From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 1 07:00:37 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 08:00:37 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - 5 Questions for Facebook IPO Investors Message-ID: <1B793C0A-A49C-41AE-B598-1BA0A3789D59@infowarrior.org> Questions for Facebook IPO Investors By Barry Ritholtz - February 1st, 2012, 7:15AM http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/questions-for-facebook-ipo-investors/ Last year (January 12th, 2011) I posed 5 Questions for Facebook Investors into the then private company Facebook: 1. Facebook (FB) claims 500 million subscribers. How many of these are active users ? at least once or twice per week? How many of these are dead accounts, with no activity for 30 days? 90 days or more? 2. What is the average revenue per subscriber? How are you planning to grow this? 3. How much churn does Facebook go through? For every 100 new subscribers, how many subscribers leave? 4. What is the life cycle of the typical Facebook subscriber? How active are they for how long, what sort of arc do they cut across theirFB life cycle? 5. Besides advertising, how will you monetize your user base? Are you selling their data to buyers? What about anonymized data ? are you selling this also? Bonus question: What is the subscriber growth like outside of the US? Where are your fastest growing areas? What area is not seeing big penetration ? OK, that?s more like 15 question about their users, growth and monetization prospects from a Private Equity/Venture Capital perspective. Today, on the eve of their Form S-1 SEC filing for an IPO, there are additional questions that are worth asking of a soon to be publicly traded company: 1. What is the IPO offering price going to be? What market capitalization will FB come public at? 2. What are the key pricing metrics? P/E, growth rate, price to book, price to sales? 3. What are FB?s future growth rate? At 800 million users, where do they begin to plateau? Top out? 4. What is FB?s plans for penetrating China? 5. How are the privacy concerns going to be handled? What else might come out of the closer FTC scrutiny of web companies use of personal data? 6. How long are insiders/VCs going to be locked up? Are they committed holding onto shares for the long haul, or are they cashing out at the IPO or as soon as possible thereafter? The VC money is often called the smart money, where as the public IPO is often the dumb money. Remember, Google stunned the world during their road show by revealing monstrous revenues and enormous profits. It stunned the analyst community, who had no idea as to how profitable the search giant actually was. Will Facebook be able to do the same? Can the social media giant monetize users as effectively as Google ? we shall soon find out! --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 1 11:11:23 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 12:11:23 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - ISP data retention law on the fast track Message-ID: http://www.webpronews.com/h-r-1981-is-a-turd-wrapped-in-cotton-candy-2012-01 H.R. 1981 Is A Turd Wrapped In Cotton Candy More legislation to threaten your online privacy Sometimes it feels like we?re all just playing a big game of electronic privacy whack-a-mole. And if we hold true to that analogy, the next mole that needs to be whacked might look cute on the outside ? but it needs to be crushed nonetheless. Ever since the giant internet-wide SOPA protests that went down last Wednesday, people have been celebrating the death of both SOPA and PIPA. While SOPA author Lamar Smith did say that he won?t bring the bill up in committee until ?wider agreement on a solution? is reached, the bill is just a zombie requiring a headshot at this point. Likewise, PIPA isn?t 100% dead, but Harry Reid did postpone action on the bill ?in light of recent events.? Even if we can?t call SOPA and PIPA totally dead, we might be able to safely say that they?remostly dead. And we can say with confidence that the internet protests had a big impact in those decisions. Seriously, just look at how congressional support for the legislation shifted in just one day. But as we declare victory over SOPA and PIPA, the internet is quick to remind us that we must remain vigilant. And right now, that means turning our attention to another crappy piece of legislation, the innocuously titled H.R. 1981, Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act. Let?s get right to the beefy bits regarding why this bill is bad news. Here?s a tidbit from section 4 concerning the retention of private records: A commercial provider of an electronic communication service shall retain for a period of at least one year a log of the temporarily assigned network addresses the provider assigns to a subscriber to or customer of such service that enables the identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information under subsection (c)(2) of this section. And if that language is a little hard to decipher, here?s the summary on the Library of Congress website: Requires a provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service to retain for at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account unless that address is transmitted by radio communication. Bars any cause of action against a provider for retaining records as required. Makes a good faith reliance on the requirement to retain records a complete defense to a civil action. Expresses the sense of Congress that such records should be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent breaches of the records. The implications here are that all of your online movements will be tracked, stored, and made accessible without any real just cause. Oh, and it takes away your ability to have any recourse in the matter. All of this data could not only be used by law enforcement, but as the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out, ?that same data could become available to civil litigants in private lawsuits?whether it?s the RIAA trying to identify downloaders, a company trying to uncover and retaliate against an anonymous critic, or a divorce lawyer looking for dirty laundry. These databases would also be a new and valuable target for black hat hackers, be they criminals trying to steal identities or foreign governments trying to unmask anonymous dissidents.? Here?s what the ACLU has to say about the bill: [The] legislation would create a sweeping new provision requiring Internet companies (email, cloud, social networking, and more) to collect and retain hundreds of millions of records about the identity of online users. The bill, HR 1981, the ?Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011,? ? if only it were that narrow! ? is a direct assault on the privacy of Internet users and overlooks some key fixes that could actually help to address the very real problem of child exploitation. If only it were that narrow indeed. You see, H.R. 1981 does something that is certainly not a first for bills in the U.S. Congress: it wraps a giant turd in cotton candy. It takes an issue that most people can get behind and uses it to pass through crappy legislation that wouldn?t have a chance on its own. H.R. 1981 includes some alright stuff ? as in, do you want stricter punishment for interstate commerce transactions that promote child porn? Sure! How about bolstering laws about protecting child witness? You bet! Giant, sweeping data tracking provisions, however? No thank you. One last thing about H.R. 1981 ? it?s sponsored by Lamar Smith, who seems hell bent on destroying the internet. The bill has already passed in the House Judiciary Committee and was placed on the Union Calendar on December 16th. As The Next Web points out, this means that the bill has been given ?expedited consideration? and could be on the fast track to passing. But if the internet community has shown us anything last week, it?s that buzzing about a topic on social media and bringing attention to something with coordinated protest can actually sway the opinions of those in power. Spread the word, sign a petition, call your congressperson. If you want somewhere to start, here?s a list of the 39 cosponsors of the bill. [Lead Image via Reddit] --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 1 14:10:28 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:10:28 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google to discuss new privacy policy, you are not invited Message-ID: <593BC08A-3557-4653-8A1A-20B37ACDD4AA@infowarrior.org> Google to discuss new privacy policy, you are not invited Brad Sams 5 hours ago 17 Comments http://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discuss-new-privacy-policy-you-are-not-invited Google, quite possibly, knows more about you than your own family does. As the company collects data to better align the advertisements to your interest, many feel that it is also be invading your privacy too. Google has gone to great lengths to make it known that its privacy policy will soon be changing. The new policy will allow Google to cross-examine data from all of its products to tailor the advertisements and search results to align with your needs. Yes, it all sounds great when it comes to creating a better product for the consumer but there is one big problem, ?Google will not permit users to opt out of this information collection and sharing across platforms and devices? according to the USA Today. Congress is surely a bit concerned about this and has called Google to explain the changes and will do so this week; but don?t even think about attending. The closed door event will only be open to a few members of congress from the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade. It is unclear why the meeting will be behind closed doors and who actually requested that the meeting be held privately. The irony is not lost in that a new privacy policy that is designed to make things more transparent will be discussed privately to members of Congress who are publically voted in to office. Google is working to consolidate its products and give the end user the best experience possible and to do that it needs data from all of its sources. Google knows that it has a power stance on the market and even if consumers do not agree with the change, they will most likely accept it as it will remain invisible to them. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 1 19:47:53 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:47:53 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FileVault 2 easily decrypted, warns Passware Message-ID: FileVault 2 easily decrypted, warns Passware by Topher Kessler February 1, 2012 4:53 PM PST http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-57369983-263/filevault-2-easily-decrypted-warns-passware/ One of the welcome features in OS X Lion was the replacement of Apple's first-generation FileVault file encryption technology, which only encrypted the home folder, with a new whole-disk encryption approach. Unlike the first FileVault, which required a number of workarounds and still had compatibility problems with various programs and utilities, the new technology is transparent to the operating system and enhances security since it not only encrypts user data but also all other data on the drive, including system caches, application files, and system configuration files that might contain some personal information. FileVault 2 requires the hard drive to be partitioned with a recovery partition that in part acts to store the password and encryption keys used to decrypt the drive. When you start up the FileVault-encrypted system, you will be prompted for your log-in credentials, which are used to unlock the keys and decrypt the drive before loading the OS and subsequently logging you in to your user account. This security feature, along with similar programs like BitLocker and TrueCrypt, has been increasingly popular among individuals, especially laptop owners who might be concerned that a thief could extract personal information from a portable system. However, recent developments suggest that it's actually quite easy to tackle these encryption technologies. In a statement (PDF) issued this morning, password recovery company Passware has claimed that it can fully decrypt a FileVault-encrypted Mac disk within an hour. Using a live-memory analysis approach via the system's FireWire connection, Passware says its utilities can sample system memory and extract the encryption key for FileVault disks. The process apparently takes no more than 40 minutes, regardless of the length or complexity of the password used. Passware has been actively tackling various encryption technologies such as BitLocker, TrueCrypt, and FileVault, and says its latest Passware Kit Forensic 11.3 software can extract encryption keys for all of these technologies. In addition to extracting FileVault keys, Passware can also extract passwords from encrypted keychain files and recover log-in passwords for user accounts. One goal of the company's efforts is to help law enforcement agencies in digital investigations, and its recent findings serve as a warning to Mac users that relying solely on one approach to encrypting files does not necessarily secure their data. Passware President Dmitry Sumin claims that the company's live-memory analysis approach "opens up great possibilities [for] password recovery and decryption." In addition Sumin states, "Every user should be aware that even full-disk encryption is insecure while the data rests in computer memory." This news is cause for concern, especially since tools like the Passware Kit Forensic 11.3 are available for purchase by anyone willing to part with $995 for a license. While it is unlikely that a common thief will use such tools to extract data from your personal hard drive, others may be concerned about data privacy for corporate or legal reasons, as we saw with recent court decisions on encryption technology. Given this news, it is likely that Apple will investigate ways to better secure the FileVault keys and protect user data, though we will have to wait and see how these developments pan out. For now, FileVault is still a very highly recommended technology for anyone wishing to secure personal data, but in addition you might consider using options like encrypted disk images to further secure any files you wish to keep private. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 1 19:51:24 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:51:24 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FBI: Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist Message-ID: <16BF69B8-A6B3-4936-8D4B-686919B44BEC@infowarrior.org> Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist February 1, 2012 in Featured Public Intelligence A flyer designed by the FBI and the Department of Justice to promote suspicious activity reporting in internet cafes lists basic tools used for online privacy as potential signs of terrorist activity. The document, part of a program called ?Communities Against Terrorism?, lists the use of ?anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address? as a sign that a person could be engaged in or supporting terrorist activity. The use of encryption is also listed as a suspicious activity along with steganography, the practice of using ?software to hide encrypted data in digital photos? or other media. In fact, the flyer recommends that anyone ?overly concerned about privacy? or attempting to ?shield the screen from view of others? should be considered suspicious and potentially engaged in terrorist activities. Logging into an account associated with a residential internet service provider (such as Comcast or AOL), an activity that could simply indicate that you are on a trip, is also considered a suspicious activity. Viewing any content related to ?military tactics? including manuals or ?revolutionary literature? is also considered a potential indicator of terrorist activity. This would mean that viewing a number of websites, including the one you are on right now, could be construed by a hapless employee as an highly suspicious activity potentially linking you to terrorism. The ?Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities? contained in the flyer are not to be construed alone as a sign of terrorist activity and the document notes that ?just because someone?s speech, actions, beliefs, appearance, or way of life is different; it does not mean that he or she is suspicious.? However, many of the activities described in the document are basic practices of any individual concerned with security or privacy online. The use of PGP, VPNs, Tor or any of the many other technologies for anonymity and privacy online are directly targeted by the flyer, which is distributed to businesses in an effort to promote the reporting of these activities. < - > http://publicintelligence.net/do-you-like-online-privacy-you-may-be-a-terrorist/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 1 20:24:09 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 21:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Shoe on the other foot: RIAA wants to scrap anti-piracy OPEN Act Message-ID: <8BB81EBA-1082-460F-81D4-C3B1F27F3E7B@infowarrior.org> Shoe on the other foot: RIAA wants to scrap anti-piracy OPEN Act By Timothy B. Lee | Published about 4 hours ago http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/shoe-on-the-other-foot-riaa-calls-for-open-act-to-be-scrapped.ars The Recording Industry Association of America found itself in an unusual position this week: opposing an anti-piracy bill that's gaining momentum in Congress. "The OPEN Act does nothing" to stop online infringement and "may even make the problem worse," the industry group says in a statement it is circulating on Capitol Hill this week. "It does not establish a workable framework, standards, or remedies. It is not supported by those it purports to protect." The basic approach of OPEN, which is sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), is to shift enforcement against rogue sites to the International Trade Commission, which has become a popular venue for international patent disputes. The ITC would investigate claims that a foreign site is dedicated to infringement. If the ITC found a site was dedicated to infringement, the site would be cut off from American advertising and payment networks. But the RIAA argues the bill won't be effective at shutting down rogue sites. The trade group warns of "indefinite delays" as claims of infringement are investigated. And it complains that the process envisioned by OPEN would allow for "endless submissions by parties such as Google," further gumming up the process. All the while, the alleged rogue site would be able to continue operating. The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will "put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft." The trade group complains that sites aren't held responsible for the infringing activities of their users, a rule the trade group says "excuses willful blindness and outright complicity in illegal activity." RIAA also says it's "virtually impossible" to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires. OPEN "needs to be scrapped," the statement says. "Stakeholders and Congress need to start over with a fresh look at solving this problem." Of course, Congress just did "start over" after the RIAA and its allies tried to ram the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act through Congress. That effort sparked an unprecedented Internet backlash. While some of the RIAA's objections may have merit, we suspect the group's real problem with OPEN is precisely that the drafting situation was reversed this time: technology companies and the Internet community actually had a seat at the table when the bill was formulated. As a consequence, its provisions reflect a very different approach to the issue. In addition, SOPA and PIPA were not mentioned at all in the RIAA's statement. Apparently, those bills have become so politically toxic that even their leading supporters prefer "starting over" to reviving them... at least under their existing names. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 2 07:44:32 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 08:44:32 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - US 'no-fly' list of suspected terrorists doubles in 12 months Message-ID: US 'no-fly' list of suspected terrorists doubles in 12 months Classified log of individuals banned from flying into or within America as they are considered a threat stands at 21,000 ? Associated Press in Washington ? guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 February 2012 05.06 EST http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/02/us-no-fly-list-doubles The size of the US government's secret list of suspected terrorists who are banned from flying to or within the country has more than doubled in the past year. The no-fly list jumped from about 10,000 known or suspected terrorists one year ago to about 21,000, according to government figures. About 500 are US nationals. The flood of new names began after the failed Christmas 2009 bombing of a Detroit-bound jetliner when the US government lowered the standard for putting people on the list and scoured its files for anyone who qualified. "We learned a lot about the watchlisting process and made strong improvements, which continue to this day," said Timothy Healy, director of the Terrorist Screening Centre, which produces the no-fly list. Among the most significant new standard is that a person doesn't have to be considered only a threat to aviation to be placed on the list. People considered a broader threat to domestic or international security or who attended a terror training camp are also included, said a US counter-terrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity. As agencies complete the reviews of their files, the pace of growth is expected to slow, the counter-terrorism official said. The American Civil Liberties Union has previously sued the US government on behalf of Americans who believe they are on the no-fly list and have not been able to travel by air for work or to see family. "The news that the list is growing tells us that more people's rights are being violated," said Nusrat Choudhury, of the ACLU. "It's a secret list, and the government puts people on it without any explanation. Citizens have been stranded abroad." People who complain they're unfairly on the list can submit a letter to the homeland security department, but the only way they'll know if they're still on the list is to try to fly again, she said. While the list is secret, it is subject to continuous review to ensure the right people are on it and that those who shouldn't be are removed, said Martin Reardon, a former chief of the FBI's terrorist screening operations centre. If a person is nominated to be on the no-fly list, but there is insufficient information to justify it, the person is downgraded to a different list, he said. "You can't just say: 'Here's a name. Put him on the list.' You've got to have articulable facts." On average, there are 1,000 changes to US watchlists each day, most of which involve adding new information about someone on the list. The no-fly list previously swelled to 20,000 people in 2004. At the time, people including the late Ted Kennedy, a sitting senator, were being stopped before flying. The US transportation security administrator, John Pistole, said instances of travellers being mistaken for terrorists were, however, down significantly since the US government and not airlines became responsible for checking the list. Travellers must provide their full name, birthdate and gender when purchasing an airline ticket so the government can screen them against the terror watchlist. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 2 07:49:27 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 08:49:27 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Full Body Scanners At Super Bowl 2012 Message-ID: The failure to inform the public of this given the controversy surrounding the machines is a major oops by DHS in my view --- and that YahooNews quote about the "world we live in now" makes me want to wretch. But the sheep won't mind. -- rick Full Body Scanners At Super Bowl 2012 First time devices linked with cancer risk used for public sports event Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Thursday, February 2, 2012 http://www.infowars.com/full-body-scanners-at-super-bowl-2012/ Fans attending the 2012 Super Bowl on Sunday will face a new level of security in addition to pat downs before they are allowed to enter the Lucas Oil Stadium ? full body x-ray scanners. According to WPRI.com News reporter Matt Touchette, despite a congressional demand for an investigation into the machines following health concerns, the scanners will be part of the security set up in Indianapolis this weekend, marking the first time that the controversial devices have been used for a public sporting event. ?I was out for a stroll with the intention of snapping some photos for our blog when my travels took me to Lucas Oil Stadium of all places,? writes Touchette. ?It was there that I stumbled upon a temporary Patriots street sign put in place close to the site of Super Bowl XLVI (appropriately). I then found myself walking into the side gates of the stadium, through intense security which included full body scanners and then down the tunnel onto the field.? Although Super Bowl authorities and Homeland Security have announced that pat downs and bag searches will be part of security procedures before the game, they have failed to properly inform the public that x-ray body scanners, linked with cancer risks by numerous prestigious health bodies, will also be in use. Hailing ?the most technologically protected Super Bowl,? Frank Straub, Indianapolis? director of public safety, said that ?X-ray machines? would be used throughout the stadium, but didn?t specify whether this referred to devices that scanned bags or people. Senator Susan Collins, ranking Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, yesterday introduced a bill that would require an independent study of backscatter x-ray scanners, following the TSA?s about-face on a decision to test the machines. The federal agency also backtracked on a promise to test TSA workers themselves for radiation exposure last month. Numerous studies conducted by prestigious universities and health authorities, including Johns Hopkins, Columbia University, the University of California, and the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety, have warned that the x-ray scanners will lead to an increase in cancers. Johns Hopkins? biophysics expert Dr Michael Love warned that, ?statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays,? after conducting a study of the naked body scanners. The Lucas Oil Stadium will be surrounded by a security perimeter that fans will have to clear before they even get to the stadium itself. ?There will be a security perimeter around the stadium through which all fans must pass before entering the gate,? reports Yahoo Sports, adding that fans should not feel ?self-conscious about getting patted down? because ?this is the world in which we live now.? As well as pat downs, bag searches and full body scans, fans are again being encouraged to text in reports of ?suspicious activity? to Homeland Security officials. Trucks making deliveries to the stadium will also be forced to pass through a vehicle x-ray scanner, technology that is now being introduced at US border checkpoints and on regular highways with little regard for the health risks involved. Last year, the NFL announced its new policy would be to conduct pat downs of all people entering stadiums nationwide, a measure required as a result of NFL?s partnership with the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security is also developing technology to be used at ?security events? which purports to monitor ?malintent? on behalf of an individual who passes through a checkpoint. The promotional video for the program explains how ?Future Attribute Screening Technology? (FAST) checkpoints will conduct ?physiological? and ?behavioral? tests in order to weed out suspected terrorists and criminals. The clip shows individuals who attend ?security events? being led into trailers before they are interrogated as to whether they are terrorists while lie detector-style computer programs analyze their physiological responses. ********************* Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 2 07:50:22 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 08:50:22 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Sandia patents 'steerable' bullet Message-ID: Sandia Labs' bullet doesn't miss Scientists patent self-guided bullet Updated: Wednesday, 01 Feb 2012, 6:10 PM MST Published : Tuesday, 31 Jan 2012, 7:50 PM MST http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/technology/sandia-labs-bullet-doesnt-miss ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) - Engineers at Sandia National Laboratories have invented a bullet that guides itself to the target. Sandia has wide expertise at miniature technology, and the bullet works like a tiny guided missile. The patented design doesn't shoot straight. Instead of a spiral rotation, the bullet twists and turns to guide itself towards a laser directed point. It can make up to thirty corrections per second while in the air. Jim Jones, distinguished member of technical staff, and his team of engineers at Sandia Labs think the .50-caliber bullets would work well with military machine guns so soldiers could hit their mark faster and with precision. "We've tested gunpowders to see if we can get muzzle velocity for military interest," Jones said. "We've tested various electronic components to see if they would survive the launch." The team needs a sponsor to take the prototype and manufacture it on a commercial scale. Research and development grants have taken the project this far. Jones says it's about halfway through being fully developed for commercial use. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 2 08:29:54 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:29:54 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TV ratings: Lies, Lies, and Statistics Message-ID: <732DAF6D-08E2-428C-84B9-8F3E2B273224@infowarrior.org> (as if there was any doubt....again, as w/IP debates you can't trust Hollywood, EVAR. -- rick) February 1, 2012 In Networks? Race for Ratings, Chicanery Is on the Schedule By BILL CARTER http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/business/media/networks-resort-to-trickery-in-an-attempt-to-lift-ratings.html Viewers who tuned into ABC?s ?Good Morning America? during the last week of 2011 would have found the same mix of news, gossip and soft features at the usual time of the morning. But as far as Nielsen ratings were concerned, four of the shows that week weren?t ?Good Morning America? at all. They were labeled ?special? programming by ABC, which told Nielsen that it would be called ?Good Morning Amer.? ABC made the switch so that the final week of the year ? typically the lowest rated of the year because of the holidays ? would be ignored in the national ratings. The change allowed the network to claim ? and it did ? that ?Good Morning America? finished the year closer to NBC?s ?Today? show than it had in 16 years. This is the kind of programming sleight of hand that executives seize on as they seek to gain every possible edge in the television ratings game, at a time when each tenth of a point or two enhances their standing in the nightly ratings and the ability to pitch to advertisers who spend billions of dollars a year. But these tactics are more about bragging rights than money. The tricks themselves are familiar to most in the business: smart commercial buyers know when the ratings are being spun for a better story in the media or a claim in a print ad, and they insist on paying for the real ratings, not the artificially enhanced versions. Labeling a program a special is just one technique. Networks typically ?special out? a show when they expect it to fare poorly, against the Super Bowl, for example. Other strategies include front-loading national commercials early in a show and extending the program lengths for hit shows a minute or two into the following hour. ?There?s a lot of chicanery,? said Brad Adgate, the longtime director of research for Horizon Media, which buys time on television shows. ?It?s a way to tweak your opponents and get some ink for yourself.? NBC took the opposite path of ABC with the use of the term ?special? in its presentation of the Republican primary debate on Jan. 23. Careful viewers noticed that the debate was labeled a regular edition of the network?s ratings-challenged newsmagazine program, ?Rock Center with Brian Williams? ? one that, as it turned out, just happened to double the show?s usual audience to just over 7.1 million viewers. The one-week ratings increase for ?Rock Center? will most likely not alter its future ? it lost half that audience a week later. But in a time of declining viewership, it means that the program?s average rating for the season may tick up a tenth of a rating point or two. And, especially at the bottom-rated NBC, that matters. Networks closely track the gimmicks their competitors use to lift ratings, and it is a hotly debated subject within the industry, but most executives avoid speaking publicly about it so as not to be critical of tactics that they sometimes use themselves. ABC executives defend their ?Good Morning Amer? ploy by pointing out what happened in 2005, when ?G.M.A.? came close to breaking the 16-year-long weekly winning streak of the ?Today? show. NBC saved the day with a last-minute Friday morning stratagem: playing all its national commercials in ?Today?s? higher-rated 7 a.m. hour ? meaning its less-watched second hour did not count that day. The manipulation of where national commercials are placed in a show has become one of the favorite shell games networks use to try to enhance their numbers. Shows receive national ratings from Nielsen only up to the point when the last national commercial is broadcast ? after that, the numbers simply do not count. Perhaps the best example of the legerdemain behind the placement of national commercials can be seen in late night, where what should be a head-to-head competition takes place on a decidedly uneven playing field. ABC?s ?Nightline? always has enjoyed one advantage over the entertainment shows on CBS and NBC hosted by David Letterman and Jay Leno, because it traditionally compares ratings for its half-hour program against the full hour of the other late-night shows. That gives ?Nightline? an edge because in late night, every minute that passes means more viewers are off to bed. This year, ?Nightline? has managed to shift the contest even more heavily in its favor. At least that is how one competitor, Rob Burnett, the executive producer of the Letterman show, sees it. ?It?s a trick, it?s an obfuscation,? Mr. Burnett said. ?Nightline,? a 25-minute show, is frequently measured for many fewer minutes, often as few as 16, while Mr. Letterman?s show averages more than 48 minutes. By steering all its national commercials within the first 16 minutes of the show, ?Nightline? can substantially improve its ratings. (Regardless of when its commercials run, ?Nightline? is doing better in general, and if the shows are measured first half hour to first half hour, ?Nightline? still edges ahead of Mr. Letterman and Mr. Leno.) Another ratings tactic that is now routine involves extending the duration of more popular shows, allowing them to run a minute or two past their scheduled end time. That means the show that follows ? usually one a network wants to enhance with the best possible introduction ? gets a ratings lift in early national ratings reports that are often widely reported by news outlets. In December, for example, Fox ran its singing competition ?The X-Factor? a minute long to provide a strong entry for ?I Hate My Teenage Daughter,? the low-rated comedy that followed it. In the initial national ratings that Nielsen reports every morning, these later-starting shows receive inflated numbers in their first half hour. Those numbers are corrected by the late afternoon, but by then media reporters intent on getting news up as fast as possible, have often bestowed some measure of success on the tagalong show. ?We?re all competitive,? said a senior executive from a network programming department who asked not be identified when discussing ratings tricks. ?And we?re going to try to get you guys in the press to write our story.? Mostly, ratings gimmicks have little financial impact on the networks, beyond giving bragging rights to their executives ? and maybe some ego stroking. ?They?re getting bragging rights of being able to say they are No. 1 in late night,? Mr. Burnett said of ?Nightline.? That?s meaningful for them. They?re monetizing it.? Marketers get what they paid for no matter where a commercial gets placed. Conversely, though, some local advertisers are relegated to the back end of shows. A Nielsen executive, who requested anonymity because of confidentiality agreements with clients, said Nielsen did have guidelines for what could be done with shows, but recognized that networks would ?format their programs to generate maximum ratings impact ? call it gimmicks, or call it spin.? Unless the gimmick results in something egregiously false, Nielsen does not step in. The worse that might happen would be a sternly worded letter. ?You do everything you can, as long as you can,? said the network program executive. ?And then they slap your hand.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 2 09:25:11 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:25:11 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Key Internet operator VeriSign hit by hackers Message-ID: <1D8A17F7-3212-489D-8F82-2F1425988752@infowarrior.org> (Again, funny how these stories/incidents/events always come out heading into RSA. -- rick) Key Internet operator VeriSign hit by hackers http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20120202/wr_nm/us_hacking_verisign SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) ? VeriSign Inc, the company in charge of delivering people safely to more than half the world's websites, has been hacked repeatedly by outsiders who stole undisclosed information from the leading Internet infrastructure company. The previously unreported breaches occurred in 2010 at the Reston, Virginia-based company, which is ultimately responsible for the integrity of Web addresses ending in .com, .net and .gov. VeriSign said its executives "do not believe these attacks breached the servers that support our Domain Name System network," which ensures people land at the right numeric Internet Protocol address when they type in a name such as Google.com, but it did not rule anything out. VeriSign's domain-name system processes as many as 50 billion queries daily. Pilfered information from it could let hackers direct people to faked sites and intercept email from federal employees or corporate executives, though classified government data moves through more secure channels. "Oh my God," said Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and before that the top lawyer at the National Security Agency. "That could allow people to imitate almost any company on the Net." The VeriSign attacks were revealed in a quarterly U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing in October that followed new guidelines on reporting security breaches to investors. It was the most striking disclosure to emerge in a review by Reuters of more than 2,000 documents mentioning breach risks since the SEC guidance was published. Even if the name system is safe, VeriSign offers a number of other services where security is paramount. The company defends customers' websites from attacks and manages their traffic, and it researches international cybercrime groups. VeriSign would possess sensitive information on customers, and its registry services that dispense website addresses would also be a natural target. Ken Silva, who was VeriSign's chief technology officer for three years until November 2010, said he had not learned of the intrusion until contacted by Reuters. Given the time elapsed since the attack and the vague language in the SEC filing, he said VeriSign "probably can't draw an accurate assessment" of the damage. Baker said VeriSign's description will lead people to "assume that it was a nation-state attack that is persistent, very difficult to eradicate and very difficult to put your hands around, so you can't tell where they went undetected." VeriSign declined multiple interview requests, and senior employees said privately that they had not been given any more details than were in the filing. One said it was impossible to tell if the breach was the result of a concerted effort by a national power, though that was a possibility. "It's an ugly, slim sliver of facts. It's not enough," he said. The 10-Q said that security staff responded to the attack soon afterward but failed to alert top management until September 2011. It says nothing about a continuing investigation, and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions about an inquiry or recommendations for VeriSign customers. Until August 2010, VeriSign was one of the largest providers of Secure Sockets Layer certificates, which Web browsers look for when connecting users to sites that begin "https," including most financial sites and some email and other communications portals. If the SSL process were corrupted, "you could create a Bank of America certificate or Google certificate that is trusted by every browser in the world," said prominent security consultant Dmitri Alperovich, president of Asymmetric Cyber Operations. VeriSign sold its certificate business in the summer of 2010 to Symantec Corp, which has kept the VeriSign brand name on those products. Symantec spokeswoman Nicole Kenyon said "there is no indication that the 2010 corporate network security breach mentioned by VeriSign Inc was related to the acquired SSL product production systems." Some smaller issuers of such validation certificates have been compromised in the past, and false certificates have been used to spread the most sophisticated malicious software yet detected, including Stuxnet, which attacked the Iranian nuclear program. In written Senate testimony on Tuesday, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called the known certificate breaches of 2011 "a threat to one of the most fundamental technologies used to secure online communications and sensitive transactions, such as online banking." Others have said SSL as a whole is no longer trustworthy and effective. In a section of its filing devoted to risk factors, VeriSign said it was a frequent subject of "the most sophisticated form of attacks," including some that are "virtually impossible to anticipate and defend against." Security experts said the breach reminded them of last year's attack on RSA, an authentication company owned by storage maker EMC Corp. RSA's SecurID tokens authorize remote access and have been in wide use by government agencies and military contractors including Lockheed Martin Corp, which said it was probed on the heels of the RSA breach. "This breach, along with the RSA breach, puts the authentication mechanisms that are currently being used by businesses at risk," said Melissa Hathaway, a former intelligence official who led U.S. President Barack Obama's cybersecurity policy review and later pushed for the SEC guidance. "There appears to be a structured process of hunting those who provide authentication services." Even if VeriSign's certificates were not compromised, a significant breach "means that prevention is futile," Alperovich said. He said he hoped new legislation on cybersecurity, expected to reach the Senate floor this month, would call for more disclosures and bring more aid to companies under attack. (Reporting by Joseph Menn; Editing by Gary Hill) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 2 13:17:55 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:17:55 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Mental maps: Is GPS All in Our Head? Message-ID: <26C414BB-CD6A-45D0-A892-8AA6BE134A62@infowarrior.org> February 2, 2012 Is GPS All in Our Head? By JULIA FRANKENSTEIN http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/is-gps-all-in-our-head.html?hp=&pagewanted=print IT?S a question that probably every driver with a Garmin navigation device on her dashboard has asked herself at least once: What did we ever do before GPS? How did people find their way around, especially in places they?d never been before? Like most questions asked in our tech-dependent era, these underestimate the power of the human mind. It is surprisingly good at developing ?mental maps? of an area, a skill new research shows can grow stronger with use. The question is, with disuse ? say, by relying on a GPS device ? can we lose the skill too? The notion of a mental map isn?t new. In the 1940s, the psychologist Edward C. Tolman used rats in mazes to demonstrate that ?learning consists not in stimulus-response connections but in the building up in the nervous system of sets which function like cognitive maps.? This concept is widely accepted today. When exploring a new territory, we perceive landmarks along a route. By remembering their position and the spatial relations between the streets, locations and landmarks we pass, we are able to develop survey knowledge (stored in the mind like a mental map), which enables us to indicate directions, find shortcuts or detours ? in short, to react and navigate comfortably. It?s not all in our heads, though: physical maps help us build cognitive maps. By depicting the spatial relations in a big context, they provide a useful reference to integrate navigational experience. In one experiment, I had 26 residents of T?bingen, Germany, navigate a three-dimensional model of their hometown by wearing head-mounted displays. My team and I asked them to point to well-known locations around town not visible from their current perceived position. Varying their viewing direction ? facing north, facing east ? we then assessed their pointing error. All participants performed best when facing one particular direction, north, and the pointing error increased with increasing deviation from north. In other words, by using knowledge gained from navigation to link their perceived position to the corresponding position on a city map, participants could easily retrieve the locations from their memory of city maps ? which, after all, are typically oriented north. If maps help us, what is the problem with GPS? A lot: new research shows that the more we rely on technology to find our way, the less we build up our cognitive maps. Unlike a city map, a GPS device normally provides bare-bones route information, without the spatial context of the whole area. We see the way from A to Z, but we don?t see the landmarks along the way. Developing a cognitive map from this reduced information is a bit like trying to get an entire musical piece from a few notes. Our brains act economically: they try to decrease the amount of information to be stored (e.g., by relating new thoughts to already known content) and avoid storing unnecessary information. That may be the unconscious appeal of a GPS, but it means we?re not pushing our brains to work harder. And a GPS device may even contradict your mental map by telling you to go left (e.g., for a faster highway) while your target is actually to the right. All of this leads us to use our mental maps even less. But shouldn?t we just accept that GPS is a good substitute for old-fashioned maps? No. Navigational devices can be time-savers, but they can easily become crutches. Break your GPS, and you may find yourself lost. And there is more: The psychologist Eleanor A. Maguire and her colleagues at University College London found that spatial experience actually changes brain structures. As taxi drivers learned the spatial layout of London, the gray matter in their hippocampal areas ? that is, the areas of the brain integrating spatial memories ? increased. But if the taxi drivers? internal GPS grew stronger with use, it stands to reason that the process is reversible after disuse. You may degrade your spatial abilities when not training them, as with someone who learned a musical instrument and stopped playing. Navigating, keeping track of one?s position and building up a mental map by experience is a very challenging process for our brains, involving memory (remembering landmarks, for instance) as well as complex cognitive processes (like calculating distances, rotating angles, approximating spatial relations). Stop doing these things, and it?ll be harder to pick them back up later. How to avoid losing our mental maps? The answer, as always, is practice. Next time you?re in a new place, forget the GPS device. Study a map to get your bearings, then try to focus on your memory of it to find your way around. City maps do not tell you each step, but they provide a wealth of abstract survey knowledge. Fill in these memories with your own navigational experience, and give your brain the chance to live up to its abilities. Julia Frankenstein is a psychologist at the Center for Cognitive Science at the University of Freiburg. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 2 14:49:08 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:49:08 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - US boosts passport fees, sets value of citizenship Message-ID: <3308E589-9CFD-4953-95AF-7E5F4CEF0950@infowarrior.org> Feb 2, 3:42 PM EST US boosts passport fees, sets value of citizenship By MATTHEW LEE Associated Press http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_CITIZENSHIP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-02-15-27-40 WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. citizenship is priceless to some, worthless to others. But now the State Department has a dollar figure: U.S. citizenship is worth $450. At least that's what it will cost you to renounce it. Under new consular fees published Thursday in the Federal Register, the cost of processing a formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship skyrocketed from $0 to $450. The announcement locks in fee hikes that had been proposed in 2010 and instituted on an interim basis. The State Department doesn't say how or why it calculated the cost. Citizenship is free for most Americans who are accorded the privilege at birth. The department says only that it "has decided that the renunciant should pay this fee at the visit during which he or she swears the oath of renunciation." It's also getting more expensive if you want to keep your U.S. citizenship and need a passport to prove it. The application fee for a passport is jumping by 27 percent, from $55 to $70 with a 100 percent increase, from $20 to $40, in the passport security surcharge. In addition to the increase in the application fee, the department will now charge $82 - up from nothing - to add new pages to a U.S. passport. It says the fee is needed to offset the cost of the pages, the time spent affixing the pages into the passport book, endorsing the passport and performing a quality-control check. And, registering the overseas birth of an American child is going up as well. It will now cost $100 to apply for a report of a birth abroad, up from $65. The cost of getting a document notarized at a U.S. embassy abroad is also going up. The new price is $50 for a single page, up from $30, according to the new fee schedule. ? 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 2 16:19:56 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:19:56 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Alzheimer's "jumps" across brain cells to spread Message-ID: <426381D4-BC87-4B24-8CD7-8526617CCBEF@infowarrior.org> February 2, 2012 10:07 AM Alzheimer's disease "jumps" across brain cells to spread By Ryan Jaslow http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57370328-10391704/alzheimers-disease-jumps-across-brain-cells-to-spread/ (CBS) Alzheimer's disease spreads through the brain by jumping from one cell to another, according to a new study. The study found that tau protein, which indicates the fibrous tangles found in the brains of Alzheimer's patients, spreads along the brain's neurons from one region to the other - resulting in severe dementia. The new clues to the neurodegenerative brain disorder might help scientists find a way to stop the disease from getting worse. For the study - published in the Feb. 1 issue of PLoS One - researchers genetically modified mice to have a human gene for the abnormal tau protein in an area of the brain's temporal lobe where tau is thought to begin to accumulate. The researchers analyzed the mice brains over a 22-month period to map the protein's spread and found that as mice aged, the tau spread to different regions of their brains across synapses - the junctions neurons use to communicate with each other. "This pattern very much follows the staging that we see at the earliest stages of human Alzheimer's disease," senior study author Dr. Karen E. Duff, professor of pathology at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York City, said in a written statement. Duff told the New York Times that the mouse study answers many questions, since scientists had long thought the disease spread through some mechanism from one brain region to the other, but human autopsies and brain scan studies have been inconclusive. Duff told the paper that's because looking at brains of people who died with Alzheimer's is like "looking at a wrecked car and trying to find out the accident's cause." The study authors now hope their new findings can be used to improve treatments. "If, as our data suggest, tau pathology starts in the entorhinal cortex and emanates from there, the most effective approach may be to treat Alzheimer's the way we treat cancer - through early detection and treatment, before it has a chance to spread," study co-author Dr. Scott A. Small, professor of neurology at the Columbia University Medical Center, said in the statement. "It is during this early stage that the disease will be most amenable to treatment. That is the exciting clinical promise down the road." The findings may also provide new clues on how other neurodegenerative disorders, like Parkinson's spread, the New York Times reported. Dr. William Thies, chief medical & science officer at the Alzheimer's Association told CBS News that the findings are still early science, and it could take up to five years to really learn what the study's implications are. "If the speculation of these investigators is correct and you can find a way to interrupt the movement of tau from one neuron to another, that might be a useful therapeutic pathway," Thies told CBS News. "But there are many steps that have to come before you're actually going to get to a useful product that could be used to treat human disease." An estimated 5.4 million Americans live with Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S., according to the CDC's latest report, taking more than 83,000 lives this past year. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 2 19:15:43 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:15:43 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TIMELINE-European ministerial meetings in the last year Message-ID: (It's true - paint truly does dry faster! -- rick) TIMELINE-European ministerial meetings in the last year Thu Feb 2, 2012 12:14pm EST http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/eurozone-meetings-idUSL5E8D26JE20120202 Feb 2 (Reuters) - The two-year euro zone debt crisis has led to a slew of European Union ministerial gatherings over the last year, with another due to begin in Brussels on Monday. Following is a timeline of the meetings since early 2011 and the agreements reached: Feb. 4, 2011 - Summit of EU heads of state and government. - Germany and France tried to win backing for a pact to strengthen the euro zone economy, but many other EU states were angered by what they saw as a fait accompli and the measures contained in it. March 4 - Fourteen EU leaders, hosted by Finland, met to prepare a comprehensive response to the euro zone debt crisis. - Finland said the common will was there for European leaders to agree a pact that would call on member states to enact national legislation on debt. March 12 - Euro zone leaders agreed the capacity of the region's bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility, should be raised to 440 billion euros ($600 billion) from 250 billion, but left it up to finance ministers to work out how. March 15 - Meeting of EU finance ministers in Brussels. - Euro zone officials said they were likely to agree details on how to bolster the EFSF soon and that the reformed facility should be operational by the summer. March 24, 25 - Full summit of EU leaders in Brussels. - They confirmed that the EFSF would have a higher effective lending capacity by June. April 8, 9 - Informal meeting of European finance ministers in Hungary. - EU finance ministers urged Portugal to commit to reforms. Portugal on April 6 became the third euro zone country after Greece and Ireland to ask for EU and IMF aid. May 16 - Euro zone finance ministers meet in Brussels. - Ministers approved a 78 billion euro bailout for Portugal but insisted that Lisbon ask private bondholders to maintain their exposure to its debt. May 17 - European Union finance ministers meet in Brussels. - Europe's top financial officials acknowledged for the first time that Greece may have to restructure its debts. June 23, 24 - Summit of EU leaders in Brussels. - Euro zone leaders endorsed the treaty setting up the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) - a permanent mechanism for resolving sovereign debt crises - from mid-2013. July 3 - Extraordinary meeting of euro zone finance ministers in Brussels. - Ministers approved the next 12 billion euro instalment of Greece's bailout, but signalled that the nation must expect significant losses of sovereignty and jobs. July 21 - Meeting of euro zone heads of state and government in Brussels. - Euro zone leaders agreed on giving the rescue fund broader powers to prevent contagion from the debt crisis. Sept. 6 - Finance ministers of the Netherlands, Finland and Germany meet in Berlin. - The Dutch finance minister said talks with Finland and Germany had not resolved a row over a bilateral deal between Finland and Greece, granting the Nordic country collateral for contributing to a new Greek bailout package. Sept. 16, 17 - Informal meeting of ministers and central bank governors in Wroclaw, Poland. - EU finance ministers broke no new ground in dealing with the euro zone debt crisis. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made an appearance and urged Germany to provide more fiscal stimulus for the euro zone. Oct. 3 - Meeting of euro zone finance ministers, central bankers and EU commissioners in Luxembourg. - European finance ministers agreed to safeguard their banks as doubts grew about whether a planned second bailout package for Greece would go ahead. - Hours earlier, French-Belgian municipal lender Dexia became the first European bank to have to be bailed out due to the euro zone's sovereign debt crisis. Oct. 23 - Meeting of EU leaders. - Leaders near agreement on bank recapitalisation -- how to leverage their rescue fund to try to stop bond market contagion. Oct. 26-27 - Euro zone leaders strike a deal with private banks and insurers for them to accept a 50 percent loss on their Greek government bonds as part of a plan to lower Greece's debt burden. The agreement is reached after more than eight hours of hard-nosed negotiations. - Leaders also agree to scale up the EFSF to about 1 trillion euros and to recapitalise European banks to an estimated 106 billion euros ($147 billion). Nov. 29 - Euro zone ministers meeting in Brussels. - Ministers agree on detailed plans to leverage the EFSF but do not say by how much because of rapidly worsening market conditions, prompting them to look to the IMF. Dec. 5 - Sarkozy and Merkel meet in France. - They float proposal for a euro zone "fiscal compact" to enforce budget discipline across the 17-nation bloc. They say they want any necessary treaty changes for their plans to be enacted to be agreed in March and ratified after France wraps up presidential and legislative elections in June. Dec. 8 - The ECB announced unprecedented action to support Europe's cash-starved banks with three-year liquidity tenders and easier collateral rules and cut interest rates back to a record low 1.0 percent. - However ECB President Mario Draghi discouraged expectations that the bank would massively step up buying of government bonds if European Union leaders agree on moves towards closer fiscal union at a crucial Brussels summit. Dec. 8/9 - Crisis summit of EU heads of state and government in Brussels. Sarkozy and Merkel laid out their plan to impose mandatory penalties on euro states that exceed deficit targets, to restore market trust and arrest the region's debt crisis. - Twenty-three of the 27 leaders agreed to pursue tighter integration with stricter budget rules for the single currency area, but Britain said it could not accept proposed amendments to the EU treaty after failing to secure concessions for itself. Jan. 30, 2012 - Summit of EU heads of state and government in Brussels. Twenty-five out of 27 EU states agreed to a German-inspired pact for stricter budget discipline - only Britain and the Czech Republic refused the fiscal compact, to be signed in March. Feb. 6 - Euro zone finance ministers will meet in Brussels to try to agree a second financing package for Greece. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 06:02:37 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:02:37 +0000 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Mythbusters Banned From Discussing RFID By Visa And Mastercard Message-ID: <981351779-1328270556-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-203465649-@b11.c17.bise6.blackberry> Mythbusters Banned From Discussing RFID By Visa And Mastercard Posted by JacobSloan on February 2, 2012 Host Adam Savage of Mythbusters tells how Visa, Mastercard, and Discover had the Discovery Channel put the kibosh on an episode that would have revealed just how ?trackable and hackable? the RFID chips found in many credit cards are. It?s a telling example of how corporate advertisers serve as the gatekeepers of mainstream media/entertainment: http://www.disinfo.com/2012/02/mythbusters-banned-from-discussing-rfid-by-visa-and-mastercard/ Sent from my mobile. Please pardon typos and brevity. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 06:43:51 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:43:51 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FBI: TOR users might be terrorists Message-ID: (see the complete list of the FBI's daffy cross-sector 'You-Might-Be-A-Terrorist' documentation @ http://publicintelligence.net/fbi-suspicious-activity-reporting-flyers/) FBI tells net cafe owners that TOR users might be terrorists By Cory Doctorow at 9:28 pm Thursday, Feb 2 http://boingboing.net/2012/02/02/fbi-tells-the-public-that-tor.html Icecube sez, "Are you concerned about your online privacy? Do you shield your laptop from view of others? Do you use various means of hiding your IP address? Do you use any encryption at all like PGP? That means you are probably a terrorist according to the FBI. These are just some of the activities that are suggested indicators of terrorism according to a flyer being distributed entitled 'Communities Against Terrorism' You can find a PDF version here entitled 'Internet Cafes'" --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 06:46:06 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:46:06 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Full Text Of Slovenian Ambassador's Apology For Signing ACTA Message-ID: Full Text Of Slovenian Ambassador's Apology For Signing ACTA from the wow dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/02305917633/full-text-slovenian-ambassadors-apology-signing-acta.shtml Yesterday, we wrote about the Slovenian ambassador to Japan, Helena Drnovsek Zorko, apologizing for signing ACTA last week in Japan. We later updated the post with a link to a Google translation of her apology that was a bit confusing. However, she's also posted a version in English, in which she admits that she signed it because her government told her to, and "out of civic carelessness" in not bothering to understand what ACTA meant before signing it. She talks about being overworked, and apologizing to her children for signing ACTA. She also expresses exasperation at the fact that the hatred of many people has been directed at her, rather than at her government and others who actually created ACTA. The whole thing is worth a read, so we are posting it in its entirety below: On Thursday, 26th January, 2012, I signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on behalf of the Republic of Slovenia, following the directive and authorisation of the Slovenian government. A somewhat longer clarification of the signature can be found on the Media section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, which explains the role of the Ministry and my role as the Slovenian Ambassador to Japan. This explanation states that I signed the agreement because I was instructed to do so by the government, and because it is a part of my job. And yet, why did I sign ACTA. Every day there is a barrage of questions in my inbox and on Facebook from mostly kind and somewhat baffled people, who cannot understand how it occurred to me to sign an agreement so damaging to the state and citizens. With this reply, which is of a purely personal nature and expresses only my personal views, I wish to respond to all those people, all my friends and acquaintances who have remained quiet, all Anonymous, and not least also to myself and to my children. I signed ACTA out of civic carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children. I allowed myself a period of civic complacency, for a short time I unplugged myself from media reports from Slovenia, I took a break from Avaaz and its inflation of petitions, quite simply I allowed myself a rest. In my defence, I want to add that I very much needed this rest and that I am still having trouble gaining enough energy for the upcoming dragon year. At the same time, I am tackling a workload that increased, not lessened, with the advent of the current year. All in line with a motto that has become familiar to us all, likely not only diplomats: less for more. Less money and fewer people for more work. And then you overlook the significance of what you are signing. And you wake up the following morning with the weight of the unbearable lightness of some signature. First I apologised to my children. Then I tried to reply to those acquaintances and strangers who expressed their surprise and horror. Because there are more and more of them, I am responding to them publicly. I want to apologise because I carried out my official duty, but not my civic duty. I don?t know how many options I had with regard to not signing, but I could have tried. I did not. I missed an opportunity to fight for the right of conscientious objection on the part of us bureaucrats. But there is a second, very important reason why I am writing this. There has been a demonization of ?some sneak?, that is me, who in far-off Tokyo secretly signed something on her own initiative. This was heard in the Slovenian parliament and in the Slovenian media, and it is spreading on the web. It is dangerous particularly because it conceals the responsibility of those who had the power to decide, and did in fact decide, that Slovenia would be a signatory of ACTA. This was decided by the Slovenian government and by the parliamentary committee for EU matters, and before that, Slovenia was for quite some time involved in coordinating the agreement. All this was done with too little transparency, judging by the outraged responses that have appeared following the signing. Back then, the Slovenian media did not demonise this decision to the same extent as they now demonise my signature. This I consider very dangerous for the continuous (non-)development of democracy in Slovenia. At the same time, this means that I was not the only one whose attention slipped, that we, as Slovenian citizens, neglected our civic duty. And that there may be a little known party in the Slovenian political space that missed an excellent opportunity to gain votes in the recently concluded electoral struggle. On Saturday, 4th February, a protest is planned in Ljubljana for those who object to the ratification of ACTA. The true concern and determination of those Slovenian citizens who feel that the agreement must be stopped will be reflected in the number of people who attend this protest. I would like to ask for somebody to please attend in my name. One of my concerned correspondents asked me what my brother, the late Dr. Janez Drnovsek , would have thought of my signature. The struggle to protect civic freedoms is most certainly in the spirit of his heritage, much more so than the removal or non-removal of some statue. Let my example be a cautionary tale of how swiftly we can make mistakes if we allow ourselves to slip. And if nothing else, we then sleep very badly. Helena Drnovsek Zorko --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 06:48:18 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:48:18 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Warning: Before the Movie Begins Message-ID: Shouts & Murmurs Before the Movie Begins by Jacob Sager Weinstein February 6, 2012 http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2012/02/06/120206sh_shouts_weinstein Please note that the use of any recording equipment to capture this film is strictly forbidden, including: camcorders, cameras, cell phones, charcoal, ink, paint (oil or water-based), and the human brain. On leaving the theatre, you will be assaulted by baseball-bat-wielding ushers, who will pummel your skull until you forget what you have seen. Any remaining memories are yours to keep and enjoy, provided you do not discuss them with others or make them available via mankind?s collective unconscious. In addition, your experience of this film may not be remixed in any form; dreams involving any of its characters must adhere strictly to the film?s actual plotline and running time, and must also comply with copyright laws in your state or territory. Any sexual fantasies based on it may not exceed the film?s M.P.A.A. rating. This film is licensed only for public exhibition in first-run theatres, and is not to be screened in schools, on oil rigs, or in prisons. If you are watching it in a school, on an oil rig, or in a prison, you must immediately drop out, throw yourself off the edge and swim to safety, or plan an elaborate escape with the help of a ragtag team of charming criminals, most of whom were wrongly accused, and all of whom wish to become productive members of society. The rights to the story of your escape immediately become the property of the makers of this film, in any and all forms of expression now extant or to be invented in the future, throughout the universe and three feet beyond, just for good measure. If you wish to opt out of any of the above terms and conditions, you must now walk up to the screen and check one or more of the following boxes with an indelible black Magic Marker: [ ] By checking the box below, but not this box, I indicate my denial of these terms and conditions. [ ] By checking the box above, but not this box, I indicate my acceptance of these terms and conditions, unless I have also checked the box below, in which case I indicate my denial, unless I have checked a total of three or more boxes, in which case I have passed beyond denial, cycled through anger, bargaining, and depression, and am now back at acceptance. [ ] I agree that, for the purposes of box-checking, ?above? shall be defined as ?below? and ?below? shall be defined as ?above,? unless the box below is checked. [ ] Ceci n?est pas un box. The film will begin in ten seconds. Please use this opportunity to locate the blindfolds and earplugs that have been provided for your safety and convenience. ? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 06:54:45 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:54:45 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Online Market for Pre-Owned Digital Music Hangs in the Balance Message-ID: <680EAB7A-316E-417E-955A-EE02BC8054F3@infowarrior.org> (c/o MM) Online Market for Pre-Owned Digital Music Hangs in the Balance ? By David Kravets ? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/pre-owned-music-lawsuit/ ? February 2, 2012 | ? 6:22 pm | ? Categories: intellectual property, The Courts The future of a one-of-a-kind website enabling the online sale of pre-owned digital-music files is in the hands of a federal judge. ReDigi, which opened in October, provides account holders with a platform to buy and sell used MP3s that were purchased lawfully through iTunes. The platform?s technology does not support other music. Among other points, the case weighs the so-called first-sale doctrine, the legal theory that people in lawful possession of copyright material have the right to sell it. A federal judge sided with that principle in 2008, when it debunked UMG Recordings? claim that it retained perpetual ownership of promotional CDs it releases before an album?s debut. Last year, however, a different court ruled against now-defunct online service Zediva, which streamed movies to customers via DVDs that Zediva had purchased. In the ReDigi case, Capital Records sued the Massachusetts-based startup last month in New York federal court. Claiming ReDigi was liable for contributing to copyright infringement, the label is demanding U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan immediately order ReDigi to remove Capital-owned material, and to also award damages of up to $150,000 per track against the startup. A ruling could come any day. Larry Rudolf, the 15-employee company?s chief technology officer, seemed confident of the outcome. ?We let others sit around biting their nails,? he said in an e-mail. Capital appears equally as confident. It told Judge Sullivan that ReDigi is not the ?equivalent of a used record store,? as ReDigi claims. ?ReDigi is actually a clearinghouse for copyright infringement and a business model built on widespread, unauthorized copying of sound recordings owned by plaintiff and others. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to halt defendant?s ongoing infringement of plaintiff?s copyrighted works and to recover damages for the harm caused by defendant?s activities,?(.pdf) Capital attorney Richard Mandel wrote. ReDigi explained to Sullivan in court papers that its undisclosed number of account holders have a right to upload their purchased iTunes files into ReDigi?s cloud. And when a file is sold to another ReDigi account holder, no copy is made. What?s more, because of ReDigi?s technology, the original uploaded file that is sold cannot be accessed by the seller any more through ReDigi or via the seller?s iTunes account. ?ReDigi?s structure ensures that no copies of an Eligible File are made when one ReDigi user sells an Eligible File stored in the user?s Cloud Locker to another ReDigi user through the ReDigi Marketplace,? its attorney, Ray Beckerman, wrote ina court filing. (.pdf) ?When such a file is purchased by another user, the file pointer associating the Eligible File with the seller?s Cloud Locker is modified to associate the file with the purchaser?s Cloud Locker. In such a transaction only the pointer is changed; the Eligible File remains in the same location in the ReDigi Cloud and is not copied.? Beckerman, in a telephone interview, said ReDigi does everything it can to block the unauthorized duplication of files in the ReDigi marketplace. Beckerman added that ReDigi?s technology cannot stop customers from file sharing or copying iTunes music purchases before they had uploaded them to the service. ?You can?t stop the world from committing copyright infringement,? he said. ?But it?s impossible to infringe through ReDigi.? Prices for songs vary on ReDigi, with some files having asking prices as high as 87 cents. The company, which earns up to 15 percent per sale, also offers cloud-storage music streaming. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 07:10:56 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:10:56 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Anonymous releases FBI to UK conference call Message-ID: <68B50B7B-A663-4936-8DE6-5854DD7B9BE2@infowarrior.org> Anonymous releases FBI to UK conference call Agents discuss arrested hackers in clunky call By Dave Neal Fri Feb 03 2012, 11:30 http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2143768/anonymous-releases-fbi-uk-conference HACKTIVIST GROUP Anonymous has plundered a conference call from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and posted it on Youtube. In the audio FBI agents at a number of locations discuss Anonymous and its members, bumble their way through some small talk, and do a lot of chuckling. Things do not start well. The UK contingent confuses Sheffield with Birmingham, but everyone seems to bond once a well-known hamburger store is mentioned. According to a statement on Pastebin that supports the release of the audio the call took place on Tuesday, 20 January and lasted for about 20 minutes. "A conference call is planned for next Tuesday (January 17, 2012) to discuss the on-going investigations related to Anonymous, Lulzsec, Antisec, and other associated splinter groups. The conference call was moved to Tuesday due to a US holiday on Monday," says a reproduced email that is signed by Timothy F. Lauster, Jr of the FBI. It is quite interesting. When people are not yucking at poor jokes, the UK coppers appear to be doing all that they can to please their US counterparts and provide them with as much information as they possibly can. The FBI asks if it can do dual interviews with suspects, adding that it's not something that the UK would normally do. The UK representative suggests that there might be some movement on this, and adds that it could be discussed later. The court appearances of Ryan Cleary and Jake Davis, or rather their delays, are also discussed, and the UK officer says that "following a discussion with the New York office" they have postponed the re-arrests of hackers including Kayla and T Flow, while working with the New York FBI on 'operational matters'. The UK officer says that they have asked for eight weeks to work on this, and are expecting to get six weeks. Perhaps most telling is what he says when the FBI host, presumably Lauster, thanks the UK for its support. "We are here to help. We cocked things up in the past, we know that," he says, adding, "it's not that much of a hardship." Source: The Inquirer (http://s.tt/15wY0) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 07:25:25 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:25:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?BOOK_REVIEW=3A_=91Consent_of_the?= =?windows-1252?q?_Networked=92?= Message-ID: <7BBD23E6-2353-4F9D-9380-CA836ADC39F8@infowarrior.org> BOOK REVIEW: ?Consent of the Networked? By Nicole Russell - Special to The Washington Times Friday, February 3, 2012 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/3/book-review-consent-of-the-networked/ CONSENT OF THE NETWORKED: THE WORLDWIDE STRUGGLE FOR INTERNET FREEDOM By Rebecca MacKinnon Basic Books, $26.99, 320 pages In the United States, a country that fosters innovation and upholds freedom, it can be difficult to imagine circumstances in which citizens use the Internet as anything but a platform for productivity via sites like Google, Twitter or Facebook. Within the first chapter of ?Consent of the Networked,? author Rebecca MacKinnon shows that for some parts of the world, however, the Internet provides much more. A journalist and former CNN bureau chief in Tokyo and Beijing, Ms. MacKinnon sets out to determine ?how digital technology can be structured, governed, and used to maximize the good it can do in the world, and minimize the evil.? Through stories of revolutionary uprisings in countries such as Tunisia and Egypt that came about partly through organization and communication via Facebook, Twitter and WordPress, Ms. MacKinnon shows the Internet?s explosive power in the hands of determined political activists. Ms. MacKinnon?s reported and personal stories about China are most insightful and moving in their detailed demonstration of how far people will go to be able to live freely. (In fact, between the lines, sections of the book read like a manifesto against communism, especially as it plays out online, something Ms. MacKinnon calls ?networked authoritarianism.?) Indeed, Ms. MacKinnon details Google?s complicated relationship with China and sounds relieved and encouraged to point out that their severed relationship is a sign of the increased possibility of a free and open Internet respectful of human rights. However, Ms. MacKinnon observes: ?The Chinese Communist Party has created a system that keeps itself in power while engaging its citizens and helping them succeed economically. ? [But] the Internet?s pervasive use in China will actually help prolong the Communist Party?s rule of China rather than hasten its demise.? Ms. MacKinnon?s stories of the effort occurring worldwide as people harness the Internet, often with a political, socioeconomic or religious motivation, are discerning, harrowing and empowering. From Egypt?s record of torturing and jailing bloggers, China?s system of corporate-level censorship and South Korea?s strict requirements for real identification for online users, Ms. MacKinnon repeatedly strikes the appropriate balance between a technological discussion of the Net and the significance of human rights. Because people are using the Internet for everything from a haven from abusive relationships to a way of communicating against authoritarian rule, she makes a case for the need for a cohesive system of law in cyberworld such as there is in the real world. Interestingly, Ms. MacKinnon?s research pointedly and consistently shows a two-faced Internet: On one, the politically repressed find freedom; on the other, corporations and governments violate basic privacies. She surmises, ?In the Internet age, it is inevitable that corporations and government agencies have access to detailed information about people?s lives. Without transparency and accountability in the use of this information, democracy will be eroded.? Two-thirds of the book sets up the groundwork and relays examples of the fundamental problems of ensuring the Internet remains a free ?place?; the last third describes several possible solutions. Anyone who has heard of Egyptians using Twitter to aid the overthrow of a government but who worries that his identity or privacy may be compromised when using Facebook or Gmail wants to know, as Ms. MacKinnon does, ?How do citizens make sure that private agendas and pursuit of profit do not erode consumer choice and even democratic expression?? The solutions are as multifaceted as the questions. Ms. MacKinnon suggests regulation of the Internet might help but admits that sometimes governments contribute to the problem, so they may not be completely unbiased when confronting the issues. In many of her examples that occur between ?netizens? (citizens of the Net) and large corporations (such as Facebook or Google) the latter bears the burden to rise to the occasion, be more transparent and work with governments. She argues, ?[W]e must devise more effective and innovative ways to constrain all forms of digital power within reasonable limits, whether that power is exercised by governments, corporations, or activist hacker networks carrying ideological and religious stripes.? Ms. MacKinnon mentions personal responsibility in passing - curious, especially given that people hop on the Internet of their own accord, and sites like Facebook, Google and Twitter are completely free of cost to users. She suggests, ?The more we actively use the Internet to exercise our rights as citizens and to improve our societies, the harder it will be for governments and corporations to chip away at our freedoms, arguing as they so often do that we do not deserve them, and treating us like reprobates.? Packed with thorough and impeccable research and persuasive, eye-opening anecdotes from around the world, ?Consent of the Networked? should spearhead a robust debate and join the handful of other books that successfully guide the reader through the land mines surrounding responsible use of the Internet. ? Nicole Russell has written for TheAtlantic.com, Politico, National Review Online and the American Spectator. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 07:46:52 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:46:52 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google isn't being 'forthcoming' with Congress on privacy Message-ID: <7D0323C1-CEA6-4AF5-AF33-9B1DCA8C667B@infowarrior.org> Google isn't being 'forthcoming' with Congress on privacy By Brendan Sasso - 02/02/12 04:54 PM ET http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/208385-google-not-forthcoming-during-congressional-questioning House lawmakers grilled Google officials for two hours on Thursday about the company's recent privacy changes, but Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) said she wasn't satisfied with their answers. "At the end of the day, I don't think their answers to us were very forthcoming necessarily in what this really means for the safety of our families and our children," Bono Mack told reporters after the closed-door briefing. Bono Mack is the chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over data privacy issues. Pablo Chavez, Google's director of public policy, and Michael Yang, a Google senior counsel, answered questions from Energy and Commerce lawmakers, including Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Joe Barton (R-Texas), G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). Google has come under fire since it announced last week it will consolidate the privacy policies of its various services into a single document. The change allows Google to share user information between its services. Words in private emails could influence search results on YouTube, for example. The company says the change makes its privacy policy easier to understand and will help it tailor search results to individual users. Google officials note that users can still adjust their privacy settings. "By being more simple, [the privacy policy] is actually more complicated," Bono Mack said. She said the Google officials gave lawmakers a "thorough walkthrough of the technology that exists" to control privacy settings, but that she remains concerned about users' ability to control the information they share with Google. "The concern of Congress is how much active participation does a user have to do to protect their own privacy," she said. Butterfield emphasized he wants Google to provide a "one-stop" site where users can opt out of tracking across the company's platforms. Bono Mack said she uses Gmail but is considering switching to a different email service in light of the privacy changes. Google's officials did not fully explain whether users can delete data that the company has collected about them and how long the company keeps the data, Bono Mack said. When asked what she thinks lawmakers should do, she said Congress might not be the answer. But she suggested users might switch to new services "if Google goes too far." She said Google's privacy settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over its Buzz social network did not come up during the briefing, but her aides plan to speak to FTC staffers to determine whether the privacy changes violate the company's agreement. Bono Mack said she plans to hold more hearings on privacy issues this year, some of which could focus specifically on Google's changes. "There's a growing angst in the Congress about privacy ? there's no question," she said. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 11:21:04 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:21:04 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA Trains Super Bowl Hot Dog Sellers To Spot Terrorists Message-ID: <72180CF9-CDBF-4B0F-B8AD-90C2DC8588FE@infowarrior.org> TSA Trains Super Bowl Hot Dog Sellers To Spot Terrorists VIPR search teams to be out in force before Sunday?s big game Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Friday, February 3, 2012 http://www.infowars.com/tsa-trains-super-bowl-hot-dog-sellers-to-spot-terrorists/ Despite acknowledging there are ?no credible or specific threats? to the safety of the 2012 Super Bowl in Indianapolis on Sunday, the TSA is training thousands of fast food sellers to spot terrorists under the ?First Observer? program. ?TSA said over 8,000 stadium vendors, parking lot attendants, shuttle bus drivers, and other transportation professionals received the agency?s First Observer training for detecting and assessing indicators and planning tactics of potential terrorist activities,? reports Government Security News. As we have previously reported, many of the behaviors characterized as potential signs of terrorism by the TSA in its training procedures are mundane activities performed by a majority of people, including using a video camera, talking to police officers, wearing hoodies, driving vans, writing on a piece of paper, and using a cell phone recording application. The First Observer program has previously been used by the TSA on America?s highways, most recently in Tennessee for the purpose of ?bothering truck drivers and passengers by subjecting their cargoes to exhaustive searches,? as former Congressman Bob Barr wrote back in November. Drivers were also recruited to become snitches under the auspices of ?See Something, Say Something,? as VIPR teams (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) worked with the Tennessee Highway Patrol to oversee a process that has been criticized as an alarming sign of internal checkpoints becoming commonplace in America. With Congress having recently given the green light to increase their funding, VIPR teams, who conducted over 9300 unannounced checkpoints last year alone, will also be very much in evidence at the Super Bowl this weekend. ? A d v e r t i s e m e n t ? ?According to TSA, Super Bowl fans may encounter TSA Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams at local transportation venues, including commercial and general aviation facilities and mass transit,? reports GSN. VIPR?s presence at the big game again illustrates the expanding scope of the deployment, under which TSA agents have been tasked with shaking down Americans at everywhere from bus depots, to ferry terminals, to train stations, in one instance conducting pat downs of passengers, including children, who had already completed their journey when arriving in Savannah. The TSA yesterday denied a report out of WPRI that full body scanners would be used on fans entering the stadium, but reiterated that they would be in use at the nearby airport and also made reference to other ?security issues? being coordinated with stadium venue security and local law enforcement. Fans attending the game will be subject to a full body pat down and have been warned that most items being brought into the Lucas Oil Stadium will be confiscated. ********************* Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 11:41:02 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:41:02 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Hey Advertisers! Stop Believing The NFL's Lies About Trademark Law And Call The Super Bowl The Super Bowl Message-ID: <520966E9-AE9C-4354-A7FF-A26D9CD9EE2F@infowarrior.org> Hey Advertisers! Stop Believing The NFL's Lies About Trademark Law And Call The Super Bowl The Super Bowl from the suck-it-up,-weenies dept For years now, we've mocked how the NFL insists that no one can use the term "Super Bowl" in an advertisement unless they're an official sponsor of the event. That's why it's become so typical to see advertisers using "the big game" instead -- though, five years ago, the NFL even sought the trademark on "The Big Game" because so many advertisers were using it. However, Paul Levy rightly takes advertisers to task for being "weenies" and not standing up to the NFL on this. As he says: < -- > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04205917638/hey-advertisers-stop-believing-nfls-lies-about-trademark-law-call-super-bowl-super-bowl.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 13:06:46 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:06:46 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - IPOs: From Netscape To Facebook Message-ID: <1580B1CF-541B-47B2-92CB-E9359EB73C5D@infowarrior.org> In case you were unaware, IPOs are terrible investments ? at least most of the time. The lottery ticket dreams keeps hope alive that this next one is going to be a giant winner. Hopes are pinned on the giant Facebook IPO, coming out at an expected 100 X earnings and 30 X revenue. Its going to take extrordinary growth to justify those prices, especially for people who buy stock in the open market at higher than IPO prices.... < - > http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/ipos-from-netscape-to-facebook/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 15:55:30 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:55:30 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Congress Calls for Accelerated Use of Drones in U.S. Message-ID: <9077E212-1CCA-4D5E-A854-06058CF01528@infowarrior.org> Congress Calls for Accelerated Use of Drones in U.S. February 3rd, 2012 by Steven Aftergood http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/02/faa_drones.html A House-Senate conference report this week called on the Administration to accelerate the use of civilian unmanned aerial systems (UAS), or ?drones,? in U.S. airspace. The pending authorization bill for the Federal Aviation Administration directs the Secretary of Transporation to develop within nine months ?a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.? ?The plan? shall provide for the safe integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.? The conference bill, which still awaits final passage, also calls for establishment of UAS test ranges in cooperation with NASA and the Department of Defense, expanded use of UAS in the Arctic region, development of guidance for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems, and new safety research to assess the risk of ?catastrophic failure of the unmanned aircraft that would endanger other aircraft in the national airspace system.? The Department of Defense is pursuing its own domestic UAS activities for training purposes and ?domestic operations,? according to a 2007 DoD-FAA memorandum of agreement. (?Army Foresees Expanded Use of Drones in U.S. Airspace,? Secrecy News, January 19, 2012.) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 15:58:58 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:58:58 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google Rejects EU Request On Privacy Policy Consolidation Message-ID: <71C6E994-40FF-49EA-A515-882F69A0396B@infowarrior.org> Google Rejects EU Request On Privacy Policy Consolidation EU regulators want Google to delay its plan to combine privacy policies. But Google doesn't like that idea. By Thomas Claburn, InformationWeek February 03, 2012 URL: http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/policy/232600239 A European regulatory group focused on data protection has asked Google to delay its planned privacy policy consolidation, which is scheduled to take effect on March 1, 2012. In a letter sent on Thursday to Google CEO Larry Page, Jacob Kohnstamm, Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party, asked for "a pause" before Google implements its privacy policy adjustments "in the interests of ensuring that there can be no misunderstanding about Google's commitments to information rights of their users and EU citizens." Having insisted repeatedly over the past week that its commitment to user privacy remains unchanged, Google on Friday declined to alter its schedule. In a reply to the Article 29 Working Party, Google global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer explains that EU data protection officials were briefed prior to Google's policy change announcement on January 24 and that none of the officials suggested a delay would appropriate. [ Could cloud computing be constrained by copyright law? Read Google: Digital Music Case Has Cloud Law Implications. ] Google last week said it would be replacing some 60 privacy policies and terms of service documents with a single set of rules governing its handling of personal data and usage of its products. Alma Whitten, Google's director of privacy, product, and engineering, explained that Google wants to make its policies easier to understand and to update its policies to reflect its intention to combine user data across products as a way to improve user personalization. Already under fire for integrating content from its Google+ social network into its search results and for alleged abuse of its search dominance, the company's policy shift prompted a backlash. U.S. lawmakers expressed concern over the inability of Google users to opt-out of Google-wide data profiles, and Microsoft--which has been vocal in urging regulators to restrain Google--took the opportunity to claim that Google's planned changes will make it more difficult for people to control their information. Google last week attempted to "set the record straight" about its privacy policy changes. And on Wednesday, the company took to "busting myths about our approach to privacy." The damage control continued on Thursday, with Google executives answering lawmakers' questions at a closed-door hearing before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. It looks like Google may yet have further work to do: According to political news site The Hill, Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), chairman of the subcommittee, was dissatisfied with Google's response. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 3 18:56:03 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 19:56:03 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Rep. Lamer Smith at it again.... Message-ID: <221A0522-439A-45F2-BD09-27DC80C0C9DA@infowarrior.org> Gotta love the Mrs Lovejoy-esque formal title of the bill, eh? ---- rick http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57371426-281/anti-sopa-forces-have-isp-snooping-bill-in-their-crosshairs/ < - > It took an Internet-wide outcry from millions of voters to prompt Rep. Lamar Smith, author of the Stop Online Piracy Act, to postpone a vote on the controversial Hollywood-backed bill. Now Smith, a conservative Texas Republican, is being targeted a second time: for championing legislation that would require Internet service providers to keep track of their customers, in case police want to review those logs in the future. His bill is called H.R. 1981. < - > After repeated prodding by the Justice Department and other police agencies, Smith's committee approved H.R. 1981 by a divided 19 to 10 vote last July. H.R. 1981 represents "a data bank of every digital act by every American" that would "let us find out where every single American visited Web sites," Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill, warned at the time. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and previous supporter of data retention, changed his mind and now opposes it. The latest version of H.R. 1981 expands the information that commercial Internet providers would be required to store to include customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses, some committee members suggested. By a 7-16 vote in July, the House Judiciary committee rejected an amendment that would have clarified that only IP addresses must be stored. Even though H.R. 1981 is titled the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act," it would give police the power to review the companies' user logs for nearly any crime. Even Smith, during a January 2011 hearing, pointed to the problems of "illegal gambling, cigarette and prescription drug distribution, and child exploitation." Civil litigants, for instance in divorce cases, might also be able to gain access to the logs. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Feb 4 08:33:13 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:33:13 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Confirmed: Facebook's inflated user count Message-ID: <6D734B7E-81F9-4FFE-BBAF-8BEE4359E1FC@infowarrior.org> Wow....talk about cooking the books, inflating the count, pick your term-du-jour. Investors beware! --- rick Who?s a Daily Facebook User? Anyone who clicks ?Like? By Barry Ritholtz - February 4th, 2012, 8:14AM I have been arguing that $100B is rather rich for Facebook. Perusing the S1, and discussing this with Bloomberg?s Dave Wilson has further confirmed this. Why? It has to do with what they consider a daily or monthly ?user.? Indeed, this is extremely significant, because the excitement about Facebook?s reach and user base is driving valuations to levels that may be setting the company up for investor disappointment. Consider the 843 million monthly users and the 450 million daily users. Those sound like enormous numbers ? but what do they really mean? As it turns out, there is far less to being counted as a FB user than meets the eye. If you click on a Like button any given day, you are counted by Facebook as an active user that day. From the S-1: "Daily Active Users (DAUs). We define a daily active user as a registered Facebook user who logged in and visited Facebook through our website or a mobile device, or took an action to share content or activity with his or her Facebook friends or connections via a third-party website that is integrated with Facebook, on a given day. We view DAUs, and DAUs as a percentage of MAUs, as measures of user engagement. (emphasis added)" All of those people clicking all of those ?Like? buttons are counted as active that day, EVEN IF THEY NEVER GO TO FACEBOOK.COM. Think of what this means in terms of monetizing their ?daily users.? If they click a like button but do not go to Facebook that day, they cannot be marketed to, they do not see any advertising, they cannot be sold any goods or services. All they did was take advantage of FB?s extensive infrastructure to tell their FB friends (who may or may not see what they did) that they liked something online. Period. This helps to explain why Facebook?s annual revenue per user is so low: Facebook ? $5.02 Google $30 Netflix ? $148.20 It also helps to explain why Facebook?s valuation may be so greatly exaggerated. Retired Neuberger Berman value investor and present CNBC commentator Gary Kaminsky observed that at similar multiples as Facebook, Google would be trading at $850 and Apple trading at $1250. The question for investors: Can Facebook monetize their users at a rate 5-10X greater than what they are currently doing? If they can, their valuations are far more reasonable. If they cannot, then this is a very very expensive company. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/whos-a-daily-facebook-user-anyone-who-clicks-like/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Feb 4 08:37:19 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:37:19 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Poland freezes ACTA ratification Message-ID: <69A3DA34-045A-48C8-8527-3F0865F7718E@infowarrior.org> (First Slovenia's President expresses regret, now Poland having second thoughts....iif only American lawmakers were so bold. -- rick) Poland freezes anti-piracy pact ratification (AFP) ? 21 hours ago http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gUzE-5YkRY50hVqPpcBVy6hYZDOQ?docId=CNG.700849e3f913fe85bcfa4ab200e6f620.01 WARSAW ? Poland's prime minister said Friday that Warsaw would put on ice plans to ratify a controversial international online anti-piracy accord after massive off-and-online protests in his country. "I consider that the arguments for a halt to the ratification process are justified," Donald Tusk told reporters. "The issue of signing of the ACTA accord did not involve sufficient consultation with everyone who is part of the process," Tusk said, adding that he would hold broad talks on what to do next. "The ACTA ratification process will be frozen as long as we haven't overcome all the doubts. This will probably require a review of Polish law. We can't rule out that, at the end of the day, this accord will not be approved." Tusk's decision comes in the wake of high-profile protests mostly by young Poles who fear the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) -- aimed at creating international standards for intellectual property protection -- could significantly curtail online freedom. Despite the unprecedented outcry among Polish Internet users, Poland gave a nod to the agreement on January 26 with an initial signature of endorsement, but ratification by parliament is needed for it to come into force. Tusk's centre-right government faced particular criticism for signing the accord after talks with record companies and commercial media, but failing to address groups representing Internet users. The day after the signature, the under-fire Tusk had already expressed caution about ACTA, a broad-brush accord which besides cracking down on illegal downloading also aims to stop counterfeiting of goods. In addition to street rallies and online protests, Poland also faced anti-ACTA cyber attacks by "hacktivists" Anonymous and another group called Polish Underground, which took down the websites of the president, parliament and foreign and culture ministers, as well as the national police headquarters. ACTA was negotiated between the 27-nation European Union, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland and the United States. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Feb 5 09:01:25 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 10:01:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Sweden = US copyright lapdog? Message-ID: <01CC7B77-D391-4AD3-A93B-FAE5A6AF6784@infowarrior.org> Cable Reveals Extent Of Lapdoggery From Swedish Govt On Copyright Monopoly COPYRIGHT MONOPOLY Among the treasure troves of recently released WikiLeaks cables, we find one whose significance has bypassed Swedish media. In short: every law proposal, every ordinance, and every governmental report hostile to the net, youth, and civil liberties here in Sweden in recent years have been commissioned by the US government and industry interests. < --- > http://falkvinge.net/2011/09/05/cable-reveals-extent-of-lapdoggery-from-swedish-govt-on-copyright-monopoly/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Feb 5 09:22:27 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 10:22:27 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Facebook Is Using You Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/facebook-is-using-you.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print February 4, 2012 Facebook Is Using You By LORI ANDREWS LAST week, Facebook filed documents with the government that will allow it to sell shares of stock to the public. It is estimated to be worth at least $75 billion. But unlike other big-ticket corporations, it doesn?t have an inventory of widgets or gadgets, cars or phones. Facebook?s inventory consists of personal data ? yours and mine. Facebook makes money by selling ad space to companies that want to reach us. Advertisers choose key words or details ? like relationship status, location, activities, favorite books and employment ? and then Facebook runs the ads for the targeted subset of its 845 million users. If you indicate that you like cupcakes, live in a certain neighborhood and have invited friends over, expect an ad from a nearby bakery to appear on your page. The magnitude of online information Facebook has available about each of us for targeted marketing is stunning. In Europe, laws give people the right to know what data companies have about them, but that is not the case in the United States. Facebook made $3.2 billion in advertising revenue last year, 85 percent of its total revenue. Yet Facebook?s inventory of data and its revenue from advertising are small potatoes compared to some others. Google took in more than 10 times as much, with an estimated $36.5 billion in advertising revenue in 2011, by analyzing what people sent over Gmail and what they searched on the Web, and then using that data to sell ads. Hundreds of other companies have also staked claims on people?s online data by depositing software called cookies or other tracking mechanisms on people?s computers and in their browsers. If you?ve mentioned anxiety in an e-mail, done a Google search for ?stress? or started using an online medical diary that lets you monitor your mood, expect ads for medications and services to treat your anxiety. Ads that pop up on your screen might seem useful, or at worst, a nuisance. But they are much more than that. The bits and bytes about your life can easily be used against you. Whether you can obtain a job, credit or insurance can be based on your digital doppelg?nger ? and you may never know why you?ve been turned down. Material mined online has been used against people battling for child custody or defending themselves in criminal cases. LexisNexis has a product called Accurint for Law Enforcement, which gives government agents information about what people do on social networks. The Internal Revenue Service searches Facebook and MySpace for evidence of tax evaders? income and whereabouts, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has been known to scrutinize photos and posts to confirm family relationships or weed out sham marriages. Employers sometimes decide whether to hire people based on their online profiles, with one study indicating that 70 percent of recruiters and human resource professionals in the United States have rejected candidates based on data found online. A company called Spokeo gathers online data for employers, the public and anyone else who wants it. The company even posts ads urging ?HR Recruiters ? Click Here Now!? and asking women to submit their boyfriends? e-mail addresses for an analysis of their online photos and activities to learn ?Is He Cheating on You?? Stereotyping is alive and well in data aggregation. Your application for credit could be declined not on the basis of your own finances or credit history, but on the basis of aggregate data ? what other people whose likes and dislikes are similar to yours have done. If guitar players or divorcing couples are more likely to renege on their credit-card bills, then the fact that you?ve looked at guitar ads or sent an e-mail to a divorce lawyer might cause a data aggregator to classify you as less credit-worthy. When an Atlanta man returned from his honeymoon, he found that his credit limit had been lowered to $3,800 from $10,800. The switch was not based on anything he had done but on aggregate data. A letter from the company told him, ?Other customers who have used their card at establishments where you recently shopped have a poor repayment history with American Express.? Even though laws allow people to challenge false information in credit reports, there are no laws that require data aggregators to reveal what they know about you. If I?ve Googled ?diabetes? for a friend or ?date rape drugs? for a mystery I?m writing, data aggregators assume those searches reflect my own health and proclivities. Because no laws regulate what types of data these aggregators can collect, they make their own rules. In 2007 and 2008, the online advertising company NebuAd contracted with six Internet service providers to install hardware on their networks that monitored users? Internet activities and transmitted that data to NebuAd?s servers for analysis and use in marketing. For an average of six months, NebuAd copied every e-mail, Web search or purchase that some 400,000 people sent over the Internet. Other companies, like Healthline Networks Inc., have in-house limits on which private information they will collect. Healthline does not use information about people?s searches related to H.I.V., impotence or eating disorders to target ads to people, but it will use information about bipolar disorder, overactive bladder and anxiety, which can be as stigmatizing as the topics on its privacy-protected list. In the 1970s, a professor of communication studies at Northwestern University named John McKnight popularized the term ?redlining? to describe the failure of banks, insurers and other institutions to offer their services to inner city neighborhoods. The term came from the practice of bank officials who drew a red line on a map to indicate where they wouldn?t invest. But use of the term expanded to cover a wide array of racially discriminatory practices, such as not offering home loans to African-Americans, even those who were wealthy or middle class. Now the map used in redlining is not a geographic map, but the map of your travels across the Web. The term Weblining describes the practice of denying people opportunities based on their digital selves. You might be refused health insurance based on a Google search you did about a medical condition. You might be shown a credit card with a lower credit limit, not because of your credit history, but because of your race, sex or ZIP code or the types of Web sites you visit. Data aggregation has social implications as well. When young people in poor neighborhoods are bombarded with advertisements for trade schools, will they be more likely than others their age to forgo college? And when women are shown articles about celebrities rather than stock market trends, will they be less likely to develop financial savvy? Advertisers are drawing new redlines, limiting people to the roles society expects them to play. Data aggregators? practices conflict with what people say they want. A 2008 Consumer Reports poll of 2,000 people found that 93 percent thought Internet companies should always ask for permission before using personal information, and 72 percent wanted the right to opt out of online tracking. A study by Princeton Survey Research Associates in 2009 using a random sample of 1,000 people found that 69 percent thought that the United States should adopt a law giving people the right to learn everything a Web site knows about them. We need a do-not-track law, similar to the do-not-call one. Now it?s not just about whether my dinner will be interrupted by a telemarketer. It?s about whether my dreams will be dashed by the collection of bits and bytes over which I have no control and for which companies are currently unaccountable. Lori Andrews is a law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law and the author of ?I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Feb 5 09:23:03 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 10:23:03 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Death_of_the_Cyberfl=E2neur?= Message-ID: <5DC9394D-1CC0-4B81-B7B4-19887A9D3DBC@infowarrior.org> February 4, 2012 The Death of the Cyberfl?neur By EVGENY MOROZOV Palo Alto, Calif. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/the-death-of-the-cyberflaneur.html?hp=&pagewanted=print THE other day, while I was rummaging through a stack of oldish articles on the future of the Internet, an obscure little essay from 1998 ? published, of all places, on a Web site called Ceramics Today ? caught my eye. Celebrating the rise of the ?cyberfl?neur,? it painted a bright digital future, brimming with playfulness, intrigue and serendipity, that awaited this mysterious online type. This vision of tomorrow seemed all but inevitable at a time when ?what the city and the street were to the Fl?neur, the Internet and the Superhighway have become to the Cyberfl?neur.? Intrigued, I set out to discover what happened to the cyberfl?neur. While I quickly found other contemporaneous commentators who believed that fl?nerie would flourish online, the sad state of today?s Internet suggests that they couldn?t have been more wrong. Cyberfl?neurs are few and far between, while the very practice of cyberfl?nerie seems at odds with the world of social media. What went wrong? And should we worry? Engaging the history of fl?nerie may be a good way to start answering these questions. Thanks to the French poet Charles Baudelaire and the German critic Walter Benjamin, both of whom viewed the fl?neur as an emblem of modernity, his figure (and it was predominantly a ?he?) is now firmly associated with 19th-century Paris. The fl?neur would leisurely stroll through its streets and especially its arcades ? those stylish, lively and bustling rows of shops covered by glass roofs ? to cultivate what Honor? de Balzac called ?the gastronomy of the eye.? While not deliberately concealing his identity, the fl?neur preferred to stroll incognito. ?The art that the fl?neur masters is that of seeing without being caught looking,? the Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman once remarked. The fl?neur was not asocial ? he needed the crowds to thrive ? but he did not blend in, preferring to savor his solitude. And he had all the time in the world: there were reports of fl?neurs taking turtles for a walk. The fl?neur wandered in the shopping arcades, but he did not give in to the temptations of consumerism; the arcade was primarily a pathway to a rich sensory experience ? and only then a temple of consumption. His goal was to observe, to bathe in the crowd, taking in its noises, its chaos, its heterogeneity, its cosmopolitanism. Occasionally, he would narrate what he saw ? surveying both his private self and the world at large ? in the form of short essays for daily newspapers. It?s easy to see, then, why cyberfl?nerie seemed such an appealing notion in the early days of the Web. The idea of exploring cyberspace as virgin territory, not yet colonized by governments and corporations, was romantic; that romanticism was even reflected in the names of early browsers (?Internet Explorer,? ?Netscape Navigator?). Online communities like GeoCities and Tripod were the true digital arcades of that period, trading in the most obscure and the most peculiar, without any sort of hierarchy ranking them by popularity or commercial value. Back then eBay was weirder than most flea markets; strolling through its virtual stands was far more pleasurable than buying any of the items. For a brief moment in the mid-1990s, it did seem that the Internet might trigger an unexpected renaissance of fl?nerie. However, anyone entertaining such dreams of the Internet as a refuge for the bohemian, the hedonistic and the idiosyncratic probably didn?t know the reasons behind the disappearance of the original fl?neur. In the second half of the 19th century, Paris was experiencing rapid and profound change. The architectural and city planning reforms advanced by Baron Haussmann during the rule of Napoleon III were particularly consequential: the demolition of small medieval streets, the numbering of buildings for administrative purposes, the establishment of wide, open, transparent boulevards (built partly to improve hygiene, partly to hamper revolutionary blockades), the proliferation of gas street lighting and the growing appeal of spending time outdoors radically transformed the city. Technology and social change had an effect as well. The advent of street traffic made contemplative strolling dangerous. The arcades were soon replaced by larger, utilitarian department stores. Such rationalization of city life drove fl?neurs underground, forcing some of them into a sort of ?internal fl?nerie? that reached its apogee in Marcel Proust?s self-imposed exile in his cork-lined room (situated, ironically, on Boulevard Haussmann). Something similar has happened to the Internet. Transcending its original playful identity, it?s no longer a place for strolling ? it?s a place for getting things done. Hardly anyone ?surfs? the Web anymore. The popularity of the ?app paradigm,? whereby dedicated mobile and tablet applications help us accomplish what we want without ever opening the browser or visiting the rest of the Internet, has made cyberfl?nerie less likely. That so much of today?s online activity revolves around shopping ? for virtual presents, for virtual pets, for virtual presents for virtual pets ? hasn?t helped either. Strolling through Groupon isn?t as much fun as strolling through an arcade, online or off. THE tempo of today?s Web is different as well. A decade ago, a concept like the ?real-time Web,? in which our every tweet and status update is instantaneously indexed, updated and responded to, was unthinkable. Today, it?s Silicon Valley?s favorite buzzword. That?s no surprise: people like speed and efficiency. But the slowly loading pages of old, accompanied by the funky buzz of the modem, had their own weird poetics, opening new spaces for play and interpretation. Occasionally, this slowness may have even alerted us to the fact that we were sitting in front of a computer. Well, that turtle is no more. Meanwhile, Google, in its quest to organize all of the world?s information, is making it unnecessary to visit individual Web sites in much the same way that the Sears catalog made it unnecessary to visit physical stores several generations earlier. Google?s latest grand ambition is to answer our questions ? about the weather, currency exchange rates, yesterday?s game ? all by itself, without having us visit any other sites at all. Just plug in a question to the Google homepage, and your answer comes up at the top of the search results. Whether such shortcuts harm competition in the search industry (as Google?s competitors allege) is beside the point; anyone who imagines information-seeking in such purely instrumental terms, viewing the Internet as little more than a giant Q & A machine, is unlikely to construct digital spaces hospitable to cyberfl?nerie. But if today?s Internet has a Baron Haussmann, it is Facebook. Everything that makes cyberfl?nerie possible ? solitude and individuality, anonymity and opacity, mystery and ambivalence, curiosity and risk-taking ? is under assault by that company. And it?s not just any company: with 845 million active users worldwide, where Facebook goes, arguably, so goes the Internet. It?s easy to blame Facebook?s business model (e.g., the loss of online anonymity allows it to make more money from advertising), but the problem resides much deeper. Facebook seems to believe that the quirky ingredients that make fl?nerie possible need to go. ?We want everything to be social,? Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook?s chief operating officer, said on ?Charlie Rose? a few months ago. What this means in practice was explained by her boss, Mark Zuckerberg, on that same show. ?Do you want to go to the movies by yourself or do you want to go to the movies with your friends?? he asked, immediately answering his own question: ?You want to go with your friends.? The implications are clear: Facebook wants to build an Internet where watching films, listening to music, reading books and even browsing is done not just openly but socially and collaboratively. Through clever partnerships with companies like Spotify and Netflix, Facebook will create powerful (but latent) incentives that would make users eagerly embrace the tyranny of the ?social,? to the point where pursuing any of those activities on their own would become impossible. Now, if Mr. Zuckerberg really believes what he said about cinema, there is a long list of films I?d like to run by his friends. Why not take them to see ?Satantango,? a seven-hour, black-and-white art-house flick by the Hungarian auteur Bela Tarr? Well, because if you took an open poll of his friends, or any large enough group of people, ?Satantango? would almost always lose out to something more mainstream, like ?War Horse.? It might not be everyone?s top choice, but it won?t offend, either ? that?s the tyranny of the social for you. Besides, isn?t it obvious that consuming great art alone is qualitatively different from consuming it socially? And why this fear of solitude in the first place? It?s hard to imagine packs of fl?neurs roaming the streets of Paris as if auditioning for another sequel to ?The Hangover.? But for Mr. Zuckerberg, as he acknowledged on ?Charlie Rose,? ?it feels better to be more connected to all these people. You have a richer life.? IT?S this idea that the individual experience is somehow inferior to the collective that underpins Facebook?s recent embrace of ?frictionless sharing,? the idea that, from now on, we have to worry only about things we don?t want to share; everything else will be shared automatically. To that end, Facebook is encouraging its partners to build applications that automatically share everything we do: articles we read, music we listen to, videos we watch. It goes without saying that frictionless sharing also makes it easier for Facebook to sell us to advertisers, and for advertisers to sell their wares back to us. That might even be worth it if frictionless sharing enhanced our online experience; after all, even the 19th-century fl?neur eventually confronted advertising posters and murals on his walks around town. Sadly, frictionless sharing has the same drawback as ?effortless poetry?: its final products are often intolerable. It?s one thing to find an interesting article and choose to share it with friends. It?s quite another to inundate your friends with everything that passes through your browser or your app, hoping that they will pick something interesting along the way. Worse, when this frictionless sharing scheme becomes fully operational, we will probably read all our news on Facebook, without ever leaving its confines to visit the rest of the Web; several news outlets, including The Guardian and The Washington Post, already have Facebook applications that allow users to read their articles without even visiting their Web sites. As the popular technology blogger Robert Scoble explained in a recent post defending frictionless sharing, ?The new world is you just open up Facebook and everything you care about will be streaming down the screen.? This is the very stance that is killing cyberfl?nerie: the whole point of the fl?neur?s wanderings is that he does not know what he cares about. As the German writer Franz Hessel, an occasional collaborator with Walter Benjamin, put it, ?in order to engage in fl?nerie, one must not have anything too definite in mind.? Compared with Facebook?s highly deterministic universe, even Microsoft?s unimaginative slogan from the 1990s ? ?Where do you want to go today?? ? sounds excitingly subversive. Who asks that silly question in the age of Facebook? According to Benjamin, the sad figure of the sandwich board man was the last incarnation of the fl?neur. In a way, we have all become such sandwich board men, walking the cyber-streets of Facebook with invisible advertisements hanging off our online selves. The only difference is that the digital nature of information has allowed us to merrily consume songs, films and books even as we advertise them, obliviously. Evgeny Morozov is the author of ?The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 6 09:39:00 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:39:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - BTJunkie Shuts Down Voluntarily Message-ID: (c/o KM) BTJunkie Shuts Down Voluntarily http://tech.pnosker.com/2012/02/05/btjunkie-shuts-down-voluntarily/ Michael Convente February 5, 2012 29 BTJunkie, a popular BitTorrent search engine, has voluntarily shut down after seven years in existence. The recent seizures of MegaUpload and several hundred sports broadcasting websites likely had an significant impact over the move to voluntarily shut down. It?s yet to be seen if BTJunkie will go completely inactive or whether they will follow in the footsteps of The Pirate Bay, which ended its search service in 2009 but still allows for the trading of content through decentralized methods such as magnet link sharing. All that is left of BTJunkie is a four-sentence statement, which reads: ?This is the end of the line my friends. The decision does not come easy, but we?ve decided to voluntarily shut down. We?ve been fighting for years for your right to communicate, but it?s time to move on. It?s been an experience of a lifetime, we wish you all the best!? According to the website ranking service Alexa, as of February 2012 BTJunkie ranked as the 392nd most popular website in the world. For comparison, The Pirate Bay reached as high as 75. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 6 10:16:34 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:16:34 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The Best BTjunkie Alternatives Message-ID: The Best BTjunkie Alternatives ? Ernesto ? February 6, 2012 ? 12 ? btjunkie alternative, http://torrentfreak.com/btjunkie-alternatives-120206/ A few hours ago BTjunkie decided to voluntarily shut down its website. While the owners were convinced that they offered a legal technology platform, recent events such as the MegaUpload raids and the Pirate Bay verdict took away much of the fun. Not an easy choice to make, as the site?s owners spent the last 7 years working on it day and night. The decision comes as a shock to the millions of people who visited the site every week. But, they have no other option than to find a suitable replacement. So where do these former BTjunkie users go to now? What are the best alternatives to BTjunkie? The Pirate Bay, Torrentz, isoHunt, KAT and Extratorrent are the most popular torrent sites in terms of traffic, but there are plenty of others to choose from. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 6 12:10:46 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:10:46 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Oz airports to require passenger scans Message-ID: Full-body scans rolled out at all Australian international airports after trial ? by: By Linda Silmalis ? From: The Sunday Mail (Qld) ? February 05, 2012 1:00AM http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/news/accept-airport-scan-or-drive/story-fn32891l-1226262838340 PASSENGERS at airports across Australia will be forced to undergo full-body scans or be banned from flying under new laws to be introduced into Federal Parliament this week. In a radical $28 million security overhaul, the scanners will be installed at all international airports from July and follows trials at Sydney and Melbourne in August and September last year. The Government is touting the technology as the most advanced available, with the equipment able to detect metallic and non-metallic items beneath clothing. It's also keen to allay concerns raised on travel online forums that passengers would appear nude on security screens as they had when similar scanners were introduced at US airports. The technology will show passengers on a screen as stick figures of neither sex. The system has approval from the Privacy Commission. The images will also be discarded after each passenger has been cleared. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. Airport scanner linked to cancer Dash to join the dots End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. The proposed Aviation Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 will make it mandatory for any passenger selected to participate in undergoing a body scan. The "no scan, no fly" amendment closes a loophole in the legislation, which allows passengers to request a pat-down instead of having to pass through a metal detector. Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said mandatory body scans were necessary to ensure the safety of airports. "I think the public understands that we live in a world where there are threats to our security and experience shows they want the peace of mind that comes with knowing government is doing all it can," he said. The Government has compared the strength of the radio waves emitted from the body scanners as the same as those from a regular mobile phone used several metres away. Only passengers with serious medical conditions will be exempted from a scan. More than 23,000 passengers took part in the body scanning trials from August 2-19 in Sydney and September 5-30 in Melbourne. The scanners will be rolled out at eight international gateway airports in Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. The Government has enlisted the same company, L-3 Communications, used in the US to supply the scanners. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 6 12:18:21 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:18:21 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - UK gov rejects call to posthumously pardon Alan Turing Message-ID: <33BDA920-B0BE-4A51-950B-86BC915BD506@infowarrior.org> (c/o MC) UK gov rejects call to posthumously pardon Alan Turing Wartime codebreaker's 'absurd' conviction must stand By John Leyden ? Get more from this author Posted in Government, 6th February 2012 16:23 GMT http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/06/turing_pardon_call_rejected/ The UK government has turned down a call to posthumously pardon Alan Turing. A petition to pardon the war-time codebreaker for a 'gross indecency' conviction attracted more than 23,000 signatures, prompting the tabling of early day motion in the House of Commons last week. Turing was arrested and eventually convicted for homosexuality in 1952. The conviction meant he was no longer allowed clearance to work on secret government projects. In addition he was forced to undergo a degrading hormone injection programme (chemical castration) as an alternative to a prison sentence. Turing spiralled into depression and ultimately took his own life two years later, in 1954. Three years ago, former UK prime minister Gordon Brown issued an apology for government's treatment of Turing, describing it as "horrifying" and "utterly unfair" as well as praising Turing's outstanding contribution to the war effort. The apology fell short of the criminal pardon that some - but not John Graham-Cumming, the British programmer behind the 2009 Alan Turing apology campaign ? had wanted. However when the issue of granting a posthumous pardon was raised in the House of Lords a government minister said the option had already been considered and rejected at the time of the 2009 apology. Lord Sharkey said that even though Turing had been "convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd", a pardon is not appropriate because he was found guilty of something that was a criminal offence at the time. Lord Sharkey's reply can be found on TheyWorkforYou here. ? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 6 12:25:19 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:25:19 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - A New Question of Internet Freedom Message-ID: February 5, 2012 A New Question of Internet Freedom By DAVID JOLLY http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/technology/06iht-acta06.html?hpw=&pagewanted=print PARIS ? European activists who participated in American Internet protests last month learned that there was political power to be harnessed on the Web. Now they are putting that knowledge to use in an effort to defeat new global rules for intellectual property. In the U.S. protests , Web sites including Wikipedia went dark Jan. 18, and more than seven million people signed Google?s online petition opposing the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act. Ultimately, even the bills? sponsors in the U.S. Congress backed down under the onslaught of public criticism. The European activists are hoping to use similar pressure to stop the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, which is meant to clamp down on illegal commerce in copyrighted and trademarked goods. Opponents say that it will erode Internet freedom and stifle innovation. About 1.5 million people have signed a Web petition calling for the European Parliament to reject ACTA, which some say is merely SOPA and PIPA on an international level. Thousands of people have turned out for demonstrations across Europe, with more scheduled for next Saturday. After more than three years of talks, which critics say were conducted without sufficient public input , the United States signed on to ACTA last October in Tokyo, along with Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand and South Korea. (The agreement is to come into force when six of those countries have ratified it.) But the issue moved into the mainstream in Europe after the European Union and representatives of 22 of 27 E.U. members ? all except Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands and Slovakia ? signed Jan. 26. On the same day, Kader Arif, a French Socialist member of the European Parliament, quit as the body?s special rapporteur for ACTA. He said the European Parliament and civil society organizations had been excluded from the negotiations, and he denounced the entire process as a ?masquerade.? The issue, which had gotten little traction in the news media previously, began to move into the headlines, with calls for national legislatures and the European Parliament to reject the treaty. The pressure on politicians has been unrelenting. Helena Drnovsek-Zorko, the Slovenian diplomat who signed the treaty on behalf of her country, has publicly disowned it and called for her fellow citizens to demonstrate against it. Ms. Drnovsek-Zorko said that she had signed ?out of civic carelessness? and that it was her conviction that ACTA ?limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history.? Poland, the home of some of the most vocal protests to date, ?suspended? ratification, said the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, after politicians wearing the Guy Fawkes masks favored by the online vigilante group Anonymous protested in the Polish Parliament. ACTA seeks to provide a common framework of civil and criminal procedures to stop illegal trade in goods and properties ? like Louis Vuitton bags, Hollywood films and recorded music ? providing holders of intellectual property rights with the means to work through the courts outside their national borders to shut down counterfeiters and pirates. And though two piracy heavyweights, Russia and China, have not signed, ACTA?s drafters say they hope those countries will come to see the benefits of joining. Mr. Arif, the opponent to the measure in the European Parliament, said that ACTA was ?wrong in both form and substance.? He said European officials, who began negotiating the agreement in 2007, kept legislators in the dark for years and ignored their concerns, finally presenting them with a finished deal for ratification with no option of modifying it. ?Voil?, that?s the masquerade that I denounce,? he said. Mr. Arif said a number of issues in the agreement troubled him, particularly a provision that could make Internet service providers liable for copyright infringement by users, something that would be in conflict with existing E.U. law. Another provision, he said, appeared to roll back protections for generic drugs by lumping them in with counterfeit drugs. Further, he said, the law leaves to the discretion of each country the definition of what constitutes a ?commercial? level of piracy, so some countries might choose to search travelers? laptop computers and digital music players in search of illegal downloads. ACTA supporters reject the criticism and say action is essential when legitimate owners of intellectual property are losing tens of billions of dollars annually to counterfeiting and illegal sharing. They accuse some opponents of deliberately exaggerating ACTA?s provisions to fan fears. ?ACTA is about enforcing existing intellectual property rights and about acting against large-scale infringements often pursued by criminal organizations, and not about pursuing individual citizens,? said John Clancy, the E.U. trade spokesman. The goal of the treaty, he said, was to raise standards around the world to European standards, not to crack down in Europe. ?It?s simply misleading to suggest that ACTA would limit the freedom of the Internet,? Mr. Clancy added. ?ACTA is not about checking private laptops or smartphones at borders. It will not cut access to the Internet or censor any Web sites.? Ron Kirk, the U.S. trade representative, said in October that protecting intellectual property was ?essential to American jobs in innovative and creative industries? and that the treaty ?provides a platform for the Obama administration to work cooperatively with other governments to advance the fight against counterfeiting and piracy.? The United States and the European Union dismiss the charge that the talks were not transparent, with U.S. trade officials arguing that the negotiating partners released the ACTA draft agreement in April 2010 and that the final version has been public for more than a year. In the United States, too, ACTA has attracted criticism, but probably because its provisions are aimed at piracy overseas, there has been less controversy than for SOPA and PIPA. The NetCoalition, the alliance of technology companies including Google and eBay that fought SOPA and PIPA, has been critical of ACTA, as well. And about 75 law professors signed an open letter to President Barack Obama, in which they criticized what they said was the ?intense but needless secrecy? under which the negotiations were carried out, as well as the White House?s argument that Mr. Obama had the authority to endorse ACTA not as a treaty, which would require the advice and consent of the Senate, but rather as ?a sole executive agreement.? That has not gone over well in the U.S. Congress. ?There are questions of constitutional authority surrounding whether the administration can enter into this agreement without Congress?s approval,? said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon. ?Either way, when international accords, like ACTA, are conceived and constructed under a cloak of secrecy,? Mr. Wyden said, ?it is hard to argue that they represent the broad interests of the general public. The controversy over ACTA should surprise no one.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 6 13:34:05 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:34:05 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Muslim: Quip led to terror probe Message-ID: <69CB5182-8958-4E95-8891-3123CA5F7B97@infowarrior.org> Muslim: Quip led to terror probe February 3, 2012 - 4:34am By SIDHARTHA BANERJEE The Canadian Press http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/58468-muslim-quip-led-terror-probe MONTREAL ? A casual text message to work colleagues encouraging them to "blow away" the competition at a trade show allegedly plunged a Muslim man into a terrorism probe. Telecommunications sales manager Saad Allami says the innocent message, aimed at pumping up his staff, has had devastating consequences on his life. The Quebec man says he was arrested by provincial police while picking up his seven-year-old son at school. A team of police officers stormed into his home, telling his wife she was married to a terrorist. And his work colleagues were detained for hours at the U.S. border because of their connection to him. Those are the allegations Allami makes in a lawsuit filed last month. The Moroccan native is seeking $100,000 from the Quebec provincial police force, one of its sergeants, and the provincial government. The six-figure sum is being sought for unlawful detention, unlawful arrest, loss of income and damage to his reputation. On Jan. 21, 2011, Allami sent a text message to colleagues urging them to "blow away" the competition at a trade show in New York City. According to his lawsuit, he was arrested without warning by police three days later and detained for over a day while his house was searched. During his detention, a team of police officers allegedly conducted an "intrusive" four-hour search. "The whole time, the officers kept repeating to the plaintiff?s wife that her husband was a terrorist," the filing reads. "The treatment of the plaintiff and his wife was cavalier, illegal, aggressive, accusatory, and in violation of their most fundamental rights." Allami, who was 40 when he was arrested, says he has no links to terrorist organizations or the Islamic movement and that police acted without any evidence or research. He has never been charged in the affair. A search of Quebec?s courthouse database finds no other references to him, either. However, Allami says he hasn?t been able to get a certificate of good conduct, which he would need in order to get a job working in finance. His allegations have not been proven in court and the application is to be presented at the Montreal courthouse on March 5. Provincial police spokesman Guy Lapointe says the force is aware of the case but will not comment as it is before the courts. A Justice Department spokesperson also declined to comment. Police in Laval, Que., where he applied for the certificate, found terrorism accusations and public mischief on his file, even though his public file shows no signs of the allegations. About the Author By SIDHARTHA BANERJEE The Canadian Press --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 6 17:53:16 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial Message-ID: The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial from the nicely-done dept Ah, the bogus takedown. The latest is that apparently the NFL somehow and for some reason took down Chrysler's Clint Eastwood Super Bowl commercial from YouTube. Pretty much every advertiser put up their commercials on YouTube, and it's unclear why or how the NFL might claim any sort of copyright on any of those ads. But, for some time that's exactly what happened, making Chrysler's own website promoting the ad look pretty silly: Considering how much Chrysler had to pay for that ad, you have to wonder if they now feel that the NFL owes them something for making it impossible for people to watch for a while... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120206/10505917670/nfl-issues-takedown-chrysler-super-bowl-commercial.shtml From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 6 19:54:02 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Lawmaker office duped by The Onion Message-ID: Lawmaker office duped by The Onion's Planned Parenthood satire By Justin Sink - 02/06/12 12:35 PM ET http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/208859-congressman-duped-by-onion-planned-parenthood-satire- Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) fell victim to satirical news outlet The Onion on Friday, reposting a story facetiously reporting that Planned Parenthood had announced the opening "of its long-planned $8 billion Abortionplex" on his Facebook page. The article, which is months old, was reposted on the paper's website last week amidst controversy over the Susan G. Komen Foundation's announcement ? later retracted ? that it wouldn't provide grants to Planned Parenthood because it was under congressional investigation. The breast cancer charity had previously provided funding for cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics. Ensuing criticism from abortion rights and women's health advocates led to a reversal of that decision. The Onion's article was a satire aimed at opponents of Planned Parenthood, who often denounce the organization for performing abortions. "Although we've traditionally dedicated 97 percent of our resources to other important services such as contraception distribution, cancer screening, and STD testing, this new complex allows us to devote our full attention to what has always been our true passion: abortion," the article facetiously quotes Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards as saying. But Fleming ? or whoever on his congressional staff is responsible for updating his Facebook page ? took the article at face value. The post has since been removed, but not before being posted on Literally Unbelievable, a blog that chronicles instances of Facebook users who believe Onion stories are real. "More on Planned Parenthood, abortion by the wholesale," Fleming's comment reads. Fleming's office did not immediately return a request for comment. "We're delighted to hear that Rep. Fleming is a regular reader of America's Finest News Source and doesn't bother himself with the New York Times, Washington Post, the mediums of television and radio, or any other lesser journalism outlets," said Joe Randazzo, The Onion's editor in a statement to The Hill. Fleming has been an ardent opponent of abortion rights in the House, voting to ban federal health coverage that includes abortion and to prohibit federal funding to Planned Parenthood. "Nearly 50 million tiny, defenseless children have been aborted since the Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. This is our national sin, shame, and disgrace," Fleming's campaign website says. "It is a perversion of medicine. It is a perversion of law." Fleming is not the first high-profile example of The Onion being taken at face value. China's Beijing Evening News ? the capital city's largest-circulation newspaper and an arm of the state-run media ? took at face value an Onion story in 2002 that Congress was threatening to leave Washington, D.C. unless a new Capitol was built. That article, in which former Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) was "quoted" demanding new facilities to keep Congress from bolting to Memphis or Charlotte, was a send-up of professional sports teams demanding new stadium facilities. Judy Kurtz contributed. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 7 07:52:00 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:52:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The End of Wall Street As They Knew It Message-ID: The End of Wall Street As They Knew It ? By Gabriel Sherman ? Published Feb 5, 2012 After surprisingly successful financial reform, public vilification, and politics that have turned against them, the Masters of the Universe are masters no longer. < -- > http://nymag.com/print/?/news/features/wall-street-2012-2/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 7 08:55:04 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:55:04 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Senate Passes Bill Allowing Airports To Evict TSA Screeners Message-ID: <9C262BAD-C751-491C-B00E-45DEF3EFEFFA@infowarrior.org> Senate Passes Bill Allowing Airports To Evict TSA Screeners Legislation could lead to despised federal agency being marginalized from aviation security Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Tuesday, February 7, 2012 http://www.infowars.com/senate-passes-bill-allowing-airports-to-evict-tsa-screeners/print/ The Senate has passed legislation that includes a provision allowing airports to replace TSA screeners with private security, opening the door for the widely loathed federal agency to be marginalized from aviation security altogether. The bill was primarily concerned with how the Federal Aviation Authority would be funded for the next four years, but also included measures that would force the TSA to reconsider applications from airports to replace TSA workers with their own privately hired screeners. ?Security companies would have an easier time winning contracts to operate airport checkpoints,? reports Businessweek. Following a massive nationwide backlash against the TSA?s invasive groping policies and its use of radiation-firing naked body scanners, linked by many prestigious health bodies to cancer, an increasing number of airports attempted to take responsibility for their own screening procedures by replacing TSA workers with privately hired personnel. However, in January 2011, when the number of airports attempting to opt-out of the TSA had risen to 16, TSA head John Pistole put a freeze on the process, refusing to consider new applications from airports. The newly approved legislation ?would require the TSA to reconsider applications for private screeners that it had rejected.? Should airports choose to replace TSA screeners with their own private security, it would not only mean the screeners were better trained and more responsible for their actions, alleviating the problems of thefts and abuse by TSA workers, but it would also create tens of thousands of much needed jobs for the private sector. ?Some airport executives have argued that contract security personnel are more courteous than government workers,? reports CNN. ?It was felt that a private contractor would provide friendlier customer service to the traveling public,? the head of a Roswell, New Mexico, airport wrote to Congress.? A November 2010 poll found that the TSA?s ?enhanced pat downs,? some of which include touching genitalia, angered 57% of regular adult fliers. West Yellowstone Airport in Montana has already replaced its TSA screeners with private security. Bert Mooney Airport, also in Montana, and Orlando Sanford International Airport in Florida will also be able to have their rejected applications to evict the TSA reconsidered under the new law. Resentment towards the TSA has raged over the last two years amongst Americans, primarily as a result of the rampant criminality in which TSA workers habitually engage. The latest example concerns TSA agent Alexandra Schmid, who stole $5,000 in cash from a passenger?s jacket as he was going through security at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The TSA?s habit of never admitting wrongdoing even when caught has also riled the traveling public. Even when the agency was forced to apologize for strip-searching two women in their 80?s just before Christmas, the TSA claimed its agents had merely violated protocol, when in fact they had sexually molested the women by forcing them to undress. ********************* Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 7 11:22:09 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:22:09 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: Symantec code theft: Hackers 'attempted extortion' References: <7EB33041E473EC4B8C08A7CA087AC87201C224B2@0015-its-exmb12.us.saic.com> Message-ID: <012A32A9-E446-47D5-BBCA-C52D44EDAE67@infowarrior.org> Begin forwarded message: > From: MM > > > 7 February 2012 Last updated at 09:53 ET > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16927660 > Symantec code theft: Hackers 'attempted extortion' > > Hackers tried to extort money in exchange for keeping source code private, security firm Symantec has said. > > It comes as hackers made public emails from law enforcement agents posing as a Symantec employee. > > Officials pretended to be the security firm in order to "offer" the hackers $50,000 (?32,000). > > However, more source code has allegedly been released after negotiations apparently broke down. > > Symantec said it had contacted US law enforcement after being approached by the hackers last month. > > In a lengthy series of emails, law enforcement agents posed as a fake Symantec employee named Sam Thomas. > > The character was involved in lengthy email discussions with a hackers believed to be from India-based group the Lords of Dharmaraja, part of the wider Anonymous collective. > > Agents, posing as Sam, told the hackers: "We can pay you $2,500 per month for the first three months. > > "In exchange, you will make a public statement on behalf of your group that you lied about the hack (as you previously stated). > > "Once that's done, we will pay the rest of the $50,000 to your account and you can take it all out at once. That should solve your problem." > > At one point, the hackers suspected FBI involvement, writing: "say hi to FBI agents". > > Stolen code > By the end of the email discussion, negotiations began to stall. > > At 04:46 GMT on Tuesday, an account belonging to Anonymous suggested that more than a gigabyte of source code from the company's PC Anywhere software had been uploaded to torrent website The Pirate Bay. > > Symantec would not confirm that this was the case. > > "In January an individual claiming to be part of the 'Anonymous' group attempted to extort a payment from Symantec in exchange for not publicly posting stolen Symantec source code they claimed to have in their possession," the company said in a statement. > > "Symantec conducted an internal investigation into this incident and also contacted law enforcement, given the attempted extortion and apparent theft of intellectual property. > > "The communications with the person(s) attempting to extort the payment from Symantec were part of the law enforcement investigation. > > "Given that the investigation is still ongoing, we are not going to disclose the law enforcement agencies involved and have no additional information to provide." > > At risk > Last month, users of PC Anywhere software were told by the company to disable its use where possible. > > The company confirmed that "old" source code stolen by the hackers had exposed vulnerabilities in the program which allows remote access to computers. > > Other programs affected include Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition, Norton Internet Security and Norton Systemworks (Norton Utilities and Norton Go Back). > > However, only PC Anywhere is said to be at risk. Symantec has been releasing patches and further information via its website. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 7 12:27:47 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:27:47 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Law would Put DHS in Charge of Business IT Security Message-ID: Put Homeland Security in Charge of Business IT Security Bringing the intelligence and efficiency of the TSA to your company. Yikes. Posted February 06, 2012 to Security | http://blogs.cio.com/security/16787/law-would-put-homeland-security-charge-business-it-security How would you like the Department of Homeland Security to be in charge of your IT security? If Congress has its way the folks who run the TSA would be given the power to require better computer security of companies with systems "whose disruption could result in the interruption of life-sustaining services, catastrophic economic damage or severe degradation of national security capabilities." Don?t worry too much, though. The decision about which companies to regulate would be made ?with input from businesses.? For some reason that doesn?t make me feel any better. This is from the bill being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Casinos) and supported by the White House. It?s just one of 30 or so such bills currently percolating on the Hill.[*] As with much legislation, it starts with a good intention: Shielding vital infrastructure, including the power grid and water supply, from cyber attack. It?s believed that as much as 85 percent of the nation?s critical infrastructure is owned and operated by private companies. And, as with much legislation, it basically extends government power without actually improving anything. Businesses already know hacking is costing them money ? this is really the only incentive needed for them. Fortunately and unsurprisingly, a lot of industry groups are lobbying against this because of the additional costs it would mean. What businesses really want is a law that would give them legal protections so they can share information with authorities without risking antitrust or privacy violations. There are some helpful things the government could be doing on this issue. First is facilitating the sharing of best security practices by companies in control of vital infrastructure. The other is to make sure all levels of government follow vigorous security protocols and require the same from outside contractors. There are many cases where government regulation of business is needed. Those mostly have to do with guaranteeing individual rights and maintaining the free and fair operations of markets. Cybersecurity is one that the profit motive is going to handle just fine. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 7 12:29:18 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:29:18 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Stallman: Facebook is a surveillance engine, not friend Message-ID: <160CFCB2-F573-48B3-BEBB-0C9F8CE895B7@infowarrior.org> Facebook is a surveillance engine, not friend http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/11786007.cms?prtpage=1 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 7 12:33:14 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:33:14 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - WH asking for 450M for Alzheimers research in 2013 Message-ID: Government pledges to spend more money on Alzheimer?s research ? but is it enough? Written By Dr. Manny Alvarez Published February 07, 2012 http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/02/07/government-pledges-to-spend-more-money-on-alzheimers-research-but-is-it-enough/ The Obama administration announced Tuesday they want to spend more than half a billion dollars on Alzheimer?s research next year in hopes of finding a cure for the devastating neurodegenerative disease. President Barack Obama will ask Congress for $80 million dollars ? in addition to the $450 million the National Institutes of Health already spends ? in his budget proposal next week, but the NIH will immediately devote an extra $50 million in 2013. I?m glad the Obama administration is paying attention to the approximately 5.4 million Americans suffering from Alzheimer?s. However, I still think the national commitment is falling short of what is really needed to fight this disease and create new therapies capable of making a difference. I also think it?s important to guide these federal dollars to the right research centers ? especially in these tight financial times. As you may know, I?ve been reporting on the great breakthroughs Dr. Paul Greengard, a Nobel Laureate from Rockefeller University, has made over the past several years, which have substantially improved our understanding of the mechanics of the cellular degeneration that leads to Alzheimer?s. I know that politics sometimes interferes with science, and certainly people suffering from Alzheimer?s disease do not have the representation they deserve in Washington, D.C. But I?m glad we have at least started this conversation. I asked Kent Karosen, president of the Fisher Center for Alzheimer's Research Foundation, what he thought of the latest announcement. ?We have to applaud the Obama administration,? Karosen said. ?This is certainly a good start.? For a disease that costs the country $180 billion dollars a year in total, Karosen said it is imperative the government funds more research. Currently only 1 percent of the research requests made for Alzheimer?s are federally funded, while $3 billion dollars are being spent in the research of other diseases. ?[While government funding remains low] the private and public sectors must work together to find good avenues to support research,? Karosen recommended. Because Alzheimer?s affects so many people ? not just the more than 5 million afflicted with the disease, but also their family and caretakers ? there is a great need for more government and private support, he explained. I sincerely hope these promises from the government do come true, and that the conversation on this topic never ends ? at least until we finally find an effective cure. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 7 13:52:23 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:52:23 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Democrats to continue Internet coup with new cyber bill Message-ID: <0D36B627-EE70-4420-ADD1-3F83EB11A0CF@infowarrior.org> Democrats to continue Internet coup with new cyber bill 10:54 PM 02/06/2012 http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/democrats-to-continue-internet-coup-with-new-cyber-bill/ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, following a recent anti-piracy legislative debacle with SOPA and PIPA, will lead his second effort of 2012 to push Internet-regulating legislation, this time in the form of a new cybersecurity bill. The expected bill is the latest attempt by the Democrats to broadly expand the authority of executive branch agencies over the Internet. Details about the bill remain shrouded in secrecy. Clues available to the public suggest that the bill might be stronger than President Barack Obama?s cybersecurity proposal, which was released in May 2011. Reid said that he would bring the bill ? expected to come out of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, chaired by Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman ? to the floor during the first Senate work period of 2012. A classified meeting behind closed doors in October 2011 between key Senate committee leaders with jurisdiction over cybersecurity and White House officials, took place at the request of the Obama administration. Lieberman, in an interview with The Hill in October, said that past Senate cybersecurity bills were considerably stronger than the White House proposal. The White House proposal recommended that the Department of Homeland Security be given broad regulatory authority for cybersecurity matters over civilian networks. The White House proposal also recommends that the DHS program be ?developed in consultation with privacy and civil liberties experts and with the approval of the Attorney General.? A recent bill in the House ? the Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act of 2011 or PrECISE Act ? also empowers DHS in the event of a cyberattack, but the bill has been criticized by Reid as not giving the agency enough power. PrECISE focuses on strengthening the information sharing component between private corporations and DHS by allowing a limited amount of information to be shared between the two. Reid favors an approach that would expand DHS authority beyond currently regulated ?critical infrastructure,? such as utilities and financial institutions, to also include Internet service providers and private networks. ?Lieberman said the turf war over which agency should be in charge of implementing the government?s cybersecurity plan has been largely resolved and there is a ?broad consensus? that DHS is best suited to the task, with technical and intelligence support from the military and National Security Agency,? reported The Hill. Paul Rosenzweig, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, recently concluded that the NSA ?does it better than DHS? when it comes to cybersecurity. Rosenzweig, who crafted policy inside of DHS, noted that the preference should be for a civilian agency to oversee a predominately civilian network, but it lacks the manpower to handle that responsibility. DHS recently announced a decision to hire 1,000 new cyber experts. ?But until these new experts are on board (and finding and hiring that many will be a long process), civilian defenses will have to rely on existing expertise that lies predominantly with NSA,? said Rosenzweig. The NSA, at present, already works closely with financial institutions to battle hackers. Reid sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in November, which urged the need to act for fear of a major cyber attack, regardless of whether legislative working groups that have been working on this issue come to an agreement. McConnell replied with a letter of his own, advising Reid to introduce legislation that would have bipartisan support. ?Everyone wants to improve cybersecurity, but, if we?ve learned nothing else from previous legislation affecting the Internet, we know that an imposition of an overly broad regulatory regime of the Internet ecosystem will not sit well with the American people,? a Senate aide told The Daily Caller. Reasons for the rush may include Democrats? desire to pass cybersecurity legislation before November elections, but both Reid?s office and HSGAC did not respond to The Daily Caller?s request for comment by the time of publication. The new bill, according to the recommendations in the White House proposal, would also expand Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act penalties to the cyber realm. The Department of Justice used RICO as one of the tools to takedown of the popular file-sharing site, MegaUpload, in January. The cybersecurity bill effort comes as yet another attempt by the Democrats to expand the power of the federal government over the Internet in less than two years. Past efforts include the House Stop Online Piracy Act, and the Protect IP Act in the Senate, and the Federal Communications Commission?s so-called ?net neutrality? regulation. SOPA and PIPA were criticized by stakeholders, outside of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, who railed against the bills expanded empowerment of the Department of Justice. The DOJ argued that new legal powers were needed in order to combat the problem of foreign ?rogue sites,? which profited from the facilitation of copyrighted material. As with cybersecurity, there is little disagreement in Congress over the need for anti-piracy leglsiation; SOPA and PIPA received broad bipartisan sponsorship in both chambers of Congress. The top five members to receive campaign donations from groups supportive of SOPA and PIPA, however, were all Democratic senators. Reid alone had received $3.5 million from supportive groups in the last campaign cycle, according to OpenCongress.org. A spokesperson for California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who proposed his own anti-piracy legislation called OPEN, told The Daily Caller during the SOPA and PIPA debates that the bills were rapidly losing support in part because they gave the Obama Justice Department and Attorney General Holder ?broad new powers to police the Internet while saddling digital job creators with stifling new regulatory burdens.? ?The bills eviscerate the proven Digital Millenium Copyright Act protections, forcing Internet service providers, search engines and law-abiding domestic sites to become arms of the Justice Department at home and abroad,? said the spokesperson. The net neutrality battle ? while largely business matter between content companies, like Google and Facebook, and Internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast ? was also along partisan lines, and the victors were the Democrats. Political support for the FCC?s so-called ?net neutrality? regulations also came from coordination between the White House, the Democratic majority in the FCC and the Senate, activist groups and Google. Supporters said it was necessary to place the Internet under government control, viewing the Internet like regulated utilities such as water and electricity. The regulation, which originally received major bipartisan opposition from members of Congress who believed that the FCC had acted outside of its legal authority, was later upheld by Senate Democrats ? including Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry and Minnesota Democratic Sen. Al Franken ? who viewed that not only did the FCC hold the necessary legal authority to regulate the Internet, but free speech was to be protected by the government through ?net neutrality.? FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, when he was nominated by Obama, was praised by those who knew him well as someone would enact an ?overarching strategic agenda,? which included implementing ?net neutrality? regulations, among other things. One of Obama?s campaign planks in during the 2008 presidential election cycle was ?net neutrality.? The White House was actively involved in the policy debate. Former White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin, was found to have been communicating with representatives of his former employer, Google, through backchannel emails over net neutrality policy. Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps was found to be in ?collusion? over net neutrality policy with activist group Free Press, a group which has received substantial funding from left-leaning foundations. McLaughlin also met with former Free Press employee Ben Scott, now a policy advisor at the State Department, to discuss policy on net neutrality and broadband investment. Free Press later sued the FCC because it did not consider the commission?s Internet regulations strong enough. Timothy Karr at Free Press called the FCC?s ?net neutrality? regulations a ?betrayal? by Obama and Genachowski. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 7 14:55:16 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:55:16 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Is BitTorrent Done? Major Torrent Sites Consider Shutting Down Message-ID: <2454DC59-4CBD-4519-83E9-2E0EF898DDA8@infowarrior.org> Is BitTorrent Done? Major Torrent Sites Consider Shutting Down ? Ernesto ? February 7, 2012 http://torrentfreak.com/is-bittorrent-done-major-torrent-sites-consider-shutting-down-120207/ News of raids, arrests, seizures, extraditions and jail time in the file-sharing world hasn?t gone unnoticed by the operators of major BitTorrent sites. Yesterday, the owners of BTjunkie decided to close their site because the stress became too much, and there are others who consider doing the same. While there are still plenty site owners who are determined to continue, doubt and uncertainty are more present than ever before. For nearly a decade BitTorrent sites have ruled the file-sharing landscape. In recent weeks, however, worry about the future has increased drastically among the owners of some of the largest torrent sites. Yesterday, BTjunkie closed its doors for good, and TorrentFreak has learned that at least two other sites in the top 10 have toyed with the same idea. ?There have been talks of shutting our site down, even before BTjunkie did it,? one admin told TorrentFreak on condition of anonymity. The aggressive actions against MegaUpload ? site founder Kim Dotcom was raided by an anti-terrorist squad last month ? are frequently mentioned as cause for concern. So much so that several people involved with one of the largest torrent sites on the Internet have already dropped out. ?A couple guys on the staff decided not to be involved anymore with the site after the MegaUpload incident,? the admin told us. The fact that a German citizen can be arrested in New Zealand upon request from the US authorities signaled that regardless of local laws, people connected to file-sharing sites have become a global target. ?It?s turning into a witch hunt. It is worrying,? said the admin. The thoughts of this admin are shared by one of the owners of another major torrent site, who told TorrentFreak in private that shutting down has crossed his mind on several occasions. Things have become more and more complicated in recent weeks. Even those who are as cooperative as possible with copyright holders, by swiftly responding to DMCA takedown requests for example, can?t be entirely sure that they won?t become the next target. On the other side, however, there are also those who continue undeterred, such as isoHunt.com owner Gary Fung, who is battling in court with the music and movie industries. ?After 6 years of 2 civil lawsuits with MPAA and CRIA, we are still here. None of these events is really new to us. From Lokitorrent to Suprnova, we?ve seen sites we index come and go. And as long as the Free Internet exists, sharing will endure. As will isoHunt,? he says. Ironically enough, isoHunt?s ongoing legal battle might be what keeps Fung relatively safe. If the authorities planned to launch a criminal investigation against a torrent site it would be strange to pick one that is already involved in a civil lawsuit with a copyright holder. Besides not being worried about the future, isoHunt?s owner is going on the offensive and is urging the entertainment industries to embrace technology, instead if fighting it. ?Perhaps more than ever, I wish the content industries will wake up to the fact you can?t fight technological progress, that battles maybe won, the war is already lost. Unless Content really starts working with technology to accelerate spread of culture, as the Internet has naturalized it. And make more money than ever in the process,? Fung says. ?Because so-called piracy enabled by the Internet and media consumption is not a zero-sum game, a download does not equal a lost sale, and what pirates really want is not necessarily free as in beer, but free as in speech and convenience.? isoHunt?s determination to continue operating is shared by Extratorrent?s admin Sam, whose site became the 5th largest torrent site after BTjunkie folded. ?What happened with MegaUpload is not at all good for the torrent world, but I would say it is impossible to stop the unstoppable. After all, if one site is shut down, a hundred new sites will open,? Sam told TorrentFreak, adding, ?We have no plans to shut down,we will continue running as usual.? Another site that?s not going anywhere is The Pirate Bay, the largest torrent site of all. Although its founders are now very close to serving jail time, the site itself will remain online. In the coming weeks The Pirate Bay will replace .torrent files with magnet links, which makes the site more portable and resilient. The above shows that the end of BitTorrent is not near, but it?s hard to ignore the changing climate. People who previously saw no problems with running a torrent site are now reconsidering their position. The exact fallout, and whether there will be any newcomers to fill the gaping hole BTjunkie left, will become apparent in the coming months. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 7 17:18:08 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 18:18:08 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Florence_Green=2C_world=92s_last?= =?windows-1252?q?-known_veteran_of_World_War_I=2C_dies_at_110?= Message-ID: Florence Green, world?s last-known veteran of World War I, dies at 110 Tuesday, February 7, 5:53 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/florence-green-worlds-last-known-veteran-of-world-war-i-dies-at-110/2012/02/07/gIQAbT2KxQ_print.html Florence Green, the world?s last-known veteran of World War I, died Feb. 4 at a nursing home in King?s Lynn, England. She was 110. The nursing home confirmed the death but did not disclose the cause. Born Florence Beatrice Patterson in London on Feb. 19, 1901, she joined the Women?s Royal Air Force in September 1918 at the age of 17. She went to work as a waitress in the officers? mess at RAF Marham in eastern England and was serving there when the war ended in November 1918. Mrs. Green remembered her wartime service with affection. ?I met dozens of pilots and would go on dates,? she said in an interview in 2008. ?I had the opportunity to go up in one of the planes, but I was scared of flying. I would work every hour God sent. But I had dozens of friends on the base, and we had a great deal of fun in our spare time. In many ways, I had the time of my life.? Her husband, Walter Green, died about 30 years ago. Survivors include three children, four grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren, according to British news accounts. The war?s last-known combatant, Royal Navy veteran Claude Choules, died in Australia in May. After his death, Mrs. Green became the war?s last-known surviving service member from the war, according to the Order of the First World War, a U.S.-based group that tracks veterans. She was officially recognized as a veteran when a researcher found her service record in the National Archives. The RAF marked her 110th birthday in February 2011 with a cake. Asked what it was like to be 110, Mrs. Green said, ?It?s not much different to being 109.? ? Associated Press --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 8 06:54:13 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:54:13 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - English plainclothes police officer follows himself for 20 minutes Message-ID: <66B5015C-F3E2-41A8-846F-3BE999D468B2@infowarrior.org> English plainclothes police officer follows himself for 20 minutes By Cory Doctorow at 2:21 am Wednesday, Feb 8 http://boingboing.net/2012/02/08/english-plainclothes-police-of.html? An undercover police officer in Sussex, England, shadowed a suspicious character through the streets a small market town for 20 minutes, following directions passed to him by a CCTV operator who guided him towards the suspect. After 20 minutes, the CCTV operator realized that the "suspicious character" was the police officer himself. < - > The operator directed the officer, who was on foot patrol, as he followed the "suspect" on camera last month, telling his colleague on the ground that he was "hot on his heels". The officer spent around 20 minutes giving chase before a sergeant came into the CCTV control room, recognised the ?suspect? and laughed hysterically at the mistake... "The CCTV operator soon had the suspect on camera and everywhere he saw the male the keen PC was on his heels ? radioing in to say he was in the same street...? He added: "Every time the man darted in to another side alleyway, the PC was turning immediately into the same alleyway, but every time the CCTV operator asked what he could see there was no trace." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 8 07:03:02 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:03:02 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - With Coffee, the Price of Individualism Can Be High Message-ID: <81E3CB0E-E920-4E25-B2DF-059B6B71DC03@infowarrior.org> (Note: I have/had a Keurig and always found the coffee to be weak and taste thin, even when I used my own blend. But the price of that convenience is higher than I thought ... which is why I gave up on the Keurig after only a month or so a few years back.. -- rick) February 7, 2012 With Coffee, the Price of Individualism Can Be High http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/dining/single-serve-coffee-brewers-make-convenience-costly.html?hpw=&pagewanted=print By OLIVER STRAND SOMETIMES it?s hard to tell how much coffee costs, even if you know what you spent. At least that?s the case with many of the single-serve brewing machines that are soaring in popularity. For example, the Nespresso Arpeggio costs $5.70 for 10 espresso capsules, while the Folgers Black Silk blend for a K-Cup brewed-coffee machine is $10.69 for 12 pods. But that Nespresso capsule contains 5 grams of coffee, so it costs about $51 a pound. And the Folgers, with 8 grams per capsule, works out to more than $50 a pound. That?s even more expensive than all but the priciest coffees sold by artisanal roasters, the stuff of coffee snobs. An exclusive single-origin espresso like the Ethiopia, Gedeo Single Origin Espresso from Sightglass Coffee costs $19 for a 12-ounce bag, or about $25 a pound. La Cima beans for brewed coffee from Stumptown Coffee Roasters, a Grand Cru selection grown at Finca el Injerto, a renowned farm in Guatemala, is $28.50 for a 12-ounce bag, or $38 a pound. In fact, most high-end coffees cost less than $20 a pound, and the coffees you find on supermarket shelves are substantially cheaper. A bag of Dark Espresso Roast beans at Starbucks is $12.95 a pound, and a bag of Eight O?Clock beans for brewed coffee at the Food Emporium is $10.72 a pound. How much of that coffee goes into a cup varies according to who (or what) controls the machine. For instance, a Lavazza Gran Crema espresso capsule has 7 grams of coffee, the standard for most chain coffee stores. But independent coffee shops regularly pack 14 to 22 grams into an espresso shot. When it comes to single-serve systems, you?re not just paying for coffee, you?re paying for convenience and the technology that makes it possible to brew a single cup in seconds. Pop in the pod, push the button: it?s a sure thing every time. Supermarkets and specialty stores are filled with items that make it easier on you, and it?s up to the shopper to determine if it?s worth it. Some decisions are easy (rendered pork fat, fresh pasta); others are a toss-up depending on who?s in the kitchen (chicken stock, salad dressing). Where single-serve coffee falls on that spectrum depends on whether you regard coffee as something you make or something you drink. ?Americans under the age of 40 are thinking about coffee pricing in cups,? said Ric Rhinehart, executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America. ?If you asked my mother how much coffee cost, she would have told you that the red can was $5.25 a pound and the blue can was $4.25. If you ask people in their 20s and 30s, they?ll say coffee is $1.75 to $3.75 a cup.? This generational shift helps explain why single-serve coffee is the fastest-growing sector of the home market. According to a study from the National Coffee Association, single-serve coffee is now the second most popular method of preparation after conventional drip brewers, by far the dominant method. In 2011, 7 percent of the cups of coffee consumed in the United States were made with a single-serve brewer, up from 4 percent in 2010. The premium that single-serve coffee commands makes it especially lucrative. Julian Liew, a spokesman for Nespresso, said single-serve coffee is 8 percent of the global market, but accounts for 25 percent of its value. It?s likely that the number will continue to climb. According to Keurig, 4 million of the company?s K-Cup brewers, for regular drip coffee, were sold in the 13-week run-up to Christmas 2011. During that same period, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters sold more than $715 million in K-Cup packs. The pods and brewers are now front and center at stores like Bed Bath & Beyond and Staples. Keurig licenses its technology to other companies, and last year, Dunkin? Donuts and Starbucks started making K-Cup pods. Keurig even sells a refillable filter that you can pack with your own coffee. Nespresso has sold more than 27 billion capsules worldwide since it was introduced in 1986. Later this year Ethical Coffee Company plans to sell Nespresso-compatible capsules for around 20 percent less on Amazon.com. So the United States might see something novel for single-serve coffee: a price war. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 8 07:18:52 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:18:52 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - more on ... Is BitTorrent Done? Major Torrent Sites Consider Shutting Down References: <4F31B6FA.4010002@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <003CDB3D-7ADC-4B9E-822A-491819D8BA05@infowarrior.org> Begin forwarded message: > From: George > Date: February 7, 2012 6:42:50 PM EST > To: rforno at infowarrior.org > Subject: Re: [Infowarrior] - Is BitTorrent Done? Major Torrent Sites Consider Shutting Down > > > On 2/7/2012 12:55 PM, Richard Forno wrote: > ... >> The fact that a German citizen can be arrested in New Zealand upon request from the US authorities signaled that regardless of local laws, people connected to file-sharing sites have become a global target. > ... > > The increasing abuse of universal jurisdiction by the USA is a trend I have been concerned with for some time. The first case I'm aware of was in regards to the extradition of an Australian citizen who'd never set foot in the US over copyright infringement several years ago of an Australian citizen who had never set foot in the US, which was the first case of it kind. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths > > http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/advice-from-a-convicted-file-sharer-give-up-and-go-to-us-20120117-1q4r4.html > > There are now a number of other cases similar to this involving foreign citizens being extradited to the US over copyright infringement issues despite the fact that they never set foot in the USA, including the Megaupload case, and several cases in the UK (Richard O'Dwyer. etc.) > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/09184917400/us-to-extradite-uk-student-copyright-infringement-despite-site-being-legal-uk.shtml > > The scary thing about this is that for the most part these cases are really a matter for civil law, not criminal law, and in any case involve only economic damage. There is nothing stopping the copyright owners from prosecuting foreign citizens in their own countries - why should foreign countries allow their citizens to be extradited to the US when they have never set foot in the US. > > Even more to the point what will happen when one of the EU countries demands the extradition of some hapless US citizen for something they post on their blog? Don't know how you feel about this but thought I would vent a little, and if you see fit find some way to highlight the issue - I don't think it's getting enough coverage or thought. > > --George --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 8 12:15:08 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:15:08 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress Message-ID: <29A519D6-FCB6-40AC-8892-5A8C7D369759@infowarrior.org> Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress By Shaun Waterman Tuesday, February 7, 2012 U.S. Customs and Border Protection uses qualified pilots to operate Predator drones for surveillance along the border. Under the FAA Reauthorization Act, drones eventually could be used by police agencies and private companies across the U.S. (Associated Press) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/print/ Look! Up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It's ... a drone, and it's watching you. That's what privacy advocates fear from a bill Congress passed this week to make it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace. The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015. Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well. "There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities," said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. The Electronic Frontier Foundation also is "concerned about the implications for surveillance by government agencies," said attorney Jennifer Lynch. The provision in the legislation is the fruit of "a huge push by lawmakers and the defense sector to expand the use of drones" in American airspace, she added. According to some estimates, the commercial drone market in the United States could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars once the FAA clears their use. The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation's skies by 2020. The highest-profile use of drones by the United States has been in the CIA's armed Predator-drone program, which targets al Qaeda terrorist leaders. But the vast majority of U.S. drone missions, even in war zones, are flown for surveillance. Some drones are as small as model aircraft, while others have the wingspan of a full-size jet. In Afghanistan, the U.S. use of drone surveillance has grown so rapidly that it has created a glut of video material to be analyzed. The legislation would order the FAA, before the end of the year, to expedite the process through which it authorizes the use of drones by federal, state and local police and other agencies. The FAA currently issues certificates, which can cover multiple flights by more than one aircraft in a particular area, on a case-by-case basis. The Department of Homeland Security is the only federal agency to discuss openly its use of drones in domestic airspace. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an agency within the department, operates nine drones, variants of the CIA's feared Predator. The aircraft, which are flown remotely by a team of 80 fully qualified pilots, are used principally for border and counternarcotics surveillance under four long-term FAA certificates. Officials say they can be used on a short-term basis for a variety of other public-safety and emergency-management missions if a separate certificate is issued for that mission. "It's not all about surveillance," Mr. Aftergood said. Homeland Security has deployed drones to support disaster relief operations. Unmanned aircraft also could be useful for fighting fires or finding missing climbers or hikers, he added. The FAA has issued hundreds of certificates to police and other government agencies, and a handful to research institutions to allow them to fly drones of various kinds over the United States for particular missions. The agency said it issued 313 certificates in 2011 and 295 of them were still active at the end of the year, but the FAA refuses to disclose which agencies have the certificates and what their purposes are. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is suing the FAA to obtain records of the certifications. "We need a list so we can ask [each agency], 'What are your policies on drone use? How do you protect privacy? How do you ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment?' " Ms. Lynch said. "Currently, the only barrier to the routine use of drones for persistent surveillance are the procedural requirements imposed by the FAA for the issuance of certificates," said Amie Stepanovich, national security counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a research center in Washington. The Department of Transportation, the parent agency of the FAA, has announced plans to streamline the certification process for government drone flights this year, she said. "We are looking at our options" to oppose that, she added. Section 332 of the new FAA legislation also orders the agency to develop a system for licensing commercial drone flights as part of the nation's air traffic control system by 2015. The agency must establish six flight ranges across the country where drones can be test-flown to determine whether they are safe for travel in congested skies. Representatives of the fast-growing unmanned aircraft systems industry say they worked hard to get the provisions into law. "It sets deadlines for the integration of [the drones] into the national airspace," said Gretchen West, executive vice president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry group. She said drone technology is new to the FAA. The legislation, which provides several deadlines for the FAA to report progress to Congress, "will move the [drones] issue up their list of priorities," Ms. West said. ? Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 8 12:15:22 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:15:22 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Genetic Parkinson's disease brain cells made in lab Message-ID: 8 February 2012 Last updated at 02:57 ET Genetic Parkinson's disease brain cells made in lab By Michelle Roberts Health reporter, BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16913997 Scientists in the US have successfully made human brain cells in the lab that are an exact replica of genetically caused Parkinson's disease. The breakthrough means they can now see exactly how mutations in the parkin gene cause the disease in an estimated one in 10 patients with Parkinson's. And it offers a realistic model to test new treatments on - a hurdle that has blighted research efforts until now. The team told Nature Communications their work was a "game-changer". Lab-grown "This is the first time that human dopamine neurons have ever been generated from Parkinson's disease patients with parkin mutations," said Dr Jian Feng who led the investigations. "Before this, we didn't even think about being able to study the disease in human neurons. Continue reading the main story ?Start Quote The brain is so fully integrated - it's impossible to obtain live human neurons to study? Dr Jian Feng "The brain is so fully integrated. It's impossible to obtain live human neurons to study." Studying human neurons is critical in Parkinson's disease since animal models that lack the parkin gene do not develop the condition, rendering them useless for this research purpose. To make the human neurons the scientists used a technique already successfully tested by others which can turn donated skin cells into brain tissue. They used skin samples from four volunteers - two healthy people and two with Parkinson's disease caused by a parkin gene mutation. This allowed them to observe the parkin gene at work. Normally, parkin controls the production of an enzyme called MAO (monamine oxidase) which, in turn, keeps a check on the brain-signalling chemical dopamine. When parkin is mutated, that regulation is lost and levels of MAO increase, which can be toxic to dopamine-producing brain cells. The scientists now want to test new treatments that might prevent this damage occurring and stop this form of Parkinson's. They have already shown that they can reverse the defect by putting a normal parkin gene into diseased neurons. Dr Michelle Gardner, research development manager at Parkinson's UK, said the study was particularly exciting because it provided a new way to investigate this genetic form of Parkinson's. "Parkinson's UK funded research has already shown that parkin plays a key role in how Parkinson's develops in the brain nerve cells that die." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 8 12:15:28 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:15:28 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Why Lady Gaga Deploys a Sound Only Your Smartphone Can Hear Message-ID: <01AFF6F4-D42C-4B4D-83CF-1767114FE850@infowarrior.org> This technology could have some interesting uses for a variety of fields/disciplines. -- rick Why Lady Gaga Deploys a Sound Only Your Smartphone Can Hear ? By Eliot Van Buskirk ? Email Author ? February 7, 2012 | ? 3:13 pm | http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/02/sonic-notify/ The SonicNotify app can trigger interactive content when it ?hears? an ultra-high-frequency tone. Audio tags are looking more and more like the new QR code ? not only are they way less ugly than those jagged black-on-white squares, but you don?t need to take a picture of anything in order for them to work. (See also: Shazam and the Super Bowl.) A startup called SonicNotify embeds inaudibly high-pitched audio signals within music or any other audio track. When a compatible app hears that signal, it triggers any available smartphone function to link you to websites, display text, bring up map locations, display a photo, let you vote on which song a performer plays next and so on. SonicNotify was developed with help from Cantora Records + Labs, which made its name by funding (for $400, initially) and releasing the band MGMT?s massively popular records. As part of its newly minted technology division, Cantora, which is also a record label and publishing company, is offering $25,000 to $100,000 to promising startups, among the first of which is SonicNotify. Lady Gaga used its technology on her Monster Ball tour, and Coachella and other events are next in line. To interact via SonicNotify, fans can use any SonicNotify-enabled app. If you want to see it in action now, you can do so with the official Sonic Experiences app. ?[SonicNotify] transmits a high-frequency sound wave through speakers ? we can?t hear the frequency but smartphones can hear it, so we?re able to unlock content at live events, TV shows and through the web,? said Jesse Israel, co-founder of Cantora Records + Labs, at NYC Music Tech Meetup. ?We?ve closed deals with Lady Gaga for The Monster Ball Tour, we?re doing Coachella, we?re doing stuff for Fashion Week next week powering 32 stages, college sports, partnerships with Twitter and Spotify ? so it?s kind of a cool example of how we?re able to put pieces together and help a technology get off the ground.? Buyers and journalists with the app installed at Fashion Week will be zapped an image of each model the instant they step onto the catwalk so they can examine the outfits up-close, in real time. Similarly impressive capabilities exist within the music realm. Best of all, the audience doesn?t even need to be actively running the app in order for it to pick up on those inaudible signals. ?With Sonic, we can unlock anything that your iPhone or Android can do, as long as the SonicNotify SDK is built into an app that?s running in the background on your phone,? explained Israel. ?For example, some of the stuff we?re doing with Gaga is when she is performing, mid-set, everyone in the arena gets a notification which lets them choose which song she plays for her encore.? Location is also a part of this, because each speaker in a venue can transmit a different tone, opening up new possibilities for live concert participation along the lines of what we saw with inConcertApp. ?We can also target sections through radius with frequencies, so we can have Section C?s phones turn into purple hearts, while Section F on the other side of the arena has red squares,? added Israel. According to Israel, Cantora?s basic idea is that app developers are not unlike bands, in that they might have all the skills in the world, but those skills don?t amount to much unless they are properly deployed. The company is currently working with SonicNotify and two other startups, and it plans to fund eight to 10 in total over the next two years. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 8 20:14:40 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - In Lamer Smith's world..... Message-ID: According To Lamar Smith, Data Or Criticism From Anyone Who Doesn't Like SOPA Isn't Valid from the wow dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120208/04043217698/according-to-lamar-smith-data-criticism-anyone-who-doesnt-like-sopa-isnt-valid.shtml We recently wrote about PolitiFact trashing Lamar Smith for the numbers he used in support of SOPA -- numbers that PolitiFact says grade out to "false." What I somehow missed was at the very end of that article, they ask Smith to respond to the charges that his argument was false. Amazingly, rather than respond to the actual data, Smith chose to instead attack one (of a few!) of the people that PolitiFact discussed the data with, Julian Sanchez: < - > After we summarized much of this research, Smith objected to Sanchez as an expert, saying in an email that because Sanchez is opposed to the anti-online-piracy act, he "cannot provide an objective or unbiased analysis." He stood by his CNN.com statement, telling us: "Since the U.S. is the largest producer of (intellectual property) that is consumed around the world, one can surmise that a significant amount of that total value is taken from the U.S. economy." <-> First of all, what? Considering that the numbers Smith used came from industry lobbyists in favor of the bill, doesn't that mean that Smith should be objecting to his own numbers? After all, the source of those numbers -- the Chamber of Commerce -- "cannot provide an objective or unbiased analysis." Or perhaps Smith thinks that only those in favor of SOPA can provide such an analysis. Either way, that statement is insane. Smith honestly seems to be saying that any information -- no matter how factual -- cannot be trusted if it comes from SOPA opponents. Why doesn't he have that same skepticism towards the data that the MPAA and Chamber of Commerce handed him? Furthermore, his decision to stick by his comments is doubly insane. The fact that the US is the largest producer of intellectual property that is consumed around the world... does not, in fact, mean that any counterfeiting is "the total value taken from the US economy." Is this guy serious? PolitiFact flat out points out that it's false, with data to back it up, and shows exactly how Smith is blatantly lying about the data... and Smith's response is to restate the error and insist that the thing already proven false must be true?!? Smith's constituents should demand better. Having an elected official who lives in a fantasy world where facts are ignored is not a good thing. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 8 20:18:35 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:18:35 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Syria's Assad had '12345' as password? Message-ID: "Wow --- That's the same combination as my luggage!!!" -- rick Anonymous Hacks Syrian President; His Password Was 12345 5:00 PM - February 8, 2012 by Jane McEntegart - source: Forbes http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Anonymous-Syrian-president-email-password-leaked-hacked,14663.html Time to change everyone's password to 54321. If we're honest, many of us are likely guilty of using sub-par passwords. However, chances are, if we were hacked, no one but us would have to know about it. The same can't be said for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, who is facing public ridicule after his account was compromised. It seems al-Assad recently became the target of web hactivist group Anonymous; the group managed to successfully hack into his email account this week. That said, we imagine the job was something of a bore for Anonymous, which just last week revealed that it had managed to eavesdrop on a phone call between Scotland Yard and the FBI. After all, it can't have taken much hacking prowess to access an account protected with the world's second weakest password: 12345. To make matters worse, Anonymous was also able to access 78 accounts belonging to al-Assad's staff, with 33 of them using the same 12345 or 123456 passwords. Forbes cites Israel's Haaretz newspaper in reporting that the attacked the mail server of the Syrian Ministry of Presidential Affairs overnight on Sunday. The breach has resulted in hundreds of emails from al-Assad and his staff being leaked. Among them was correspondence between Syrian UN Mission Sheherazad Jaafari and Assad's media advisor Bouthaina Shaaban discussing preparation for the president's interview with Barbara Walters. Syria's no stranger to the attention of Anonymous at this point. In August of 2011, the group hacked the government's defence ministry. Just a few weeks later, they hacked into and vandalized several of the country's government websites. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 9 06:59:36 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:59:36 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Facebook already went public, you weren't invited Message-ID: (He's right. I've followed FB on the "dark market" for a while now myself. -- rick) Facebook already went public, you weren't invited February 8, 2012: 1:05 PM ET http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/08/facebook-ipo-numbers/ Facebook has ample access to capital and it's traded more shares per month than hundreds of Nasdaq-listed companies. Indeed, the de facto Facebook IPO happened long ago. By Joshua Brown, contributor FORTUNE -- On February 1, Facebook at long last filed its official S-1 document with the SEC, the first step toward an initial public offering (IPO) the company expects to do in the second quarter of this year. Despite the fact that it was widely anticipated, the financial media went absolutely bananas. Facebook was the only subject on television, the radio, the web and in the paper. For a week. But lost in all of this saliva-covered enthusiasm was the fact that Facebook's de facto IPO had already occurred a long time ago. Yes, Facebook already went public, you just weren't invited. Once upon a time it was both an honor and a privilege to go public. A company worked tirelessly for years just to get to that point and it leapt at the opportunity to do so rather than playing it cool or blowing off bankers when they first came calling. But this was back when being public had benefits that a private company could only dream of -- research coverage by Wall Street analysts, access to capital, the ability to cultivate a wide and diverse shareholder base...and did I mention access to capital? But the exchanges were unhappy with being institutions solely for the benefit for their members. They decided to go for-profit and allow anti-competitive behavior and destructive (but high-paying) new "customers" to suck all the life out of each day's trading with algorithmic codes. As spreads went from fractions of a share to decimals and then decimals of decimals, the profit margin for making markets in stocks gradually disappeared as well. This led to a annihilation of the market makers and specialists as well as decimation of the brokerage houses that employed analysts to cover the stocks that they traded in. The end result is that companies come public and struggle for analyst coverage, their shares are whipped about by robot traders and the whims of whatever index ETF basket they happen to be assigned to. The regulation surrounding the reporting of accurate and timely information to their public shareholders has become so onerous and expensive that they've essentially clammed up, offering only the most terse and lawyer-approved updates on their business as infrequently as they can. MORE: China's Facebook basks in the glow And because of this woeful state of our public markets, resourceful and clever companies like Facebook have found a workaround giving them the ability to avoid the big, bad IPO in name only while quietly amassing both capital and a shareholder base. Facebook was essentially forced into going public by SEC rules for companies with more than 500 shareholders. A comparison between Facebook today, pre-IPO, and almost any other company that is actually public on an exchange yields very little in the way of major differences. Facebook has billions in capital, owing to the umpteen rounds of money-raising at various levels of the venture capitalism sequence. It has thousands of shareholders by virtue of the fact that it has taken money from firms like Goldman Sachs (GS) and DST Partners who themselves have investor capital plugged in. It has the financial press hyperventilating over their every pronouncement as well as a cottage industry of amateur and professional analysts modeling the company's financials based on any scrap of knowledge that should shake loose from Zuckerberg's pockets. And in terms of liquidity, Facebook shares have traded more than $600 million in volume -- hundreds of thousands of shares per month -- on private exchanges like SharesPost and SecondMarket since last summer. In comparison, there are 464 publicly listed stocks on the Nasdaq that traded less than 200,000 shares last month. If this were any other market era, Facebook would have come public much earlier in the company's evolution. It would have had no choice -- the relatively few private stakeholders would have demanded the liquidity that comes along with a public offering and the management would have been eager to raise the capital. In this day and age, however, Facebook's been able to obtain all of the benefits of being "public" without the formality of actually filing. Bottom line: the only difference between Facebook now and Facebook post-IPO will be the existence of a ticker symbol. Sorry if I dampened your enthusiasm. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 9 07:07:15 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:07:15 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Ritholtz on America's "terrorism" fetish Message-ID: He's not only a good money manager and economic pundit, but he's got the right idea here, too. Any American Who Criticizes the Government May Be Labeled a Terrorist http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/who-is-a-terrorist/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 9 09:30:20 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:30:20 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Tribler Makes BitTorrent Impossible to Shut Down Message-ID: <80AA5C64-9E53-4BD3-B3E1-0B116EAFAAC7@infowarrior.org> Tribler Makes BitTorrent Impossible to Shut Down http://torrentfreak.com/tribler-makes-bittorrent-impossible-to-shut-down-120208/ While the file-sharing ecosystem is currently filled with uncertainty and doubt, researchers at Delft University of Technology continue to work on their decentralized BitTorrent network. Their Tribler client doesn?t require torrent sites to find or download content, as it is based on pure peer-to-peer communication. ?The only way to take it down is to take the Internet down,? the lead researcher says. The Tribler BitTorrent client is no newcomer to the BitTorrent scene. It has been in development for more than 5 years and has delivered many innovative features, which have mostly been ignored by the masses. Today, however, Tribler is more relevant than ever before. Developed by a team of researchers at Delft University of Technology, the main goal is to come up with a robust implementation of BitTorrent that doesn?t rely on central servers. Instead, Tribler is designed to keep BitTorrent alive, even when all torrent search engines, indexes and trackers are pulled offline. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 9 09:43:31 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:43:31 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Loving the Cyber Bomb? The Dangers of Threat Inflation in Cybersecurity Policy Message-ID: <3C1C6842-902C-44AA-AA8D-3EE4D25D7EA6@infowarrior.org> Loving the Cyber Bomb? The Dangers of Threat Inflation in Cybersecurity Policy Jerry Brito & Tate Watkins Abstract There has been no shortage of attention devoted to cybersecurity, with a wide range of experts warning of potential doomsday scenarios should the government not act to better secure the Internet. But this is not the first time we have been warned of impending dangers; indeed, there are many parallels between present portrayals of cyberthreats and the portrayal of Iraq prior to 2003, or the perceived bomber gap in the late 1950s. This Article asks for a better justification for the increased resources devoted to cyber threats. It examines the claims made by those calling for increased attention to cybersecurity, and notes the interests of a military-industrial complex in playing up fears of a ?cyber Katrina.? Cybersecurity is undoubtedly an important policy issue. But with a dearth of information regarding the true nature of the threat, it is quite difficult to determine whether certain government policies are warranted?or if this merely represents the latest iteration of threat inflation benefitting private and parochial political interests. Security risks to private and government networks from criminals and malicious state actors are no doubt real and pressing. However, the rhetoric of ?cyber doom? employed by proponents of increased federal intervention in cybersecurity implies an almost existential threat that requires instant and immense action. Yet these proponents lack clear evidence of such doomsday threats that can be verified by the public. As a result, the United States may be witnessing a bout of threat inflation similar to that seen in the run-up to the Iraq War. Additionally, a cyber-industrial complex is emerging, much like the military-industrial complex of the Cold War. This complex may serve not only to supply cybersecurity solutions to the federal government, but to drum up demand for those solutions as well. Part I of this article draws a parallel between today?s cybersecurity debate and the run-up to the Iraq War and looks at how an inflated public conception of the threat we face may lead to unnecessary regulation of the Internet. Part II draws a parallel between the emerging cybersecurity establishment and the military-industrial complex of the Cold War and looks at how unwarranted external influence can lead to unnecessary federal spending. Finally, Part III surveys several federal cybersecurity proposals and presents a framework for soberly analyzing the cybersecurity threat. < - > http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Vol.-3_Brito_Watkins.pdf --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 9 10:49:54 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 11:49:54 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Lamer Smith fact checked on SOPA by his own paper References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Chris > Date: February 9, 2012 11:10:13 AM EST > Subject: Lamar Smith fact checked on SOPA > > From one of the newspapers in his own backyard. > > http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/feb/06/lamar-smith/lamar-smith-says-online-piracy-and-counterfeiting-/ > > > > > Lamar Smith says online piracy and counterfeiting costs the U.S. economy $100 billion a year > > Share this story: > > > U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, declared in an opinion column on CNN.com: "The growing number of foreign websites that offer counterfeit or stolen goods continues to threaten American technology, products and jobs." > > His Jan. 20, 2012, post continues: "Illegal counterfeiting and piracy costs the U.S. economy $100 billion and thousands of jobs every year. Congress cannot stand by and do nothing while some of America's most profitable and productive industries are under attack." > > Say what costs that much? A reader asked. > > Smith?s $100 billion statement has weaknesses, we learned, partly because estimates of the impact of online vending of counterfeit or pirated (as in stolen) software, movies, recordings and other rip-off products ranging from handbags to shoes are hard to corral. > > We?ll dip into Smith?s backup after some background. > > Smith is a chief sponsor of the stalled Stop Online Piracy Act, which he described in a November 2011 Austin American-Statesman oped column as an attempt to rein in "a vast virtual market online run by criminals who steal and sell America's intellectual property and keep the profits for themselves." > > "Movies and music are not the only stolen products that are offered by rogue sites," Smith?s column says. "Counterfeit medicine, automotive parts and even baby food are a big part of the counterfeiting business and pose a serious threat to the health of American consumers." > > Smith?s November column says too that the act is intended to target such illegal activity by permitting the attorney general to seek an injunction against a foreign website dedicated to it. > > Congressional action on Smith?s proposal, and a Senate approach pitched as protecting intellectual property, stalled out in the wake of a public outcry in January. > > Now let?s get back to Smith?s claim that counterfeiting and piracy costs the U.S. economy $100 billion a year. > > His spokeswoman, Sally-Shannon Birkel, told us Smith?s figure originated in a February 2011 reportcommissioned by the France-based Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy, an initiative of the International Chamber of Commerce, whose declared mission is to promote trade and investment, open markets and the free flow of capital. > > The report says: "We find that the U.S. consumption-based share of counterfeit and pirated goods is between $66 billion and $100 billion (based on 2008 data)." So that?s the origin of Smith?s $100 billion figure. It?s the high-end part of this finding. > > Globally, the same report says, such goods had a 2008 value of up to $650 billion. > > But Smith?s statement refers to how much counterfeiting and online piracy costs the U.S. economy. Is the country?s "consumption-based share" of such goods -- which the report calls relevant to U.S. businesses -- the same as their cost to the economy? > > It?s unlikely. A portion of the report pointed out to us by Sanjay Jain, a Texas A&M University professor of marketing, states that the "study has not attempted to estimate business losses associated with counterfeiting and piracy. This is primarily because the likely variations and other difficulties associated with estimating substitution effects across substantially different countries and industries introduces an additional level/degree of variables which could undermine our aim to as accurately as possible characterize the magnitude of counterfeiting and piracy." > > After presenting the $66 billion to $100 billion range, the report says this represents "international trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, domestically produced and consumed goods and digitally pirated products." Broken down, the report says, this includes consumption of $45 billion to $60 billion of internationally traded counterfeit and pirated products, $12 billion to $14 billion in domestically produced counterfeit products and between $9 billion and $25 billion in digitally pirated products. > > Jain and Julian Sanchez, a fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who has urged skepticism about cost estimates for online piracy, each pointed out to us that the presented range questionably assumes that any pirated product would otherwise be purchased at its retail price by the person who obtained it. That?s not always or even often so, they said. > > Broadly speaking, Jain said, he has seen no convincing studies on the costs of piracy and counterfeiting to the American economy ? unsurprisingly so, he said, because it?s not an easy problem. "I don?t know the right number," he said. > > Sanchez, who told us he considers Smith?s proposal a "bad bill," raised another issue, saying by email that most of the pirated and counterfeited products included in the its $66 billion to $100 billion range have nothing to do with online piracy targeted by Smith?s act. > > "People were manufacturing fake Nikes long before the Internet became a mass medium," Sanchez wrote, "so while it might be an interesting factoid to know the size of that market, it?s a red herring if we?re talking about a ?Stop Online Piracy Act.?" > > This "whole debate," Sanchez said, "has tended to lump together ?counterfeiting? (trademark infringement, usually involving physical goods) and ?piracy? (copyright infringement, encompassing both physical media sales and online digital transfers). From a policy perspective, this is misleading, if not outright deceptive. Whatever amount is spent globally on fake Nikes imported in bulk by retailers, it has very little to do with the debate over policy aimed at shutting down cyberlockers to reduce illicit downloads by individual consumers. You might as well cite an estimate of the total economic cost of ?crime.? " > > The debate aside, we asked Jeffrey Hardy, director of the international chamber?s initiative, if its report?s $66 billion to $100 billion estimate for the United States? "consumption-based share" for counterfeit and pirated goods is the same as the economic impact of such activities on the country?s economy. > > It?s not, Hardy said, though he said the cost to the economy would be a percentage of the $66 billion to $100 billion "share." He also stressed that the report?s figures reflected the situation in 2008 and costs have increased since then. His speculation: "We may already be to $166 billion" for the U.S. share of consumed counterfeit and pirated goods, which could even turn out to be the current annual cost to the economy. > > Hardy also confirmed that the range presented in the report is tied to the retail value of goods though, he agreed, it?s incorrect to assume that in all cases someone who purchases a pirated or counterfeit good would otherwise buy the product at market cost. > > All told, Hardy acknowledged, there was no way to pinpoint costs to the economy. The main point was to show that counterfeiting and digital piracy are big problems. "There is a balance between overhyping or overcooking the pie ? and trying to present the fact that the magnitudes are enormous and getting bigger, especially on the digital side of things," Hardy said. "It?s a very complicated process when there?s not a lot of information and (there is) a lot of educated guesses. That?s what economists do." Hardy said the international chamber has taken no position on SOPA. > > Separately, Sanchez said he agrees with an April 2010 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which states that while counterfeiting and online piracy may pose sizeable negative economic effects, they are hard to quantify. > > A GAO summary of the report, "Intellectual Property, Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods," says: "Generally, the illicit nature of counterfeiting and piracy makes estimating the economic impact of (intellectual property) infringements extremely difficult, so assumptions must be used to offset the lack of data. Efforts to estimate losses involve assumptions such as the rate at which consumers would substitute counterfeit for legitimate products, which can have enormous impacts on the resulting estimates. Because of the significant differences in types of counterfeited and pirated goods and industries involved, no single method can be used to develop estimates. Each method has limitations, and most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts." > > After we summarized much of this research, Smith objected to Sanchez as an expert, saying in an email that because Sanchez is opposed to the anti-online-piracy act, he "cannot provide an objective or unbiased analysis." He stood by his CNN.com statement, telling us: "Since the U.S. is the largest producer of (intellectual property) that is consumed around the world, one can surmise that a significant amount of that total value is taken from the U.S. economy." > > Our ruling > > Smith?s statement draws on a high-end estimate also based on flawed assumptions for the U.S. "consumption-based share of counterfeit and pirated goods" in 2008. The cited $100 billion figure doesn?t reflect the costs to the economy, contrary to Smith?s claim; the 2011 study did not assess such costs, which are understandably slippery. > > Maybe there is no solid estimate of the cost to the economy. Smith?s CNN.com statement rates False. > --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 9 13:43:29 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:43:29 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - IRS outsourcing taxpayer emails to India? Message-ID: From a very competent securitygeek friend...... Begin forwarded message: > From: (*H*) > Date: February 8, 2012 8:51:48 PM EST > > > In starting to look into tax stuff for the year, I see that the IRS is > now offering the "free file fillable forms" option which they host via > Intuit's infrastructure but doesn't force filers to go pick amongst > a set of sketchy tax-prep companies nobody ever heard of before being > able to e-file. From the tutorials and FAQs on irs.gov it looks about > like one might expect; a web interface into a database entry "in the > cloud" where you build your return and you can save its state without, > I hope, having to retain context on your own machine. Behavior sort > of like a bank site, or the state variant I used as mass.gov last year. > > Needs all the expected bells-n-whistles enabled in the browser, of > course, and in trying to explore the "start fillable forms" link I get > an immediate obscure error. So much for their "accessibility" pablum. > There will probably be further rantage once I actually try to go use > the thing, and it is distinctly within the realm of possibility that > I'll be filing paper again this year. > > The FAQs also go into the email angle a little, including why mail > might get blocked and how to try and whitelist it in advance -- by > treating "irs.gov.website.helpdesk at speedymail.com" as a trusted sender. > Speedymail.com?! So I did a little "follow the money" on it... > > It MXes through something calle "affina.com" in Peoria IL, and the domain > reg records for both it and speedymail.com point to the same registrant > via NSI. Looks reasonably legit so far. But then for yucks I hit > www.affina.com, and got redirected to www.teamhgs.com, which is an > outfit called ... Hinduja Global Solutions. Based out of India, listed > on the Bombay stock exchange, etc etc. Website rhetoric slightly > broken in ways that suggest offshore authorship. > > So the IRS has outsourced all of the email infrastructure that it > intends to use to have dialogue with millions of American taxpayers. > > We are *SO* pwnd. > > *H* From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 9 14:17:34 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:17:34 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Security Bills Bruised by Lingering Fight Message-ID: February 8, 2012 Security Bills Bruised by Lingering Fight http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/technology/digital-security-bills-bruised-by-a-lingering-antipiracy-fight.html?_r=1&hpw=&pagewanted=print By SOMINI SENGUPTA The ghosts of two doomed antipiracy bills hang over a new and unrelated issue on Capitol Hill: proposed legislation to help secure the nation?s nuclear plants, water systems and other essential infrastructure from hackers and terrorists. In both houses of Congress, legislation is gaining steam that would authorize the federal government to regulate the security of privately owned critical infrastructure, much of which is controlled by Internet-connected systems and susceptible to being hacked. The legislation is already riven by competing interests and fears. National security interests want the government to be able to collect and analyze information from private companies about how they protect themselves from attack. Those companies are skittish about government regulation generally. Civil liberties advocates warn against excessive information-gathering by the state in the name of computer security. And members of Congress are wary of taking any steps that could infuriate the Internet lobby, which scored a surprise victory against would-be antipiracy laws last month. Representative Dan Lungren, Republican of California, who recently introduced a computer security bill, acknowledged that Capitol Hill had learned some lessons about the new political muscle of technology companies and their users. ?One of the things we learned is that we have to raise the debate such that no one believes things are being done behind closed doors,? Mr. Lungren said in a phone interview. A Congressional aide who did not want to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media, put the lessons of the antipiracy efforts more bluntly. Some members, the aide said, ?were kind of scarred by that experience and don?t want to go down any road where they are viewed as regulating the Internet.? In fact, the latest network security bills do not regulate the Internet, and it is not clear whether they will gain popular traction, either for or against. The Senate computer security bill is expected to be introduced as early as Friday by Joseph I. Lieberman, Susan M. Collins and John D. Rockefeller IV. It would give the Department of Homeland Security regulatory authority over those essential services companies where an attack could jeopardize human life or national security. It would compel critical infrastructure companies and government agencies to share information about threats and breaches, and would give the government power to impose sanctions on companies that run afoul of the law. Details of the bill are still being negotiated. A hearing on it is scheduled for next week. The House version of the bill, which Mr. Lungren proposed in December and is expected to come before a full committee in coming weeks, allows Homeland Security to lay out performance standards on security, but does not give it explicit powers to regulate. Kevin Richards, vice president for government affairs at TechAmerica, a trade group that represents large government contractors like Lockheed Martin, said its members were wary of the government?s telling them what to do. ?When it comes to the tech community and Capitol Hill, we look at two cardinal rules,? Mr. Richards said. ?First is, ?Do no harm.? Second is, ?Beware unintended consequences.? ? The government, he suggested, would do better to focus its energies on improving its own security. ?It?s important for our community to remain flexible and nimble in how we respond to the evolving cyberthreat,? he said. ?The government should lead by example when it comes to securing its network.? Neither the private sector nor government agencies have been immune to attacks. Large government contractors like Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton have suffered from embarrassing intrusions in recent months, along with the security agency RSA and even the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Security researchers have repeatedly pointed to gaping holes in the way industrial systems are protected, including those that handle power grids and oil rigs. The vulnerabilities are all the more worrisome as more and more of these systems are connected to the Internet. Passwords can be weak. Data can be transmitted without encryption. Hackers can remotely turn machines on and off, or tweak critical processes by adjusting valves. ?Failure to properly control or restrict access to these elements can lead to catastrophic accidents,? Paul Ferguson, a researcher with TrendMicro, a security firm, concluded recently in a blog post on his company?s site. The best-known computer attack on an industrial system used a computer worm called Stuxnet, and appears to have been aimed at Iran?s nuclear arms program. Some evidence indicates that it was a joint project of the United States and Israel. James A. Lewis of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research organization, worried that industry lobbying would produce a watered-down law that would do little to deter attacks. ?The ideology of the market that dominates American politics, that government ?is the problem,? puts us at a disadvantage, because it?s certainly not true for defense,? Mr. Lewis said. ?A weak bill guarantees a hit.? The Obama administration has been nudging Congress to act on digital security, an issue that seems to garner rare bipartisan energy. James R. Clapper, director of national intelligence, told a rare open hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee last week that ?market incentives? had kept both the private and public sector from being able to keep up with increasingly sophisticated online attackers. ?Cyberthreats pose a critical national and economic security concern,? he said in testimony. One of the sticking points in any security legislation is likely to be who can look at the information that private industry reveals about its own vulnerabilities and breaches. The intelligence community is keen to have access to it. Others are keen to keep it out of their reach. One civil liberties group in Washington warned that companies and their customers might become worked up if they discovered that intelligence agencies were trying to extract as much information as possible in the name of security. ?I think there is a risk in moving too fast to authorize sharing of so much information that it puts privacy at risk and upsets a lot of the same people who spoke out? against the antipiracy legislation, said Gregory T. Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group that is supported by the technology industry. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 9 14:47:22 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:47:22 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Cancer drug reverses Alzheimer's in mice: study Message-ID: <4C913A99-B5B7-4905-B39B-33090C7AD805@infowarrior.org> http://www.france24.com/en/20120209-cancer-drug-reverses-alzheimers-mice-study 09 February 2012 - 20H04 Cancer drug reverses Alzheimer's in mice: study A woman, suffering from Alzheimer's desease, holds the hand of a relative. A widely available cancer drug has shown remarkable success in reversing Alzheimer's disease in mice, raising hope of a breakthrough against incurable dementia in humans, US researchers said Thursday. AFP - A widely available cancer drug has shown remarkable success in reversing Alzheimer's disease in mice, raising hope of a breakthrough against incurable dementia in humans, US researchers said Thursday. Mice treated with the drug, known as bexarotene, became rapidly smarter and the plaque in their brains that was causing their Alzheimer's started to disappear within hours, said the research in the journal Science. "We were shocked and amazed," lead author Gary Landreth of the Department of Neurosciences at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Ohio told AFP. "Things like this had never, ever been seen before," he said. The drug works by boosting levels of a protein, Apolipoprotein E (ApoE), that helps clear amyloid plaque buildup in the brain, a key hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. "Think of this as a garbage disposal," Landreth said. "When we are young and healthy, all of us can basically get rid of this (amyloid) and degrade it and grind it into small bits and it gets cleared. "Many of us will be unable to do this as efficiently as we age. And this is associated with mental decline or cognitive impairment." Six hours after mice got the drug, soluble amyloid levels fell by 25 percent, ultimately reaching 75 percent reductions. The effect lasted up to three days, said the study. Soon after taking the drug, mice performed better on tests of mental ability and showed improved responses to odors. Unlike normal mice, Alzheimer's mice will not usually build nests if given tissue paper in their cage, as if they have forgotten to associate paper with the opportunity to nest. But 72 hours after treatment, the Alzheimer's mice began to build nests again. "They are not great nests but they are nests nonetheless," added Landreth, suggesting that if the drug can be shown to work in humans it might be best targeted to people in the early stages of the disease. Clinical trials in people should begin soon and produce early results in the next year, researchers said. Bexarotene was initially made by US-based Ligand Pharmaceuticals under the brand name Targretin. It gained orphan drug status in the United States -- approval by the US Food and Drug Administration -- in 1999 as a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare cancer. The Japanese pharmaceutical giant Eisai bought the worldwide rights for it in 2006. Bexarotene is now available in 26 countries in Europe, North America and South America. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 9 20:19:19 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:19:19 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Eolas loses its 'Web Ownership' patent case Message-ID: SCO, RightHaven, and now Eolas have been relegated to the ash-heap of Internet patent trolls. -- rick http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/interactive-web-patent/ Texas Jury Strikes Down Patent Troll?s Claim to Own the Interactive Web ? By Joe Mullin ? Email Author ? February 9, 2012 | ? 5:26 pm | Google, Amazon and Adobe defeated a patent claiming ownership over online video, image rotation and search auto-complete. TYLER, Texas ? After threatening web companies for more than a decade, Michael Doyle and his patent-holding company Eolas Technologies ? named after the Irish word for knowledge ? may be finished. An eight-member federal jury in East Texas deliberated Thursday for just a few hours before concluding that all of Eolas? asserted claims of ownership to technology allowing access to the interactive web were invalid. That means the three upcoming trials that were scheduled to rule on infringement and damages, for Google, Yahoo and other companies, have been canceled. The eight defendant companies who resisted the lawsuits won?t pay anything to Eolas or its partner, the University of California, for using the web. Eolas maintained its patents entitled the company to royalty payments from just about anyone running a website with ?interactive? features, like rotating pictures or streaming video. The chief issue in the case was whether the first computer program that allowed access to an ?interactive web? was created by the little-known Chicago biologist Doyle, who runs Eolas out of Chicago. Or was it one of the web pioneers put on the stand by the defendant companies ? such as Pei-Yuan Wei and his Viola browser, or Dave Raggett and his tag? The dueling teams of lawyers have spent millions creating elaborate presentations, trying for the last three days to convince a jury of average folks in a federal district court in eastern Texas that their side was right. If the jury had upheld the patents, there would have been a potentially brutal damages phase in which Google, YouTube, Yahoo, Amazon, Adobe, JC Penney, CDW Corp. and Staples would have been sued for infringement and been asked for more than $600 million in damages, with the majority of that coming from Google and Yahoo. The Eolas patents were denounced for years before this week?s landmark trial, but managed to survive repeated re-exams at the United States Patent and Trade Office. However, Thursday?s verdict is likely a setback Eolas can?t overcome. It may well be appealed, but that will be a long process, and in the meantime Eolas won?t be able to go after new targets. After the trial, Judge Leonard Davis visited with the jurors a while, as is his custom. They were awed, I?m told?as they often are?why such an important web case ended up in Tyler. Apparently they were a little star-struck by Tim Berners-Lee, although you certainly couldn?t tell during trial. At ?Rick?s on the Square? opposite the courthouse, defense lawyers were celebrating. There was a giddy atmosphere; these folks truly felt like they saved the Web today. As for the winner?s reactions: Yahoo spokeswoman Dana Lengkeek said: ?Yahoo is pleased with the outcome of the case and the jury?s decision, and we thank the jury for their time and commitment to this case. Yahoo respects intellectual property and will continue to protect its freedom to operate by defending itself against meritless claims.? Google spokesman Jim Prosser was less effusive. ?We are pleased that the court found the patents invalid, as it affirms our assertion that the claims are without merit,? Prosser said. Despite winning, Amazon declined to comment. Lead Eolas attorney Mike McKool did not return a call seeking comment. As for the many companies that settled with Eolas, they might be regretting that pragmatic decision in light of the verdict. Those companies include: Apple, Argosy Publishing, Blockbuster, Citigroup, eBay, Frito-Lay, JP Morgan Chase, New Frontier Media, Office Depot, Perot Systems, Playboy Enterprises International, Rent-A-Center, Sun Microsystems (bought by Oracle while this litigation was underway), and Texas Instruments. Joe is an experienced legal reporter, who worked for the national magazine group of The American Lawyer, The Associated Press, and The Seattle Times. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 10 07:35:42 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:35:42 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fed Plays Wall Street Favorites in Secret Deals Message-ID: (The more things change the more they stay the same. The more transparency is promised the more secrecy is implemented. -- rick) Fed Plays Wall Street Favorites in Secret Deals By Jody Shenn and Caroline Salas Gage - Feb 10, 2012 The Federal Reserve secretly selected a handful of banks to bid for debt securities acquired by taxpayers in the U.S. bailout of American International Group Inc., and the rest of Wall Street is wondering what happened to the transparency the central bank said it was committed to upholding. ?The exclusivity by which the process has shut out smaller dealers is a little un-American,? said David Castillo, head of sales and trading at broker Further Lane Securities LP in San Francisco, who said he would have liked to participate. ?It seems odd that if you want to get the best possible price that it wouldn?t be open to anyone who wants to put in the most competitive bid.? After inviting more than 40 broker-dealers to take part in a series of auctions last year, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York asked only Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN) and Barclays Plc (BARC) to bid on the full $13.2 billion of bonds offered in two sales over the past month. The central bank switched to a less open process after traders blamed the regular, more public disposals for damaging prices in 2011. This week, Goldman Sachs bought $6.2 billion of bonds in an auction. The selectivity has irked firms that weren?t also given the chance to profit from the auctions, and raises the question of whether the Fed got the highest price for U.S. taxpayers, who gave insurer AIG a $182.3 billion bailout. The New York Fed resumed its sales of the assets in January after the market recouped a portion of last year?s losses. ?Crony Capitalism? ?The purpose should be to get the best price for the taxpayer,? said Robert Eisenbeis, a former research director at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta who?s now chief monetary economist for Sarasota, Florida-based Cumberland Advisors. ?Anybody knows the more bidders the better, so it?s a little hard to understand why they would essentially pick potential winners and losers. That smacks of crony capitalism.? Andrea Priest, a spokeswoman for the New York Fed, declined to comment. The New York Fed announced in March that it would sell the bonds held in a vehicle called Maiden Lane II LLC, created in 2008 to buy holdings that AIG handed the Fed in exchange for a cash injection. The portfolio includes bonds backed by the types of home loans with some of the highest default rates, such as subprime, Alt-A and option adjustable-rate mortgages that helped fuel the housing boom and bust. Those securities, which can be difficult to value, offer a chance for a bigger profit to a savvy investor. < - > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-02-10/fed-plays-wall-street-favorites-in-secret-bond-deals-mortgages.html --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 10 07:37:50 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:37:50 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - EPIC Forces Congressional Hearing On DHS Online Spying Message-ID: <2A2E1418-2889-4C9D-81F8-51984D077160@infowarrior.org> Group Forces Congressional Hearing On Big Sis? Twitter, Drudge Spying Steve Watson Infowars.com February 9, 2012 http://www.infowars.com/group-forces-congressional-hearing-on-big-sis-twitter-drudge-spying/ A privacy advocacy group has swayed Congress to hold a hearing next week into the Department of Homeland Security?s practice of monitoring social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, as well as media reports and organizations, including The Drudge Report. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) recently obtained close to 300 pages of documents, as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, detailing the federal agency?s ?intelligence gathering? practices on the web. Among the documents were guidelines from DHS instructing outside contractors to monitor the web for media reports and comments that ?reflect adversely? on the agency or the federal government. As Reuters reported last month, in early 2010 contractors were asked to spend 24 hours monitoring news media coverage on popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks, as well as news sites including the Huffington Post and The Drudge Report. The contractors were required to provide the DHS with feedback on any potential ?threats and hazards?, as well as ?any media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government and the Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) ability to prevent, protect and respond, to recovery efforts or activities related to any crisis or events which impact National Planning Scenarios.? The documents also state that the program should highlight ?both positive and negative reports on FEMA, C.I.A., C.B.P., ICE, etc., as well as organizations outside of D.H.S.? The documents obtained by EPIC indicate that following the exercise, a procurement official awarded an $11.3 million contract to General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in order to carry out the monitoring on a ?24/7/365 basis?. EPIC director Ginger McCall notes that monitoring what people are saying about government policies goes too far and has a chilling effect on free speech. ?The Department of Homeland Security?s monitoring of political dissent has no legal basis and is contrary to core First Amendment principles,? she said. ?The language in the documents makes it quite clear that they are looking for media reports that are critical of the agency and the U.S. government more broadly,? said McCall. ?This is entirely outside of the bounds of the agency?s statutory duties.? DHS officials have admitted that monitoring of social networks for negative opinion was undertaken by the agency, but claim that the operation was a one off test and was quickly dropped as it did not meet ?operational requirements or privacy standards,? which ?expressly prohibit reporting on individuals? First Amendment activities.? EPIC argues otherwise and has presented evidence that suggests the practice is being held up by the DHS an an example that should be emulated. ?They are completely out of bounds here,? McCall said. ?The idea that the government is constantly peering over your shoulder and listening to what you are saying creates a very chilling effect to legitimate dissent. The Congressional hearing, DHS Monitoring of Social Networking and Media: Enhancing Intelligence Gathering and Ensuring Privacy, will be held Thursday February 16th. However, it is already apparent where the House subcommittee for intelligence and counter-terrorism stands on the matter. As reported by Reuters, the top two members of the subcommittee, Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA) and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), wrote to DHS Intelligence Chief Caryn Wagner last month, pressing her to more carefully monitor users? posts on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, in order to help detect ?current or emerging threats.? As we have also previously reported, The DHS has openly announced that it is actively monitoring social media for signs of ?social unrest?, in a bid to pre-empt any sign of social dislocation within the United States. ?????????????????????? Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones? Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 10 09:36:58 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:36:58 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - On eve of protests, Germany backs away from ACTA Message-ID: <8E5B5EE3-600B-468F-AC2C-736D5D691664@infowarrior.org> On eve of protests, Germany backs away from ACTA By Timothy B. Lee | Published about an hour ago http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/on-eve-of-protests-germany-backs-away-from-acta.ars A large group of European nations signed ACTA two weeks ago, sparking outrage across the continent. But not all European nations signed onto the agreement. Several countries, including Germany, had not finished their internal processes for approving the treaty, but vowed to sign on shortly. But on Friday, the German government signaled it was having second thoughts. According to Spiegel, the German government now plans to wait and see how the European Parliament votes before Germany makes a decision on the treaty itself. Germany's move comes on the heels of a similar move in Poland last week. As we reported then, the treaty must be approved by all 27 member states in order to go into effect anywhere in Europe. Germany is one of the wealthiest and most populous nations in Europe, so its move is likely to have a big impact on the handful of other European nations that have not signed onto the treaty. Germany's change of heart was likely influenced by the growing grassroots backlash against the copyright treaty. Organizers are planning ACTA protests in 200 cities across Europe on Saturday. The United States has already signed ACTA. The Obama administration has argued that because ACTA is an "executive agreement" and does not require changing US law, it does not need to be submitted to the Senate for ratification. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 10 09:39:24 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:39:24 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Alan Moore: V for Vendetta and the rise of Anonymous Message-ID: 9 February 2012 Last updated at 20:03 ET Viewpoint: V for Vendetta and the rise of Anonymous By Alan Moore http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16968689?print=true On Saturday protests are planned across the world against Acta - the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The treaty has become the focus of activists associated with the Anonymous hacking network because of concerns that it could undermine internet privacy and aid censorship. First published in 1982, the comic series V for Vendetta charted a masked vigilante's attempt to bring down a fascist British government and its complicit media. Many of the demonstrators are expected to wear masks based on the book's central character. Ahead of the protests, the BBC asked V for Vendetta's writer, Alan Moore, for his thoughts on how his creation had become an inspiration and identity to Anonymous. PREOCCUPATIONS Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire, and the adoption of the V for Vendetta mask as a multipurpose icon by the emerging global protest movements is no exception. Back at the crack of the 17th century, Rushton Triangular Lodge was a strange architectural folly constructed to represent the Holy Trinity by an increasingly eccentric Sir Thomas Tresham while he endured decades of house-arrest for his outspoken Catholicism. It was also one of the two locations, both owned by Tresham and both in Northamptonshire, at which the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was formulated by a group of dissident Catholics that included Tresham's son Francis. It would seem likely that the treatment afforded to the elder Tresham played some part in the general mix of grievances from which the reckless scheme ignited. Mastermind By the early sixteen-hundreds, the bonfires traditionally lit around the start of November had been co-opted as trappings for a sort of national anti-Catholic day at which effigies of the Pope would be incinerated. As mastermind behind the terrorist outrage du jour, however, the plot's nominal leader Guido Fawkes rapidly replaced the pontiff as hate-mascot of choice on these occasions. Jump forward 300 years, though, to the battered post-war England of the 1950s, and the saturnine insurrectionary had taken on more ambiguous connotations. When parents explained to their offspring about Guy Fawkes and his attempt to blow up Parliament, there always seemed to be an undertone of admiration in their voices, or at least there did in Northampton. While that era's children perhaps didn't see Fawkes as a hero, they certainly didn't see him as the villainous scapegoat he'd originally been intended as. Revolutionary At the start of the 1980s when the ideas that would coalesce into V for Vendetta were springing up from a summer of anti-Thatcher riots across the UK coupled with a worrying surge from the far-right National Front, Guy Fawkes' status as a potential revolutionary hero seemed to be oddly confirmed by circumstances surrounding the comic strip's creation: it was the strip's artist, David Lloyd, who had initially suggested using the Guy Fawkes mask as an emblem for our one-man-against-a-fascist-state lead character. When this notion was enthusiastically received, he decided to buy one of the commonplace cardboard Guy Fawkes masks that were always readily available from mid-autumn, just to use as convenient reference. To our great surprise, it turned out that this was the year (perhaps understandably after such an incendiary summer) when the Guy Fawkes mask was to be phased out in favour of green plastic Frankenstein monsters geared to the incoming celebration of an American Halloween. It was also the year in which the term "Guy Fawkes Night" seemingly disappeared from common usage, to be replaced by the less provocative 'bonfire night'. At the time, we both remarked upon how interesting it was that we should have taken up the image right at the point where it was apparently being purged from the annals of English iconography. It seemed that you couldn't keep a good symbol down. If there truly was government unease about the mask and its associations back in the 1980s, these concerns had evidently evaporated by the first decade of the 21st century, when the movie industry apparently decided to re-imagine the original narrative as some sort of parable about the post-9/11 rise of American neo-conservatives, in which the words "fascism" or "anarchy" were nowhere mentioned. Anarchy and romance When the film was made during the peak period of anti-terrorist legislation the golden touch of Hollywood was, it seemed, sufficiently persuasive for the authorities to permit a massed horde of extras dressed as the nation's most famous terrorist to cavort riotously in Parliament Square. I don't think one need subscribe to any quasi-mystical theories about how the conceptual world of ideas can affect the substantial world of everyday existence in order to agree that, in retrospect, this could be seen as practically begging for it. After that, it wasn't long before the character's enigmatic Time-Warner trademarked leer appeared masking the faces of Anonymous protesters barracking Scientologists halfway down Tottenham Court Road. Shortly thereafter it began manifesting at anti-globalisation demonstrations, anti-capitalist protests, concerted hacker-attacks upon those perceived as enabling state oppression, and finally on the front steps of St Paul's. It would seem that the various tectonic collapses deep in the structure of our economic and political systems have triggered waves of kinetic energy which are rolling through human populations rather than through their usual medium of seawater. It also seems that our character's charismatic grin has provided a ready-made identity for these highly motivated protesters, one embodying resonances of anarchy, romance, and theatre that are clearly well-suited to contemporary activism, from Madrid's Indignados to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Neglect Our present financial ethos no longer even resembles conventional capitalism, which at least implies a brutal Darwinian free-for-all, however one-sided and unfair. Instead, we have a situation where the banks seem to be an untouchable monarchy beyond the reach of governmental restraint, much like the profligate court of Charles I. Then, a depraved neglect of the poor and the "squeezed middle" led inexorably to an unanticipated reaction in the horrific form of Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War which, as it happens, was bloodily concluded in Northamptonshire. Today's response to similar oppressions seems to be one that is intelligent, constantly evolving and considerably more humane, and yet our character's borrowed Catholic revolutionary visage and his incongruously Puritan apparel are perhaps a reminder that unjust institutions may always be haunted by volatile 17th century spectres, even if today's uprisings are fuelled more by social networks than by gunpowder. Some ghosts never go away. As for the ideas tentatively proposed in that dystopian fantasy thirty years ago, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that whatever usefulness they afford modern radicalism is very satisfying. In terms of a wildly uninformed guess at our political future, it feels something like V for validation. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 10 11:54:10 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:54:10 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Comparing Privacy and Security Practices on Online Dating Sites Message-ID: <06000853-8D95-4F7A-95C3-EFDC4B5E3392@infowarrior.org> Comparing Privacy and Security Practices on Online Dating Sites Concerned about your privacy when you use online dating sites? You should be. We recently examined 8 popular online dating sites to see how well they were safeguarding user privacy through the use of standard encryption practices. We found that the majority of the sites we examined did not take even basic security precautions, leaving users vulnerable to having their personal information exposed or their entire account taken over when using shared networks, such as at coffee shops or libraries. We also reviewed the privacy policies and terms of use for these sites to see how they handled sensitive user data after an individual closed her account. About half of the time, the site?s policy on deleting data was vague or didn't discuss the issue at all. < - > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/comparing-privacy-and-security-online-dating-sites --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 10 14:09:48 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:09:48 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Old Media Cannot Tell The Narrative Of One Million People Message-ID: SOPA Strikedown Aftermath: Old Media Cannot Tell The Narrative Of One Million People http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120207/01283517677/sopa-strikedown-aftermath-old-media-cannot-tell-narrative-one-million-people.shtml Rick Falkvinge is the founder of the Swedish and first Pirate Party. Follow him as @Falkvinge on Twitter, read his private blog, or get him for a keynote. ----- As the political victory from the SOPA strikedown sinks in, reflections over old media's role take its place. We know that old media -- unidirectional media such as TV, newspapers, radio -- barely covered SOPA at all. We also know that this has political reasons, as their owners didn't want to draw attention to the issue. But even at the apex of the fightback, on January 18, old media barely mentioned what was happening. This is very noteworthy in itself. I can't see this in any other light than old media being conceptually unable to tell the narrative of millions of people fighting against a powerful few dozen. It's not just that they chose not to -- it's that their very construction makes it as impossible for them to communicate those events as it would be for a color-blind person to communicate the impressions of a blue-period Picasso. Old media, after all, is built on the premise of large organizations competing for resources; its narrative is dependent on pitting two powerful representatives against each other to portray their respective interests and let them battle it out in public. Old media consists of large corporations that can only portray conflicts between other large organizations. This established old media style, which focuses on the pretense of impartiality, has sometimes been called "he-said, she-said journalism," pronounced with a small but well-deserved hint of disrespect. The copyright monopoly industries had no problems producing a trained, charismatic debater who would probably win in any televised debate against a random person of one of the millions of activists. But in the end, it didn't matter: it was the millions that made the difference and won. To put this in context, how did we see the SOPA debate play out, we who get our news on the net? We don't get our news from one source, but from hundreds, maybe thousands. You could easily model this as the cherry-picking of a typical newspaper -- I read a couple of political blogs, some comics, a couple of current affairs, eight real-time Twitter streams, and so on. The sum of it all could be made to resemble a newspaper on an ordinary day. But there is a crucial difference in the net's cross-communication between information sources. When all of our hundreds of different news sources start to converge around and resonate with each other on one single topic, as happened with SOPA, then all of us sense that immediately. Immediately. Old media is not capable of communicating that sense of powerful resonance. You would not see a message of political urgency instead of your usual comics on the comic page, for instance. But on the net, that happened for us with The Oatmeal and XKCD. Old media, in contrast, have their predetermined length of news clips and page lengths, divided by topics, portraying conflicts as experts talking it out. Half a page for talking about foreign affairs, half a page for tax policy, another page for sports, then the weather. Old media can't resonate with the people when something is important. As it turns out, one expert talking on a small allocated space cannot represent one million concerned people -- a million who are leaderless to begin with, yet very organized and efficient anyway. Therefore, any attempt to frame this event in he-said, she-said journalism just falls flat on its face. For us, there is no such thing as a maximum length of an article. (We use recycled electrons anyway.) When we want to talk more on a subject, there are no frames and boundaries stopping us from doing so. This article, to give one example, could be the typical length of an average blog post. But it's quite a bit longer than the hard limit of an op-ed piece. There are two important things to learn from this: We don't need old media to tell our story to succeed, and we're able to tell the story ourselves. This, if anything, is what should have old media really worried. For not only did old media fail in narrating the story, for political reasons and for capability reasons; they also failed in keeping their audience captive and preventing the story from being narrated anyway. Narrated by us. All of us. When a million people talk to their friends, family, and colleagues about a subject, that wins outright over any narrative that old media is trying to portray. That collective of a million people is able to coordinate discoveries and stories between them with an efficiency that makes them run in circles against any attempt to control the available information. (This is how most Pirate Parties operate, by the way, and this is also the basis for swarm organization theory.) As a project manager, one thing I've learned is that you can never be reliant on an element that is completely outside of your control for your project to succeed; if so, your plan is broken. Old media, up until now, was such an element. No longer. While they can certainly assist, they are no longer necessary for saving the net and our values. In summary, we learned that this was the first sign of old media becoming? irrelevant, is probably the right word. Irrelevant for things that really matter. ----- Rick Falkvinge is the founder of the Swedish and first Pirate Party. Follow him as @Falkvinge on Twitter, read his private blog, or get him for a keynote. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Feb 12 11:47:20 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:47:20 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - US Seeks to Mine Social Media to Predict Future Message-ID: US Seeks to Mine Social Media to Predict Future By MARCUS WOHLSEN Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO February 12, 2012 (AP) http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-seeks-mine-social-media-predict-future-15567876 The U.S. government is seeking software that can mine social media to predict everything from future terrorist attacks to foreign uprisings, according to requests posted online by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Hundreds of intelligence analysts already sift overseas Twitter and Facebook posts to track events such as the Arab Spring. But in a formal "request for information" from potential contractors, the FBI recently outlined its desire for a digital tool to scan the entire universe of social media ? more data than humans could ever crunch. The Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence also have solicited the private sector for ways to automate the process of identifying emerging threats and upheavals using the billions of posts people around the world share every day. "Social media has emerged to be the first instance of communication about a crisis, trumping traditional first responders that included police, firefighters, EMT, and journalists," the FBI wrote in its request. "Social media is rivaling 911 services in crisis response and reporting." The proposals already have raised privacy concerns among advocates who worry that such monitoring efforts could have a chilling effect on users. Ginger McCall, director of the open government project at the Washington, D.C.-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the FBI has no business monitoring legitimate free speech without a narrow, targeted law enforcement purpose. "Any time that you have to worry about the federal government following you around peering over your shoulder listening to what you're saying, it's going to affect the way you speak and the way that you act," McCall said. The FBI said in a statement to The Associated Press that their proposed system is only meant to monitor publicly available information and would not focus on specific individuals or groups but on words related to criminal activity. Analyzing public information is nothing new in the world of intelligence. During the Cold War, for example, CIA operatives read Russian newspapers and intercepted television and radio broadcasts in hopes of inferring what Soviet leaders were thinking. But the rise of social media over the past few years has dramatically changed both the kinds and amount of freely available information. For example, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo said at a recent conference that users of the micro-blogging service send out an average of one billion tweets every three days. "It really ought to be the golden age of intelligence collection in that you've got people falling all over themselves trying to express who they are," said Ross Stapleton-Gray, a former CIA analyst and now a technology consultant who advises companies on security, surveillance and privacy issues. As a staffer in the early 1990s in what later became the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Stapleton-Gray said the U.S. intelligence community's early efforts to better harness the increasing volume of information becoming available on the Internet ran into resistance from old hands who believed that secrets were more valuable than the information anyone could get. But agencies' requests for better social media tools indicate that resistance has wilted. The system sought by the research arm of the national intelligence director's office would fuse together everything from Web searches to Wikipedia edits to traffic webcams to "beat the news" by predicting major events ranging from economic turmoil to disease outbreaks. The Defense Department's tool would track social media to identify the spread of information that could affect soldiers in the field and also give the military ways to conduct its own "influence operations" on social networks to counteract enemy campaigns. The intelligence director's office and the Defense Department said they could not meet the AP's deadline to answer specific questions about the proposed projects. The FBI is seeking a web app that would automatically scrape social networks for data that could alert the agency's operations center to breaking crises as they happen and plot them on interfaces like Google Maps For such systems to work well, their developers would have to overcome several technological challenges, the easiest of which is handling the massive amount of data involved. Developments in so-called "cloud computing" have made processing big data sets easier than ever before by spreading the work broadly across networks of computers. Instead, experts in the field say the major hurdle is in effect teaching computers how to read. To sift the valuable information from the mundane, the software must understand the subtleties of meaning in tweets and blog posts to tell the difference between, for example, a serious statement and a joke. Solving such problems falls to researchers in fields such as natural language processing and computational linguistics ? the same specialties that brought the world the iPhone's Siri voice-activated assistant and IBM's Watson, which trounced its human opponents at Jeopardy. San Francisco-based Linguastat Inc. worked with the Centers for Disease Control during the 2009 swine flu outbreak to track public fears and concerns on social networks and determine whether the CDC's public health messages were gaining traction. Company co-founder John Pierre said that tracking public sentiment depended on much more than searching social media for specific words or phrases. "Just because they mention it, do they like it, do they not, are they saying it in the right context? Is it a band called The Swine Flu?" Pierre said. Authenticity also becomes an issue in analyzing social networks. Computer programs known as "bots" already plague services such as Twitter with junk posts similar to email spam. Researcher Tim Hwang has scripted his own bots to see how much influence they could wield over social networks and says the ability to create bots that closely mimic humans will only improve over time. This matters in intelligence gathering because bots could fool analysts ? and their software ? into thinking they're witnessing a genuine shift in social trends that in reality could be a government propaganda campaign driven by, for example, Twitter users that don't really exist. "We have all the data. How do we know what's real and what's not?" Hwang said. William McCants, an analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses and a former State Department official, monitors al-Qaeda propaganda online. He said he worries that the systems the FBI and other agencies are seeking could create an overreliance on technology at the expense of carefully trained human analysts who are still better at zeroing in on the facts that matter most. "The more data you use and the more complicated the software, the more likely it is you will confirm a well-known banality," McCants said a friend likes to joke. "You didn't need to be on Twitter to know that a revolution was happening in Egypt." ??? Online: Proposed FBI social media app: http://bit.ly/AF17HJ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 13 06:36:02 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:36:02 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Congress Left in Dark on DOJ Wiretaps Message-ID: <4722B75B-4FAE-40B9-B71B-F8BB7583048F@infowarrior.org> Congress Left in Dark on DOJ Wiretaps ? By David Kravets ? Email Author ? February 13, 2012 | ? 6:30 am | http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/congress-in-the-dark/ A Senate staffer was tasked two years ago with compiling reports for a subcommittee about the number of times annually the Justice Department employed a covert internet and telephone surveillance method known as pen register and trap-and-trace capturing. But the records, which the Justice Department is required to forward to Congress annually, were nowhere in sight. That?s because the Justice Department was not following the law and had not provided Congress with the material at least for years 2004 to 2008. On the flip side, Congress was not exercising its watchdog role, thus enabling the Justice Department to skirt any oversight whatsoever on an increasingly used surveillance method that does not require court warrants, according to Justice Department documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. The mishap is just one piece of an ever-growing disconnect between Americans? privacy interests, and a Congress seemingly uncommitted to protecting those interests. Pen registers obtain non-content information of outbound telephone and internet communications, such as phone numbers dialed, and the sender and recipient (and sometimes subject line) of an e-mail message. A trap-and-trace acquires the same information, but for inbound communications to a target. The reports, recently posted on Justice Department website, chronicle a powerful surveillance tool undertaken tens of thousands of times annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The reports show that, from 2004 to 2008, the number of times this wiretapping method was employed nearly doubled, from 10,885 to 21,152. Judges sign off on these telco orders when the authorities say the information is relevant to an investigation. No probable cause that the target committed a crime ? the warrant standard ? is necessary. The Justice Department, beginning in late 2010, has only published the reports from 2004 to 2009, the year it obtained 23,895 judicial orders to conduct such surveillance. It did not immediately comment on whether the 2010 and 2011 reports have been compiled and sent to Congress, or explain why the mishap occurred. Internet security researcher Christopher Soghoian recently obtained e-mails via a two-year FOIA process confirm for the first time that Congress was left out of the loop for at least the years 2004 to 2008. Using FOIA, he and others have crowbarred from the Justice Department the reports from 1999 to 2009. ?This is an important surveillance tool,? Soghoian said in a telephone interview. ?In addition to showing that DOJ is lazy and not obeying the law, the most notable thing here is that Congress was asleep at the wheel.? The handful of government e-mails (.pdf) Soghoian obtained confirm for the first time that Congress was left out of the loop for at least the years 2004 to 2008. A law review article suggests the same for years 1999 through 2003. Soghoian provided the nine pages of e-mail to Wired. They show that, in September of 2009, a staffer for then-Sen. Russ Feingold sent an e-mail to the Justice Department?s Mark Agrast, the deputy assistant attorney general for legislative affairs. The staffer, Lara Flint, was seeking ?the last few? reports for a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. ?Any help you can provide would be much appreciated,? Flint wrote Agrast. Three months later, Agrast sent them over to Flint only after Agrast had learned from Mythili Raman, who was the DOJ?s principal deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division, that no reports were filed. ?Although there was an annual reporting requirement, apparently, no one had been actually fling the annual report,? Raman wrote Argast in a December 2009 e-mail. Agrast did not immediately return a telephone message from Wired seeking comment. To be sure, even had Congress obtained the data, it?s hard to imagine that it would have mattered. Consider that the House and Senate punted in May on revising the controversial Patriot Act adopted in the wake of 9/11. Congress extended three expiring spy provisions for four years without any debate. The three provisions extended included: ? The ?roving wiretap? provision allows the FBI to obtain wiretaps from a secret intelligence court, known as the FISA court (under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) without identifying the target or what method of communication is to be tapped. ? The ?lone wolf? measure allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person for any reason ? even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. The government has said it has never invoked that provision, but the Obama administration said it wanted to retain the authority to do so. ? The ?business records? provision allows FISA court warrants for any type of record, from banking to library to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is the law that requires the DOJ?s pen-register reporting. It turned 25 years old in October. Another feature of that law had once protected Americans? electronic communications from the government?s prying eyes, but it has become so woefully outdated that it now grants the authorities nearly carte blanche powers to obtain Americans? e-mail stored in the cloud, such as in Gmail or Hotmail ? without a court warrant. Congress has shown no interest in amending the law to afford Americans their privacy, despite calls from some of the nation?s largest tech companies and civil rights groups to do so. In October, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee who had originally sponsored ECPA during the Ronald Reagan administration, promised to hold hearings on ECPA reform before his committee by year?s end. He never called a hearing, despite saying ?this law is significantly outdated and outpaced by rapid changes in technology.? As Soghoian sees it, none of this is surprising. ?Privacy is a hot topic,? he said. ?Congress is in the dark.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 13 06:46:33 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:46:33 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - WaPo Editorial on Cybersecurity Message-ID: <7BF8E707-5471-4912-9728-5ED50E9D278E@infowarrior.org> (Submitted to the list w/o comment. -- rick) A cyber risk to the U.S. By Editorial Board, Published: February 12 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-cyber-risk-to-the-us/2012/02/07/gIQA4q7M9Q_print.html IN A RECENT briefing to Congress about worldwide threats, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said that the danger of cyberattacks will equal or surpass the danger of terrorism ?in the foreseeable future.? What makes that assessment particularly alarming is that the United States may be as unprepared to defend some of its critical computer systems as it was to protect New York and Washington against al-Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001. Though the Pentagon has a cybercommand, it does not cover the domestic civilian economy, including vital infrastructure systems such as the electric power grid, water supplies and the financial system. Many of the computers controlling those utilities lack adequate security measures and could be devastated by viruses launched by hostile states or even hackers. As it is, U.S. companies, from defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin to e-mail carriers such as Google, are under continual assault from China and Russia, which seek to steal industrial or national security secrets and probe for infrastructure weaknesses. Congress and the Obama administration have at least recognized the problem: Both have spent years studying it and have drawn up detailed proposals for hardening U.S. cyberdefenses. Like so much in Washington, action has been slowed by political gridlock; yet senior legislators in both parties have committed themselves to passing legislation. In fact, cyberdefense could be a signature achievement of this election year, if a few more senators can set aside partisanship and special interest appeals. The most important ? or at least, the biggest ? legislation is emerging in the Senate under the sponsorship of Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.). It is packed with provisions and updates to outdated legislation, but its most important sections would provide for information sharing by the government and private companies and mandate better security for critical infrastructure. (A couple of overreaching provisions in earlier legislation, such as authority for the president to shut down Internet traffic in a crisis, have been dropped.) Both areas are contentious. Fresh from blocking legislation on Internet piracy, some net purists are denouncing provisions that would make it easier for companies to tell each other, and the government, about security breaches and ways to prevent them ? and mandate reporting in the event of breaches of critical infrastructure. While there are legitimate civil liberty concerns, it is essential that companies are able to share information about stolen data and other cyberattacks without compromising individual privacy or exposing themselves to government sanctions. Cooperation between the government and private companies is also badly needed to ensure protection of power and water plants, banking networks, and other infrastructure essential to modern society. The Senate legislation rightly gives the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), rather than the Pentagon, authority in this area and lays out an appropriately narrow definition of computer systems to be supervised: those whose interruption could cause ?a mass casualty event?; ?the interruption of life-sustaining services;? ?mass evacuations?; or ?catastrophic economic damage to the United States.? Firms with such systems would be required to work with DHS on a security plan and to submit, or submit to, an audit on its effectiveness; those that fail to comply could be fined. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several Republican senators have objected to such DHS authority, claiming it amounts to unnecessary and costly regulation. But in the absence of government supervision, critical systems have remained unprotected. To accept the status quo would be an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security. ? The Washington Post Company --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 13 06:47:55 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:47:55 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Admiral Seeks Freer Hand in Deployment of Elite Forces Message-ID: <6EC1227D-FD80-4A0B-AC0A-88BF945E113C@infowarrior.org> February 12, 2012 Admiral Seeks Freer Hand in Deployment of Elite Forces By ERIC SCHMITT, MARK MAZZETTI and THOM SHANKER http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/us/admiral-pushes-for-freer-hand-in-special-forces.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print WASHINGTON ? As the United States turns increasingly to Special Operations forces to confront developing threats scattered around the world, the nation?s top Special Operations officer, a member of the Navy Seals who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, is seeking new authority to move his forces faster and outside of normal Pentagon deployment channels. The officer, Adm. William H. McRaven, who leads the Special Operations Command, is pushing for a larger role for his elite units who have traditionally operated in the dark corners of American foreign policy. The plan would give him more autonomy to position his forces and their war-fighting equipment where intelligence and global events indicate they are most needed. It would also allow the Special Operations forces to expand their presence in regions where they have not operated in large numbers for the past decade, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America. While President Obama and his Pentagon?s leadership have increasingly made Special Operations forces their military tool of choice, similar plans in the past have foundered because of opposition from regional commanders and the State Department. The military?s regional combatant commanders have feared a decrease of their authority, and some ambassadors in crisis zones have voiced concerns that commandos may carry out missions that are perceived to tread on a host country?s sovereignty, like the rift in ties with Pakistan after the Bin Laden raid. Administration, military and Congressional officials say that the Special Operations Command has embarked on a quiet lobbying campaign to push through the initiative. Pentagon and administration officials note that while the Special Operations Command is certain to see a growth in its budget and personnel when the new Defense Department spending plan is released Monday ? in contrast to many other parts of the military that are being cut ? no decisions have been made on whether to expand Admiral McRaven?s authorities. The White House and State Department declined to comment on the proposal on Sunday. The proposals are put forward as a new model for warfare in an age of diminishing Pentagon budgets, shrinking numbers of troops and declining public appetite for large wars of occupation, according to Pentagon officials, military officers and civilian contractors briefed on the plan. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because no decisions have been made. Under the new concepts, a significant number of Special Operations forces ? projected at 12,000 ? would remain deployed around the world. While commando teams would be on call for striking terrorist targets and rescuing hostages, just as significant would be the increased number of these personnel deployed on training and liaison assignments and to gather information to help the command better predict approaching national security risks. Officials stressed that in almost all cases, Special Operations forces would still only be ordered on specific missions by the regional four-star commander. ?It?s not really about Socom running the global war on terrorism,? Admiral McRaven said in a brief interview last week, referring to the Special Operations Command. ?I don?t think we?re ready to do that. What it?s about is how do I better support? the regional combatant commanders. For the past decade, more than 80 percent of the United States? Special Operations forces have been deployed to the Middle East. With the military?s conventional forces coming home after the full withdrawal from Iraq, Admiral McRaven wants the authority to spread his commando teams into regions where they had been thinned out to provide forces for wars after the Sept. 11 attacks. Even more, Admiral McRaven wants the authority to quickly move his units to potential hot spots without going through the standard Pentagon process governing overseas deployments. Historically, the deployment of American forces overseas began with a request from a global combatant commander that was processed through the military?s Joint Staff and placed before the defense secretary for approval, in a cautious and deliberate process. Shifting national security threats may argue for Admiral McRaven?s plans. With Special Operations forces concentrated in the Middle East and Southwest Asia over the last decade, commanders in other regions are seeking more of these units in their areas. State Department officials say they have not yet been briefed on the proposals. In the past, some ambassadors in crisis zones have opposed increased deployments of Special Operations teams, and they have demanded assurances that diplomatic chiefs of missions will be fully involved in their plans and missions. Senior Special Operations commanders pledged that their efforts would be coordinated with the senior diplomatic representative in each country. These officers also describe how the new authorities would stress working with local security forces whenever possible. The exception would be when a local government was unable or unwilling to cooperate with an authorized American mission, or if there was no responsible government in power with whom to work. Admiral McRaven?s plans have raised concerns even within the Special Operations community. Two Pentagon consultants said they have spoken with senior Special Operations officers who worry about their troops being stretched too thin. They are also concerned that Special Operations forces ? still less than 2 percent of the entire military ? will become so much the ?go to? force of choice that they are asked to carry out missions beyond their capacity. ?Sure, we?re worried about that,? said one senior Special Operations officer with several command tours overseas. ?But we also think we can manage that.? The Special Operations Command now numbers just under 66,000 people ? including both military personnel and Defense Department civilians ? a doubling since 2001. Its budget has reached $10.5 billion, up from $4.2 billion in 2001 (after adjusting for inflation). Over the past decade, Special Operations Command personnel have been deployed for combat operations, exercises, training and other liaison missions in more than 70 countries. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Special Operations Command sustained overseas deployments of more than 12,000 troops a day, with four-fifths committed to the broader Middle East. Even as the Pentagon trims its conventional force, with a refocus on the Asia-Pacific region and reductions in Europe, the Special Operations Command says it needs to permanently sustain that overseas force of 12,000 deployed around the world ? with troops that came out of Iraq being distributed across regions that had not had many over the past decade. Under Admiral McRaven?s evolving plans ? what he calls the Global SOF Alliance ? Special Operations forces would be moved around the globe at his direction, to bolster the forces available to the top Special Operations officer assigned to each theater of operation. Thickening the Special Operations deployments in these other regions would allow the United States to be ready to respond more rapidly to a broader range of threats. Current guidelines allow the Special Operations Command to carry out missions on its own for very specific types of operations, although that has rarely been done and officials involved in the current debate say that would remain a rare event. ?He?s trying to provide global agility,? said one former military official who has been briefed on the planning. ?If your network is not elastic, it?s not as agile as the enemy.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 13 06:58:05 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:58:05 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Study suggests U.S. box office not affected by BitTorrent Message-ID: <474860A3-8DF3-4681-BEA3-C66714875A82@infowarrior.org> Study suggests U.S. box office not affected by BitTorrent February 11, 2012 By Francis Bea http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/study-suggests-u-s-box-office-not-affected-by-bittorrent/ A study by researchers from Wellesley College and the University of Missouri, has found that U.S. box office sales are not affected by BitTorrent pirating. More importantly, the report revealed that movie studios hold the power to curb piracy by decreasing international box office release windows. Online piracy may not be as bad as Hollywood would like you to believe. A new study titled, ?Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office Sales,? conducted by Brett Danaher, from the Department of Economics at Wellesley College, and Joel Waldfogel from the Department of Economics at University of Missouri, suggests little, if any, loss of revenue on U.S. box office sales after the release of BitTorrent. More importantly, while piracy is exhibited to have a direct correlation to a loss of revenue in the international box offices, decreasing the release window would be sufficient enough to curtail losses. An international movie release following its U.S. debut is wrought with technical difficulties that contribute to a wide release window. The expensive cost of the 35mm film print (a 110 year old technology) for distribution to movie theaters, both domestic and international, typically consumes 3.5 percent of a film?s budget. In an effort to cut costs, it?s common practice for distributors to reuse film from theater to theater, thereby exacerbating the time between releases. But recently, theaters have been slowly transitioning from film to digital projection systems. The study underlines three other key problems for movie studios: 1. There is a shortage of international theaters. 2. The complexity of organizing promotional appearances for the film?s actors adds to the delay. 3. Action and science fiction genres exhibit the highest supply of online pirated movies. What shouldn?t come as a surprise from the aforementioned complications is that the restlessness of international fans, waiting weeks or months for a film?s release, is often assuaged by watching pirated material. But what needs to be highlighted from the study is its evidence supporting the notion that, generally, consumers, both domestic and international, will favor theaters over illegal distribution channels. ?Consumers in the US who would choose between the box office and piracy choose the box office (and the remaining US pirates had valuations lower than the ticket price) but that international consumers who would consider both options choose piracy due to a lack of legal availability,? wrote the researchers. ?If piracy displaced box office sales in the US, we would have expected the slope of the returns profile to shift more significantly as BitTorrent became more widely adopted.? In other words, researchers were unable to discern an irregular drop in returns of domestic box office sales, which could fault BitTorrent as the culprit. Despite the mounting evidence and studies providing evidence to the needlessness of the movie studios? assault against file-sharing services, their attacks have been intensifying. At the end of the day, these results suggest that, while directing the blame at file-sharing services induces the fear of prosecution among other file-sharing competitors, much of the power to curb piracy remains in the hands of the studios. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 13 07:29:46 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:29:46 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - AT&T customers surprised by 'unlimited data' limit Message-ID: <4091F150-83C4-470F-8E4B-042123AAACED@infowarrior.org> AT&T customers surprised by 'unlimited data' limit Monday - 2/13/2012, 8:05am ET By PETER SVENSSON AP Technology Writer http://www.wtop.com/?nid=256&sid=2745448 NEW YORK (AP) - Mike Trang likes to use his iPhone 4 as a GPS device, helping him get around in his job. Now and then, his younger cousins get ahold of it, and play some YouTube videos and games. But in the past few weeks, there has been none of that, because AT&T Inc. put a virtual wheel clamp on his phone. Web pages wouldn't load and maps wouldn't render. Forget about YouTube videos - Trang's data speeds were reduced to dial-up levels. "It basically makes my phone useless," said Trang, an Orange County, Calif. property manager. The reason: AT&T considers Trang to be among the top 5 percent of the heaviest cellular data users in his area. Under a new policy, AT&T has started cutting their data speeds as part of an attempt to manage data usage on its network. So last month, AT&T "throttled" Trang's iPhone, slowing downloads by roughly 99 percent. That means a Web page that would normally take a second to load instead took almost two minutes. AT&T has some 17 million customers with "unlimited data" plans that can be subject to throttling, representing just under half of its smartphone users. It stopped signing up new customers for those plans in 2010, and warned last year that it would start slowing speeds for people who consume the most data. What's surprising people like Trang is how little data use it takes to reach that level _ sometimes less that AT&T gives people on its "limited" plans. Trang's iPhone was throttled just two weeks into his billing cycle, after he'd consumed 2.3 gigabytes of data. He pays $30 per month for "unlimited" data. Meanwhile, Dallas-based AT&T now sells a limited, or "tiered," plan that provides 3 gigabytes of data for the same price. Users report that if they call the company to ask or complain about the throttling, AT&T customer support representatives suggest they switch to the limited plan. "They're coaxing you toward the tiered plan," said Gregory Tallman in Hopatcong, N.J. He hasn't had his iPhone 4S throttled yet, but he's gotten text-messages from AT&T, warning that he's approaching the limit. This came after he had used just 1.5 gigabytes of data in that billing cycle. John Cozen, a Web and mobile applications designer in San Diego, hasn't been throttled yet either, but he's been so disturbed by a warning that he's "almost scared to use the phone," he said. Complaining to AT&T got him nowhere, and now he's looking to switch to another carrier. "I don't think two to three gigabytes is an exorbitant amount," he said. "Really, I'm just looking at pictures and text once in a while." AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel said that as of last summer, the top 5 percent of data users were using 2 gigabytes of data per month. But he also said the company doesn't actually throttle all of the top 5 percent "unlimited" data users. Last month, the figure was only 0.5 percent, or about 200,000 people, he said. That's because AT&T only throttles users in areas where the wireless network is congested that month, Siegel said. Siegel also pointed out that aside from moving to a tiered plan, "unlimited" plan users on the cusp of being throttled can use one of AT&T's 30,000 Wi-Fi hotspots, where usage is unmetered. The unlimited plan worked fine for AT&T a few years ago, when the iPhone was new. The company had ample capacity on its network, and wanted to lure customers with the peace of mind offered by unlimited plans. Now, a majority of AT&T subscribers on contract-based plans have smartphones, and the proportion is growing every month. That's putting a big load on AT&T's network. But AT&T's approach to managing data congestion differs from that of the other phone companies. Verizon Wireless doesn't slow down the "5 percent" unless the cell tower their phone is connected to is congested at that moment, and it slows them down by the minimum amount necessary. By contrast, once AT&T has decided to throttle your phone, it will be slow for the rest of the billing cycle, even if it's 3 a.m. and there are no other cell phones competing for the capacity of that particular cell tower. Verizon's measures have drawn few complaints, and indeed, may have gone unnoticed even by the "5 percent." T-Mobile USA is up front about the level it starts throttling at: 5 gigabytes. AT&T subscribers have no idea if they might be among the top 5 percent until they get the warning, which is soon followed by throttled service. While Trang was throttled at 2.3 gigabytes, he knows other iPhone owners who are using 5 or 6 gigabytes per month with impunity. "It seems very random," Trang said. Sprint Nextel Corp. is hanging on to unlimited data plans without throttling, alone among the "Big Four" national wireless carriers. Tallman sees few prospects for a lawsuit against AT&T. The company is still providing unlimited data usage to throttled customers, even if the speeds are so low as to make the phone useless for anything but phone calls and text messages. The company made no promises that "unlimited" data would always be coupled with high speeds, he notes. "They just guaranteed the highway. They didn't guarantee the speed limit," he said. ____ Online: AT&T's July 29 letter on throttling: http://bit.ly/qddCeI Verizon page on its version of throttling: http://support.verizonwireless.com/information/data_disclosure.html (Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 13 13:36:39 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:36:39 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Obama budget proposes new security, airline fees Message-ID: <139E87C5-7DE7-4ACC-A544-249211DD9D8E@infowarrior.org> Obama budget proposes new security, airline fees Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:32pm EST http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/us-usa-budget-transport-idUSTRE81C1BP20120213 (Reuters) - Airlines and their passengers would pay up to $32 billion in new air traffic and security fees over 10 years, and grants to big airports would fall sharply under White House budget proposals on Monday aimed at deficit reduction. The Obama administration wants major carriers, their passengers, business jets and airports to pick up more of the costs of air travel and airport improvements that for years have been borne by taxpayers. New fees are sure to trigger strong opposition from airlines and other aviation groups who argue that the industry is already over-taxed and over-regulated. Ideas quietly floated and then discarded during congressional budget negotiations last summer reemerged in the fiscal 2013 transportation and homeland security portions of the White House budget sent to Congress that outlines $4 trillion in deficit reduction. Under the proposal, ticket fees that help pay for passenger and bag security screening at more than 400 U.S. airports would double to a mandatory minimum of $5 per one-way trip. The fee would jump 50 cents per year beginning in 2014, raising the total to $7.50 in 2018. The administration hopes the changes will yield between $9 billion and $25.5 billion in new revenues over 10 years. The budget proposal would also permit the Homeland Security Department to raise the fee on its own after that through regulation. Congress has resisted previous efforts by the Bush and Obama administrations to raise security fees, which cover less than half of the cost annually of screening airline passengers and their bags for weapons and bombs. But airlines worry that Congress may yield to the enormous pressure to cut federal spending. Airlines are also making money again on higher fares, which could make it more difficult to convince lawmakers to see things their way. The administration is also proposing a $100 departure fee for airlines, business jets and other aircraft to help cover the costs of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control. The new fee would raise $7.4 billion over 10 years, the administration estimates. The budget also proposes to cut guaranteed grant funding for medium and large airports by $926 million in 2013 to $2.4 billion. Instead, airports would be permitted flexibility to increase certain ticket charges to raise revenue on their own for airport construction projects. Airports have unsuccessfully pushed for congressional authority to raise more money through higher fees, which are capped at $4.50 per passenger, per flight. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 13 13:49:34 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:49:34 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Forget SOPA, Hollywood Already Had a Field Day with the Justice System Message-ID: Forget SOPA, Hollywood Already Had a Field Day with the Justice System http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/18/how-hollywood-twisted-theft-laws-long-before-sopa/ by Andrew P. Bridges on January 18, 2012 Copyright justice: Steal a subway ride and pay a $100 fine. Steal a song and pay $150,000. The controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) bills and their backers employ striking language to describe the problem they supposedly attack, namely ?theft of U.S. property? and ?IP theft.? They use that language to argue for sweeping new powers affecting the domain name system, Internet search, online advertising, and electronic payments. It?s a great example of the way Hollywood chooses its words very carefully in constructing its propaganda wars. The old-fashioned and accurate word is ?infringement,? but that word doesn?t create the visceral responses that ?theft? does. So the bills refer almost exclusively to ?theft.? The trigger for this was Hollywood?s frustration several years ago that ?file sharing? didn?t sound bad. After all, we learned in kindergarten that ?sharing? is a good thing. The motion picture industry?s lead spokesperson, Jack Valenti, hated the term. He liked to compare a chocolate cake to files on the Internet: if you share some of your cake, you?re not supposed to still have all your cake, but when you share a file you still have the file. Thus, he argued, it?s not ?sharing? at all. Of course, his inability to distinguish between chocolate cake and information ? which is what music stored as bits really is ? resembles Hollywood?s profound misunderstanding of the Internet today. One can indeed share information while keeping it. Over the last ten years I have watched Hollywood loyalists, undoubtedly responding to some coordinated industry messaging directive, start talking exclusively about ?theft? when they refer to infringement. One can tell who has signed on as a Hollywood partisan in the current debates by seeing who now uses the loaded term ?theft? instead of the accurate term ?infringement.? The facts that the bills overflow with references to ?theft,? and that many government officials have changed their vocabularies to use the new, industrially correct language, reveal a lot about Hollywood?s capture of government. When the big content companies talk about ?IP theft? or ?copyright theft,? what are they really talking about? The essence of theft is deprivation ? when someone steals your wallet he takes your wallet away and you don?t have it any longer. But if I like your haircut and get one just like it, I haven?t stolen your hair. I have just copied it. Theft and copying are inherently different things. But let?s stick with the ?theft? concept for a while and see where Hollywood?s terminology leads us. What would ?copyright theft? mean? How does one steal a copyright, which is just a form of ownership right? The same way one can steal someone?s real estate ownership, by forging a deed (or assignment) or tricking someone into signing one. That?s pretty rare. Looking at it differently, one can steal a copy of a copyrighted work, say by shoplifting a book. But neither stealing copyrights nor stealing books are the types of so-called IP ?theft? that the pending bills try to stop. The bills try to attack reproductions (copying/downloading), transmissions (streaming), and other traditional forms of what has always been called ?infringement.? Under the ?theft? conception of copyright law, what, exactly, is the deprivation when someone makes illegal copies? It really boils down to just one thing: money. Copyright infringement ? renamed copyright theft ? deprives the copyright holder of some of his or her expected profit from exploiting the copyright. What are other, similar kinds of ?theft? by depriving someone of expected money? Failure of a tenant to pay the agreed rent to a landlord is one. Parking in a parking space without putting money in the meter is another. Jumping the turnstile to ride on a subway without paying the fare is a third. (And, of course, failure of a studio or record label to pay artists or actors the promised contractual royalties for their work on a record or film is a fourth. But something tells me the studios and labels sponsoring the current bills won?t go near that topic. The bills don?t include rogue studios and labels in their scope.) How do the civil damages or penalties for the different types of such ?theft? compare? Failure to pay expected money under a contract doesn?t trigger a penalty: contract law usually says that a party can recover the money she expected but not punitive damages or attorneys fees (unless parties have specifically bargained to pay attorneys fees for a breach). Failure to pay rent usually requires payment of rent to cure the default. Failure to put money in the parking meter prompts a ticket for $60. In New York City, failure to pay the $2.50 subway fare results in a maximum fine of $100. Copyright ?theft? is a very different story. Copyright infringement statutory damages in civil litigation can be as high as $150,000 for infringement of a single work. Yes, a single work such as a single song with an iTunes download value of $1. A copyright holder can claim such statutory damages without needing to prove a single penny of damage or loss. Think such sky-high damages aren?t realistic? Think again. In the RIAA?s case against single mother Jammie Thomas, a jury awarded $1,500,000 for the download of 24 songs, with no proof that she had transmitted songs to others. The federal judge thought that was ridiculous and reduced the total award to $54,000 ? and the RIAA and MPAA are now arguing strenuously on appeal that the jury verdict should return to the original figure, $62,500 per downloaded song. If we take copyright law?s maximum-penalty-to-price ratio as applied to an illegal download, and apply that same penalty-to-price ratio to the New York subway, the maximum penalty for jumping that turnstile and avoiding the $2.50 fare would be $375,000 instead of $100. Copyright industries are on to a really good thing under current law. One could say it?s a steal. And the copyright industries haven?t gotten their fill of penalties and enforcement powers. That?s why they are back in Washington today, enlisting an army of Senators and Congress members to give them more power in the PIPA and SOPA bills to distort the domain name system (supposedly dropped from secret amendments not yet released), to censor search results and online advertising, and to turn online payment systems into enforcers. They say that the legislation targets ?foreign rogue sites,? even though current copyright law has killed foreign rogues such as Grokster and Kazaa, and even though there are express provisions for suing persons within the US, and even though the legislation regulates American companies in numerous different ways. On five occasions I have asked the backers to identify any foreign sites that they have sued in the US without being able to secure legal relief to which they are entitled, and they haven?t yet given me a single example. They say that the legislation doesn?t change copyright law, but it creates new laws that distort the principles of current copyright law. The backers are trying to rush this legislation through without truly open hearings with representation of a wide variety of interests, including the public interest. Read up on these bills and call your Senator and member of Congress to let them know whether you believe Hollywood needs more power. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 13 20:32:32 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:32:32 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Sony raises Whitney Houston prices 30m after death Message-ID: <3D6AF1E0-687D-4A9A-AB98-892797D2DF52@infowarrior.org> If there ever was a case to be made to encourage 'piracy' I think this is it. -- rick iTunes, Sony Raise Prices on Whitney Houston Albums, Songs Executives at Sony briefly went green over Whitney Houston's memory. By Chris Roberts Monday, Feb 13, 2012 | Updated 3:53 PM PST http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/iTunes-Sony-Raise-Prices-on-Whitney-Houston-Albums-Songs-139249448.html Whitney Houston albums somehow, for some reason, cost about $5 more on iTunes than they did before the famed singer was found dead Saturday at the age of 48, according to multiple reports. Hmm. DigitalSpy and several United Kingdom news sources were among the first to report that copies of Houston's "Ultimate Collection" album were selling for $12.60 on Monday, exactly $4.70 more than what they sold for prior to Houston's death. Apple representatives did not comment. Sony Music was accused of profiteering after the price of Houston's album was jacked up 60 percent at around 4 a.m. California time on Sunday, according to the UK Guardian. By Monday, the album was back to its regular price, the newspaper reported. Sony Music raised the wholesale price of Houston's back catalog in what fans called a "cynical ploy." Right now, it's possible to grab Houston favorites for more-reasonable sums. For single songs, Houston's arguably most-famous hit, "I Will Always Love You" from "The Bodyguard" soundtrack, sells for $0.69. Nearly every other Houston track sells for $1.29. Copies of "The Basics," a 15-track Greatest Hits album, will set you back $18.45. It's not immediately clear what the record cost prior to her death, but $18.45 is comparatively steep among iTunes album prices. Houston titles are, predictably, some of the best-selling items on iTunes right now. Copyright NBC Owned Television Stations From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 14 07:01:34 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:01:34 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Canada is just as idiotic about Internet policy as the US Message-ID: <2569B083-FFE2-42DA-A9D2-37F911D8CCC4@infowarrior.org> Canadian Politician: You're Either In Favor Of Letting The Gov't Spy On Your Internet Usage... Or You're For Child Pornography from the kicking-puppies dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120213/13212017749/canadian-politician-youre-either-favor-letting-govt-spy-your-internet-usage-youre-child-pornography.shtml Up in Canada, they're pushing for a new "lawful access" bill, which is basically a "government can spy on your internet usage" bill. Michael Geist has a full and complete run down about the new effort and why it's crazy. But, the insane part came out of the introduction when Public Safety Minister Vic Toews apparently told people: "You can stand with us, or you can stand with the child pornographers," according to Dale Smith, a journalist who was present. In other words, like Lamar Smith here in the US, he's trying to push through a widespread internet surveillance bill by hiding behind claims that those against it are somehow "for" child porn. This is beyond ridiculous, and an incredibly cynical political move that assumes that people are stupid. These kinds of arguments may have worked in the past, but I'm increasingly skeptical that they'll continue to work in the future. More and more people are learning about the details of these kinds of bills, and making ridiculous claims and false dilemmas won't cut it, and only call more attention to the ridiculousness of what's actually in the bill. And, thankfully, some of that pushback comes in the form of people openly mocking such ridiculous claims. Smith points to an amusing response from Lukas Neville: "You can stand with false dilemmas, or you can stand with kicking puppies." Count me in for kicking puppies. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 14 07:40:40 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:40:40 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NYPD "Stop and Frisks" Hit All-Time High Message-ID: <5F33702E-ADC1-4EE2-9243-BB7015D79C53@infowarrior.org> NYPD "Stop and Frisks" Hit All-Time High City police officers stopped and questioned 684,330 people on the street last year. Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012 | Updated 7:28 AM EST http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Stop-and-Frisk-Police-Arrest-Color-Civil-Rights-139275573.html The number of so-called "stop and frisks" is rising. City police officers stopped and questioned 684,330 people on the street last year, a record since the NYPD began yearly tallies of the tactic in 2002 and a 14 percent increase over 2010. It couldn't be determined how many people were patted down during the encounters, according to the Wall Street Journal. Typically, half of the potential suspects who are stopped are frisked or searched. Of those stopped last year, about 12 percent were arrested or received summonses. The rest were not charged. Civil-rights advocates claim the practice unfairly targets innocent blacks and other people of color, and that many stops are made without proper cause. The department calls the tactic an essential crime-fighting tool. Copyright Associated Press / NBC New York --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 14 08:10:00 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:10:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Mac OS X's 'QuarantineEvents' keeps a log of all your downloads Message-ID: <5F13D351-CB72-44B7-9103-FBC6EFD9DFC5@infowarrior.org> Mac OS X's 'QuarantineEvents' keeps a log of all your downloads http://www.tuaw.com/2012/02/14/mac-os-xs-quarantineevents-keeps-a-log-of-all-your-downloads/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 14 09:28:28 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:28:28 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Cyberwar Is the New Yellowcake Message-ID: <72A34066-FC8F-46F9-B5F9-04592DB7A071@infowarrior.org> The last few paragraphs are spot-on rational observations and recommendations. Which means, of course, they'll be marginalised by those in charge. -- rick Cyberwar Is the New Yellowcake, Fueling a Cybersecurity-Industrial Complex ? By Jerry Brito and Tate Watkins ? Email Author ? February 14, 2012 | ? 6:30 am | http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/yellowcake-and-cyberwar/ In last month?s State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to pass ?legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyber threats.? The Hill was way ahead of him, with over 50 cybersecurity bills introduced this Congress. This week, both the House and Senate are moving on their versions of consolidated, comprehensive legislation. The reason cybersecurity legislation is so pressing, proponents say, is that we face an immediate risk of national disaster. ?Today?s cyber criminals have the ability to interrupt life-sustaining services, cause catastrophic economic damage, or severely degrade the networks our defense and intelligence agencies rely on,? Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said at a hearing last week. ?Congress needs to act on comprehensive cybersecurity legislation immediately.? Yet evidence to sustain such dire warnings is conspicuously absent. In many respects, rhetoric about cyber catastrophe resembles threat inflation we saw in the run-up to the Iraq War. And while Congress? passing of comprehensive cybersecurity legislation wouldn?t lead to war, it could saddle us with an expensive and overreaching cyber-industrial complex. In 2002 the Bush administration sought to make the case that Iraq threatened its neighbors and the United States with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). By framing the issue in terms of WMD, the administration conflated the threats of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The destructive power of biological and chemical weapons?while no doubt horrific?is minor compared to that of nuclear detonation. Conflating these threats, however, allowed the administration to link the unlikely but serious threat of a nuclear attack to the more likely but less serious threat posed by biological and chemical weapons. Similarly, proponents of regulation often conflate cyber threats. In his 2010 bestseller Cyber War, Richard Clarke warns that a cyberattack today could result in the collapse of the government?s classified and unclassified networks, the release of ?lethal clouds of chlorine gas? from chemical plants, refinery fires and explosions across the country, midair collisions of 737s, train derailments, the destruction of major financial computer networks, suburban gas pipeline explosions, a nationwide power blackout, and satellites in space spinning out of control. He assures us that ?these are not hypotheticals.? But the only verifiable evidence he presents relates to several well-known distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks, and he admits that DDOS is a ?primitive? form of attack that would not pose a major threat to national security. When Clarke ventures beyond DDOS attacks, his examples are easily debunked. To show that the electrical grid is vulnerable, for example, he suggests that the Northeast power blackout of 2003 was caused in part by the ?Slammer? worm. But the 2004 final report of the joint U.S.-Canadian task force that investigated the blackout found that no virus, worm, or other malicious software contributed to the power failure. Clarke also points to a 2007 blackout in Brazil, which he says was the result of criminal hacking of the power system. Yet investigations have concluded that the power failure was the result of soot deposits on high-voltage insulators on transmission lines. Clarke?s readers would no doubt be as frightened at the prospect of a cyber attack as they might have been at the prospect of Iraq passing nuclear weapons to al Qaeda. Yet evidence that cyberattacks and cyberespionage are real and serious concerns is not evidence that we face a grave risk of national catastrophe, just as evidence of chemical or biological weapons is not evidence of the ability to launch a nuclear strike. The Bush administration claimed that Iraq was close to acquiring nuclear weapons but provided no verifiable evidence. The evidence they did provide?Iraq?s alleged pursuit of uranium ?yellowcake? from Niger and its purchase of aluminum tubes allegedly meant for uranium enrichment centrifuges?was ultimately determined to be unfounded. Despite the lack of verifiable evidence to support the administration?s claims, the media tended to report them unquestioned. Initial reporting on the aluminum tubes claim, for example, came in the form of a front page New York Times article by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon that relied entirely on anonymous administration sources. Appearing on Meet the Press the same day the story was published, Vice President Dick Cheney answered a question about evidence of a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear program by stating that, while he couldn?t talk about classified information, The New York Times was reporting that Iraq was seeking to acquire aluminum tubes to build a centrifuge. In essence, the Bush administration was able to cite its own leak?with the added imprimatur of the Times?as a rationale for war. The media may be contributing to threat inflation today by uncritically reporting alarmist views of potential cyber threats. For example, a 2009 front page Wall Street Journal story reported that the U.S. power grid had been penetrated by Chinese and Russian hackers and laced with logic bombs. The article is often cited as evidence that the power grid is rigged to blow. Yet similar to Judith Miller?s Iraq WMD reporting, the only sources for the article?s claim that infrastructure has been compromised are anonymous U.S. intelligence officials. With little specificity about the alleged infiltrations, readers are left with no way to verify the claims. More alarmingly, when Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) took to the Senate floor to introduce the comprehensive cybersecurity bill that she co-authored with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the evidence she cited to support a pressing need for regulation included this very Wall Street Journal story. Washington teems with people who have a vested interest in conflating and inflating threats to our digital security. The watchword, therefore, should be ?trust but verify.? In his famous farewell address to the nation in 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the dangers of what he called the ?military-industrial complex?: an excessively close nexus between the Pentagon, defense contractors, and elected officials that could lead to unnecessary expansion of the armed forces, superfluous military spending, and a breakdown of checks and balances within the policy making process. Eisenhower?s speech proved prescient. Cybersecurity is a big and booming industry. The U.S. government is expected to spend $10.5 billion a year on information security by 2015, and analysts have estimated the worldwide market to be as much as $140 billion a year. The Defense Department has said it is seeking more than $3.2 billion in cybersecurity funding for 2012. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, L-3 Communications, SAIC, and BAE Systems have all launched cybersecurity divisions in recent years. Other traditional defense contractors, such as Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and ManTech International, have invested in information security products and services. We should be wary of proving Eisenhower right again in the cyber sphere. Before enacting sweeping changes to counter cyber threats, policy makers should clear the air with some simple steps. Stop the apocalyptic rhetoric. The alarmist scenarios dominating policy discourse may be good for the cybersecurity-industrial complex, but they aren?t doing real security any favors. Declassify evidence relating to cyber threats. Overclassification is a widely acknowledged problem, and declassification would allow the public to verify the threats rather than blindly trusting self-interested officials. Disentangle the disparate dangers that have been lumped together under the ?cybersecurity? label. This must be done to determine who is best suited to address which threats. In cases of cybercrime and cyberespionage, for instance, private network owners may be best suited and have the best incentives to protect their own valuable data, information, and reputations. Photo:Nextors/Flickr --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 14 14:19:38 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:19:38 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Syrian activists resort to pigeons to communicate Message-ID: Resiliency in the Information Age, indeed. --- rick Syrian activists resort to pigeons to communicate By Jocelyne Zablit (AFP) ? 6 hours ago http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMONV3TcUa6BN2xvP9QMa-bwrwuQ?docId=CNG.b779101791d85a0652720d98fc7b42a1.8b1 BEIRUT ? Cut off by a relentless barrage of government shelling, activists in the besieged Syrian city of Homs have reverted to the age-old practice of using carrier pigeons to communicate with each other. "From the activists in Old Homs (district) to those in Baba Amr, please tell us what you need in terms of supplies, medicine and food," reads one message attached to a pigeon's leg. "God willing, we will deliver them to you," says the message, as seen in a video the opposition activists recently uploaded to YouTube. The central city has been under a relentless barrage of heavy machinegun fire, tank shells, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades since February 4. The onslaught has cost the lives of at least 300 people, according to the United Nations, and has left the city isolated from the outside world, with telecommunications and electricity severed. Activists say that given the heavy shelling and restricted movements, they have turned to carrier pigeons to get messages through enemy lines. "We thank Bashar for taking us back to the Middle Ages," says Omar, an activist in the Bab Sbaa neighbourhood of the city, referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Omar is seen standing among pigeons on the rooftop of a building in Bab Sbaa in one of the YouTube videos uploaded to the Internet via a satellite feed. He carefully scrawls a message on a small piece of paper to his counterparts who are little more than two kilometres (1.2 miles) away in Baba Amr, which has suffered some of the heaviest shelling. Despite only being a short distance apart, the activists say they are unable to venture very far because of checkpoints between them manned by security forces and the Shabiha, or pro-government thugs. The activists launched their uprising last March using social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter to rally support. They say they are now forced to use pigeons to communicate with each other in certain neighbourhoods of Homs out of the reach of their walkie-talkies. "They have transformed Homs into a big prison. People don't dare venture outside and they can't do anything. The Shabiha are everywhere," says Omar. He says there were reports out of Baba Amr of parents being forced to feed their children a diet of stale bread and water. Apart from enquiring about what supplies are needed, Omar also jots down the names of people from the city killed in the latest fighting of the 11-month uprising. He then rolls up the message and attaches it with a string to the leg of a pigeon before releasing the bird. "May God be with you," he shouts as the pigeon flies off amid the sound of heavy gunfire and shelling. "May God guide you to Baba Amr." The answer comes back the same day, bearing an appeal for aid but also a defiant message. "We need medical assistance and food," the message reads, according to a separate video posted on YouTube. "The news you sent has reached us. "Long live Syria. Down with Bashar al-Assad." Syrians were among the first people to use pigeons as messengers and this was often the sole source of communication in the region. Copyright ? 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 14 15:41:07 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:41:07 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Female_Passengers_Say_They=92re_?= =?windows-1252?q?Targeted_By_TSA?= Message-ID: <641C24DF-1F00-4386-AFC7-C3EED05EAF8D@infowarrior.org> Female Passengers Say They?re Targeted By TSA February 3, 2012 8:12 AM http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/03/female-passengers-say-theyre-targeted-by-tsa/#comments 2/13/2012 update: This story has led to new legislation being introduced in the U.S. Senate. Click here for that part of the story. DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) - Women passengers complain that TSA agents are targeting them for extra screening. The Transportation Security Administration has a policy to randomly select people for extra screening, but some female passengers are complaining. They believe there is nothing ?random? about the way they were picked. A Dallas woman says TSA agents repeatedly asked her to step back into a body scanning machine at DFW International Airport. ?I feel like I was totally exposed,? said Ellen Terrell, who is a wife and mother. ?They wanted a nice good look.? When Ellen Terrell and her husband, Charlie, flew out of DFW Airport several months ago, Terrell says she was surprised by a question a female TSA agent asked her. ?She says to me, ?Do you play tennis?? And I said, ?Why?? She said, ?You just have such a cute figure.?? Terrell says she walked into the body scanner which creates an image that a TSA agent in another room reviews. Terrell says she tried to leave, but the female agent stopped her. ?She says, ?Wait, we didn?t get it,?? recalls Terrell, who claims the TSA agent sent her back a second time and even a third. But that wasn?t good enough. After the third time, Terrell says even the agent seemed frustrated with her co-workers in the other room. ?She?s talking into her microphone and she says, ?Guys, it is not blurry, I?m letting her go. Come on out.?? When TSA agents do a pat down on a traveler, only female agents are allowed to touch female passengers. But the TSA allows male agents to view the images of female passengers. Ellen and Charlie Terrell are convinced that the extra screenings were unnecessary, possibly even voyeuristic. ?I think it?s sexual harassment if you?re run through there a third or fourth time,? responded Texas State Representative Lon Burnam of Fort Worth. ?And this is not the first time I have heard about it,? said Burnam, who adds that a number of his constituents have voiced concerns about privacy. CBS 11 News dug through more than 500 records of TSA complaints and found a pattern of women who believe that there was nothing random about the way they were selected for extra screening. TSA redacted the names of the passengers who complained, but here are quotations from several complaints. ? ?I feel I was targeted by the TSA employee to go through the see-you-naked machine because I am a semi-attractive female.? ? ?The screener appeared to enjoy the process of picking someone rather than doing true random screening. I felt this was inappropriate. A woman behind me was also ?randomly selected.? ? ?TSA staff ?trolling? the lines looking for people to pull out was unprofessional.? ? ?After that, I saw him going to the private room where x-rays are, to speak to the guy on that room.? ? ?I know he went to that room to see my naked body through the machine with the other guy.? ? ?When I looked around, I saw that there were only women that were ?told? to go through this machine. There were no men.? ? ?Maklng American citizens unwilling victims of a peep show by TSA employees using full body imaging devices is an over-the-top invasion of privacy to which I strenuously object.? CBS 11 News first contacted the TSA in mid-January to request a one-on-one interview on camera. A TSA spokesperson told us that no one was available for that kind of interview. The TSA held a news conference the following week. ?Privacy issues is the main point,? said Amy Williams, Federal Security Director for Dallas Love Field. At the news conference, the TSA announced that DFW and Love Field airports now have all-new scanning machines. The updated technology shows a only a generic-body outline which highlights potential threats. ?With the old technology, we had to have an image room that was separate from the equipment,? says Williams. The older scanners, which create more detailed individual x-ray like images, are still used in 39 airports across the country. ?It just makes me wonder what?s going on. Are they doing this all over the country? They?re missing their focus,? said Charlie Terrell. ?You just feel like your privacy has been violated,? says Ellen Terrell. Ellen Terrell told CBS 11 News that she did not file a complaint because she did not realize that she had that option. Passengers may not be aware that they also can opt out of the scanner by requesting a pat-down screening instead. The TSA provided CBS 11 News with the following statement in response to our investigation. ?TSA does not profile passengers. All of our millimeter wave technology units including those in Dallas have been upgraded with additional privacy enhancements that no longer display passenger-specific images. Even prior to this upgrade, officers reviewing the images were located in a separate room and would have never seen the passenger being screened. To further ensure passenger privacy and anonymity, a privacy filter was applied to blur all images. The technology remains optional to all passengers.? ? Kristin Lee, Assistant Administrator, Office of Strategic Communications & Public Affairs, Transportation Security Administration A TSA spokesperson told CBS 11 News that it is not protocol to send a passenger back into a scanner more than once. He said the agency takes all complaints seriously and urges consumers to file complaints if they have a problem. He said airports store video of checkpoints for at least 30 days and complaints filed within that timeframe may be reviewed using the video. He added that passengers can notify a TSA supervisor on location to make a complain --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 14 19:47:52 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:47:52 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Ron was wrong, Whit is right Message-ID: <8E9367EE-CC56-40B3-A6AE-674795A6D029@infowarrior.org> http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/064 Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2012/064 Ron was wrong, Whit is right Arjen K. Lenstra and James P. Hughes and Maxime Augier and Joppe W. Bos and Thorsten Kleinjung and Christophe Wachter Abstract: We performed a sanity check of public keys collected on the web. Our main goal was to test the validity of the assumption that different random choices are made each time keys are generated. We found that the vast majority of public keys work as intended. A more disconcerting finding is that two out of every one thousand RSA moduli that we collected offer no security. Our conclusion is that the validity of the assumption is questionable and that generating keys in the real world for ``multiple-secrets'' cryptosystems such as RSA is significantly riskier than for ``single-secret'' ones such as ElGamal or (EC)DSA which are based on Diffie-Hellman. Category / Keywords: public-key cryptography / Sanity check, RSA, 99.8\% security, ElGamal, DSA, ECDSA, (batch) factoring, discrete logarithm, Euclidean algorithm, seeding random number generators, $K_9$. Date: received 14 Feb 2012, last revised 14 Feb 2012 Contact author: akl at epfl ch Available formats: PDF | BibTeX Citation http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/064 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 15 12:49:17 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:49:17 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The RIAA's Dream Turns to Nightmare Message-ID: <23A47518-F624-4FA7-A180-6AE756953ADD@infowarrior.org> The RIAA's Dream Turns to Nightmare -- Inside The Pirate Bay's Torrent Purge Jason Mick (Blog) - February 14, 2012 12:47 PM http://www.dailytech.com/The+RIAAs+Dream+Turns+to+Nightmare++Inside+The+Pirate+Bays+Torrent+Purge/article24005.htm No more torrents will help more content to be shared, render "copyright watchdogs" more toothless The Pirate Bay has long been synonymous with one thing -- torrents. The world's largest torrent site has had more than its fair share of legal headaches [1][2][3] over the years for promoting the ubiquitous file-sharing mechanism. Consequentially on Feb. 29 in will be taking what on the surface appears to be a mind-blowing move -- deleting all torrents hosted directly on the site, which are being actively shared by more than 10 individuals. But in reality this move is not as mind-blowing and drastic a departure from the site's operational model as some are thinking/hoping/fearing. The site will continue to host the content, where possible, via magnet links. All new content will be hosted via magnetic links. The new approach is a "step forward in technology", according to the site's admins. And it's the worst nightmare of the Recording Industry Association of America and Motion Picture Association of America. The Pirate Bay can now be compressed to a 90 MB torrent-free site, for easy hosting. Under the new scheme scores of new users will be able to host free proxy servers for The Pirate Bay, helping it escape takedown attempts, local firewalls, or ISP restrictions. At the same time The Pirate Bay washes its hands of any of the actual process of file-sharing. It is simply hosting magnet links -- links to torrents which share the same unique hash value. In that regard, thousands, if not millions of users will be privately hosting the scores of torrents that make up The Pirate Bay users worldwide know and love. And it will be far harder for lawyers and regulators to pin wrongdoing on The Pirate Bay -- assuming that the members of the international judicial committee understand how the technology works and are willing to give a fair trial, at least. In short, magnet links are the future of filesharing and The Pirate Bay's decision to force their adoption is a sound one in terms of its future. Magnet links represent the supreme ultimatum to media organizations (many of which themselves engage in active for-profit piracy that steals hundreds of millions of dollars from independent artists annually): "Develop fair, reasonably priced, accessible content distribution and create content that users think is actually worth paying for, or you can and will be pirated." In essence it will be impossible for the RIAA or MPAA to put millions of Americans in prison or fine them. So ultimately, magnet links and other new technologies may force the RIAA, MPAA, and government to abandon traditional enforcement of file-sharing. Thus the groups' long-standing dream of taking down The Pirate Bay's torrents has just become their worst nightmare. It should be interesting how the self-proclaimed "anti-piracy" advocates by day, for-profit pirates by night globally react to this new technological marvel. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 15 18:21:48 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:21:48 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - MPAA: Ripping DVDs Shouldn't Be Allowed Because It Takes Away Our Ability To Charge You Multiple Times For The Same Content Message-ID: <31721EB5-4EC2-4A71-AED8-850C2C92B39F@infowarrior.org> MPAA: Ripping DVDs Shouldn't Be Allowed Because It Takes Away Our Ability To Charge You Multiple Times For The Same Content http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/11540317771/mpaa-ripping-dvds-shouldnt-be-allowed-because-it-takes-away-our-ability-to-charge-you-multiple-times-same-content.shtml < - > Effectively, the MPAA is arguing that there is no evidence that ripping a DVD itself is legal, and since anti-circumvention exemptions are only supposed to be for legal purposes, this exemption should not apply. Leaving aside the sheer ridiculousness of the fact that we need to apply for exemptions to make legal acts legal (I know, I know...), this is quite a statement by the MPAA. While it's true that there hasn't been an official ruling on the legality of ripping a DVD, the fact that CD ripping is considered legal seems to suggest that movie ripping is comparable. But the bigger point is that the MPAA is arguing that because they offer limited, expensive and annoying ways for you to watch movies elsewhere, you shouldn't have the right to place shift on your own: < - > --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 15 18:21:44 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:21:44 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - We've Passed 15 'Anti-Piracy' Laws In The Last 30 Years Message-ID: How Much Is Enough? We've Passed 15 'Anti-Piracy' Laws In The Last 30 Years from the make-it-stop dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/04241517766/how-much-is-enough-weve-passed-15-anti-piracy-laws-last-30-years.shtml Last week, I spoke on a panel at Stanford Law School concerning SOPA. There were two lawyers representing the MPAA's views, and at one point one of them said that he hoped that Hollywood just wanted to "meet in the middle" with those opposed to SOPA and find "a solution" that worked. Lawyer Andrew Bridges got up and asked a rather reasonable question: when, in the past, has the entertainment industry ever been willing to "meet in the middle" on copyright issues? He began listing out every single expansion to copyright law from the past 30 years. In 1976, we got the Copyright Act of 1976, which flipped copyright on its head and expanded it massively. Not only did it switch from an opt-in system with registration and renewals to an "everything is automatically opted-in," but it also massively expanded the length of copyright. You might think that the industry would be satisfied from that point forward. In fact, as key SOPA supporter Steve Tepp from the US Chamber of Commerce recently claimed: "To me if I get what I ask for, I stop complaining." So, did the entertainment industry "stop complaining"? No. Since the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect (in 1978), we've expanded copyright law 15 times on issues related to "stopping piracy" (and many, many more if you look at all copyright law expansions -- beyond just anti-piracy efforts -- such as expanding coverage to semiconductor chip designs, boat hulls and other things). It really started in 1982, meaning that we've had 15 new anti-piracy laws in just 30 years. If SOPA/PIPA had passed, it would have been 16 -- or more than once every two years. Let's take a look: ? 1982: Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act: Increased criminal penalties for infringing records, tapes and films from $25k & 2 years in jail to $250,000 and 5 years in jail. Also... made it so that first-time offenders could get the maximum. ? 1984: Record Rental Amendment of 1984: Outlawed music rentals (have you ever wondered why there were no Blockbusters or Netflixes for music?) ? 1990: Copyright Remedy Clarification Act: Allowed copyright holders to sue states for copyright infringement (before that, states could claim sovereign immunity) ? 1990: Computer Software Rental Amendments Act: Outlawed software rentals ? 1992: Audio Home Recording Act: Mandated DRM on certain digital audio devices (mainly DAT), added a royalty on such devices. ? 1994: Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Not only did it seize works out of the public domain and put them under copyright (this was what was challenged in the recent Golan case), but it made it a criminal offense to bootleg concerts (audio or video). ? 1995: The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act: Created a new "performance" right for copyright holders concerning digital "performances." ? 1996: Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996: Expanded racketeering laws to include criminal copyright infringement, as well as "trafficking" in computer software, documentation or packaging, as well as trafficking in movies or audiovisual works. Also let the government seize property associated with these activities (precursor to domain seizures...). ? 1997: No Electronic Theft (NET) Act: Decreased the threshold for what counts as criminal infringement (such as taking out the monetary profit requirement). ? 1998: Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act: You should know this one. Expanded copyright terms by 20 years. ? 1998: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA): Again, you may have heard of it. Created anti-circumvention rules and the notice-and-takedown system for online infringement, among many other things. ? 1999: Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999: Massively increased statutory damages for infringement ? 2004: Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act: Set up penalties (civil and criminal) for counterfeit labels, documentation and packaging in association with copyrighted goods (yes, separate from the content itself). Also lowered the bar to show willful infringement. ? 2005: Family Entertainment and Copyright Act: Criminalizes recording of movies in theaters and also lets theaters detain people merely suspected of recording in theaters. Criminalizes releasing a work online before it's been officially released (if it's "being prepared" for commercial distribution). ? 2008: Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act: Increased civil penalties for infringement. Increased government seizure & forfeiture powers (which is how the government currently justifies its questionable domain seizures) and created a job in the White House to focus on greater enforcement. But apparently we're told that the internet is a "lawless wild west" when it comes to copyright issues? I think not. All we've seen is expansion after expansion after expansion, always using questionable claims of rampant infringement that is supposedly destroying industries. Each time, the various industries would create a moral panic about why this law was absolutely needed. Forgive us for being a bit skeptical. We've seen this game pretty damn frequently. To claim that there are no laws, or that we need to "meet in the middle" seems pretty bizarre. As Bridges noted at Stanford last week, if they want to "meet in the middle," are they willing to give up half of these laws to get SOPA/PIPA? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 15 20:15:23 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:15:23 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - New FCC rules curb automated telemarketing calls Message-ID: latimes.com/business/la-fi-robo-calling-20120216,0,6007387.story New FCC rules curb automated telemarketing calls Thousands of consumer complaints prompt the FCC's move, which is expected to result in fewer robo-calls on land-line and mobile phones. By Andrea Chang, Los Angeles Times 6:06 PM PST, February 15, 2012 Those aggravating automated telemarketing calls will be interrupting your dinner a lot less often. After receiving thousands of complaints from consumers, the Federal Communications Commission clamped down Wednesday on unwanted robo-calling by approving sweeping changes to its telemarketing rules for wireline and mobile phones. Even with the national Do Not Call Registry in effect ? the initial effort to block those pesky calls ? telemarketers have found ways around the rules. But the FCC's latest effort is "closing a loophole," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center. "This is an important step forward to make it easier for consumers to take advantage of the Do Not Call list," Rotenberg said about the FCC's changes. "These are additional safeguards to provide consumers greater protection." Telemarketing calls have a bigger effect on mobile phones, he noted, because those calls can eat up the minutes in consumers' wireless plans. Under the new FCC rules, telemarketers are required to obtain written consent, which can be in the form of an online approval, before placing autodialed or prerecorded calls to a consumer. Telemarketers also must provide an automated opt-out mechanism during each robo-call so that consumers can immediately tell the telemarketer to stop calling. The FCC also eliminated the "established business relationship" exception, which had allowed robo-calls to be placed to the land-line home phones of consumers with "prior or existing" associations with companies represented by telemarketers. And the agency strictly limited the number of abandoned or so-called dead-air calls ? in which consumers answer their phones and hear nothing ? that telemarketers can make within each calling campaign. The FCC's new rules, which will go into effect in the coming months, also apply to text messages. The FCC said it modified its rules to be more consistent with the Federal Trade Commission's telemarketing rules, which cover fewer telemarketers. The new rules are aimed at giving consumers more control over who can call them, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said. Congress and his agency have long recognized the need for consumers to have control over the telemarketing calls that come into their phones, but existing rules weren't effective enough, he said. "Despite these clear ground rules, too many telemarketers, aided by auto-dialers and prerecorded messages, have continued to call consumers who don't want to hear from them," Genachowski said. Telephone and cellphone customers "remain unhappy with having their privacy invaded and their time wasted by these unwanted calls." The FCC's changes still permit informational calls, such as those related to school closings and flight changes. Charities and political organizations are also exempt. andrea.chang at latimes.com Copyright ? 2012, Los Angeles Times --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 16 06:30:14 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Friend Big Brother? Let Homeland Follow your Tweets? Message-ID: (c.o MM) Friend Big Brother? Let Homeland Follow your Tweets? Filed under: General Homeland Security ? by Jessica Herrera-Flanigan on February 16, 2012 http://www.hlswatch.com/2012/02/16/friend-big-brother-let-homeland-follow-your-tweets/ This morning the Committee on Homeland Security?s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence will hold a hearing entitled ?DHS Monitoring of Social Networking and Media: Enhancing Intelligence Gathering and Ensuring Privacy.? The hearing comes on the heels of several revelations about the government?s increasing surveillance of such sites as Facebook, Twitter, and blogs (including Homeland Security Watch). DHS has been engaged in monitoring social media sites since at least 2010 to provide situational awareness and strengthen its common operating picture. The effort is run through the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS), National Operations Center (NOC), and is entitled ?Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness (Initiative).? Last month, the DHS Privacy Office issued a Privacy Impact Assessment for the initiative, which can be found here. DHS apparently uses social media monitoring to assist it with responses to major disasters (e.g. Haiti earthquake) and major events (e.g. border security around the 2010 Winter Olympics). It also uses its Initiative to monitor comments about the agency and the government, including comments that were critical of DHS and the government more broadly. The FBI also has jumped on the social media monitoring bandwagon, issuing a Request for Information, which has a due date of February 20th for ?conducting market research to determine the capabilities of the IT industry to provide a social media application.? Among the tasks it wants help with are search capabilities, automated filtering, mapping, and the like which would help analysts analyze social media to provide warning and detection capabilities, as well as geospatially locate bad actors. They would also help analysts predict activities, so as to provide proper response capability. Other agencies who have dabbled in the social media monitoring space include the Federal Reserve, the Departments of Defense and State, and the Director of National Intelligence. We can expect other agencies to come forward with an interest in entering this realm (or acknowledging their existing plans). There are good reasons for government agencies to want to monitor social media. First of all, it can assist law enforcement and homeland security entities with crisis management, especially in determining where assistance is needed. For example, with D.C.?s earthquake last year, cell service was sketchy as networks were overwhelmed. Twitter and Facebook messages on what people were seeing and experiencing thrived. There is a predictive value in using social media monitoring tools to gather information that analysts can then take to predict future events. Lastly, in the reputation management space, agencies can, what some privacy groups fear, use monitoring to track what people are saying about them. Why would an agency want to do so? Misinformation abounds on the Internet and in social media (I think I read that on a blog somewhere). Agencies having the capability to counter that misinformation is critical. Also, an important fact to remember in the social media monitoring space, is that, at least from what has been made public, agencies are monitoring those spaces that are ?open? to the public and others. How is that different than government officials attending public rallies or events to hear what is being said? If agencies are crossing into monitoring tweets or Facebook pages that are protected, that raises a different set of legal and Constitutional issues. But my understanding is that is not the case ? the material is open source. Why its understandable that individuals would be fearful of agencies gathering intelligence on how they exercise their free speech rights, the age of social media has also changed the rules of engagement in some ways. While we should protect privacy, we should not unnecessarily hamper our government?s ability to look at information that our voyeuristic neighbor could just as easily obtain through a few clicks and searches. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 16 06:47:49 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Music_Industry_Mulls_Suing_Googl?= =?windows-1252?q?e_Over_=93Pirate=94_Search_Results?= Message-ID: (Well, I think the RIAA is a criminal cartel, so the Yellow Pages should not list their phone number or street address, since doing so only furthers such criminal activities. Oh, wait - Congress approves of such actions. -- rick) Music Industry Mulls Suing Google Over ?Pirate? Search Results ? Ernesto ? February 16, 2012 http://torrentfreak.com/music-industry-mulls-suing-google-over-pirate-search-results-120216/ The recording industry considers filing a lawsuit against Google for allegedly abusing its dominant market position to distort the market for online music. Industry groups including IFPI and the RIAA want Google to degrade links to ?pirate? websites in its search results. IFPI has obtained a ?highly confidential and preliminary legal opinion? to see if they can force Google to step up its anti-piracy efforts though a lawsuit. It?s no secret that the entertainment industries believe search engines are not delivering enough when it comes to protecting copyright works. Two months ago the RIAA and IFPI accused Google of massively profiting from piracy and obstructing efforts of rightsholders to reduce the availability of illegal content. Thus far, this row between Google and the entertainment industries has largely taken place behind closed doors, but a confidential document circulating among music industry executives shows that a lawsuit is also being considered. ?IFPI?s litigation team, in coordination with the RIAA, is continuing to negotiate with Google to obtain better anti-piracy cooperation in various areas,? the unpublished document obtained by Handelszeitung and partly shared with TorrentFreak explains. It is noted that Google provided recording labels with a special online search interface that allows for mass queries to be marked as infringing. Using this interface, IFPI reported a massive 460,000 Google search results between August and December 2011. In addition, hundreds of Blogger sites were reported and shutdown upon request from the music industry group. But IFPI claims this is still not enough, and is considering suing Google because the company fails to censor links to infringing content. ?Google continues to fail to prioritize legal music sites over illegal sites in search results, claiming that its algorithm for search results is based on the relevance of sites to consumers,? the document states. ?With a view to addressing this failure, IFPI obtained a highly confidential and preliminary legal opinion in July 2011 on the possibility of bringing a competition law complaint against Google for abuse of its dominant position, given the distortion of the market for legitimate online music that is likely to result from Google?s prioritizing of illegal sites.? In other words, IFPI accuses Google of antitrust practices by failing to censor its search results in favor of the music industry. Strong words, and quite unprecedented if a lawsuit does indeed get filed. A ?Voluntary Code of Practice? suggested by the entertainment industries last month revealed that the IFPI and RIAA want all search engines to de-list popular file-sharing sites such as The Pirate Bay, and give higher ranking to ?legal? alternatives. Today we learned that if Google doesn?t give in to these demands, an unprecedented lawsuit may follow. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 16 11:04:40 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:04:40 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Apple drops the 'Mac' from OS X Lion, Mountain Lion Message-ID: <625F313E-9B48-40A8-AB13-1104CEA117AC@infowarrior.org> Apple drops the 'Mac' from OS X Lion, Mountain Lion By Zach Honig posted Feb 16th 2012 11:39AM Clearly, cats are in. But Mac, it seems, is out. Apple has quietly dropped the Mac name from its latest OS X Mountain Lion operating system, while also retroactively changing the Lion branding on its website. While it's clearly a marketing move and won't affect the user experience, it looks like Cupertino is further defining the line between hardware and software -- Mac is hardware, OS X is software, and that's the end of that. Apple purists will need to download the developer preview of Lion to see the change reflected on the OS side of things, though that could always change with 10.7.4. Hit up the source link to see for yourself. http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-drops-the-mac-from-os-x-lion-mountain-lion/ OS X Mountain Lion (10.8) in-depth preview http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-os-x-mountain-lion-10-8-in-depth-preview/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 16 15:11:05 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:11:05 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Thoughts on OSX Gatekeeper Message-ID: I see this article's predictions coming true. -- rick Mac OS X 10.8 restricted to App Store, signed apps by default posted by Thom Holwerda on Thu 16th Feb 2012 14:46 UTC http://www.osnews.com/story/25619/Mac_OS_X_10_8_restricted_to_App_Store_signed_apps_by_default Well, this is a surprise. Several websites have a preview up of Apple's next Mac OS X release - it's called Mountain Lion, and continues the trend of bringing over functionality from iOS to Mac OS X. Lots of cool stuff in here we've all seen before on iPhones and iPads, including one very, very controversial feature: Gatekeeper. Starting with Mac OS X 10.8, Apple's desktop operating system will be restricted to Mac App Store and Apple-signed applications by default (with an opt-out switch), following in Windows 8's footsteps. Several large websites, such as Engadget and The Verge, have published previews of Apple's next big Mac OS X release. Mountain Lion brings yet another load of iOS features to desktops and laptops, in the continuing drive to unify Mac OS X and iOS. Let's start with the most controversial feature. Thou shalt not covet thy "own" hardware When Apple first unveiled the Mac App Store, many - including myself - were concerned what it would mean for the future of the general purpose computer. It felt like a first step towards losing control and ownership over our own computers, a dreaded future where everything we do on our machines is curated, tracked, and monitored by companies who want to squeeze ever more money from us, and governments who want to control us. As time went on, and we learned more about the Mac App Store, it became clear what future Apple was working towards. When Apple announced that it was going to mandate sandboxing by March 2012, it became 100% clear what Mac OS X's future looked like. "At this point in time, you can still easily install applications outside of the Mac App Store, but the fear (and, let's face it, the expectation) is that Apple will one day make this harder - only to make it impossible a little later," I wrote, "I'm pretty sure Mac OS X will get a switch first - off by default - to only allow App Store applications. In the release after that, the switch will be on by default. One release later still, and the switch is relegated to some obscure command line command." When Microsoft announced plans to move in the same direction, the picture was complete. We're at step two now: Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion can only run Mac App Store or Apple-signed applications by default. There is a master switch to switch between App Store-only, App Store+signed, and unrestricted (the current behaviour). In addition, you can force-install an application even if it violates the master switch. However, this is all temporary, something to smooth us over. In Mac OS X 10.9, the master switch and force-install will be ever harder to find or relegated to CLI commands - after which it is removed completely. Both Windows and Mac OS X will move towards a fully curated environment, in a nice, step-by-step manner to ease us into the idea of no longer having ownership of our machines. As Lorelai Gilmore explains about how her dog is okay with being on a leash as long as the dog doesn't actually see the leash being put on him: "He's totally fine having his personal freedom slowly stripped away, as long as he's completely unaware that it's happening. Just like a true American." The iOS-ification continues For the rest, the iOS-ification of Mac OS X continues. Notification Center will make its way to the desktop, collecting notification in one location so you'll no longer need to install Growl. It looks identical to iOS. AirPlay mirroring is also coming to the Mac, allowing you to display content from your Mac on your TV through an Apple TV (and perhaps, in the future, an iTV?). Two other staples from iOS - Game Center and iCloud - will also make their way to the desktop. iCloud is, of course, already integrated into Lion, but this integration will only become stronger. Game Center is identical to the iOS version, and enables cross-platform gaming. Especially in combination with AirPlay, this is pretty cool. Calendar, Notes and Reminders all get the iOS makeover, including those utterly horrible My First Operating System-esque skeuomorphic graphical user interfaces. iChat has been renamed to Messages, and includes iMessage support. Twitter integration is coming to Mac OS X, too. Conclusion This is just a selection, and other than Gatekeeper, it looks like a pretty decent and welcome update. It will be released over the summer through the Mac App Store. Apple has stated it's going to switch to yearly releases for Mac OS X, and Software Update will vanish in favour of Mac App Store updating. In the end though, it doesn't really matter how geeks like us feel about the war on general purpose computing. We'll always have Linux and the BSDs, and Windows 7 surely isn't going anywhere soon either. We have the options and the knowledge to resist these developments. Regular users, however, do not. We're allowing an entire generation to be raised with the idea that you do not own software, that you do not own hardware, that you are not allowed to tinker with the magic smiles machine. This is going to come back to bite us in the ass in the future, when we're going to be faced with a shortage of low-level, hardcore programmers. And all along the way, people are cheering this on. Just like a true American*. * I want to clarify that I'm only using the term "American" to stick with the original quote. The fact of the matter is, however, that you can replace "American" with "Dutchman" or "Frenchman" or "Englishman", and it would be just as accurate. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 16 15:26:42 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:26:42 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Very OT: Congress and The Pill Message-ID: <05A3966A-BB46-47D4-A120-55D293BE41F5@infowarrior.org> Are rare political item and one that's very off-topic for the list....so apologies to anyone whose dander gets in a huff over it, but I can't pass up the opportunity to comment on this item. As with the SOPA "hearings" in December today's farcical House hearing on birth control was not only scripted (as most hearings tend to be nowdays) but totally insane in its content, composition, and exclusions. The level of bias, blatant prejudicial exclusion, dogmatic intransigence, and downright hypocracy on this particular issue, in the Western world, in today's hearing boggles the mind. Moreover, this is the same Rep Issa who we agreed was taking a more intelligent and rationalised right path with his SOPA alternative last month. Unreal. We now return to your regularly scheduled list traffic. --- rick Congressional Birth Control Hearing Involves Exactly Zero People Who Have a Uterus http://jezebel.com/5885672/congressional-birth-control-hearing-involves-exactly-zero-people-who-have-a-uterus Today on Capitol Hill, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform assembled a panel to discuss the birth control mandate in President Obama's Affordable Care Act. Specifically, whether or not requiring insurers to cover birth control violates religious freedom of people who don't believe in science. The committee, chaired by a male, consisted of eight men who felt personally persecuted by the requirement. < - > Generally, listening to a Congressional hearing is listening to a bunch of incredibly annoying lawyers argue with each other, but this one is particularly offensive. It showed the particular brand of contempt, disdain, and dismissiveness with which the right wing and some religious leaders approach women's health. And until the government attempts to force Pfizer to develop morning after bacon or manufacture RU-486 in the shape of communion hosts, it's time for religious men to butt out. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 17 06:53:38 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:53:38 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Cybersecurity Act: Collaboration v. Compliance? Message-ID: <8D4385A1-8A9F-4AB1-9B5B-189CCC7B881D@infowarrior.org> (c/o MM) Cybersecurity Act: Collaboration v. Compliance? Filed under: Cybersecurity ? by Philip J. Palin on February 17, 2012 http://www.hlswatch.com/2012/02/17/cybersecurity-act-collaboration-v-compliance/ On Valentine?s Day the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee released a proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2012. The Committee?s Chairman, Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and ranking member, Susan Collin?s (R-ME) are co-sponsors. The roll-out has been impressive. Check out the Committee?s website for gobs of additional background. All-startestimony was taken on Thursday. My HLSWatch colleague, Jessica Herrera-Flanigan has authored a persuasive piece for Roll Call pushing for quick adoption. Rapid approval by the Senate is a big part of the legislative strategy. Every cyber-specialist, like Jessica, I have communicated with supports the legislation. Those on the Hill who have come out against are ? so far ? objecting mostly to procedural or cost concerns. (The best political update I could find on Friday morning is from Ellen Nakashima at the Washington Post.) Yesterday I used a cross-continent plane trip to read the 205 pages of statutory prose. Politico called it a ?door-stop of a bill.? Taken at face-value the language could hardly be more benign. The clear intent is to prevent when possible ? and mitigate when prevention is not possible ? ?the risk of national or regional catastrophic damage within the United States caused by damage or unauthorized access to information infrastructure?? To achieve this and similar goals the legislation frames and facilitates a rather intricate process of private-public consultations, information exchange, risk analyses, certification, audits, education, research, and exercises. In a whole host of ways the language implicitly ? but quite obviously ? acknowledges that cyber security is not possible without extraordinary ? just for emphasis: extra-ordinary ? cooperation between government and the private sector and between various elements of the private sector. As a result, the proposed legislation goes to amazing lengths to encourage information exchange on cyber threats, vulnerabilities, and more. For example, here are three sections of Title VII Information Sharing (page 163): (d) EXEMPTION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.?An cybersecurity threat indicator disclosed by a non-Federal entity to a cybersecurity exchange under subsection (a) shall be? (1) exempt from disclosure under section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code, or any comparable State law; and (2) treated as voluntarily shared information under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, or any comparable State law. (e) EXEMPTION FROM EX PARTE LIMITATIONS.? Any cybersecurity threat indicator disclosed by a non-Federal entity to a cybersecurity exchange under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the rules of any governmental entity or judicial doctrine regarding ex parte communications with a decision making official. (f) EXEMPTION FROM WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE.?Any cybersecurity threat indicator disclosed by a non-Federal entity to a cybersecurity exchange under subsection (a) may not be construed to be a waiver of any applicable privilege or protection provided under Federal, State, tribal, or territorial law, including any trade secret protection. Please, please, please let us know when you are in danger, we promise not to hold you accountable. The federal government sounds like a worried parent trying to protect a troubled teenager. No one tells me the cyberthreat is overdone. Most tell me it is already worse than is generally known. Threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences are expected to grow. Everyone seems ready to agree ? at least behind closed-doors ? the legislation is well-intended and designed to tee-up a meaningful process of private-public consultations, not pre-ordain the results of that consultation. If anything, many cybersecurity mavens find the proposed language entirely too tentative and toothless. But one Chief Information Officer I talked with calls the bill a ?Trojan horse, superficially attractive and deeply dangerous.? According to this person the legislation is fundamentally flawed because it moves the focus of discussion from collaboration to compliance. ?As soon as compliance is the agenda,? he says, ?the lawyers take over. We will hardly ever see a technologist again. That?s not what we need. They are going to replace a messy, difficult, but realistic process of collaboration with an orderly and mostly meaningless process of certification and compliance. Risk management is hard. Compliance is easy. In one case you invest in real outcomes, in the other you create a legally defensible illusion.? When I outlined the CIO?s critique to a self-defined ?Hill Rat? (and lawyer) who has been involved in cybersecurity, he responded, ?The lawyers are already too involved. That?s been a problem. It?s been easy for government relations people to show up. We need CIOs, CTOs, CFOs, COOs, and CEOs. One way to read the legislation is as a small but very sharp blade to cut through the veil of lawyers behind which too many of our cyber-assets are obscured. No one wants to regulate, but we need to get real about the risk.? As the Congressional staffer continued he went even further, ?You know what? This is really an anti-regulation bill. Unless we do something like this and get much better at the drill than today, a major system is going to be taken down and people will die. Russian mafia, Iranian Quds, Chinese class project ? who knows who? Then just imagine the rush to regulation.? Maybe I am overly influenced by two men who were each speaking with evident candor and concern. But I come away thinking they are probably both right. The issue is not so much current Congressional intent as longer-term execution. Whenever legislation is adopted, how can we keep the focus on substantive collaboration? Next Friday I will offer a suggestion. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 17 07:03:27 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:03:27 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - WSJ: Google tricked Apple's Safari in order to track users Message-ID: <3BF10943-2148-4C56-A003-39C3D5313082@infowarrior.org> WSJ: Google tricked Apple's Safari in order to track users by Edward Moyer February 17, 2012 12:21 AM PST http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57379931-281/wsj-google-tricked-apples-safari-in-order-to-track-users/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title The Wall Street Journal reports that Google used special code to sidestep the privacy settings in the browser and track Web users. Google says the Journal's got it wrong. The Wall Street Journal reported today that Google and other ad companies have been using special code to sidestep privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser and track Web users on desktop computers and the iPhone. The Journal also said that on one of Google's sites--in language that has since been removed--the Internet giant had said Safari users could rely on the browser's privacy settings to avoid tracking by Google. The privacy-skirting code, which the Journal said Google disabled after being contacted by the paper, appears to have been used to let members of the Google+ social network sign in and then, while moving around the Web, click +1 buttons in ads that are part of Google's DoubleClick ad network. The +1 buttons let a user give a thumbs-up to an item and automatically share that approval with friends via a message on the user's Google+ profile. But, the Journal reported, Safari's default privacy settings prevented the +1/DoubleClick setup from placing a tracking cookie to determine if a user had signed in to Google+. Safari normally blocks cookies used by ad networks and others to track people (though it allows other types of cookies--such as those that remember visitors so they can return to a site without having to log back in). The code reportedly tricked Safari into letting a tracking cookie be placed, the Journal said. Safari lets sites place tracking cookies if a user interacts with the site, such as by filling out a form, and the workaround code essentially tricked Safari into thinking people were submitting a form to Google. The Journal said that though the cookies placed by Google were set to expire in 12 to 24 hours, they "could sometimes result in extensive tracking of Safari users...because of a technical quirk in Safari that allows companies to easily add more cookies to a user's computer once the company has installed at least one cookie." Google told the Journal it hadn't anticipated the placing of additional cookies. It also provided the paper with the following statement: "The Journal mischaracterizes what happened and why. We used known Safari functionality to provide features that signed-in Google users had enabled. It's important to stress that these advertising cookies do not collect personal information." The Journal said three other online-ad firms had used similar code: Vibrant Media, WPP's Media Innovation Group, and Gannett's PointRoll. Vibrant told the Journal that the code is a "workaround" and doesn't collect personally identifiable data like names or financial-account numbers. WPP declined to comment, the Journal said, and Gannett said the use of the code was part of a "limited test" to count how many Safari users went to an advertiser's site after seeing an ad. The Journal said Google DoubleClick ads containing the privacy-skirting code were found on major sites including AOL.com, Match.com, TMZ.com, YellowPages.com, and others. These sites, however, apparently didn't know about the code, the Journal said. In fact, the Journal reported, the code used by Gannett's PointRoll was found in ads on WSJ.com. The Journal said an Apple representative told the paper that Apple was working to prevent the sidestepping of Safari's privacy settings. Google has been involved in a number of privacy tussles over the years, the most recent of which involves a revision of its privacy policy to grant it explicit rights to "combine personal information" across multiple products and services. The European Union wants that change suspended, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center last week filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in an attempt to force it to prevent Google from implementing the planned change. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 17 07:06:00 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:06:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The strange Secret Service/GoDaddy assault on JotForm (updated) Message-ID: <5D8825BD-41A6-4821-B0CB-80E923ECED03@infowarrior.org> Takedowns run amok? The strange Secret Service/GoDaddy assault on JotForm (updated) By Nate Anderson | Published about 14 hours ago http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/secret-service-asks-for-shutdown-of-legit-website-over-user-content-godaddy-complies.ars Popular site JotForm doesn't host music or movies or child pornography, all of which have led US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to seize other Internet domain names without advance warning (sometimes making serious mistakes). JotForm also doesn't create content itself. Instead, it helps customers create online forms that can then be embedded in their websites for easy data collection. But that didn't spare the site from having its entire business shuttered without warning yesterday as the site's domain name was shut down at the request of the US Secret Service. JotForm's domain name registrar, GoDaddy, redirected the site's nameservers to NS1.SUSPENDED-FOR.SPAM-AND-ABUSE.COM?and with that, JotForm.com became unreachable and the site's two million user-created forms all broke. And it all may have been done without a court order. When he saw his site was down, JotForm cofounder Aytekin Tank scrambled. He checked in with GoDaddy, which told him that the site had been suspended as part of an ongoing investigation. GoDaddy has long supported authorities who have concerns about the websites and domains it hosts. In Congressional testimony last year, the company's general counsel Christine Jones noted that "Our staff routinely works with courts and law enforcement from the local to international level to shut down domain names and websites through which infringers and counterfeiters operate. Any time we are notified by a court or a federal or state prosecutor that there is criminally infringing material on our systems, we work rapidly to disable access to that material." Note the two criteria: a court order or a notification from a prosecutor. That latter category amounts to an unproven allegation?and it's what Tank believes derailed him here. "No, as far as I know, there is no judge order," he told me. "They sent a request to GoDaddy and GoDaddy complied." But GoDaddy won't say publicly whether the takedown was voluntary or compulsory. When I asked, the company's Director of Network Abuse, Ben Butler, told me that his office complies with "orders from courts, as well as confirmed official requests from law enforcement agencies," but he wouldn't get into specifics in this case. "We can tell you in general terms, at the specific request of law enforcement, Go Daddy sometimes takes action to prevent further harm being caused by a website hosted on our servers," he added. "This would include things like sites engaged in phishing, malware installation, securities fraud, and so on." Butler's office acted on whatever request was received and shut down the site's domain, but he did pass the requesting agent's contact info along to JotForm so that the company could work to resolve the issue. According to a copy of an e-mail seen by Ars Technica, GoDaddy told JotForm that "the domain name was suspended as part of an ongoing law enforcement investigation" and that Tank should contact a special agent at the US Secret Service. Tank, desperate to find out what had happened, called her. "The agent told me she is busy and she asked for my phone number, and told me they will get back to me within this week," he wrote in an explanation post on Hacker News. "I told them we are a Web service with hundreds of thousands of users, so this is a matter of urgency, and we are ready to cooperate fully. I was ready to shutdown any form they request and provide any information we have about the user. Unfortunately, she told me she needs to look at the case which she can do in a few days. I called her many times again to check about the case, but she seems to be getting irritated with me." A Secret Service spokesperson had no public comment when reached by Ars Technica, but he promised to look into the episode. No further information was available by publication time. JotForm in action Caught by a phish-hook? Though unsure of what the case was even about, Tank suspected a phishing form?something that JotForm has dealt with for quite some time. The company says it runs a Bayesian phishing filter to identity and block accounts being used to harvest various kinds of user information, and that it suspended 65,000 such accounts last year alone. Such phishing attacks have been ongoing in recent weeks. Perusing the JotForm support forums turns up comments such as this one from the RSA Anti-Fraud Command Center. RSA says that it has "been appointed to assist [South Africa's] Standard Bank in preventing or terminating online activity that targets, or may target Standard Bank?s clients as potential fraud victims" and that "it appears the form service you provide is being used in a phishing attack." The shutdown of his entire domain, without notice, for something a user had done even after protections were in place against it, seemed hugely unfair to Tank; he made his public case in terms that would also apply to other user-generated sites like YouTube. "We have 2 millions user generated forms," he wrote. "It is not possible for us to manually review all forms. This can happen to any Web site that allows user-generated content." The first priority for JotForm was restoring some kind of access. Tank decided to migrate everything to jotform.net and make that site live instead. This wouldn't fix anything automatically?existing Javascript that pointed to jotform.com would continue to fail?but site operators who needed the forms could manually tweak their embedding code to point to jotform.net instead. For customers with hundreds of forms, this could take a while. "When they have suspended jotform.com, and told us that it might take a few days to even take a look into the case, we had to do something to keep our users' forms alive," Tank told me. "We have 700,000 users and 2,000,000 user-generated forms on our site. So, we had to make jotform.net live and email our users so that their forms will keep working. They have not provided any information about the content they would like us to disable, and we cannot keep 2,000,000 forms down for a few days. They don't seem to care about our concerns or about our customers." The government also didn't seem to care that a new site with the exact same content was also live on the Internet under a different name; jotform.net remains active. As for the impact on JotForm's business, Tank doesn't yet know what it will be. "Many users were unhappy and lost trust in us," he added. "We might lose many of our customers. It is hard to say at this point." Customers blasted the site. "Jotform sucks. Always some sort of problem. I will never again use or recommend Jotform. Already cancelled my subscription and will tell my friend to do so as well," one wrote. "We are a multimillion dollar Canadian company that has used jotform the last year for customer inquires," said another. "They have been very reliable. However because of what has happened now we will have to implement an internally hosted solution to guarantee this will not happen again and ensure we will not loose [sic] our data. I will now have to question purchasing any more services from US internet related providers." Numerous commenters blamed the company for using GoDaddy as a registrar. "This is what you get for finically [sic] supporting a domain registrar which has a history of extrajudicial and unjustifiable actions like this," wrote another. "Idiots." JotForm today moved its domains away from GoDaddy to registrars NameCheap and Hover. Tank still doesn't know why his domain was suspended or when it might be returned; however, a WHOIS search this afternoon revealed that GoDaddy has at last removed the domain from its penalty box. Not that anyone bothered to tell him this. "Yes, the site seems to be back now. This made us very happy!" he wrote me by e-mail. "We have been working for the last two days to restore our service for our customers. They have not provided any details. I just found it out from you. Thank you for the great news!" Update: Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary has confirmed to Ars that, after further investigation, his agency is indeed involved in the JotForm case. The Secret Service has also launched an internal review to "make sure all our policies and procedures were followed" in the matter, he added. He could not comment on any other issues surrounding the case, including whether a court order had been obtained. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 17 08:36:45 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?=91Pharmacy_on_a_chip=92_passes_?= =?windows-1252?q?test?= Message-ID: February 16, 2012 11:00 pm ?Pharmacy on a chip? passes test By Clive Cookson in Vancouver http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6f31c8c8-5842-11e1-bf61-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_us/feed//product A wirelessly controlled implant, which delivers precise drug doses into the patient?s body, has had a successful first clinical trial, bringing the possibility of the ?pharmacy on a chip? that could transform drug delivery closer. Researchers used the microchip device to give seven women with osteoporosis daily doses of a bone-strengthening hormone that was normally injected. The results were announced at the start of the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting on Thursday. The device could transform drug delivery and help usher in a new era of telemedicine ? delivering healthcare over a distance ? said Robert Langer, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where the project started 15 years ago. ?You could literally have a pharmacy on a chip,? he said. ?You can do remote control delivery, you can do pulsatile drug delivery, and you can deliver multiple drugs.? The trial was organised by MicroChips, the MIT spin-out company developing the technology, and carried out in Denmark where there is special expertise in hormone treatment of osteoporosis. Unlike most drug delivery devices, which release medicine gradually, the new microchip releases doses at specified times. These can be preprogrammed into the device or triggered by a doctor using the wireless communications facility. Although some diseases are best treated through continuous infusion, others such as osteoporosis and multiple sclerosis, do better with separate shots. ?Patients will be freed from having to remember to take their medication and don?t have to experience the pain of multiple injections,? said Robert Farra, president of MicroChips. ?Physicians will be able seamlessly to adjust their patients? therapy using a computer or mobile phone.? The device, which is about the size of a heart pacemaker, holds daily doses of a drug inside tiny wells. Each well is covered with an ultra-thin metal membrane, which keeps the drug in place until an electric signal breaks the film and releases it into the patient. In the Danish trial, the chips were implanted into the abdomen of seven women in their late 60s who were suffering from osteoporosis. The procedure took 30 minutes under local anaesthetic. The implants remained in the patients for four months and caused no adverse reactions. The researchers triggered the release of 20 daily doses of a hormone treatment called teriparatide in the volunteers. Blood tests measuring biochemical markers of bone health showed that, delivered electronically, the drug improved bone formation and reduced the risk of fracture at least as well as conventional injections. The company is following up the trial with a programme to develop an implant with a larger capacity, which could deliver hundreds of doses ? enough to treat a patient for a year. Although it might be ready to file for regulatory approval in 2014, the device is unlikely to be commercially available before 2016. The system would not be suitable for replacing insulin injections in diabetes, Dr Farra said, because the volumes of insulin required would be too great. But it should work for many other diseases including multiple sclerosis, cancer and chronic pain. To make the technology even more useful, the MIT researchers plan to combine it with sensors that can detect biochemical changes in patients? bodies, which could indicate how well the treatment is working and how much drug is needed. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 17 09:11:12 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:11:12 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google now known to be patenting own phone unlock techniques Message-ID: Interesting concept. --rick Google now known to be patenting own phone unlock techniques updated 11:20 pm EST, Thu February 16, 2012 http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/02/16/google.tries.for.android.unlock.by.voice.icons/ Google tries for Android unlock by voice, icons Google is now known to have been actively seeking patents on unlock techniques that would help avoid the legal clashes with Apple that have hurt Motorola and others. The patent filing for an "Input to Locked Computing Device" includes multiple possible techniques to get access to an Android phone. One of the core techniques would be a reverse of the ring unlock technique in HTC's Sense 3.0: users would drag an app icon to a screen area that then launches the app. Another approach would use a two-step approach to launch a search immediately after a password prompt. Android would take a voice search from the lock screen, but ask for a keyboard-based password after and only start the search later. A third appears to be directly connected to the radial unlock from Android 4.0 devices, where users drag from a center point out to an action. The new method would have users string together multiple steps, such as first dragging to the app icon and then to a second action icon to signal an intention to launch it. Those that wanted could use their voice instead and even specify information to use with the app, such as telling it to e-mail a specific person after the unlock. The published but as yet ungranted patent was originally filed in early August 2010, when Android 2.2 was still new and most of the similar concepts from Google itself and HTC were roughly a year away. They do show that Google was already starting to think about unlock-related patent conflicts in 2010 and that the USPTO is just now catching up. One of the key inventors behind the patent is Romain Guy, a Senior Software Engineer at Google and one of the most influential mobile architects in the company. That Android currently doesn't use the exact implementations in the patent is unusual and possibly fateful, since Apple's latest lawsuit includes a much more recent patent that potentially affects Android 4.0. [via Patently Apple] --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 17 10:20:39 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:20:39 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FBI seeks developers for app to track suspicious social media posts, sparking privacy concerns Message-ID: <15A24F9E-70D3-4F5F-BD8E-651DDB4467DF@infowarrior.org> FBI seeks developers for app to track suspicious social media posts, sparking privacy concerns By Catherine Herridge Published February 16, 2012 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/16/fbi-seeks-developers-for-app-to-track-suspicious-social-media-posts-sparking/ The FBI is getting in on the law enforcement app game on the heels of a controversial data mining project by the Homeland Security Department. Documents recently posted on line seek industry input to develop the equivalent of a web alert system. ?I think what you are looking at is a Google news feed specifically targeted for law enforcement, focusing on their specific needs,? Frank Ciluffo, who leads George Washington University?s Homeland Security Policy Institute, told Fox News..?We're on our mobile phones and we're on our various iPhones, BlackBerrys and the like that transmits data that locates individuals.? The 12-page document, called "FBI Social Media Application," provides a detailed picture of the bureau?s specifications. The program must have the ability "to rapidly assemble critical open source information and intelligence ... to quickly vet, identify, and geo-locate breaking events, incidents and emerging threats." Ciluffo, who was also a former adviser in the George W. Bush White House, said tracking social media is the tip of the spear for national security investigations and it raises privacy questions, over whether law enforcement officers are allowed to monitor public social media posts. ?If you?re in law enforcement's shoes, and certainly if you've got a counterterrorism organization, I wouldn't see why they should feel that anyone else can monitor but they can't,? he said. Ciluffo said technology is running way of ahead, and the government is about to meet the new social network. ?We?ve got to figure what is the right balance between privacy and security. And I'm not sure we, as a country, have addressed that question. When you're dealing with known foreign terrorist organizations and sympathizers and known terrorists, to me that's a cut-and-dry kind of case.? According to the ACLU, who reviewed the FBI documents for Fox News, information pulled from sites like Facebook, Twitter and blogs could be cross referenced with other databases to identify potential threats. Mike German, a former FBI agent who runs the National Security section of the civil liberties group, says the data could be used to increase video surveillance in a neighborhood. German argues fundamental issues are not being addressed. ?Even where you're talking about published information, information people intentionally put out there on the Internet, we still have a right not to have that monitored by the government. The government really doesn't have any interest in tracking someone's Twitter account if they're not doing something wrong or suspected of doing something wrong.? And German says the information can lead, in some cases, to questioning by federal officers, and getting rid of the ?cloud of suspicion? can become virtually impossible. ?Part of what we want to protect is the freedom to speak your mind, to criticize government policies without fear that the government will take it the wrong way and start treating you as if you're a threat.? The FBI told Fox News in a statement that the project was in the research stage, and if it goes ahead, it ?will not focus on specific persons or protected groups, but on words that relate to ?events? and ?crisis? and activities constituting violations of federal criminal law or threats to national security. Examples of these words will include lockdown, bomb, suspicious package, white powder, active shoot, school lock down, etc.? Fox News asked Facebook and Twitter for comment in an effort to learn whether they would support the FBI program or opt out. Facebook thanked Fox News for the opportunity but had nothing to add. Twitter did not immediately respond. Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge's bestselling book "The Next Wave: On the Hunt for al Qaeda's American Recruits" was published last year by Crown. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 17 15:13:00 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:13:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Oz govt holds second secret anti-piracy meeting Message-ID: <42FF8C0B-9518-4ADB-955C-D03782261055@infowarrior.org> Govt holds second secret anti-piracy meeting Tags: afact, attorney-general's department, bittorrent, comms alliance, ISPs, mpaa, online copyright infringement, piracy, talks http://delimiter.com.au/2012/02/13/govt-holds-second-secret-anti-piracy-meeting/ news The Federal Government has reportedly held a second closed door meeting held between the content and telecommunications industries to address the issue of illegal file sharing on the Internet through avenues such as BitTorrent. The first meeting in the series held by the Attorney-General?s Department on 23 September last year, saw major Australian ISPs sit down with the representatives of the film, television and music industries with the aim of discussing a potential industry resolution to the issue of online copyright infringement. The issue has come to the fore over the past several years due to the high-profile court case on the matter ongoing between iiNet and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft. The Financial Review reported late last week (full article here) that the Department had held a second meeting on the issue on Wednesday last week in Sydney. However, no details are yet available on what was discussed at the meeting. The majority of the organisations who attended the September meeting were from content industry organisations, including the Asia-Pacific branch of the Motion Picture Association, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, Foxtel, the Australian Home Entertainment Distributor?s Association, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, News Limited, Music Industry Piracy Investigations, the Australian Recording Industry Association, the Interactive Gaming and Entertainment Association, the Australian Publishers Association and the Australian Performing Right Association. On the ISPs? side, only Telstra, Optus, the Communications Alliance (which represents telcos), the Internet Industry Association and networking vendor Ericsson attended ? although Telstra and Optus both sent a number of staff to the meeting. It is not clear whether iiNet attended. All up, about 25 industry representatives attended. Delimiter today filed a Freedom of Information request with the Attorney-General?s Department seeking the following documents with respect to the new meeting held last week: ? A list of all attendees at the meeting ? Notes of any and all attendees at the meeting from any government agency ? A copy of any documentation issued to attendees at the meeting ? Any and all email correspondence related to the calling and conduct of the meeting ? Any correspondence between the office of the Secretary of the Department and the Office of the Attorney-General discussing the meeting before or after it was held At the last meeting on the issue, documents released under Freedom of Information laws revealed that the Attorney-General?s Department hoped to frame the discussion on the day through the lens of the so-called ?six strikes? policy to tackling online copyright infringement agreed between the content and ISP industries in the US this year. Under the deal, major US ISPs ? including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable agreed with the film and music industries to forward copyright infringement notices from content owners to alleged Internet pirates. After five or six of these notices, ISPs have agreed to institute certain punitive measures, including, for example, temporary reductions in Internet speeds, redirections to educational pages and pages to discuss the problem. There is speculation in the industry that one potential resolution to the issue of online piracy could be the implementation of a so-called ?strikes? system, which would see internet users disconnected after content owners had complained a certain amount of times and provided evidence that a certain user was committing copyright infringement online. Such systems have already been implemented in countries such as New Zealand and France. So far, the ISP industry has resisted implementing such a system in Australia, although a number of ISPs ? such as Exetel, for example ? have already voluntarily implemented a system whereby the receipt of a certain number of complaints will eventually lead to a request for a customer to churn to another ISP. AFACT has signalled to ISPs that it wants an ?automated processing system? for copyright infringement notices to be distributed to ISP customers. In November, many of Australia?s largest ISPs banded together behind a proposal which would see Australians issued with warning and educational notices after content holders provided evidence that they had breached their copyright online ? and the door opened for ISPs to hand over user details to the content industry if they keep on pirating content online. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Feb 19 08:37:15 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:37:15 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Nanosecond Trading Could Make Markets Go Haywire Message-ID: <7AC76A62-1697-4C19-94E6-F270D425CADE@infowarrior.org> Nanosecond Trading Could Make Markets Go Haywire ? By Brandon Keim ? Email Author ? February 16, 2012 | ? 6:30 am | http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/high-speed-trading/ The afternoon of May 6, 2010 was among the strangest in economic history. Starting at 2:42 p.m. EDT, the Dow Jones stock index fell 600 points in just 6 minutes. Its nadir represented the deepest single-day decline in that market?s 114-year history. By 3:07 p.m., the index had rebounded. The ?flash crash,? as it came to be known, was big, unexpected and scary ? and a new study says flash events actually happen routinely, at speeds so fast they don?t register on regular market records, with potentially troubling consequences for market stability. The analysis involved five years of stock market trading data gathered between 2006 and 2011 and sorted in fine-grained, millisecond-by-millisecond detail. Below the 950-millisecond level, where computerized trading occurs so quickly that human traders can?t even react, no fewer than 18,520 crashes and spikes occurred. The study?s authors call those events ?financial black swans,? though they?re so common that the black swan label probably doesn?t fit anymore. Moreover, those events fell into patterns that didn?t fit market patterns seen at other time scales. It?s as if computerized trading has created a new world, one where the usual rules don?t apply, populated by algorithms and only dimly understood by the people who made them. The extent to which that world influences our own ? perhaps making events like the 2010 flash crash more likely, or causing markets to be generally more volatile ? is an open question. ?There?s this whole world below 650 milliseconds. It?s like landing on another planet,? said Neil Johnson, a complex systems specialist at the University of Miami and co-author of the study, released Feb. 7 on arXiv. ?It?s an enormous part of the market which is out of human reach. We have a glimpse of the kind of ecology that?s going on down there.? Until recently, trading was the preserve of humans. Imagine a stock market and you likely envision a loud, crowded trading floor, a scene out of Wall Street. But in 1998, after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission authorized the first electronic exchanges, computer trading programs entered markets as equals to humans. The programs are designed to trade enormous volumes of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments at superfast speeds, taking advantage of second-to-second fractional price shifts and market trends. It?s now estimated that high-frequency computer trading accounts for 70 percent of all equity trades. While some activity does occur at speeds with which humans can interact, much of it falls beyond the limits of human response time. (One new computer chip built specifically for high-frequency trading can prepare trades in .000000074 seconds; a proposed $300 million transatlantic cable is being built just to shave 0.006 seconds off transaction times between New York City and London.) In the early years of computer trading, algorithms were profitable and concerns rare. Designers and investors took their money and didn?t think much about what Johnson and co-authors call ?ultrafast machine ecology.? After the 2010 flash crash, however, mainstream economists wondered if high-frequency trading systems might sometimes get weird and unpredictable. A $4.1 billion automated sale was ultimately blamed for triggering that crash, and economists started asking questions about the new, hazy relationships between machines and markets. ?We are certainly witnessing one of the major transitions in the history of financial markets,? said automated trading researcher John Cartlidge of the University of Bristol, who was not involved in new study. ?Economic theory has always lagged behind economic reality, but now the speed of technological change is widening that gap at an exponential rate. The scary result of this is that we now live in a world dominated by a global financial market of which we have virtually no sound theoretical understanding.? In the new study, researchers led by Johnson and simulation engineer Brian Tivnan of the University of Vermont analyzed millisecond-scale price logs from 600 markets. The numbers were gathered by Nanex, a Chicago-based company that sells live market data. From this analysis emerged records of 18,520 sub-950-millisecond crashes and spikes ? far more than they, and perhaps almost anyone, expected. Equally as striking as these events? frequency was their arrangement: While market behavior tends to rise and fall in patterns that repeat themselves, fractal-style, in periods of days, weeks, months and years, ?that only holds down to the time scale at which human stop being able to respond,? said Johnson. ?The fractal gets broken.? Why this should happen isn?t exactly clear, but the researchers think it reflects differences between human and computer trading strategies. Whereas people have many different strategies, high-frequency programs ?sacrifice diversity for speed,? said Tivnan. ?You see a lot more homogeneity at the sub-second scale than we see above 1,500 ms.? In the researchers? models of high-frequency trading markets, a variety of algorithms eventually evolved into a few stripped-down, optimized forms. With many algorithms converging on just a few different strategies, the high-frequency trading market could become vulnerable to systemwide herd behaviors. Fortunately for us, the market seems to rebound from spikes almost as immediately as they occur ? Johnson and Tivnan likened the effect to a ?coiled spring? returning to form ? but as seen in May 2010, this might not always happen. Johnson and Tivnan also used another metaphor to describe the flash crashes and spikes: fractures. The events could be imagined as microfractures in the wing of an aircraft, accumulating unnoticeably until some critical, breakage-causing mass is reached. To that end, they found a correlation between rising frequencies of sub-950-ms flash events, market volatility after 2008, and the May 2010 flash crash. The 10 stocks most prone to crash-and-spiking were all financial companies, with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo topping the list. ?Lay the occurrences of spikes and crashes against each other on the same timeline, and then look at the movement of a major index like the Standard & Poor?s 500. What?s particularly interesting is that dramatic increases of spikes and crashes coincided with major movements in the S&P index itself,? said Tivnan. However, it?s uncertain whether this correlation reflects a cause-and-effect relationship. It could conceivably be just a coincidence. ?The results are provocative, but need more statistical testing to be something you can reliably interpret,? said complex systems theorist Doyne Farmer of the Santa Fe Institute, who was not involved in the new study. Uncertainties notwithstanding, the paper is still ?an extremely important contribution to solve the puzzle of financial complexity,? said econophysicist Tobias Preis of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, who studies patterns that precede market bubbles. Cartlidge called the paper ?timely and important,? and said the findings are ?likely to have a significant impact on market participants and regulators alike.? The question of regulation is a tricky one. In the aftermath of May 2010, federal U.S. regulators introduced so-called ?circuit breakers? that automatically halt trading if a stock price falls too much, too fast. But whether this actually works isn?t yet known. ?Currently, we?re having trouble even observing at that level of resolution, let alone regulating it,? said Tivnan. Tivnan also works for the MITRE Corporation, a nonprofit engineering and technology consultancy that provides research support to U.S. regulatory agencies. Both the U.S. and European Union are actively investigating further intervention in the machine trading world. Johnson and Tivnan propose a subtler approach than circuit-breakers, one that would ?steer? automated markets by introducing rogue algorithms when herd behaviors appear imminent. Farmer wants markets altered to become slower, with trades occurring intermittently ? once per second or once even per minute, rather than constantly ? and speed de-emphasized. That would allow algorithm designers ?to focus on the quality of decision-making, rather than the time it takes,? said Farmer, who preaches caution in designing new regulation. ?There?s a danger of Europeans doing some changes they haven?t thought through, and there?s danger of the United States not changing things they need to change,? Farmer said. ?It?s hard to think these things through, because nobody understands them.? Citation: ?Financial black swans driven by ultrafast machine ecology.? By Neil Johnson, Guannan Zhao, Eric Hunsader, Jing Meng, Amith Ravindar, Spencer Carran and Brian Tivnan. arXiv, 7 February 2012. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 20 08:36:01 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:36:01 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?=91Ethical_hacker_Ankit_Fadia_is?= =?windows-1252?q?_a_fake=92?= Message-ID: Good riddance!!!! (more @ http://attrition.org/errata/charlatan/ankit_fadia/) ?Ethical hacker Ankit Fadia is a fake? Shubhankar Adhikari NEW DELHI | 19th Feb http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/ethical-hacker-ankit-fadia-is-a-fake Soon after Microsoft India's online store was hacked last week, rumours swirled in Twitter that ethical hacker Ankit Fadia had been hired as a security consultant by the software giant. He denies these rumours, calling them baseless. Fadia feels that the hacking of the Microsoft website allegedly by a China-based group is part of trend that is here to stay. "The hacking of the Microsoft, CIA and the BSF websites happened within days of each other. Such hacking incidents happen all the time. There is no use overreacting as the hacking attacks will continue," says Fadia, also a bestselling author blamed for extensive plagiarising. The hacker group, calling itself the Evil Shadow Team, stole from the Microsoft website usernames and passwords that it admittedly found unencrypted. "No system in the world is secure. If the CIA cannot fully protect its website, how can ordinary Indian companies. The firms should, however, be more pro-active about their security." Fadia recently released How to Unblock Everything on the Internet, a book that shows how to allow sites restricted at workplaces, colleges or countries. "The book has been written for users who are not tech savvy. The book is intended to be easily understood and contains screenshots of 50 techniques for unblocking sites," he explains. The author of over a dozen books has often been accused of plagiarism and making tall claims. A security professional, who uses the handle @FakeAnkitFadia on Twitter, told The Sunday Guardian, "The first book that Fadia 'wrote' at the age of 14, The Unofficial Guide to Ethical Hacking, was a little over 32% plagiarised from other security publications and websites." The security professional also burns holes in Fadia's claims of being featured in The New York Times Best Sellers List. "I have not found any mention of him in the list going back 50 years, either in the fiction or the non-fiction category." He points out that Fadia's statement that his website on hacking was ranked the second best in the world by the FBI is untrue, because the investigative agency has no such system of ranking. The security professional says that he has been attending Black Hat and Defcon, the largest hacker conferences in the world, for the past 10 years but claims to have never seen Fadia attending them. Blogger Sandip Dev lists reasons for Fadia being famous, despite his tarnished image. "The masses see computer security as some sort of dark magic whereas it is a systematic process, a science. Hence, these people can be easily fooled by the likes of Fadia. The other aspect is obviously shoddy journalism. Papers print whatever catches the readers' attention. A child prodigy in computers does just that and our 'idol crazy' nation laps it up." A Facebook page, called We Hate Ankit Fadia, contains some scathing attacks on the celebrity author. "A Hacker should be a tool. Tools do not make anyone a hacker," says a comment, in reference to Fadia's books that teach hacking. "He is nothing but just a person with very good luck," says another comment. Mohit Agarwal, who is associated with the Facebook page, cites at least six instances, twice of them this year, when Fadia's own website was hacked. "Fadia has spent his entire career talking about hacking and security, but has not performed penetration testing, has not secured networks and only offered pedestrian 'hacking' training re-branded as a certification bearing his own name," Agarwal says, referring to courses that Fadia runs in association with Reliance. "Just because he knows how to Google, he cannot be a hacker. He is a fake." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 20 08:43:16 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:43:16 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - 'Act Of Valor' And The Military's Long Hollywood Mission Message-ID: 'Act Of Valor' And The Military's Long Hollywood Mission First Posted: 02/17/2012 12:10 pm Updated: 02/17/2012 8:36 pm http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/act-of-valor-military-hollywood_n_1284338.html?view=print&comm_ref=false A crack team of highly skilled warriors, outfitted with the most advanced weapons of the world?s most powerful military force, storms an enemy compound, firing round after round of ammunition through concrete walls and the skulls of their terrorist adversaries. The good guys have yet to suffer a single casualty until, suddenly, one of its leaders takes a rocket to the chest. The audience cringes, but the bang never comes -- the rocket clangs to the ground, unexploded, and the battle rages on. The upcoming film "Act of Valor" is replete with that kind of action, but there are a few things it doesn't have: There are no corrupt officers, no damaged heroes, no queasy doubts about the value of the mission or the virtue of the cause. That's because "Act of Valor" was born not in Hollywood, but in the Pentagon. It was commissioned by the Navy's Special Warfare Command and its success will be measured not in box-office receipts, but in the number of new recruits it attracts to the Navy SEALs. "Early on, we were pretty honored and humbled to be asked to take a look at potentially telling their story," said "Valor" producer and former stuntman Scott Waugh, "to take a look at what telling their story would even look like." This may be the U.S. armed forces' first feature-length recruiting film, but it's far from the first time unsuspecting audiences have been treated to Pentagon propaganda at the movies. As early as 1927, when military assistance on the film "Wings" helped it win Best Picture at the first Oscars ceremony, the Department of Defense has long maintained its own production office that offers filmmakers the latest in arms and high-tech vehicles at cut-rate prices -- as long as their scripts are deemed worthy. That's not the most restrictive the government has been, however. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the United States officially entered World War II, the film industry fully enlisted in the war effort. Studios fell in line behind the government's Office of War Information, which included the Bureau of Motion Pictures and the Office of Censorship. Together, these agencies kept a close watch on Hollywood's output. Actors went to war on film (and some, in real life), narrated documentaries about the threat posed by the Axis powers, and lampooned America's enemies -- especially the Japanese -- using racial stereotypes. While studios may have been happy to help out, they also didn?t have much of a choice; the Motion Pictures Bureau read over movie scripts and the Office of Censorship controlled all international film exports. After the war, while Senator Joseph McCarthy waged a campaign against suspected Communists in Hollywood, the military sought to influence the industry with access to technical advice, weapons, vehicles and troops. The Film Liaison Office, established in 1948, was charged with reviewing scripts by filmmakers who wished to use U.S.-issued guns, tanks and ammunition to ensure that they portrayed the armed forces in a suitably positive light. For nearly two decades, the Pentagon and Hollywood told stories of the Allies? glorious victory, with John Wayne and friends taking down the Nazis time and time again. By the late sixties, however, filmmakers' love for the military began to sink like boots in the swamp as the horrors of Vietnam were broadcast nightly to homes nationwide. From "M*A*S*H" to "Apocalypse Now" to "Platoon," heroism was supplanted by harrowing portrayals of hopeless, endless brutality. Soldiers coped with drugs, leaders went mad and the government conspired against its own men. Unsurprisingly, those war films, among the greatest of the past half-century, were produced without assistance from the Pentagon. By the time "Platoon" was released in Christmas 1986, however, the Film Liaison Office had started reasserting a measure of control over the military's image. Earlier that year, Paramount Pictures released "Top Gun," which did for pilots what James Dean did for mopey teenagers with red cars. The military was ready to capitalize on "Top Gun." After a two-hour romp in which Tom Cruise made the Navy look like an adventure filled with catchphrases and gorgeous women, theatergoers, who may not have known that the Pentagon worked closely with producer Jerry Bruckheimer to tailor the film?s message, were greeted by recruitment tables outside their theater. While it's difficult to quantify the movie's direct impact on the image of the military, recruiters to this day point to anecdotal evidence of a "Top Gun" boost. Hollywood liked what it saw, too. With $176 million in domestic box office receipts and another $177 million internationally, "Top Gun" was such a hit that the film industry's requests for military assistance quadrupled by the outbreak of the first Gulf War a few years later. Today, the Film Liaison Office is among the most powerful forces in the movie business. Teaming with each armed service?s own film arm, the office cuts sweet deals with studios desperate for the kind of real-life props and troops that can't be generated by computers. Philip Strub, the current head of the office, wields one of the mightiest pens in show business. He reviews scripts sent in by producers and studios, deciding whether or not to provide material assistance based on, he said, "whether [the film] is something that might be of information value to the public or whether there is some benefit to military recruitment and retention." As David Sirota recounted in his book "Back To Our Future," John McTiernan, director of famously Pentagon-rejected film "The Hunt for Red October," says studios began telling screenwriters and directors to be sure that they could "get cooperation from the military, or forget about making the picture." As displeased creatives might tell you, every organization deserves to protect and promote its image, but most polish isn?t taxpayer funded. Michael Bay has enjoyed a particularly fruitful relationship with the Pentagon, especially while making his blockbuster "Transformers" movies. The sci-fi series, in which gigantic alien robots team up with the U.S. military to defeat other gigantic alien robots, received record amounts of DOD aid, including various aircraft, tanks and active-duty soldiers (the first film alone had access to 12 different types of Air Force aircraft and troops from four different bases). Some "Transformers" scenes were even filmed in the Pentagon, as well as various other bases and training fields. Strub acknowledged that the Bay movies aren't exactly realistic, but argued that they accurately reflected the way the military would act if facing down extraterrestrial invaders with a General Motors-inspired sartorial flair. A recently announced fourth "Transformers" movie is slated for release during Independence Day weekend 2013. Meantime, those impatient for more military-alien quarrels can check out "Battleship," the board game-turned-science fiction war flick starring Liam Neeson, which hits theaters in May. The Pentagon helped shepherd that one, too. On the other hand, the Iraq War drama "The Hurt Locker," which starred Jeremy Renner as an explosive ordnance disposal officer, saw its Pentagon assistance pulled just before it began production. Strub attributed that call to last-minute script additions by director Kathryn Bigelow, including climactic sequences during which Renner's character recklessly heads into town and battle by himself. "I think one of the things that we encounter is the tendency of filmmakers to stick to proven stereotypes," Strub said. "Whether they're in uniform or not, they seem particularly fond of the loner who must disobey the rules, thwart his or her own organization and kind of go rogue in the name of achieving justice or redemption or whatever the goal might be." "The Hurt Locker" divided the Defense Department. Some decried it as a gross exaggeration of warfare, while others, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, hailed it as the most realistic sketch of life in Iraq to date. The film won Best Picture and Bigelow won Best Director at the 2010 Academy Awards. The past decade has seen a flurry of other gritty looks at U.S. wars in the Middle East that have eschewed the support of the Film Liaison Office. Paul Greengrass?s "Green Zone," starring Matt Damon, was a less-than-flattering look at life in Iraq, Kimberly Peirce?s "Stop-Loss" focused on the purgatory between the front lines and the homefront, and Paul Haggis? ?In The Valley of Elah,? based on a true story, tackled post-traumatic stress disorder and its effects. Unlike their Vietnam-era forerunners, however, most such films have failed to resonate at the box office -- even "The Hurt Locker" made just $17 million in the United States. With ticket receipts fixed as the north Star guiding Hollywood, those fiscal failures haven?t gone unnoticed. And if the message taken from those losses is that today?s audiences prefer big booms to existential treatises on violence in their war films now, it only help increase the Pentagon?s influence on the industry. Still, public opinion polls matter to the military more than box office numbers, and by 2007, the military realized it had to shift perceptions to up recruiting for the nation's two draining, unpopular wars. Bolstered by findings in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, an internal report that set a goal of increasing Special Operations Forces enlistment by 15 percent, the Navy solicited recruiting video pitches from friendly producers. Among those, the "Bandito Brothers" -- Waugh and motocross champion Mike "Mouse" McCoy -- who had worked with other offices in the Army and Navy on a number of commercials through their production company of the same name. The pair spent six months visiting the Navy base in Coronado, Calif., conducting interviews and research as they developed their pitch. That face time led them to suggest using real SEALs instead of Hollywood actors for "Act of Valor." The brass loved the idea, though the SEALs themselves were initially resistant to the idea of acting, Waugh said. They needed some convincing, he said, that, "it was going to be authentic and legitimate and not some hokey, cheesed-out Hollywood version of their community." Eventually, the Banditos? reassurances -- and, not least, the Navy?s move to make acting in the film a compulsory assignment -- compelled eight active-duty troops to step forward and play dramatized versions of themselves. The film, also directed by the Banditos, is nearly all action and is based on five real-life stories strung together by Kurt Johnstad, who wrote the screenplay for the Greek war epic "300." The narrative has the SEALs tracking a Russian-Muslim-Filipino-Mexican terrorist cell seeking to set off a media frenzy and economic collapse within the United States with one deadly bomb. The terrorists' international flavor presents a nice representative sample of U.S. enemies and bogeymen from the past half-century, though their most important trait is their inability to properly fire their guns. The battle scenes were shot during live SEAL training missions, plotted out and blocked by the troops themselves, with cameras placed atop their helmets for a video game-like first-person view of the action. To a generation well-accustomed to guiding digital soldiers through combat zones, all that?s missing is a PlayStation controller in a theater seat. The filmmakers said they were unconcerned with the recruitment angle of the film, focusing principally on the sacrifices made by the SEALs. They also stressed their full creative control of the film during its four-year production process, asserting that the only edits made by the Navy Special Warfare Command were designed to scrub military secrets from the final cut. The Banditos, of course, were carefully pre-screened. Their final product is a mix of trying acting and "Call of Duty"-style action, earnest and visually impressive but unlikely to garner the kind of praise "The Hurt Locker" and Hollywood's grittier takes on combat have received. Then again, the military has never had Oscar in its sights -- he?s far too old to enlist. Even McCoy admits that the picture is about changing perception and breaking away from the cynicism still pervasive in Hollywood, not winning gold. "I'd like to see the legacy of Vietnam put to bed. Vietnam was 40 years ago, and I think arts and entertainment is still suffering from that hangover," he said. "It was a really bad time in American history, absolutely, but it's time to sort of forget that and forget those sensibilities and don't associate our troops and our men and women to that conflict anymore, and time to really open our eyes to say, 'What's going on in this world? What are our men and women in uniform really doing right now for us?'" Will "Act of Valor" accomplish that? Relativity Media, which won a bidding war to distribute the film following the SEAL-executed death of Osama bin Laden, has been aggressively pursuing publicity, airing multiple trailer spots during the Super Bowl and holding big premieres on each coast -- the New York City opening was held on the USS Intrepid, while SEALs parachuted down to the theater for the Los Angeles bow. Every ad for the film touts the participation of real Navy SEALs; whether that is appealing to young audiences or smacks of propaganda, may help determine how it performs. Only time will tell if the military can be a viable lead producer, and even Strub admits that the big screen is best at reflecting public opinion about a war, not leading audiences to a conclusion. ?I'm of the opinion that movies don't create public opinion, but they can bring focus to it,? he said. ?What's going on now, you can make an argument that it's too soon to tell." In the meantime, the covert mission to win hearts, minds and boots will continue to run through Hollywood. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 20 13:09:35 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:09:35 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FBI Saves Us From Another Of Its Own Terrorist Plots Message-ID: <095CE6A3-6CBB-4FEB-8678-4B033438A719@infowarrior.org> FBI Saves Us From Another Of Its Own Terrorist Plots from the no-boom dept We've talked multiple times about how the FBI seems to spend an awful lot of time stopping its own terrorist plots, and it appears to have done so yet again. iamtheky points us to the story of a "terrorist plot" to blow up the capitol averted... thanks to the fact that the whole thing was planned by the FBI, so it was pretty easy to stop the one dupe who thought it was real. Now, as some people always point out, these kinds of operations do seem to get people off the street who wouldn't mind causing harm to Americans, but it's unclear if any of them would ever actually have the means to do so in reality. What's telling is that these seem to be basically the only terrorist plots we hear about the FBI stopping these days -- which makes you wonder if they just have too much free time to manufacture plots to stop. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120217/13271317794/fbi-saves-us-another-its-own-terrorist-plots.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 20 15:14:50 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:14:50 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NYPD monitored Muslim students all over Northeast Message-ID: Feb 20, 4:35 AM EST NYPD monitored Muslim students all over Northeast By CHRIS HAWLEY Associated Press http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NYPD_INTELLIGENCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-19-16-51-22 NEW YORK (AP) -- One autumn morning in Buffalo, N.Y., a college student named Adeela Khan logged into her email and found a message announcing an upcoming Islamic conference in Toronto. Khan clicked "forward," sent it to a group of fellow Muslims at the University at Buffalo, and promptly forgot about it. But that simple act on Nov. 9, 2006, was enough to arouse the suspicion of an intelligence analyst at the New York Police Department, 300 miles away, who combed through her post and put her name in an official report. Marked "SECRET" in large red letters, the document went all the way to Commissioner Raymond Kelly's office. The report, along with other documents obtained by The Associated Press, reveals how the NYPD's intelligence division focused far beyond New York City as part of a surveillance program targeting Muslims. Police trawled daily through student websites run by Muslim student groups at Yale, the University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers and 13 other colleges in the Northeast. They talked with local authorities about professors in Buffalo and even sent an undercover agent on a whitewater rafting trip, where he recorded students' names and noted in police intelligence files how many times they prayed. Asked about the monitoring, police spokesman Paul Browne provided a list of 12 people arrested or convicted on terrorism charges in the United States and abroad who had once been members of Muslim student associations, which the NYPD referred to as MSAs. They included Jesse Morton, who this month pleaded guilty to posting online threats against the creators of the animated TV show "South Park." He had once tried to recruit followers at Stony Brook University on Long Island, Browne said. "As a result, the NYPD deemed it prudent to get a better handle on what was occurring at MSAs," Browne said in an email. He said police monitored student websites and collected publicly available information in 2006 and 2007.But documents show other surveillance efforts continued for years afterward. "I see a violation of civil rights here," said Tanweer Haq, chaplain of the Muslim Student Association at Syracuse University. "Nobody wants to be on the list of the FBI or the NYPD or whatever. Muslim students want to have their own lives, their own privacy and enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that everybody else has." In recent months, the AP has revealed secret programs the NYPD built with help from the CIA to monitor Muslims at the places where they eat, shop and worship. The AP also published details about how police placed undercover officers at Muslim student associations in colleges within the city limits; this revelation has outraged faculty and student groups. Though the NYPD says it follows the same rules as the FBI, some of the NYPD's activities go beyond what the FBI is allowed to do. Kelly and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg repeatedly have said that the police only follow legitimate leads about suspected criminal activity. But the latest documents mention no wrongdoing by any students. In one report, an undercover officer describes accompanying 18 Muslim students from the City College of New York on a whitewater rafting trip in upstate New York on April 21, 2008. The officer noted the names of attendees who were officers of the Muslim Student Association. "In addition to the regularly scheduled events (Rafting), the group prayed at least four times a day, and much of the conversation was spent discussing Islam and was religious in nature," the report says. Praying five times a day is one of the core traditions of Islam. Jawad Rasul, one of the students on the trip, said he was stunned that his name was included in the police report. "It forces me to look around wherever I am now," Rasul said. But another student, Ali Ahmed, whom the NYPD said appeared to be in charge of the trip, said he understood the police department's concern. "I can't blame them for doing their job," Ahmed said. "There's lots of Muslims doing some bad things and it gives a bad name to all of us, so they have to take their due diligence." City College criticized the surveillance and said it was unaware the NYPD was watching students. "The City College of New York does not accept or condone any investigation of any student organization based on the political or religious content of its ideas," the college said in a written statement. "Absent specific evidence linking a member of the City College community to criminal activity, we do not condone this kind of investigation." Browne said undercover officers go wherever people they're investigating go. There is no indication that, in the nearly four years since the report, the NYPD brought charges connecting City College students to terrorism. Student groups were of particular interest to the NYPD because they attract young Muslim men, a demographic that terrorist groups frequently draw from. Police worried about which Muslim scholars were influencing these students and feared that extracurricular activities such as paintball outings could be used as terrorist training. The AP first reported in October that the NYPD had placed informants or undercover officers in the Muslim Student Associations at City College, Brooklyn College, Baruch College, Hunter College, City College of New York, Queens College, La Guardia Community College and St. John's University. All of those colleges are within the New York City limits. A person familiar with the program, who like others insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss it, said the NYPD also had a student informant at Syracuse. Police also were interested in the Muslim student group at Rutgers, in New Brunswick, New Jersey. In 2009, undercover NYPD officers had a safe house in an apartment not far from campus. The operation was blown when the building superintendent stumbled upon the safe house and, thinking it was some sort of a terrorist cell, called the police emerency dispatcher. The FBI responded and determined that monitoring Rutgers students was one of the operation's objectives, current and former federal officials said. The Rutgers police chief at the time, Rhonda Harris, would not discuss the fallout. In a written statement, university spokesman E.J. Miranda said: "The university was not aware of this at the time and we have nothing to add on this matter." Another NYPD intelligence report from Jan. 2, 2009, described a trip by three NYPD officers to Buffalo, where they met with a high-ranking member of the Erie County Sheriff's Department and agreed "to develop assets jointly in the Buffalo area, to act as listening posts within the ethnic Somalian community." The sheriff's department official noted "that there are some Somali Professors and students at SUNY-Buffalo and it would be worthwhile to further analyze that population," the report says. Browne said the NYPD did not follow that recommendation. A spokesman for the university, John DellaContrada, said the NYPD never contacted the administration. Sheriff's Departments spokeswoman Mary Murray could not immediately confirm the meeting or say whether the proposal went any further. The document that mentions Khan, the University at Buffalo student, is entitled "Weekly MSA Report" and dated Nov. 22, 2006. It explains that officers from the NYPD's Cyber Intelligence unit visited the websites, blogs and forums of Muslim student associations as a "daily routine." The universities included Yale; Columbia; the University of Pennsylvania; Syracuse; New York University; Clarkson University; the Newark and New Brunswick campuses of Rutgers; and the State University of New York campuses in Buffalo, Albany, Stony Brook and Potsdam; Queens College, Baruch College, Brooklyn College and La Guardia Community College. Khan was a board member of the Muslim Student Association at the University at Buffalo at the time she received the conference announcement, which went out to a mailing list of Muslim organizations. The email said "highly respected scholars" would be attending the Toronto conference, but did not say who or give any details of the program. Khan says she never went to the conference, was not affiliated with it and had no idea who was speaking at it. Khan says she clicked "forward" and sent it to a Yahoo chat group of fellow students. "A couple people had gone the year prior and they said they had a really nice time, so I was just passing the information on forward. That's really all it was," said Khan, who has since graduated. But officer Mahmood Ahmad of the NYPD's Cyber Intelligence Unit took notice and listed Khan in his weekly report for Kelly. The officer began researching the Toronto conference and found that one of the speakers, Tariq Ramadan, had his U.S. visa revoked in 2004. The U.S. government said it was because Ramadan had given money to a Palestinian group. It reinstated his visa in 2010. The officer's report notes three other speakers. One, Siraj Wahaj, is a prominent but controversial New York imam who has attracted the attention of authorities for years. Prosecutors included his name on a 3 1/2-page list of people they said "may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though he was never charged. The other two are Hamza Yusuf and Zaid Shakir, two of the nation's most prominent Muslim scholars. Both have lectured at top universities in the U.S.. Yusuf met with President George W. Bush at the White House following the 2001 terrorist attacks. There is no indication that the investigation went any further, or that Khan was ever implicated in anything. Browne, the NYPD spokesman, said students like her have nothing to fear from the police. "Students who advertised events or sent emails about regular events should not be worried about a `terrorism file' being kept on them. NYPD only investigated persons who we had reasonable suspicion to believe might be involved in unlawful activities," Browne said. But Khan still worries about being associated with the police report. "It's just a waste of resources, if you ask me," she said. "I understand why they're doing it, but it's just kind of like a Catch-22. I'm not the one doing anything wrong." The university said it was unaware its students were being monitored. "UB does not conduct this kind of surveillance and if asked, UB would not voluntarily cooperate with such a request," the university said in a written statement. "As a public university, UB strongly supports the values of freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, and a reasonable expectation of privacy." The same Nov. 22, 2006, report also noted seminars announced on the websites of the Muslim student associations at New York University and Rutgers University's campus in Newark, New Jersey. Browne said intelligence analysts were interested in recruiting by the Islamic Thinkers Society, a New York-based group that wants to see the United States governed under Islamic law. Morton was a leader of the group and went to Stony Brook University's MSA to recruit students that same month. "One thing that our open source searches were interested in determining at the time was, where (does the) Islamic Thinkers Society go - in terms of MSAs for recruiting," Browne said. Yale declined comment. The University of Pennsylvania did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Other colleges on the list said they worried the monitoring infringed on students' freedom of speech. "Like New York City itself, American universities are admired across the globe as places that welcome a diversity of people and viewpoints. So we would obviously be concerned about anything that could chill our essential values of academic freedom or intrude on student privacy," Columbia University spokesman Robert Hornsby said in a written statement. Danish Munir, an alumnus adviser for the University of Pennsylvania's Muslim Student Association, said he believes police are wasting their time by watching college students. "What do they expect to find here?" Munir said. "These are all kids coming from rich families or good families, and they're just trying to make a living, have a good career, have a good college experience. It's a futile allocation of resources." --- Online: View the report at: http://apne.ws/zLpfdM --- Associated Press reporters Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Eileen Sullivan contributed to this report. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 20 15:18:06 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:18:06 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Streaming Rights On Whitney Houston Movie Pulled In Order To 'Make Really A Large Amount Of Money On DVD Sales' Message-ID: <3888CB63-C217-4C76-BBDF-727F4D180A77@infowarrior.org> Streaming Rights On Whitney Houston Movie Pulled In Order To 'Make Really A Large Amount Of Money On DVD Sales' from the profiting-off-of-death dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/10535917816/streaming-rights-whitney-houston-movie-pulled-order-to-make-really-large-amount-money-dvd-sales.shtml We covered how Sony Music UK jacked up prices on Whitney Houston's music minutes after her death -- then changing them back and apologizing. However, in an even more extreme case, it appears that whoever holds the copyrights on the Whitney Houston movie, The Bodyguard has pulled those rights from Netflix, where it had been streamable (found via Karl Bode, but kudos to Dan McDermott who noticed the problem and found out the details from Netflix). The reasoning is that they figure lots of people will want to buy it now, and this is a chance to cash in on her death: Netflix rep: "Okay Dan, I just went and talked to my main supervisor as to why the movie had been pulled and the reason it was pulled was the production company pulled the streaming rights from us because all the publicity after Whitney Houston's passing there was an opportunity to make really a very large amount of money on the DVD sales of her movies. So they're going to pull all the streaming titles we have of Whitney Houston so they can make more money off the DVD sales of her movies." ..... Now, watch the copyright holder complain that there's too much infringement of the movie as well... --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 20 20:37:59 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:37:59 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Private Prison Company to Demand 90% Occupancy Message-ID: Private Prison Company to Demand 90% Occupancy Thursday, February 16, 2012 http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Private_Prison_Company_to_Demand_90_Percent_Occupancy_120216 The nation?s largest private prison company is offering cash-strapped state governments to buy up their penitentiaries and manage convicted criminals at a cost-savings. But there?s a catch?the states must guarantee that are there are enough prisoners to ensure that the venture is profitable to the company. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) has reached out to 48 states as part of a $250 million plan to own existing prisons and manage their operations. But in return CCA wants a 20-year contract and assurances that the state will keep the prisons at least 90% full. In the past CCA has operated its own prisons and contracted with states to house inmates. But until now the company never offered to essentially take over public corrections systems. Ohio already has sold one of its largest prisons to CCA. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal wanted last year to sell three of his state?s prisons to the company, but the legislature refused to go along. Critics of the plan warn that if states commit to CCA?s deal, they could find themselves with little bargaining power down the road once it comes time to negotiate new contracts. And, if the crime rate continues dropping, will police, prosecutors and judges feel compelled to supply human ?product? for the prisons anyway? -Noel Brinkerhoff, David Wallechinsky --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 21 13:36:45 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - more on ....'Act Of Valor' And The Military's Long Hollywood Mission 'Act Of Valor' And The Military's Long Hollywood Mission Message-ID: <9FEFC19C-6A1B-4736-A5BA-C670792210C6@infowarrior.org> (from a well-placed DOD friend --rick) http://www.americancinemathequecalendar.com/content/act-of-valor-0 I call this movie "SEAL porn". It's like somebody (probably the Navy PAO and LCDR in the credits) had a checklist of all the cool tactics the SEALs use and handed that to the screenwriter with orders to "put all this stuff in the movie". And indeed we get it all: HALO, HAHO, night ops with IR gear, snipers with suppressor, water approaches, CQB and house take downs, underway ship takedowns, boat insertions with helicopters, boat extractions with helicopters, interrogations, sneak and peek, hop and pop, landing on an underway nuclear sub, launching a SDV (swimmer delivery vehicle) from the sub, sat phones, .50 cal machine guns, .30 cal machine guns, M4 carbines, sniper rifles, rockets, frag grenades, the list goes on and I'm sure you get the picture. I don't think anything was left out. Three acts of notable real-life heroism were called out by the Navy for the filmmakers to put in the movie, and those are there. That said, I like porn as much as the next guy and this is great porn. Their last really good porn movie before this one was Top Gun. The Navy makes good porn. I had looked up the background of the movie on the website and saw that it started life as a recruiting video. It's interesting how that turned into a full length feature, but even more interesting that the filmmakers last night didn't mention it at all. They did emphasize how "the taxpayers didn't spend a dime" or words to that effect, and went into considerable detail to describe how everything on the screen was shot during regular training operations that the filmmakers were allowed to shoot. (I'm sure some economists would be able to parse a cost from having 25 people on whichever ship they were on when they shot the landing on the surfaced submarine that was underway. But I digress.) The plot was fairly transparent, but it was professionally constructed with appropriate evil geniuses who get caught by the righteousness, fortitude, and wholesomeness of the good guys. I guess I have to commend the filmmaker for weaving all the various heroic acts and checklist of SEAL tactics into a coherent narrative lasting about 90 minutes. Also, the filmmakers said they started by shooting 35mm for standard scenes and Canon 5D for action, but the latter turned out so well that they soon shot the whole thing on 5D cameras. So this is undoubtedly the next step in the demise of polyester film with silver halide. So for us adults it's a fun movie unless one really doesn't like this kind of recruiting film. And I can't recommend it for anybody who doesn't like SEAL porn. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 21 14:09:44 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:09:44 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Canadian Universities Agree To Ridiculous Copyright Agreement That Says Emailing Hyperlinks Is Equal To Photocopying Message-ID: <7A5162C1-0141-4C35-92D4-9F94FC7F93A7@infowarrior.org> Canadian Universities Agree To Ridiculous Copyright Agreement That Says Emailing Hyperlinks Is Equal To Photocopying from the poor-decision-making dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/03190917805/canadian-universities-agree-to-ridiculous-copyright-agreement-that-says-emailing-hyperlinks-is-equal-to-photocopying.shtml In the past, we've written a few times about how Access Copyright, the Canadian collection society that gets revenue from universities for professors photocopying copyrighted works, and how it's been trying to increase rates by 1,300% by claiming that simply "posting a link" counted the same as making a copy. As we noted back in 2010, that's a crazy claim. Lots of universities decided to drop out of Access Copyright's system to avoid such crazy fees. However, not everyone decided to support this move. As a ton of you sent over, the universities of Western Ontario and Toronto have both signed agreements along those lines: "The agreement reached last month with the licensing agency includes provisions defining e-mailing hyperlinks as equivalent to photocopying a document, an annual $27.50 fee for every full-time equivalent student and surveillance of academic staff email." As the article notes, it seems incredibly premature for anyone to sign such an agreement, since the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in shortly about Access Copyright's mandate and limits, so there's simply no reason to rush into such a ridiculous deal. But, even worse is the message this kind of agreement sends to students. Accepting the idea that emailing hyperlinks is like making a photocopy is a ridiculous message that only serves to make more young people mock copyright as being a law that makes no sense at all. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 21 14:26:21 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:26:21 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - USG ramps up anti-Anonymous rhetoric Message-ID: <89D47E2D-D003-4CB3-8A19-1E1AE3B8BF35@infowarrior.org> (Remember how any 'physical-world' bad guy in 2001 somehow got mentioned in the same breath as al-Qaeda? Now any deviant cyber baddie can be mentioned the same way in terms of Anonymous. Having a catch-all adversary can be a fantastic tool for PR messaging. - rick) US gov?t ramps up anti-Anonymous rhetoric, warns of power grid take-down February 21, 2012 By Andrew Couts The National Security Agency reportedly believes hacktivst collective Anonymous could soon wage attacks on key US infrastructure. Anonymous says such accusations are nothing but ridiculous fear mongering. The United States government and hacktivist collective Anonymous aren?t what you would call ?friends.? After Anonymous? ongoing barrage of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks on various .gov websites, the National Security Agency (NSA) is reportedly concerned that the hackers may soon upgrade their attacks to full-blow assaults on key US infrastructure, like the electrical grid..... < -- > http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/us-govt-ramps-up-anti-anonymous-rhetoric-warns-of-power-grid-take-down/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 21 17:01:53 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:01:53 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - SOPA is back! Message-ID: <43BD4369-4D2E-4B8F-8069-F741E291F0CD@infowarrior.org> Lamer Smith is using the oldest legislative trick in the book in naming this revised proposal. Pardon my profanity, but What An Asshat. -- rick (c/o KM) SOPA author back and worse than ever Tyler Holman http://www.neowin.net/news/sopa-author-back-and-worse-than-ever Another day, another threat to internet freedom. According to International Business Times, beloved Texas Representative Lamar Smith is the author of a new bill that includes extreme surveillance provisions, and a name that will make opponents sound like criminals: H.R. 1981 (bump that last digit up three times for a more fitting title), or the 'Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.' The new name has outraged many opponents of SOPA and other bills that could bring more government control to the internet, like PIPA and ACTA. It's hard to imagine the whole world turning out against a bill with the words 'protect' and 'children' in the title, regardless of the actual contents of the bill. In the words of Business Insider's David Seaman, it's ?just a B.S. name so that politicians in the House and Senate are strong-armed into voting for it, even though it contains utterly insane 1984-style Big Brother surveillance provisions.? Ouch. So, what's so dangerous about the bill? If it's really designed to protect innocent children from pedophiles, why should anyone (other than pedophiles, of course) be worried about it? As David Seaman pointed out, H.R. 1981 contains some very hefty surveillance provisions, including one which would require ISPs to keep track of the IP addresses it assigns to its users, and to record that information for at least 18 months. Other information like credit card data and who knows what else would also be stored. Adding insult to injury, the bill describes its target ? in reality the entire internet ? as 'unregistered sex offenders.' Once again, ouch. The scary part is that the bill could lead to monitoring of all internet activity, so that a subpoena can be issued for further investigation of the suspicious activity. For those of us who aren't worried about the government keeping track of our hopefully innocent browsing habits, there is the whole issue of your very private and very sensitive information being stored for years. The bill would leave such storage in the hands of ISPs, although it does urge that 'such records... be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent breaches of records.' Presumably, this means that they would be kept in plain text files. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been doing what it can to raise a fuss about the bill, pointing out that the data collected it the bill could be used not only to investigate possible pedophiles, but that it could also 'become available to civil litigants... whether it's the RIAA trying to identify downloaders, a company trying to uncover and retaliate against an anonymous critic, or a divorce lawyer looking for dirty laundry.' It's also started a letter writing campaign, much as it did with SOPA and PIPA. Unsurprisingly, Anonymous has also been quite vocal voicing its distaste for the bill. Various representatives of the group who cannot be verified since they are, well, anonymous, have taken to Twitter to raise awareness of the bill. They've also joined in on a campaign to '#UnseatLamar,' urging voters to remove him from office in the upcoming election. It seems like it's every week now that a new piece of legislation comes up somewhere in the world, threatening the collective internet with fire, brimstone and eternal damnation. For such a massive and disorderly group, netizens have actually done a surprisingly good job at combating the bills. When the internet is threatened, it seems that everyone from the masked hacker to the founders of reputable websites are willing to stand side by side at its defense. It's enough to bring tears to our eyes. Hopefully a heavy handed title won't be enough to keep this from happening again, because H.R. 1981 truly is, as WebProNews has said, a giant turd wrapped in cotton candy. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 21 17:03:42 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:03:42 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Cyborgs, Software Spies and Shadow Wars: Our 5 Years (Un)covering the Hidden Pentagon Message-ID: <05CEB006-4FCE-4374-949F-DC03248E508D@infowarrior.org> (c/o MM) Cyborgs, Software Spies and Shadow Wars: Our 5 Years (Un)covering the Hidden Pentagon ? By Noah Shachtman ? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/dr-anniversary/ ? February 21, 2012 | ? 2:46 pm | ? Categories: Blog Bidness I?d like to pretend there was some master plan, that the site you see before you crept out of our skulls fully formed. But the truth is, when Sharon Weinberger and I launched Danger Room five years ago this week, we were just winging it. We wanted to write about the things we thought were cool: the Pentagon?s super-soldier project; China?s cyborg pigeons; the Navy?s puke rays and lightning guns. So we did. Sure, we had a few explicit goals. Most of them were quickly abandoned. We slowed down the cracked-out pace. We stopped covering martial arts and quit posting music videos just for the fuck of it. But a few things stuck. We looked on the costs and the politics and the strategies that came with the latest gear; the internet already had plenty of stroke sites for military hardware. We never accepted the idea that a ?blog? couldn?t have original reporting. We maintained a sense of the absurd, to keep the steady stream of killer robots and shady defense contractors and Third World invasions from turning into a crushing gloom. And, without ever explicitly giving ourselves a direction, we kept returning to the parts of the defense world that were largely obscured from the public view: the remote labs, the secret experiments, the mercenaries, the manhunters, the idea factories, the psychological operators, therapping terrorists, the special forces raising tribal armies. Over time, we called it the Hidden Pentagon, or the Defense Underground. A world where people earnestly try to build flying cars, collect terrorists? scents, turn soldiers into yogis and twist Twitter accounts into honeypots. A place where it?s perfectly rational to dispatch social scientists on combat missions, transform the airwaves into weapons, and launch Shadow Wars around the globe. A reality in which militants arekilled by the the push of a button two continents away, entire towns are under constant surveillance, the most disruptive spies are software, andwe?re not even allowed to read the laws that are supposed to keep us safe. To keep it all from getting too phantasmagoric, we tried to maintain Danger Room as a voice of reason in a world gone nuts. When Washingtonpanicked over cyberwars that weren?t or Korean missiles that couldn?t, we told D.C. to chill. When the military swooned over networked tanks or stealth destroyers or ICBMs that targeted terrorists (if they didn?t start World War III), we did our best to slap some sense into them. When policy-makers wallowed in fear of another 9/11, we told them to grow up and refuse to be terrorized. We also made sure to see the world?s conflict zones through our own eyes: dropping howitzers over Afghanistan, coming under fire in Helmand province, surviving a bomb attack in Logar, outrunning militants on the streets of Chad, exploring Gadhafi?s bunkers in Libya, witnessing drone strikes in Israel, festering in our own stink in Iraq. Along the way, we picked the brains of the military brass ? from the head of Darpa (on our very first day) to the Defense Secretary to theChairman of the Joint Chiefs to the commander of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. We even got ourselves a full-time reporter working out of the Pentagon. Finally ? and, really, this should have been item number one ? we broke news wherever and whenever we could: The rules that effectively killed frontline blogging; the seemingly shady deals done by top Pentagon officials; the previously unknown commando force eyeing Iran; thecomputer virus that infected the cockpits of the U.S. drone fleet. Occasionally, that news even made a difference. Spencer Ackerman?s series on government Islamophobia prompted the White House to order a review of all counterterror training materials. A few weeks after this blog got started, Sharon and I posted an internal memo showing that the Marine Corps had slow-rolled urgent requests for armored vehicles in Iraq. It didn?t take long for the Secretary of Defense to order thousands of the vehicles built, giving hundreds of thousands of troops better protection against improvised bombs. Not bad, for a bunch of reporters just riffing. Not bad, for a little website without a plan. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 21 17:12:08 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:12:08 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Apologies! My goof. Message-ID: Turns out one of the notes I sent out earlier today had some 'strong' profanity in it that I forgot to remove before posting. My apologies for causing any inadvertent nasty-grams from your e-mail admins for subscribers working for some of the more restrictive content-sensitive organisations. -- rick --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 21 17:54:55 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:54:55 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Appeals Court: CO woman must turn over computer password Message-ID: Colorado woman must turn over computer password By P. SOLOMON BANDA Associated Press Posted: 02/21/2012 10:22:42 AM PST Updated: 02/21/2012 02:16:35 PM PST http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20010787 DENVER?Sophisticated encryption software has become so readily available and so effective, it's surpassed the federal government's ability to seize computers and gather evidence in criminal cases. That development has raised questions in a mortgage and real estate fraud criminal case in U.S. District Court in Denver about whether turning over a computer password amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday refused to get involved in the case involving Ramona Fricosu of Colorado Springs, who has until Monday to comply with a judge's order and turn over an unencrypted version of the hard drive of a laptop. Fricosu's criminal case must first be resolved in the lower court before her attorney can appeal the order, the appellate court ruled. But there's a twist. "It is possible that Ms. Fricosu has no ability to decrypt the computer, because she probably did not set up the encryption on that computer and may not know or remember the password or passphrase," her attorney, Phillip Dubois, said in a statement. Federal prosecutors argue not allowing the government access to encrypted computers would make it impossible to prosecute crimes such as terrorism, child exploitation and drug trafficking. A judge last month sidestepped the issue of ordering Fricosu to turn over her password, and instead ordered her to turn over an unencrypted version of the hard drive. Prosecutors had argued the password was like gaining a key to a lock box and other instances where a defendant signs documents to allow investigators to access overseas accounts. But DuBois said that the order establishes "a very dangerous precedent that a person may be forced to assist in her prosecution in a way the law has not seen ever before." In a procedure agreed upon by DuBois and federal prosecutors, federal agents would meet Fricosu at a designated place with the laptop, which was seized during a search warrant. Then, the government will either look away or go to another room while Fricosu enters a password on her laptop and hands it back to agents so the hard drive can be copied. U.S. District Judge Robert E. Blackburn noted that the contents of one's mind is off limits, but ordered Fricosu to turn over an unencrypted version of her computer's hard drive, citing a Vermont case that stemmed from a 2006 border crossing search in which a man was later ordered to do the same. The courts in that case noted that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent had found child pornography on the computer, but couldn't access it later because of encryption, and turning over the unencrypted hard drive added nothing to the evidence the government already had. Blackburn also noted there were only a few cases on which to base his ruling. In Fricosu's case, "the government has no idea what's on that computer," DuBois said. That element makes it different from other cases, he said Fricosu and her husband, Scott Whatcott, are accused of targeting distressed homeowners in the Colorado Springs area. Prosecutors allege the two promised to pay off homeowners' mortgages, but then filed fraudulent documents in court to obtain title and sell the homes without paying the outstanding mortgage. DuBois described Fricosu as an immigrant from Romania who has two sons, no technical expertise in computers and whose computer was encrypted with what he believed was software available on the Internet or at stores. Encrypted computers are no longer for the technological savvy. With a few clicks of the mouse, 256-bit and 512-bit readily available encryption software makes computer hard drives almost impossible to break into, even for hackers. "Conceptually, it is possible to break encryption," but it could take years, said Jay Bavisi of the Albuquerque-based EC-Council, a so-called "white hat" and ethical hacker group that tests network and computer security. "It can be a time consuming and resource draining exercise in an already stressed environment." In one of the few examples of a similar case, a sheriff's detective under suspicion for improper use of a law enforcement database told investigators in King County, Wash., in 2004 that he simply forgot the password to the encrypted portion of his computer hard drive. The detective retired and the computer's hard drive was placed into storage. "We apparently did not ever crack the code to get in," sheriff's spokeswoman Cindi West said. The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment on Tuesday's appeals court decision. The San Francisco-based Electronic Freedom Foundation has opposed the government's actions in the case because it believes easy-to-use encryption software should be used by everybody to prevent computer crimes and fraud, said Hanni Meena Fakhoury, an attorney for the foundation. The case could render those privacy protections useless, he said. "The government is flipping that on its head and saying encryption is only good for criminals to hide what they're doing," Fakhoury said. "It's very decoder 'ringish.' But this is not some sleuth criminal tool." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 22 05:51:08 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:51:08 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Is cyberwar hype fuelling a cybersecurity-industrial complex Message-ID: <0CC1F764-4D01-409B-B9B3-35CCF60CFACE@infowarrior.org> (I say most certainly, yes....yes it is. -- rick) Is cyberwar hype fuelling a cybersecurity-industrial complex? Published: 17 February, 2012, 02:16 http://rt.com/usa/news/security-us-cyber-threat-529/ (30.0Mb) embed video TAGS: SciTech, Internet, Information Technology, USA Will the next Pearl Harbor really be a cyberattack? Or the cyberwar doomsday scenarios intentionally hyped up by a coalition of major arms manufacturers, the Pentagon, and Internet security firms greedy for profit? From the President of the United States, to top U.S. military and intelligence officials, to the pundits and anchors on mainstream news network screens ? the message is the same: cyberwar is coming. As described, the threat is terrifying: an invisible enemy that can destroy our lives and livelihood with a few strokes on a keyboard. Armies of cyberwarriors who can bring down power plants, derail trains, force airplanes to fall out of the sky and wreak massive havoc on the United States. Just last month, FBI Director Robert Mueller warned congress that threats from cyber-espionage, computer crime, and attacks on critical infrastructure will surpass terrorism as the number one threat facing the United States. Last June, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned a Senate panel that ?the next Pearl Harbor we confront could very well be a cyber attack that cripples our grid, our security systems.? Upon assuming office in 2009, President Barack Obama declared cyberspace a strategic national asset. ?Indeed, in today's world, acts of terror could come not only from a few extremists in suicide vests but from a few key strokes on the computer,? Obama said. ?A weapon of mass disruption.? But is ?cyberwar? really a threat? Is the U.S. truly in danger of a catastrophic cyber attack on the scale of a Pearl Harbor? According to a growing number of security experts, the answer is no. ?There is no chance whatsoever that nuclear power plants will be hacked, that electric infrastructure would be hacked and taken down for any significant period of time,? said Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies at the CATO Institute in Washington. ?The worst we can expect is disruption ? that's not war, it doesn't really terrorize. So the threats are serious but they're not to the level of war on terror." And yet many top officials who once helped develop the war on terror strategy are now leading experts in the area of cyberwar. Former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has been urging Congress to pass legislation to protect hospitals, power plants and other sites from cyber attacks. Chertoff, who co-founded the Chertoff Group, a security-consulting firm, warns that a cyberattack could be ?as consequential in terms of the economy, maybe even in terms of loss of life, as things we typically associate with war fighting.? Mike McConnell once headed the National Security Agency. Now a vice-chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton and leading the firm's cyber work, McConnell is on a campaign to raise awareness of the threat of such attacks being used against the US. "We?re the most vulnerable nation on earth to a cyberattack.? Booz Allen frequently works with the Defense Department and has recently launched a "Cyber Solutions Network" service, which advices businesses and governments on how to defend against cyber attacks. Richard Clarke served as a counterterrorism adviser to both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He now focuses his energy on warning against computer-based terrorism attacks. In his book, Cyberwar: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It, he describes frightening scenarios where hackers could cripple the United States with a few clicks of a mouse. Clarke also chairs Good Harbor Consulting, a strategic planning and corporate risk management consulting firm. ?For once it would be nice for the US to be able to be out in front of a catastrophe, to prevent that catastrophe,? said Clarke. ?We know how to do it we just need to spend the money.? And the money is flowing. A whole cottage industry has sprung up around cybersecurity. According to Informationweek, the U.S. government is expected to spend $10.5 billion a year on information security by 2015. And Reuters reports that the worldwide market is as high as $140 billion a year. Cybersecurity is also one of the few areas in the new White House budget that escaped spending cuts. And that, according to cybersecurity expert Dr. Sean Lawson, is the crux of the problem. ?It?s going to become more common for defense contractors to hype cyber threats because that?s one of the few strains of money that still exists,? said Lawson, who also works as a contributor for Forbes Magazine. ?It is a classic case of trying to motivate a response by rallying the troops by appealing to fear, by appealing to uncertainty.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 22 11:15:18 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:15:18 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Post-WikiLeaks Network Monitoring Takes Shape Message-ID: <9620BE67-079F-48A0-8E44-2CFB5D11CF6A@infowarrior.org> Post-WikiLeaks Network Monitoring Takes Shape February 21st, 2012 by Steven Aftergood http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/02/network_monitoring.html The heightened surveillance of classified government information networks that was a predictable response to the unauthorized disclosures published by WikiLeaks is becoming more clearly discernible. ?USSTRATCOM/USCYBERCOM is monitoring use of the SIPRNet and now has a mechanism for reporting certain anomalous behaviors for appropriate remediation,? said Thomas A. Ferguson, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) and Teresa Takai, DoD Chief Information Officer. ?We have established the first formal security oversight and assessment program to determine levels of compliance? with rules of access to classified networks,? they said in response to questions for the record from a March 10, 2011 hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on ?Information Sharing in the Era of WikiLeaks.? ?Simply understanding that we have this monitoring capability creates deterrence of willful mischief,? they added. ?We will improve our ability to individually track users through enforcement of strong user authentication on classified networks, ensure responsible controls on removable media, and provide strong website authentication for classified fabrics ? all to provide greater control over access to classified information,? wrote Corin R. Stone of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in her own answers to questions for the record from the same hearing. ?The FBI and CIA have robust insider threat programs in place for tracking the specific information accessed by users of their systems and detecting, to varying degrees, suspicious user behavior (e.g., excessive file accesses or data downloads) and alerting security personnel to take action. Several agencies (e.g., NGA, NSA, NRO) are maturing their audit and insider threat capabilities, while others still lag behind,? Ms. Stone wrote. ?The WikiLeaks disclosures highlighted the need to ?raise the bar? in terms of these capabilities,? she wrote. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, Defense Intelligence Agency director Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess said that ?The potential for trusted US Government and contractor insiders using their authorized access to personnel, facilities, information, equipment, networks or information systems in order to cause great harm is becoming an increasingly serious threat to national security.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 22 14:13:16 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:13:16 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fortress DC: New Capitol lockdown plan in works Message-ID: <66422FBB-74E6-44BF-86F4-496E84CDA295@infowarrior.org> Note how "blended" attacks are in vogue again, and how "cyber" apparently has become conceptually conflated in passing with the (FBI-supervised) lone wolf from the other day. *facepalm* But politicians need to panic; it's their substitute for acheivement. -- rick Fortress DC: New Capitol lockdown plan in works http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/02/fortress-dc-new-capitol-lockdown-plan-works/300171 A new and sweeping security project to lock down gateways to the U.S. Capitol is being planned, aimed at targeting gang assaults and lone wolf attackers like the alleged al Qaeda suicide bomber FBI agents seized earlier this month. Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers told Washington Secrets that the plan is to spend $7.8 million to secure House and Senate garages ?very quickly? should an attacker try bust in. ?It?s the ability to kind of secure our garages from entry in a very fast manner,? he said after briefly describing the funding request to a congressional committee. Ayers said the targets are ?car bombs or groups of people or whatever the threat may be.? The FBI last week arrested a Morrocan man in his 30s who they claim was on a suicide mission to blow up the Capitol. The FBI, who had the man under surveillance for months, said the suspect thought the undercover agents he was working with were associates of al Qaeda. While Ayers said that the threat of a suicide bomber or terrorist gang attack is not new, officials are warning lawmakers and Capitol security against a developing type of assault called a ?blended attack.? He said that those combine a physical attack against a target along with a cyber-attack against the same or different targets. He raised that issue during congressional testimony to justify a Capitol electrical upgrade and backup computer facility. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 22 14:32:07 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:32:07 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NSA: 'Anonymous Might One Day Hack Power Grids!' Anonymous: 'Huh?!?' Message-ID: <8D96DCF6-9005-4A38-8D44-DBC6B7CE20A6@infowarrior.org> NSA: 'Anonymous Might One Day Hack Power Grids!' Anonymous: 'Huh?!?' from the cyberfud dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/23433317835/nsa-anonymous-might-one-day-hack-power-grids-anonymous-huh.shtml The fight to ramp up the fear mongering over cybersecurity has reached new and even more ridiculous levels -- in which an "anonymous" government source claims (without quotations) that the head of the NSA, Gen. Keith Alexander, recently briefed the White House claiming that the non-group Anonymous might be able to mount a cyberattack to take down parts of the power grid. The dubious sourcing already makes the story suspect, and without more context, the whole thing seems silly -- especially given that anyone who actually has any inkling of how Anonymous actually functions would question why it would ever seek to shut down a power grid. Anonymous tends to do things either for fun (i.e., for "the lulz") or (more frequently) out of a more vigilante sense of justice (sometimes misguided, but usually well meaning). The attacks are pretty carefully focused on causing temporary inconveniences, rather than lasting damage, as a sign of protest, or on revealing secret info that it feels deserves a wider airing. Attacking the power grid fits with exactly none of that -- a point that Anonymous itself made in response to this claim: "Why would Anons shut off a power grid? There are ppl on life support / other vital services that rely on it. Try again NSA. #FearMongering" But, even more to the point, the WSJ piece is so ridiculous that it's hard not to laugh when you read the following part: "A stateless group like Anonymous doesn?t yet have that capability, officials say. But if the group?s members around the world developed or acquired it, an attack on the power grid would become far more likely, according to cybersecurity experts." I think Jerry Brito summed this up perfectly by saying: "Shorter version: Anonymous doesn?t have the power to attack the grid, but if they were able to get it someday, then they would have it. Got it." You could go even further. I mean, why not just start listing out other hypotheticals using those ridiculous two sentences as a basis. I'll start: ? That baseball player doesn't yet have the capability to hit a baseball thrown by a pitcher, officials say. But, if he somehow developed or acquired it, his likelihood of being able to play baseball effectively would become far more likely, according to sports experts. ? An infant doesn't yet have the capability to drive, officials say. But, if toddlers around the world develop or acquire it, automobile accidents would become far more likely, according to automotive experts. ? Prisoners don't yet have the capability to shoot each other, officials say. But, if inmates around the world developed or acquired it, gunfights in prison would become far more likely, according to anger management experts. ? Techdirt readers don't yet have the capability to make clueless government officials get transferred to jobs washing toilets, officials say. But, if the community there develops or acquires it, dumb politicians being out of work would become far more likely, according to political pundits. In what journalistic world is it okay to write something where the entire point of the article is to fear monger about a group having a certain power, and then brush aside the fact that it doesn't have that power... and appears to have no interest or possibility of obtaining that power... but then saying, "boy, if it did have that power, that would be dangerous!" None of the hypotheticals make any sense if there's no info on the interest or likelihood of the group in acquiring or using such capabilities. There is some speculation, based solely on Anonymous' (kinda stupid) idea to try to take down the entire internet to make a statement next month, that the group is moving in "this direction," but it still seems pretty silly. Furthermore, you have to get 10 whole paragraphs down in the article, before it's mentioned that there really isn't any real "cyberthreat" to the power grid. It seems like that sort of information belongs at the top of the article, along with a message about how the rest of the article is fear mongering about stuff that really isn't likely to happen. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 22 14:34:25 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:34:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Groucho Marx Writes the Greatest Shareholder Letter Ever Message-ID: <955D729F-40F0-4D6A-8EDB-F9E545313E8A@infowarrior.org> http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/go-easy-with-my-money.html In April of 1961, the inimitable Groucho Marx received a glossy annual report from the Franklin Corporation, a company in which he had recently become an investor. After flicking through the report, Groucho had some concerns, and so wrote the following letter to the company's President, Herman Goodman, to inform him. (Source: The Groucho Letters; Image: Groucho Marx at 85, via.) April 24, 1961 Dear Mr Goodman: I received the first annual report of the Franklin Corporation and though I am not an expert at reading balance sheets, my financial advisor (who, I assure you, knows nothing) nodded his head in satisfaction. You wrote that you hope I am not one of those borscht circuit stockholders who get a few points' profit and hastily scram for the hills. For your information, I bought Alleghany Preferred eleven years ago and am just now disposing of it. As a brand new member of your family, strategically you made a ghastly mistake in sending me individual pictures of the Board of Directors. Mr Roth, Chairman of the Board, merely looks sinister. You, the President, look like a hard worker with not too much on the ball. No one named Prosswimmer can possibly be a success. As for Samuel A. Goldblith, PhD., head of Food Technology at MIT, he looks as though he had eaten too much of the wrong kind of fodder. At this point I would like to stop and ask you a question about Marion Harper Jr. To begin with, I immediately distrust any man who has the same name as his mother. But the thing that most disturbs me about Junior is that I don't know what the hell he's laughing at. Is it because he sucked me into this Corporation? This is not the kind of face that inspires confidence in a nervous and jittery stockholder. George S. Sperti, I dismiss instantly. Any man who is the President of an outfit called Institutum Divi Thomae will certainly bear watching. Is he trying to impress stockholders with his knowledge of Latin? If so, why doesn't he read, "Winnie ille Pu"? James J. Sullivan, I am convinced, is Paul E. Prosswimmer photographed from a different angle. Offhand, I would say that I have summed up your group fairly accurately. I hope, for my sake, that I am mistaken. In closing, I warn you, go easy with my money. I am in an extremely precarious profession whose livelihood depends upon a fickle public. Sincerely yours, Groucho Marx (temporarialy at liberty) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 22 21:01:21 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:01:21 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Amazon Pulls Thousands of E-Books in Dispute Message-ID: Go ahead and try this with a REAL book, folks. Any wonder I don't own a Kindle? --- rick Amazon Pulls Thousands of E-Books in Dispute By DAVID STREITFELD | February 22, 2012, 5:37 pm3 Mark Lennihan/Associated Press http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/amazon-pulls-thousands-of-e-books-in-dispute/?ref=technology Amazon.com removed more than 4,000 e-books from its site this week after it tried and failed to get them more cheaply, a muscle-flexing move that is likely to have significant repercussions for the digital book market. Amazon is under pressure from Wall Street to improve its anemic margins. At the same time, it is committed to selling e-books as cheaply as possible as a way to preserve the dominance of its Kindle devices. When the Kindle contract for one of the country?s largest book distributors, the Independent Publishers Group, came up for renewal, Amazon saw a chance to gain some ground at I.P.G.?s expense. ?They decided they wanted me to change my terms,? said Mark Suchomel, president of the Chicago-based I.P.G. ?It wasn?t reasonable. There?s only so far we can go.? With each side unwilling to yield, Amazon pulled the plug, and all of I.P.G.?s books for Kindle disappeared. The physical books were not affected. A spokeswoman for Amazon declined to comment. The dispute quickly reignited fears in some corners about the power Amazon enjoys as the shift to e-books accelerates. Amazon is dominant in both the physical and electronic markets for books. ?This should be a matter of concern and a cautionary tale for the smaller presses whose licenses will come up for renewal,? said Andy Ross, an agent and a former bookseller. ?They are being offered a Hobson?s choice of accepting Amazon?s terms, which are unsustainable, or losing the ability to sell Kindle editions of their books, the format that constitutes about 60 percent of all e-books.? Amazon?s decision to remove the digital titles was its most drastic such action since it briefly removed the physical books and the e-books published by Macmillan in a pricing dispute two years ago. That time, Amazon eventually blinked, ceding to Macmillan and the other major publishers the ability to set their own e-book prices. This time, by selecting a group with less leverage, it may get its way. ?Presumably, this is a move Amazon is planning to make with other distributors and publishers as their contracts come up for renewal,? said Lorraine Shanley, a publishing consultant. Unless there is an outcry, she said, Amazon will not be likely to retreat. The dispute underlines the escalating struggle between Amazon and publishers and distributors over control of the e-book market. Margins with physical books were traditionally low, which meant that bookstores, publishers and distributors often did no more than scrape by. When Amazon began, it sold books at deep discounts but still had to depend on the good will of publishers. With e-books, the situation is more fluid. Readers expect them to be cheaper, which Amazon has been able to encourage because it is now a publisher as well. Traditional publishers, however, have their own modest margins to worry about. They worry that if e-books are priced too low, the public will devalue their worth, and the publishers might wither away ? something, they fear, that would suit Amazon just fine. The only two essential parties in the reading experience, Amazon executives are fond of saying, are the reader and the author. Middlemen like I.P.G. ? one of Amazon?s three ?distributors of the year? in 2008 ? are seen as dinosaurs in this framework. Among I.P.G.?s 500 clients are the American Cancer Society, Aptly Spoken Press, Bees Knees Books and Change the Universe Press. Until this week, I.P.G. had 4,443 titles available on Kindle. Mr. Suchomel said the publishers were solidly behind I.P.G. ?They were almost unanimously positive, saying, ?Don?t change your terms,? ? he said. I.P.G. is trying not to inflame the dispute. It declined to say precisely what terms Amazon was seeking, although it told its publishers a deal would have ?substantially? affected their revenue. On the home page of its Web site, it referred to the issue briefly and discreetly. On Amazon, the Kindle button for the I.P.G. titles is gone. The classic groupie memoir ?I?m With the Band? by Pamela Des Barres was listed as being available only in paperback and an audio edition. But in what might have been a sly message from Amazon, there was a button to click to tell the publisher you would like to read the book on Kindle. I.P.G. told its publishers to immediately begin stressing that their books were available in other electronic formats, including from the Amazon rivals Barnes & Noble and Apple. It also told them to contact their local independent bookstores and point out that they could now sell something that Amazon would not. ?They?re trying very hard to look on the bright side and make this a David and Goliath situation,? said Ms. Shanley, the consultant. Mr. Suchomel said that the next step was up to Amazon. ?We?re not going to go back to them and say we changed our mind,? he said. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 23 07:43:49 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Web Kids' manifesto Message-ID: <2975F822-5DA3-4A56-8FEB-E02148107A64@infowarrior.org> http://boingboing.net/2012/02/22/web-kids-manifesto.html Piotr Czerski's manifesto, "We, the Web Kids," originally appeared in a Polish daily newspaper, and has been translated to English and pastebinned. I'm suspicious of generational politics in general, but this is a hell of a piece of writing, even in translation. Full text: http://pastebin.com/0xXV8k7k --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 23 09:59:08 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:59:08 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Web Firms to Adopt 'No Track' Button Message-ID: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203960804577239774264364692.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories ? FEBRUARY 23, 2012 Web Firms to Adopt 'No Track' Button By JULIA ANGWIN A coalition of Internet giants including Google Inc. has agreed to support a do-not-track button to be embedded in most Web browsers?a move that the industry had been resisting for more than a year. The reversal is being announced as part of the White House's call for Congress to pass a "privacy bill of rights," that will give people greater control over the personal data collected about them. The industry has been caught in a number of high-profile privacy slip-ups. Facebook Inc. recently agreed to settle charges by the U.S. government that some of its privacy practices had been unfair and deceptive to users. And last week, Google acknowledged it had been circumventing the privacy settings of people using Apple Inc.'s Web-browsing software on their iPhones, iPads and computers. It stopped the practice after being contacted by The Wall Street Journal. The new do-not-track button isn't going to stop all Web tracking. The companies have agreed to stop using the data about people's Web browsing habits to customize ads, and have agreed not to use the data for employment, credit, health-care or insurance purposes. But the data can still be used for some purposes such as "market research" and "product development" and can still be obtained by law enforcement officers. The do-not-track button also wouldn't block companies such as Facebook Inc. from tracking their members through "Like" buttons and other functions. "It's a good start," said Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. "But we want you to be able to not be tracked at all if you so choose." The do-not-track button has been hotly debated ever since the Federal Trade Commission called for its adoption about two years ago. Mozilla Corp.'s Firefox Web browser was the first to add the do-not-track option early last year. Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer Web browser added it soon after, and Apple included it in the latest version of its operating system, Mountain Lion, which was released to developers this year. More on Web Privacy ? Tech Giants Agree to Deal on Privacy Policies for Apps ? Facebook Agrees to Privacy Settlement ? Google Bypassed Apple Browser Settings ? Lawmakers Target Google's Tracking But even people who clicked on the button were still being tracked because advertisers and tracking companies hadn't agreed to honor the system. Thursday's announcement means they will work to begin adopting and honoring the system within nine months, according to the coalition, the Digital Advertising Alliance, which represents over 400 companies. Speaking for the industry, Stuart Ingis, general counsel for the Digital Advertising Alliance, said the decision to adopt do-not-track is an "evolution" of the industry's approach. Previously, the industry had been pushing for consumers to "opt out" of Web tracking by clicking on icons in individual advertisements that offered consumers a choice of blocking the customized ads. Mr. Ingis said that the industry will continue that approach while it's in the process of adopting the do-not-track system. Google is expected to enable do-not-track in its Chrome Web browser by the end of this year. Susan Wojcicki, senior vice president of advertising at Google, said the company is pleased to join "a broad industry agreement to respect the 'Do Not Track' header in a consistent and meaningful way that offers users choice and clearly explained browser controls." White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Daniel Weitzner said the do-not-track option should clear up confusion among consumers who "think they are expressing a preference and it ends up, for a set of technical reasons, that they are not." Some critics said the industry's move could throw a wrench in a separate year-long effort by the World Wide Web consortium to set an international standard for do-not-track. But Mr. Ingis said he hopes the consortium could "build off of" the industry's approach. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz applauded the industry's move as a "very important step forward." He added the FTC would enforce compliance with the self-regulatory moves. The Obama administration just concluded a two-year study of how to regulate the commercial collection of consumer data online. The administration's report, expected to be released Thursday, calls for Congress to pass a "privacy bill of rights" that will give people greater control over the personal data collected about them. Commerce Secretary John Bryson added the administration won't wait for legislation before taking action on privacy. He said his agency will start convening industry groups and asking them to voluntarily agree to the privacy bill of rights guidelines. "This approach gives us more speed and flexibility than the traditional regulatory process," he said. Separately, a group of dozens of state attorneys general have raised concerns with Google over the Internet giant's updated privacy policy, marking the latest public flare-up over the planned changes. In a letter addressed to Google Chief Executive Larry Page on Wednesday and signed by more than 30 attorneys general, the National Association of Attorneys General wrote that Google's new policy of consolidating privacy practices across products "is troubling for a number of reasons." In a statement a Google spokesman said that, "Our updated Privacy Policy will make our privacy practices easier to understand, and it reflects our desire to create a seamless experience for our signed-in users." Write to Julia Angwin at julia.angwin at wsj.com Privacy Bill of Rights Here are the seven rights that the White House is calling for: ? Individual Control: Consumers have a right to exercise control over what personal data companies collect from them and how they use it. ? Transparency: Consumers have a right to easily understandable and accessible information about privacy and security practices. ? Respect for Context: Consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data. ? Security:Consumers have a right to secure and responsible handling of personal data. ? Access and Accuracy: Consumers have a right to access and correct personal data in usable formats, in a manner that is appropriate to the sensitivity of the data and the risk of adverse consequences to consumers if the data is inaccurate. ? Focused Collection: Consumers have a right to reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain. ? Accountability: Consumers have a right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the consumer-privacy bill of rights. Journal Community --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 23 12:42:04 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Nuke Map - interesting what-if tool Message-ID: Wonder how long before someone (maker, host, or ISP) gets asked to remove this tool citing national security reasons. Frankly, I find it pretty interesting from a historical and what-if perspective.. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Feb 23 13:02:03 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:02:03 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - "Unethical" HTML 5 DRM proposal draws criticism from W3C reps Message-ID: "Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps By Ryan Paul | Published about 11 hours ago http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/02/unethical-html-video-copy-protection-proposal-criticized-by-standards-stakeholders.ars A new Web standard proposal authored by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix seeks to bring copy protection mechanisms to the Web. The Encrypted Media Extensions draft defines a framework for enabling the playback of protected media content in the Web browser. The proposal is controversial and has raised concern among some parties that are participating in the standards process. In a discussion on the W3C HTML mailing list, critics questioned whether the proposed framework would really provide the level of security demanded by content providers. Mozilla asked for clarification from the authors about whether it would be possible to implement the proposal in an open source Web browser. Google's Ian Hickson, the WHATWG HTML specification editor, called the Encrypted Media proposal "unethical" and said that it wouldn't even fulfill the necessary technical requirements. "I believe this proposal is unethical and that we should not pursue it," he wrote in response to a message that Microsoft's Adrian Bateman posted on the mailing list about the draft. "The proposal above does not provide robust content protection, so it would not address this use case even if it wasn't unethical." The aim of the proposal is not to mandate a complete DRM platform, but to provide the necessary components for a generic key-based content decryption system. It is designed to work with pluggable modules that implement the actual decryption mechanisms. The proposal specifies a new set of API extensions for HTMLMediaElement, the interface that defines the specialized properties and JavaScript methods that are available on HTML audio and video elements. Copy protection is one of the issues that we discussed last year when we wrote about the future of video on the Web in a post-flash world. Major streaming video services, such as Netflix, are eager to abandon plugins in favor of standards-based HTML5 video, but they have been held back by the lack of support for robust DRM mechanisms, which they need to use in order to fulfill their contractual obligations to the content providers. Mozilla's Robert O'Callahan warned that the pressure to provide DRM in browsers might lead to a situation where major browser vendors and content providers attempt to push forward a suboptimal solution without considering the implications for other major stakeholders. Some of the discussion surrounding the Encrypted Media proposal seems to validate his concerns. Mozilla's Chris Pearce commented on the issue in a message on the W3C HTML mailing list and asked for additional details to shed light on whether the intended content protection scheme could be supported in an open source application. "Can you highlight how robust content protection can be implemented in an open source web browser?" he asked. "How do you guard against an open source web browser simply being patched to write the frames/samples to disk to enable (presumably illegal) redistribution of the protected content?" Netflix's Mark Watson responded to the message and acknowledged that strong copy protection can't be implemented in an open source Web browser. He deflected the issue by saying that copy protection mechanisms can be implemented in hardware, and that such hardware can be used by open source browsers. "There exist many devices with content protection mechanisms of various sorts baked into their firmware/hardware. Open source software could make use of such capabilities in just the same way as it makes use of other hardware capabilities," he wrote. "If my understanding is correct, it's not unknown for open source products to make use of or even ship with closed source components, such as drivers, for access to platform or device capabilities." This would potentially address the issue on mobile and embedded devices with the relevant hardware capabilities, but it's not clear what it means on the desktop. This response is unlikely to satisfy Mozilla or diminish the organization's concerns. The Encrypted Media specification is currently a draft-stage proposal. It is backed by several major stakeholders, but it doesn't appear to be gathering the momentum it needs to gain broader support. The requirement for DRM on streaming video isn't likely to go away, however. If consensus can't be reached and no better approach emerges, there is a risk that some browser vendors will simply implement their own solutions outside of the standards process. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 24 06:34:48 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - more on....Web Kids' manifesto References: Message-ID: <5A65AD8C-AB83-4D90-A2F0-714464F37F97@infowarrior.org> Begin forwarded message: > If you find this reply worthy, please attribute to "CB" > > --------> > > Hello. > > I'm a tweener. People try to shoehorn me into the baby boom, but I'm between Buffalo > Springfield and Nirvana. I'm the prototype for all you "Web Kids." We were the > shock troops for the BBS and Usenet. We're the ones the greybeards who invented all this > Internet shit trained. We're the ones you go to when it breaks, and we fix it and make it > better. > > We got busted hacking and phreaking first, before your LOIC was even written. > > We grok ARP, ICMP, FTP, GRE, RIP, HTTP 1.0 and understand bandwidth delay product > implications like the Web Kids never will, and never got ribbons for participation. > Well, maybe "War Games" was our ribbon, but it was too fantastic.... > > So, Web Kids, get fsck'ng over yourselves. Grow a bullshit detector (hint--if you think > any hits for that string on the first page of Google results is correct, you probably > don't have an adequate one) and get out there and DO SOMETHING. Quit Occupying, > opining, and whining and DO SOMETHING. Make your country a better and fairer place to > live. Yes, you'll have to get involved in the rough and tumble of politics, make enemies, > and split friendships. Life sometimes hurts more than unfriending. > > Note: If you are a resident of an "Arab Spring" country and are or have actively been > involved in protests, demonstrations, or revolutions you have fsck'ng DONE SOMETHING and > I sincerely hope you find your way through the chaos to peace and prosperity. > From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Feb 24 06:46:35 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:46:35 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: Creating a Cyber Coast Guard References: <7EB33041E473EC4B8C08A7CA087AC8720281BA71@0015-its-exmb12.us.saic.com> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > Creating a Cyber Coast Guard > Filed under: Congress and HLS,Cybersecurity,Private Sector ? by Philip J. Palin on February 24, 2012 > http://www.hlswatch.com/2012/02/24/creating-a-cyber-coast-guard/ > It is not yet clear if the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 will be taken up by the whole Senate ? as previously announced ? or disappear into committee review while under sustained attack by those opposed. > > Senator John McCain, one of those opposed, has promised a competing piece of legislation: > > The fundamental difference in our alternative approach is that we aim to enter into a cooperative relationship with the entire private sector through information sharing, rather than an adversarial one with prescriptive regulations. Our bill, which will be introduced when we return from the Presidents? Day recess, will provide a common-sense path forward to improve our nation?s cybersecurity defenses. > > Last Friday I outlined the perceived ? in my judgment, real ? tension between collaboration and compliance that any approach to effective cybersecurity will require. The real debate is over how to resolve this tension: with more dependence on voluntary cooperation or the threat of regulation. (To be clear, the proposal unveiled on February 14 by Senators Lieberman, Collins, and others does not create new regulations per se, but it does initiate a public-private process that would eventually create a regulatory regime.) > > Some private sector organizations have welcomed the opportunity to frame-up the process, others are ready to do what they can to stop any movement to regulation. So far the private sector line-up on each side seems mostly to reflect revenue streams. Those that may make money on increased attention to cybersecurity are in favor of the current proposal, those that see cybersecurity mostly as a cost are opposed. (The cost-benefit discussion is, so far, not very sophisticated on either side.) > > While the efficacy of the new bill is debatable, it is clear the current approach ? depending almost entirely on voluntary collaboration ? has not worked. The weakest links in the cybersecurity system are the least willing to show up, talk turkey, and truly collaborate in sharing information and changing behavior. What do you do when ?pretty please?, earnest presentations on self-interest, and peer pressure do not work? What do you do when neglect by one ?house? on the block endangers the safety of the entire block (or city)? > > Sanctions are needed. But no matter how tough, sanctions will not be sufficient. Whatever sack of sanctions are available, unless the sanctions are used to craft collaboration (rather than mere compliance) cybersecurity will not be enhanced. The threat of regulatory sanctions may encourage collaboration, but a rigid regulatory approach alone will only achieve minimal compliance, which in cyberspace will always lag behind new threats and vulnerabilities. > > Whichever of the current sides win, execution will be key. The current legislation addresses execution primarily under Title III through a DHS National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications. The new entity would combine several existing offices, and would be directed by a Presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate. Here are the director?s duties enumerated in the current legislation: > > (1) manage Federal efforts to secure, protect, and ensure the resiliency of the Federal information infrastructure, national information infrastructure, and national security and emergency preparedness communications infrastructure of the United States, working cooperatively with appropriate government agencies and the private sector; > > (2) support private sector efforts to secure, protect, and ensure the resiliency of the national information infrastructure; > > (3) prioritize the efforts of the Center to address the most significant risks and incidents that have caused or are likely to cause damage to the Federal information infrastructure, the national information infrastructure, and national security and emergency preparedness communications infrastructure of the United States; > > (4) ensure, in coordination with the privacy officer designated under subsection (j), the Privacy Officer appointed under section 222, and the Director of the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties appointed under section 705, that the activities of the Center comply with all policies, regulations, and laws protecting the privacy and civil liberties of United States persons; and > > (5) perform such other duties as the Secretary may require relating to the security and resiliency of the Federal information infrastructure, national information infrastructure, and the national security and emergency preparedness communications infrastructure of the United States. > > Title III continues for another 28 pages. Included under Authorities and Responsibilities of the Center, ?serve as the focal point for, and foster collaboration between, the Federal Government, State and local governments, and private entities on matters relating to the security of the national information infrastructure.? > > On page 114 of the proposed legislation a supervisor training program for the Center is set out. The current language suggests Senator Akaka and his staff have persisted in pushing his perennial concerns. It?s all good. It could be better. > > The currently proposed training program is mostly internally focused. I suggest language be added to focus on mission achievement. Consider for a moment a supervisor training curriculum focused on just one of the duties listed above, ? support private sector efforts to secure, protect, and ensure the resiliency of the national information infrastructure? > > What is the nature of the private sector? > > What are the private sector?s current efforts related to cyberspace? > > What does ?secure?, ?protect?, and ?ensure the resiliency? of cyberspace mean? > > What is the national information infrastructure? > > What does it mean to ?support? the private sector? Why this verb rather than another? > > That would be an interesting ? valuable ? curriculum. Develop similar curricula around each of the statutory goals, include private sector participants in the curriculum? and a whole new approach to private-public collaboration might be cultivated. > > This curriculum should include a heavy dose of culture, a culture of private-public collaboration. If the Center becomes a cyber-SEC none of us will be any safer. Cybersecurity cannot focus on accountability after-the-fact. The focus must be on cultivating a culture of prevention and resilience, not compliance. > > For this purpose, I propose the Akaka Academy for Cybersecurity give close attention to the way the Coast Guard cultivates a collaborative relationship with owners and operators of marine vessels. Just for a taste of what I mean, consider the implications of the following written instruction from a Coast Guard flag officer? and this is not atypical, this approach is entirely consistent with standard Coast Guard practice. > > The Coast Guard?s objective is to administer vessel inspection laws and regulations so as to promote safe, well equipped vessels that are suitable for their intended service. It is not the Coast Guard?s intent to place unnecessary economic and operational burdens upon the marine industry. In determining inspection requirements and procedures, inspection personnel must recognize and give due consideration to the following factors: > > Delays to vessels, which can be costly, need to be balanced against the risks imposed by continued operation of the vessel, with safety of life, property, and the environment always the predominant factor over economics; > Certain types of construction, equipment, and/or repairs are more economically advantageous to the vessel operator and can provide the same measure of safety; > Some repairs can be safely delayed and can be more economically accomplished at a different place and time; > The overall safety of a vessel and its operating conditions, such as route, hours of operations, and type of operation, should be considered in determining inspection requirements; > Vessels are sometimes subject to operational requirements of organizations and agencies other than the Coast Guard; and > A balance must be maintained between the requirements of safety and practical operation. Arbitrary decisions or actions that contribute little to the vessel?s safety and tend to discourage the construction or operation of vessels must be avoided. > I know of no better example of effective private-public collaboration than that of the U.S. Coast Guard with the industry it helps regulate, serve, and sometimes save. It is a cultural model well-suited to the cyber domain. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Feb 25 10:01:20 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:01:20 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Media Headlines Will Lead You To Ruin Message-ID: <7A53BE45-D9C4-4037-ACC6-B39ACBC9A96A@infowarrior.org> Media Headlines Will Lead You To Ruin By Lance Roberts of Streettalk Live February 21, 2012 http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/guest/Lance-Roberts-120221-Media-Headlines.php It's quite amazing actually. Two weeks ago Barron's ran the cover page of "Dow 15,000". Over the weekend Alan Abelson ran a column titled "Everyone In The Pool". Today, CNBC leads with "Dow 13,000 May Finally Lure Investors Back Into Stocks". Unfortunately, for most investors, the CNBC headline is probably right. Investors, on the whole, have a tendency to do exactly the opposite of what they should do when it comes to investing: "Buy High and Sell Low." The reality is that the emotions of greed and fear do more to cause investors to lose money in the market than being robbed at the point of a gun. Take a look at the chart of the data from ICI that tracks flows of money into and out of mutual funds. When markets are correcting, investors panic and sell out of stocks -- with the majority of the selling occurring near the lows of the market. When the markets rally, investors continue to sell as they disbelieve the rally initially and are just happy to be getting some of their money back. However, as the rally continues to advance from oversold conditions - investors are "lured" back into the water as memories of past pain fades and the "greed factor" overtakes logic. Unfortunately, this buying always tends to occur at, or near, market peaks. However, with the market now pushing higher, and "Dow 13,000" being flashed across CNBC with a point-by-point count of the potential crossing, investors are once again giving into their "greed" emotion. The reality is that the market is already pushing extremes, and the opportunity to buy into the market has already passed. This emotion-based "lemming" response to very advanced rallies is the same "siren's song" that has lured many a ship's Captain to their watery graves. Listening to media will lead you to ruin. The chart shows the S&P 500 from the beginning of 2011 to February 17, 2012. The analysis is simply the price of the market overlaid with 2 and 3 standard deviations of the price from the 60 day moving average. We have used the analogy many times in the past that the market is like a rubber band. During bullish trends the market can get stretched to extremes from the moving average for a short period of time before it snaps back. Currently, at 3 standard deviations above the 60 day moving average, that snap back will come in a very sharp and fast manner. However, this is when the "greater fool" theory sets in. As investors, our job now is to be selling off our investments to those "greater fools" who are willing to over pay for an asset. Last September, when the market was trading at 3 standard deviations below the moving average, was the time to be buying assets as we recommended in our weekly newsletter back then again in December. Not today. So, while the media is busy putting on party hats and penning articles that the "Market Is Back", just remember that we have been here four times before - both on the way up and the way down. Very likely we will see these numbers again and not in the far too distant future. The point here for individuals trying to save for their retirement is that "getting back to even is not an investment strategy." While the media continues to tout every advance to a previous level as the coming of the next great bull market, keep in mind that this has nothing to do with your money or investing. Bonds and cash have outperformed the stock market over the last decade, yet individuals, chided along by the media and Wall Street, still chase the worst performing asset class over that time frame. Let me turn this around. As markets advance in price, the risk of investing money, or rather the potential for loss, grows. It is when markets decline that we should be getting excited about investing. Yet, it is exactly the opposite of how individuals react. The media should be hitting the airwaves on down market days with "The market got CHEAPER today as the S&P 500 declined..." The reality is, however, that declining markets don't sell the products of mutual funds companies or Wall Street brokerage firms. Declining markets are not as fun as advancing markets, and investors just want to make money. Unfortunately, it just isn't that easy. It is interesting that people spend years in school to become Doctors, Lawyers and Engineers but spend virtually no time studying and learning the most complicated game in the world ? investing. Yet this is the game that they commit their hard-earned dollars to playing every day. If you ask an individual if they would take their entire 401k plan and go to Vegas to gamble with it, they will look at you as if your crazy. That same individual, however, speculates with their retirement funds in a "virtual casino" every day with the hopes that somehow it will turn out to be a greater sum down the road. Since most investors lose money in the markets over time due to fees, emotional biases, trading mistakes, etc., the odds in Vegas might just be better. To be a successful investor you have to be a historian, statistician, economist, financial analyst, and a fortune teller all rolled into one. Even with the requisite skills, education and experience, successful long-term investing remains a challenge in an environment where markets are inefficient, and to to some degree artificially manipulated by government policy. With corporate earnings now slowing sharply, the economy growing at a sub-par rate, the Eurozone headed towards a prolonged recession and the American consumer facing higher gas prices and reduced incomes, a continued bull market rally from here is highly suspect. Add to those economic facts the technical aspects of a very extended market with overbought internals, and the reality suggests that this is a better place to be selling investments instead of buying them. Or ... go to Vegas and bet on black. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Feb 26 10:42:25 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:42:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Iran: drumbeat of war has a familiar sound Message-ID: Iran: drumbeat of war has a familiar sound Impetus towards war with Iran can only be explained in terms of a western desire for Iraq-style regime change ? Simon Tisdall ? guardian.co.uk, Friday 24 February 2012 11.47 EST http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/24/iran-war-buildup-iraq The drumbeat of war with Iran grows steadily more intense. Each day brings more defiant rhetoric from Tehran, another failed UN nuclear inspection, reports of western military preparations, an assassination, a missile test, or a dire warning that, once again, the world is sliding towards catastrophe. If this all feels familiar, that's because it is. For Iran, read Iraq in the countdown to the 2003 invasion. A decisive moment may arrive when Barack Obama meets Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in Washington on 5 March. "The meeting ? will be definitive," said Ari Shavit in Haaretz. "If the US president wants to prevent a disaster, he must give Netanyahu iron-clad guarantees the US will stop Iran in any way necessary and at any price after the 2012 [US] elections. If Obama doesn't do this, he will obligate Netanyahu to act before the 2012 elections." If accurate, this is not much of a choice. It suggests military action by the US or Israel or both is unavoidable, the only question being one of timing. Objectively speaking, this is not actually the position. All concerned still have choices. The case against Iran's nuclear programme is far from proven. It is widely agreed that limited military strikes will not work; a more extensive, longer-lasting campaign would be required. And Obama in particular, having striven to end the Iraq and Afghan wars, is loath to start another. But as with Iraq in 2003, the sense that war is inevitable and unstoppable is being energetically encouraged by political hardliners and their media accomplices on all sides, producing a momentum that even the un-bellicose Obama may find hard to resist. A recent analysis of US public opinion revealed deeply ambivalent attitudes on Iran, with the majority of Americans apparently favouring diplomatic solutions. Yet as Republican presidential candidates exploit the issue, as the Israelis lobby America, and as Iranian factions manoeuvre ahead of parliamentary polls, the likelihood grows that doves and doubters will again be either converted or ignored. In some key respects, the Iran crisis is distinctly different from that over Iraq in 2002-03. As matters stand, similarly strident warmongering surrounding Iran is thus hard to understand or explain ? unless the ultimate, unstated objective is not to curb Iran's nuclear programme but, as in Iraq, to overthrow its rulers. Bogeymen George Bush and Tony Blair claimed a moral imperative in toppling the "monstrous" dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. But the much vilified Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, is no Saddam, and neither is the country's bumbling Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Iranian regime is repressive and sporadically brutal, but so too are many developing world governments. Unlike Saddam's Ba'athists, it has significant democratic and ideological underpinning. As a bogeyman whose depredations might justify international intervention, Ahmadinejad is a flop. Weapons of Mass Destruction Saddam, notoriously, had no deployable or usable WMD, but his overthrow was primarily justified by the mistaken belief that he did. The present western consensus is that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability, but does not have an atomic bomb and is not currently trying to build one. Khamenei said this week that nuclear weapons were "useless and harmful" and that possessing them was sinful . Netanyahu's belief that Israel faces an imminent, existential threat is visceral rather than fact-based. Israel's refusal to acknowledge its own nuclear arsenal, let alone contemplate its reduction, further undermines the case for action. Terrorism Plenty of evidence exists that Iran supports, or has supported, armed militants, jihadis, and anti-Israeli and anti-western armed groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, providing financial and political backing, arms and training. In this respect, its behaviour is more threatening to western interests than was that of Saddam's secular regime, no friend to Islamists. But limited or even protracted attacks on Iran's nuclear and/or military facilities would not end these links, unless there was a shift of political direction in Tehran. Strategic power-games Iraq was considered important for its strategic position at the heart of the Arab Middle East and its economic potential, especially its oil reserves. Similarly, there can be no doubt the US and Britain would like to see energy-rich Iran return to the western camp, as in the pre-revolution days of the Shah. Conversely, Iran's military is more powerful and more committed to the defence of the status quo, from which it benefits greatly, than was Iraq's. The potential disruption to oil supplies and western economies, not to mention the impact of asymmetric Iranian counter-attacks, makes a resort to war contingent on producing lasting dividends. Political imperatives In contrast to the splits over Iraq, the main western powers are united in their determination to bring Iran to heel. As well as Netanyahu, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama have all declared an Iranian bomb unacceptable. Their inflexibility thus makes war more rather than less likely should Iran refuse to back down. "Having made the case for urgency and concerted action, it would be difficult for Obama to tell the world 'never mind' and shift to a strategy that accepts Iranian membership in the nuclear club," said Michael Gerson in the Washington Post. In short, the Iranian crisis differs from that over Iraq in 2003 in key respects. But the current impetus towards war can only be explained in terms of a western desire for Iraq-style regime change ? because only regime change may achieve the de-nuclearisation the west insists upon. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Feb 26 11:01:16 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:01:16 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Bell Labs: True Innovation Message-ID: <8204DF90-66BC-44E9-914C-C438CCA80B03@infowarrior.org> February 25, 2012 True Innovation By JON GERTNER http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/innovation-and-the-bell-labs-miracle.html ?INNOVATION is what America has always been about,? President Obama remarked in his recent State of the Union address. It?s hard to disagree, isn?t it? We live in a world dominated by innovative American companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google and Facebook. And even in the face of a recession, Silicon Valley?s relentless entrepreneurs have continued to churn out start-up companies with outsize, world-changing ambitions. But we idealize America?s present culture of innovation too much. In fact, our trailblazing digital firms may not be the hothouse environments for creativity we might think. I find myself arriving at these doubts after spending five years looking at the innovative process at Bell Labs, the onetime research and development organization of the country?s formerly monopolistic telephone company, AT&T. Why study Bell Labs? It offers a number of lessons about how our country?s technology companies ? and our country?s longstanding innovative edge ? actually came about. Yet Bell Labs also presents a more encompassing and ambitious approach to innovation than what prevails today. Its staff worked on the incremental improvements necessary for a complex national communications network while simultaneously thinking far ahead, toward the most revolutionary inventions imaginable. Indeed, in the search for innovative models to address seemingly intractable problems like climate change, we would do well to consider Bell Labs? example ? an effort that rivals the Apollo program and the Manhattan Project in size, scope and expense. Its mission, and its great triumph, was to connect all of us, and all of our new machines, together. In his recent letter to potential shareholders of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg noted that one of his firm?s mottoes was ?move fast and break things.? Bell Labs? might just as well have been ?move deliberately and build things.? This sounds like the quaint pursuit of men who carried around slide rules and went to bed by 10 o?clock. But it was not. Consider what Bell Labs achieved. For a long stretch of the 20th century, it was the most innovative scientific organization in the world. On any list of its inventions, the most notable is probably the transistor, invented in 1947, which is now the building block of all digital products and contemporary life. These tiny devices can accomplish a multitude of tasks. The most basic is the amplification of an electric signal. But with small bursts of electricity, transistors can be switched on and off, and effectively be made to represent a ?bit? of information, which is digitally expressed as a 1 or 0. Billions of transistors now reside on the chips that power our phones and computers. Bell Labs produced a startling array of other innovations, too. The silicon solar cell, the precursor of all solar-powered devices, was invented there. Two of its researchers were awarded the first patent for a laser, and colleagues built a host of early prototypes. (Every DVD player has a laser, about the size of a grain of rice, akin to the kind invented at Bell Labs.) Bell Labs created and developed the first communications satellites; the theory and development of digital communications; and the first cellular telephone systems. What?s known as the charge-coupled device, or CCD, was created there and now forms the basis for digital photography. Bell Labs also built the first fiber optic cable systems and subsequently created inventions to enable gigabytes of data to zip around the globe. It was no slouch in programming, either. Its computer scientists developed Unix and C, which form the basis for today?s most essential operating systems and computer languages. And these are just a few of the practical technologies. Some Bell Labs researchers composed papers that significantly extended the boundaries of physics, chemistry, astronomy and mathematics. Other Bell Labs engineers focused on creating extraordinary new processes (rather than new products) for Ma Bell?s industrial plants. In fact, ?quality control? ? the statistical analysis now used around the world as a method to ensure high-quality manufactured products ? was first applied by Bell Labs mathematicians. So how can we explain how one relatively small group of scientists and engineers, working at Bell Labs in New Jersey over a relatively short span of time, came out with such an astonishing cluster of new technologies and ideas? They invented the future, which is what we now happen to call the present. And it was not by chance or serendipity. They knew something. But what? At Bell Labs, the man most responsible for the culture of creativity was Mervin Kelly. Probably Mr. Kelly?s name does not ring a bell. Born in rural Missouri to a working-class family and then educated as a physicist at the University of Chicago, he went on to join the research corps at AT&T. Between 1925 and 1959, Mr. Kelly was employed at Bell Labs, rising from researcher to chairman of the board. In 1950, he traveled around Europe, delivering a presentation that explained to audiences how his laboratory worked. His fundamental belief was that an ?institute of creative technology? like his own needed a ?critical mass? of talented people to foster a busy exchange of ideas. But innovation required much more than that. Mr. Kelly was convinced that physical proximity was everything; phone calls alone wouldn?t do. Quite intentionally, Bell Labs housed thinkers and doers under one roof. Purposefully mixed together on the transistor project were physicists, metallurgists and electrical engineers; side by side were specialists in theory, experimentation and manufacturing. Like an able concert hall conductor, he sought a harmony, and sometimes a tension, between scientific disciplines; between researchers and developers; and between soloists and groups. ONE element of his approach was architectural. He personally helped design a building in Murray Hill, N.J., opened in 1941, where everyone would interact with one another. Some of the hallways in the building were designed to be so long that to look down their length was to see the end disappear at a vanishing point. Traveling the hall?s length without encountering a number of acquaintances, problems, diversions and ideas was almost impossible. A physicist on his way to lunch in the cafeteria was like a magnet rolling past iron filings. Another element of the approach was aspirational. Bell Labs was sometimes caricatured as an ivory tower. But it is more aptly described as an ivory tower with a factory downstairs. It was clear to the researchers and engineers there that the ultimate aim of their organization was to transform new knowledge into new things. Steven Chu, secretary of the Department of Energy, won a Nobel Prize in 1997 for his work at Bell Labs in the early 1980s. He once said that working in an environment of applied science like Bell Labs ?doesn?t destroy a kernel of genius, it focuses the mind.? At Bell Labs, even for researchers in pursuit of pure scientific understanding, it was obvious that their work could be used. Still another method Mr. Kelly used to push ahead was organizational. He set up Bell Labs? satellite facilities in the phone company?s manufacturing plants, so as to help transfer all these new ideas into things. But the exchange was supposed to go both ways, with the engineers learning from the plant workers, too. As manufacturing has increasingly moved out of the United States in the past half century, it has likewise taken with it a whole ecosystem of industrial knowledge. But in the past, this knowledge tended to push Bell Labs toward new innovations. Mr. Kelly believed that freedom was crucial, especially in research. Some of his scientists had so much autonomy that he was mostly unaware of their progress until years after he authorized their work. When he set up the team of researchers to work on what became the transistor, for instance, more than two years passed before the invention occurred. Afterward, when he set up another team to handle the invention?s mass manufacture, he dropped the assignment into the lap of an engineer and instructed him to come up with a plan. He told the engineer he was going to Europe in the meantime. In sum, he trusted people to create. And he trusted them to help one another create. To him, having at Bell Labs a number of scientific exemplars ? ?the guy who wrote the book,? as these standouts were often called, because they had in fact written the definitive book on a subject ? was necessary. But so was putting them into the everyday mix. In an era before cubicles, all employees at Bell Labs were instructed to work with their doors open. Saddled with a difficult problem, a new hire there, an anxious nobody, was regularly directed by a supervisor toward the guy who wrote the book. Some young employees would quake when they were told to ask a question of famous mathematicians like Claude Shannon or legendary physicists like William Shockley. Still, Bell Labs? policy was not to turn them away. THERE was another element necessary to Mervin Kelly?s innovation strategy, an element as crucial, or more crucial even, than all the others. Mr. Kelly talked fast and walked fast; he ran up and down staircases. But he gave his researchers not only freedom but also time. Lots of time ? years to pursue what they felt was essential. One might see this as impossible in today?s faster, more competitive world. Or one might contend it is irrelevant because Bell Labs (unlike today?s technology companies) had the luxury of serving a parent organization that had a large and dependable income ensured by its monopoly status. Nobody had to meet benchmarks to help with quarterly earnings; nobody had to rush a product to market before the competition did. But what should our pursuit of innovation actually accomplish? By one definition, innovation is an important new product or process, deployed on a large scale and having a significant impact on society and the economy, that can do a job (as Mr. Kelly once put it) ?better, or cheaper, or both.? Regrettably, we now use the term to describe almost anything. It can describe a smartphone app or a social media tool; or it can describe the transistor or the blueprint for a cellphone system. The differences are immense. One type of innovation creates a handful of jobs and modest revenues; another, the type Mr. Kelly and his colleagues at Bell Labs repeatedly sought, creates millions of jobs and a long-lasting platform for society?s wealth and well-being. The conflation of these different kinds of innovations seems to be leading us toward a belief that small groups of profit-seeking entrepreneurs turning out innovative consumer products are as effective as our innovative forebears. History does not support this belief. The teams at Bell Labs that invented the laser, transistor and solar cell were not seeking profits. They were seeking understanding. Yet in the process they created not only new products but entirely new ? and lucrative ? industries. There?s no single best way to innovate. Silicon Valley?s methods have benefited our country well over the course of several decades. And it would be absurd to return to an era of big monopolies. Today?s telecom industries are thriving, and customers likewise have access to a dazzling range of affordable devices and services, which most likely would not have been true had the old phone company remained intact. Though it had custody of the world?s most innovative labs, AT&T introduced new products and services slowly, and rarely cheaply. As Time magazine once put it, ?Few companies are more conservative; none are more creative.? But to consider the legacy of Bell Labs is to see that we should not mistake small technological steps for huge technological leaps. It also shows us that to always ?move fast and break things,? as Facebook is apparently doing, or to constantly pursue ?a gospel of speed? (as Google has described its philosophy) is not the only way to get where we are going. Perhaps it is not even the best way. Revolutions happen fast but dawn slowly. To a large extent, we?re still benefiting from risks that were taken, and research that was financed, more than a half century ago. Jon Gertner is the author of the forthcoming ?The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Feb 26 12:13:54 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:13:54 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FBI Turns Off Thousands of GPS Devices After Supreme Court Ruling Message-ID: <7FFD6C53-4AA7-48A1-86CE-35A420132F8A@infowarrior.org> February 25, 2012, 3:36 PM FBI Turns Off Thousands of GPS Devices After Supreme Court Ruling By Julia Angwin http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/02/25/fbi-turns-off-thousands-of-gps-devices-after-supreme-court-ruling/ The Supreme Court?s recent ruling overturning the warrantless use of GPS tracking devices has caused a ?sea change? inside the U.S. Justice Department, according to FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann. Mr. Weissmann, speaking at a University of San Francisco conference called ?Big Brother in the 21st Century? on Friday, said that the court ruling prompted the FBI to turn off about 3,000 GPS tracking devices that were in use. These devices were often stuck underneath cars to track the movements of the car owners. In U.S. v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that using a device to track a car owner without a search warrant violated the law. After the ruling, the FBI had a problem collecting the devices that it had turned off, Mr. Weissmann said. In some cases, he said, the FBI sought court orders to obtain permission to turn the devices on briefly ? only in order to locate and retrieve them. Mr. Weissmann said that the FBI is now working to develop new guidelines for the use of GPS devices. He said the agency is also working on guidelines to cover the broader implications of the court decision beyond GPS devices. For instance, he said, agency is now ?wrestling? with the legality of whether agents can lift up the lid of a trash can without committing trespass. The majority opinion in U.S. v. Jones held that the agents had trespassed when placing the GPS device on a car without warrant. He said the agency is also considering the implications of the concurring justices ? whose arguments were largely based on the idea that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the totality of their movements, even if those movements are in public. ?From a law enforcement perspective, even though its not technically holding, we have to anticipate how it?s going to go down the road,? Mr. Weissmann said. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Feb 26 19:43:38 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:43:38 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Wikileaks_Reveals_Privately_Run_?= =?windows-1252?q?CIA=92s_Dirty_Secrets?= Message-ID: Wikileaks Reveals Privately Run CIA?s Dirty Secrets http://gizmodo.com/5888440/wikileaks-reveals-private-cias-dirty-laundry-updating-live Wikileaks has published five million emails from Stratfor, an intelligence company based in Texas that, looking at their practices, appears to be America's very own privately run CIA. According to Wikileaks, their deals would also include the use of privileged information to make money in financial markets. Stratfor's clients are the US Government, other countries and military organizations, as well as private companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman or Raytheon. They have a global network of spies in governments and media companies, including "secret deals with dozens of media organizations and journalists, from Reuters to the Kiev Post." According to the emails, these spies get paid in Swiss bank accounts and pre-paid credit cards. Wikileaks says that the emails also reveal the creation of a parallel organization called StratCap. Apparently, this organization would use Stratfor network of informants to make money in financial markets. Wikileaks claims that the emails show how then-Goldman Sachs Managing Director Shea Morenz and Stratfor CEO George Friedman put StratCap in motion in 2009. Here are some of the highlights, according to Wikileaks: Global network of informants The Global Intelligence Files exposes how Stratfor has recruited a global network of informants who are paid via Swiss banks accounts and pre-paid credit cards. Who are their spies? Government and diplomatic sources from around the world give Stratfor advance knowledge of global politics and events in exchange for money. Stratfor has a mix of covert and overt informants, which includes government employees, embassy staff and journalists around the world. How they control their sources "[Y]ou have to take control of him. Control means financial, sexual or psychological control... This is intended to start our conversation on your next phase" ? CEO George Friedman to Stratfor analyst Reva Bhalla on 6 December 2011, on how to exploit an Israeli intelligence informant providing information on the medical condition of the President of Venezuala, Hugo Chavez. Using secret information to make money in financial markets Stratfor's use of insiders for intelligence soon turned into a money-making scheme of questionable legality. The emails show that in 2009 then-Goldman Sachs Managing Director Shea Morenz and Stratfor CEO George Friedman hatched an idea to "utilise the intelligence" it was pulling in from its insider network to start up a captive strategic investment fund. [...] CEO George Friedman explained in a confidential August 2011 document, marked DO NOT SHARE OR DISCUSS: "What StratCap will do is use our Stratfor's intelligence and analysis to trade in a range of geopolitical instruments, particularly government bonds, currencies and the like". US Government and Mossad ties Stratfor claims that it operates "without ideology, agenda or national bias", yet the emails reveal private intelligence staff who align themselves closely with US government policies and channel tips to the Mossad ? including through an information mule in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Yossi Melman, who conspired with Guardian journalist David Leigh to secretly, and in violation of WikiLeaks' contract with the Guardian, move WikiLeaks US diplomatic cables to Israel. Secret deals with media organizations and journalists Stratfor did secret deals with dozens of media organisations and journalists ? from Reuters to the Kiev Post. The list of Stratfor's "Confederation Partners", whom Stratfor internally referred to as its "Confed Fuck House" are included in the release. While it is acceptable for journalists to swap information or be paid by other media organisations, because Stratfor is a private intelligence organisation that services governments and private clients these relationships are corrupt or corrupting. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Feb 26 19:45:03 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:45:03 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The Global Intelligence Files Message-ID: http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html LONDON?Today, Monday 27 February, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files ? more than five million emails from the Texas-headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The emails date from between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal?s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defense Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor?s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment-laundering techniques and psychological methods, for example : "[Y]ou have to take control of him. Control means financial, sexual or psychological control... This is intended to start our conversation on your next phase" ? CEO George Friedman to Stratfor analyst Reva Bhalla on 6 December 2011, on how to exploit an Israeli intelligence informant providing information on the medical condition of the President of Venezuala, Hugo Chavez. The material contains privileged information about the US government?s attacks against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and Stratfor?s own attempts to subvert WikiLeaks. There are more than 4,000 emails mentioning WikiLeaks or Julian Assange. The emails also expose the revolving door that operates in private intelligence companies in the United States. Government and diplomatic sources from around the world give Stratfor advance knowledge of global politics and events in exchange for money. The Global Intelligence Files exposes how Stratfor has recruited a global network of informants who are paid via Swiss banks accounts and pre-paid credit cards. Stratfor has a mix of covert and overt informants, which includes government employees, embassy staff and journalists around the world. The material shows how a private intelligence agency works, and how they target individuals for their corporate and government clients. For example, Stratfor monitored and analysed the online activities of Bhopal activists, including the "Yes Men", for the US chemical giant Dow Chemical. The activists seek redress for the 1984 Dow Chemical/Union Carbide gas disaster in Bhopal, India. The disaster led to thousands of deaths, injuries in more than half a million people, and lasting environmental damage. Stratfor has realised that its routine use of secret cash bribes to get information from insiders is risky. In August 2011, Stratfor CEO George Friedman confidentially told his employees : "We are retaining a law firm to create a policy for Stratfor on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I don?t plan to do the perp walk and I don?t want anyone here doing it either." Stratfor?s use of insiders for intelligence soon turned into a money-making scheme of questionable legality. The emails show that in 2009 then-Goldman Sachs Managing Director Shea Morenz and Stratfor CEO George Friedman hatched an idea to "utilise the intelligence" it was pulling in from its insider network to start up a captive strategic investment fund. CEO George Friedman explained in a confidential August 2011 document, marked DO NOT SHARE OR DISCUSS : "What StratCap will do is use our Stratfor?s intelligence and analysis to trade in a range of geopolitical instruments, particularly government bonds, currencies and the like". The emails show that in 2011 Goldman Sach?s Morenz invested "substantially" more than $4million and joined Stratfor?s board of directors. Throughout 2011, a complex offshore share structure extending as far as South Africa was erected, designed to make StratCap appear to be legally independent. But, confidentially, Friedman told StratFor staff : "Do not think of StratCap as an outside organisation. It will be integral... It will be useful to you if, for the sake of convenience, you think of it as another aspect of Stratfor and Shea as another executive in Stratfor... we are already working on mock portfolios and trades". StratCap is due to launch in 2012. The Stratfor emails reveal a company that cultivates close ties with US government agencies and employs former US government staff. It is preparing the 3-year Forecast for the Commandant of the US Marine Corps, and it trains US marines and "other government intelligence agencies" in "becoming government Stratfors". Stratfor?s Vice-President for Intelligence, Fred Burton, was formerly a special agent with the US State Department?s Diplomatic Security Service and was their Deputy Chief of the counterterrorism division. Despite the governmental ties, Stratfor and similar companies operate in complete secrecy with no political oversight or accountability. Stratfor claims that it operates "without ideology, agenda or national bias", yet the emails reveal private intelligence staff who align themselves closely with US government policies and channel tips to the Mossad ? including through an information mule in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Yossi Melman, who conspired with Guardian journalist David Leigh to secretly, and in violation of WikiLeaks? contract with the Guardian, move WikiLeaks US diplomatic cables to Israel. Ironically, considering the present circumstances, Stratfor was trying to get into what it called the leak-focused "gravy train" that sprung up after WikiLeaks? Afghanistan disclosures : "[Is it] possible for us to get some of that ?leak-focused? gravy train ? This is an obvious fear sale, so that?s a good thing. And we have something to offer that the IT security companies don?t, mainly our focus on counter-intelligence and surveillance that Fred and Stick know better than anyone on the planet... Could we develop some ideas and procedures on the idea of ?leak-focused? network security that focuses on preventing one?s own employees from leaking sensitive information... In fact, I?m not so sure this is an IT problem that requires an IT solution." Like WikiLeaks? diplomatic cables, much of the significance of the emails will be revealed over the coming weeks, as our coalition and the public search through them and discover connections. Readers will find that whereas large numbers of Stratfor?s subscribers and clients work in the US military and intelligence agencies, Stratfor gave a complimentary membership to the controversial Pakistan general Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan?s ISI intelligence service, who, according to US diplomatic cables, planned an IED attack on international forces in Afghanistan in 2006. Readers will discover Stratfor?s internal email classification system that codes correspondence according to categories such as ?alpha?, ?tactical? and ?secure?. The correspondence also contains code names for people of particular interest such as ?Hizzies? (members of Hezbollah), or ?Adogg? (Mahmoud Ahmedinejad). Stratfor did secret deals with dozens of media organisations and journalists ? from Reuters to the Kiev Post. The list of Stratfor?s "Confederation Partners", whom Stratfor internally referred to as its "Confed Fuck House" are included in the release. While it is acceptable for journalists to swap information or be paid by other media organisations, because Stratfor is a private intelligence organisation that services governments and private clients these relationships are corrupt or corrupting. WikiLeaks has also obtained Stratfor?s list of informants and, in many cases, records of its payoffs, including $1,200 a month paid to the informant "Geronimo" , handled by Stratfor?s Former State Department agent Fred Burton. WikiLeaks has built an investigative partnership with more than 25 media organisations and activists to inform the public about this huge body of documents. The organisations were provided access to a sophisticated investigative database developed by WikiLeaks and together with WikiLeaks are conducting journalistic evaluations of these emails. Important revelations discovered using this system will appear in the media in the coming weeks, together with the gradual release of the source documents. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Feb 26 20:29:16 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Stratfor CEO apparently resigns over Wikileaks Files Message-ID: (Unconfirmed as of 2130 Sunday, but the company site is back down again, too. --- rick) It appears that Stratfor CEO, George Friedman has tendered (or intends to tender) his resignation effective immediately citing the release of 5 million internal Statfor emails by Wikileaks'. From Pastebin (courtesy of @AnonymousIRC): http://news.hitb.org/content/stratfor-ceo-george-friedman-apparently-resigns-over-wikileaks-gifiles ? From: george.friedman at stratfor.com ? ? To: fred.burton at stratfor.com ? ? Subject: Draft ? ? Date: 2012-02-26 19:02:07 ? ? It is with great personal disappointment I have to inform you that I will resign from my position as CEO for Stratfor to immediate effect. ? ? Please rest assured that this decision was not an easy. But in the light of the recent events, especially the release of our company emails by WikiLeaks, I have decided that stepping down is in the best interest of Stratfor and its customer base. ? ? I want to emphasize that this will have no effect on Stratfor's business or its members and we will continue to provide state-of-the-art intelligence services. ? ? Regarding the latest breach, Stratfor is fully in control of the situation However, while I cannot take any personal responsibility for this incident, I still have to admit that mistakes have been made on our side. To be clear: We certainly do not condone any criminal activities by groups like Anonymous or other hackers. This is theft and we will continue to cooperate with law enforcement to bring those responsible to justice. But we must acknowledge that this incident would not have been possible if Stratfor had implemented stronger data protection mechanisms - which will be the case from now on. Indeed we will immediately move to implement the latest, and most comprehensive, data security measures. ? ? While I played no role in our technical operations, as the company's CEO I do accept full responsibility thus will resign from my position effective immediately. ? ? Again, my sincerest apologies for this whole unfortunate incident. ? ? Sincerely, ? George Friedman From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 27 06:30:49 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:30:49 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NSA Chief Seeks Bigger Cybersecurity Role Message-ID: (c/o MM) Wall Street Journal February 27, 2012 Pg. 5 NSA Chief Seeks Bigger Cybersecurity Role By Siobhan Gorman The National Security Agency director and other intelligence officials have been making the case within the Obama administration that the NSA should play a bigger role in protecting computer networks in the U.S., according to current and former U.S. officials. The proposals from Army Gen. Keith Alexander and others would expand the NSA's authority to allow it to block or pre-empt cyberattacks targeting entities within the U.S. and to scan for cyber threats but not monitor the content of communications, these officials said. Gen. Alexander and other intelligence officials have raised these proposals with top military and intelligence officials, as well as the White House, current and former U.S. officials said. Gen. Alexander also commands the U.S. Cyber Command. The proposals are controversial because they would expand NSA's power to monitor networks domestically, potentially raising concerns about protecting civil liberties. The warrantless surveillance program established by the NSA under President George W. Bush eventually was put under court supervision. In addition, pre-empting a cyberattack raises questions about whether that could be considered an act of war in cyberspace. The NSA is the U.S. government's primary eavesdropping agency focused on overseas targets. It can't intercept domestic communications without a warrant. Established in 1952, the agency originally was charged with code breaking and code making. In recent years, its code-making capabilities increasingly have been sought to bolster cybersecurity. In 2009, the Secretary of Defense established a unified subcommand, Cyber Command, to defend U.S. military networks and placed the NSA director at the helm. Gen. Alexander is "making the case that to be effective, you have to do it at network speed?tracking domestically, monitoring, following malware or a botnet or some kind of penetration technique," a former U.S. defense official said, referring to cyber weapons. "Gen. Alexander has repeatedly stated that our role is to inform, not make, cyber policy," said NSA spokeswoman Judith Emmel. The White House declined to comment on internal discussions. But Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan said the administration is working to promote cybersecurity and protect privacy. He said the administration seeks to "strike a balance between addressing the operational requirements of our military, intelligence and homeland security professionals, while safeguarding the values of freedom, openness, and innovation." The debate over these proposals underscores a central dilemma for the Obama administration and lawmakers: how to balance security and privacy when a spy agency is their best weapon against the rapidly evolving threat of cyberattacks. U.S. national-security officials, meanwhile, have stepped up warnings about hackers who steal prized intellectual property and might try to take down the networks running key infrastructure such as electric, subway and air-traffic-control systems. The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has said the threat posed by cyberattacks will someday surpass the threat the U.S. faces from terrorism. Proposals to expand NSA's domestic role have been debated at White House policy meetings, U.S. officials said. So far, the White House hasn't supported these proposals, at least in part because it would upset civil libertarians, a former U.S. defense official said. Most of the leading cybersecurity bills under consideration on Capitol Hill make the Department of Homeland Security the primary agency responsible for the threat domestically. But advocates of a greater role for NSA say it is the only organization with the capability and monitoring infrastructure to protect U.S. computer networks, and that NSA's current support role to Homeland Security won't get the job done. NSA technology currently used to defend military networks would allow it to scan large volumes of Internet traffic and block incoming cyberattacks. Some of that technology grew out of a program launched years ago, called Tutelage, which detects incoming cyberattacks and allows NSA to block the threat or manipulate the attack code, according to people familiar with the program. U.S. officials say that NSA isn't seeking a role that would pry into the daily lives of Americans. "I don't think NSA is trying to run wild," another U.S. official said. "Privacy and civil liberties are important. Some of this is putting ideas on the table to see what the art of the possible is." Gen. Alexander is seen by many in the administration as the leading advocate for using NSA's powerful monitoring tools to identify and block cyberattacks in the U.S., current and former U.S. officials said. Even so, these proposals would face long odds on Capitol Hill, where three years of legislative haggling have produced a series of proposals that tackle domestic cyberdefense by establishing a new regime in which the Department of Homeland Security takes the lead role. Under those proposals, the department would work with companies running critical infrastructure to bolster their defenses against cyberattacks. At a cybersecurity forum last week at George Washington University, former Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell said current U.S. cyberdefenses are weak and the bills on Capitol Hill are insufficient. "There isn't a corporation in the nation that can successfully defend itself. Not one," Mr. McConnell said. One way to address the problem, he said, would be to have NSA scan domestic networks for cyberattack code but make it illegal for NSA to read the content of communications. Responding to that suggestion, Tommy Ross, a top national-security aide to the Senate majority leader said that lawmakers have weighed how to use NSA's capabilities. The leading cybersecurity bill in the Senate placed Homeland Security in the central role for domestic cyberdefense but would let private organizations work with NSA through Homeland Security on a voluntary basis, he said. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 27 06:33:22 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:33:22 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - here we go.... Message-ID: <299409AD-C01F-4BB6-A44F-5337FD656D79@infowarrior.org> It's RSA Week! My inbox is overflowing with cyber-this and cyber-that news already this morning. And quite a few press releases / marketing brochures as well. To borrow from the Bard: "Cry profit and let slip the hounds of panic....." -- rick --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 27 12:00:27 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:00:27 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Blurred Line Between Espionage and Truth Message-ID: <7989B997-3642-43F3-AB8F-78B9EB083666@infowarrior.org> February 26, 2012 Blurred Line Between Espionage and Truth By DAVID CARR http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/white-house-uses-espionage-act-to-pursue-leak-cases-media-equation.html Last Wednesday in the White House briefing room, the administration?s press secretary, Jay Carney, opened on a somber note, citing the deaths of Marie Colvin and Anthony Shadid, two reporters who had died ?in order to bring truth? while reporting in Syria. Jake Tapper, the White House correspondent for ABC News, pointed out that the administration had lauded brave reporting in distant lands more than once and then asked, ?How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistle-blowers to court?? He then suggested that the administration seemed to believe that ?the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn?t come out here.? Fair point. The Obama administration, which promised during its transition to power that it would enhance ?whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers,? has been more prone than any administration in history in trying to silence and prosecute federal workers. The Espionage Act, enacted back in 1917 to punish those who gave aid to our enemies, was used three times in all the prior administrations to bring cases against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media. It has been used six times since the current president took office. Setting aside the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst who is accused of stealing thousands of secret documents, the majority of the recent prosecutions seem to have everything to do with administrative secrecy and very little to do with national security. In case after case, the Espionage Act has been deployed as a kind of ad hoc Official Secrets Act, which is not a law that has ever found traction in America, a place where the people?s right to know is viewed as superseding the government?s right to hide its business. In the most recent case, John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer who became a Democratic staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was charged under the Espionage Act with leaking information to journalists about other C.I.A. officers, some of whom were involved in the agency?s interrogation program, which included waterboarding. For those of you keeping score, none of the individuals who engaged in or authorized the waterboarding of terror suspects have been prosecuted, but Mr. Kiriakou is in federal cross hairs, accused of talking to journalists and news organizations, including The New York Times. Mr. Tapper said that he had not planned on raising the issue, but hearing Mr. Carney echo the praise for reporters who dug deep to bring out the truth elsewhere got his attention. ?I have been following all of these case, and it?s not like they are instances of government employees leaking the location of secret nuclear sites,? Mr. Tapper said. ?These are classic whistle-blower cases that dealt with questionable behavior by government officials or its agents acting in the name of protecting America.? Mr. Carney said in the briefing that he felt it was appropriate ?to honor and praise the bravery? of Ms. Colvin and Mr. Shadid, but he did not really engage Mr. Tapper?s broader question, saying he could not go into information about specific cases. He did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment. In one of the more remarkable examples of the administration?s aggressive approach, Thomas A. Drake, a former employee of the National Security Agency, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act last year and faced a possible 35 years in prison. His crime? When his agency was about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a software program bought from the private sector intended to monitor digital data, he spoke with a reporter at The Baltimore Sun. He suggested an internally developed program that cost significantly less would be more effective and not violate privacy in the way the product from the vendor would. (He turned out to be right, by the way.) He was charged with 10 felony counts that accused him of lying to investigators and obstructing justice. Last summer, the case against him collapsed, and he pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor, of misuse of a government computer. Jesselyn Radack, the director for national security and human rights at the Government Accountability Project, was one of the lawyers who represented him. ?The Obama administration has been quite hypocritical about its promises of openness, transparency and accountability,? she said. ?All presidents hate leaks, but pursuing whistle-blowers as spies is heavy-handed and beyond the scope of the law.? Mark Corallo, who served under Attorney General John D. Ashcroft during the Bush administration, told Adam Liptak of The New York Times this month that he was ?sort of shocked? by the number of leak prosecutions under President Obama. ?We would have gotten hammered for it,? he said. As Mr. Liptak pointed out, it has become easier to ferret out leakers in a digital age, but just because it can be done doesn?t mean it should be. These kinds of prosecutions can have ripples well beyond the immediate proceedings. Two reporters in Washington who work on national security issues said that the rulings had created a chilly environment between journalists and people who work at the various government agencies. During a point in history when our government has been accused of sending prisoners to secret locations where they were said to have been tortured and the C.I.A. is conducting remote-controlled wars in far-flung places, it?s not a good time to treat the people who aid in the publication of critical information as spies. And it?s worth pointing out that the administration?s emphasis on secrecy comes and goes depending on the news. Reporters were immediately and endlessly briefed on the ?secret? operation that successfully found and killed Osama bin Laden. And the drone program in Pakistan and Afghanistan comes to light in a very organized and systematic way every time there is a successful mission. There is plenty of authorized leaking going on, but this particular boat leaks from the top. Leaks from the decks below, especially ones that might embarrass the administration, have been dealt with very differently. E-mail: carr at nytimes.com; Twitter.com/carr2n --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 27 15:49:24 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:49:24 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - White House, NSA weigh (clash on?) cybersecurity, personal privacy Message-ID: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-nsa-weigh-cyber-security-personal-privacy/2012/02/07/gIQA8HmKeR_print.html White House, NSA weigh cybersecurity, personal privacy By Ellen Nakashima, Updated: Monday, February 27, 3:06 PM The National Security Agency has pushed repeatedly over the past year to expand its role in protecting private-sector computer networks from cyberattacks but has been rebuffed by the White House, largely because of privacy concerns, according to administration officials and internal documents. The most contentious issue was a legislative proposal last year that would have required hundreds of companies that provide critical services such as electricity generation to allow their Internet traffic be continuously scanned using computer threat data provided by the spy agency. The companies would have been expected to turn over evidence of potential cyberattacks to the government. NSA officials portrayed these measures as unobtrusive ways to protect the nation?s vital infrastructure from what they say are increasingly dire threats of devastating cyberattacks. But the White House and Justice Department argued that the proposal would permit unprecedented government monitoring of routine civilian Internet activity, according to documents and officials familiar with the debate. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe administration deliberations; internal documents reviewed by The Washington Post backed these descriptions. White House officials cautioned the NSA that President Obama has opposed cybersecurity measures that weakened personal privacy protections. They also warned the head of the spy agency, Gen. Keith Alexander, to restrain his public comments after speeches in which he argued that more expansive legal authority was necessary to defend the nation against cyberattacks, according to several officials. ?We have had to remind him to at least be cognizant of what the administration?s policy positions are, so if he?s openly advocating for something beyond that, that is undermining the commander-in-chief,? said an administration official. The debate, which is surfacing as Congress considers landmark cyber legislation, turns on what means are necessary and appropriate to protect vital private-sector systems from attack by China, Russia or other potential adversaries. Even some criminal gangs and hackers, such as the self-styled activist group Anonymous, increasingly may acquire the tools to mount major assaults on the nation?s computer systems, say U.S. officials. NSA officials acknowledged that they have warned about such threats but say they have not sought to establish policy. ?As a major source of the nation?s technical expertise on cyber and cybersecurity, we have a responsibility to ensure our leaders are informed and aware of what is happening in the cyber realm,? agency spokeswoman Judith Emmel said. ?We also work diligently to team with other agencies, industry and academia to find solutions to protecting our nation?s critical infrastructure.? Protecting critical industries The proposal was intended to supplement an administration legislative package, unveiled last May, which NSA officials felt did not go far enough in protecting critical industries such as nuclear power, according to administration officials. The proposal was put forth by the Defense Department, which includes the NSA, and the Department of Homeland Security. The proposal drew on a Pentagon pilot program launched last year in which Internet service providers used NSA?s library of threat data to scan e-mails and other computer traffic flowing to and from the nation?s top defense contractors . That program was a response to fears that foreign spy services were using cybertechnology to steal corporate or U.S. military secrets. A Pentagon-commissioned report in November validated the concept but said the effectiveness of such an approach remained uncertain. The agency, however, saw that program as a model for expanding its role in protecting other potential significant targets of cyberattack. The proposed legislation would have made participation in an expanded program mandatory for designated industries that didn?t reach certain security benchmarks on their own after one year, officials said. The reason, NSA officials said in internal administration discussions, is that the private companies have not shown they are capable of defeating the rapidly evolving universe of cyberthreats. By the time a major attack on a water system or nuclear plant is discovered, it may be too late to thwart it. ?In order to stop it, you have to see it in real time, and you have to have those authorities,? Alexander, who is also head of the U.S. military?s Cyber Command, said in remarks at Fordham University in New York last month. ?Those are the conditions that we have put on the table. Now how and what the administration and Congress choose, that will be a policy issue.? His remarks prompted calls from congressional staff to the Pentagon and White House seeking to know whether the administration was seeking new powers for NSA, said several government officials with knowledge of the exchanges. Fierce debate The NSA proposal, called Tranche 2, sparked fierce debate within the administration. It would have required an estimated 300 to 500 firms with a role in critical infrastructure systems to allow their Internet carrier or some other private company to scan their computer networks for malicious software using government threat data. The Department of Homeland Security, which helped develop the plan, would have designated which companies had to participate. NSA officials say this process would have been automated, preventing intrusion into the personal privacy of ordinary users visiting Web sites or exchanging electronic messages with friends. Only when the scanning identified a potential threat would analysts be involved, to assess what the software identified and use it to craft better tools to stop such threats, the agency said in the internal administration debates. Identifying information on specific Internet users would have been blocked. Agency officials took exception to suggestions that such a system amounted to ?monitoring? of private-sector Internet traffic ? something that Obama has specifically and publicly opposed. In an interview with The Post, NSA Deputy Director John C. Inglis said, ?At no time was there, from the NSA perspective, a proposal that the government enter into an arrangement where it would monitor private sector networks.? But the White House and other agencies, including the departments of Justice and Commerce, said the proposal left open the possibility that the large Internet carriers themselves could be designated critical entities. This, they said, could have allowed scanning of virtually all Internet traffic for cyberthreats on behalf of the government, opening a newly extensive window into American behavior online. Officials also worried the effectiveness of the approach and the costs to participating industries. Senior officials at numerous government agencies reviewed the NSA proposal. At a White House meeting last August, Tranche 2 was killed, said officials with knowledge of the debate. ?At the end of the day it was shut down because it looked way too much like a government monitoring program,? said a second administration official. More recently, in January, NSA officials expressed concern when the White House blocked draft legislation being prepared by a Senate Intelligence Committee staffer enabling any government agency to monitor private computer networks for cyberthreats and to take measures to counter those threats, according to administration officials and documents. These include draft version of legislation and internal communications discussing them. A revised version of the bill, which is part of the cyber legislation introduced in Congress this month, allowed only private-sector entities to monitor networks and to operate the countermeasures. The issue, said James A. Lewis, a cyber-policy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is one of trust. He said that he trusts NSA to handle the data responsibly, but ?the oversight we have in place isn?t enough to reassure everyone the data are not being used for other purposes.? White House resistance to giving NSA a greater role in protecting Internet traffic worries some other cyberexperts, who say that private industry should be required to turn over evidence of cyberthreats to the government. ?We?re desperately late in doing this,? said Alan Paller, research director at the SANS Institute, a Bethesda-based cyber-training organization. ?Our future economic wellbeing and future national security are at stake if we don?t mandate it.? . ? The Washington Post Company --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 27 17:40:23 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:40:23 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: US Military Working on "Optionally-Manned" Bomber References: <20120227231730.GA29882@gsp.org> Message-ID: SkyNet is calling on Port 139..... --rick Begin forwarded message: > From: Rich Kulawiec > Date: February 27, 2012 6:17:30 PM EST > To: Richard Forno , Dave Farber > Subject: US Military Working on "Optionally-Manned" Bomber > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/02/27/191237/us-military-working-on-optionally-manned-bomber > > "Despite massive budget deficits, the U.S. military is working > towards a stealthy and 'optionally-manned' bomber capable of > carrying nuclear weapons. The craft is intended to replace the > 1960s B-52, 1970s B-1 and 1990s B-2 bombers. The new aircraft is > meant to be a big part of the U.S. 'pivot' to the Pacific. With > China sporting anti-ship weapons that could sink U.S. carriers > from a distance, a new bomber is now a top priority." > > An unmanned bomber loaded with nuclear weapons; what could possibly go wrong? > > ---rsk > --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Feb 27 18:17:00 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:17:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Stratfor Is a Joke and So Is Wikileaks for Taking It Seriously Message-ID: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/stratfor-is-a-joke-and-so-is-wikileaks-for-taking-them-seriously/253681/ Stratfor Is a Joke and So Is Wikileaks for Taking It Seriously By Max Fisher The corporate research firm has branded itself as a CIA-like "global intelligence" firm, but only Julian Assange and some over-paying clients are fooled. On June 2, 2009, Anya Alfano of Stratfor, which describes itself as a private "global intelligence company," sent an email to a colleague requesting some global intelligence on a certain trans-national civilian group on behalf of a powerful international client. That email has now been released to the world, along with five million others like it, by global transparency group Wikileaks, thus revealing Stratfor's shadowy scheme. According to Anya Alfano's email, Stratfor's target was PETA, the animal rights group, and its client Coca-Cola. Their top secret mission was to find out "How many PETA supporters are there in Canada?" and other tantalizing global secrets that could only be secured through such top-secret means as calling PETA's press office or Googling it. Alfano concluded her chilling email, "I need all the information our talented interns can dig up by COB tomorrow." "Stratfor is just The Economist a week later and several hundred times more expensive." < -- > The group has spent over a decade trying to convince the world that it is a for-hire, cutting-edge intel firm with tentacles everywhere. Before their marketing campaign fooled Anonymous, it fooled wealthy clients; before it fooled clients, it hooked a couple of reporters. A breathless October 15, 2001, Barron's cover story called Stratfor "a private quasi-CIA," the evidence for which appears to be this quote from Stratfor chief George Friedman: "The CIA has to spend thousands of dollars a month to have an agent in, say, Teheran or Peshawar to monitor local newspapers or political developments that we can find on the Internet within a few hours." In other words, they have Google. But Stratfor's first big break had come in 1999 with a spate of glowing articles such as this January piece in Time, which reported Stratfor's "striking" theory that the U.S. bombing of Iraq in December 1998 was "actually designed to mask a failed U.S.-backed coup." That theory, like so much of Stratfor's "intelligence," was discredited long ago. This article available online at: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/stratfor-is-a-joke-and-so-is-wikileaks-for-taking-it-seriously/253681/ Copyright ? 2012 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 28 06:38:24 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:38:24 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: Google offers 'brutal choice' on privacy policies References: <7EB33041E473EC4B8C08A7CA087AC8720281BAE0@0015-its-exmb12.us.saic.com> Message-ID: c/o MM Begin forwarded message: > FTC: Google offers 'brutal choice' on privacy policies > BY JULIANA GRUENWALD, NATIONAL JOURNAL 02/27/2012 > http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20120227_1801.php?oref=rss > The chairman of the Federal Trade Commission said on Sunday that Google was giving consumers a "binary and somewhat brutal" choice on whether they want to go along with the changes to the company's privacy policies set to go into effect next week. > > Jon Leibowitz was asked by Tech Daily Dose during an appearance on C-Span's Newsmakers show whether he is personally concerned about the changes Google is making to its privacy policies. The company announced last month that it was consolidating more than 60 privacy policies and that it would begin tracking consumers as they move from one Google service to another. > > "Other than saying that they have been clear, and that it's a fairly binary and somewhat brutal choice that they are giving consumers, I think I can't say much more," Leibowitz said. "But we're aware." > > Leibowitz urged companies to provide more understandable and clear privacy policies that would allow consumers to make a choice on whether they want to continue to visit a website or use an online service offered by those companies. > > "If companies gave clearer disclosures and, again some companies do give pretty clear disclosures, and Google in what it is doing is giving clear disclosure, I think consumers will be able to make a choice," he said. "And maybe, by the way, you have competition over privacy policies, which would be a good thing." > > Privacy advocates, lawmakers and a group of state attorneys general, however, havecriticized Google for not offering consumers a clear way to "opt out" of being tracked as they move from one Google service to another. > > Google has defended its privacy changes by saying it is not collecting any new information and that it offers consumers many tools to control the level of privacy they want. > > The FTC reached a privacy settlement with Google last year over allegations the company deceived consumers by automatically signing up its Gmail users for its now-defunct social networking service Buzz. Privacy groups have argued that Google's changes to its privacy practices, which are set to go into effect on Thursday, violate that FTC settlement. > > The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a lawsuit against the FTC earlier this month to require the commission to enforce its settlement with Google. A judgedismissed the lawsuit on Friday but EPIC said it plans to appeal the decision. > > --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Feb 28 21:34:06 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:34:06 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The First Google Maps War Message-ID: February 28, 2012, 12:30 pm The First Google Maps War By FRANK JACOBS http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/the-first-google-maps-war/?pagemode=print Did Google Maps almost cause a war in 2010? On Nov. 3 of that year, Ed?n Pastora, the Nicaraguan official tasked with dredging the Rio San Juan, justified his country?s incursion into neighboring Costa Rica?s territory by claiming that, contrary to the customary borderline, he wasn?t trespassing at all. For proof, he said, just look at Google Maps [1]. The digital atlas had indeed placed the eastern end of the border between the countries to the south of the generally accepted line, providing Nicaragua with a territorial gain of a few square miles. Costa Rica protested, to both Nicaragua and Google Maps. The latter relented: acceding to the demand of Carlos Roversi, Costa Rica?s deputy foreign minister, it adjusted the online border [2]. But the former persisted, maintaining 50 soldiers on the Isla Portillos [3], along the southern bank of the San Juan?s main channel. The Costa Ricans retaliated by dispatching about 70 police officers [4] into the area. News headlines flashed around the world, announcing the arrival of a new type of border conflict: the Google Maps War. Over the past decade, Google Earth and Google Maps have become the online cartographic resources of reference. But popularity does not bestow authority. The lines that Google draws on maps have no government?s imprimatur. Yet by virtue of its ubiquity, Google is often the arbiter of first recourse for borders and toponyms [5]. So where Google?s maps show borders or place names that deviate from official usage or stray into international disputes, they may cause confusion, offense or worse. Imperfectly rendered borders on Google Maps have caused embarrassment elsewhere, for example on the Dutch-German border [6]. Hence Google?s mission statement, ?to represent the ?ground truth? as accurately and neutrally? as it can, allowing users to come to their own geopolitical conclusions. ?That can mean providing multiple claim lines (e.g. the Syrian and Israeli lines in the Golan Heights), multiple names (e.g. two names separated by a slash: ?Londonderry/Derry?), or clickable political annotations with short descriptions of the issues? [7]. Yet no matter how seriously Google takes this task, the job of border demarcation is a lot murkier and more ambivalent than those neat lines on the map suggest. Take that First Google Maps War, for instance. Few commentators at the time took the effort to note that in his interview with the Costa Rican paper La Nacion, Mr. Pastora ? a.k.a. Commander Zero [8] ? referred not only to Google, but to the Ca?as-Jerez Treaty of 1858, the border arbitration by President Grover Cleveland in 1888 and the subsequent clarification thereof by E.P. Alexander in 1897 [9]. In other words, the border dispute between Nicas and Ticos [10] was not merely the result of a simple Google glitch [11]. Rather, and this is the dangerous part of the whole enterprise, Google Maps? imprecision reignited a long-standing border dispute that, with a few miscalculations, could have led to a real war. Joe Burgess/The New York Times The Google Maps affair is only the latest expression of an old fraternal fracas between two parts of what was, for about 20 years in the 19th century, the unified Province of Nicaragua and Costa Rica. After independence from Spain was thrust upon the region in 1821, both Nicaragua and Costa Rica were part of the Federal Republic of Central America [12]. Back then, Nicaragua was much larger than it is today, stretching north into Honduras and south to the Nicoya peninsula in the west and the Matino River in the east. In 1824, civil war in Nicaragua and the increasing local influence of Costa Rican coffee planters combined to convince the residents of the border towns of Nicoya and Santa Cruz to vote for secession from Nicaragua and annexation by Costa Rica. They were joined two years later by the inhabitants of Guacanaste (now the Costa Rican city of Liberia). All in all, Nicaragua lost about 11,000 square miles [13] to Costa Rica before gaining its full independence in 1841. In the following decades, no less than seven treaties were drawn up to resolve the resultant border tensions ? but none were ratified by both countries. Only in 1858 did the Nicaraguans, represented by M?ximo Jerez, and the Costa Ricans, represented by Jos? Mar?a Ca?as, reach agreement on the border, along present-day lines: skirting the southern edge of Lake Nicaragua, then the San Juan for the last third of the stretch ? following it north from where it forks from the Rio Colorado [14]. The backdrop of that treaty was the enticing prospect of a canal connecting the Atlantic to Pacific across Nicaragua ? a fata morgana shimmering just beyond the reach of the local dignitaries ever since Hernando Cortes wrote to Spain?s King Charles V in 1524: ?He who controls the passage between both oceans may consider himself the master of the world.? The Nicaragua Canal would benefit from the connection between Lake Nicaragua and the San Juan, draining into the Caribbean. Ships would have sailed up 110 miles of river, crossed 65 miles of lake and then would only need to pass through a 12-mile canal piercing the narrow Rivas isthmus between the lake and the ocean. Even without that canal, the river-plus-lake route proved alluring enough for the American tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt, who established the Accessory Transit Company to transport countless hopefuls to California?s gold fields along this way in the 1850s, using a stagecoach to cross the isthmus. But political instability got the better of the company, and by extension of the Nicaragua Canal. Symptomatic was the filibuster [15] William Walker?s takeover of Nicaragua ? and of the Accessory Transit Company ? in 1855. Even though Walker was chased off by Costa Rican firepower (bankrolled by Vanderbilt), the company?s route would never run again. Despite the 1858 Ca?as-Jerez Treaty, tensions between Costa Rica and Nicaragua on its validity eventually led to arbitration by President Cleveland, who in 1888 re-legitimized and clarified the treaty: the border between both countries is to run from the mouth of the San Juan at San Juan del Norte to a point three miles downstream from the so-called Castillo Viejo. Although the border is on the right bank of the river, Costa Rica has the right to navigate it for commercial purposes. The border follows the main canal of the river, here called San Juan de Nicaragua, which meanders to form a huge Costa Rican bulge into Nicaraguan territory; the barrier islands to the northwest of the Punta Castilla and the Laguna Los Portillos (also called Harbor Head) to its south are Nicaraguan. That is how E.P. Alexander clarified the matter a decade later, and his sketch corresponds exactly to the internationally accepted ?Nica-Tico? border. But that map masks muddier waters: it is a compromise between the border claims of both sides [16]. Nothing is as contestable as proclaiming the shifting delta of a slow-moving river to be an international border. That?s why, a few years ago, Nicaragua?s president, Daniel Ortega, accused Costa Rica of surreptitiously stealing Nicaraguan land as the river moved steadily north, justifying Mr. Pastora?s dredging a silted-up waterway as ?restoring? the original channel, and the original border. That border corresponds remarkably closely to the one erroneously indicated by Google. That?s good enough for some. Consider this statement by Nicaragua?s embassy in London [17], made prior to Google?s auto-correction: ?The Government of Nicaragua has formally requested to Google not to accept the petition of Costa Rica to modify the border demarcation presented on Google Maps service.? The path, it said, ?presented by Google corresponds to the various treaties that define the Nicaragua-Costa Rica border.? Google Maps and Costa Rica may protest all they want: the mere fact that it once existed means that the faulty border will live on, at least on Nicaraguan maps. With the matter unresolved, and the status of the military buildup in the region unclear, that leaves open the very real possibility of a Second Google Maps War. Frank Jacobs is a London-based author and blogger. He writes about cartography, but only the interesting bits. [1] ?Vea la foto satelital de Google y ah? se ve la frontera,? Mr. Pastora is quoted in an interview with the Costa Rican newspaper La Nacion: ?See Google?s satellite photo, and there you see the border.? [2] The (re-)adjustment reflected the border as recognized until then by both Nicaragua and Costa Rica. But the maps on the Web site of the official Instituto Nicarag?ense de Estudios Territoriales now reflect the ?Google Maps border.? [3] And not, as is generally (but mistakenly) reported, the much larger Isla Caleros, directly to the south. [4] Costa Rica abolished its army in 1949 ? a clever way to prevent military coups. A small police force, the Fuerza P?blica (?Public Force?), is tasked with law enforcement, counter-narcotics and border patrols. [5] Some Korean readers of the previous post in this series objected to the use of the term ?Sea of Japan,? preferring ?East Sea.? Google Earth uses both terms ? and also uses both ?Persian Gulf? and ?Arabian Gulf.? [6] See Strange Maps No. 504: Bordering on the Bizarre: Google Maps Fail in Dollart Bay. [7] For more on Google?s quality control for the borders in Google Earth and Google Maps, read this statement by Charlie Hales, Geo Policy Analyst at Google, on the Lat Long Blog. [8] A nickname acquired when Mr. Pastora and other Sandinista rebels stormed Managua?s Palacio Nacional in August 1978, a spectacular success for the insurgency against then-dictator Anastasio Somoza. Mr. Pastora later turned against the FSLN, Daniel Ortega?s mainstream Sandinistas, becoming an idiosyncratic Contra. In civilian life, he started a shark fishing business in San Juan del Norte, just north of the disputed border with Costa Rica. In 2008, he reconciled with Mr. Ortega and accepted a post in his government. He is now wanted in Costa Rica for ecological destruction (caused by the dredging that occurred during the Nicaraguan invasion). [9] Before he was a surveyor sent out by president Cleveland, Edward Porter Alexander (1835-1910) was a Confederate officer in the Civil War. He was famous for commanding the artillery bombardment preceding Pickett?s Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg and for pioneering the use of signal flags in combat. [10] The respective nicknames for Nicaraguans and Costa Ricans. [11] That glitch itself is based on the source of Google?s data for this particular stretch of border: the United States State Department. Which is weird. The United States itself, via the Cleveland Arbitration and the Alexander Clarification, affirmed the correct border. Why would the State Department provide false data that fits perfectly with Nicaraguan irredentism? Cui bono? [12] The Federal Republic of Central America (1821-1841) was never more than a loose federation of five (later six) states: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Los Altos (eventually integrated into Guatemala), but its flag, based on the Argentine blue-white-blue triband, still forms the motif for the national flags of all former members. [13] Conveniently equal to that conventional unit of size ? Belgium. [14] The area between the Colorado and San Juan rivers and the Caribbean Sea is the so-called Isla Calero, at almost 60 sq. mi Costa Rica?s largest. [15] A term these days reserved for a parliamentary stalling tactic (?No Senator, I will not yield!? said Jimmy Stewart in ?Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?), but once applied to fomenters of revolution in foreign countries. [16] As shown on Alexander?s sketch, attached to the award he drew up in 1897. [17] To the Wall Street Journal?s Tech Europe blog. ? Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company ? Privacy Policy ? NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 29 06:41:50 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:41:50 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - PIR: Millennials will benefit and suffer due to their hyperconnected lives Message-ID: Millennials will benefit and suffer due to their hyperconnected lives by Janna Anderson, Lee Rainie Feb 29, 2012 http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Hyperconnected-lives.aspx Teens and young adults brought up from childhood with a continuous connection to each other and to information will be nimble, quick-acting multitaskers who count on the Internet as their external brain and who approach problems in a different way from their elders, according to a new survey of technology experts. Many of the experts surveyed by Elon University?s Imagining the Internet Center and the Pew Internet Project said the effects of hyperconnectivity and the always-on lifestyles of young people will be mostly positive between now and 2020. But the experts in this survey also predicted this generation will exhibit a thirst for instant gratification and quick fixes, a loss of patience, and a lack of deep-thinking ability due to what one referred to as ?fast-twitch wiring.? About the Survey The survey results are based on a non-random, opt-in, online sample of 1,021 internet experts and other internet users, recruited via email invitation, Twitter or Facebook from the Pew Research Center?s Internet & American Life Project and the Imagining the Internet Center at Elon University. Since the data are based on a non-random sample, a margin of error cannot be computed, and the results are not projectable to any population other than the experts in this sample. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 29 07:09:13 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:09:13 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Job Hunting: When Parents Run the Show Message-ID: <67048A19-CDD8-4862-B626-0FC2F67EC556@infowarrior.org> (I have seen the same thing happen with parents accompanying their kids to graduate school admissions counselling sessions or following up on their kid's application progress. -- rick) SMARTMONEY MAGAZINE FEBRUARY 27, 2012, 12:10 P.M. ET Job Hunting: When Parents Run the Show As 20-somethings struggle in a tough economy, their moms and dads are writing their resumes, tracking them on LinkedIn, and even going along for the job interview. By ANNE KADET Janine Guarino-McKown has every right to feel proud of her daughter Megan's resume. Compared with the clumsy work history presented by your typical recent college grad, it's a polished, professional and effective document: a crisp, beautifully formatted and compelling record of a star student's achievements and aspirations. And then there's the resume's authorship: Janine's the one who wrote it. Back when Megan was finishing grad school in Dallas, the 25-year-old was busy studying for her boards and preparing for a medical rotation in the Australian outback. Janine, a retired health care administrator, had more free time, not to mention plenty of experience writing resumes for her friends -- why not do the same for her daughter? But she wasn't about to treat this as a pleasant little lark: To produce the two-page CV and cover letter template, Janine interviewed Megan closely over the phone, conducted a talent assessment and crafted a 147-word branding statement. Then she led her daughter through mock interviews and debriefed her after meetings with potential employers. And naturally, there was a little networking involved, as Janine introduced her daughter to a friend who knew the chief ER nurse at a local hospital. In the end, the work paid off, with Megan landing a coveted job as a physician's assistant that pays more than $70,000 a year. And both mother and daughter say they're satisfied with the division of labor, which had Mom doing much of the legwork. "It wasn't my department," says Megan. Perhaps it was inevitable, given the track record of the American boomer parent. After coaching their kids through junior hockey, supervising their science projects and cowriting their college applications, a growing number of enthusiastic moms and dads are moving to the next challenge, taking on the job of job hunting. Of course, parents have always played the role of over-the-phone cheerleader before job interviews, and generations of kids have gotten their first job through one of Dad's connections. But employers, job counselors and parents themselves say the help they're offering these days can become a full-blown tactical enterprise, one that includes everything from filling out job applications and combing the want ads to picking up the phone and hounding recruiters who haven't called back. And yes, some parents even show up at their kid's job interview. Stuart Friedman, president of Chicago consulting firm Progressive Management Associates, will never forget the time he helped a financial-software client interview candidates for an entry-level position. In walked not one but three well-dressed hopefuls -- a fresh-faced college grad and his proud parents. Mom and Dad were on hand, the grad explained, to make sure he got "a fair opportunity to get this job." Friedman says he tried hard to stifle his befuddlement: "You can't sweat. You can't show any reaction." < - > http://www.smartmoney.com/plan/careers/job-hunting-when-parents-run-the-show-1328630501076/#printMode From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 29 07:17:44 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:17:44 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: This Hill staffer *must* be fired. Message-ID: <5A609AEC-1E44-417C-AA9B-3D94EDB70328@infowarrior.org> Unbelievable. I hope this staffer has been fired by the time you read this. -- rick Staffer Refers Mustache Bill to Committee, Without Congressman's Consent 3:54 PM, Feb 28, 2012 ? By DANIEL HALPER http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/staffer-refers-mustache-bill-committee-without-congressmans-consent_632956.html The American Mustache institute earlier today made this surprising announcement: "After barnstorming the Nation?s Capitol in support of the proposed Stache Act (details and white paper here), the office of of [sic] Maryland 6th district U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett informed the American Mustache Institute that the congressman has begun the process of ensuring the?Stache Act becomes law by passing the proposal to the House Ways and Means Committee for study ? an essential first step for tax legislation." The surprising thing is not that a congressman?Rep. Bartlett, a Republican?would support the creation of another tax loophole. ?The Stache Act (Stimulus to Allow for Critical Hair Expenses) aims to earn a well-deserved $250 annual tax deduction for every Mustached American for expenditures on mustache grooming supplies,? the website reads. Instead, it was odd that Bartlett would even participate in what clearly seems to be an elaborate parody of Washington, D.C., think tanks and advocacy groups?and Congress. (The group is, after all, holding a rally on Capitol Hill on April 1.) So I called Bartlett?s office to see if something so silly could possibly be real. Sure enough, it is?but there?s a wrinkle: Congressman Bartlett was never aware that the bill had been referred to the committee in his name. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 29 07:19:11 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:19:11 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - USTR Trying To Wipe Out Used Goods Sales With Secretive TPP Agreement Message-ID: <07F02C73-2F13-472F-98B8-B7D43D6120CB@infowarrior.org> How The US Trade Rep Is Trying To Wipe Out Used Goods Sales With Secretive TPP Agreement from the trade-for-thee-but-not-for-me dept For a while now, we've been covering the gradual legal assault on the First Sale doctrine and beyond. The First Sale doctrine, of course, is what lets you resell a legally purchased book without having to first obtain permission from the copyright holder. Of course, copyright holders generally hate the First Sale doctrine, because it often means that their products have to compete against "used" versions of their own products as well. Of course, this view is very shortsighted and economically ignorant. A healthy used or resale market has been shown to increase the amount people will pay for new items -- because they recognize that there's a secondary market and they can recoup some of what they paid for the original. Thus a healthy secondary market, contrary to what some believe, can often improve the health of the primary market. But, there have been a few very questionable lawsuits that are chipping away at the first sale doctrine, starting with the infamous Omega case, in which the watchmaker exploited the phrase "made under this title" to argue that any goods made outside the US were not subject to first sale rights under copyright law, because they were not "made under this title." That 9th Circuit ruling (which remains in place after the Supreme Court split down the middle -- with Kagan abstaining due to her earlier involvement in the case) was one thing, in that there were some limitations. But then the 2nd Circuit went to loony town in suggesting that some books that were legally purchased in Asia could not be resold in the US without permission (i.e. an expensive license). While the district court who reviewed the Omega case on remand recently rejected Omega's claim as copyright misuse, there is a lot of fear over this issue as the courts sort things out. The risk of the Omega case goes even further, since it could wipe out the used goods market not just for "content," but for physical goods as well. That's because Omega didn't just exploit the "under this title" part of the law, it exploited copyright law itself. Remember, it sells watches. What do watches have to do with copyright? Absolutely nothing. But Omega's trick was to create a little design drawing, which it then got a registered copyright on... and then engraved that drawing in a tiny tiny spot on the back of the watch where almost no one will ever notice it. It serves absolutely no purpose... other than to make a physical object subject to the crazy excesses of copyright law. Thankfully the district court saw through that and recognized it was copyright misuse, but who knows what the higher courts (or other circuits) will say. Of course, all this fighting in the courts over this might be moot if the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is approved. We've been covering the incredibly secretive negotiations over that agreement, including last year's leaked draft of the IP section. However, we didn't quite realize the extent to which the US Trade Representative (USTR) and the big industry interests were seeking to use the TPP process to wipe out the used goods market. In a fantastically detailed post, John Mitchell walks through how the USTR is seeking to effectively neuter any used goods sales by more or less locking in these rulings that makes it effectively against the law to resell copyrighted goods that were legally bought abroad back into the US without purchasing a new license to do so. He goes through (in much more detail than I did above) the history of first sale, as well as the two key cases above, but then digs into what the USTR is trying to do according to the leaked draft: < -- > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/03083617862/how-us-trade-rep-is-trying-to-wipe-out-used-goods-sales-with-secretive-tpp-agreement.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 29 11:32:57 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:32:57 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure Message-ID: <5EAC9750-2807-434C-A010-9DDA1DF5C064@infowarrior.org> Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure from the but-the-internet?-bah... dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120228/05111217896/funny-how-sensitive-hollywood-gets-when-you-threaten-to-mess-with-its-fundamental-structure.shtml One of the key points in the SOPA/PIPA debate involved Hollywood -- and the MPAA's Chris Dodd and Michael O'Leary in particular -- dismissing the worries of folks in the tech industry about the rather fundamental changes that these laws would make to both the technological and legal frameworks of the internet. Anytime such a thing was brought up, it was dismissed out of hand. This was most noticeable during the original SOPA hearings in November, where a number of experts were pointing out their concerns with how SOPA would undermine basic internet security principles... and O'Leary dismissed them with a simple statement about how he just didn't believe those concerns to be true. What shocked many folks in the tech community was just how easily the MPAA sought to dismiss some pretty massive fundamental changes to both the internet and the legal framework around the internet. However, apparently if you dare touch the "fundamental" parts of Hollywood's business, the same MPAA throws a hissy fit. The EU recently had a public consultation on a variety of copyright-related topics, some of which were more interesting than others. One of the topics was on the question of movie release windows, and whether or not they made sense any more. As we've noted there have been many, many studies that suggest that these release windows are actually a big part of the problem for Hollywood, and they're leaving a ton of money on the table by not making movies available in as many convenient ways as possible. < - > Perhaps Hollywood is right, even if so many studies disagree. But, really, if it thinks it can just claim a certain feature is a "fundamental feature of the industry's business model," why does it then feel that there's absolutely no problem to leap into a totally different industry, and muck around with the "fundamental features" of that "industry's business model"? What an incredible sense of entitlement. The MPAA wants the law to keep its business model in place permanently... but if anyone else even dares to ask why Hollywood is trying to muck with their own business model, everyone gets attacked as being misinformed shills. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 29 13:46:44 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:46:44 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA: Fail (former FBI agent commentary) Message-ID: January 24, 2012 TSA: Fail http://gmancasefile.blogspot.com/2012/01/tsa-fail.html The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was formed to ensure America?s freedom to travel. Instead, they have made air travel the most difficult means of mass transit in the United States, at the same time failing to make air travel any more secure. TSA has never, (and I invite them to prove me wrong), foiled a terrorist plot or stopped an attack on an airliner. Ever. They crow about weapons found and insinuate that this means they stopped terrorism. They claim that they can?t comment due to ?national security? implications. In fact, if they had foiled a plot, criminal charges would have to be filed. Ever hear of terrorism charges being filed because of something found during a TSA screening? No, because it?s never happened. Trust me, if TSA had ever foiled a terrorist plot, they would buy full-page ads in every newspaper in the United States to prove their importance and increase their budget. I have a unique position from which to make these statements. For 25 years, as many of readers know, I was an FBI Special Agent, and for many of those years, I was a counter-terrorism specialist. I ran the Los Angeles Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) Al Qaeda squad. I ran the JTTF?s Extra-territorial squad, which responded to terrorism against the United States or its interests throughout the world. I have investigated Al Qaeda cell operations in the United States, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand, just to name a few. The FBI and the CIA provides the lion?s share of actionable intelligence on threats to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (the mother organization of TSA), so that they can tailor security screening to the actual threat. I am, as I have said before, a political conservative, a law and order kind of guy and I get misty when the national anthem is played at a football game and jets fly over in salute. If anything, I am pre-disposed to support the United States government. I have been a pilot for more than 35 years. In the early years of my career, I flew aircraft for the FBI and I amassed 6,500 hours of flight time. I worked my way through college with United Airlines and was cockpit qualified to move the airliners around the ramp, fuel them and service them. I know aircraft. My father, a former FBI Agent, worked for United from the time I was 12. We used our flight benefits to travel more than anybody I know, taking round-the-world vacations nearly every year and jumping airliners like hobos jump freight trains. During my FBI counter-terrorism years, I traveled 100,000 to 200,000 miles per year. I am intimately familiar with airline travel. My father's position at United Airlines was Manager of Security. He had this job in the 70?s when airline security was in its infancy and he helped pioneered security procedures including the first magnetometers. He has written two textbooks on airport, aircraft, and airline security, and sat on FAA sponsored committees on airline security. As a SWAT Agent, I was fully trained to interdict hijackings. I have trained countless hours on actual airliners, learned to shoot surgically inside the airliner ?tube,? silently approach the aircraft and breach exterior doors quickly. I was also trained to shoot from airline seats in case I was aboard a hijacked flight, and for 25 years I traveled armed on airliners, meeting with Air Marshals prior to each flight. I have dealt with TSA since its inception and FAA security prior to that. I have witnessed TSA operate since they became a separate organization in 2002 and seen their reaction to intelligence provided them. I have now watched them operate for a decade, and I have respect for their hard-working employees who are doing a thankless job. But I have come to the conclusion that TSA is one of the worst-run, ineffective and most unnecessarily intrusive agencies in the United States government. TILTING AT WINDMILLS The entire TSA paradigm is flawed. It requires an impossibility for it to succeed. For the TSA model to work, every single possible means of causing danger to an aircraft or its passengers must be eliminated. This is an impossibility. While passengers are being frisked and digitally strip-searched a few dozen yards away, cooks and dish washers at the local concourse ?Chili?s? are using and cleaning butcher knives. While bomb-sniffing dogs are run past luggage, the beach at the departure end of LAX is largely unpatrolled, and anybody with a shoulder launched missile (you know the ones they regularly shoot down U.S. helicopters with in Afghanistan) could take out any plane of their choice. I am reticent to discuss anything further that would give anybody ideas. However, these two have had wide dissemination in the media but are by NO means the biggest threats. I sometimes ruminate while standing in line waiting to take off my shoes, remove my belt, laptop, iPad, etc., etc., about the improvised weapons I saw in prisons and how hard they were to find. It?s fascinating what weapons prisoners can make out of plastic forks, newspapers and toothbrushes. Ask any prison guard if an inmate can make a weapon out of an everyday item, and how long it would take them. Approximately 99% of what the average traveler carries on a plane would be considered contraband in a maximum security prison, due to the fact that it can easily be converted into a weapon. Toothbrushes, Popsicle sticks, pens, pencils, anything with wire (iPod headset), any metal object which can be sharpened, etc., etc. is a potential weapon. Carried to its logical end, TSA policy would have to require passengers to travel naked or handcuffed. (Handcuffing is the required procedure for U.S. Marshalls transporting prisoners in government aircraft.) TSA?s de facto policy to this point has been to react to the latest thing tried by a terrorist, which is invariably something that Al Qaeda identified as a technique not addressed by current screening. While this narrows Al Qaeda?s options, their list of attack ideas remains long and they are imaginative. Therefore, if TSA continues to react to each and every new thing tried, three things are certain: 1. Nothing Al Qaeda tries will be caught the first time because it was designed around gaps in TSA security. 2. It is impossible to eliminate all gaps in airline security. 3. Airline security screening based on eliminating every vulnerability will therefore fail because it is impossible. But it will by necessity become increasingly onerous and invasive on the travelers. SCREENING IS STILL IMPORTANT?DONE RIGHT TSA?s ?major malfunction? as R. Lee Ermey would say, is that they do not understand the threat. At least their reactions to the threat indicates an extreme naivet? regarding terrorists, their tactics and their operational philosophies. One of the major reasons that Al Qaeda has not successfully mounted a major attack in the United States since 9/11 is that Al Qaeda is analogous to a political action committee (PAC) or a political candidate. They live off donations from ?legitimate? radical Muslims throughout the world. These donations are crucial, and there are many causes which compete for them. In order to keep getting those donations, Al Qaeda can?t appear to be losing, weak or incapable of an attack. Therefore, they actually put themselves in a little bit of a bind after 9/11: Their success was so spectacular that it has become almost impossible to duplicate it, much less create an even more spectacular act. Any attack that seems smaller in scope than those already achieved would make it appear as though Al Qaeda was ?slipping? and terrorism dollars might go elsewhere, say to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Failure is not an option for Al Qaeda; they are as risk averse as the public relations department at Disneyland. Al Qaeda is a brand to protect, and failure is bad for the brand. If there is a one in ten chance that an attack will fail, the powers-that-be will not likely green-light it. TSA screening, as it is now, is so predictable and known that Al Qaeda can know with absolute certainty what they can and cannot get through screening. That is valuable intelligence for them. In a word, TSA is predictable. This increases Al Qaeda?s chances of success. It reminds me of counter-espionage surveillances against our cold-war adversaries the Soviets. They were followed nearly all the time and they knew it. A good Soviet intelligence officer would identify the surveillance and the agents and vehicles involved in the surveillance. Then, he would be able to fulfill his ?drops? and communications knowing where the surveillance was at any time. When you can see the surveillance, you know exactly what you can and cannot get away with. Only when they could not see the surveillance were they truly intimidated. TSA would have significantly greater affect with a random-selection type of process. The benefits of random selection are: Approximately 80% fewer screeners needed, complete unpredictability of the likelihood of a search, and extremely effective searches of those, say 10%, selected. It would not reduce by 1% Al Qaeda?s belief that they could get through screening with a weapon. A 1-in-10 chance of a full search is too much of a risk for Al Qaeda. They do not plan their attacks on the ?Well, it?s got a decent chance? method. They require a sure thing. Putting explosives in a shoe and depending on a 10% chance of failure are odds they will not accept. So rather than ineffective (yet incredibly intrusive) screening of 100% of the passengers, there should be highly effective screening of an unpredictable 10% with a reduced screening requirement for the other 90%, say a magnetometer and bag X-ray, allowing people to wear their shoes, belts and pacemakers through screening. THE VIRTUAL STRIP SEARCH Is this really okay with you? These are images created by the TSA?s ?Backscatter/Body Imaging X-Ray? scanner. The images are not, they say, detailed enough to cause anybody any embarrassment. Frankly, they are intimately detailed. I am stunned, quite frankly, that the same people who fought against the Patriot Act because it was invasive and violated privacy rights have not howled about this invasion of personal privacy rights. I recently asked a TSA officer whether a man or a woman was conducting the screening at my ?device.? I was told that it varied and they didn't know right at that moment. I declined being screened by the machine to see what the procedure was. I was then frisked?and told that by rule, I could be frisked only by a man. Good. I get that, but then, why aren't there male and female devices where like-sex screeners view the virtual strip searches. I have to be blunt here, I have a serious issue with any man I don?t know and who is not our doctor, seeing under my wife?s clothing. Maybe I?m old fashioned. An immediate demand should be that these devices be operated with male/female devices with same-sex screeners. If that can?t be accomplished, then TSA needs to explain why. By the way, ?money? will not be accepted as a justifiable reason. They?re spending enough to cover it on other things. Don?t take my word for it; listen to a report by congressional investigators released just two months ago: ?Today, TSA's screening policies are based in theatrics. They are typical, bureaucratic responses to failed security policies meant to assuage the concerns of the traveling public.? Translation? TSA doesn?t know what it?s doing, but is trying to put on a good show to keep the traveling public from catching on. The report, entitled, ?"A Decade Later: A Call for TSA Reform" sharply criticized the agency, accusing it of incompetent management. Former DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner dropped this bomb, ?The ability of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items from being carried through the sterile areas of the airports fared no better than the performance of screeners prior to September 11, 2001.? Frankly, the professional experience I have had with TSA has frightened me. Once, when approaching screening for a flight on official FBI business, I showed my badge as I had done for decades in order to bypass screening. (You can be envious, but remember, I was one less person in line.) I was asked for my form which showed that I was armed. I was unarmed on this flight because my ultimate destination was a foreign country. I was told, "Then you have to be screened." This logic startled me, so I asked, "If I tell you I have a high-powered weapon, you will let me bypass screening, but if I tell you I'm unarmed, then I have to be screened?" The answer? "Yes. Exactly." Another time, I was bypassing screening (again on official FBI business) with my .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol, and a TSA officer noticed the clip of my pocket knife. "You can't bring a knife on board," he said. I looked at him incredulously and asked, "The semi-automatic pistol is okay, but you don't trust me with a knife?" His response was equal parts predictable and frightening, "But knives are not allowed on the planes." OUT OF CONTROL Civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle should be appalled at an unauthorized use to which TSA is putting their screening: Identifying petty criminals--using one search method to achieve a secret goal. This is strictly forbidden in other government branches. In the FBI, if I had a warrant to wiretap an individual on a terrorism matter and picked-up evidence of a non-terrorism-related crime, I could not, without FBI Headquarters and a judge?s approval, use that as evidence in a criminal case. But TSA is using its screening devices to carve out a niche business. According to congress, TSA began to seek out petty criminals without congressional approval. TSA have arrested more than 1,000 people on drug charges and other non-airline security-related offenses to date. The report goes on to state that the virtual strip search screening machines are a failure in that they cannot detect the type of explosives used by the ?underwear bomber? or even a pistol used as a TSA?s own real-world test of the machines. Yet TSA has spent approximately $60 billion since 2002 and now has over 65,000 employees, more than the Department of State, more than the Department of Energy, more than the Department of Labor, more than the Department of Education, more than the Department of Housing and Urban Development---combined. TSA has become, according to the report, ?an enormous, inflexible and distracted bureaucracy more concerned with??consolidating power.? Each time the TSA is publically called to account for their actions, they fight back with fear-based press releases which usually begin with ?At a time like this?.? Or ?Al Qaeda is planning?at this moment ?..? The tactic, of course, is to throw the spotlight off the fact that their policies are doing nothing to make America safer ?at a time like this.? Sometimes doing the wrong thing is just as bad as doing nothing. The TSA unions are now fighting against any reduction in staff, such as by implementation of more efficient protocols, hiring of contractors, or less draconian screening. It is simply not in their best interest for screening to get quicker or easier because that would require fewer screeners. The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, John Mica (R-FL) scolded; ?It is time for TSA to refocus its mission based on risk and develop common sense security protocols.? THE QUEEN HAS NO CLOTHES Just when I was getting to think that the backscatter x-ray images were humiliating, degrading or invasive, Susan Hallowell, Director of the TSA research lab eased my fear by consenting to have her backscatter image made public. That?s Ms. Hallowell in the upper photo. And the two below--same day, same time. See? What?s invasive or embarrassing about those photos? Obviously, I?m overreacting. Several things about these photos struck me; first, I of course noticed that the backscatter x-ray has cleverly detected the gun on her hip (it?s the black object just above her thong in the far left picture). That the gun would have been found by magnetometers in service since the 1970?s is likely not something they would like us to dwell on. Secondarily, I am struck by the similarity of this demonstration to the fable, ?The Emperor?s New Clothes.? In that tale, a king is swindled by tailors who create for him a suit of clothes that are invisible to incompetent people. Of course, nobody would admit that they didn?t see the clothes for fear of being branded unfit for their jobs, and certainly the king wasn?t going to say anything. Looking at these photos, I wonder if something similar isn?t going on here. It is as if patriotic, loyal citizens who care about security and the United States of America and the lives of their fellow citizens will not see this as an abuse of power. Anybody who views these images as dehumanizing, humiliating, unnecessary or abusive are obviously not against terrorism and care little if airplanes filled with families fall to the ground. But in this situation, it is essential that we shout ?the king (or in this case the queen) has no clothes!? Going along with the status quo is the exact opposite of protecting Americans, it is the opposite of saving lives, it is the opposite of preventing terrorism, and it is the opposite of freedom and personal rights. With the congressional spotlight on the organization, TSA is finally feeling what it's like to be screened. It has walked through the detector of bureaucratic failure and the red light has gone off. It?s time that we ask congress to have TSA ?step over to this area? for a more thorough search. For once, "TSA screening" will be productive. I predict that dangerous amounts of inefficiency, derivative thinking, and reactive policy will be located, if not in their shoes, in their DNA. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 29 17:35:05 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:35:05 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The TSA Is Coming To a Highway Near You Message-ID: 2/29/2012 @ 12:09PM |1,878 views The TSA Is Coming To a Highway Near You By Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/02/29/the-tsa-is-coming-to-a-highway-near-you/print/ One of the great honors of my service to Tennessee is having the opportunity to represent Ft. Campbell which is home to the storied 101st Airborne, the 5th Special Forces Group and the Army?s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment which piloted Navy SEAL Team Six during the raid on Osama Bin Laden. Each soldier who calls Ft. Campbell home has gone through some of the most intensive training on the planet which pushed their minds and bodies to their physical limits. In the end, those who make the cut have earned the right to be part of our United States military, are honored to wear its uniform, and are serving on the frontlines in the fight against global terrorism. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for our nation?s Transportation Security Officers (TSO?s) who Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano contends are our nation?s last line of defense in fighting domestic terrorism. Unlike ?hell week? which faces potential Navy SEALs, becoming a TSO requires a basic level of classroom and on the job training. In many cases this rigorous training is less severe than the requirements of becoming a security guard in most states. Believe it or not, only 7 years ago, TSO?s went by a more deserving title, ?airport security screeners.? At the time, their title and on the job appearance consisted of a white shirt and black pants. This was fitting because airport security screening is exactly what?s required of the position. However, this is no longer the case. In the dead of night, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) administratively reclassified airport security screeners as Transportation Security Officers. The TSA then moved to administratively upgrade TSO?s uniforms to resemble those of a federal law enforcement officer. They further completed the makeover with metal law enforcement badges. Not surprisingly, government bureaucrats at the TSA left out one crucial component during the artificial makeover ? actual federal law enforcement training as is required of Federal Air Marshalls. While TSO?s may have the appearance of a federal law enforcement officer they have neither the authority nor the power. If a passenger brings a loaded gun or an explosive device into an airport screening area there is nothing a TSO can do until the local police step in to save the day. If TSO?s are truly our nation?s last line of defense in stopping an act of terrorism, then the TSA should immediately end the practice of placing hiring notices for available TSO positions on pizza boxes and at discount gas stations as theyhave done in our nation?s capital. Surely, this is not where our federal government is going to find our brightest and sharpest Americans committed to keeping our traveling public safe. I would contend that we can surely strive for a higher standard and may want to look first to our veterans returning home from the battlefield. Interestingly enough, as TSA officials like to routinely point out, their agency?s acronym stands for Transportation Security Administration, not the Airport SecurityAdministration. This fact has extended the TSA?s reach has far beyond the confines of our nation?s airports. Many of my constituents discovered this first hand this past fall as those familiar blue uniforms and badges appeared on Tennessee highways. In October Tennessee became the first state to conduct a statewide Department of Homeland Security Visible Intermodal Prevention andResponse (VIPR) team operation which randomly inspected Tennessee truck drivers and cars. VIPR teams which count TSO?s among their ranks, conduct searches and screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals and every other mass transit location around the country. In fact, as the Los Angeles Times has detailed, VIPR teams conducted 9,300 unannounced checkpoints and other search operations in the last year alone. The very thought of federal employees with zero law enforcement training roaming across our nation?s transportation infrastructure with the hope of randomly thwarting a domestic terrorist attack makes about as much sense as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson?s Environmental Justice tour. In order to help rein in the TSA I introduced H.R. 3608, the Stop TSA?s Reach in Policy Act aka the STRIP Act. This bill will simply overturn the TSA?s administrative decision by prohibiting any TSA employee who has not received federal law enforcement training from using the title ?officer,? wearing a police like uniform or a metal police badge. At its most basic level the STRIP Act is about truth in advertising. As TSO?s continue to expand their presence beyond our nation?s airports and onto our highways, every American citizen has the right to know that they are not dealing with actual federal law enforcement officers. Had one Virginia woman known this days before Thanksgiving she may have been able to escape being forcibly raped by a TSO who approached her in a parking lot in full uniform while flashing his badge. Will the STRIP Act solve every problem facing the TSA? Absolutely not. The STRIP Act seeks to expand upon the work of my colleagues by chipping away at an unnoticed yet powerful overreach of our federal government. If Congress cannot swiftly overturn something as simple as this administrative decision there will be little hope that we can take steps to truly rein in the TSA on larger issues of concern. Furthermore, if Congress fails to act do not be surprised if the TSA gives TSO?s another administrative makeover in the future. Only this time it won?t be a new uniform. It will be the power to make arrests as some TSO?s are already publicly calling for. Congressman Blackburn is a Republican serving Tennessee?s 7th district. This article is available online at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/02/29/the-tsa-is-coming-to-a-highway-near-you/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Feb 29 17:46:30 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:46:30 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Verisign seizes .com domain registered via foreign Registrar on behalf of US Authorities. Message-ID: Verisign seizes .com domain registered via foreign Registrar on behalf of US Authorities. http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it.