with addiction to suicide Internet sites,"

He was also "feeling guilty because of past and present advice to those on the Internet of how to end their lives".

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26223399-401,00.html

[Brocke]

Pirate Bay Founders Banned From Running The Site
 


http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founders-banned-from-running-the-site-091029/

The Stockholm District Court has taken action against two founder members of The Pirate Bay. Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij are now banned from operating the site and will have to pay fines of $71,000 each if they continue. This, despite the fact that neither they nor the site remain in Sweden.

[Brocke]

Very interesting! I wonder why they chose to print this story?


Ways to destroy the internet

http://www.news.com.au/technology/gallery/0,23607,5060156-5014321,00.html#

The internet seems to be all-powerful and indestructible - but in theory it can be destroyed in a number of outlandish ways.

1. Cut the cables

To destroy the internet, a strategic starting point would be to destroy the undersea cables that connect every continent.

You could use submarines with giant scissors - but the cables are not that difficult to destroy. Earthquakes, fishing trawlers and shark bites have been known to cause breaks / AFP

2. Cyber war

Cyberspace could become the battlefield of choice for countries wishing to gain the upper hand in an international arena.

Nations could deploy armies of hackers instead of armed military forces to disrupt communications, launch unstoppable viruses and take out sections of the internet.

When two superpowers go to cyberwar, the cost will not be in blood, but in 404's.

3. Subvert DNS

Security researcher Dan Kaminsky last year stumbled across a vulnerability in the Domain Name System (DNS) that had the potential to destroy the internet's foundations.

The security flaw allowed hackers to potentially reroute users to any website or block access.

According to Securosis analyst Rich Mogull: "You'd have the internet, but it wouldn't be the internet you expect. (Hackers) would control everything." / File photo

4. Eliminate the hardware

Destroying the hardware that allows internet access would be improbable, but not impossible.

This would mean that every single online communications system would have to go down.

One way would be disabling electronics with an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) within a 10km radius. It's not effective on a worldwide scale, but if the idea can be manipulated for a global EMP then it might be feasible / File photo

5. Censorship

Both the internet and the World Wide Web were designed as open forums for free ideas and expression, but countries have pushed to censor objectionable materials.

Countries such as China have implemented strong censorship in an attempt to neutralize political opposition. This is dubbed "The Great Firewall of China".

Although censoring the internet only affects parts of the global community, it destroys the idea on which the network was created / AP

6. Botnets

A botnet is the name given to a collection of infected computers (or "zombies") that automatically distribute malicious software, viruses, spam and trojans in an attempt to infect other computers.

The Conficker worm came from a particularly nasty botnet estimated to have burrowed its way into almost nine million computers worldwide. It had the potential of producing 10 billion articles of spam per day / File photo

7. Spam

Spam is an inevitable consequence of the internet with advertisers, marketers and Nigerian scams all trying to exploit users.

Spammers all over the world use thousands of zombie computers and in 2007, SophosLabs found that over a quarter of the world's spam originated in the US.

Not only is spam incredibly annoying, it may be used to transmit viruses, trojans and malicious software with the intent of corrupting more computers, turning them into zombies.

8. Unstoppable virus

Similar to the scenes in Terminator 3, a self-replicating computer virus with the potential to distribute itself globally and become invulnerable to destruction may not only spell the end of the internet, but the end of humanity / AP

9. Hack the servers

Internet service providers (ISPs) link customers to the world wide web. If they were taken down systematically, many people would lose online access.

This would essentially starve the web of users, content and traffic. 

10. Switch off

Switching off means that if everyone connected to a system that accesses the world wide web turns off, it would become a barren wasteland of unclicked hyperlinks and unwatched videos.

So instead of viewing technology galleries you might actually be doing your work / Peter Clark

[Brocke]

RIM security chief sees smartphone attacks on horizon

Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:32pm EST

By Wojtek Dabrowski and Jim Finkle

TORONTO/BOSTON (Reuters) - Hackers could one day turn ordinary smartphones into "rogue" devices to attack major wireless networks, Research In Motion's security chief warned.

Scott Totzke, RIM's vice-president of BlackBerry security, said hackers could use smartphones to target wireless carriers using a technique similar to one used in assaults that slowed Internet traffic in the United States and South Korea in July.

In what's known as a distributed denial of service, or a DDOS attack, criminals use phone signals to order tens of thousands computers to contact a targeted site repeatedly, slowing it or eventually crashing it.

"I think that's an area of concern," Totzke said in an interview this week at the company's headquarters in Waterloo, Ontario.

Totzke said a technique involving data packets might be used to bring down a wireless network, though hackers might accomplish that using a relatively small number of smartphones.

Malicious software that could launch such attacks would likely come from applications that smartphone users install on their devices, said Kevin Mahaffey, chief technology officer at Flexilis, a mobile security software maker.

Flexilis researchers have already identified virus-tainted versions of popular smartphone applications such as Google Inc's Google Maps software and computer games.

"These are not telephones anymore. These are computers. So people are going to have all the problems on their phones that they have on their computers," Mahaffey said.

The best way to protect against such an attack is through regularly applying security patches, which smartphone makers such as RIM release as they identify potential security flaws in their devices, Totzke said.

(Reporting by Wojtek Dabrowski and Jim Finkle in Boston; editing by Frank McGurty)

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE5AG5BQ20091117

[Brocke]

Originally posted in General Discussion by oyashango

U.S. and Russia Open Talks on Limits to War in Cyberspace

JOHN MARKOFF and ANDREW E. KRAMER
Published: December 12, 2009

The United States has begun talks with Russia and a United Nations arms control committee about strengthening Internet security and limiting military use of cyberspace.

American and Russian officials have different interpretations of the talks so far, but the mere fact that the United States is participating represents a significant policy shift after years of rejecting Russia’s overtures. Officials familiar with the talks said the Obama administration realized that more nations were developing cyberweapons and that a new approach was needed to blunt an international arms race....

More Here http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=151278.0;topicseen

[Godfather77]

Australia introduces web filters
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Full article:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8413377.stm

Australia intends to introduce filters which will ban access to websites containing criminal content.

The banned sites will be selected by an independent classification body guided by complaints from the public, said Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

Mr Conroy said the filters included optional extras such as a ban on gambling sites which ISPs could choose to implement in exchange for a grant.

"Through a combination of additional resources for education and awareness, mandatory internet filtering of RC (refused classification)-rated content, and optional ISP-level filtering, we have a package that balances safety for families and the benefits of the digital revolution," he said.

The filter laws will be introduced in parliament in August 2010 and will take a year to implement.

"Historical attempts to put filters in place have been effective up to a point," Dr Windsor Holden, principal analyst at Juniper Research, told BBC News.

The "noble aims" of the filter could be lost in its implementation, he warned.

"Clearly there is a need to protect younger and more vulnerable users of the net, but one concern is that it won't just be illegal websites that will be blocked," he added.

"You have to take extreme caution in how these things are rolled out and the uses to which they're put."

[Brocke]

Untangling the Net - The Scope of Content Caught by Mandatory Internet Filtering
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24138351/Untangling-the-Net-The-Scope-of-Content-Caught-by-Mandatory-Internet-Filtering

"Australia is the only western country identified by the international NGO Reporters Without Borders (RWB) as being ‘under surveillance’ as a potential ‘enemy of the internet’. Australia’s proposed filtering regime, operating at the level of the ISP to “force all service providers to filter private Internet connections in each home to remove all ‘inappropriate’ content” is offered as the main justification for RWB setting it apart in this way from all other liberal democracies."

Given this general European and north American approach to the regulation of the internet, Australia is the only western country identified by the international NGO Reporters Without Borders (RWB) as being ‘under surveillance’ as a potential ‘enemy of the internet’. Australia’s proposed filtering regime, operating at the level of the ISP to “force all service providers to filter private Internet connections in each home to remove all ‘inappropriate’ content” is offered as the main justification for RWB setting it apart in this way from all other liberal democracies. Since Australia has been singled out in this way by RWB for discussing the possible introduction of an ISP-level filter, its implementation would be likely to have significant ramifications for Australia’s place in lists which monitor internet freedoms, such as those compiled by the Harvard, Toronto, Cambridge and Oxford University-sponsored Open Net Initiative. An examination of ONI’s evaluation of countries which engage in filtering of social and political content, which do not currently include any western liberal democracies, indicates that an Australian mandatory filter would probably qualify the country for inclusion as engaging in ‘selective filtering’ of social and political content. This is on the basis of material already judged by Australian courts to be legitimately repressed, although it is clear that there is no intention that the public should be allowed to scrutinise the up to 10,000 sites to be blocked by Australia’s mandatory ISP filter, should it be enacted.   As a parting observation, using the printed charts from the Feb 2008 ONI-based publication, Access Denied, and comparing these with the online materials current in Nov 2009, of the 14 countries which were judged as using selective filtering of political or social content in the book, two had since been re-classified as using ‘substantial filtering’ while a third had become labelled as a ‘pervasive’ filterer of online material. All changes over this comparatively short time frame had been in the direction of greater repression of material: none of the regimes indicated had become more liberal.

[Freeski]

Untangling the Net - The Scope of Content Caught by Mandatory Internet Filtering
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24138351/Untangling-the-Net-The-Scope-of-Content-Caught-by-Mandatory-Internet-Filtering

"Australia is the only western country identified by the international NGO Reporters Without Borders (RWB) as being ‘under surveillance’ as a potential ‘enemy of the internet’. Australia’s proposed filtering regime, operating at the level of the ISP to “force all service providers to filter private Internet connections in each home to remove all ‘inappropriate’ content” is offered as the main justification for RWB setting it apart in this way from all other liberal democracies."

To think they think they have the right to control us... it's absurd. I was looking at a block list today and saw a porn site called abbywinters listed repeatedly. It's Australian. If you go press.abbywinters .com, you can see that they're fighting like Larry Flynt did back in the 80s and 90s. "I may be guilty of bad taste, but as far as I know, bad taste isn't a crime."

[Brocke]

Net censorship move a smokescreen: expert

Asher Moses
December 16, 2009 - 2:51PM

One of Australia's top communications experts says the Government's internet censorship trials were designed to succeed from the outset, presented no new information and are now being used by the Government to further its political agenda.

His comments came after Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday announced he would introduce legislation before next year's elections forcing ISPs to block a secret blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australian internet users.

Separately, a report into the scope of content that will be caught up in the net filters concluded that the Government's policy might lead to a wide range of innocuous material disappearing from Australians' computer screens.

Commentators in Australia and overseas have interpreted Senator Conroy's policy as pushing the country towards being like repressive regimes such as China and Iran.

University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt said the Government had still failed to address serious issues such as whether the internet filtering scheme would result in any meaningful reduction in harmful content and whether it was worth the effort, given the risk that the scope of blocked content could widen significantly.

"There's no clear definition of refused classification that can be debated in society ... [and] once you put a label such as refused classification in place, that doesn't mean that the meaning cannot be changed," he said in a phone interview.

Landfeldt detailed these issues and many others in an official report presented to the Government in February last year, which concluded that schemes to block inappropriate content such as child pornography were fundamentally flawed.

The report, which also questioned whether Australian children were in fact stumbling across child porn and other nasty content while browsing, was kept secret for many months and was only made public after its existence was detailed in media reports.

Filtering trials designed to succeed

Conroy justified his policy yesterday by presenting a pilot trial report, compiled by Enex Testlabs, which found that blocking a blacklist of sites can be done with 100 per cent accuracy and without slowing down the internet.

"The Government would have known since long before our [2008] report was put out that doing blacklist-based filtering on a large scale is very doable - British Telecom has done it for many years and it is a very big organisation," Landfeldt said in a phone interview.

"But so far there's no evidence put forward that this will be effective in putting any serious dent in the availability of such content on the internet. It is clear that there are very strong political motives behind this."

Harmless content will be blocked

The Government has repeatedly pointed to child porn and sexual abuse material as examples of what will be targeted by the censors but, as the leaking of the communications regulator's blacklist in March revealed, the RC category includes scores of legal material.

This was reaffirmed today by a report compiled by the leading Australian media public policy academics, Professors Catherine Lumby, Lelia Green and John Hartley.

They found that, if the filtering plan went ahead, Australian adults would not be able to access material that is completely legal to view under Australian law.

"According to the most recent data only 32 per cent of the sites on the Australian Communication and Media Authority [ACMA] blacklist related to child pornography," the report found.

"The figures indicate 68 per cent of websites on the blacklist were blocked for reasons other than child pornography, including content that has been classified R18+, X18+, RC and unspecified."

The report gives several examples of legitimate content that could well be blocked from the Australian internet:

- A site debating the merits of euthanasia in which some participants exchanged information about actual euthanasia practices.

- A site set up by a community organisation to promote harm minimisation in recreational drug use.

- A site providing a safe space for young gay and lesbians to discuss their sexuality.

- A site that includes dialogue and excerpts from literary classics such as Nabokov's Lolita or sociological studies into sexual experiences, such as Dr Alfred Kinsey's famous Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male.

- A site devoted to discussing the geopolitical causes of terrorism that published material outlining the views of terrorist organisations as reference material.

The Australian Sex Party said today that blocking RC websites would cut off access to 95 per cent of the world's 4 million adult websites as many overseas porn sites have much broader parameters in their X-rating than the classification system in Australia.

"The biggest selling porn movie in the world, Pirates, has been given an RC rating in Australia because it featured an animated duelling scene with two skeletons," party convener Fiona Patten said.

Landfeldt said the RC rating could also encompass footage of war atrocities and other historical events, such as the Holocaust which might not be suitable for viewing by children but could be extremely relevant to adults.

"I have a filter at home for my oldest daughter - it's voluntary and it works really well," Landfeldt said.

The Howard government provided free software PC filters to all Australian families but this was axed by the Rudd Government in favour of its ISP-level filtering plan.

But the Government has acknowledged that even these ISP filters could easily be circumvented by motivated individuals. Furthermore, the filtering will initially apply only to web pages, and experts say online predators will just move to other mediums such as peer-to-peer file sharing programs and email.

Accountability measures questionable

Conroy yesterday released a discussion paper outlining possible measures to improve the accountability and transparency of processes that lead to sites being placed on the blacklist.

But Landfeldt, who analysed the paper, said it appeared that the same government bureaucrats who put together ACMA's flawed blacklist would remain the arbitrators of what goes on the new blacklist.

"It encompasses people and organisations that are currently involved in classification with very vague notions of the general public being able to comment on or having any influence over how this is being carried out and handled," he said.

Landfeldt said one positive to come out of the Government's report was that the focus has been narrowed to mandating "refused classification" content filtering based on a blacklist.

Earlier, Conroy had referred to blocking "unwanted" and "prohibited" content using a dynamic process that would analyse websites in real-time. Experts had warned this would significantly slow down the internet.

But Landfeldt said there had still been no consideration given to how internet usage would change when the Government rolled out its super-fast National Broadband Network (NBN).

"The NBN will enable Australia to move beyond the World Wide Web and into a situation where we have made real use of more sophisticated forms of media, much more streaming media, video, audio content," he said.

"Material may not be as static as it is now, which means that the blacklist will go out of date.

"If you want to mandate this filtering and see if it's applicable to the NBN, you need to conduct different experiments."

Conroy's spokesman, Tim Marshall, has failed to return calls for several days requesting comment.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html

[Brocke]

Credit to luckee1 for posting this first here > http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=152960.0


Report: FBI probes hacker attack on Citigroup
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091222/ap_on_hi_te/us_citigroup_cyber_crime
 Tue Dec 22, 3:52 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The FBI is investigating a hacker attack on Citigroup Inc. that led to the theft of tens of millions of dollars, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. The bank strenuously denied the report.

Citing anonymous government officials, the Journal reported that the hackers were connected to a Russian cyber gang. Two other computer systems, at least one of connected to a U.S. government agency, were also attacked...

More
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=152960.0

[Brocke]

Parents 'put sex acts with child online'

    * From: AAP
    * January 05, 2010 5:19PM

A SYDNEY man who, along with his wife, allegedly repeatedly sexually assaulted their nine-year-old son and posted the footage online, seemingly believed his behaviour was "part of a lifestyle'', a magistrate has noted.

The 56-year-old man and his 48-year-old wife, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were arrested on November 16 at their Peakhurst home, in Sydney's southwest, where the offences allegedly occurred last year.

Dressed in prison greens, the father faced court by audio visual link today, where his solicitor Michael Betts applied for bail.

If granted bail, Mr Betts said the man intended to return to the family home at Peakhurst where he has lived all his life, and which he shares with his mother.

"He is in a position to be able to forfeit $40,000 (surety) ... (and) there are no concerns as to his returning to court,'' Mr Betts said of his client.

He further argued bail was "appropriate'' because of "lengthy delays'' in the prosecution's preparation of the brief of evidence.

However, Magistrate Allan Moore refused the application, citing concerns about "the nature of the behaviour''.

''(The accused) would seem to express a view that his behaviour is a part of a lifestyle and that in itself would cause concern,'' he said.

The man is charged with two counts of sexual intercourse with his son, as well as an act of aggravated indecency, using a child for pornographic purposes, aggravated indecent assault, and producing and disseminating child pornography.

Some of the sex acts were streamed "live'' online using a webcam, police allege.

The woman is also charged with having sex with her son, inciting that act, inciting an act of indecency, and knowing of the child's abuse "for months'' and failing to inform authorities.

She did not appear in court today and her matter was only mentioned briefly to be adjourned until February 4 in the same court, along with her husband.

Charges for both will be listed for mention on January 28.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/parents-put-sex-acts-with-child-online/story-e6frfku0-1225816339174

[Brocke]

This is the response I received from the Government for signing an online petition against manditory ISP-Level filtering here in Australia.

Look out America, your next. Don't let them do this to you!!!


Cyber-safety and internet service provider filtering

Thank you for your correspondence concerning cyber-safety and internet service provider (ISP) filtering. I appreciate your interest in this important issue.

The Australian Government recognises that the internet is an essential tool for all Australians through which they can exchange information, be entertained, socialise, do school work and research. The ability to use online tools effectively provides both a skill for life and the means to acquire new skills.

Unfortunately the internet can also be used inappropriately. It has provided a powerful new medium which can be used to distribute material which is not acceptable to most Australians, particularly children.

The complexity of the issue is why the Government has always maintained there is no silver bullet solution to cyber-safety. In developing our approach we have been informed by the Government's pilot of ISP-level filtering and extensive industry feedback about the most appropriate way 10 improve safety online. In particular our approach has been informed by the constructive input of Australia's four largest ISPs, who came forward with a set of principles which the Government has taken into account.

The Government's approach involves a comprehensive suite of measures to address the range of issues and challenges faced by families when they are online. These measures build upon the Government' s existing cyber-safety plan which includes law enforcement, education and information, research and international co-operation. $125.8 million was allocated to this plan in the 2007-08 budget, which included funding for 91 Australian Federal Police officers to the Child Protection Operations Team.

The Government has recently announced three new measures 10 enhance its existing cyber-safety program , all from within the existing funding:

• Introduction of mandatory ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification (RC) content in order to reduce the risk of inadvertent exposure. RC material includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.

• A grants program to encourage ISPs to alter additional filtering services to households on a commercial basis and optional basis.

• Funding ors 17 million over five years for a range of education, awareness and counseling services based on recommendations from the Government's 300 strong Youth Advisory Group, and advice from its Consultative Working Group on cyber-safety.

These measures tackle the issue of cyber-safety frol11 a number of directions and provide parents and carers with the necessary information to assist with this task.
 
ISP-level filtering of RC content

The Government will introduce legislation to require ISPs to block URLs (a specific address of content that leads to a web page) of overseas hosted content which is rated RC. This is content that is currently unable to be hosted with in Australia. RC rated content is illegal to distribute, sell. display or make available for hire in any format in Australia: one cannot obtain such material on the shelves of libraries, news agencies or in the cinema. It certainly cannot be viewed on television or hired on a DVD.

Enex Test lab, an independent testing laboratory, recently completed a live pilot into the effectiveness and efficiency of ISP-level filtering. The pilot involved nine ISPs of varying sizes and their customers. and assessed a number of different filtering technologies.

Enex found that a defined list of URLs can be filtered with 100 per cent accuracy, and negligible impact on internet speed. Telstra's own testing. has provided the same results.

Th is pilot. and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies. shows that ISP-level filtering or a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100 per cent accuracy. It also demonstrated that it can be done with negligible impact on internet speed.

Filtering technologies have been adopted on a voluntary basis by lSI's in a number of countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Finland. predominantly to filter child pornography. In these countries, ISP filtering has not affected internet performance to a noticeable level. Germany has passed legislation to block such content and Italy has issued a Ministerial decree.

Some opponents of the policy arc trying to misrepresent the figures in the Enex Testlabs report by suggesting that a figure of less than ten per cent is substantial. To put that into the context of real time. Australia's largest ISP, Telstra, undertook its own testing that showed the impact on internet performance would be less than one seventieth of the blink of an eye!

Under the National Classification Scheme and related enforcement legislation. it is already illegal to distribute, sell or make available for hire RC rated films, computer games and publications.

This material is currently subject to take-down notices by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) if it is hosted in Australia. However, ACMA is unable to directly regulate content hosted overseas.

The Government will therefore introduce legislative amendments to Parliament to require ailI SPs. statting twelve months from the passage of the legislation, to filter RC material hosted on overseas servers.

The Government has always said that filtering is not a silver bullet solution and that it is possible that filtering may be circumvent ted by a technically competent user; however, it is part of a suite of measures that will help to reduce the risk of inadvertant exposure to RC material, particularly by children .

The Government will discuss with industry measures to help small er ISPs to filter the RC Content list if they cannot access a the filtered wholesale or resold service.

RC content list

The RC Content list will be compiled based on public complaints 10 ACMA. which will be assessed using existing criteria set out in the National Classification Scheme. Where the material is found to be RC. it will be added to the list.

ACMA will also add the URLs of known child abuse material through sharing lists with highly regarded international agencies after an assessment or the rigor or the processes used by these agencies to compile their lists.

ACMA is receiving additional funding to enhance the security of the RC Content list and to automate its transmission to ISPs.

Accountability and transparency

The Government is seeking submissions from the public on additional measures to improve the accountability and transparency of processes that lead to RC material being placed on the RC Content list.

Some of the options raised include the use of block pages and appeal mechanisms. notification to website owners or RC content. and a review of classification processes by an independent expel1 and repOJ1 to the Australian parliament.

The consultation paper is available at www.dbcde.gov.au/cybersafetyplan

Additional optional ISP-level filtering

ISP's will be encouraged to offer additional filtering services through the availability of government assistance. This is not mandatory.

For families that wish 10 have a wider range of material filtered. including potentially X 18+ content and gambling sites. The Government will establish a grants program to encourage ISPs to offer these services on a commercial bas is. This will help parents 10 choose what they want filtered .

Education, awareness and counseling

To further provide Australian internet users, particularly children, with a safer online environment. additional funding has been allocated to ACMA to continue and expand education activities to help deal with cyber-safety risks. including cyber bullying.

In particular waiting times for schools participating in the ACMA cyber-safety outreach program will be reduced, and the operating hours for the Cyber-Safety Online Help line will be increased to ensure its availability when children are most at risk.

Information on both the existing and new cyber-safety measures is Available at www.dbcde.gov.au/cybersafetyplan. This information includes the Enex report or the ISP filtering live pilot, frequently asked questions. and the public consultation paper on measures to improve accountability and transparency or the RC Content list.
 
Thank you for your interest in this mailer. I trust this information will be of assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Conroy

Minister for Broadband,
Communications and the Digital Economy

[Brocke]

Cyberattacks aimed at defence groups

By Joseph Menn in San Francisco, Kathrin Hille in Beijing and Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: January 14 2010 05:46 | Last updated: January 14 2010 23:50

The cyber­attacks that have compromised computers at Google and other US technology companies doing business in China have also been aimed at extracting secrets from defence contractors, investigators said on Thursday.

Malicious software on machines at companies attacked in the latest blitz sent proprietary data off to six web addresses in Taiwan that had received information from US defence groups before.

The defence companies had been attacked using methods similar to those deployed against nearly three dozen high-tech groups including Google, which went public with the spying matter this week, pointing a finger at the Chinese government.

“Partners of ours in the defence industry said that those addresses have been used in attacks before,” said Eli Jellenc of iDefense, a Virginia security firm hired by some of the recent targets. He said Taiwan was merely the last stop on the trail, not a suspect itself, and that the campaign was now seen to be after military information as well as high-tech know-how and data on domestic activists.

Mr Jellenc and others involved in the inquiry said the attacks used several techniques simultaneously. Microsoft confirmed that a previously unknown vulnerability in its Internet Explorer web browser had been used in the attacks and promised to issue a patch.

Other companies attacked in the spying effort that confirming their involvement included security software provider Symantec, which has a Chengdu research centre jointly owned with Chinese firm Huawei, and more than 1,000 of its employees. Symantec said it was “thoroughly investigating”.

Defence group Northrop Grumman and web portal Yahoo did not dispute reports that they had been attacked as well.

Google has turned the breaches into a debate over the Chinese government’s attitude to both intellectual property and censorship of the web, threatening to withdraw from the country rather than continue to suppress search results.

One of China’s top propaganda officials yesterday reaffirmed the state’s commitment to online control, showing no sign of compromise, while the US backed Google more solidly.

Wang Chen, head of China’s State Council Information Office and deputy head of the Communist party’s propaganda department, said online media “must live up to their responsibility of maintaining internet security”.

Mr Wang did not mention Google by name, but his remarks were seen as Beijing’s first response to the group’s threat to quit the country.

In a lengthy statement published on a Chinese government website, Mr Wang said China faced new challenges in regulating the internet and that “Online media must treat the creation of a positive mainstream opinion environment as an important duty.” He said China has also been “a victim of hackers and resolutely opposes hacking”.

“To maintain internet security, we need international co-operation and close co-ordination.”

An adviser to the Obama administration supported Google, in the latest sign that the relationship between Washington and Beijing is entering a more turbulent phase than just a few weeks ago.

In some of the strongest comments yet on the case, a senior administration official gave US “approval, admiration and support for what Google has said in not participating in censorship of its site”. The official also expressed solidarity with Google’s complaint about cyber­attacks: “A lot of American institutions have faced intrusions and certainly many of them have come from Chinese origin.”

Meanwhile, the American Chamber of Commerce in China said its members were optimistic about future prospects, but  concerned about the security of commercial correspondence, data and networks.

Google showed no sign of bending. “We’ve said already that we will be taking a new approach in China,” the company said, adding that it had made contact with the Chinese authorities over the issue. David Drummond, chief legal officer, said in a radio interview that he expected talks to start very soon.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f03470e8-00cd-11df-a4cb-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=adc119e2-003b-11df-8626-00144feabdc0.html

[Brocke]

Beijing seeks to limit Google fallout

By Kathrin Hille in Beijing
Published: January 15 2010 14:33 | Last updated: January 15 2010 17:13

China on Friday sought to portray Google’s threat to pull out of the country as a narrow commercial dispute rather than a pressing political issue.

In a low-key response – the first government statement on the issue to mention Google directly by name – Yao Jian, ministry of commerce spokesman, said the dispute would not affect broader Sino-US trade and economic relations.

This contrasted with a statement by Washington later on Friday that it would present Beijing with a formal diplomatic complaint in the coming days.

Mr Ywo said his ministry had so far not received any formal notice that the US internet company would leave China.

“Foreign companies including Google should all follow international standards and respect local law and regulations and local culture and customs to shoulder social responsibility,” he said. But he added that China would try its best to create a sound investment environment.

Google’s announcement that there had been large-scale cyberattacks out of China on it and other US companies has revived global debate about the security threat that China poses to western nations.

The Obama administration has given high-profile backing for Google’s stance. David Shear, US deputy assistant secretary for east Asian and Pacific affairs, met a Chinese diplomat in Washington on Thursday to seek an explanation for the cyberattacks, said a state department spokesman.

”The incident raises questions about both internet freedom and the security of the internet in China,” he said.

However, Beijing’s decision to address the issue through the commerce ministry seems intended to signal that it wants to limit the political fallout.

Mr Yao appealed to foreign investors to keep their confidence in the Chinese market, reminding them that the country has the world’s largest internet-using population.

The number of the country’s internet users soared by one-third over the past six months to 380m, the China Internet Network Information Centre said in its semiannual statistical report on Friday, a trend that will weigh heavily with most technology companies.

Microsoft said on Thursday it had no plans to pull out of China. ”I don’t understand how that helps anything. I don’t understand how that helps us and I don’t understand how that helps China,” said Steve Ballmer, Microsoft chief executive.

Google continued to censor its search results on its China site on Friday. Talks with the authorities have yet to start, but the company appears to have taken fresh security measures in China.

Employees at Google’s research centre in Beijing said they had been given the day off on Thursday. Two engineering employees said that on returning on Friday, they did not have the same access to internal systems as before.

Security experts have pointed to the risk that Google employees in China may have used their access to the company’s software to pass on security-relevant information to hackers.

The Chinese government’s response follows its standard strategy in dealing with disputes with the international business community.

Last month, when several international business associations accused Beijing of shutting foreign companies out of government contracts by demanding that they seek special certification, the government also sought to avoid an escalation.

Similarly, when the government infuriated foreign technology companies last year with a sudden demand that a Chinese-made filtering software should be pre-installed on all PCs to be sold in the country, Beijing said it had not received any complaints and later blamed the move on bad communication.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/76789596-01d0-11df-b8cb-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=adc119e2-003b-11df-8626-00144feabdc0.html

[Brocke]

Google cyber attack may have had help from inside

    * From: NewsCore
    * January 19, 2010 4:08AM

GOOGLE is investigating the possibility that last week's cyber attacks may have been carried out with the help of some of its own employees in China.

Citing two sources, Reuters said that the attack targeted people inside Google who had specific knowledge of Google networks.

The sophistication of the attack was in knowing specifically who to attack within the company, and not the actual potency of the attack itself, according to the sources.

Reuters cited security analysts as saying that the malicious software used in the attack was a modification of a "trojan," software that, once inside a computer, allows someone to attain unauthorized access.

"We're not commenting on rumor and speculation. This is an ongoing investigation, and we simply cannot comment on the details," a Google spokeswoman told Reuters when confronted with the report.

Last week Google announced that it would no longer tolerate Chinese censorship of its search results and may shut its operations in China following the alleged cyberattack.

The Beijing News reported last week that engineers at Google’s office in China had had their access to the company's global database shut off and could no longer work, citing anonymous sources inside the company.

A Google spokesperson downplayed the report in a comment to AFP, saying: "Google China employees are now back at work and it's business as usual."

Google confirmed that it expects to hold talks with the Chinese government soon.

The US government has asked for an explanation from Beijing over the matter.


(This article is provided by NewsCore, which aggregates news from around News Corporation.)

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/google-cyber-attack-may-have-had-help-from-inside/story-e6frfku0-1225821047051


Google: Employees May Have Aided China Cyber Attack

Monday, Jan 18, 2010 @09:06am CST

(Shanghai, China) -- Google employees may have helped orchestrate a cyber attack from China.

Last week, the company announced it may shut down its China operations altogether over free speech concerns and a hacker attack that resulted in the theft of secure information.

Sources familiar with the situation say the attack may have been plotted and carried out by people working inside Google's China headquarters.

The sophisticated attack used spyware to target certain computers, allowing the attackers unauthorized access.

Officials in Washington have since become involved, asking China for a formal explanation for the attacks.

The apparent cyber spying has sparked new concerns that China could be attempting to infiltrate computers in the United States in an attempt to gather military data.

http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=130162

[Anti_Illuminati]

Google cyber attack may have had help from inside

    * From: NewsCore
    * January 19, 2010 4:08AM

GOOGLE is investigating the possibility that last week's cyber attacks may have been carried out with the help of some of its own employees in China.

Citing two sources, Reuters said that the attack targeted people inside Google who had specific knowledge of Google networks.

The sophistication of the attack was in knowing specifically who to attack within the company, and not the actual potency of the attack itself, according to the sources.

Reuters cited security analysts as saying that the malicious software used in the attack was a modification of a "trojan," software that, once inside a computer, allows someone to attain unauthorized access.

"We're not commenting on rumor and speculation. This is an ongoing investigation, and we simply cannot comment on the details," a Google spokeswoman told Reuters when confronted with the report.

Last week Google announced that it would no longer tolerate Chinese censorship of its search results and may shut its operations in China following the alleged cyberattack.

The Beijing News reported last week that engineers at Google’s office in China had had their access to the company's global database shut off and could no longer work, citing anonymous sources inside the company.

A Google spokesperson downplayed the report in a comment to AFP, saying: "Google China employees are now back at work and it's business as usual."

Google confirmed that it expects to hold talks with the Chinese government soon.

The US government has asked for an explanation from Beijing over the matter.


(This article is provided by NewsCore, which aggregates news from around News Corporation.)

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/google-cyber-attack-may-have-had-help-from-inside/story-e6frfku0-1225821047051


Google: Employees May Have Aided China Cyber Attack

Monday, Jan 18, 2010 @09:06am CST

(Shanghai, China) -- Google employees may have helped orchestrate a cyber attack from China.

Last week, the company announced it may shut down its China operations altogether over free speech concerns and a hacker attack that resulted in the theft of secure information.

Sources familiar with the situation say the attack may have been plotted and carried out by people working inside Google's China headquarters.

The sophisticated attack used spyware to target certain computers, allowing the attackers unauthorized access.

Officials in Washington have since become involved, asking China for a formal explanation for the attacks.

The apparent cyber spying has sparked new concerns that China could be attempting to infiltrate computers in the United States in an attempt to gather military data.

http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=130162

This is the kind of news that will further help to completely and permanently discredit psychopath traitorous trash like Jay Rockefeller and James Lewis of CSIS.

[Brocke]

FALSE FLAG!!!

Here we go, the Hegelian Dialectic in high gear. This is not a news report it is a press release from the Australian Ministry for Propaganda!!!


Government websites hacked by Anonymous over censorship

    * From: Reuters
    * February 10, 2010 2:50PM
    * 102 comments

 

The Anonymous flyer for the hack attack that took down Government websites. Source: news.com.au

    * Hackers take down Government websites
    * Protesting claims of new porn censorship
    * Same group behind Scientology protests

COMPUTER hackers disabled several Australian government websites today in coordinated attacks protesting against a planned internet filter aimed at pornography.

The attacks, confirmed by the Attorney-General's Department, crippled Australia's parliamentary website for almost an hour, including the Communications Department, which is pushing a compulsory internet filter for pornography and offensive content.

The attacks were launched by hackers aligned with an anti-Church of Scientology group known as "Anonymous."

"No government should have the right to refuse its citizens access to information solely because they perceive it to be 'unwanted'," the group said in an email.

"The Australian government will learn that one does not mess with our porn."

The group is protesting the Government's internet filtering plan which would block a list of banned websites, including child abuse material and pornography. Laws will be introduced to parliament soon.

The Australian Sex Party claims pornographic films are being rejected by censors because they contain female ejaculation or star small-breasted women who could be confused as minors.

A poll this week by McNair Ingenuity Research for the state broadcaster found 80 per cent of the 1000 respondents backed the filter plan, which is strongly opposed by free speech groups.

The Communications Department said the hackers had not infiltrated government security, but had instead swamped government computer servers.

"Australian Parliament House website (www.aph.gov.au) was unavailable this morning for approximately 50 minutes due to a distributed denial of service attack by individuals belonging to the 'Anonymous' group. It is now back on line," a spokeswoman said.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/government-websites-hacked-by-anonymous-over-censorship/story-e6frfro0-1225828788264

[KiwiClare]

Thanks for the post Brocke. 

[Brocke]

If you are going to make an example of someone, make that someone a famous someone...Welcome to the New World Internet


James Burt fined $1.5m for uploading pirate copy of Super Mario Bros Wii

    * By Stephen Fenech
    * From: The Daily Telegraph
    * February 09, 2010 4:23PM


James Burt

James Burt, pictured with an unidentified  female, was fined $1.6 million for uploading a pirate copy of Nintendo's Super Mario Bros Wii. Picture: The Daily Telegraph Source: The Daily Telegraph

    * Aussie uploaded pirate copy of game
    * Fined $1.5m plus $100,000 court costs
    * Courts 'taking piracy more seriously'

IT'S game over for one over-zealous player who was fined $1.5m for illegally copying and uploading a pre-release version of a popular game.

James Burt, 24 from Brisbane, received an early copy of Nintendo's Super Mario Bros Wii and made it available for download from a website, which has since been shut down.

As a result of his actions the Federal Court ordered Burt to pay Nintendo $1.5m in damages and also cover the $100,000 in court costs.

The Super Mario Bros games are among the most popular ever produced by Nintendo with millions of copies sold around the world.

Super Mario Bros Wii, which was due for official release on November 12, 2009, was copied and offered by Burt online from November 6.

The title in question was the first time the popular side-scrolling game was available for the popular Nintendo Wii console with up to four players able to join the action at the same time.

Once Nintendo was aware of the breach the company employed a forensic investigator which eventually tracked down and revealed Burt as the offender.

The game had already been downloaded "many thousands of times" according the Nintendo's legal representatives Maddocks Lawyers in Melbourne.

On November 23 Nintendo obtained a Federal Court search order for Burt's residence in the Brisbane suburb of Sinnamon Park and obtained evidence which was used in the case.

Nintendo Australia managing director Rose Lappin says the case a victory against piracy.

"Piracy is massive and getting bigger and bigger but I think the courts are taking it more seriously now as you can see by this," she said.

"As an industry it's a major problem and the cost is massive to the industry and to developers.

"Some of these guys say there are more downloads and patches than there are actual sales for them.

"That's shocking for our industry."

http://www.news.com.au/technology/james-burt-fined-16m-for-uploading-pirate-copy-of-super-mario-bros-wii/story-e6frfro0-1225828405307

[KiwiClare]

That is shocking overkill.  When you aim to destroy a society - I guess these are the games that you play.

[Brocke]

Control freaks want web licences to end bloggers' anonymity – be very afraid
 

By Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: February 12th, 2010


The American blogosphere is going increasingly “viral” about a proposal advanced at the recent meeting of the Davos Economic Forum by Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, that an equivalent of a “driver’s licence” should be introduced for access to the web. This totalitarian call has been backed by articles and blogs in Time magazine and the New York Times.

As bloggers have not been slow to point out, the system being proposed is very similar to one that the government of Red China reluctantly abandoned as too repressive. It was inevitable that, sooner or later, the usual unholy alliance of government totalitarians and big business would attempt to end the democratic free-for-all that is the blogosphere. The United Nations is showing similar interest in moving to eliminate free speech.

The recent uprising in the blogosphere that resulted in the overturning of the Global Warming consensus can only have focused our rulers’ attention more acutely on this infuriating challenge to their totalitarian control. “What will go next?” they must be asking themselves. Unrestricted immigration? Punitive taxation? Even the European Union? With the helots exploiting a loophole in the PC Curtain that has otherwise been so remorselessly drawn down over freedom of expression, the internet represents a dangerously subversive force, fulfilling the role in the West that was formerly performed by samizdat publications inside the Soviet Union.

American protesters are most vociferous in defence of their rights because that is their culture. Some of them claim that British people are being dangerously indifferent to the long-term potential for censorship of the so-called Digital Economy Bill being slithered through Parliament by Lord Mandelson. The inference they draw is that, just as Britons supinely submitted to firearms legislation that has led to a situation where “only the bad guys have guns”, we may be sleepwalking into internet slavery.

The technique is familiar. The powers-that-be allow a scandalous situation to develop whereby no serious attempt is made to police paedophile, pornographic and criminal activity on the web. Then the authorities use the excuse of public concern to overreact and impose Draconian controls that police ordinary citizens but are usually circumvented by criminals. It is a familiar scenario, offline as well as in cyberspace.

A “driver’s licence” for the web would be Christmas every day of the year for the control freaks. One can all too easily imagine the criteria applied to licence applications. (“Name? Delingpole…? You wot! ’Ere, I’ve got your number, mate – you’re that bloke wot feeds polar-bear steaks to kids innit. Internet licence? I should coco! On yer bike, mate, it’s more than my job’s worth to be seen talking to you…”)

Without the internet, the completely fictitious global warming “consensus” would still be unchallenged, state power massively enlarged, $54 trillion of Western taxpayers’ money flooding into the coffers of carbon companies and people’s lives made miserable by totalitarian restrictions imposed to counter a non-existent threat. I forecast that the right to anonymity on the internet will become one of the most fiercely contested issues over the coming decade. Be very afraid…

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100025849/control-freaks-want-web-licences-to-end-bloggers-anonymity-be-very-afraid/

[KiwiClare]

Internal Affairs to filter URLs in New Zealand
http://www.3news.co.nz/Internal-Affairs-to-filter-URLs-in-New-Zealand/tabid/1172/articleID/142244/Default.aspx
Wed, 17 Feb 2010 3:18p.m.

By Liz Quilty

Many people have heard of other countries having web filtering, and even New Zealand recently had a protest about Section 92a with a decent amount of success.

But though the battle may have been won, the war is far from over. The DIA (Department of Internal Affairs) has gone ahead with content filtering despite the fact it’s a waste of taxpayers' money, and it’s due to be launched at the end of next month.

Now many people get stuck on the ethics and morals of it, this is well talked about. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; however let’s look at the technical aspects.

According to sources the cost of the software is $150,000, plus customisation costs.

Then there would be costs associated with getting the list of 7000 sites they have already, two years testing, and any ongoing maintenance.

The system will be overseen by a 'Independent Reference Group'  made up of various people from law enforcement, welfare groups, Office of Film and Literature Classification, ISPs and internet users.  This will all cost, and that money will come from the Tax Payers.

Now, most people have heard of torrenting and downloading movies, music, images illegally from the internet, they may even do it.

Some may have even heard of news groups and other similar things. Generally you get illegal things from various ways, usually using protocols that are not on webpages.

The same goes for child pornography. How many of you have ‘accidentally’ stumbled over child porn? honestly? And do you think paedophiles will stop abusing children just because they cant view web pages?

How the filtering works.

Going even slightly more technical again, the ISP has a list of IP addresses in which the websites are hosted on.

If you request a website that happens to be on the same server as child porn you get redirected through the URL filter to check that its not that actual website. This is transparent proxying, you don't see it happen, you don't know its happening without checking.

One failure of transparent proxying is that it does not work on HTTPS (e.g. secure web pages using SSL, TLS, etc). Therefore as soon as you have a webserver that requires https:// - usually ones with logins or taking credit cards, the entire thing is pointless. It just doesn't work.

One option would be to block all https requests to those server IPs, but what if you were unlucky enough to run your ecommerce store on it, and used https on that particular IP?

What happens when they implement virtual hosting for SSL websites and multiple websites host an HTTPS on a single IP that also happens to have a child porn website on it?

Worse yet, what happens when a child porn site uses SSL because they require a credit card for paid content. It’s then no longer blocked. Not only this, but anonymous proxies are fairly well known and easy to setup to bypass any filtering, most students at schools are well versed on how to do this

Whilst the filtering may seem like nothing now, in a few years down the track perhaps they decide to block Islamic extremists, or something mild and acceptable, then slowly move that up the scale onto more unacceptable things, and eventually potentially we end up much like China  blocking things like Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Myspace and many many more that don't agree with their policy.

Now onto the ethical side of things, whilst you may not want your children to view this accidentally, it’s not going to stop a paedophile from picking them up on clubpenguin. It’s not going to stop them from befriending them on stardoll, runescape, or any other site (which in all likelihood is where they will be more often). A lot of people seem to think this is what its’ going to do - stop people from stumbling upon it, it wont.

It’s designed to prevent would-be or curious people from hunting it up with a gentle warning. They don't even log who goes to the site. Now I know by now a few people are saying "but it’s optional!" Which to ISP's it is - however how about those people paying for it through taxes and aren’t even using it?

The debate has been fairly vocal, and most people are against.

Even Internet New Zealand issued a statement stating they reject centralised filtering as a centralised approach, however the DIA seem to have ignored it.

People in New Zealand, its time to state your opinion.

You don’t need to agree with anyone elses, you just need to be heard.

Go out, tweet, blog, and Facebook.

For those in support of scrapping the filter, then go back to the black avatar on social networks, explain to people why.

For more facts, check out http://thomasbeagle.net/2009/07/09/nz-internet-filtering-faq/

[Freeski]

Never forget the bottom line: freedom. Hopefully you know what it means.

[Brocke]

New Pentagon Policy Lets Troops Overshare Like the Rest of Us



Yesterday the Department of Defense released a memo outlining the government's first official policy for social media access by military personnel. Somewhat surprisingly, it gives them unrestricted access to blog, Tweet, poke and ping just like everyone else.

Effectively immediately, Department of Defense personnel across the board, including civilian employees and troops alike, have full access to popular new media sites including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the rest.

Before the new policy was announced, appropriate internet usage was determined individual commanders, many of whom barred those in their charge from posting on blogs or accessing social media networks.

Of course, there are still some measures in place to ensure that new media activity doesn't take up bandwidth when it's limited or compromise mission security—"cleaning my rifle on the john, lol!" is a good troop overshare; "cleaning my rifle before we storm this Taliban bunker in Marjah, lol!" is a bad troop overshare—but the Pentagon's new policy gives the OK for uses both personal and official.

It's always heartening when our government shows itself to be forward-thinking on matters of the internet, and allowing DoD employees to use the internet to its full, inane extent is definitely a step in the right direction. There's no word on the Pentagon's official Farmville policy at this time, however.

http://gizmodo.com/5481784/new-pentagon-policy-lets-troops-overshare-like-the-rest-of-us

[Guns Equal Freedom]

New Pentagon Policy Lets Troops Overshare Like the Rest of Us



Yesterday the Department of Defense released a memo outlining the government's first official policy for social media access by military personnel. Somewhat surprisingly, it gives them unrestricted access to blog, Tweet, poke and ping just like everyone else.

Effectively immediately, Department of Defense personnel across the board, including civilian employees and troops alike, have full access to popular new media sites including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the rest.

Before the new policy was announced, appropriate internet usage was determined individual commanders, many of whom barred those in their charge from posting on blogs or accessing social media networks.

Of course, there are still some measures in place to ensure that new media activity doesn't take up bandwidth when it's limited or compromise mission security—"cleaning my rifle on the john, lol!" is a good troop overshare; "cleaning my rifle before we storm this Taliban bunker in Marjah, lol!" is a bad troop overshare—but the Pentagon's new policy gives the OK for uses both personal and official.

It's always heartening when our government shows itself to be forward-thinking on matters of the internet, and allowing DoD employees to use the internet to its full, inane extent is definitely a step in the right direction. There's no word on the Pentagon's official Farmville policy at this time, however.

http://gizmodo.com/5481784/new-pentagon-policy-lets-troops-overshare-like-the-rest-of-us

I believe this is nothing new.

I always knew that military men and women could go on the Internet just like civilians.

I guess they had to make it "public".