From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 1 06:54:53 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:54:53 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NYT: US+Israel did Stuxnet Message-ID: <0F28A419-A3B7-4220-928C-1FD548F3E81D@infowarrior.org> June 1, 2012 Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran By DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print WASHINGTON ? From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that runIran?s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America?s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program. Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks ? begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games ? even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran?s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet. At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm?s ?escape,? Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, considered whether America?s most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran?s nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised. ?Should we shut this thing down?? Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president?s national security team who were in the room. Told it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code, and offered evidence that it was still causing havoc, Mr. Obama decided that the cyberattacks should proceed. In the following weeks, the Natanz plant was hit by a newer version of the computer worm, and then another after that. The last of that series of attacks, a few weeks after Stuxnet was detected around the world, temporarily took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had spinning at the time to purify uranium. This account of the American and Israeli effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear program is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day. These officials gave differing assessments of how successful the sabotage program was in slowing Iran?s progress toward developing the ability to buildnuclear weapons. Internal Obama administration estimates say the effort was set back by 18 months to two years, but some experts inside and outside the government are more skeptical, noting that Iran?s enrichment levels have steadily recovered, giving the country enough fuel today for five or more weapons, with additional enrichment. Whether Iran is still trying to design and build a weapon is in dispute. The most recent United States intelligence estimate concludes that Iran suspended major parts of its weaponization effort after 2003, though there is evidence that some remnants of it continue. Iran initially denied that its enrichment facilities had been hit by Stuxnet, then said it had found the worm and contained it. Last year, the nation announced that it had begun its own military cyberunit, and Brig. Gen. Gholamreza Jalali, the head of Iran?s Passive Defense Organization, said that the Iranian military was prepared ?to fight our enemies? in ?cyberspace and Internet warfare.? But there has been scant evidence that it has begun to strike back. The United States government only recently acknowledged developing cyberweapons, and it has never admitted using them. There have been reports of one-time attacks against personal computers used by members of Al Qaeda, and of contemplated attacks against the computers that run air defense systems, including during the NATO-led air attack on Libya last year. But Olympic Games was of an entirely different type and sophistication. It appears to be the first time the United States has repeatedly used cyberweapons to cripple another country?s infrastructure, achieving, with computer code, what until then could be accomplished only by bombing a country or sending in agents to plant explosives. The code itself is 50 times as big as the typical computer worm, Carey Nachenberg, a vice president of Symantec, one of the many groups that have dissected the code, said at a symposium at Stanford University in April. Those forensic investigations into the inner workings of the code, while picking apart how it worked, came to no conclusions about who was responsible. A similar process is now under way to figure out the origins of another cyberweapon called Flame that was recently discovered to have attacked the computers of Iranian officials, sweeping up information from those machines. But the computer code appears to be at least five years old, and American officials say that it was not part of Olympic Games. They have declined to say whether the United States was responsible for the Flame attack. Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons ? even under the most careful and limited circumstances ? could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks. ?We discussed the irony, more than once,? one of his aides said. Another said that the administration was resistant to developing a ?grand theory for a weapon whose possibilities they were still discovering.? Yet Mr. Obama concluded that when it came to stopping Iran, the United States had no other choice. If Olympic Games failed, he told aides, there would be no time for sanctions and diplomacy with Iran to work. Israel could carry out a conventional military attack, prompting a conflict that could spread throughout the region. A Bush Initiative The impetus for Olympic Games dates from 2006, when President George W. Bush saw few good options in dealing with Iran. At the time, America?s European allies were divided about the cost that imposing sanctions on Iran would have on their own economies. Having falsely accused Saddam Hussein of reconstituting his nuclear program in Iraq, Mr. Bush had little credibility in publicly discussing another nation?s nuclear ambitions. The Iranians seemed to sense his vulnerability, and, frustrated by negotiations, they resumed enriching uranium at an underground site at Natanz, one whose existence had been exposed just three years before. Iran?s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, took reporters on a tour of the plant and described grand ambitions to install upward of 50,000 centrifuges. For a country with only one nuclear power reactor ? whose fuel comes from Russia ? to say that it needed fuel for its civilian nuclear program seemed dubious to Bush administration officials. They feared that the fuel could be used in another way besides providing power: to create a stockpile that could later be enriched to bomb-grade material if the Iranians made a political decision to do so. Hawks in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney urged Mr. Bush to consider a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities before they could produce fuel suitable for a weapon. Several times, the administration reviewed military options and concluded that they would only further inflame a region already at war, and would have uncertain results. For years the C.I.A. had introduced faulty parts and designs into Iran?s systems ? even tinkering with imported power supplies so that they would blow up ? but the sabotage had had relatively little effect. General James E. Cartwright, who had established a small cyberoperation inside the United States Strategic Command, which is responsible for many of America?s nuclear forces, joined intelligence officials in presenting a radical new idea to Mr. Bush and his national security team. It involved a far more sophisticated cyberweapon than the United States had designed before. The goal was to gain access to the Natanz plant?s industrial computer controls. That required leaping the electronic moat that cut the Natanz plant off from the Internet ? called the air gap, because it physically separates the facility from the outside world. The computer code would invade the specialized computers that command the centrifuges. The first stage in the effort was to develop a bit of computer code called a beacon that could be inserted into the computers, which were made by the German company Siemens and an Iranian manufacturer, to map their operations. The idea was to draw the equivalent of an electrical blueprint of the Natanz plant, to understand how the computers control the giant silvery centrifuges that spin at tremendous speeds. The connections were complex, and unless every circuit was understood, efforts to seize control of the centrifuges could fail. Eventually the beacon would have to ?phone home? ? literally send a message back to the headquarters of the National Security Agency that would describe the structure and daily rhythms of the enrichment plant. Expectations for the plan were low; one participant said the goal was simply to ?throw a little sand in the gears? and buy some time. Mr. Bush was skeptical, but lacking other options, he authorized the effort. Breakthrough, Aided by Israel It took months for the beacons to do their work and report home, complete with maps of the electronic directories of the controllers and what amounted to blueprints of how they were connected to the centrifuges deep underground. Then the N.S.A. and a secret Israeli unit respected by American intelligence officials for its cyberskills set to work developing the enormously complex computer worm that would become the attacker from within. The unusually tight collaboration with Israel was driven by two imperatives. Israel?s Unit 8200, a part of its military, had technical expertise that rivaled the N.S.A.?s, and the Israelis had deep intelligence about operations at Natanz that would be vital to making the cyberattack a success. But American officials had another interest, to dissuade the Israelis from carrying out their own pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities. To do that, the Israelis would have to be convinced that the new line of attack was working. The only way to convince them, several officials said in interviews, was to have them deeply involved in every aspect of the program. Soon the two countries had developed a complex worm that the Americans called ?the bug.? But the bug needed to be tested. So, under enormous secrecy, the United States began building replicas of Iran?s P-1 centrifuges, an aging, unreliable design that Iran purchased from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear chief who had begun selling fuel-making technology on the black market. Fortunately for the United States, it already owned some P-1s, thanks to the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. When Colonel Qaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons program in 2003, he turned over the centrifuges he had bought from the Pakistani nuclear ring, and they were placed in storage at a weapons laboratory in Tennessee. The military and intelligence officials overseeing Olympic Games borrowed some for what they termed ?destructive testing,? essentially building a virtual replica of Natanz, but spreading the test over several of the Energy Department?s national laboratories to keep even the most trusted nuclear workers from figuring out what was afoot. Those first small-scale tests were surprisingly successful: the bug invaded the computers, lurking for days or weeks, before sending instructions to speed them up or slow them down so suddenly that their delicate parts, spinning at supersonic speeds, self-destructed. After several false starts, it worked. One day, toward the end of Mr. Bush?s term, the rubble of a centrifuge was spread out on the conference table in the Situation Room, proof of the potential power of a cyberweapon. The worm was declared ready to test against the real target: Iran?s underground enrichment plant. ?Previous cyberattacks had effects limited to other computers,? Michael V. Hayden, the former chief of the C.I.A., said, declining to describe what he knew of these attacks when he was in office. ?This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect physical destruction,? rather than just slow another computer, or hack into it to steal data. ?Somebody crossed the Rubicon,? he said. Getting the worm into Natanz, however, was no easy trick. The United States and Israel would have to rely on engineers, maintenance workers and others ? both spies and unwitting accomplices ? with physical access to the plant. ?That was our holy grail,? one of the architects of the plan said. ?It turns out there is always an idiot around who doesn?t think much about the thumb drive in their hand.? In fact, thumb drives turned out to be critical in spreading the first variants of the computer worm; later, more sophisticated methods were developed to deliver the malicious code. The first attacks were small, and when the centrifuges began spinning out of control in 2008, the Iranians were mystified about the cause, according to intercepts that the United States later picked up. ?The thinking was that the Iranians would blame bad parts, or bad engineering, or just incompetence,? one of the architects of the early attack said. The Iranians were confused partly because no two attacks were exactly alike. Moreover, the code would lurk inside the plant for weeks, recording normal operations; when it attacked, it sent signals to the Natanz control room indicating that everything downstairs was operating normally. ?This may have been the most brilliant part of the code,? one American official said. Later, word circulated through the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, that the Iranians had grown so distrustful of their own instruments that they had assigned people to sit in the plant and radio back what they saw. ?The intent was that the failures should make them feel they were stupid, which is what happened,? the participant in the attacks said. When a few centrifuges failed, the Iranians would close down whole ?stands? that linked 164 machines, looking for signs of sabotage in all of them. ?They overreacted,? one official said. ?We soon discovered they fired people.? Imagery recovered by nuclear inspectors from cameras at Natanz ? which the nuclear agency uses to keep track of what happens between visits ? showed the results. There was some evidence of wreckage, but it was clear that the Iranians had also carted away centrifuges that had previously appeared to be working well. But by the time Mr. Bush left office, no wholesale destruction had been accomplished. Meeting with Mr. Obama in the White House days before his inauguration, Mr. Bush urged him to preserve two classified programs, Olympic Games and the drone program in Pakistan. Mr. Obama took Mr. Bush?s advice. The Stuxnet Surprise Mr. Obama came to office with an interest in cyberissues, but he had discussed them during the campaign mostly in terms of threats to personal privacy and the risks to infrastructure like the electrical grid and the air traffic control system. He commissioned a major study on how to improve America?s defenses and announced it with great fanfare in the East Room. What he did not say then was that he was also learning the arts of cyberwar. The architects of Olympic Games would meet him in the Situation Room, often with what they called the ?horse blanket,? a giant foldout schematic diagram of Iran?s nuclear production facilities. Mr. Obama authorized the attacks to continue, and every few weeks ? certainly after a major attack ? he would get updates and authorize the next step. Sometimes it was a strike riskier and bolder than what had been tried previously. ?From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program ? the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision,? a senior administration official said. ?And it?s safe to say that whatever other activity might have been under way was no exception to that rule.? But the good luck did not last. In the summer of 2010, shortly after a new variant of the worm had been sent into Natanz, it became clear that the worm, which was never supposed to leave the Natanz machines, had broken free, like a zoo animal that found the keys to the cage. It fell to Mr. Panetta and two other crucial players in Olympic Games ? General Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Michael J. Morell, the deputy director of the C.I.A. ? to break the news to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden. An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer?s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users. ?We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,? one of the briefers told the president, ?and we don?t know if we were part of that activity.? Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. ?It?s got to be the Israelis,? he said. ?They went too far.? In fact, both the Israelis and the Americans had been aiming for a particular part of the centrifuge plant, a critical area whose loss, they had concluded, would set the Iranians back considerably. It is unclear who introduced the programming error. The question facing Mr. Obama was whether the rest of Olympic Games was in jeopardy, now that a variant of the bug was replicating itself ?in the wild,? where computer security experts can dissect it and figure out its purpose. ?I don?t think we have enough information,? Mr. Obama told the group that day, according to the officials. But in the meantime, he ordered that the cyberattacks continue. They were his best hope of disrupting the Iranian nuclear program unless economic sanctions began to bite harder and reduced Iran?s oil revenues. Within a week, another version of the bug brought down just under 1,000 centrifuges. Olympic Games was still on. A Weapon?s Uncertain Future American cyberattacks are not limited to Iran, but the focus of attention, as one administration official put it, ?has been overwhelmingly on one country.? There is no reason to believe that will remain the case for long. Some officials question why the same techniques have not been used more aggressively against North Korea. Others see chances to disrupt Chinese military plans, forces in Syria on the way to suppress the uprising there, and Qaeda operations around the world. ?We?ve considered a lot more attacks than we have gone ahead with,? one former intelligence official said. Mr. Obama has repeatedly told his aides that there are risks to using ? and particularly to overusing ? the weapon. In fact, no country?s infrastructure is more dependent on computer systems, and thus more vulnerable to attack, than that of the United States. It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran. This article is adapted from ?Confront and Conceal: Obama?s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,? to be published by Crown on Tuesday. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 1 07:14:59 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:14:59 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Security FUD Alert: Flame On. Flame Off. Flame Out Message-ID: <8B1D9B91-92FD-4C02-9CE5-0D781750A10A@infowarrior.org> (c/o Ferg) Security FUD Alert: Flame On. Flame Off. Flame Out Here we go again, and this one is not (energy) sector specific. It's more geo-specific ... see: Middle East and North Africa, at least for now. This is a clear-cut case of marketing security through fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), and using the press's predictably Pavlovian response to maximize impact. Depending on where you fit in the cyber food chain, maybe you like it, but I'm sick of it. Sick of it, I say. And I'm not going to take it anymore! (Yeah, right) < - > http://smartgridsecurity.blogspot.com/2012/05/security-fud-alert-flame-on-flame-off.html --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 1 08:13:52 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 09:13:52 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Facebook users suffer service disruptions Message-ID: <08CF565E-614B-4900-95D3-631DC4D2D76C@infowarrior.org> 1 June 2012 Last updated at 10:12 Facebook users suffer service disruptions http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18294049?print=true Facebook has suffered a series of service disruptions which left many people unable to use the social network. The problems meant that the site was unreachable for some people for almost two hours. Sporadic disruptions were reported by many people and even those who could get through said pages were taking a long time to load. Facebook apologised but said it had fixed the problem. Stock slide News of problems getting at and using Facebook spread quickly as people took to Twitter, news sites and blogs to express their frustration. "Facebook is acting like its stock. It keeps going down," quipped one Twitter user. Website watching sites such as Downrightnow and Downforeveryoneorjustme reported that the site was intermittently available for a period of several hours. In a statement, Facebook said some users "briefly experienced issues loading the site" but these had been resolved and it should be working fine for everyone. It gave no details about what had caused the problems. Facebook has a reputation for reliability and the problems come at a sensitive time for the company. It is under intense scrutiny given the poor performance of its stock following its flotation on the Nasdaq stock exchange 18 May. The stock has fallen almost 23% since its debut. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 1 08:18:08 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 09:18:08 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Secrecy Rules! Hill may freeze THOMAS in digital past Message-ID: <0D9B9D54-B9F6-4B62-9232-9C6DA040181E@infowarrior.org> Gee, one wonders if the outcry over CISPA/SOPA ahd something to do with this..... --rick Hill may freeze THOMAS in digital past by Jennifer Peebles http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/hill-may-freeze-thomas-digital-past/572706 What Congress does is supposed to be public, right? And it shouldn?t be hard to get information about those activities, right? Not everybody in Congress thinks that's a very good idea. You can look up bills pending in Congress on the THOMAS site -- named for Thomas Jefferson -- that is run by the Library of Congress. You go to the THOMAS web site and put in your search terms, and it gives you a list of all the bills that include that phrase. THOMAS is a bit clunky, yes, but it's the only way our national legislature has deigned to give us such information through the InterTubes, so we're stuck with it for now. But if you know anything about our federal government, you know that if you if really want to see what Congress is up to, looking at one bill at a time often won't tell you much. You often need to review multiple bills, or hundreds of bills, such as all the legislation filed by a certain senator or dealing with a certain issue. For instance, if you really want to see what kind of oddball stuff members of Congress are trying to get exempted from import tariffs this year, like my colleague Mark Flatten recently did, you'll have to look at more than 2,000 bills. A web interface that lets us call up and download one bill at a time was really innovative once -- say, 15 years ago. But that won't cut it anymore. Folks with computers -- notably, professional and citizen journalists -- would be able to take information about massive numbers of bills and analyze them in myriad ways -- if Congress would allow such information to be downloaded from THOMAS in bulk. It won't. And, according to a new draft report from the House Appropriations Committee, it won't be allowing bulk data downloads from THOMAS anytime soon. Instead of taking a step towards greater transparency, the committee got hung up on whether people would know if the data they're seeing on the Internet were accurate and really from Congress -- "authentication," they call it. The draft report ?represents a tremendous step backward for transparency, and fails to seriously grapple with the history of efforts to free legislative information for widespread public use,? two staffers at the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation wrote. After having parsed some of Flatten's list of tariff bills, the last thing Congress needs to worry about is being embarrassed by someone making up crazy bills and fraudulently passing them off as the real thing. The real bills are crazy enough. Senate Bill 2890, titled "A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on pepperoncini, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen," is indeed a real piece of legislation pending before the U.S. Congress. So is Senate Bill 2891, "A bill to extend temporary reduction of duty on pepperoncini, prepared or preserved by vinegar." Vinegar or no vinegar, Congress has left transparency advocates in a sour mood. Jennifer Peebles is The Washington Examiner?s data editor. She can be reached at jpeebles at washingtonexaminer.com. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 1 08:21:58 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 09:21:58 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Judge: APIs are not copyrightable Message-ID: Ruling in Google versus Oracle: APIs are not copyrightable updated 09:52 pm EDT, Thu May 31, 2012 http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/05/31/41.page.brief.first.ruling.of.its.kind/ 41-page brief first ruling of its kind Further announcements have come from Judge William Alsup's courtroom in the Google versus Oracle case today. The judge has decreed programming APIs to be non-copyrightable. The ruling comes in accordance with existing copyright law declaring "a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function" non-copyrightable under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act. Alsup's court is the first court, district or appeals, to have specifically addressed the separate matter of API copyrightability, instead of the complete codebase copyrightability issue. Judge Alsup sided with Google on this matter. Google lawyers previously requested the matter be decided as a judgement as a matter of law (JMOL) in this fashion. From the summary: "So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical," Alsup writes. The judge adds for emphasis that "When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law." The finding does address the duplicated nine lines of rangecheck code specifically, and specifically notes that Dr. Joshua Bloch planned to contribute the offending library back to the Java community by submitting his code to an open Java implementation. In fact, the library in question is included as part of the Java J2SE 5.0 release. This code no longer exists in Android, as it was purged from the codebase over a year ago. Judge Alsup's summary draws from decisions as far back as the 1980s, including Atari Games Corp (Tengen) versus Nintendo of America to address the reverse-engineering issue, Sega versus Accolade for software standards and compatibility, and Lotus Development Corp versus Borland International for interoperability and software look and feel. Sony Computer Entertainment versus Connectix Corporation was also referenced, but as an outlying example. This case only addresses APIs, the libraries used to make software. Complete code packages are still protectable by copyright law. A brief analysis of the 41-page summary of judgement suggests that Alsup is attempting to constrain the power of broad patents used in lawsuits, such as that decried by Tim Cook in his recent AllthingsD conference keynote interview. The judge clearly states near the end of the brief "we should not yield to the temptation to find copyrightability merely to reward an investment made in a body of intellectual property." While the ruling is likely to have long-lasting implications for future court decisions, the immediate concern of the judge is Google versus Oracle. Alsup's filing reads a bit harshly in the summary in regards to Oracle's point of view during the trial, stating "Oracle has made much of nine lines of code that crept into both Android and Java. This circumstance is so innocuous and overblown by Oracle that the actual facts, as found herein by the judge, will be set forth below for the benefit of the court of appeals." This statement, taken with the rest of the judicial summary, doesn't leave much room for Oracle to successfully appeal to, or get any traction from, another court or judge. Also, the wording suggests that Judge Alsup isn't particularly enthusiastic about Google disgorging, or giving up, any profit earned from Android. The trial, and penalty phase for any infringement that remains and is considered substantial, continues next week. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 1 13:53:19 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:53:19 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - RIAA Can't Figure Out Google's Takedown Tools; Blames Google Message-ID: RIAA Can't Figure Out Google's Takedown Tools; Blames Google from the pebkac dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120531/18292719159/riaa-cant-figure-out-googles-takedown-tools-blames-google.shtml With the release of Google's copyright transparency report recently, which helped highlight some astoundingly stupid DMCA takedown notices -- including a few from the RIAA -- you just knew the RIAA would have to lash out in response. But the question was what angle would it take. Now we know: it's simply making things up. The RIAA put up a blog post in which it listed out "five facts" to attack Google's transparency report claims. Except, this is RIAA math. If you actually read the "facts" you realize they're basically two points repeated over and over again: (1) Google limits how many searches they can do to find infringing material. (2) Google limits how many infringing domains it can report via its Webmaster tools. < -- > In other words, we can sum up the RIAA's complaint about Google's copyright transparency report as being "the transparency report is wrong, because we're clueless about how to work your tools." Given the RIAA's general (lack of) understanding about technology, perhaps that's not too surprising. But it is amusing to see them so stringently and publicly display their ignorance. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jun 2 18:23:18 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 19:23:18 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - RIAA Demands Unlimited DMCA Power From Google Message-ID: <8251308E-3064-45CC-B9B2-C3A5B9DC07D4@infowarrior.org> RIAA Demands Unlimited DMCA Power From Google ? Ben Jones ? June 2, 2012 http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-demands-unlimited-dmca-power-from-google-120502 When it comes to entitlement, few private companies can match the RIAA. The latest cause of their whines is Google. After Google published their report last week on DMCA takedowns, the RIAA is determined to make out that Google is the problem, because almost 1.25 million removed links in one year wasn?t enough, and it?s all Google?s fault, despite the search giant having absolutely no hand in putting any of them online. Poor Google can?t do anything right in the RIAA?s eyes. The Mountain View search engine is being lambasted by the Washington DC lobby group for not being proactive enough with the tools they have provided to deal with the alleged copyright infringements of completely unconnected third parties. Worse, it?s claimed that Google are actively hindering the RIAA, because they?re not allowing the industry group free reign to have each and every suspect link terminated perpetually. When Google published their report on DMCA takedowns last week, the RIAA was unimpressed. In fact, they were so unimpressed by the average of ONLY 3,400+ links taken down each and every day, that they did what any well-connected lobby group would do ? it took to its blog and wrote a top-5 list of facts on why it?s ALL GOOGLE?S FAULT! Fact 1 Google places artificial limits on the number of queries that can be made by a copyright owner to identify infringements. Because nothing says ?problem sorted? like allowing someone else?s bots unrestrained access to your data. Of course, the RIAA should be free to run as many search bots as they want, potentially hindering the search engine?s core business as they hunt down potentially infringing links. The RIAA is after all a big fan of DDOS?s, having been been the target of a few themselves. And it is better to give, than to receive, which is why the RIAA would like the ability to share one with the Google links database. Fact 2 Google also limits the number of links we can ask them to remove per day. As we?ve seen before, nothing says ?accuracy? like a stream of bot-generated links. It?s impossible to churn out an unlimited number of links with human oversight, and we?ve see how well that?s worked in practice, time and again. Since such takedowns are meant to be submitted under ?penalty of perjury?, it?s clear that Google is just looking out for the RIAA, preventing them from committing so many perjurious acts that penalties would have to be enforced. Thanks to Google, the RIAA is being saved from itself. Fact 3 The constraints Google has placed on the tools they promote to deter infringement are well below what is necessary to identify and notice infringements on the Billboard top 10, much less the entire catalog of the American creative community. If the number of takedowns were so limited, and so inadequate, then surely better care would be taken to ensure accuracy. Earlier this year, in a submission to the New Zealand Government, Google noted that 37% of DMCA notices it received were not valid claims, and 57% targeted a competitor. Perhaps if these notices were better used, there would be enough to do what the RIAA wants. And yes, apparently the RIAA speaks for the entire ?American creative community? now. Fact 4 Google claims that the DMCA notices it has received for a site represent less than 0.1% of the links it had indexed for the domains at the top of this list. But this number is misleading given the constraints imposed by Google on a copyright owner?s ability to find infringements and send notices to Google. Since Google indexes so many links using their own resources, it?s just not right that the RIAA can?t have unlimited use of those same resources, for free of course. As already discussed, it?s clear that were the RIAA able to have a freer hand to determine what Google can and can?t index, there would be a lot more than 0.1%. Where there?s 0.1%, they?re sure that it could be 10%, and if there?s 10%, then there might well be 100%. However, those restrictions prevent the RIAA from filing those notices, or even finding out. And the 37% of claims that are false? They are just collateral damage, for the Greater Good, nothing to worry about, much less do anything about. Besides, the RIAA knows best, and is just looking out for artists, honest! Fact 5 If ?take down? does not mean ?keep down,? then Google?s limitations merely perpetuate the fraud wrought on copyright owners by those who game the system under the DMCA. Finally, how DARE content be re-indexed if a notice has been filed? The RIAA?s position is CLEAR on this ? a DMCA notice is a permanent ban on that content ever being indexed by Google again. It doesn?t matter who uploaded it, if it was a fan with a bootleg before and now it?s an official release, or even if it?s just entered the public domain or someone else has taken over the rights, it simply cannot reappear. No matter what the copyright status is, once someone has filed a notice against it, that content should be completely banned from the internet. Because otherwise it?s a fraud on copyright owners, and not the kind where RIAA members claim the copyright for stuff they don?t own the rights to, or prevent the rights holder from using their own work, or lie to law enforcement to get goods seized. That kind of ?copyright fraud? is clearly acceptable, unlike the former examples. Sending almost 2-in-5 DMCA notices that are bogus, safe in the knowledge that false claims won?t be punished is another fine example of how to game the spirit of the DMCA in an acceptable manner. If the tone here has verged into the absurd, there?s probably a good reason. The RIAA?s demands are sheer lunacy. If the RIAA wants its demands to be heard, then first it needs to get its own house in order, before their abuses of the law are noticed and wipe them out. To blame Google for their own shortcomings is more of the same myopia that has left them playing catchup for the last 13 years, but who is surprised by that any more? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jun 3 17:42:11 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:42:11 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Facebook IPO: Once Again, Wall Street Wins, Muppets Lose Message-ID: <00532B9E-8EFA-471C-A90D-887E8EEFBCC0@infowarrior.org> Facebook IPO: Once Again, Wall Street Wins, Muppets Lose Submitted by EconMatters on 06/03/2012 17:57 -0400 http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-06-03/facebook-ipo-once-again-wall-street-wins-muppets-lose By EconMatters We warned of a social network tech bubble 2.0 over a year ago due to the hype and overvaluation of Facebook based on the reported deals by Goldman Sacks and a Russian investment firm--Digital Sky Technologies on the secondary gray market. At that time, the two deals valued Facebook at about $50 billion, with a 100+ price-to-earnings (PE) ratio. Fast forward to 2012, Facebook actually went IPO on May 18 with a similar lofty vaulation - the $38-per-share IPO price valued Facebook at $104 billion--100+ times historical earnings (the company's profit for 2011 was $1 billion). Facebook stock has since plummeted 27% to $27.72 from its initial $38 a share. Bloomberg estimated the stock would need to sink another 20% to match the average PE ratio for the Nasdaq Internet Index based on estimated earnings in the next 12 months. The technical glitch on NASDAQ aside, many have blamed the so-called "botched" IPO event on stock mis-price or overvaluation. On the surface, it may seem like a simple mis-pricing by the main underwriting banks and Facebook. However, judging from the sequence of reported events (see timeline below), instead of a "botched" event, the IPO is actually a total success by Wall Street standard, since concerted effort appeared to have been made to ensure an "acceptable" return for the insiders. < -- > The popularity of Facebook as a social media and IPO pre-marketing pump has generated enough hype to ensure a larger than usual percentage of Facebook shares being held by individuals (most of them probably bought the stock because they have a facebook page without much further research.) Now, many of these investors who ended up holding Facebook stocks will have more to worry as its IPO lock-up period expires. IPOs typically have a lock-up period of 180 days before insiders may sell their shares. The lock-up period for Facebook, however, is only 90 days. According to Sci-Tech Today, the first lock-up expiration of Facebook hits in less than three months, when 268 million shares are available for sale, or 1/10 of shares outstanding. In less than six months, 1.7 billion shares will be unlocked. Furthermore, odds are good that Facebook will issue more shares to fund acquisitions such as Instagram to further dilute share price. Some analysts now put a price tag of under $10 a share as a fair price for Facebook,while some others still give FB a BUY rating. Our view is that until Facebook could prove itself as the next Google or Apple by its actual financial figures, or unless you are the one sleeps and swims with the Wall Street sharks, it is best to stay away from such unproven stock. Regardless, many individual investors who got in on FB at close to its initial $38 a share are unlikely to see that price any time soon. So once again, Wall Street wins, Muppets lose. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 4 13:05:00 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:05:00 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - If You're Going To Leak Classified Info About The White House, It Better Make Them Look Good Message-ID: <728B02C9-C394-4EF9-B3E8-47BE0ABBE6D6@infowarrior.org> (then again, others I've chatted with wonder if there isn't a Judith Miller WMD-in-Iraq feeling on this story, too. --rick) If You're Going To Leak Classified Info About The White House, It Better Make Them Look Good from the vindictive-administration dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120601/16020419176/if-youre-going-to-leak-classified-info-about-white-house-it-better-make-them-look-good.shtml We've noted the unfortunate trend of the Obama administration vindictively going after any whistleblowers (despite one of Obama's first moves in office being to encourage whistleblowing). To date, the Obama administration has been involved in six prosecutions of whistleblowers using the Espionage Act... twice as many such uses of all other Presidents combined. But, here's the thing. We just wrote about the NYTimes reporting that the US was behind Stuxnet, and that President Obama himself was deeply engaged in the project. As people have noted, that level of "leak" seems to go way beyond what many of those charged under the Espionage Act did (including other leaks to the NY Times). And yet, as Gawker discovered, unlike with some of those other stories, the White House did not try to prevent the publication of this info, and almost certainly gave its tacit approval to the publication. So, what's the difference? Well, the prosecutions against whistleblowers, and the attempts to stifle the reports based on them, all seem to focus on cases where the White House looks bad -- domestic spying, torture, etc. The Stuxnet story was a success story. Even though the malware eventually leaked out into the world and was exposed, the "damage" was already done. This leak actually lets the White House claim credit and look good. A year and a half ago, we wrote about Daniel Ellsberg (the guy who leaked The Pentagon Papers to the NY Times a few decades back) talking about his personal theory as to why Obama was so vindictive against leaks, despite an outward persona (and specific statements) that totally contradicted the position. His belief was that Obama was so vindictive about whistleblowing, because all of those whistleblowing cases revealed things that were embarrassing to the President. The fact that the White House doesn't seem to have a problem with this particular leak of classified info -- one that more or less makes them look good -- certainly adds significant weight to that theory. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 4 13:36:25 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:36:25 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy Message-ID: NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy By Joel Achenbach, Monday, June 4, 11:38 AM http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-gets-military-spy-telescopes-for-astronomy/2012/06/04/gJQAsT6UDV_print.html The U.S. government?s secret space program has decided to give NASA two telescopes as big as, and even more powerful than, the Hubble Space Telescope. Designed for surveillance, the telescopes from the National Reconnaissance Office were no longer needed for spy missions and can now be used to study the heavens. They have 2.4-meter (7.9 feet) mirrors, just like the Hubble. They also have an additional feature that the civilian space telescopes lack: A maneuverable secondary mirror that makes it possible to obtain more focused images. These telescopes will have 100 times the field of view of the Hubble, according to David Spergel, a Princeton astrophysicist and co-chair of the National Academies advisory panel on astronomy and astrophysics. The surprise announcement Monday is a reminder that NASA isn?t the only space enterprise in the government ? and isn?t even the best funded. NASA official Michael Moore gave some hint of what a Hubble-class space telescope might do if used for national security: ?With a Hubble here you could see a dime sitting on top of the Washington Monument.? NASA officials stressed that they do not have a program to launch even one telescope at the moment, and that at the very earliest, under reasonable budgets, it would be 2020 before one of the two gifted telescopes could be in order. Asked whether anyone at NASA was popping champagne, the agency?s head of science, John Grunsfeld, answered, ?We never pop champagne here; our budgets are too tight.? But this is definitely a game-changer for NASA?s space science program. The unexpected gift offers NASA an opportunity to resurrect a plan to launch a new telescope to study the mysterious ?dark energy? that is causing the universe?s expansion to accelerate. The scientific community had made the dark energy telescope its top priority in the latest ?decadal survey? of goals in astronomy and astrophysics. But the hoped-for telescope has been blocked by a lack of funding, in large part because of cost overruns on the James Webb Space Telescope, which is still being readied for a possible launch later this decade. A new space telescope could also serve as a kind of scout for the Webb, Spergel said. ?It would be a great discovery telescope for where Webb should look in addition to doing the work on dark energy,? Spergel said. The two new telescopes ? which so far don?t even have names, other than Telescope One and Telescope Two ? would be ready to go into space but for two hitches. First, they don?t have instruments. There are no cameras, spectrographs or other instruments that a space telescope typically needs. Second, they don?t have a program, a mission or a staff behind them. They?re just hardware. ?The hardware is a significant cost item and it?s a significant schedule item. The thing that takes the longest to build is the telescope,? Spergel said. He added, however, ?A big cost of any mission is always just people. One of the reason that James Webb has cost so much is that when it takes longer to complete any piece of it, you keep paying the engineers working on it, and you have these big marching-army costs.? NASA?s windfall takes the pain out of the planned demise of the Hubble, which has been repaired in orbit five times. NASA does not plan any more repair missions, and the Hubble will gradually lose the ability to maintain its position and focus. At some point NASA will de-orbit the Hubble and it will crash into the Pacific. ?Instead of losing a terrific telescope, you now have two telescopes even better to replace it with,? Spergel said. ? 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 Jun 4 15:12:12 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:12:12 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - President Obama's Hypocrisy on Cyberattacks Message-ID: <94FC4C28-75EC-4F61-90A8-416C9091A35F@infowarrior.org> President Obama's Hypocrisy on Cyberattacks By Robert Wright Jun 3 2012, 8:24 PM ET http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/president-obamas-hypocrisy-on-cyberattacks/258016/?google_editors_picks=true A year ago the Obama administration unveiled its "International Strategy for Cyberspace." The document said, among other things, that "aggressive acts in cyberspace" may be viewed by America as acts of war. "When warranted, the United States will respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would any other threat to our country," which may mean the use of "military force." The U.S. "has no intention of sitting quietly while corporate and governmental computer systems are attacked with impunity." Thanks to reporting by David Sanger in Friday's New York Times, we now know that President Obama, when he signed that document, had already "secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons." This was the famous Stuxnet computer virus, developed in collaboration with Israel. To fully appreciate the hypocrisy, you need to read the more high minded parts of that 2011 cyberspace manifesto: "The digital world is no longer a lawless frontier ... It is a place where the norms of responsible, just and peaceful conduct among states and peoples have begun to take hold." Cyberspace must be "built on norms of responsible behavior." So even as Obama was issuing a clarion call for a global norm against the use of cyberweapons, he was seeing to it that America violated that norm in spectacular fashion. Or, as Jason Healey of the New Atlanticist puts it, "The arsonist wants to legislate better fire codes." (The hypocrisy was originally, but more tentatively, noted by Eric Martin of the Progressive Realist last year when the cyberspace manifesto was released and American involvement in the development of Stuxnet had been reported more conjecturally.) Healy notes that hypocrisy isn't exactly a new thing in the affairs of nations. But, as he also notes, there are times when the exposure of hypocrisy is particularly costly. One is when you face the dawn of a new technological age and you're trying to establish rules of the road that will benefit countries like yours in particular. A reasonably effective global norm against cyberwarfare wasn't an impossible dream, but thanks to President Obama, it may be now. According to Sanger, Obama "repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons -- even under the most careful and limited circumstances -- could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks." I guess he gets credit for having the concerns. He'd get more credit if he had shown the wisdom to act on them. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 4 16:38:13 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:38:13 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - White House To Reconsider Commercial Space Imagery Policy Message-ID: White House To Reconsider Commercial Space Imagery Policy By Colin Clark Published: June 4, 2012 http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/04/white-house-to-reconsider-commercial-space-imagery-policy/ NEAR CHANTILLY, VA.: The White House plans to reconsider the existing policy governing the use of commercial imagery by the Pentagon and the intelligence community, raising even more questions about the direction of the commercial imagery market. The head of space policy at the National Security Council, Chirag Prakish, is reportedly leading the effort. Several government sources familiar with the effort were careful to point out that while the policy would certainly be reviewed there was no firm commitment to change the existing policy. The most likely part of the policy to be changed, several experts told me today at a conference on the future of the geointelligence industry, would be the line in the policy that decrees the US government will: "Rely to the maximum practical extent on U.S. commercial remote sensing space capabilities for filling imagery and geospatial needs for military, intelligence, foreign policy, homeland security, and civil users." A senior official at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said that several studies and the experience of officials found that even with after deep cuts are made to the geospatial commercial imagery budget the country will get roughly 80 percent of the current capability for much less money. Any change to the policy would come on top of deep cuts that are being made to the purchase of commercial space imagery by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. The cuts to the NGA budget are reportedly on the order of several hundred million dollars over the next five years, I've heard from several sources. An analysis by CAPE (the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Analysis office) "showed even if you took budget hit... you could still get more imagery capability, better resolution, spectral diversity and better revisit even if you drew back to historical spending levels," Kelly Gaffney, deputy assistant director of National Intelligence for systems and resource analysis, told the US Geospatial Intelligence Foundation conference. Gaffney also said the ODNI performed its own analysis that reached the same general conclusion. Regardless whether more capability can be found through increased computer processing or other technical means, Gaffney delivered the straight truth: "The years of budget growth in the intelligence community are over. This is a tighter fiscal environment than we've seen in more than 10 years." For the two companies that provide the government with commercial imagery, GeoEye and DigitalGlobe, there were few words of comfort about the future. "Generally, the take on the street toward anything defense is very negative," said Andrew Koch, senior vice president for defense and homeland security at Scribe Strategies and Advisors, and it's even worse for the two companies. The cuts to the EnhancedView contracts have soured Wall Street's views on the companies' prospects. And, generally speaking, Wall Street is "just not going to be there" for public-private partnerships such as that between the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and the two companies, he said. Add to that his view that "third parties" are unlikely to invest in GeoEye and DigitalGlobe and you can be sure some executives are even more likely to be depressed today than they were yesterday. But for the government, users of their data, all that matters is that they get data and there is an enormous shift underway in geospatial data, with airplanes, websites, cell phones and other sources huge new sources of it. The trend over the next few years is likely to be toward commoditization of the data, several experts said at the conference. "Think of a world where we don't need to rely on satellites but can use planes and other sources," said Josh Hartman, a consultant who was the Pentagon's top space and intelligence acquisition official. The government can, he said, "tap into the data bazaar." This doesn't mean that imagery from the commercial sector won't be used or that the government won't pay for it. Gaffney said the DNI analysis found that "a predominant amount of space-based imagery does come from commercial imagery sources" and it is used to build much of the foundation of geospatial intelligence. Also, whenever the United States needs to share geospatial intelligence with allies, for disaster response or for many combat scenarios commercial imagery is ideal as it can be shared easily and produced quickly. Gaffney said that the Arab Spring and the Japanese reactor crisis at Fukushima had both been events where commercial imagery played a prominent role in our response. Even with that, it seems fairly certain that either DigitalGlobe or GeoEye will vanish before too long. They have already made plays to take each other over. The consensus among the experts I spoke with was that the country can get by with only one commercial spy satellite company. In this article --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 4 18:01:44 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:01:44 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The Age Of Drones: Military May Be Using Drones In US To Help Police Message-ID: The Age Of Drones: Military May Be Using Drones In US To Help Police Critics fear invasion of privacy June 4, 2012 7:43 AM http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/04/the-age-of-drones-military-may-be-using-drones-in-us-to-help-police/ LOS ANGELES (KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO) ? As the Federal Aviation Administration helps usher in an age of drones for U.S. law enforcement agencies, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV?s) domestically by the U.S. military ? and the sharing of collected data with police agencies ? is raising its own concerns about possible violations of privacy and Constitutional law, according to drone critics. A non-classified U.S. Air Force intelligence report obtained by KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO dated April 23, 2012, is helping fuel concern that video and other data inadvertently captured by Air Force drones already flying through some U.S. airspace, might end up in the hands of federal or local law enforcement, doing an end-run around normal procedures requiring police to obtain court issued warrants. ?We?ve seen in some records that were released by the Air Force just recently, that under their rules, they are allowed to fly drones in public areas and record information on domestic situations,? says Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with the San Francisco based Electronic Frontier Association, who is looking into various government surveillance techniques. ?This report noted that they are able to collect that information and then determine whether or not they can keep it.? The revised Air Force report is a continuation of a policy already a few years old, but is causing more alarm now as drones appear poised to soon become a ubiquitous presence in U.S. skies thanks to a federal policy to promote their use, first by law enforcement agencies, and then by commercial concerns. A ?streamlined? process for police departments to apply for permits to fly drones was recently introduced by the FAA. Drone manufacturers are gearing up to pitch an estimated 18,000 police departments in the U.S. on the benefits of flying drones. Many law enforcement agencies in Southern California ? including the LAPD and Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department ? are evaluating the usefulness of drones in the greatly restricted and highly congested airspace that surrounds the L.A. basin. Neither agency has yet purchased a drone, officials at both departments tell KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO. Under U.S. Air Force rules, drones are not allowed to conduct ?non-consensual surveillance? on U.S. citizens or property, though there are some apparent exceptions. What has critics alarmed is that data collected by drones accidentally, under the guidelines, can be kept by the military up to three months before being purged and can also be turned over to ?another Department of Defense or government agency to whose function it pertains.? The Air Force guidelines permit using drones domestically to assist law enforcement in ?investigating or preventing clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers, international narcotics activities , or international terrorist activities.? More vague is language that also allows military cooperation with local law enforcement for the purposes of ?preventing, detecting, or investigating other violations of law.? In an email to KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO, Air Force spokesperson Capt. Rose Richeson said, ?The Executive Branch has promulgated detailed Departmental and Intelligence Community-wide instructions and directives about when it is appropriate to share information with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies consistent with the protection of privacy and civil liberties.? But Capt. Richeson goes on to say that ?a court order or warrant is not required in all circumstances.? The military?s use of drones domestically will pale by comparison should sales to police departments take off. AeroVironment, a defense contractor based in Monrovia, California, is trying to market a three-foot long, roughly five-pound drone called Qube specifically to police departments. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 4 19:06:29 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?TPPA_so_deep_a_secret_not_even_t?= =?windows-1252?q?he_minister_knows_what=92s_in_it?= Message-ID: TPPA so deep a secret not even the minister knows what?s in it ?Yes Ministering? a non-minister in Senate Estimates By Richard Chirgwin Posted in Public Sector, 4th June 2012 23:43 GMT http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/04/tpaa_still_a_secret/ Australia?s bureaucrats appear to have learned the lesson from ACTA?s slow-motion train wreck in Europe, and aren?t letting the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPAA) anywhere near something as unpredictable as a parliament. Under questioning by The Greens? Senator Scott Ludlam, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was told that neither foreign minister Bob Carr nor trade minister Craig Emerson have seen the negotiation text of the TPAA. Here?s where the exchange, between Ludlam and Hamish McCormick (deputy CEO of the Australian Trade Commission) starts to sound like an episode of Yes, Minister. From the transcript posted by Ludlam (the official Hansard version doesn?t seem to be available yet): Ludlam: ?Are you aware of whether or not the foreign minister has seen the current negotiating texts for the agreement?? McCormick : ?I do not believe he has.? Ludlam: ?Is that because he is relatively new to the job? Should he have? Will he?? McCormick: ?No. The agreement is the responsibility of the minister for trade.? And then: Ludlam: ?Has the trade minister seen it?? McCormick: ?An FTA agreement, when completed, will be approximately 1,000 pages long. As I said, it is not an agreement that is on the table for anybody to have a look at.? As far as El Reg can tell, the Department is telling Senator Ludlam that the foreign minister hasn?t seen the text of the agreement because that?s the job of the trade minister, who hasn?t seen the negotiating text because ? well, just because. The department also told Ludlam ? as we already knew and as is increasingly irritating to those citizens that care about such things ? that the text of the agreement remains ?confidential between the parties?, and ?Nothing has a status until it has been agreed at the end of the negotiations, so anything that people talk about is purely speculation.? So there you go: there?s no need for public debate on TPAA because there?s no agreement, and when there?s an agreement, we?ll all get to have a look at it, except by that time the negotiations will have ended. ? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 4 19:11:54 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:11:54 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Microsoft Update and The Nightmare Scenario Message-ID: <15D441BA-565C-41F2-8192-96AF7465ADEA@infowarrior.org> http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002377.html Microsoft Update and The Nightmare Scenario Posted by Mikko @ 14:09 GMT | Comments About 900 million Windows computers get their updates from Microsoft Update. In addition to the DNS root servers, this update system has always been considered one of the weak points of the net. Antivirus people have nightmares about a variant of malware spoofing the update mechanism and replicating via it. Turns out, it looks like this has now been done. And not by just any malware, but by Flame. The full mechanism isn't yet completely analyzed, but Flame has a module which appears to attempt to do a man-in-the-middle attack on the Microsoft Update or Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) system. If successful, the attack drops a file called WUSETUPV.EXE to the target computer. This file is signed by Microsoft with a certificate that is chained up to Microsoft root. Except it isn't signed really by Microsoft. Turns out the attackers figured out a way to misuse a mechanism that Microsoft uses to create Terminal Services activation licenses for enterprise customers. Surprisingly, these keys could be used to also sign binaries. Here's what the Certification Path of the certificate used to sign WUSETUPV.EXE looks like:\ < - > http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002377.html --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 4 21:05:36 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:05:36 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Operation Olympic Games, Project X, and the assault on the IT security industry Message-ID: (c/o ferg) http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardstiennon/2012/06/04/operation-olympic-game-project-x-and-the-assault-on-the-it-security-industry/ Richard Stiennon, Contributor 6/04/2012 @ 2:48PM |234 views Operation Olympic Games, Project X, and the assault on the IT security industry Discussion is raging over the implications of Friday?s revelation by David Sanger that the United States was responsible for Stuxnet. Sanger followed up with an Op-Ed on Sunday (Mutually assured cyberdestruction), and Paul Rosenzweig addressed the Title 10/50 legal implications of military versus espionage incursions. It will be months before policy analysts chime in with their thoughts on this new method of force projection in military affairs. Also last week we learned of DARPA?s Plan X, a $110 million project that will, among other things, seek to map the Internet and create a hardened operating system capable of launching attacks and withstanding retaliation. As events snowball and there appears to be a unilateral build up of offensive cyber capabilities by the United States there are implications for the $40 Billion IT security industry. The 1,500 vendors of security products and thousands of security service providers have had a single minded focus on defending against bad actors ever since the invention of networked computers. The bad actors have been hackers, cyber criminals, and nation states that engage in cyber espionage. The entire industry is engaged in defending against these attacks and is geared towards researching the next attack methodology and preemptively countering it ? regardless of the source of attack. One of the industries brightest and most prominent researchers, Mikko Hypponen of F-Secure, offered a public mea culpa last week for the failure of Anti-Virus vendors to detect and prevent advanced malware such as the recently discovered Flame. He also mentions Stuxnet, which we now learn was a US attack on Iran?s uranium enrichment facilities. ?Flame was a failure for the antivirus industry. We really should have been able to do better. But we didn?t. We were out of our league, in our own game.? Hypponen is clear. While the AV industry is out of their league it is still their responsibility to counter every threat regardless of its origins. My concern is that the world?s IT industry will find themselves opposed to this new threat actor, the United States. If DARPA is developing new attack methodologies then the industry will develop new defenses in response. Every secret weapon developed in the cyber domain remains secret only until first use. The target always sees the attack and often captures enough information to dissect the methodology whether it involves malware or a network technique. Flame, Duqu, and Stuxnet were effective and secret for several years, but as Hypponen makes evident, the industry is ramping up quickly to address these types of attack. The use of cyber weapons is going to pit the US military and intelligence community against the IT security industry. The repercussions are going to be complicated to sort out. President Obama recently issued an Executive Order making it illegal to sell filtering technology to Syria and Iran. This may be the first of many attempts to address a technological weakness with policy. It is a worst case scenario but not beyond imagination to foresee a future where laws are passed to restrict defensive technology in an effort to protect some cyber attack capability. The fallout from last week?s revelations of a new era in cyber force projection is going to have a wide range of effects. The impact on the security industry is one of them. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 5 06:54:20 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 07:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NRA-Backed Law Spells Out When Indianans May Open Fire on Police Message-ID: <50C4FE56-2EE8-44DD-9732-18D59D206903@infowarrior.org> NRA-Backed Law Spells Out When Indianans May Open Fire on Police By Mark Niquette - Jun 5, 2012 12:01 AM ET Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law. Hubbard, a 17-year veteran of the police department in Jeffersonville, Indiana, says his apprehension stems from a state law approved this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the ?unlawful intrusion? by a ?public servant? to protect themselves and others, or their property. ?If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he?s going to say, ?Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,?? said Hubbard, 40, who is president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. ?Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.? Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents and supports prosecutors. The National Rifle Association pushed for the law, saying an unfavorable court decision made the need clear and that it would allow homeowners to defend themselves during a violent, unjustified attack. Police lobbied against it. < - > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-05/nra-backed-law-spells-out-when-indianans-may-open-fire-on-police.html From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 5 08:07:17 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:07:17 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Navy marks Battle of Midway's 70th anniversary Message-ID: <60DA9CC8-58D1-4A9E-8685-6C86B6FEA285@infowarrior.org> Navy marks Battle of Midway's 70th anniversary By Audrey McAvoy Associated Press / June 5, 2012 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/06/05/navy_marks_battle_of_midways_70th_anniversary_associated_press/?page=full PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii?Six months after the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan sent four aircraft carriers to the tiny Pacific atoll of Midway to draw out and destroy what remained of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. But this time the U.S. knew about Japan's plans. U.S. cryptologists had cracked Japanese communications codes, giving Fleet Commander Adm. Chester Nimitz notice of where Japan would strike, the day and time of the attack, and what ships the enemy would bring to the fight. The U.S. was badly outnumbered and its pilots less experienced than Japan's. Even so, it sank four Japanese aircraft carriers the first day of the three-day battle and put Japan on the defensive, greatly diminishing its ability to project air power as it had in the attack on Hawaii. On Monday, current Pacific Fleet commander, Adm. Cecil Haney and other officials flew 1,300 miles northwest from Oahu to Midway to mark the 70th anniversary of the pivotal battle that changed the course of the Pacific war. "Historians are still writing about it, military planners are still studying it, and we cherish the opportunity to commemorate it," Haney said. Midway is now a National Wildlife Refuge hosting more than one million seabirds. Navy photos of the ceremony show an honor guard standing at attention next to a field of ground-nesting Laysan albatross and other seabirds. Haney and two veterans from the battle were among 150 people at the ceremony, which included releasing leis and flower petals in a small boat to honor those who died in the battle. The veterans also took part in a ribbon-cutting for an exhibit at the refuge memorializing the battle. "After the battle of Midway we always maintained the initiative and for the remaining three years of the war, the Japanese reacted to us," Vice Adm. Michael Rogers, commander of the U.S. Fleet Cyber Command, told a crowd gathered outside Nimitz's old office at Pearl Harbor on Friday to commemorate the role naval intelligence played in the events of June 4-7, 1942. "It all started really in May of 1942 with station Hypo (the Combat Intelligence Unit at Pearl Harbor) and the work of some great people working together to try to understand what were the Japanese thinking, what were they going to do," Rogers said Friday. Intelligence wasn't the only reason for U.S. victory. The brave heroics by dive bomber pilots, Japanese mistakes and luck all played a role. But Nimitz himself observed that the code-breaking was critical to the outcome, said retired Rear Adm. Mac Showers, the last surviving member of the intelligence team that deciphered Japanese messages. "His statement a few days later was `had it not been for the excellent intelligence that was provided, we would have read about the capture of Midway in the morning newspaper,'" said Showers said in an interview. Japan's vessels outnumbered U.S. ships 4-to-1, Japan's aviators had more experience, and its Zero fighter planes could easily outmaneuver U.S. aircraft. But Japan, unlike the U.S., had little knowledge of what its enemy was doing. Japanese commanders believed a U.S. task force was far away in the Solomon Islands. Then, as June 4 neared and Nimitz prepared his troops, Japanese commanders failed to recognize signs of increased military activity around Hawaii as an indication the U.S. had uncovered their plans to attack Midway, the site of a small U.S. base. The U.S. lost one carrier, 145 planes and 307 men. Japan lost four aircraft carriers, a heavy cruiser, 291 planes and 4,800 men, according to the U.S. Navy and to an account by former Japanese naval officers in "Midway: The Battle That Doomed Japan, the Japanese Navy's Story." The defeat was so overwhelming that the Japanese navy kept the details a closely guarded secret and most Japanese never heard of the battle until after the war. Nimitz got his intelligence from Showers and a few dozen others relentlessly analyzing Japanese code in the basement of a Pearl Harbor administrative building. Japanese messages were written using 45,000 five-digit numbers representing phrases and words. The cryptographers had to figure out what the numbers said without the aid of computers. "In order to read the messages, we had to recover the meaning of each one of those code groups. The main story of our work was recovering code group meanings one-by-painful-one," Showers said. At the time of the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, they understood a small fraction of the messages. By May 1942, they could make educated guesses. A key breakthrough came when they determined Japan was using the letters "AF" to refer to Midway. Showers said Cmdr. Joseph Rochefort, the team's leader, and Nimitz were confident the letters referred to the atoll. But Adm. Ernest King, the Navy's top commander, wanted to be sure before he allowed Nimitz to send the precious few U.S. aircraft carriers out to battle. So Nimitz had the patrol base at Midway send a message to Oahu saying the island's distillation plant was down, and it urgently needed fresh water. Soon after, both an intelligence team in Australia and Rochefort's unit picked up a Japanese message saying "AF" had a water shortage. Showers was an ensign in the office, having just joined the Navy. He analyzed code deciphered by cryptographers, plotted ships on maps of the Pacific, and filed information. Now 92 and living in Arlington, Va., the Iowa City, Iowa, native went on to a career in intelligence. He served on Nimitz's staff on Guam toward the end of the war, and returned later to Pearl Harbor for stints leading the Pacific Fleet's intelligence effort. After the Navy, he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. Showers said commanders weren't always as open to using intelligence to plan their course of attack the way Nimitz was. Some were suspicious of it. But Midway changed that. "It used to be a lot of people thought intelligence was something mysterious and they didn't believe in it and they didn't have to pay attention to it. Admiral Nimitz was fortunately what we call intelligence-friendly," Showers said. ? Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 5 08:11:19 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:11:19 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fox News Ties Flame Malware To Angry Birds Because Both Use LUA Message-ID: <41AC1956-6E0D-4C6E-84C7-43922A79EBDD@infowarrior.org> This Is Reporting? Fox News Ties Flame Malware To Angry Birds Because Both Use LUA from the wow dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120604/04382119189/this-is-reporting-fox-news-ties-flame-malware-to-angry-birds-because-both-use-lua.shtml We're often told that the big media companies need to be saved because of all the important expensive reporting work they do. And then we see something absolutely ridiculous, such as Fox News linking the infamous Flame malware to Angry Birds... because both use the LUA computing language (found via Slashdot): [ image ] This is, of course, a complete pointless linkage, which seems to serve no purpose whatsoever, other than (perhaps) to attract the attention of those who are obsessed with Angry Birds (an admittedly large group of people). But just because two programs are written in the same language, it doesn't mean... well, it doesn't mean anything of importance whatsoever. Instead, it just seems like Fox News and its "Chief Intelligence Correspondent" Catherine Herridge needed to fill some space and came up with something entirely pointless. But, you know, we need those big professional news companies because of deep, hard-hitting stories like this one. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 5 13:14:23 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:14:23 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Stuxnets are Not in the US National Interest: An Arsonist Calling for Better Fire Codes Message-ID: <0D8971E0-7D94-44AC-A0BD-500DEB136032@infowarrior.org> (c/o DG) Stuxnets are Not in the US National Interest: An Arsonist Calling for Better Fire Codes Jason Healey | June 01, 2012 http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/stuxnets-are-not-us-national-interest-arsonist-calling-better-fire-codes The United States government has apparently struck a blow against the Iranian nuclear enrichment capability by using Stuxnet to disable centrifuges. While this cyber weapon destroyed centrifuges and seized up the enrichment process, the cost in American cyber power ultimately will not have been worth these limited gains. On the plus side, the United States has struck against some of the world?s most terrible organizations working towards the world?s most horrible weapons. If the Iranians ever did build and use a nuclear weapon, we would have regretted missing any chance to disrupt that process. Given the implications, it is understandable that two US presidents authorized and continued a covert program of cyber force to disrupt Iranian nuclear ambitions. However, not all good ideas, and even fewer covert ones, should be executed. Though it did not cause any physical damage outside of the intended target of Iranian enrichment plants, Stuxnet somehow sprung loose from its intended target and spread in computers ? and headlines ? around the world. And this leak (along with those from the White House) led to the many downsides. Few in the world will ever believe the peaceful motives of the United States in cyberspace again, giving us even less leverage to ensure this new cyber dimension develops in a way encompassing America?s wider economic and security interests. Cyberspace is ?the backbone that underpins a prosperous economy and a strong military and an open and efficient government,? according to President Obama. Because of this importance, not much more than a year ago, the president committed the United States to ?work internationally to promote an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable? cyberspace ?built on norms of responsible behavior.? He wrote that, "While offline challenges and aggression have made their way to the digital world, we will confront them consistent with the principles we hold dear: free speech and association, privacy, and the free flow of information. The digital world is no longer a lawless frontier ? It is a place where the norms of responsible, just and peaceful conduct among states and peoples have begun to take hold. " Stuxnet was not an act of peaceful conduct. Saying one thing in public while doing the opposite covertly in the shadows happens of course all of the time between governments. China is, for example, behind large-scale global cyber espionage at the same time as it asserts that such acts are illegal and forbidden. But the United States is the one that very publicly got caught and the timing could hardly be worse. The future of the Internet is being decided and post-Stuxnet, more nations are likely to side with the Russians and Chinese. Even before this news, American technologists and diplomats were fighting to keep the International Telecommunications Union from taking a much greater role in the operations and architecture of the Internet. An Internet run by the ITU, an arm of the United Nations, is not in the US interests as it would be run by one-country, one-vote with no voice for civil society or technology companies. Cyberspace would likely become Balkanized, an interconnection of separate national networks with dire consequences for the freedom of speech and commerce. In this future, the architecture of the Internet will have Chinese and Russian characteristics, much friendlier to eavesdropping and blocking information embarrassing to closed or repressive regimes. Our diplomats are also more likely to be outflanked by the apparently more ?peaceful? Chinese and Russians as the UN Group of Government Experts convenes this August to try to agree on new international cyber norms. Indeed, now that this genie is out of the bottle, the United States will be blamed for every piece of sophisticated malware from now on. Other nations and non-state criminals will get free passes ? they conduct attacks too, but we?re the ones that got caught. The most important reasons why Stuxnets are not in US interests revolve around the basic argument that ?those with glass industrial control systems should not throw stones.? The United States has incredibly vulnerable cyber systems, including in critical infrastructures like the electrical generation and transmission systems. Not only has the United States legitimized attacks against these systems, they are now likely open to direct reprisal from Iran. DHS officials have testified to Congress they are ?concerned that attackers could use the increasingly public information about [Stuxnet] to develop variants targeted at broader installations of programmable equipment in control systems.? General Alexander of US Cyber Command similarly told lawmakers that ?Attacks [such as Stuxnet] that can destroy equipment are on the horizon, and we have to be prepared for them.? The government has been clear about the proper response to Stuxnet and other threats with Alexander writing to Congress that ?Recent events have shown that a purely voluntary and market driven system is not sufficient. Some minimum security requirements will be necessary? using regulation to secure critical infrastructure. The message to the US private sector therefore seems to be that they need to be regulated because they are not protecting themselves sufficiently against a weapon designed and launched by their own government. The arsonist wants to legislate better fire codes. Of course, this is too simplistic an argument: crime and espionage are the major risks and there have long been ample disruptive threats besides Stuxnet looming over our critical infrastructures. While true to a point, these facts are increasingly irrelevant. The United States appears to have struck first in cyberspace and the private sector will not want to be stuck with the bill. If Obama was speaking the truth when he said ?America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cybersecurity? then it is unlikely Stuxnet is in our long-term interest. It slowed the Iranian nuclear program down, but does not seem to have caused extended disruption; it was, therefore, a tactical rather than a strategic win. Unfortunately, it may have torpedoed American credibility on all future cyber issues and could be remembered as the equivalent of the invasion of Iraq: a mistaken use of force against weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately it may help deliver a strategic loss to the United States. Rather than seen as inventing and nurturing cyberspace, we may seem to digital natives as a crotchety old man, a declining imperial power lashing out as the domain of its own making slips ever more out of its influence. The United States has now made the ?demonstration? attack that some in Washington DC believe is needed to deter our adversaries. As General Cartwright expressed, ?You can't have something that's a secret be a deterrent. Because if you don't know it's there, it doesn't scare you.? With Stuxnet, we now have other nations scared of us in cyberspace. Perhaps, like General Cartwright wants, this will be for the best ? but like so much else in cyberspace, this answer is still to be discovered. Jason Healey is the Director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council of the United States. You can follow his comments on cyber cooperation, conflict and competition on Twitter, @Jason_Healey. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 5 13:32:10 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:32:10 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Vatican learns about the Streissand Effect Message-ID: <2585FF9F-1A6D-4F8A-B255-17E229B48256@infowarrior.org> Nun?s Vatican-condemned book on sexuality shoots up bestseller list By Michelle Boorstein Margaret Farley . (Courtesy Yale Divinity School) Wow, that?s some powerful PR. Twenty-four hours ago news broke that the Vatican had condemned the book ?Just Love:A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics,? a publication by a prominent nun-theologian that disagrees with church teaching on same-sex marriage, ma--------tion and remarrying after divorce. Monday morning, the book?s reported ranking on Amazon: 142,982 Tuesday afternoon, after a day of furious news coverage of the Vatican censure: It?s at #16. < -- > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/nuns-vatican-condemned-book-on-sexuality-shoots-up-the-bestseller-list/2012/06/05/gJQAkuKCGV_blog.html?hpid=z9 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 5 20:06:44 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 21:06:44 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google to warn users targeted by state-sponsored attacks Message-ID: <5FCF0FBF-D175-4A8B-A70F-55F1CB15CB6A@infowarrior.org> Google to warn users targeted by state-sponsored attacks Posted By Josh Rogin Tuesday, June 5, 2012 - 2:40 PM http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/05/google_to_warn_users_targeted_by_state_sponsored_attacks UPDATE: A senior Senate aide confirmed that this evening he received a warning on his Gmail account that Google suspected he had been the target of a state-sponsored cyber attack. Web giant Google is about to announce a new warning informing Gmail users when a specific type of attacker is trying to hijack their accounts -- governments and their proxies. Later today, the company will announce a new warning system that will alert Gmail users when Google believes their accounts are being targeted by state-sponsored attacks. The new system isn't a response to a specific event or directed at any one country, but is part and parcel of Google's recent set of policy changes meant to allow users to protect themselves from malicious activity brought on by state actors. It also has the effect of making it more difficult for authoritarian regimes to target political and social activists by hacking their private communications. "We are constantly on the lookout for malicious activity on our systems, in particular attempts by third parties to log into users' accounts unauthorized. When we have specific intelligence-either directly from users or from our own monitoring efforts-we show clear warning signs and put in place extra roadblocks to thwart these bad actors," reads a note to users by Eric Grosse, Google's vice president for security engineering, to be posted later today on Google's Online Security blog, obtained in advance by The Cable. "Today, we're taking that a step further for a subset of our users, who we believe may be the target of state-sponsored attacks." When Google's internal systems monitoring suspicious internet activity, such as suspicious log-in attempts, conclude that such activities include the involvement of states or state-backed initiatives, the user will now receive the specialized, more prominent warning pictured above. The warning doesn't necessarily mean that a user's account has been hijacked, but is meant to alert users that Google believes a state sponsored attack has been attempted so they can increase their security vigilance. Google wants to be clear they are not singling out any one government for criticism and that the effort is about giving users transparency about what is going on with their accounts, not about highlighting the malicious actions of foreign states. "If you see this warning it does not necessarily mean that your account has been hijacked. It just means that we believe you may be a target, of phishing or malware for example, and that you should take immediate steps to secure your account," Grosse writes. "You might ask how we know this activity is state-sponsored. We can't go into the details without giving away information that would be helpful to these bad actors, but our detailed analysis-as well as victim reports-strongly suggest the involvement of states or groups that are state-sponsored." Google insiders told The Cable that Google will not be giving out information on which governments it sees as the most egregious violators of web privacy. For Google, the new initiative is not an effort against governments but a way to help its users help defend and protect themselves. Users who click through the new warning message will be directed to a page that outlines commonly seen security threats and suggests ways users can immediately raise their level of security on Gmail. "We're constantly working to prevent harmful activity on our services, especially attempts to compromise our users' information," the insider said. "The primary message is: we believe that you're a target so you should take immediate steps to protect your account." The new announcement comes only days after the company said they would alert users in mainland China when they use search terms that are likely to be censored by the Chinese government. According to another of Google's official blogs, that move was meant to improve the search experience for Chinese users by allowing them to avoid terms that would result in stalls or breaks in their search experience due to government filters. For example, Google said that Chinese users searching the character for "river," which is "jiang" in Chinese, causes technical problems. The same character is also used in the search for former Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Google didn't specifically mention Chinese censorship in its notice about Chinese search terms, apparently in an effort not to antagonize the Chinese government any more than necessary. Google and Beijing have been at odds since 2010, when the company announced it would no longer censor search terms on the Google.cn and moved the bulk of its Chinese operations to Hong Kong. That move followed a series of Gmail attacks in 2010, directed at Chinese human rights activists, which were widely suspected to be linked to the Chinese government. Following those attacks, the government-controlled People's Daily publicly accused Google of being an agent for U.S. intelligence agencies. While last week's announcement and this week's announcement are both being presented by Google as user based initiatives not directed at foreign governments, Google CEO Eric Schmidt has been speaking out publicly and forcefully in recent months about the potential negative role governments can play in circumventing internet freedom. "While threats come from individuals and even groups of people, the biggest problem will be activities stemming from nations that seek to do harm," he said in London last month. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 6 06:15:05 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 07:15:05 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites Message-ID: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120605/11481119209/riaa-to-congress-were-finally-innovating-now-go-shut-down-pirate-sites.shtml from the kicking-and-screaming dept Cary Sherman, RIAA boss, is testifying before Congress on Wednesday morning, and (not surprisingly) he uses the opportunity to whine about those dirty pirates again, while asking Congress to buck up and do something. To his credit, it appears that Sherman (or one of his PR handlers) has realized that the combative and confrontational approach he took right after SOPA and PIPA died. He got a ton of backlash for that, and has since tried to be a little less condescending. Thus, he starts out by talking about all the new business models and modern services that the record labels have adopted and licensed. Of course, he also says that CDs are not digital, so he's a bit confused about the technology. He also leaves out the fact that the labels had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, all the way to agree to the various services that he talks up -- and even then, its stance in negotiating licensing deals with them has been to try to strangle any service that gets too popular. He also talks up the recently negotiated royalty rates between labels, publishers and some digital music services -- leaving out the fact that they include royalty rates on things that don't require royalties (like mere music storage lockers). But, in the end, Sherman is a one-trick pony, and back to that trick he goes. After talking about all of this "voluntary" innovation they've done -- and highlighting the various "voluntary" six strikes deal, as well as advertising putting together a blacklist of "rogue" sites they won't advertise on -- Sherman goes back to whining about how "piracy" must be stopped. He starts out by, yet again, misleading and misrepresenting what's happening. He talks about how there's less revenue from music sales -- but ignores that more money has gone into music itself, once you look at the massive increase in live music. He ignores the fact that people are actually spending more on enjoying music today than ever before in the past. The idea that people aren't paying is simply wrong. And then he has the ridiculous gall to suggest less music is getting out to the world because of this: < --- > Either way, it's still more of the same. Until Cary Sherman is replaced by someone who actually spends time on the internet, the RIAA is going to increasingly represent a smaller and smaller portion of the music industry. The new music industry -- including tons of new artists, new music services, and even new labels, know that the RIAA's focus is on the past, not the future. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 6 08:30:27 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 09:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Congressman from MPAA & RIAA loses CA primary Message-ID: (c/o DD) Note: This is one of the RIAA/MPAA puppets, who, back in '02, wanted to allow Hollywood to 'hack' home PCs in the name of anti-piracy. Good riddance to him! --- rick Howard Berman (Dem-MPAA) has lost in his primary contest with opposing Democrat Brad Sherman. The two were in adjacent congressional districts that were joined in reapportionment, so they were forced to run against each other. Berman's contributions from Big Movie/TV/Music alone were nearly twice the total political contributions to Sherman (who got little to nothing from Big Media). Open Secrets on Berman: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00008094&cycle=2012 Open Secrets on Sherman: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00006897&cycle=2012 Here is the LA Times report: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/06/berman-sherman-clash-continues-to-the-fall-election.html A report from a local journalist is a little more clear. He writes: "Sherman's side notes they were significantly outspent by Berman, but insists they won't be between now and November." http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2012/06/heres_your_election_resul.php Since Brad Sherman did not win an outright majority over Howard Berman, the latter can still enter the general election in November for the congressional seat against the former. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 6 09:30:31 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Humour: Prospectus for the next Tech IPO Message-ID: <5364E4C9-520B-433C-8B01-0B920A0D75D9@infowarrior.org> Is it humour? Or is it reality? All depends on your perspective, I guess. Prospectus for Silicon Valley?s Next Hot Tech IPO, Where Nothing Could Possibly Go Wrong. http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/prospectus-for-silicon-valleys-next-hot-tech-ipo-where-nothing-could-possibly-go-wrong --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 6 09:37:25 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:37:25 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Linkedin passwords reportedly compromised Message-ID: <6ED76641-9A4C-4312-8744-5444FFBD16AB@infowarrior.org> Unscrewing Security Alec Muffett http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/unscrewing-security/2012/06/if-it-turns-out-that-linkedin-passwords-have-leaked/index.htm If it turns out that LinkedIn passwords have leaked... ...here's what you should do Published 12:31, 06 June 12 Rumours are circulating on the net that a database of hashes of LinkedIn passwords has been published on a Russian hacker site. I cannot confirm this but if the article referred to above is correct then there is a risk to LinkedIn users; password cracking software such as Hashcat can be brought to bear on the problem, and passwords that are derived from common words and phrases - or which are just too short - can and will be broken. I'll write more soon, but in the meantime: ? Choose a new password - a short phrase, make it twelve or more characters long; don't worry too much about making it look random but instead make it long-and-memorable and use proper spacing and (perhaps) punctuation. ? See this famous cartoon for techical explanation, but don't reuse the password it suggests. ? Change your LinkedIn password to the new password. ? IMPORTANT: Finally, think of all the other accounts you have - e-mail, Gmail, Instant Messenger, Skype... which use the same password. Change all of them, too - ideally use different new passwords for each one. The reason for the final step is that someone can easily cross-correlate your e-mail address from your LinkedIn login to (say) Skype, and use the (assuming this is all true) old LinkedIn password database to break into that. This would be very unfortunate, but quite easy to achieve. We now return you to your natural state of paranoia; updates will be posted here as/when events warrant. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 6 09:40:19 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:40:19 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - RIP Ray Bradbury Message-ID: <8A37D708-A343-434B-9DEE-B35085B0B187@infowarrior.org> Ray Bradbury dies: Author of ?Fahrenheit 451? and ?Martian Chronicles? was 91 By Associated Press, Wednesday, June 6, 10:32 AM http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/science-fiction-master-ray-bradbury-author-of-fahrenheit-451-martian-chronicles/2012/06/06/gJQAU3udIV_print.html LOS ANGELES ? Ray Bradbury has died at 91 after a lengthy career of writing everything from science-fiction and mystery to humor. Reached at Bradbury?s home, his daughter, Alexandra Bradbury, says her father died Tuesday night in Southern California. She did not have additional details. Bradbury transformed his childhood dreams and Cold War fears into telepathic Martians, lovesick sea monsters, and his vision of a high-tech, book-burning future in ?Fahrenheit 451.? He also scripted the 1956 film version of ?Moby Dick? and wrote for ?The Twilight Zone.? Bradbury?s series of stories in ?The Martian Chronicles? was a Cold War morality tale in which events on another planet served as a commentary on life on this planet. It has been published in more than 30 languages. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 6 10:07:31 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:07:31 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - A CLI for the '90s Message-ID: <8CF557DF-291E-4378-8CBE-88F7A1F50B0E@infowarrior.org> Finally, a command line shell for the 90s The new fish is a smart and friendly POSIX command line shell for OS X, Linux, and the rest of the family. http://ridiculousfish.com/shell/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 6 10:16:57 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:16:57 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Paper: Reforming ECPA's Secret Docket Message-ID: <71879BD3-205E-43DB-98E0-7DB6F991FB23@infowarrior.org> Gagged, Sealed & Delivered: Reforming ECPA's Secret Docket https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2071399 Stephen W. Smith affiliation not provided to SSRN May 21, 2012 Harvard Law & Policy Review Vol. 6, 2012 Forthcoming Abstract: Federal magistrate judges preside over the most secret docket in America. Exact figures are not known, but available data indicates that these judges issued over 30,000 electronic surveillance orders in 2006, more than the entire output of the FISA court over its entire history. These electronic surveillance orders, authorized by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), grant law enforcement access to the electronic lives of our citizens -- who we call, where we go, when we text, what websites we visit, what emails we send. Unlike most court orders, electronic surveillance orders are permanently hidden from public view by various ECPA provisions, including sealed court files, gag orders, and delayed-notice. It's as though these orders were written in invisible ink -- legible to the phone companies and electronic service providers who execute them, yet imperceptible to targeted individuals, the general public, and even other arms of government, including Congress and appellate courts. This regime of secrecy has many unhealthy consequences: Congress lacks accurate empirical data to monitor the effectiveness of the existing statutory scheme and adapt it to new technologies; appellate courts are unable to give effective guidance to magistrate judges on how to interpret ECPA's complex provisions in light of changing technology; and citizens are not informed about the extent of government intrusion into their electronic lives. With Congress on the sidelines, appellate courts not engaged, and the public in the dark, the balance between surveillance and privacy has shifted dramatically towards law enforcement, almost by default. While it is certainly time to update the substantive provisions of ECPA, it is equally important to make structural changes in the law to eliminate unnecessary secrecy. Such reforms should include the elimination of automatic gagging and sealing orders, as well as the adoption of a publicly available warrant cover sheet to capture basic information about every electronic surveillance order. Number of Pages in PDF File: 26 Keywords: electronic surveillance, privacy, ECPA reform, sealed cases, gag orders, secret dockets, warrant cover sheet, magistrate judges --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 7 06:50:50 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 07:50:50 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - U.S. Attacks, Online and From the Air, Fuel Secrecy Debate Message-ID: <505D0B6D-326B-48DE-A411-352E8C93F409@infowarrior.org> June 6, 2012 U.S. Attacks, Online and From the Air, Fuel Secrecy Debate By SCOTT SHANE http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/world/americas/drones-and-cyberattacks-renew-debate-over-security.html WASHINGTON ? In recent years, the United States has pioneered the use of two innovative weapons, drones and cyberattacks, that by many accounts have devastated Al Qaeda and set back Iran?s nuclear effort. Now those programs are at the heart of a bipartisan dispute over secrecy, with Congressional Republicans accusing the Obama administration of leaking classified information for political advantage and Democrats lodging their own protests about high-level disclosures. Prompted in part by recent articles in The New York Times on the use of drones to carry out targeted killings and the deployment of the Stuxnet computer worm against the Iranian nuclear program, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees issued a joint statement on Wednesday urging the administration ?to fully, fairly and impartially investigate? the recent disclosures and vowing new legislation to crack down on leaks. ?Each disclosure puts American lives at risk, makes it more difficult to recruit assets, strains the trust of our partners and threatens imminent and irreparable damage to our national security,? said the statement, a rare show of unity. The protest focused on the dangers of leaks that the Congressional leaders said would alert adversaries to American military and intelligence tactics. But secrecy, too, has a cost ? one that is particularly striking in the case of drones and cyberattacks. Both weapons raise pressing legal, moral and strategic questions of the kind that, in a democracy, appear to deserve serious public scrutiny. Because of classification rules, however, neither has been the subject of open debate in Congress, even as the Obama administration has moved aggressively ahead with both programs. ?The U.S. is embarked on ambitious and consequential moves that will shape the security environment for years to come, whether they succeed or fail,? said Steven Aftergood, who studies government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. ?Secrecy cloaks not only the operations, but their justification and rationale, which are legitimate subjects of public interest.? Mr. Aftergood said drones and cyberattacks were ?extreme examples of programs that are widely known and yet officially classified.? That, he said, has prevented informed public discussion of some critical questions. Should the United States be inaugurating a new era of cyberattacks? What are the actual levels of civilian casualties caused by the drone attacks, and what are the implications for national sovereignty? ?Keeping these programs secret may have a value,? said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and Bush administration Justice Department official who writes about national security and the press. ?But there?s another value that has to be considered, too ? the benefit of transparency, accountability and public discussion.? Leaks, and the policy dilemmas and political squabbles they inspire, are as old as the country. In 1778, a disclosure by Thomas Paine that the French were secretly supporting the American revolutionaries became the subject of an investigation led by the future first chief justice, John Jay. Nor has any party held a monopoly on the complications of managing secrecy. During the Bush administration, a leak investigation led to a perjury conviction for a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, an outspoken defender of government secrets. Even so, contradictory behavior on the secrecy front has been especially striking under the Obama administration. Mr. Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2008 by denouncing his predecessor?s secret prisons and brutal interrogations, which were public knowledge only because of leaks of classified information to the news media. He began his term by pledging the most transparent administration in history. In office, however, he has outdone all previous presidents in mounting criminal prosecutions over such leaks, overseeing six such cases to date, compared with three under all previous administrations combined. Senator John McCain of Arizona, Mr. Obama?s opponent in 2008, told reporters on Tuesday that administration officials were ?intentionally leaking information to enhance President Obama?s image as a tough guy for the elections? ? while at the same time prosecuting low-level officials for disclosures. On Wednesday, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, called that charge ?grossly irresponsible.? The administration?s inconsistency, however, has been particularly evident on the drone program. Officials routinely give reporters limited information on strikes, usually on the condition of anonymity. Mr. Obama spoke explicitly about the strikes in Pakistan in an online appearance in January, arguing that they were precisely aimed at Al Qaeda. Yet the drone attacks in Pakistan are part of a C.I.A. covert action program designed to be ?deniable? by American leaders; by law they are in the most carefully protected category of secrets that the government keeps. In court, the administration has taken the position that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such operations. ?There?s something wrong with aggressive leaking and winking and nodding about the drone program, but saying in response to Freedom of Information requests that they can?t comment because the program is covert,? Mr. Goldsmith said. Recently, responding to Freedom of Information Act lawsuits filed by The Times and the American Civil Liberties Union, Justice Department lawyers sought a delay, saying that secrecy rules about targeted killings were under discussion ?at the highest level? of government. The government must say by June 20 what it will make public. Behind closed doors, administration officials have long discussed the disadvantages of official secrecy for a program that by definition is no secret from its Al Qaeda targets. Colleagues say that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has often complained that secrecy rules make it hard to rebut exaggerated claims of civilian casualties from drone attacks in Pakistan. Mr. Obama has authorized a series of speeches by his counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan; the attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr.; and other officials, offering a limited account of the legal justification and goals of the strikes. In a speech on April 30, Mr. Brennan kept the intelligence striptease going, acknowledging that ?the United States is the first nation to regularly conduct strikes using remotely piloted aircraft in an armed conflict.? More significantly, Mr. Brennan elaborated on the administration?s argument that it was using the new weapon with extraordinary care, and mentioned a particular reason: with drones, as with cyberattacks, which he did not discuss, the United States is setting an example for the rest of the world. ?President Obama and those of us on his national security team are very mindful that as our nation uses this technology, we are establishing precedents that other nations may follow,? he said. The same might be said of the administration?s decisions about what to reveal about its pathbreaking programs and what to keep secret. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 7 08:21:50 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:21:50 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?=91Big_data=92_from_social_media?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_elsewhere_online_redefines_trend-watching?= Message-ID: <6EEF99CE-0127-4F7A-AE03-5A861E1D954E@infowarrior.org> ?Big data? from social media, elsewhere online redefines trend-watching By Ariana Eunjung Cha, Published: June 6 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/big-data-from-social-media-elsewhere-online-take-trend-watching-to-new-level/2012/06/06/gJQArWWpJV_print.html From a trading desk in London, Paul Hawtin monitors the fire hose of more than 340 million Twitter posts flying around the world each day to try to assess the collective mood of the populace. The computer program he uses generates a global sentiment score from 1 to 50 based on how pessimistic or optimistic people seem to be from their online conversations. Hawtin, chief executive of Derwent Capital Markets, buys and trades millions of dollars of stocks for private investors based on that number: When everyone appears happy, he generally buys. When anxiety runs high, he sells short. Hawtin has seen a gain of more than 7 percent in the first quarter of this year, and his method shows the advantage individuals, companies and governments are gaining as they take hold of the unprecedented amount of data online. Traders such as Hawtin say analyzing mathematical trends on the Web delivers insights and news faster than traditional investment approaches. The explosion in the use of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other services has resulted in the generation of some 2.5 quintillion bytes each day, according to IBM. ?Big data,? as it has been dubbed by researchers, has become so valuable that the World Economic Forum, in a report published last year, deemed it a new class of economic asset, like oil. ?Business boundaries are being redrawn,? the report said. Companies with the ability to mine the data are becoming the most powerful, it added. While the human brain cannot comprehend that much information at once, advances in computer power and analytics have made it possible for machines to tease out patterns in topics of conversation, calling habits, purchasing trends, use of language, popularity of sports, spread of disease and other expressions of daily life. ?This is changing the world in a big way. It enables us to watch changes in society in real time and make decisions in a way we haven?t been able to ever before,? said Gary King, a social science professor at Harvard University and a co-founder of Crimson Hexagon, a data analysis firm based in Boston. The Obama campaign employs rows of people manning computers that monitor Twitter sentiment about the candidates in key states. Google scientists are working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to track the spread of flu around the world by analyzing what people are typing in to search. And the United Nations is measuring inflation through computers that analyze the price of bread advertised in online supermarkets across Latin America. Many questions about big data remain unanswered. Concerns are being raised about personal privacy and how consumers can ensure that their information is being used fairly. Some worry that savvy technologists could use Twitter or Google to create false trends and manipulate markets. Even so, sociologists, software engineers, economists, policy analysts and others in nearly every field are jumping into the fray. And nowhere has big data been as transformative as it has been in finance. Wall Street is all about information advantage. Every little bit could mean the difference between a bonanza or a devastating loss, and so big data is being fed into computers to power high-frequency trading algorithms ? and directly to traders in every way imaginable. Hedge funds are experimenting with scanning comments on Amazon product pages to try to predict sales. Banks are tallying job listings on Monster as an indicator of hiring. Investment firms are conducting computer analyses of the financial statements of public companies to search for signs of a bankruptcy. Why wait for the government to release official numbers on auto sales, home sales and retail sales when the trends could be gleaned weeks or even months earlier by analyzing publicly available data online? Five years ago, only 2 percent of investment firms were incorporating Twitter analysis and other forms of ?unstructured? data into their trading decisions, according to a report by Adam Honore, a research director at Aite, a financial services consulting group based in Boston. By 2010, the share of companies experimenting with this technology jumped to 35 percent. Today, Honore said, that number is closer to 50 percent. ?Big data is fundamentally changing how we trade,? Honore said. ?Data in motion? Richard Tibbetts, chief technology officer at StreamBase, a Lexington, Mass., company that provides tools for analyzing large amounts of data, calls it ?examining data in motion.? The trick is to be able to find the digital smoke signals amid all the other stuff. Traders who were analyzing Twitter for unusual activity, for instance, were able to get the news of Osama bin Laden?s death and a massacre in Norway hours before the information was officially confirmed, giving them a significant jump on their colleagues who learned of the events through traditional news sources. ?The new generation of trader expects to have dozens of tools at their fingertips instead of just a Bloomberg terminal,? Tibbetts said. Hawtin began experimenting with trading on a social-media sentiment algorithm in the spring of 2011, tapping $40 million from his now-closed hedge fund. He has repeatedly warned potential investors that there is a high level of risk. ?It?s a very new area we don?t fully understand yet,? he said. But the interest in his project was so great that in April he began offering his technology to retail investors. In addition to its efforts to gauge the collective mood of the world, the company now examines messages on Twitter, Facebook and other social-media outlets to create measures for individual stocks and commodities. On a recent weekday, Hawtin was studying his global sentiment monitor when he noticed something troubling, a surge in anxiety after two days of relative calm. After deliberating for a few minutes, he decided it was too early to take any action. If the anxiety continued to trend up the following day, he said, he would probably start selling. ?There?s a delay between how you?re feeling about your economic situation and having that sentiment turned into a decision like buying or selling a stock or adjusting your portfolio,? he said. The numbers support Hawtin?s strategy ? at least so far. His investors beat the main London stock index by seven-fold in the first quarter of this year. But programs such as Hawtin?s are only as good as the data being entered, and a growing backlash against big data may threaten the flow of that information. Privacy concerns Companies and governments are pushing the envelope in the use and reuse of data in ways not originally intended, and privacy groups are pushing back. Even the basic definition of personal data varies widely from one country to another, making it unclear how it can be used. The regulatory framework has not caught up with the technology. Tim Berners-Lee, a founder of the World Wide Web, has become so concerned about the misuse of personal information by companies and governments that he has warned people to be cautious about what they put online. The data sets are so large that they are normally analyzed in aggregate, but privacy advocates worry that information can still be tied to individuals. Civil liberties groups have sued to stop a U.S. government program that monitors social media data for national security threats, arguing that it could be used to unjustly label people as bad credit risks ? or even terrorists ? and chill free speech. There is also the danger of what scholars call information asymmetry, where certain parties have an unfair advantage because they have better information than others ? a phenomenon that some have argued shakes the foundation of a market economy. ?It increases opportunities for those who are already richer and disadvantages those that are poor,? said Jay Stanley, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington. Beyond the civil liberties issue, data streams can be manipulated. You can spam Twitter streams with positive words about a stock to make it look as if there is a groundswell of optimism about the company. Or you can use the same techniques to try to sink a stock. Vagelis Hristidis, an associate professor of computer science at the University of California at Riverside, is the lead author of a paper detailing another investment strategy based on Twitter. During a four-month simulation, his approach outperformed other baseline strategies and indexes, including the Dow Jones industrial average, by between 1.4 percent and 11 percent. ?A model that predicts the stock market,? Hristidis said, ?can only be successful as long as people don?t know about 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 Thu Jun 7 08:22:39 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:22:39 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DNI summoned to Capitol Hill to discuss media leaks Message-ID: Intelligence director summoned to Capitol Hill to discuss media leaks By Ed O'Keefe http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/intelligence-director-summoned-to-capitol-hill-to-discuss-media-leaks/2012/06/06/gJQA4NbnJV_blog.html?hpid=z6 Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. (Chip Somodevilla - GETTY IMAGES) Senior lawmakers plan to meet Thursday with the director of national intelligence to discuss concerns with recent leaks to news outlets regarding sensitive military and national security decisions. National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper is scheduled to meet Thursday morning with members of the House and Senate intelligence committees to discuss ?how we might stiffen up the process that?s used to investigate leaks,? Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. In addition to the meetings and plans to hold subsequent hearings, the House and Senate intelligence committees announced Wednesday that they would draw up new laws against leaks of classified information. In the most notable display of concern, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday that President Obama should appoint a special counsel to determine who is leaking the information. The Arizona lawmaker also charged that the leaks are designed to bolster Obama?s reelection campaign. McCain and others cited several stories published in recent weeks that detail key national security decisions, including a New York Times story chronicling Obama?s approval of a ?kill list? of suspected terrorists targeted with drone attacks, reports in the Times and The Washington Post regarding U.S. involvement in cyberattacks on Iran?s nuclear program and details in a new book by Newsweek special correspondent Daniel Klaidman about the administration?s deliberations on the detention of suspected terrorists. Asked Wednesday about the concerns, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the Obama administration ?takes all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk ongoing counterterrorism or intelligence operations. Any suggestion that this administration has authorized intentional leaks of classified information for political gain is grossly irresponsible.? McCain shot back Wednesday, charging that ?what is grossly irresponsible is U.S. officials divulging some of the most highly classified programs involving the most important national security priorities facing our nation today.? Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) came to the White House?s defense, reminding reporters Wednesday that the reporters who have written those stories have said that they did not obtain their information in a coordinated fashion. Leaking national security information is a long, if upsetting, tradition, he added. ?If you pick up Bob Woodward?s books, and David Sanger is a damn good reporter, and David Ignatius and these guys, they get a lot of people talking about things that people shouldn?t be talking about,? Kerry said. ?And it always amazes me.? In response to queries from reporters, Kerry also said he questioned whether the New York Times should have published a story last week regarding Obama's decision to order cyberattacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. ?I personally think there is a serious question whether or not that served our interest and whether the public had to know,? Kerry said. ?To me it was such a nitty-gritty fundamental national security issue. And I don?t see how the public interest is well served by it. I do see how other interests outside the United States are well served by it.? Times managing editor Dean Baquet told 2chambers: ?Our job is to report issues in the public interest, and this piece certainly meets that standard. As always with sensitive stories, we described the piece to the government before publication. No one suggested we not publish.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 7 09:30:29 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 10:30:29 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Claim: Encrypted Chat Developer Detained, Interrogated at US Border Message-ID: <36C80D4F-79F4-4865-BB9D-9AFA4CC024E5@infowarrior.org> Claim: Encrypted Chat Developer Detained, Interrogated at US Border ? Written By Drew Wilson ? June 6, 2012 | 5 Comments http://www.zeropaid.com/news/101174/claim-encrypted-chat-developer-detained-interrogated-at-us-border/ A developer for encrypted chat application ?Cryptocat? has recently claimed that he was detained and interrogated at the US border. Apparently, border guards took his passport and interrogated him about the application, demanding to know ?which algorithms Cryptocat used and about its censorship resistance.? A developer of an encrypted chat program is making some dramatic claims. Nadim Kobeissi, developer of Cryptocat which ?lets you instantly set up secure conversations. It?s an open source encrypted, private alternative to other services such as Facebook chat.? Apparently, a trip to the US now allegedly features a frightening round of intense interrogation by American border guards. Kobeissi took to his Twitter account to talk about his experience, saying, ?I was detained, searched, questioned on my research, with my passport confiscated for almost an hour.? He added, ?There are many perspectives I strive to understand. Justifying targeted gov. harassment, rights deprivation & interrogation is not one.? Other tweets this, ?In my mind there is no question concerning interrogating someone for open source crypto work.? Details about the experience were also posted including this, ?Even though I didn?t get an SSSS this time, I was still detained, questioned and searched while transiting to Canada via the US.? This: ?Also worth noting: my passport was confiscated for around an hour.? This: ?Out of my 4 DHS interrogations in the past 3 weeks, it?s the first time I?m asked about Cryptocat crypto and my passport is confiscated.? And, most notably, this: ?The interrogator (who claimed 22 years of computer experience) asked me which algorithms Cryptocat used and about its censorship resistance.? If all of this is true, this is certainly a frightening turn of events. If what you develop online or what you say online as it relates to Internet freedom could impact how you are treated at the Canada, US border, it certainly would make me think twice about coming in to the US. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 7 15:52:04 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Court Halts Law Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans Message-ID: <18B9B355-5A77-46E5-8FD8-F22781E0B40F@infowarrior.org> (c/o MM) Court Halts Law Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans ? By David Kravets ? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/indefinite-detention-law/ ? June 7, 2012 | ? 2:39 pm | ? Categories: National Security, politics A federal judge is blocking legislation authorizing the government to indefinitely detain without trial an ?individual who was part of or substantially supported? groups ?engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.? Tuesday?s decision by a New York federal judge halts a key terror-fighting feature of the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act and is a blow to the Obama administration. The government urged U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest not to adopt a nationwide ban on the measure, saying the move would be ?extraordinary? and ?unwarranted? (.pdf). But the judge, ruling in a case brought by journalists and political activists, said the law was too vague and did not provide clear guidance on whom the government could indefinitely detain. Last month when Judge Forrest granted standing to the plaintiffs based on their fears of being detained for their writing and political activism, she wrote (.pdf) that, ?Before anyone should be subjected to the possibility of indefinite military detention, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that individuals be able to understand what conduct might cause him or her to run afoul of? the statute. And on Tuesday, in a follow-up ruling (.pdf), she said her blockage of the law applied nationwide, not just to the plaintiffs, who include Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Christopher Hedges and WikiLeaks activist Brigitta Jonsdottir. The Obama administration had argued that the judge?s original decision only applied to the plaintiffs, an interpretation the judge ruled Tuesday was false. The plaintiffs maintain the law has chilled their speech and fear their activities could subject them to military detention. ?Unfortunately, there are a number of terms that are sufficiently vague that no ordinary citizen can reliably define such conduct,? the judge wrote. Those subject to indefinite detention under the National Defense Authorization Act include: A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. The plaintiffs argued that the law was so vague that simply having contact with and reporting on organizations labeled as ?terroristic? by the government would be grounds for indefinite detention by the government. The act is a broad package of legislation that also includes both authorizations for military spending as well as additional, non-spending legislation. In his Dec. 31 signing statement, President Barack Obama said that ?my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.? But the statement didn?t sway Judge Forrest. ?This Court is acutely aware that preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with great caution,? the judge wrote. ?However, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights. ? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 7 16:12:35 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Feds Urging Appeals Court to Reinstate $1.5 Million File-Sharing Verdict Message-ID: <09632A04-1301-46D9-B610-654EF0382D69@infowarrior.org> Feds Urging Appeals Court to Reinstate $1.5 Million File-Sharing Verdict ? By David Kravets ? Email Author ? June 6, 2012 | ? 5:13 pm | ? Categories: intellectual property, The Courts http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/feds-file-sharing-appeal/ Jammie Thomas-Rasset testifies in her first civil trial in 2007, while U.S. District Judge Michael Davis watches from the bench. Illustration: Cate Whittemore/Wired The Obama administration is set to urge a federal appeals court to reinstate a $1.5 million music filing-sharing verdict a jury levied against a Minnesota woman for sharing two dozen songs on Kazaa. At issue is a Minnesota federal judge?s decision last year lowering the verdict to $54,000, ruling that the jury?s award ?for stealing 24 songs for personal use is appalling.? The case tests the constitutionality of the Copyright Act, which allows penalties of as much as $150,000 per infringement. It also asks whether federal judges have the power to reduce copyright damage awards rendered by juries. The decision by US District Judge Michael Davis follows the third trial in the Recording Industry Association of America?s lawsuit against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the first file sharer to take an RIAA lawsuit to a jury trial. Under the case?s latest iteration, a Minnesota jury penalized her last year $62,500 for each of 24 tracks she pilfered on Kazaa. Despite the judge?s reduction, Thomas-Rasset appealed the lowered damages verdict, (.pdf) claiming the Copyright Act was unconstitutional because of its large or ?excessive? awards. The RIAA, for its part, claims that judges do not have the power to alter jury awards when it comes to copyright infringement. The Obama administration, which is intervening because the constitutionality of the Copyright Act is at issue, agreed with the RIAA and added that the act was constitutional. ?The Copyright Act?s statutory damage provision is reasonably related to furthering the public interest in protecting original works of artistic, literary, and musical expression and its constitutionality must therefore be sustained under the applicable, highly deferential standards of judicial review,? the government wrote (.pdf) the Missouri-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The three-judge appellate court panel will hear oral arguments in the case Tuesday. Judge Davis has overturned the judgments of three separate juries in the Thomas-Rasset case dating to 2007. The first trial of Thomas-Rasset, of Minnesota, ended with a $222,000 judgment, but Davis declared a mistrial, on the grounds that he?d improperly instructed the jury on a point of law. After the second trial, Davis tentatively reduced the award from $1.92 million to $54,000, and ordered a new trial on damages if the parties didn?t agree to that amount or settle. That third trial ended in the $1.5 million judgement that Davis reduced again. Judge Davis, the nation?s first judge to reduce the amount of damages in a Copyright Act case, said fairness demanded his decision to reduce the latest award to $2,250 per track. The jury?s award was ?so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionate to the offense and obviously unreasonable,? he wrote. The RIAA said in a legal filing with the appeals court that Judge Davis? decision ?is fundamentally incompatible both with Plaintiff?s constitutional right to have a jury determine what amount of statutory damages is just, and with the deference due to congressionally authorized awards.? The three Thomas-Rasset verdicts prove that federal juries are willing to slap file sharers with monster awards. The only other file sharing case to have gone to trial resulted in a Boston jury awarding the RIAA $675,000 for 30 songs, which a judge reduced last year to $67,500. A federal appeals court reinstated the verdict, and the Supreme Court last week declined to intervene. Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. The RIAA has ceased its 5-year campaign of suing individual file sharers and, with the Motion Picture Association of America, has convinced internet service providers to take punitive action against copyright scofflaws, including terminating service. (Thanks to Ray Beckerman for pointing out next week?s oral arguments.) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 8 07:00:12 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:00:12 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - U.N. could tax U.S.-based Web sites, leaked docs show Message-ID: <9313890D-A7B6-4FAC-90A0-C189EB50B5A0@infowarrior.org> U.N. could tax U.S.-based Web sites, leaked docs show by Declan McCullagh and Larry Downes June 7, 2012 11:58 PM PDT The United Nations is considering a new Internet tax targeting the largest Web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix, that could cripple their ability to reach users in developing nations. The European proposal, offered for debate at a December meeting of a U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union, would amend an existing telecommunications treaty by imposing heavy costs on popular Web sites and their network providers for the privilege of serving non-U.S. users, according to newly leaked documents. The documents (No. 1 No. 2) punctuate warnings that the Obama administration and Republican members of Congress raised last week about how secret negotiations at the ITU over an international communications treaty could result in a radical re-engineering of the Internet ecosystem and allow governments to monitor or restrict their citizens' online activities. "It's extremely worrisome," Sally Shipman Wentworth, senior manager for public policy at the Internet Society, says about the proposed Internet taxes. "It could create an enormous amount of legal uncertainty and commercial uncertainty." The leaked proposal was drafted by the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association, or ETNO, a Brussels-based lobby group representing companies in 35 nations that wants the ITU to mandate these fees. < - > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57449375-83/u.n-could-tax-u.s.-based-web-sites-leaked-docs-show/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 8 07:58:38 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:58:38 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Oz Gov't 'Consumer Advocate' For Secret Anti-Piracy Meetings: The Chairman Of The Copyright Council Message-ID: <77F5986C-F36D-4F4C-9132-F10E5622A820@infowarrior.org> Australian Gov't Chooses 'Consumer Advocate' For Secret Anti-Piracy Meetings: The Chairman Of The Copyright Council from the um... dept You may recall, that the Australian government, the big entertainment industry players and some ISPs have been meeting down in Australia to come up with a plan to "fight piracy." Of course, the meetings have been so secret that the government won't even reveal who attended them, claiming that it would not be in the public interest. Considering that copyright law itself is supposed to be about the public interest, that seems preposterous, but despite the criticism, the government vowed to continue hosting these secret meetings. However, in a nod to the criticism, they apparently added a "consumer advocate." Just one problem: it turns out that the head of the consumer advocacy group invited to the meeting, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, just so happens to also be the chairperson of the Australian Copyright Council, a group which has advocated for stronger copyright laws for decades. < - > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120605/18331419214/australian-govt-chooses-consumer-advocate-secret-anti-piracy-meetings-chairman-copyright-council.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 8 09:29:18 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:29:18 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Cyberwarhawks Message-ID: <9706B339-9800-4D46-A858-4F7EE66A89D8@infowarrior.org> Cyberwarhawks http://cryptome.org/2012/06/cyberwarhawks.htm FWIW sayting the only voice of relative reason on that letter is Hayden, in my view. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 8 09:37:41 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:37:41 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Missing Person Alert - DC/MD/VA Message-ID: <6A9CC732-0AEE-4227-8771-867EE067C3A6@infowarrior.org> Since many list readers are local to DC, at the request of a friend, I am passing along this link to a description of a teen girl (Katie) who went missing from Springbrook High yesterday. She lives in Hillandale and may be headed to Williamsbuirg or Richmond -- national and local missing persons reports have been filed by her parents. https://www.facebook.com/catherine.jeffries.1 -- rick From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 8 14:54:52 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:54:52 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Missing Person Found. In-Reply-To: <6A9CC732-0AEE-4227-8771-867EE067C3A6@infowarrior.org> References: <6A9CC732-0AEE-4227-8771-867EE067C3A6@infowarrior.org> Message-ID: Subject says it all. ;) Happy Weekend, All! -- rick From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 8 18:57:16 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:57:16 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Sen McCain 'has' cyber all wrong... Message-ID: <3F6D09BD-20F7-414A-A148-43E2A49501EE@infowarrior.org> He thinks we're *too* reliant on 'defense' in cyberspace and need to focus on offensive cyber activities instead of our own cyber resilience & security? Riiiiiight. But then again, preparing for, and talking about cyberwar is sexy right now and every politico with an audience in DC is an 'expert' in this field, or so they think. GRRRR. --rick http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=7292 The U.S. military is placing too much emphasis on defense against cyber attacks when it should be developing offensive cyber capabilities, according to Sen. John McCain. ??I am very concerned that our strategy is too reliant on defensive measures in cyber space, and believe we need to develop the capability to go on the offense as well,? Sen. McCain wrote in remarks appended to the Senate Armed Services Committee report on the FY 2013 defense authorization bill. ?I believe that cyber warfare will be the key battlefield of the 21st century, and I am concerned about our ability to fight and win in this new domain. ?I authored a provision in the bill that requires the commander of U.S. Cyber Command to provide a strategy for the development and deployment of offensive cyber capabilities.? ?This provision to craft a comprehensive strategy should spur U.S. Cyber Command to develop this offensive capability effectively and at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer,? Sen. McCain wrote. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 8 19:59:33 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 20:59:33 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - ACM Comes Out Against CISPA Message-ID: June 7, 2012 | By Mark M. Jaycox World's Largest Organization for Computer Professionals Comes Out Against CISPA https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/worlds-largest-organization-computer-professionals-comes-out-against-cispa The US Public Policy Council of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM), representing ACM, came out against CISPA, the cybersecurity legislation recently passed by the US House. ACM is the world's largest organization for computer professionals. They are joining a diverse group of individuals and organizations opposing this bill, including a wide array of digital civil liberties organizations like EFF, computer scientists like Bruce Schneier and Tim Berners-Lee, and companies like the Mozilla Foundation. CISPA is intended to protect America against cyberthreats, but destroys core privacy protections by providing vague definitions and unfettered access to personal communications by companies and government agencies. In one such example, ACM criticized the expansive definition for "cyberthreat information," which could "encompass everything from port scans to destruction of entire networks." We agree, and voiced identical concerns when CISPA was first released. Vague definitions are accompanied by a vague standard for companies to make "reasonable efforts to limit the impact on privacy." Though the standard is well intended, ACM correctly identifies that the vague standard "fails to invoke any framework, standards, oversight, or controls to be used" for personal information. They also conclude that the bill creates "no meaningful support for collection minimization" and shares information that "could have nothing to do with cybersecurity"?problems that we have consistently highlighted in our commentary on CISPA. These large gaps in privacy protections highlight some of the core shortfalls we have voiced about CISPA. Digital civil liberties groups, companies, and computer researchers are glad ACM joined the opposition to CISPA. The upcoming bills in the Senate share many similarities to CISPA and must be stopped. This is the reason why we vow to take the fight to the Senate, ask you to sign our petition against the Cyberspying Bills, and tweet your Congressmen --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jun 10 13:45:35 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - How the Obama administration is making the US media its mouthpiece Message-ID: <1AE2DDB3-75FB-4968-86E5-FF3AC9680612@infowarrior.org> How the Obama administration is making the US media its mouthpiece Spoonfed national security scoops based on anonymous official leaks ? did we learn nothing from Judith Miller's WMD reporting? ? Glenn Greenwald ? guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 June 2012 10.57 EDT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/08/obama-administration-making-us-media-its-mouthpiece Over the past several weeks in the US, there has been a series of high-profile media scoops exposing numerous details about President Obama's covert foreign policy and counterterrorism actions, stories appearing primarily in The New York Times. Americans, for the first time, have been told about Obama's personal role in compiling a secret "kill list", which determines who will be targeted for death in Pakistan and Yemen; his ordering of sophisticated cyber-attacks on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities; and operational details about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Each of these stories revealed information clearly in the public interest and sparked important debates. But the way in which they were reported ? specifically, their overwhelming reliance on Obama's own usually anonymous aides ? raise longstanding and still troubling questions about the relationship between the establishment American media and the government over which it is supposed to serve as adversarial watchdog. The Obama White House's extreme fixation on secrecy is shaped by a bizarre paradox. One the one hand, the current administration has prosecuted double the number of whistleblowers ? government employees who leak classified information showing high-level official wrongdoing ? than all previous administrations combined. Obama officials have also, as ACLU lawyers documented this week in the Guardian, resisted with unprecedented vigor any attempts to subject their conduct to judicial review or any form of public disclosure, by insisting to courts that these programs are so secretive that the US government cannot even confirm or deny their existence without damaging US national security. But at the very same time that they invoke broad secrecy claims to shield their conduct from outside scrutiny, it is Obama officials themselves who have continuously and quite selectively leaked information about these same programs to the US media. Indeed, the high publicity-value New York Times scoops of the past two weeks about covert national security programs have come substantially from Obama aides themselves. The Times' "kill list" article was based on interviews with "three dozen of his current and former advisers [who] described Mr Obama's" central role in choosing whom the CIA will kill. The paper's scoop that Obama ordered cyber-attacks on Iran cited, among others, "American officials", including "a senior administration official" who proudly touted the president's hands-on role in all measures used to cripple Tehran's nuclear research. Meanwhile, the same White House that insists in court that it cannot confirm the existence of the CIA's drone program spent this week anonymously boasting to US news outlets of the president's latest drone kill in Pakistan. And government emails ordered disclosed by a federal court last month revealed that at the same time as they were refusing to disclose information about the Bin Laden raid on the grounds that it is classified, the Obama administration was secretly meeting with, and shuffling sensitive information to, Hollywood filmmakers, who are producing what is certain to be a stirring and reverent film about that raid, originally scheduled to be released just weeks before the November presidential election. The tactic driving all of this is as obvious as it is disturbing. Each of these election year leaks depicts Obama as a tough, hands-on, unflinching commander-in-chief: ruthlessly slaying America's enemies and keeping us all safe. They simultaneously portray him as a deep moral and intellectual leader, profoundly grappling with the "writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas", as he decides in secret who will live and die and which countries will be targeted with American aggression. In sum, these anonymous leaks are classic political propaganda: devoted to glorifying the leader and his policies for political gain. Because the programs are shrouded in official secrecy, it is impossible for journalists to verify these selective disclosures. By design, the only means the public has to learn anything about what the president is doing is the partial, selective disclosures by Obama's own aides ? those who work for him and are devoted to his political triumph. But that process is a recipe for government deceit and propaganda. This was precisely the dynamic that, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, co-opted America's largest media outlets as mindless purveyors of false government claims. The defining journalistic sin of Judith Miller, the New York Times' disgraced WMD reporter, was that she masqueraded the unverified assertions of anonymous Bush officials as reported fact. As the Times' editors put it in their 2004 mea culpa, assertions from anonymous sources were "insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged". These recent Times scoops about Obama's policies do not sink to the level of the Judy Miller debacle. For one thing, they contain some impressive reporting and even disturbing revelations about the conduct of Obama officials ? most notably, that they manipulate casualty figures and hide civilian deaths from their drone attacks by "counting all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants". For another, they include some internal criticism of Obama's practices, such as the indiscriminate nature of his "signature" drone strikes (when they see "three guys doing jumping jacks", the CIA concludes it's a terrorist training camp), and the deceit inherent in his radically broad definition of "militant". (One "official" is quoted as follows: "It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants. They count the corpses and they're not really sure who they are.") Moreover, these disclosures have real journalistic import. It's indisputably valuable for American citizens to know that their government convenes secret "kill list" meetings, and that it is launching cyber-attacks on Iran, attacks which the Pentagon considers (at least, when done to the US) to be an "act of war". But despite those real differences with the Judy Miller travesty, the basic template is the same. These reporters rely overwhelmingly on government sources. Their reporting is shaped almost exclusively by the claims of underlings who are loyal to the president. The journalists have no means of verifying the assertions they are passing on as fact. And worst of all, they grant anonymity to Obama's aides who are doing little more than doing the president's bidding and promoting his political interests. It is pure "access journalism": these reporters are given scoops in exchange for their wholly unjustified promise to allow government officials to propagandize the citizenry without accountability (that is, from behind the protective shield of anonymity). By necessity, their journalistic storytelling is shaped by the perspective of these official sources. And the journalistic product is predictably one that serves the president's political agenda. Obama's 2008 opponent, Republican Senator John McCain, complained, quite reasonably, that the intent of these recent leaks was to "enhance President Obama's image as a tough guy for the elections". Worse, as the Columbia Journalism Review and the media watchdog group FAIR both documented, these stories simply omitted any discussion of many of the most controversial aspects of Obama's policies, including the risks and possible illegality of cyber-attacks on Iran and drone strikes in Yemen, the number of civilian deaths caused by Obama's drone strikes, and the way those drone attacks have strengthened al-Qaida by increasing anti-American hatred. Perhaps the most pernicious effect of this type of journalism is that it converts journalists into dutiful messengers of official decrees. Reporters are trained that they will be selected as scoop-receivers only if they demonstrate fealty to the agenda of official sources. In February, the Times' Scott Shane controversially granted anonymity to a "senior" Obama official to smear as al-Qaida sympathizers the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, after the BIJ documented the significant under-counting by Obama officials of civilian deaths from drone strikes as well as the Obama administration's horrifying and possibly criminal practice of targeting rescuers and funerals with drone attacks. It was Shane, along with Jo Becker, who was then provided with the scoop about Obama's "kill list". Similarly, the Times' David Sanger has long been criticized for uncritical dissemination of misleading US government claims about the threat from Iran, almost always passed on with the shield of anonymity. It was unsurprising, then, that it was Sanger who was rewarded with the valuable scoop about Obama's ordering of cyber-attacks on Iran (a scoop he is using to sell his new book), and equally unsurprising that the article he produced was so flattering of Obama's role in this operation. By revealing contrast, consider the treatment meted out to the Times' James Risen, who has produced scoops that are embarrassing to, rather than glorifying of, the US government. It was Risen who exposed the Bush administration's illegal NSA eavesdropping program in 2006, and he also exposed a highly inept and harmful CIA attempt to infiltrate Iran's nuclear program. As a result, the Obama justice department has relentlessly pursued Risen in court, serving him with subpoenas in an attempt to compel him to reveal his source for the Iran infiltration story, a process that could send him to prison if, as is likely, he refuses. Matt Apuzzo, the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist for Associated Press, explained the obvious lesson being taught by this episode: "Sanger writes on successful Iran operation, gets wide access. Risen writes on botched Iranian operation, gets subpoenaed." There is a fundamental tension between serving as adversarial watchdog over government officials and serving as the primary amplifiers of their propaganda. The US government has perfected the art of training American journalists to realize that they will be rewarded if they serve the latter role, and punished if they do not. Judging by these last several weeks of high-profile, government-disseminated scoops, it is a lesson that many journalists have learned all too eagerly. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jun 10 18:13:06 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:13:06 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google+Apple Aerial Surveillance Message-ID: Beware the spy in the sky: After those Street View snoopers, Google and Apple use planes that can film you sunbathing in your back garden By Vanessa Allen PUBLISHED: 07:04 EST, 10 June 2012 | UPDATED: 16:36 EST, 10 June 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157150/Apple-reveal-3D-mapping-service-week-campaigners-say-privacy-window-thanks-high-resolution-images-spy-home.html Spy planes able to photograph sunbathers in their back gardens are being deployed by Google and Apple. The U.S. technology giants are racing to produce aerial maps so detailed they can show up objects just four inches wide. But campaigners say the technology is a sinister development that brings the surveillance society a step closer. Hyper-real: 3D mapping services used by C3 Technologies (as purchased by Apple) will form the main part of the software giant's new mapping service Google admits it has already sent planes over cities while Apple has acquired a firm using spy-in-the-sky technology that has been tested on at least 20 locations, including London. Apple?s military-grade cameras are understood to be so powerful they could potentially see into homes through skylights and windows. The technology is similar to that used by intelligence agencies in identifying terrorist targets in Afghanistan. All powerful: Apple's newly-acquired technology uses military-grade camera equipment to produce realistic 3D maps of big cities and residential streets Google will use its spy planes to help create 3D maps with much more detail than its satellite-derived Google Earth images. Apple hopes its rumoured mapping service for the iPhone and iPad will overtake the hugely popular Google Maps Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, warned that privacy risked being sacrificed in a commercial ?race to the bottom?. ?The next generation of maps is taking us over the garden fence,? he warned. ?You won?t be able to sunbathe in your garden without worrying about an Apple or Google plane buzzing overhead taking pictures.? He said householders should be asked for their consent before images of their homes go online. Apple is expected to unveil its new mapping applications for its iPhone and other devices today ? along with privacy safeguards. Its 3D maps will reportedly show for the first time the sides of tall buildings, such as the Big Ben clock tower. Google expects by the end of the year to have 3D coverage of towns and cities with a combined population of 300million. It has not revealed any locations so far. Current 3D mapping technology relies on aerial images taken at a much lower resolution than the technology Apple is thought to be using. This means that when users ?zoom in?, details tend to be lost because of the poor image quality. Google ran into trouble when it emerged that its Street View cars, which gathered ground-level panoramic photographs for Google Maps, had also harvested personal data from household wifi networks. The issue of Street View-style maps is already controversial thanks to Google's alleged data harvesting tactics Emails, text messages, photographs and documents were taken from unsecured wifi networks all around Britain. MILITARY TECHNOLOGY Apple?s spy planes are believed to be equipped with technology developed by defence agencies to guide missile strikes. Each plane is equipped with multiple cameras taking high-resolution photographs of buildings and landmarks from every possible angle, which are then compiled to make three-dimensional images. The military-grade images are taken at a height of around 1,600ft, meaning people below are very unlikely to realise they are being photographed. The cameras can be installed on planes, helicopters or even unmanned drones, although there are safety restrictions about the use of the latter in Britain. A small plane carrying the cameras can photograph up to 100 square kilometres (38.6 square miles) every hour. Google claimed it was a mistake even though a senior manager was warned as early as 2007 that the extra information was being captured. Around one in four home networks is thought to be unsecured because they lack password protection. Little has been revealed about the technology involved in the spy planes used to capture the aerial images. But they are thought to be able to photograph around 40 square miles every hour, suggesting they would be flying too quickly and at too great a height to access domestic wifi networks. Like Google Maps, the resulting images would not be streamed live to computers but would provide a snapshot image of the moment the camera passed by. Google pixellates faces and car number plates but faced criticism after its service showed one recognisable man leaving a sex shop and another being sick in the street. Amie Stepanovich, of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre in America, said she believed Apple and Google would be forced to blur out homes in the same way Street View pixellates faces. She said: ?With satellite images, privacy is built in because you can?t zoom down into a garden. Homeowners need to be asked to opt in to show their property in high definition ? otherwise it should be blurred out.? Apple has previously used Google for its mapping services but last year it emerged it had bought C3 Technologies, a 3D mapping company that uses technology developed by Saab AB, the aerospace and defence company. At the time C3 had already mapped 20 cities and it is believed to have added more with Apple?s backing. Its photographs have been shot from 1,600ft and one C3 executive described it as ?Google on steroids?. There are already 3D maps available online for most big city centres, but the images are often low resolution, meaning they are of little use for navigation and users cannot zoom in on detail. Critics have argued that Apple and Google will face a backlash if they offer detailed 3D mapping of residential areas in suburbs and rural locations. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 11 06:49:52 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:49:52 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Why_the_United_States_Can=92t_Wi?= =?windows-1252?q?n_a_Cyberwar?= Message-ID: <5EA5916C-1222-4849-9CA8-BC2E1469E6FA@infowarrior.org> Why the United States Can?t Win a Cyberwar And our political leaders need to understand this?fast. By Fred Kaplan|Posted Friday, June 8, 2012, at 6:49 PM ET http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/06/obama_s_cyber_attacks_on_iran_were_carefully_considered_but_the_nuclear_arms_race_offers_important_lessons_.single.html Sen. John McCain rarely ceases to boggle the mind. He did it again today, highlighting a provision that he inserted in the defense authorization bill requiring U.S. Cyber Command ?to provide a strategy for the development and deployment of offensive cyber capabilities.? ?I am very concerned,? he stated, ?that our strategy is too reliant on defensive measures in cyber space, and believe we need to develop the capability to go on the offense as well ? I believe that cyber warfare will be the key battlefield of the 21st century, and I am concerned about our ability to fight and win in this new domain.? Two strange things stick out in this statement?which, by the way, was not an off-the-cuff remark but a formal appendage to a report on the defense authorization bill by the Senate Armed Services Committee, where McCain is the top-ranking Republican. First, where has McCain been for the last week or so? Newspapers and cable shows have been screaming with reports of President Obama?s cyber campaign to wreak havoc on Iran?s nuclear program. A new book, Confront and Conceal, by New York Times reporter David Sanger, reveals that the campaign is code-named ?Olympic Games? and that it?s been going on for quite a while. That is to say, we have ?offensive cybercapabilities? in spades. Since the establishment of U.S. Cyber Command, in 2009, the generals in charge have sought offensive capabilities explicitly. Second, what does McCain mean by ?our ability to fight and win in this new domain? of cyberwarfare? Does he have any idea what he?s talking about? Here, McCain is not alone in his vagueness; this is something that very few higher-ups seem as yet to have grasped. McCain may be overstating matters in calling cyberspace ?the key battlefield of the 21st century,? but it?s no exaggeration to view Obama?s cyber campaign against Iran?which has aimed to disrupt the country?s uranium-enrichment program through logic bombs, viruses, and other manipulations of its computer networks?as crossing a new threshold in modern warfare. According to Sanger?s account, Obama was well aware he was treading new ground when he made his first breach, obtaining assurances from his commanders that the cyberassault on the centrifuges would have no effect on nearby hospitals or other civilian enterprises. This is good to know. It?s reminiscent of nuclear war games in the late 1950s and early ?60s, when the players tried to limit the attacks and retaliations so that the bombs and warheads landed only on military targets, not on population centers. There are differences, of course. For one, nukes would have killed millions of people, no matter how ?limited? the attack, whereas logic bombs at worst destroy enterprises (which, depending on the enterprise, can indirectly kill lots of people, but still, there?s a big difference). For another (and this is an astonishing thing), for the first decade of the nuclear age, the people in charge?from the White House to the Pentagon to the Strategic Air Command on down?had no interest in limiting the damage. As late as 1960, this was the official U.S. war plan: If the Soviets launched an attack on Western Europe or some other part of the Free World, even if they did so only with conventional armies, even if they didn?t fire a single atomic weapon, the United States was to unleash its entire arsenal of nuclear weapons against every target?civilian and military?in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China. This amounted to 3,423 nuclear bombs and warheads, totaling 7,847 megatons (or 7.8 billion tons) of explosive power, against 654 targets (a mix of military bases and urban-industrial factories), killing an estimated 285 million people and injuring 40 million more in the Soviet Union alone. (These numbers come from official documents that I got declassified while researching my 1983 book, The Wizards of Armageddon.) This was the deadly math of what President Dwight Eisenhower called ?massive retaliation.? In the late ?50s, a group of defense analysts, many of them at the RAND Corp., thought about ways to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war?specifically, to make a nuclear attack less tempting for the enemy to contemplate?and to limit the damage of such a war if it erupted anyway. When President John F. Kennedy took office in 1961, his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, filled key positions with some of these RAND analysts?the ?whiz kids,? as they came to be called?and translated their ideas into policy. Some results: burying ICBMs in underground, blast-resistant silos, to make them less vulnerable to attack (thus making a nuclear first-strike less tempting in the minds of enemies); changing the war plan, to give the president a variety of options (for instance, enabling him to hit only the other side?s missiles and airbases, while avoiding its cities); and, later on in the decade, creating U.S.-Soviet forums where ?confidence-building measures? and ?rules-of-the-road? could be discussed (thus relaxing a broad spectrum of suspicions). Cyberwar is very different from nuclear war: less destructive but also less tangible. Yet they?re similar in one important way: It is illusory to talk about ?winning? either. And this is where McCain?s vague talk of fighting and winning in the cyber domain gets a bit loopy. It?s not unlike the talk, common among Air Force generals in the 1950s and ?60s (and a few hyperactive civilian defense intellectuals in the Reagan era of the ?80s), of fighting and winning a nuclear war. (Think Gen. Buck Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove: ?I?m not saying we won?t get our hair mussed, but 10 to 20 million [dead] tops!?) The problem with the two wars is the same: We don?t have a monopoly of the weapons. At least by the early 1960s, if the United States had attacked the Soviet Union with nukes, the Soviets would have had enough nukes left over to strike back, if not precisely ?in kind,? then with a degree of damage that any sane person would deem unacceptable. This was the heart of nuclear deterrence: You kill me, I kill you; therefore, you won?t kill me. Actually, the situation for us is worse with cyberwarfare. Because our social and economic structures are far more dependent on computer networks than those in any other country, a major cyberattack would do far more damage to us. Therefore, the situation in the cyber domain is more like this: We hurt you; you cripple us. That being the case, an offensive cyber strategy amounts to a suicidal trap. Two years ago, Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism chief, wrote a book called Cyber War that dealt precisely with these dilemmas. At the time, I wrote that it ?may be the most important book about national-security policy in the last several years,? and I?d say it again, more forcefully, today. Clarke meant the book, explicitly, as an attempt to apply the classic principles of nuclear deterrence?as laid out in such works as Bernard Brodie?s The Absolute Weapon, Albert Wohlstetter?s famous Foreign Affairs article ?The Delicate Balance of Terror,? Thomas Schelling?s The Strategy of Conflict, Herman Kahn?s On Thermonuclear War, and William Kaufmann?s ?Counterforce? briefings?to the impending cyber era. His worry wasn?t (and isn?t) that the Chinese (or whoever) will one day, all of a sudden, set off the ?logic bombs? that they?ve embedded throughout our computer-dependent power grids and financial networks?any more than the more sophisticated strategists of the 1950s and ?60s thought the Russians might, out of the blue, launch a nuclear first strike. Rather, the issue is how foes might leverage their cyberwar assets to an advantage in a crisis?and what the United States needs to do, ahead of time, to nullify that advantage. For instance, let?s say China puts a move on Taiwan or the South China Sea?and threatens to trigger a power blackout in every American city if we interfere. In this sort of crisis, threatening to ?retaliate in kind??that is, to unleash John McCain?s ?offensive capabilities??would have little effect. What we need, Clarke wrote in his book, is ?a credible defense,? which would cast doubt in the minds of potential attackers that their cyberattack would knock us out or paralyze the president with fear. Clarke devised some modest proposals: for instance, requiring the largest Internet service providers to monitor traffic for logic bombs and tightening access to the power grid. Those seemed like no-brainers. Other, more ambitious ideas: negotiating a no-first-use agreement on cyberattacks; extending the Geneva Accords to ban attacks on purely civilian targets, such as power grids; establishing an international forum outlawing certain kinds of cyberattacks and requiring ?obligations to assist? in finding and punishing those who had violated the code. For the moment, none of this matters: Iran doesn?t have the cyberware to retaliate against ?Olympic Games.? But it might someday, and meanwhile other nations do, as many as 20 of them according to Clarke, including potential foes that some future president might feel tempted to target with a cyber assault. Then these kinds of issues will matter, and it would be good to have thought them through and prepared. According to Sanger?s book, Obama did think through some of these issues, attempted to limit the damage?not just for humanitarian reasons, but also to set a pattern, to send a signal, that if warfare is to start creeping across the other side of the cyber line, there should be limits. The targets should be strictly military and very precise, and here are some ways?he was showing everyone by his actions?to keep things limited. There was no putting Einstein?s genie back in the bottle, and there?s no putting back the cyber genie, either. But the early nuclear strategists had ideas on controlling this genie, ideas that have relevance for the new one, too?except for one thing: nearly everything about the cyber genie is very highly classified. Everything was classified about the nuclear game, too, and the RAND strategists all had top-secret security clearances. But back in the late 1950s, if you were into nuclear strategy, there weren?t many job options that didn?t carry a security clearance. Now, though, the people who might have the most creative ideas on cybersecurity are making very big money in the commercial wings of the computer business. The best ideas aren?t going to come from large defense corporations; they?re going to come from a smattering of 25-year-old geeks fresh out of MIT or CalTech. The government has to draw their minds in, and the only way to do that is to ease up on the security regulations. Obviously, operational details have to be kept secret, but the ideas need to flow freely. Cyber Command needs to open up. Here?s another area where John McCain is missing the point. He?s recently been pushing for hearings to investigate the leaking of Operation ?Olympic Games? to David Sanger. It would be more useful?for McCain?s expressed goals?to hold hearings on how to lure the next Gates, Jobs, and Zuckerberg not just to expand the world of cyberspace but to help keep it secure. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 11 07:01:39 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:01:39 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DOJ tries to block return of data to MegaUpload user Message-ID: DOJ tries to block return of data to MegaUpload user U.S. files motion asking a federal court to deny a request from a former MegaUpload user for the return of his football videos. by Greg Sandoval June 11, 2012 4:22 AM PDT http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57450153-93/doj-tries-to-block-return-of-data-to-megaupload-user/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title Returning videos to Kyle Goodwin, a former MegaUpload user, would set a bad precedent, the U.S. said in documents, copies of which were obtained by CNET. The fate of "legitimate" user data that was locked up following the shut down of MegaUpload, one of the world's most popular cloud-storage services, continues to vex the court overseeing the case. Negotiations between the stakeholders involved, including MegaUpload, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (the advocacy group representing Goodwin) and the U.S. Attorney's office, can't agree on what should be done with the information former users stored on MegaUpload's servers. Lawyers representing the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia asked a federal court on Friday to deny Goodwin's request for the return of his videos, most of which are of high school sports events. He said that the court has already heard Goodwin's request and that the videographer already received all the relief to which he is entitled. The United States also reminded the court that the necessary circumstances don't exist for the court to exercise its "equity jurisdiction." Finally, the government said if the court grants Goodwin's request, it "would create a new and practically unlimited cause of action on behalf of any third party who can claim that the government's execution of a search warrant adversely impacted a commercial relationship between the target of the search and the third party." The U.S. Attorney's office has accused DotCom and the other defendants with operating a thinly veiled piracy service. MegaUpload's managers allegedly enriched themselves by encouraging users from around the world to make illegal copies of movies, music, and software and then store that material on the company's servers. DotCom and the other defendants deny that and say they oversaw a legitimate operation. The company said that it can't be held legally responsible for the copyright infringement committed by users. When MegaUpload was shut down and the company's servers subpoenaed by the government, all the user data was taken offline. Goodwin says that he was the rightful copyright owner of the video he shot and now just wants it back. The district judge overseeing the case in April requested all parties to try and come to a negotiated settlement about what should be done with the user data. Two weeks ago, Goodwin reported back to the court that talks had stalled and again asked for his videos back. The Motion Picture Association of America, the trade group for the six film studios, is concerned that pirated movies and TV shows aren't once again circulated but said last week that it has no objection to "legitimate" content being returned. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 11 07:02:44 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:02:44 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Barnes & Noble's Convoluted Defense of Pricey Books Message-ID: Barnes & Noble's Convoluted Defense of Pricey Books June 7, 2012 RSS Feed Print http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/06/07/barnes--nobles-convoluted-defense-of-pricey-books You practically need a study guide to understand why book retailer Barnes & Noble thinks more expensive books are in readers' interest. As everyone knows, Amazon has become a goliath in the book business, at one point grabbing a 90 percent market share for books sold online and effectively driving Borders out of business. Part of its strategy has been aggressive pricing of e-books?perhaps taking a loss on each book sold?in order to corner the market. That led to a counter-strategy by five publishers, in conjunction with Apple, that allowed publishers, rather than the retailer, to set the price?with Apple taking a 30 percent cut. That effectively allowed publishers to raise their prices by $2 to $5, since there was no pressure from the retailer regarding what to charge. The publishers, in turn, agreed not to allow any other retailer to sell their books cheaper than Apple did. That smelled like collusion to the Justice Dept., which sued the Apple consortium in April, charging them with fixing prices and costing consumers "tens of millions of dollars." Three publishers immediately settled with the government, while MacMillan and Penguin vowed to fight. Now, Barnes & Noble has officially protested the settlement, arguing in a letter to the Justice Department that the settlement could raise book prices, reduce choice for consumers and even wreck the whole book business. If this sounds more confusing that a Dostoevsky plot, here's why: It's not really about the price of books today. If it were, it would be hard to argue that Amazon offering the lowest possible prices and even taking a loss on some books is bad for consumers. And Amazon offers more books than any retailer could ever stock on its shelves, so choice isn't a problem either. What's really going on is a turf battle in which Barnes & Noble fears for its very existence. Amazon really is powerful enough to drive big retailers out of business, if allowed to compete unchained. It has also shown an appetite for blood, by encouraging shoppers, for instance, to browse for merchandise in physical stores but then use a Kindle Fire or some other mobile device to order what they want from Amazon, cheaper. So Barnes & Noble is really arguing that consumers will suffer if B&N goes out of business some day and Amazon becomes a monopoly. That's plausible, but even without a big retail chain like B&N, there would still be independent bookstores and Wal-Mart. Although who knows, Amazon might target them next. That would leave online booksellers such as Apple?a formidable competitor, for sure, but not one that's typically interested in keeping prices low. Barnes & Noble may be standing on weak ground. Technology changes so fast these days that it can be impossible to predict what will happen a few years from now, especially when you pile hypotheticals on top of hypotheticals. Plus, readers seem to like e-books, which have succeeded in no small part because of Amazon. As for authors?who generate the product that all this fuss is about?they may have little say either. As a book author myself, I'd like consumers to pay the highest possible prices for what I produce. But I also recognize that it's virtually impossible to shackle technology and it's a bad idea besides, because it often generates terrific new innovations that defensive corporate executives or myopic regulators can't possibly foresee. So B&N may lose even if it truly believes it's sticking up for the little guy. Time to amp up that digital strategy. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 11 07:15:54 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:15:54 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - MilSuite TOS Message-ID: <68D32C8B-8DA8-4F2C-881E-CFEAAB52CE8C@infowarrior.org> https://www.milsuite.mil If you read their ToS, DOD claims that any device "attached" to this info service may be seized/inspected by DOD. One could interpret that to mean your home computer, mobile device, or tablet that "attaches" (virtually) to this apparent DOD version of Facebook (or a DOD-wide version of AKO? *shudder*). It leaves a lot of wiggle room, imho. If so, do you think investigators are going to show up and look for that one specific device that was "attached" to the system, or simply take anything with an IP address in your posession? -- rick DOD Press Release: Platform Provides Collaboration Behind Firewall By Claire Heininger Program Executive Office Command, Control and Communications ? Tactical ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md., March 9, 2011 ? The Defense Department?s secure collaborative platform has expanded beyond the Army to include more members of the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard, providing behind-the-firewall access to a collection of secure knowledge management tools mirroring popular social media platforms. DOD common access card holders can access the milSuite enterprise edition release at https://www.milsuite.mil. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63083 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 11 11:14:59 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:14:59 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - From Real-Time Intercepts to Stored Records: Why Encryption Drives the Government to Seek Access to the Cloud Message-ID: From Real-Time Intercepts to Stored Records: Why Encryption Drives the Government to Seek Access to the Cloud Peter P. Swire Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law April 12, 2012 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2038871 Abstract: This paper explains how changing technology, especially the rising adoption of encryption, is shifting law enforcement and national security lawful access to far greater emphasis on stored records, notably records stored in the cloud. The major and growing reliance on surveillance access to stored records results from the following changes: (1) Encryption. Adoption of strong encryption is becoming much more common for data and voice communications, via virtual private networks, encrypted webmail, SSL web sessions, and encrypted Voice over IP voice communications. (2) Declining effectiveness of traditional wiretaps. Traditional wiretap techniques at the ISP or local telephone network increasingly encounter these encrypted communications, blocking the effectiveness of the traditional techniques. (3) New importance of the cloud. Government access to communications thus increasingly relies on a new and limited set of methods, notably featuring access to stored records in the cloud. (4) The ?haves? and ?have-nots.? The first three changes create a new division between the ?haves? and ?have-nots? when it comes to government access to communications. The ?have-nots? become increasingly dependent, for access to communications, on cooperation from the ?have? jurisdictions. Part 1 of the paper describes the changing technology of wiretaps and government access. Part 2 documents the growing adoption of strong encryption in a wide and growing range of settings of interest to government agencies. Part 3 explains how these technological trends create a major shift from real-time intercepts to stored records, especially in the cloud. Number of Pages in PDF File: 12 Keywords: encryption, privacy, lawful access, cloud computing, wiretaps http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2038871 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 11 19:47:48 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:47:48 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - RIAA CEO Cary Sherman walks into tech 'lion's den' Message-ID: RIAA CEO Cary Sherman walks into tech 'lion's den' Sherman showed some guts by making a presentation at the Personal Democracy Forum, a conference filled with RIAA-hating tech types. He got some laughs and the crowd was polite, but he's got a long way to go to change the thinking of this demographic. by Greg Sandoval June 11, 2012 4:38 PM PDT http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57450807-93/riaa-ceo-cary-sherman-walks-into-tech-lions-den/ NEW YORK -- No one hooted or jeered when Cary Sherman took the stage today at the Personal Democracy Forum 2012. That's worth noting, because Sherman is CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group of the top four recording companies, and because the forum crowd was full of politically minded techies that -- it's safe to say -- feel some antipathy for the RIAA. OK, some of these people downright hate the RIAA. All you have to do is go to the user comments of any RIAA-related story on CNET or Ars Technica or Torrentfreak to see the degree of animosity. We are into the second decade since Napster gave birth to file sharing. In the aftermath, the RIAA waged an antipiracy campaign that included suing individual users and the forced closures of popular Web sites, including Limewire. The RIAA appears ready to offer an olive branch to music fans. There's no doubt that the recent attempt by the music and film sectors to pass antipiracy bills in Congress -- the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act -- only to see them defeated, helped these industries decide to do some bridge building. One reason the forum audience may have received Sherman relatively warmly was a request from forum organizers for people to be on their best behavior. A conference moderator suggested that Sherman deserved some credit for "walking into the lion's den." Something else that may have contributed to the civility was how Sherman handled himself. He was entertaining. He poked fun at himself and his organization. Most importantly, he was direct about his group's history and goals. Sherman started his presentation by showing a well-known photo of a roll of toilet paper with "RIAA" written on it. "We're not even sure that this is two ply," Sherman told the crowd. A technical glitch stalled his slide show and he quipped: "I hope this isn't a conspiracy." With Sherman stranded on stage for a few moments, some in the crowd couldn't help themselves: "Sing a song," one woman shouted. Sherman didn't miss a beat. He said he played piano as a child and may have made a name for himself on the bar mitzvah circuit. Jokes aside, Sherman's main message was that the RIAA is evolving and that the music industry has listened to the advice offered by the tech sector for years. RIAA critics repeatedly told the organization to evolve and adopt new technologies and business models. They said that the RIAA should abandon litigation and hobbling music with Digital Rights Management software. According to Sherman, the RIAA has done all of that and more. He said Spotify and Rhapsody offer unlimited streaming music. YouTube and Vevo provide free on-demand music videos. Pandora, the free and popular Web radio service, continues to increase its following. As for enforcement, Sherman said DRM is dead and reminded the audience that the RIAA abandoned its litigation campaign years ago. He didn't gloss over the RIAA's more recent antipiracy efforts. The music labels have negotiated agreements with some of the country's largest ISPs to help combat illegal file sharing. He said his group is working with advertisers, ISPs, credit card companies, and others to marginalize sites that traffic in pirated music. There was murmuring in the crowd when Sherman said the music industry is now half the size it was in 1999, the period leading up to the emergence of file sharing. "Illegal downloading has hurt us," Sherman said. He conceded that piracy was likely not to blame for all of the damage, but he said there's no disputing that it contributed. Sherman also offered a new statistic. He said there are 41 percent fewer people describing themselves as musicians now then there were in 1999. This caused some in the crowd to snicker. Later, after Sherman finished, John Perry Barlow addressed the crowd via Skype and disputed that statistic. Barlow, one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for Internet users and tech companies and is a longtime critic of the RIAA, said he believes that more people are earning a living from music than ever because they don't have to deal with the labels. That comment stirred some in the audience to applaud. He added that the top labels and some of the new models are still trying to manufacture scarcity around music to help boost the value. "It won't work," he said. Sherman is a good speaker and showed plenty of guts, but he has plenty of work to do if he wants to win over techies. Said one person who posted a question via Twitter during the presentation: "Your talk makes the RIAA sound reasonable and well considered," the questioner wrote. "Why do you think the RIAA is so vilified?" --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 12 06:24:20 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:24:20 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FunnyJunk versus TheOatmeal Message-ID: <87F55333-A592-4296-BD21-C82C966ADE7D@infowarrior.org> I presume this is a real situation, incredible as it might be. If so, the lawyer in question really has no idea how the Internet works. And if so, I wonder why the RIAA/MPAA (or some Congressional Committee) hasn't hired him yet. FunnyJunk is threatening to file a federal lawsuit against me unless I pay $20,000 in damages http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter -- rick --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 12 08:55:40 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:55:40 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Phil Zimmermann's post-PGP project: privacy for a price Message-ID: <3C67B1F7-BAA9-4C74-920E-399780E4ED7F@infowarrior.org> Phil Zimmermann's post-PGP project: privacy for a price by Declan McCullagh June 12, 2012 5:30 AM PDT http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57451057-83/phil-zimmermanns-post-pgp-project-privacy-for-a-price/ He rocketed to privacy stardom over two decades ago with the release of PGP, the first widely available program that made it easy to encrypt e-mail. Now Phil Zimmermann wants to do the same thing for phone calls. Zimmermann's new company, Silent Circle, plans to release a beta version of an iPhone and Android app in late July that encrypts phone calls and other communications. A final version is scheduled to follow in late September. This time around, Zimmermann is facing not the possibility of prison time on charges of violating encryption export laws, but a more traditional challenge: convincing would-be users that protecting their privacy is worth paying Silent Circle something like $20 a month. "I'm not going to apologize for the cost," Zimmermann told CNET, adding that the final price has not been set. "This is not Facebook. Our customers are customers. They're not products. They're not part of the inventory." Silent Circle's planned debut comes amid recent polls suggesting that Internet users remain concerned about online data collection (or at least are willing to tell pollsters so), with Facebook topping health insurers, banks, and even the federal government as today's No. 1 privacy threat. Yet even after a decade of startups that have tried to capitalize on these concerns, consumers spending their own money remain consistently difficult to persuade that paying for privacy is worth it. Zimmermann hopes to overcome this reluctance by offering a set of services designed from the start to be simple to use: encrypted e-mail, encrypted phone calls, and encrypted instant messaging. (Encrypted SMS text messages are eventually planned too.) "We're going after target markets that have a special need for this," Zimmermann said. "For example, U.S. military serving overseas that wish to speak to their families." One sales pitch unique to Silent Circle is Zimmermann's own history of high-profile support for civil liberties that recently placed him in the Internet Hall of Fame, including spending four years under threat of criminal indictment for releasing PGP in the early 1990s. At the time, encryption software was regulated as a munition, meaning unlicensed export could be a federal felony. Zimmermann later founded PGP Inc., now owned by Symantec. Symantec has focused far more on selling PGP-branded products to corporations, not individuals. Symantec's Web page for PGP Whole Disk Encryption, for instance, boasts that the utility "provides organizations with comprehensive, high performance full disk encryption" to protect "customer and partner data." PGP "moved too far away from individual users," Zimmermann says. "It was geared so heavily toward enterprise that I felt it was hard to use for ordinary people. That was kind of sad. My original intent was individuals. Now I get to go back to individuals again." Also involved in Silent Circle are Mike Janke, a former Navy SEAL sniper turned privacy advocate; Vic Hyder, a Navy SEAL commander and founder of a maritime security firm; and PGP co-founder Jon Callas. Silent Circle's app will securely scramble conversations -- using end-to-end encryption and the ZRTP protocol -- between two people if both are using its software. If only one person has the app, the connection will be scrambled only to Silent Circle's servers, which could still be valuable for overseas users worried less about the FBI and more about their own government eavesdroppers. "We will have a Windows PC and a Mac version as well," says Zimmermann, who after selling PGP founded a now-defunct startup called Zfone. "We don't have that now. For our beta, we're just going to have the smartphones, iOS and Android. We'll have the other platforms for the real release." Law enforcement, which has been warning that it's become far more difficult for agents to wiretap Americans suspected of illegal activities as technology advances, is unlikely to applaud Zimmermann's new venture. As CNET reported last month, the FBI has drafted a proposed law that would require providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail to alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly by building in backdoors for government surveillance. "If you create a service, product, or app that allows a user to communicate, you get the privilege of adding that extra coding" as long as it reaches the threshold for a minimum number of users, an industry representative who reviewed the FBI's draft legislation said. The FBI's proposal would amend a 1994 law, called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) that currently applies only to telecommunications providers, not Web or peer-to-peer VoIP companies. The Federal Communications Commission extended CALEA in 2004 to sweep in broadband networks and VoIP providers such as Vonage (which uses the telephone network) but not Skype-to-Skype calls (which are peer-to-peer). Depending on the final wording, the legislation could target Silent Circle -- meaning that, 21 years after he released PGP, Phil Zimmermann has not lost his knack for vexing the U.S. government. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 12 09:42:32 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:42:32 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Israel launches email checks at the border Message-ID: Israel steps up email border checks ? From: AP ? June 06, 2012 7:55AM http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/israel-steps-up-email-border-checks/story-e6frgakx-1226385584079 ISRAEL has introduced "email checks" at its airport as a means of helping to identify Arab terrorists. In a cyber-age twist on Israel's vaunted history of airport security, the country has begun to force incoming travelers deemed suspicious to open personal email accounts for inspection, visitors say. Targeting mainly Muslims or Arabs, the practice appears to be aimed at rooting out visitors who have histories of pro-Palestinian activism, and in recent weeks, has led to the expulsion of at least three American women. It remains unclear how widespread the practice is. Israel has a long history of using ethnic profiling, calling it a necessary evil resulting from its bitter experience with terrorist attacks. Arab travelers and anyone else seen as a risk are often subjected to intense questioning and invasive inspections, including strip searches. Diana Butto, a former legal adviser to the Palestinian Authority and a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, said the policy of email checks, once used sporadically, appears to have become more widespread over the past year. Butto said she has led three tour groups to the region over the past year, and in each case, at least one member of the group was asked to open their email. She said Muslims, Arabs and Indians were typically targeted, and in most cases, were denied entry. Butto said that in the case of journalsists, agents typically wanted to see people's itineraries, articles they have written or Facebook status updates. "The problem is there's no way to honestly say you're coming to visit the West Bank without falling into some type of security trap," she said. "Either you lie and risk being caught in a lie, or you tell the truth ... and it's not clear whether you'll be allowed in." US visitor Sandra Tamari, who is from St. Louis, said she arrived in Israel on May 21 to participate in an interfaith conference. She described herself as a Quaker peace activist and acknowledged taking part in campaigns calling for boycotts and divestment from Israel. Given her activism, Tamari said she expected some security delays. But she was caught off guard by the order to open her email account. She said the agents discovered her address while rifling through her personal papers. "That's when they turned their (computer) screens around to me and said, 'Log in," she said. When she refused, an interrogator said, "'Well you must be a terrorist. You are hiding something.'" Tamari said she was searched, placed in a holding cell and flown back to the US the following day. Najwa Doughman, a 25-year-old Palestinian American from New York City, said she underwent a similar experience when she arrived for a one-week vacation on May 26. A female interrogator ordered Doughman to open her Gmail account, threatening she would be deported if she didn't. "She typed in gmail.com and she turned the keyboard toward me and said, 'Log in. Log in now,'" Doughman recounted. "I asked, 'Is this legal?' She said, 'Log in.'" Israel has become increasingly strict following a series of run-ins with international activists in recent years, highlighted by a deadly clash two years ago between Israeli naval commandos and a flotilla trying to break Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. Both sides accused the other of provoking the violence in which nine Turkish activists were killed. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 12 10:29:40 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:29:40 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Wyden & Udall Block FISA Amendments Act Until US Admits How Many Americans Are Being Spied On Message-ID: <4E1F449A-96CD-4003-AF40-D27F949E8BF0@infowarrior.org> Wyden & Udall Block FISA Amendments Act Until US Admits How Many Americans Are Being Spied On from the would-be-useful-to-know... dept We've been covering the fight that Senators Ron Wyden and Marc Udall have been in with the administration (and other members of Congress) concerning the FISA Amendments Act, in which the two Senators seem to be suggesting that a loophole in the law has allowed the feds to collect massive amounts of data on Americans without getting warrants. While they are unable to make the details clear, it sure sounds like the feds may be twisting the language of the Act, which was supposed to clear away some obstacles to collecting data on foreigners, such that they're collecting massive amounts of data on Americans. When Wyden & Udall asked officials just how many Americans had their data collected via this program, they were told it was impossible to answer that question. That alone should raise serious alarm bells. Wyden and Udall have now put a hold on the new FISA Amendment Acts extension effort, saying that they don't want to hold back the important parts of the law, but are very worried about how it's being abused to spy on tons of Americans, despite that being against the clear intent. It does seem like a fair question to ask: just how many Americans have had their data surveilled under the law? < - > It really is incredible just how much it seems that the federal government is doing everything it can to avoid the basic checks and balances that are supposed to keep excessive behavior in check. Considering the bill is supposed to protect, not expose, Americans, it's scary that the government refuses to even estimate how many Americans are spied upon in this manner. Given the continued efforts and statements of Wyden and Udall, it seems evident that they're aware that the feds are treating this law in a very different manner than the public believes -- but they're held back from saying anything specific, due to much of the info being classified. Even worse, however, is the attitude of Senate colleagues, who seem ready to push this extension through no matter what, so they can declare that they're helping to keep the country secure, without even bothering to understand the massive loopholes and likely abuse by the feds under the law. From what's been said, it appears that many in the Senate seem to take it at face value that the bill is only used for collecting info on foreigners, and thus they're voting from a position of ignorance. At the very least, they should be willing to speak out and demand the same data that Wyden and Udall are asking for: an estimate as to how many Americans have had data exposed under this bill. If it really is supposed to only focus on foreigners, but millions of Americans have had their info accessed, that seems like a problem that should be addressed, rather than one that should be swept under the rug, as most in the Senate seem interested in doing. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120611/16214719280/wyden-udall-block-fisa-amendments-act-until-us-admits-how-many-americans-are-being-spied.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 12 13:37:00 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:37:00 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content Message-ID: The DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content from the hey,-not-our-machines... dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120612/03274619284/dojs-truly-disgusting-argument-denying-megaupload-user-access-to-his-legal-content.shtml In the ongoing saga of what happens to all the data stored on the Megaupload servers, the Department of Justice has now filed a truly revolting argument in seeking to end the efforts by a Megaupload user, Kyle Goodwin (who uploaded and stored sports videos that he shot), to regain access to the content he uploaded. As we've noted, there's been a lot of finger pointing going on here, with a bunch of highly questionable actions on the part of the government, including its repeated suggestion that all of this data -- which, remember, they seemed to think was evidence of a crime -- should simply be deleted. But what's so sneaky and duplicitous about the DOJ's argument here? They're saying that because they never actually seized the servers in question, this has absolutely nothing to do with them -- and that Goodwin would be better off suing Megaupload or Carpathia (the hosting company) or simply paying Carpathia to access the servers. Basically, it says that no one's stopping him... other than the fact that all the servers are offline thanks to the feds' own actions (but, please, they'd prefer you not remember that part). They actually seem to feign surprise that their own actions of seizing Megaupload's domains and all of the company's (and its exec team's) money, and arresting the entire senior management team... might lead to the site being shut down entirely. Basically, it's as if the government walked into a china shop, smashed up every last piece, and then walked out. When the owner then sought restitution from the government, the government suddenly insists that since it didn't take any of the broken pieces out of the shop, there's no cause for action against the government. And all the smashed up little pieces are still there, so why would anyone complain? Oh, and just to add totally obnoxious insult to injury, the DOJ also says that even if the court decides that there's some merit in the arguments laid out by Goodwin, even that doesn't matter, because it'll just cop out and declare "sovereign immunity" and avoid having to pay out. The whole thing is a fairly disgusting display by the DOJ showing just how far it will go to lock someone up once it's determined to. They will cause all sorts of collateral damage, and when someone calls them on it, they'll just point the finger elsewhere... all while demanding even more power to censor with impunity. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 13 07:10:57 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:10:57 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Hill hosting a cyberscare demonstration today Message-ID: <140F541A-F7A3-43C7-9729-C67CDF676D9F@infowarrior.org> OVERNIGHT TECH: Senators to attend cybersecurity demonstration By Brendan Sasso - 06/12/12 06:16 PM ET http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/232397-overnight-tech-senators-to-attend-cybersecurity-demonstration The Lead: Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) will host a cybersecurity demonstration on Wednesday morning showing hackers' methods and ways to defend against them. Homeland Security Department officials will conduct two demonstrations: one for senators and one for members of the media. The sessions are part of a push for cybersecurity legislation. Lieberman and Collins, the top lawmakers on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, are the lead sponsors of a bill that would empower the Homeland Security Department to set mandatory standards for critical infrastructure systems such as electrical grids and gas pipelines. Supporters of the legislation say the standards are necessary to protect vital systems from attack, but many Republicans, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), say the standards would unnecessarily burden businesses. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told The Hill on Tuesday that he is working with Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to develop a compromise proposal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday that he will bring the legislation to the floor "at the earliest possible date." From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 13 07:18:08 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:18:08 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - ICANN Prepares to Reveal Who Wants What Domain Name Message-ID: <496CC98E-D083-44EE-B921-61027E2F13D4@infowarrior.org> ICANN Prepares to Reveal Who Wants What Domain Name By: Jeffrey Burt 2012-06-12 http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/ICANN-Prepares-to-Reveal-Who-Wants-What-Domain-Name-254084/ On Reveal Day, June 13, the industry will find out the more than 2,000 new top-level domains being sought by more than 1,000 applicants. ICANN on June 13 will kick off a land rush of sorts when it posts the list of proposed 2,000-plus new top-level domains and the 1,000 or so organizations that want them. In what?s become known as ?Reveal Day,? ICANN, the global organization that holds sway over Internet domain names and addresses, will reach the next milestone in the process that kicked off in 2008 when the group first said it would open up the number of gTLDs (generic top-level domains) beyond the 22 that currently are used, from .com and .net to .org, .gov and .edu. ICANN began accepting applications in January. Reveal Day will be a significant step for sure, giving the industry a clear idea of what ICANN will be dealing with. But it?s been a contentious process so far. Federal agencies, for example, are concerned that a huge influx of new TLDs will be a boon for spammers and hinder online investigations, and others have complained about the possibilities of cyber-squatters and counterfeiters abusing the process. It doesn?t promise to get any easier after the applications and applicants are published. After ICANN posts which organizations have applied for which new gTLDs, the group will open a 60-day comment period, giving applicants the chance to make their cases for their own efforts and, possibly, against others. There also will be a seven-month period from the time of Reveal Day to file formal objections with ICANN. Evaluation panels will begin reviewing applications in July, the results of those initial evaluations will be completed in December or January, and some gTLDs will be ready for use in early 2013, while others will have to wait longer to find out if they?re approved, according to the ICANN Website. Already, there are reports about some of the organizations that have filed applications for gTLDs, and what it is they?re looking for. In a May 31 blog post, Vint Cerf, chief Internet evangelist for Google, said the gTLDs they applied for included .google, those related to core businesses, such as .docs, its businesses, like .youtube, and those with creative possibilities, like .lol. The domain name expansion is badly needed, Cerf said. ?In 2016, it?s estimated that almost half of the world?s population will be online, yet nearly 50 percent of the Websites we visit are found in the .com top-level domain (TLD), which was among the first TLDs created in 1984,? he wrote. ?Despite the great opportunities the Web has enabled for people around the world, there is still a lingering question about the diversity of the domain space (given that the number of generic TLDs has only increased by 14 in the last 28 years).? Others that reportedly have spent millions of dollars?a single application costs $185,000?include Domain registrar Radix, which applied for 31 gTLDs at a cost of $30 million, and a venture-backed startup called Donuts, which raised $100 million in funding and spent $56.8 million of that on 307 names. Jeff Ernst, an analyst with Forrester Research, has a number of predictions about what ICANN will reveal June 13, including that .category applications will outnumber .brand ones. In a blog post June 11, Ernst said he expected the applications would be fairly split between .category, .brand and .geographies. However, after speaking with some of those groups most likely to apply, ?I now expect that there will be a lot more .category applications coming from open registry operators looking to profit from selling second-level domains. Many of these won't succeed, but I'd put my money on the registries being run by the people who have run some of our existing TLD businesses,? he said. Ernst said he also expects ?intense competition? for the most popular categories. ?There's an app for that, and I already know of four applicants for .app,? he wrote. ?There are at least two for .bank and .insurance and this doesn't include the numerous banks and insurance companies that told me they were making a play for one of those strings. This is where the action will be. Expect the PR wars to pick up as the applicants posture to show the public and community support for their application and intended use of the registry. Some strings I expect to get the most applications include .art, .music, .beauty, .shop, .bank, .web, and .food.? In addition, Ernst said to expect that many of the .brand applications will be made for defensive purposes, with the applicants unsure what they want to do with a particular gTLD, but positive about one thing: They don?t want anyone else to have it. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 13 15:59:37 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:59:37 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Comcast_Protests_=93Shake_Down?= =?windows-1252?q?=94_of_Alleged_BitTorrent_Pirates?= Message-ID: <1C339E47-F31D-4DD1-AF0E-0F20D107DC44@infowarrior.org> Comcast Protests ?Shake Down? of Alleged BitTorrent Pirates ? Ernesto ? June 12, 2012 http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-protests-shake-down-of-alleged-bittorrent-pirates-120612/ Comcast has run out of patience with the avalanche of BitTorrent lawsuits in the United States. The ISP is now refusing to comply with court-ordered subpoenas, arguing that they are intended to ?shake down? subscribers by coercing them to pay settlements. Copyright holders have responded furiously to Comcast?s new stance, claiming that the ISP is denying copyright holders the opportunity to protect their works. United States citizens who download and share copyrighted files through BitTorrent risk being monitored and in some cases subjected to legal action. In recent years more than a quarter million alleged BitTorrent users have been sued in federal courts. Most of the lawsuits are initiated by adult entertainment companies, but mainstream movie studios and book publisher John Wiley and Sons have also joined in. These copyright holders request a subpoena from the court to order ISPs to identify the alleged BitTorrent users through an IP-address. They then contact the account holder with a request to settle the case in return for a sum of money. Initially Comcast complied with these subpoenas, but an ongoing battle in the Illinois District Court shows that the company changed its tune recently. Instead of handing over subscriber info, Comcast asked the court to quash the subpoenas. Among other things, the ISP argued that the court doesn?t have jurisdiction over all defendants, because many don?t live in the district in which they are being sued. The company also argues that the copyright holders have no grounds to join this many defendants in one lawsuit. The real kicker, however, comes with the third argument. Here, Comcast accuses the copyright holders of a copyright shakedown, exploiting the court to coerce defendants into paying settlements. ?Plaintiffs should not be allowed to profit from unfair litigation tactics whereby they use the offices of the Court as an inexpensive means to gain Doe defendants? personal information and coerce ?settlements? from them,? Comcast?s lawyers write. ?It is evident in these cases ? and the multitude of cases filed by plaintiffs and other pornographers represented by their counsel ? that plaintiffs have no interest in actually litigating their claims against the Doe defendants, but simply seek to use the Court and its subpoena powers to obtain sufficient information to shake down the Doe defendants.? Comcast cites several previous cases to back up their claims and points out that federal rules require courts to deny discovery ?to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.? The attorney for adult publisher AF HOLDINGS is furious at Comcast?s refusal to comply. He asks the court to disregard the ISP?s arguments entirely, and accuses Comcast of denying copyright holders the opportunity to protect their works. ?Comcast?s delay in objecting to the Plaintiffs? subpoenas is part of a wider campaign to deny and delay the Plaintiffs?, and other similar copyright holders?, ability to protect their copyrighted works. Comcast routinely objects to subpoenas issued to it by producers of adult content,? AF HOLDINGS?writes. ?Even after courts regularly order Comcast to comply with the subpoenas, Comcast fights tooth and nail to resist complying.? The case is now in the hands of Judge Gary Feinerman, who has to decide whether Comcast has to hand over the subscriber data after all, or whether the subpoenas should be destroyed. Whatever the outcome, Comcast?s protest is part of a growing trend in which Internet providers object to handing over subscriber data in mass-BitTorrent cases. Previously, Verizon did the same, successfully arguing that it has an obligation to protect the privacy of its customers. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 13 21:31:13 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 22:31:13 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Retina MBPs are "Least Repairable" (and NOT upgradable) laptops Message-ID: <3B5F3543-EDBB-4996-8DF8-4EF1A8CB2EA4@infowarrior.org> Glued Guts Make New Macbooks a Bear to Fix By Richard Adhikari MacNewsWorld Part of the ECT News Network 06/13/12 3:44 PM PT http://www.technewsworld.com/story/75378.html The new MacBook Pro with Retina Display has Apple fans swooning, but iFixit isn't impressed. The company says Apple has built the computers in such a way that many parts that frequently end up needing repairs or service are barely accessible even to trained technicians. Even changing the battery could be an especially difficult procedure. If you've tuned in to Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL) WWDC announcements and have been turned on by the company's newly announced MacBook Pro with Retina Display, drop out and pick another MacBook instead, advises Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit. "Right now, we're telling consumers to buy a mid-range MacBook Pro, which is repairable, and not the Retina MacBook Pro," Wiens told MacNewsWorld. That's because the Retina MacBook Pro is just about unrepairable, iFixit concluded after tearing down the device. "I think Apple's decided they're making appliances, and they see [the Retina MacBook Pro] as something they're making that's glued together, and you buy it and use it and, if it breaks, you replace it," Wiens suggested. "Their plan might be to have you replace it every year or so." Response to iFixit's review, posted on Wednesday, brought the site down for several hours. "We tripled the number of servers we had running to deal with the traffic," Wiens said. A Pain in the Retina iFixit found that the computer's Retina Display is fixed to the bezel with Apple's proprietary pentalobe screws, unlike earlier models in the MacBook Pro family. The Retina display LCD is located in the display assembly, which also includes the iSight camera and WiFi and Bluetooth antennae. The display assembly is completely fused and is not protected by glass. iFixit surmised that if there are any problems with the display, users will have to replace it completely. What's more Retina MacBook Pro's battery is glued into the computer. This increases the chances that it'll break during disassembly, iFixit said. Further, it covers the trackpad cable, which increases the chance that removing the battery will shear that cable. In fact, the Retina MacBook Pro's battery has been glued into the case so strongly that it couldn't be freed, according to the company. "Normally, we're happy to unglue things, but this was different," iFixit's Wiens said. "We were pretty intimidated by the amount of glue we found on the battery." Apple is using proprietary flash memory in the device. While Apple has used proprietary flash memory in other devices also, this is the first time it's employed the technology in the MacBook Pro family, iFixit said. Other problems are that the RAM is soldered to the logic board, as it is in the MacBook Air, and can't be upgraded; and the proprietary solid state drive (SSD) isn't currently upgradeable. It's similar, but not identical to, the SSD in the MacBook Air. Let Them Eat Cake Fixing or repairing a broken Retina MacBook Pro may cost more than users expect. "The screen is most of the value of it, and if Apple has to replace a broken screen, I'd imagine they're going to charge upwards of (US)$1,000 to do the repair," iFixit's Wiens remarked. "Historically with the MacBook Pro, I use one for five to six years," Wiens continued. "I've swopped out the hard drive, and it's cost-effective to replace the display. This [Retina MacBook Pro] is a whole new ball game." Don't Worry, Be Happy On the other hand, "the one thing we've seen with Apple products is, people don't hold onto them until the battery dies," Jim McGregor, principal analyst at Tirias Research, told MacNewsWorld. "And remember the operating system, the applications, the memory and the storage -- some or all of them are likely to be obsolete before the battery fails anyway. Even if the battery dies, "you can still plug the computer into the wall." Further, Apple fans tend to purchase a new device whether or not their current one is working. "People standing in line to buy Apple products are people who already have one," McGregor suggested. "[Apple's] loyalist customer base isn't waiting for these things to be obsolete before they buy a new one." iFixit "will write more stories on the situation and will post them as soon as our servers are up," the company's Wiens said. Apple did not respond to our request for comment on this story. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 14 07:29:21 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Debate: International Treaty on Cyberwarfare? Message-ID: <52741ACD-8A7B-4FB7-8A8F-DE7522AF6D0B@infowarrior.org> Should There Be an International Treaty on Cyberwarfare? http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-an-international-treaty-on-cyberwarfare The Flame computer virus is the latest digital malware program uncovered in the escalating practice of large-scale cyberattack. Twenty times larger than its predecessor Stuxnet, the Flame virus infected computer systems throughout the Middle East. Analysts believe the Flame virus was designed for espionage purposes, some arguing that it then doesn't qualify as "cyberwarfare" (though Kapersky Lab, the Russian cybersecurity firm that uncovered the virus, said it does). However, the motive of 2010's Stuxnet was undoubtedly malicious. The virus infected Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities?which Iran insists are for peaceful purposes, but many believe are being used to develop nuclear arms?and derailed the operations of thousands of centrifuges at multiple Iranian plants. The New York Times recently reported that the United States, with the help of Israel, was behind Stuxnet in a mission code-named "Olympic Games." Government sources cited in the article refused to admit responsibility for the Flame virus, however Kaspersky Lab has linked Flame to Stuxnet. The ambiguities of cyberwarfare worry international law experts, diplomats, and military commanders alike. What qualifies as an act of war versus espionage? Does the law of "proportionality"?that collateral damage to civilians in battle must not be disproportionate to the military target attacked?apply to cyberwar, especially since the line between civilian and military computer systems is not so clear? Should a cyberattack by a lone hacker be treated differently than that engineered by a national government? Thus some legal and cybersecurity experts have suggested that an international treaty, like those created to address the terms of conventional war, should be drafted to clarify the rules of cyberwarfare, a few even proposing an all-out ban on the practice. Others insist that such a treaty would be difficult to even draft, and impossible to enforce. Should there be an international treaty on cyberwarfare? Here is the Debate Club's take: < - > http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-an-international-treaty-on-cyberwarfare --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 14 14:49:03 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FunnyJunk's lawyer ... just......wow Message-ID: <07888C30-3BC9-4CA1-9C34-AFF54F6F8A1D@infowarrior.org> SERIOUSLY - WHY HASN'T THE MPAA OR RIAA HIRED THIS AWESOME AND MOST INFORMED INTERNET LAWYER YET???? --- rick Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks' http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120614/09471419326/funnyjunks-lawyer-charles-carreon-continues-to-lash-out-accuses-matt-inman-instigating-security-attacks.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 14 14:56:59 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:56:59 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - UK unveils massive new surveillance plan Message-ID: Every call, every email, every text: UK unveils bill aimed at logging citizens? Web activity By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, June 14, 1:52 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/mass-surveillance-uk-releases-new-details-of-plan-to-track-all-citizens-communications/2012/06/14/gJQARl53bV_print.html LONDON ? British authorities on Thursday unveiled an ambitious plan to log details about every Web visit, email, phone call or text message in the U.K. ? and in a sharply-worded editorial the nation?s top law enforcement official accused those worried about the surveillance program of being either criminals or conspiracy theorists. The government insists it?s not after content. It promises not to read the body of emails or eavesdrop on phone calls without a warrant. But the surveillance proposed in the government?s 118-page draft bill would provide authorities a remarkably rich picture of their citizens? day-to-day lives, tracking nearly everything they do online, over the phone, or even through the post. All that data would be kept for up to a year ? ready for browsing whenever anyone in authority wanted it. In some cases, the bill envisages monitoring the information in real time. Home Office Secretary Theresa May said in an editorial published ahead of the bill?s unveiling that only evil-doers should be frightened. ?Our proposals are sensible and limited,? she wrote in The Sun, the country?s top-selling daily. ?They will give the police and some other agencies access to data about online communications to tackle crime, exactly as they do now with mobile phone calls and texts. Unless you are a criminal, then you?ve nothing to worry about from this new law.? Yet plenty of people were worried, including a senior lawmaker from May?s governing Conservative Party. ?This is a huge amount of information, very intrusive to collect on people,? David Davis, one of the proposal?s most outspoken critics, told BBC radio. ?It?s not content, but it?s incredibly intrusive.? Human rights defenders were aghast. Privacy group Big Brother Watch said the proposal risked turning Britain into a ?nation of suspects.? Civil rights organization Liberty said the law would mean the ?indiscriminate stockpiling of private data.? Authorities and civil libertarians have been debating the plan for weeks, but Thursday marked the first time that the government itemized exactly what kinds of activity it wanted to track. The list is long. The bill would force providers ? companies such as the BT Group PLC or Virgin Media Inc. ? to log where emails, tweets, Skype calls and other messages were sent from, who was sending them, who they were sent to, and how large they were. Details of file transfers, phone calls, text messages and instant conversations, such as those carried over BlackBerry Messenger, would also be recorded. The bill demands that providers collect IP addresses, details of customers? electronic hardware, and subscriber information, including names, addresses, and payment information. What May didn?t mention in her editorial ? and the Home Office left off its press release ? was that the government also is seeking to keep logs of citizens? Internet history, giving officials access to the browsing habits of roughly 60 million people ? including sensitive visits to medical, dating, or pornography websites. Prefer to send mail the old-fashioned way? That would be monitored, too. Address details and other markers printed onto envelopes would be copied; parcel tracking information would be logged as well. Officials say they need all that information to stay on top of a rapidly-changing technological landscape. Britain?s online child protection agency said Thursday it was missing out on a quarter of the traffic used by child pornography networks. In an editorial in the Times of London entitled ?Trust me, I need to know about your emails,? Scotland Yard chief Bernard Hogan-Howe said that the collection of communications data played a role in 95 percent of serious organized crime operations. The measure remains a draft bill, which means it?s subject to change before it is presented to Parliament. In a nod to controversy surrounding the bill, the government has taken the unusual step of submitting it for comment to two parallel legislative bodies: A joint legislative committee composed of members of Britain?s House of Lords and the House of Commons as well as Parliament?s intelligence committee. In a statement to fellow lawmakers, May struck a measured tone, saying she recognized ?that these proposals raise important issues around personal privacy? but that the law would be balanced. She was less measured in The Sun, where she dismissed worries that the bill would stomp on free expression as ?ridiculous claims? dreamed up by ?conspiracy theorists.? ?Without changing the law the only freedom we would protect is that of criminals, terrorists and pedophiles,? she said. Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ? 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 Thu Jun 14 15:52:08 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:52:08 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: American Corporate Buzzwords By Decades Message-ID: How true. ---rick American Corporate Buzzwords By Decades http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/06/american-corporate-buzzwords-by-decades/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 14 16:56:47 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Humoue: A fun 'cyber' link.... Message-ID: Politicians and armchair pundits take note .... http://willusingtheprefixcybermakemelooklikeanidiot.com/ How true. :( --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 15 07:09:24 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:09:24 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - "V-word" trends on Twitter to protest MI GOP prudishness Message-ID: Oh Noes! My ears! My tender, pristine, prudish ears!!! #Vagina trends after US female legislator banned from speaking Michigan state representative Lisa Brown was banned indefinitely from speaking on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives after she used the word vagina as she voiced her vehement opposition to the state?s anti-abortion bill on June 14, which could criminalise all abortions after 20 weeks? gestation in all cases. It sent women ? and men ? into a frenzy and had #Vagina trending on Twitter. < - > http://storyful.com/stories/32534 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 15 08:26:15 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:26:15 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - ICANN eggfaced after publishing dot-word biz overlords' personal info Message-ID: <07DBA672-C51D-4D30-A616-B263A360C861@infowarrior.org> ICANN eggfaced after publishing dot-word biz overlords' personal info By Kevin Murphy ? Get more from this author Posted in Hosting, 15th June 2012 09:14 GMT http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/15/icann_big_reveal_reveals_too_much/ After proudly revealing the details of almost 2,000 new generic top-level domain applications, red-faced ICANN was today forced to yank the whole lot after applicants complained that their home addresses had been published by mistake. ICANN published the partial text of 1,930 gTLD bids ? each of which carried a $185,000 application fee ? during a splashy event in London on Wednesday. Only 30 of the 50 questions in each application were supposed to be revealed; details about financial performance, technical security and personal contact information were supposed to be redacted. But ICANN accidentally also published the full contact information of each bid's primary and secondary contact ? including in many cases their home addresses. These named individuals were were in several confirmed cases also the senior officers and directors of the company applying. The Applicant Guidebook, the bible for the ICANN new gTLD process, specifically stated that home addresses would not be published. ?This was an oversight and the files have been pulled down,? ICANN?s manager of gTLD communications Michele Jourdan said in an email. ?We are working on bringing them back up again without this information.? Some applicants said they notified ICANN about the breach as early as Wednesday afternoon, but it was not until El Reg called for comment late last night that the documents were taken down. As of 8am today the applications have been republished with the offending data removed. For many of the big brand names applying for new gTLDs, the fact that they had to file personal data about their officers and directors ? needed for ICANN's background checks ? was a much higher barrier to the programme than the $185,000 fee. ?Many of our customers were reticent to put their information forward and needed a lot of reassuring,? one major new gTLD consultant told us. ?They are going to be really, really livid about this.? Other applicants, such as those applying for potentially controversial strings, have also expressed a security concern after their officers' addresses were published. It's not the first security problem to hit the ICANN programme. Its bespoke TLD Application System software was taken down for six weeks after a vulnerability was discovered that exposed some bidders' secret application data to other applicants. ICANN also came in for criticism from Arabic speakers during its ?Reveal Day? event in King's Cross on Wednesday. Projecting a scrolling list of the applied-for gTLDs onto the stage backdrop, the organisation inadvertently spelled every one of the Arabic-script strings backwards. Multi-lingual domain name expert Khaled Fattal of the Multilingual Internet Group told us that many in the Arab world found this insulting, as well as commercially irritating. With so many technical snafus in the first six months of the programme, many ICANN watchers are nervous about the organisation's ability to carry out its controversial ?digital archery? process, which will be used to batch applications for evaluation purposes. ? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 15 12:56:04 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Stop saying 'cyber Pearl Harbor' Message-ID: <8DAEC9E0-9D00-4AEC-8FE6-C29D4623FAAA@infowarrior.org> Stop saying 'cyber Pearl Harbor' June 13, 2012 | By David Perera http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/stop-saying-cyber-pearl-harbor/2012-06-13 The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 has captured the imagination of wonks with a predilection for predicting future calamity unless the government takes immediate steps to change some aspect of its policy. There are many "X-Pearl Harbors" out there. A space Pearl Harbor. An energy Pearl Harbor. But probably none is as common as the cyber Pearl Harbor. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) easily led Defense Secretary Leon Panetta into agreeing that the United States faces the possibility of a "cyber Pearl Harbor" only this week, during a June 13 hearing of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on defense. "Technologically, the capability to paralyze this country is there now," Panetta said. "There's a high risk," reported FCW. The thing about prophets is that they may be Cassandras--doomed to be right but unheeded--or they might be guy in Times Square proclaiming that the end is nigh. To shed some light on how deeply we should actually be worried about a cyber Pearl Harbor, I decided to look for when the term came into prominence, using the Nexis database in order to draw some conclusions about what type of prophets predictors of a cyber Pearl Harbor are: Cassandras, or doomsday criers. The earliest public reference appears to be in a June 26, 1996 Daily News article in which CIA Director John Deutch warned that hackers "could launch 'electronic Pearl Harbor' cyber attacks on vital U.S. information systems." The next month, then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick told the Senate Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations that "we will have a cyber-equivalent of Pearl Harbor at some point, and we do not want to wait for that wake-up call," according to the Armed Forces Newswire Service. Thereafter the term appears to have gone into a hiatus, apart from some offhand or derivative references to the original sources cited above. But, not to worry, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) used it again in the spring of 1998, being quoted in a March 19 South Bend Tribune article warning that "We have an opportunity to act now before there is a cyber-Pearl Harbor...We must not wait for either the crisis or for the perfect solution to get started." Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) soon did his Senate colleague one better in terms of warning of the gravity of a cyber Pearl Harbor by telling a June 10, 1998 meeting of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on technology, terrorism and government information that as an analogy, Pearl Harbor "doesn't really work to describe the real danger that we face today." He thought Pearl Harbor was too tame a reference. At this point, it appears the term started assuming the ubiquity it has today. "The threat of an electronic Pearl Harbor or the threat of cyber-terrorism?is clearly one that's getting increasing attention in this building and throughout the government," said Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon during a Dec. 16, 1998 press conference. But, based on the Nexis sample, it wasn't until after 9/11 that things got really rolling. "America's next Pearl Harbor, many experts predicted, would be a cyber-attack, a high-tech strike on the nation's critical computer systems, such as those controlling power grids or financial networks," said the Oct. 1, 2001 edition of the San Jose Mercury News, in a news story that could have appeared, verbatim, this week. After that, the tempo appears not to have let up. There's then-Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) in the March 16, 2004 National Journal Technology Daily being quoted as stating that "computer viruses and other malicious activities by hackers create the 'potential for a cyber Pearl Harbor.'" Here's a Jan. 26, 2006 Chattanooga Times Free Press article noting that former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke has been widely warning "about a potential 'digital Pearl Harbor' where terrorists use cyber attacks to shut down power grids and communication networks and damage nuclear plants and oil refineries." And just to bring things in to more recent times, here's Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) in a Feb. 11, 2011 meeting of the House Armed Services subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities stating that Leon Panetta (again!) "testified that cyber threats to our critical infrastructure had the potential to be the next Pearl Harbor, and I agree, and remain unconvinced that we have the abilities or the authorities to stop a large-scale cyber attack." Of course, just because a prediction was wrong before doesn't mean it's wrong now. The fact that warnings of a cyber Peal Harbor made every year since 1998 (and sporadically before then) didn't come true in the days, months, years--or decades, by now--after they were uttered doesn't mean that some calamitous digital strike doesn't await us all. But I believe it's unlikely. First, urgent warnings repeated urgently every year must necessarily lose some urgency after they fail to warn of real happenings. That's unavoidable. And, arguably, all the warnings worked! So many people cried "cyber Pearl Harbor" that we took sufficient steps to prevent that possibility. People, this time, took Cassandra at her word! Of course, that's entirely the opposite of what people who utter the phrase intend. (I think it's true that we're more secure now than in the past, however.) Another scenario is that our post-9/11 fears led us to turn the specter of a surprise attack and project it onto every conceivable attack vector. Cyberspace, already the source of pre-9/11 fright, became the supercharged vessel of the sudden vertigo we experienced as a society after finding out that all our advanced but open systems could be turned against us. Cyberspace is good for this sort of thing because hackers have always taken advantage of the open architecture of the Internet and because cyberspace is pervasive yet mysterious for most people. Doomsday predictions about it are in its very base. 9/11 just put them on steroids. What "cyber Pearl Harbor" criers forget is that attacks on the scale of a Pearl Harbor occur within a political context. Japanese militarism was no secret in December 1941. Moreover, the Japanese attack had a certain strategic logic to it. A cyber attack that would attempt to wrack the equivalent damage on American soil, whether on civilian or military infrastructure, won't occur outside the bounds of a conflict that's also pursued in nonvirtual arenas, and it won't occur unless the attacker can calculate that the advantage will outweigh the assured furious U.S. response (that's a gamble the militarist government of Japan took, and lost). The Pearl Harbor analogy breaks down, not--as the hyperbolic Kyl would have it--because it's not sufficiently threatening, but because nobody can reasonably say who the Japanese are in the analogy. In fact, given the recent revelations that the federal government had a big part in crafting the Stuxnet, Duqu and Flame worms, they're hard pressed now even to explain why we shouldn't be considered the Japanese. The only thing cries of "cyber Pearl Harbor" really add up to are expressions of badly articulated fear. Put it on a poster and wave it in Times Square. Or yet better, retire it. - Dave --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jun 16 09:38:36 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:38:36 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Funnyjunk: From Sublime to Ridic to Charles Carreon.... Message-ID: <03C8E315-AC82-4AF2-AEA4-1B0976C340C3@infowarrior.org> "Carreon my wayward counsel There'll be peace when you are done Lay your weary head to rest Don't you whine no more" (with apologies to Kansas!!) ---rick Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman from the wow dept Wow. Just... wow. Following the net fight between The Oatmeal webcomic creator Matt Inman, and aggregator of non-funny stuff, Funnyjunk, we've been pointing out that Funnyjunk's lawyer, Charles Carreon needs to stop digging himself deeper into the hole he's found himself in. Instead, he seems to have decided on the opposite strategy, and he's digging deeper and deeper every minute...... < - > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120615/17334719354/funnyjunks-lawyer-charles-carreon-just-keeps-digging-promises-hell-find-some-law-to-go-after-oatmeals-matt-inman.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jun 17 10:48:09 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Hacked companies fight back with controversial steps Message-ID: <1316AC46-0731-44E6-B86A-4E6B8EAF4E0B@infowarrior.org> This can not end well. ---rick Hacked companies fight back with controversial steps 8:08am EDT By Joseph Menn http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE85G07S20120617 (Reuters) - Frustrated by their inability to stop sophisticated hacking attacks or use the law to punish their assailants, an increasing number of U.S. companies are taking retaliatory action. Known in the cyber security industry as "active defense" or "strike-back" technology, the reprisals range from modest steps to distract and delay a hacker to more controversial measures. Security experts say they even know of some cases where companies have taken action that could violate laws in the United States or other countries, such as hiring contractors to hack the assailant's own systems. In the past, companies that have been attacked have mostly focused on repairing the damage to their computer networks and shoring them up to prevent future breaches. But as prevention is increasingly difficult in an era when malicious software is widely available on the Internet for anyone wanting to cause mischief, security experts say companies are growing more aggressive in going after cyber criminals. "Not only do we put out the fire, but we also look for the arsonist," said Shawn Henry, the former head of cybercrime investigations at the FBI who in April joined new cyber security company CrowdStrike, which aims to provide clients with a menu of active responses. Once a company detects a network breach, rather than expel the intruder immediately, it can waste the hacker's time and resources by appearing to grant access to tempting material that proves impossible to extract. Companies can also allow intruders to make off with bogus files or "beacons" that reveal information about the thieves' own machines, experts say. Henry and CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovich do not recommend that companies try to breach their opponent's computers, but they say the private sector does need to fight back more boldly against cyber espionage. It is commonplace for law firms to have their emails read during negotiations for ventures in China, Alperovich told the Reuters Global Media and Technology Summit. That has given the other side tremendous leverage because they know the Western client company's strategy, including the most they would be willing to pay for a certain stake. But if a company knows its lawyers will be hacked, it can plant false information and get the upper hand. "Deception plays an enormous role," Alperovich said. FIGHTING BACK Other security experts say a more aggressive posture is unlikely to have a significant impact in the near term in the overall fight against cybercriminals and Internet espionage. Veteran government and private officials warn that much of the activity is too risky to make sense, citing the chances for escalation and collateral damage. "There is no business case for it and no possible positive outcome," said John Pescatore, a National Security Agency and Secret Service veteran who leads research firm Gartner's Internet security practice. Nevertheless, the movement shows the deep anger and sense of futility among security professionals, many of whom feel that a bad situation is getting worse, endangering not only their companies but the national economy. "There's nothing you can do" to keep determined and well-financed hackers out, said Rodney Joffe, senior technologist at Internet infrastructure company Neustar Inc and an advisor to the White House on cyber security. Joffe recently looked at 168 of the largest 500 U.S. companies by revenue and found evidence in Neustar forensic logs that 162 of them owned machines that at some point had been transmitting data out to hackers. Frustration by security professionals is not new. Some privately admitted to rooting for Lulz Security last year during that hacking group's unprecedented spree of public crimes, when it broke into and embarrassed Sony Corp, an FBI affiliate and others with routine hacking techniques [ID:nL2E8E6EDO]. They said the resulting media coverage finally caught the attention of CEOs and legislators, although tougher cyber security laws have yet to pass Congress. Although some strike-backs have occurred quietly in the past, Facebook popularized going on offense, said Jeff Moss, founder of the influential Black Hat security conferences and an advisor to the Department of Homeland Security. In January, Facebook Inc named some of the Russian players behind the malicious "Koobface" software that spread through spam on various social networks, earning the gang an estimated $2 million. INDUSTRY FAILURES The security industry's shortcomings were underscored most recently by the discovery of the Flame spying virus in the Middle East. Mikko Hypponen, the well-regarded chief research officer at Finland's F-Secure Oyj, told the Reuters Summit his company had a sample of Flame in 2010 and classified it as clean and later missed another virus called Duqu that was suspected of being backed by Western governments. "These are examples how we are failing" as an industry, Hypponen said. "Consumer-grade antivirus you buy from the store does not work too well trying to detect stuff created by the nation-states with nation-state budgets." Because some national governments are suspected in attacks on private Western companies, it is natural that some of the victims want to join their own governments to fight back. "It's time to have the debate about what the actions would be for the private sector," former NSA director Kenneth Minihan said at the RSA security conference held earlier this year in San Francisco. In April, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the San Jose Mercury News that officials had been contemplating authorizing even "proactive" private-entity attacks, although there has been little follow-up comment. Many large security providers no longer preach that keeping the enemy out is paramount. Instead, they adopt the more recent line taken by the Pentagon, which is to assume that hackers have gotten inside and will again. The mainstream advice now is to focus on trying to detect suspicious activity as quickly as possible in order to shut it down. Hitting back with force is only the most colorful of possible responses after that. More common alternatives include deep analysis of what data has been sent out and attempts to learn whether the recipients were competitors, criminals who might try to resell it, or national governments, who might be inclined to share it with local industry. Some experts also say executives should identify their most prized intellectual property and keep it off of networked computers and consider evasive action - such as having 100 versions of a critical digitized blueprint and only one that is genuine, with the right one never identified in emails. "There is a reason that people fly halfway around the world to have a one-hour meeting," Joffe said of intelligence agencies. (Reporting by Joseph Menn in San Francisco, Editing by Tiffany Wu) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jun 17 11:55:46 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:55:46 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Drones, Computers New Weapons Of US Shadow Wars Message-ID: <129DE685-3796-4B8F-9FA4-7D37C5F829C2@infowarrior.org> http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/06/ap-drones-computers-new-weapons-shadow-war-061712/ June 17, 2012 Drones, Computers New Weapons Of US Shadow Wars By Robert Burns, Lolita C. Baldor and Kimberly Dozier, Associated Press WASHINGTON -- After a decade of costly conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American way of war is evolving toward less brawn, more guile. Drone aircraft spy on and attack terrorists with no pilot in harm's way. Small teams of special operations troops quietly train and advise foreign forces. Viruses sent from computers to foreign networks strike silently, with no American fingerprint. It's war in the shadows, with the U.S. public largely in the dark. In Pakistan, armed drones, not U.S. ground troops or B-52 bombers, are hunting down al-Qaida terrorists, and a CIA-run raid of Osama bin Laden's hide-out was executed by a stealthy team of Navy SEALs. In Yemen, drones and several dozen U.S. military advisers are trying to help the government tip the balance against an al-Qaida offshoot that harbors hopes of one day attacking the U.S. homeland. In Somalia, the Horn of Africa country that has not had a fully functioning government since 1991, President Barack Obama secretly has authorized two drone strikes and two commando raids against terrorists. In Iran, surveillance drones have kept an eye on nuclear activities while a computer attack reportedly has infected its nuclear enrichment facilities with a virus, possibly delaying the day when the U.S. or Israel might feel compelled to drop real bombs on Iran and risk a wider war in the Middle East. The high-tech warfare allows Obama to target what the administration sees as the greatest threats to U.S. security, without the cost and liabilities of sending a swarm of ground troops to capture territory; some of them almost certainly would come home maimed or dead. But it also raises questions about accountability and the implications for international norms regarding the use of force outside of traditional armed conflict. The White House took an incremental step Friday toward greater openness about the basic dimensions of its shadowy wars by telling Congress for the first time that the U.S. military has been launching lethal attacks on terrorist targets in Somalia and Yemen. It did not mention drones, and its admission did not apply to CIA operations. "Congressional oversight of these operations appears to be cursory and insufficient," said Steven Aftergood, an expert on government secrecy issues for the Federation of American Scientists, a private group. "It is Congress' responsibility to declare war under the Constitution, but instead it appears to have adopted a largely passive role while the executive takes the initiative in war fighting," Aftergood said in an interview. That's partly because lawmakers relinquished their authority by passing a law just after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that essentially granted the White House open-ended authority for armed action against al-Qaida. Secret wars are not new. For decades, the CIA has carried out covert operations abroad at the president's direction and with congressional notice. It armed the mujahedeen in Afghanistan who fought Soviet occupiers in the 1980s, for example. In recent years the U.S. military's secretive commando units have operated more widely, even in countries where the U.S. is not at war, and that's blurred the lines between the intelligence and military spheres. In this shroud of secrecy, leaks to the news media of classified details about certain covert operations have led to charges that the White House orchestrated the revelations to bolster Obama's national security credentials and thereby improve his re-election chances. The White House has denied the accusations. The leaks exposed details of U.S. computer virus attacks on Iran's nuclear program, the foiling of an al-Qaida bomb plot targeting U.S. aircraft, and other secret operations. Two U.S. attorneys are heading separate FBI investigations into leaks of national security information, and Congress is conducting its own probe. It's not just the news media that has pressed the administration for information about its shadowy wars. Some in Congress, particularly those lawmakers most skeptical of the need for U.S. foreign interventions, are objecting to the administration's drone wars. They are demanding a fuller explanation of how, for example, drone strikes are authorized and executed in cases in which the identity of the targeted terrorist is not confirmed. "Our drone campaigns already have virtually no transparency, accountability or oversight," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and 25 other mostly anti-war members of Congress wrote Obama on Tuesday. A few dozen lawmakers are briefed on the CIA's covert action and clandestine military activity, and some may ask to review drone strike video and be granted access to after-action reports on strikes and other clandestine actions. But until two months ago, the administration had not formally confirmed in public its use of armed drones. In an April speech in Washington, Obama's counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, acknowledged that despite presidential assurances of a judicious use of force against terrorists, some still question the legality of drone strikes. "So let me say it as simply as I can: Yes, in full accordance with the law - and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives - the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaida terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones," he said. President George W. Bush authorized drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere, but Obama has vastly increased the numbers. According to Bill Roggio of The Long War Journal, an online publication that tracks U.S. counterterrorism operations, the U.S. under Obama has carried out an estimated 254 drone strikes in Pakistan alone. That compares with 47 strikes during the Bush administration. In at least one case the target was an American. Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida leader, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in September. According to a White House list released late last year, U.S. counterterrorism operations have removed more than 30 terrorist leaders around the globe. They include al-Qaida in East Africa "planner" Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, who was killed in a helicopter strike in Somalia. The drone campaign is highly unpopular overseas. A Pew Research Center survey on the U.S. image abroad found that in 17 of 21 countries surveyed, more than half of the people disapproved of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders in such places as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. In the U.S., 62 percent approved of the drone campaign, making American public opinion the clear exception. The U.S. use of cyberweapons, like viruses that sabotage computer networks or other high-tech tools that can invade computers and steal data, is even more closely shielded by official secrecy and, arguably, less well understood. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has been a leading critic of the administration's handling of information about using computers as a tool of war. "I think that cyberattacks are one of the greatest threats that we face," McCain said in a recent interview, "and we have a very divided and not very well-informed Congress addressing it." Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and national security officials often talk publicly about improving U.S. defenses against cyberattack, not only on U.S. government computer systems but also against defense contractors and other private networks linked, for example, to the U.S. financial system or electrical grid. Left largely unexplained is the U.S. capacity to use computer viruses and other cyberweapons against foreign targets. In the view of some, the White House has cut Congress out of the loop, even in the realm of overt warfare. Sen. James Webb, D-Va., who saw combat in Vietnam as a Marine, introduced legislation last month that would require that the president seek congressional approval before committing U.S. forces in civil conflicts, such as last year's armed intervention in Libya, in which there is no imminent security threat to the U.S. "Year by year, skirmish by skirmish, the role of the Congress in determining where the U.S. military would operate, and when the awesome power of our weapon systems would be unleashed has diminished," Webb said. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jun 17 21:24:17 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:24:17 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google reveals 'terrorism video' removals Message-ID: 18 June 2012 Last updated at 00:51 Google reveals 'terrorism video' removals http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18479137 Google has revealed it removed about 640 videos from YouTube that allegedly promoted terrorism over the second half of 2011 after complaints from the UK's Association of Police Officers. The news was contained in its latest Transparency Report which discloses requests by international authorities to remove or hand over material. The firm said it terminated five accounts linked to the suspect videos. However, the firm said it had rejected many other state's requests for action. Canada's Passport Office was among the organisations rebuffed. It had asked for a video of a Canadian citizen urinating on his passport and then flushing it down the toilet be removed. Google also refused to delete six YouTube videos that satirised Pakistan's army and senior politicians. The order had come from the government of Pakistan's Ministry of Information Technology. But Google did act in hundreds of cases, including: ? requests to block more than 100 YouTube videos in Thailand that allegedly insulted its monarchy - a crime in the country ? the removal of a YouTube video that contained hate speech that had been posted in Turkey ? the termination of four YouTube accounts responsible for videos that allegedly contained threatening and harassing content after complaints by different US law enforcement agencies. Overall, the firm said it had received 461 court orders covering a total of 6,989 items between July and December 2011. It said it had complied with 68% of the orders. It added that it had received a further 546 informal requests covering 4,925 items, of which it had agreed to 43% of the cases. Google's senior policy analyst, Dorothy Chou, said the company was concerned by the amount of requests that had been linked to political speech. "It's alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect - Western democracies not typically associated with censorship," she said. "For example, in the second half of last year, Spanish regulators asked us to remove 270 search results that linked to blogs and articles in newspapers referencing individuals and public figures, including mayors and public prosecutors. "In Poland, we received a request from the Agency for Enterprise Development to remove links to a site that criticised it. "We didn't comply with either of these requests." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 18 07:41:10 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:41:10 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Unless & Except . . . Message-ID: <27AF99EC-DCCC-48EC-AEE0-32433E1FA759@infowarrior.org> Unless & Except . . . By Barry Ritholtz - June 18th, 2012, 7:29AM http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/06/unless-except/ Yeah! The Greeks Voted! For the Xn-th time, important events took place in Europe that either did or did not resolve an impending crisis that is either imminent or not. This was absolutely and unequivocally crucial, unless it didn?t matter at all. Either of which was equally likely. Indeed, this past week was absolutely critical, except that it wasn?t. The Greek elections determining their future relationship to the EuroZone was simply of the utmost importance, unless not. Yes, they didn?t matter; No it was quite important. Unless it was the other way around. The ?mother of all central bank interventions? is going to save Europe, unless it doesn?t, in case its back to square one. Everything has changed, except nothing is different. Indeed, nothing has changed except for everything. Unless it wasn?t, in which case it was. The fiscal responsibility issue, which is the single most important issue ever, except for the past half century, when it didn?t matter at all, has once again resolved permanently and completely by postponing it again. Then no, not so much. Here in the States, the upcoming Fiscal Cliff is the most important issue of our time, except its never mattered and is likely to be resolved without incident. Unless not, in which case, so sorry about that credit outlook downgrade. Indeed, this is the most important election of our lifetimes, except for all the other ones. They were super important, except not. This week?s FOMC meeting will reveal whether QE is imminent, which it is according to those who know, unless its not, which equally likely. Operation Twist could be extended. Or expanded. Or canceled. Unless not. The Fed will be releasing their announcement at 2:15 on Wednesday. Unless like last time, they are late, in which case it will be 2:30ish. This will cause another Risk On rally as traders anticipate the Fed?s action, unless it doesn?t, and they don?t, or in case the Fed doesn?t, in which case we didn?t. Or won?t. It gets fuzzy around this junction. Most importantly, you must be on the look out for rumors or reports that may or may not be true and do or don?t matter. Or not. I hope this clarifies the state of things . . . --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 18 09:43:47 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:43:47 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FunnyJunk's lawyer sues American Cancer Society and National Wildlife Federation Message-ID: You cannot make this stuff up. --- rick FunnyJunk's lawyer sues American Cancer Society and National Wildlife Federation By Cory Doctorow at 5:46 am Monday, Jun 18 Charles Carreon, the lawyer who sent a legal threat to The Oatmeal on behalf of FunnyJunk (FunnyJunk was upset that The Oatmeal had complained about the undisputed fact that its users routinely post Oatmeal comics to the site and threatened a libel suit unless they got $20,000 from The Oatmeal), has made good on his threat to comb the statute books until he could find something to sue Oatmeal creator Matthew Inman over. But Mr Carreon has gone much, much farther. He has not only named Inman to the suit, but is also suing IndieGoGo (Inman launched an IndieGoGo fundraiser for a cancer charity and the National Wildlife Federation, and raised over $100,000 for them, with a promise that he would photograph himself standing astride the money and send it as a taunt to Carreon prior to remitting it to the charity). He is also suing the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society. Ken at Popehat and Kevin from Lowering the Bar are offering pro bono counsel to the defendants in the suit, and looking for other First Amendment attorneys to volunteer their time to fight Carreon's lawsuit. Here's Ken's summary of the Courthouse News Service summary of Carreon's suit: < -- > http://boingboing.net/2012/06/18/funnyjunks-lawyer-sues-ameri.html --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 18 18:18:30 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NSA: It Would Violate Your Privacy to Say If We Spied on You Message-ID: Danger Room (Wired.com) June 18, 2012 NSA: It Would Violate Your Privacy to Say If We Spied on You By Spencer Ackerman http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/ The surveillance experts at the National Security Agency won?t tell two powerful United States Senators how many Americans have had their communications picked up by the agency as part of its sweeping new counterterrorism powers. The reason: it would violate your privacy to say so. That claim comes in a short letter sent Monday to civil libertarian Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. The two members of the Senate?s intelligence oversight committee asked the NSA a simple question last month: under the broad powers granted in 2008?s expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, how many persons inside the United States have been spied upon by the NSA? The query bounced around the intelligence bureaucracy until it reached I. Charles McCullough, the Inspector General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the nominal head of the 16 U.S. spy agencies. In a letter acquired by Danger Room, McCullough told the senators that the NSA inspector general ?and NSA leadership agreed that an IG review of the sort suggested would further violate the privacy of U.S. persons,? McCullough wrote. ?All that Senator Udall and I are asking for is a ballpark estimate of how many Americans have been monitored under this law, and it is disappointing that the Inspectors General cannot provide it,? Wyden told Danger Room on Monday. ?If no one will even estimate how many Americans have had their communications collected under this law then it is all the more important that Congress act to close the ?back door searches? loophole, to keep the government from searching for Americans? phone calls and emails without a warrant.? What?s more, McCullough argued, giving such a figure of how many Americans were spied on was ?beyond the capacity? of the NSA?s in-house watchdog ? and to rectify it would require ?imped[ing]? the very spy missions that concern Wyden and Udall. ?I defer to [the NSA inspector general's] conclusion that obtaining such an estimate was beyond the capacity of his office and dedicating sufficient additional resources would likely impede the NSA?s mission,? McCullough wrote. The changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2008 ? which President Obama, then in the Senate, voted for ? relaxed the standards under which communications with foreigners that passed through the United States could be collected by the spy agency. The NSA, for instance, no longer requires probable cause to intercept a person?s phone calls, text messages or emails within the United States as long as one party to the communications is ?reasonably? believed to be outside the United States. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, as it?s known, legalized an expansive effort under the Bush administration that authorized NSA surveillance on persons inside the United States without a warrant in cases of suspicion of connections to terrorism. As my colleague David Kravets has reported, Wyden has attempted to slow a renewal of the 2008 surveillance authorities making its way through Congress. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to address the FISA Amendments Act on Tuesday, as the 2008 law expires this year. Longtime intelligence watchers found the stonewalling of an ?entirely legitimate oversight question? to be ?disappointing and unsatisfactory,? as Steve Aftergood, a secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists told Danger Room. ?If the FISA Amendments Act is not susceptible to oversight in this way,? Aftergood said, ?it should be repealed, not renewed.? Even though McCullough said the spy agencies wouldn?t tell the senators how many Americans have been spied upon under the new authorities, he told them he ?firmly believe[s] that oversight of intelligence collection is a proper function of an Inspector General. I will continue to work with you and the [Senate intelligence] Committee to identify ways we can enhance our ability to conduct effective oversight.? From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 18 18:20:36 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:20:36 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?White_House=2C_Citing_Public=92s?= =?windows-1252?q?_Right_to_Know=2C_Stonewalls_on_Yemen_War?= Message-ID: <9920A6B1-0DC5-4102-8D88-299D67F40B48@infowarrior.org> White House, Citing Public?s Right to Know, Stonewalls on Yemen War ? By Noah Shachtman ? Email Author ? June 18, 2012 | ? 1:19 pm | ? Categories: Shadow Wars http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/obama-yemen/#more-83686 The center of the US drone war has shifted to Yemen, where 23 American strikes have killed an estimated 155 people so far this year. But you wouldn?t know about it ? or about the cruise missile attacks, or about the US commando teams in Yemen ? by reading the report the White House sent to Congress about US military activities around the globe. Instead, there?s only the blandest acknowledgement of ?direct action? in Yemen, ?against a limited number of [al-Qaida] operatives and senior leaders.? The report, issued late Friday, is the first time the United States has publicly, officially acknowledged the operations in Yemen and in nearby Somalia that anyone with internet access could?ve told you about years ago. But the report doesn?t just fail to admit the extent of the shadow war that America is waging in the region. It?s borderline legal ? at best. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to inform Congress about any armed conflicts America is engaged in. Friday?s report isn?t just uninformative about Yemen. It doesn?t even mention the US campaign in Pakistan, even though the Defense Secretary says America is ?at war? there. ?The American people are well aware of the threat that al-Qaida poses, and in a democratic society, they have a right to know what actions their government is taking in an effort to protect them. A well-informed public is critical to maintaining the legitimacy of, and in turn our ability to sustain, our ongoing counterterrorism efforts.? These are the words not of some good government crusader or some critic of the president, but of an administration official, explaining the White House?s recent report in an email to Danger Room. The report does exactly the opposite, however: obscuring the shadow wars that America is waging in the region, rather than illuminating them; actively undermining the public?s right to know, rather than reinforcing it. ?The report, if you can call it such, is a waste of paper and computer space,? writes intelligence historian Matthew Aid. ?You literally learn nothing about the nature and extent of U.S. military combat operations overseas?. Even Adam Sandler movies have more substantive and meaningful content than this letter to Congress.? Since it was passed in the 1970s, White Houses have routinely ignored the War Powers resolution, which requires the president to get Congress? authorization if he keeps troops in a hot zone longer than 60 days. President Clinton never got that permission when he sent US forces in Kosovo in the 1990s; Obama did the same sidestep last year when he dispatched American jets and ships to help take out the Gadhafi regime in Libya. The Obama administration argues that the operations in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and countless other locations are kosher, because Congress authorized military force against al-Qaida 11 years ago, right after 9/11. But many of the groups that US forces are now fighting didn?t exist in their current form back then. And the White House won?t say when we?ll know how this war against al-Qaida is won. In the meantime, the administration keeps filing these twice-a-year reports to Congress, as if they complied with the Resolution?s requirement for periodic updates ?on the status of such hostilities ? as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities.? As if a two-sentence paragraph could adequately capture a campaign that has killed more than 300 people ? among them at least one American teenager and dozens of civilians. As if you could take seriously the administration?s contention that it has only targeted a ?limited number? of Yemenis ?who posed a terrorist threat to the United States and our interests.? As if all 155 people killed by US drones were planning to blow up Times Square or something. As if the United States weren?t targeting people there based on their perceived actions, rather than their positions in the al-Qaida hierarchy. As if Yemen weren?t in an active civil war, with the United States taking up the government?s side. In an email to Danger Room, an administration official admits that US operations are being directed at more than just a few people. ?Our CT [counter terrorism] efforts in Yemen are embedded in a broader effort to stabilize the country,? the official writes, ?and they balance the need to address near-term threats against US interests with longer-term initiatives to build Yemeni capacity, strengthen its judicial system, empower local communities to reject violent extremism, and address the upstream factors that al-Qaida exploits for recruitment. Overcoming Yemen?s challenges requires a comprehensive strategy that emphasizes governance and economic development as much as security issues.? In other words, this isn?t a targeted operation to take out a small band of terrorists plotting against America. It?s a full-blown campaign to build Yemen up from the ground. ?Let?s be honest here. This is hardly what was intended when the War Powers resolution was passed,? says Peter Singer, who oversees my work at the Brookings Institution?s 21 Century Defense Initiative. (And, it should be noted, was an early supporter of Barack Obama?s presidential campaign.) ?It?s not merely the belated and thin nature of disclosing what has already been widely known. It?s the selectivity. You aren?t supposed to shop when and where you choose to follow a law on war powers.? But as ridiculous as the Yemen admission is, it?s an improvement over the report?s treatment of Pakistan: none at all. The president may openly discuss the CIA-directed drone campaign in Pakistan, and the Secretary of Defense may proclaim that ?we are fighting a war against terrorism? there. The report, however, gives absolutely no indication of any fighting going on in Pakistan whatsoever. The likely excuse is that Pakistan shouldn?t be part of the report, since the CIA is technically in charge of the Pakistan war. Of course, that ignores the military troops that?ve conducted raids and trained local soldiers in Pakistan, as well as the fact that many of the drones over Pakistan actually belong to the US Air Force. In perhaps the report?s grandest irony, the administration gives greater attention to the war that officially ended last year ? the one in Iraq ? than the ones currently fought today in Pakistan and Yemen. Of course, these shadow wars will never have a moment like the one in December 2011, when the last US soldier departed. And even if they ever do, the White House won?t tell you about it, anyway. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 19 06:32:42 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:32:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Scary economic report from Pew Center Message-ID: <73A4DFE4-9834-4ADF-9183-DE8010FFB27F@infowarrior.org> US Retirement Benefits Underfunding Rises To Record $1.4 Trillion http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-retirement-benefits-underfunding-rises-record-14-trillion The Pew Center has released its annual summary of US pension and retirement health care (under)funding. As of 2010, the total underfunding gap rose by $120 billion from the prior year's $1.26 trillion deficit to a record $1.38 trillion underfunding. This number consists of $757 billion in pension promises, not backed by any hard cash, representing pension liabilities of $3.07 trillion and assets of $2.31 trillion. In 2000, more than half of the states had their pensions 100 percent funded, but by 2010 only Wisconsin was fully funded, and 34 were below the 80 percent threshold?up from 31 in 2009 and just 22 in 2008. But that pales in comparison to the ridiculous spread between retiree health care liabilities of $660 billion and assets of, drum roll, $33 billion, or a funding shortage that is $627 billion, roughly 19 times the actual assets in the system! Just seven states funded 25 percent or more of their retiree health care obligations: Alaska, Arizona, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, and Wisconsin. What this means is soon US pensioners will have no choice but to experience not only austerity unlike any seen in Europe, but broken promises of retirement benefits which will never materialize. The response will likewise be proportional. < - > http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-retirement-benefits-underfunding-rises-record-14-trillion --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 19 07:23:36 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:23:36 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TPP leak shows new corporate power and broken campaign promises Message-ID: <38E62176-9738-46B4-A5CE-152D47DFAE6E@infowarrior.org> Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises Posted: 06/13/2012 9:17 am Updated: 06/14/2012 6:45 pm http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html WASHINGTON -- A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises. The leaked document has been posted on the website of Citizens Trade Campaign, a long-time critic of the administration's trade objectives. The new leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some members of Congress have complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive. "The outrageous stuff in this leaked text may well be why U.S. trade officials have been so extremely secretive about these past two years of [trade] negotiations," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch in a written statement. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has been so incensed by the lack of access as to introduce legislation requiring further disclosure. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has gone so far as to leak a separate document from the talks on his website. Other Senators are considering writing a letter to Ron Kirk, the top trade negotiator under Obama, demanding more disclosure. The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration's advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws. Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings. The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign. "We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications," reads the campaign document. Yet nearly all of those vows are violated by the leaked Trans-Pacific document. The one that is not contravened in the present document -- regarding access to life-saving medication -- is in conflict with a previously leaked document on intellectual property (IP) standards. "Bush was better than Obama on this," said Judit Rius, U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders Access to Medicines Campaign, referring to the medication rules. In a statement provided to HuffPost, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative downplayed the concerns. "This administration is committed to ensuring strong environmental, public health and safety laws," said USTR spokesperson Nkenge Harmon. "Nothing in our TPP investment proposal could impair our government's ability to pursue legitimate, non-discriminatory public interest regulation, including measures to protect public health, public safety and the environment." Words like "legitimate" and "nondiscriminatory" can have flexible interpretations among international tribunals, however, which have recently ruled that U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labelling and anti-teen smoking efforts are unfair barriers to trade, according to prior trade pacts. The new investment rules, for instance, extend to government contracting negotiations, eliminating so-called "Buy American" preferences for domestic manufacturers. USTR has previously stated that it does not comment on the terms of an allegedly leaked document. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative insists that while broad standards require many medical patents and IP rules that would increase the price of medications, the U.S. intends to work with countries involved in the Trans-Pacific talks to ensure that the agreement does not restrict access to life-saving drugs. That statement is belied somewhat by recent American efforts in other international negotiations to establish controversial medical patents that grant companies long-term monopolies on life-saving medications. Those monopolies increase drug prices, which impede access to medications, particularly in developing nations. The World Health Organization and dozens of nonprofit public health groups have objected to the standards sought by the Obama administration. Two United Nations groups recently urged global governments not to agree to trade terms currently being advocated by the Obama administration, on the grounds that such rules would hurt public health. Such foreign investment standards have also come under fire at home, from both conservative sovereignty purists and progressive activists for the potential to hamper domestic priorities implemented by democratically elected leaders. The North American Free Trade Agreement, passed by Congress in 1993, and a host of subsequent trade pacts granted corporations new powers that had previously been reserved for sovereign nations and that have allowed companies to sue nations directly over issues. While the current trade deal could pose a challenge to American sovereignty, large corporations headquartered in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it by using the same terms to oppose the laws of foreign governments. If one of the eight Pacific nations involved in the talks passes a new rule to which an American firm objects, that U.S. company could take the country to court directly in international tribunals. Public Citizen challenged the independence of these international tribunals, noting that "The tribunals would be staffed by private sector lawyers that rotate between acting as 'judges' and as advocates for the investors suing the governments," according to the text of the agreement. In early June, a tribunal at the World Bank agreed to hear a case involving similar foreign investment standards, in which El Salvador banned cyanide-based gold mining on the basis of objections from the Catholic Church and environmental activists. If the World Bank rules against El Salvador, it could overturn the nation's domestic laws at the behest of a foreign corporation. Speaking to the environmental concerns raised by the leaked document, Margrete Strand Rangnes, Labor and Trade Director for the Sierra Club, an environmental group said, "Our worst fears about the investment chapter have been confirmed by this leaked text ... This investment chapter would severely undermine attempts to strengthen environmental law and policy." Basic public health and land-use rules would be subject to challenge before an international tribunal, as would bank regulations at capital levels that might be used to stymie bank runs or financial crises. The IMF has advocated the use of such capital controls, which would be prohibited under the current version of the leaked trade pact. Although several countries have proposed exceptions that would allow them to regulate speculative financial bets, the U.S. has resisted those proposals, according to Public Citizen. Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible. This post has been updated to include comment from the USTR and the Sierra Club. CORRECTION: A previous version of this article said the leaked document was posted to the Public Citizen website. It was posted to the Citizens Trade Campaign website. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 19 07:25:18 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:25:18 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Inman To Carreon: Stop digging, you're embarassing yourself Message-ID: Matthew Inman To Charles Carreon: Take Time Off, Stop Saying Crazy Sh*t To Journalists, Calm Down from the and-maybe-apologize dept Now that the details have come out about Charles Carreon's lawsuit against Matthew Inman, IndieGoGo and the two charities Inman is raising money for (and the details are as nonsensical as we expected), Matthew Inman has written an open letter to Carreon, suggesting that he might want to calm down a bit. He points out that, contrary to Carreon's claims, he did not "incite security attacks" on Carreon. In fact, Inman not only focused his anger at Funnyjunk, but also went further than necessary to keep Carreon mostly out of it: < -- > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120618/18250119374/matthew-inman-to-charles-carreon-take-time-off-stop-saying-crazy-sht-to-journalists-calm-down.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 19 13:56:23 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:56:23 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Ecuador: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange seeking asylum Message-ID: <3F54440A-EBFD-4D47-8D15-94A64AFCB776@infowarrior.org> Ecuador: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange seeking asylum http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-19/ecuador-wikileaks-assange/55689836/1 QUITO, Ecuador (AP) ? Ecuador's foreign minister said Wilikeaks chief Julian Assange has taken refuge in the South American nation's embassy in London and is seeking political asylum. By Kirsty Wigglesworth, AP Ecuador announced Tuesday that Julian Assange is seeking asylum at its embassy in London. Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said Ecuador is weighing the request. The move comes less than a week after Britain's Supreme Court rejected Assange's bid to reopen his extradition case. Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden after two women accused him of sexual misconduct during a visit to the country in mid-2010. His legal struggle to stay in Britain has dragged on for the better part of two years, clouding his website's work exposing the world's secrets. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 19 14:35:24 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:35:24 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - U.S. Students Know What, But Not Why Message-ID: U.S. Students Know What, But Not Why by Cathy Tran on 19 June 2012, 11:35 AM | 2 Comments http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/us-students-know-what-but-not-wh.html The first-ever use of interactive computer tasks on a national science assessment suggests that most U.S. students struggle with the reasoning skills needed to investigate multiple variables, make strategic decisions, and explain experimental results. Paper-and-pencil exams measure how well students can critique and analyze studies. But interactive tasks also require students to design investigations and test assumptions by conducting an experiment, analyzing results, and making tweaks for a new experiment. Those real-world skills were measured for the first time on the science component of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) that was given in 2009 to a representative sample of students in grades four, eight, and 12. "Before this, we've never been able to know if students really could do this or not," says Alan Friedman, a member of National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP. The overall scores on the 2009 science test were released in January 2011, and today's announcement focuses on the results from the portion of the test involving interactive computer tasks. What the vast majority of students can do, the data show, is make straightforward analyses. More than three-quarters of fourth grade students, for example, could determine which plants were sun-loving and which preferred the shade when using a simulated greenhouse to determine the ideal amount of sunlight for the growth of mystery plants. When asked about the ideal fertilizer levels for plant growth, however, only one-third of the students were able to perform the required experiment, which featured nine possible fertilizer levels and only six trays. Fewer than half the students were able to use supporting evidence to write an accurate explanation of the results. Similar patterns emerged for students in grades 8 and 12. "We've got our work cut out for us," says Friedman, who is also a consultant in museum development and science communication. The computer simulations offer NAEP a much better way to measure skills used by real scientists than do multiple-choice questions, says Chris Dede, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education. "Scientists don't see the right answer. They see confusing situations and use methods like inquiry to get meaning from complexity. Science is a domain where paper and pencil is a poor match." The more the test matches the domain, Dede adds, the less problematic teaching to the test becomes. Interactive computer tasks also allow examiners to speed up processes and eliminate safety concerns raised by having students perform actual hands-on tasks. Computer simulations will continue to evolve at NAEP, which likes to call itself the nation's report card. Friedman says that so-called embedded assessments?which can provide the ability to track when students make a mistake and what they do to correct it?would be "dynamite information" to have. Keystroke data, for instance, have the potential to provide insight about the reasoning skills that students use to solve problems. "It may give us a way to reward students who don't necessarily jump to the answer right away but show a deliberate process to get to the answer," says Friedman. It could also identify those students who have learned material without really understanding it. "There is no way to memorize for this test," says Friedman. "You really have to think on your feet." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 19 20:50:22 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:50:22 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FBI gets a broader role in coordinating domestic intelligence activities Message-ID: <742A9082-18D4-4811-BB88-1DEA1E7A272E@infowarrior.org> FBI gets a broader role in coordinating domestic intelligence activities By Greg Miller, Updated: Tuesday, June 19, 7:00 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-gets-a-broader-role-in-coordinating-domestic-intelligence-activities/2012/06/19/gJQAtmupoV_print.html The FBI has been given an expanded role in coordinating the domestic intelligence-gathering activities of the CIA and other agencies under a plan enacted this year by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., officials said. The bureau?s highest-ranking field agents now also serve as the DNI?s representatives across the country. The change is intended to improve collaboration, but some officials say it has created new friction between the FBI and CIA. Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, assistant director of national intelligence, said the move is meant to enhance the FBI?s ability to lead efforts by federal, state and local authorities to confront terrorist threats and other domestic security concerns. ?This is a connecting bridge between intelligence and law enforcement,? Flynn said in an interview. He added that the DNI designation does not give regional FBI officials power over other agencies? operations or personnel. The program was endorsed by CIA Director David H. Petraeus and officials at other affected agencies. But concerns have surfaced in some regional offices that the FBI is exploiting its new clout at the CIA?s expense. One former U.S. official said senior FBI agents recently used a meeting with executives from major manufacturing companies on the West Coast to instruct them to cut off contact with the CIA. The FBI?s message was that ?they were now in charge of relationships with the corporate sector, so the folks there should feel no need to deal with the agency,? said the former U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. The FBI agents were not aware that a former CIA officer was among the executives in attendance. The former official declined to provide more details about the location of the meeting or its participants. FBI spokesman Michael Kortan said that officials could not confirm the alleged incident and that such a statement to company executives by an FBI agent would not reflect the bureau?s position. Although the CIA is best known for its spy work overseas, the agency has stations in most major U.S. cities. The National Resources Division, as the group is known, routinely debriefs executives, university officials and other Americans who volunteer to share information gathered on their trips out of the country. The CIA is also allowed to approach foreign nationals in the United States and try to recruit them as spies upon their return to their home countries. The FBI dramatically expanded its domestic intelligence-gathering operations as part of a reorganization after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Flynn said the DNI program is not meant to disrupt CIA efforts in the United States. ?This program doesn?t change the authorities of the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security or anybody else in the system,? he said. ?But there is more of a responsibility to share and work together.? It is unclear whether the change will require the CIA to disclose more information about its domestic sources. In his memoir, former senior CIA official Henry A. Crumpton writes that during his tenure as head of the National Resources Division, the FBI ?repeatedly demanded the identities of NR sources,? and he refused. The new DNI program began as a pilot operation in four cities ? New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Chicago ? and was expanded to 12 regions covering the entire country this year. The program is analogous to an arrangement overseas in which CIA station chiefs serve as the nation?s senior intelligence officers and main points of contact with their foreign counterparts. A 2009 proposal to change that policy and give the DNI power to select officers from other spy services prompted a fierce bureaucratic battle that the CIA won. A CIA spokeswoman said the agency has not opposed the move to elevate FBI agents in the United States. ?The CIA endorses and supports the DNI?s decision,? said spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood. ?The decision makes sense, and the program is working well. DCIA Petraeus has already met with several of the domestic DNI representatives and has been impressed with them and with their cooperation.? ? 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 Wed Jun 20 07:37:42 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:37:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Arquilla: Cool War Message-ID: <4B3A9337-1B51-49B6-9663-5C2CEDE300F1@infowarrior.org> Cool War Could the age of cyberwarfare lead us to a brighter future? BY JOHN ARQUILLA | JUNE 15, 2012 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/15/cool_war?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full "It is well that war is so terrible," Confederate General Robert E. Lee once said, "lest we should grow too fond of it." For him, and generations of military leaders before and since, the carnage and other costs of war have driven a sense of reluctance to start a conflict, or even to join one already in progress. Caution about going to war has formed a central aspect of the American public character. George Washington worried about being drawn into foreign wars through what Thomas Jefferson later called "entangling alliances." John Quincy Adams admonished Americans not to "go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Their advice has generally been followed. Even when it came to helping thwart the adventurer-conquerors who started the twentieth century's world wars, the United States stayed out of both from the outset, entering only when dragged into them. This pattern briefly changed during the Cold War, with the launching of military interventions in Korea and Vietnam. The former was fought to a bloody draw; the latter turned into a costly debacle. Both were quite "terrible," costing tens of thousands of American lives and untold treasure -- nearly 100,000 lives and trillions of dollars -- reaffirming Lee's reservations. Operation Desert Storm -- a lopsided win against a weak opponent in Iraq -- seemed to break the pattern, ushering in President George H.W. Bush's "new world order." But the military experiments in regime change begun by his son -- an unexpectedly long and bloody slog through Iraq and Afghanistan -- reawakened traditional concerns about going to war, propelling Barack Obama to the presidency and energizing Ron Paul's support within the GOP. Even Obama's "intervention-lite" in Libya proved unsatisfying, unleashing much suffering and uncertainty about the future of that sad land. And a furious debate rages about the practical and ethical value of drone bombing campaigns and "targeted killing" of our enemies -- due in part to the deaths of innocents caught up in these attacks, but also because of the possibility of fomenting rabidly anti-American sentiments, perhaps even revolution, in places like nuclear-armed Pakistan. But now, somehow, it seems that war may no longer seem so terrible. How has this come to pass? The culprit is the bits and bytes that are the principal weapons of cyberwar. It is now possible to intervene swiftly and secretly anywhere in the world, riding the rails of the global information infrastructure to strike at one's enemies. Such attacks can be mounted with little risk of discovery, as the veil of anonymity that cloaks the virtual domain is hard to pierce. And even when "outed," a lack of convincing forensic evidence to finger the perpetrator makes heated denials hard to disprove. Beyond secrecy, there is also great economy. The most sophisticated cyber weaponry can be crafted and deployed at a tiny fraction of the cost of other forms of intervention. No aircraft carriers needed, no "boots on the ground" to be shot at or blown up by IEDs. Instead, there is just a dimly lit war room where hacker-soldiers click for their country, and the hum of air conditioners keeping powerful computers from overheating. Cool room, cool war. The early returns seem to suggest the great efficacy of this new mode of conflict. For example, the Stuxnet worm, a complex program of ones and zeros, infected a sizeable proportion of Iran's several thousand centrifuges, commanding them to run at higher and higher speeds until they broke. All this went on while Iranian technicians tried fruitlessly to stop the attack. The result: a serious disruption of Tehran's nuclear enrichment capabilities -- and possibly of a secret proliferation program. The sabotage occurred without any missile strikes or commando raids. And, for now, without any open acknowledgment of responsibility, although reporters and others have pointed their fingers at the United States and Israel. It is loose lips in high places, not sophisticated "back hacking," that seem to have divulged the secret of Stuxnet. Another example of the looming cool war is the malicious software known as Flame, which sought information via cyber snooping from target countries in the Middle East. The code that comprises it seems to make the point that we no longer need physical agents in place if we can now rely on artificially intelligent agents to dredge up the deepest secrets. There will be no new John le Carr? to chronicle this era's spies. Not when the closest thing to George Smiley is a few lines of source code. Beyond Stuxnet-like "cybotage" and software-driven spying, the coming cool war might also influence whether some traditional wars are even going to break out. The good news is that a preemptive cyber attack on the military command-and-control systems of two countries getting ready to fight a "real war" might give each side pause before going into the fight. In this instance, the hackers mounting such attacks should probably publicize their actions -- perhaps even under U.N. auspices -- lest the disputants think it was the enemy who had crippled their forces, deepening their mutual antagonism. There are no doubt some risks in having a third party mount a preemptive cyberattack of this sort -- but the risks are acceptable when weighed against the chance of averting a bloody war. The other potential upside of cool war capabilities, in addition to tamping down military crises between nations, would lie in multilateral tracking of transnational criminal and terrorist networks. These villains thrive in the virtual wilderness of cyberspace, and it is about time that they were detected, tracked, and disrupted. Think of Interpol, or an international intelligence alliance, using something like Flame to get inside a drug cartel's communications network. Or al Qaeda's. The potential for illuminating these dark networks -- and bringing them to justice -- is great and should not be forgone. On balance, it seems that cyberwar capabilities have real potential to deal with some of the world's more pernicious problems, from crime and terrorism to nuclear proliferation. In stark contrast to pitched battles that would regularly claim thousands of young soldiers' lives during Robert E. Lee's time, the very nature of conflict may come to be reshaped along more humane lines of operations. War, in this sense, might be "made better" -- think disruption rather than destruction. More decisive, but at the same time less lethal. Against these potential benefits, one must also weigh the key downside of an era of cyber conflict: the outbreak of a Hobbesian "war of all against all." This possibility was first considered back in 1979 by the great science fiction writer Frederik Pohl, whose dystopian The Cool War -- a descriptor that might end up fitting our world all too well -- envisioned a time when virtually every nation fielded small teams of hit men and women. Their repertoires included launching computer viruses to crash stock markets and other nefarious, disruptive capabilities. In Pohl's novel, the world system is battered by waves of social distrust, economic malaise and environmental degradation. Only the rebellion of a few cool warriors - some, but not all, were hacker types -- at the end, offers a glimmer of hope for a way out and a way ahead. The question that confronts us today is whether to yield to the attractions of cyberwar. We have come out of one of mankind's bloodiest centuries, and are already in an era in which wars are smaller -- if still quite nasty. Now we have the chance to make even these conflicts less lethal. And in reality, there may be no option. Once the first network or nation takes this path -- as some observers believe the United States is doing -- others will surely follow, starting a new arms race, this time not in weaponry, but in clandestine and devastating programs like Stuxnet and the Flame virus. It is a curious irony that the United States, a power traditionally reluctant to go to war but furious in its waging, is now seemingly shifting gears. It is becoming a nation with the capability to go to war easily, while at the same time far less ferociously. Is this an improvement? Perhaps. Delaying Iranian proliferation with bits and bytes seems far superior to the costs and risks that would be incurred, and the human suffering inflicted, by trying to achieve such effects with bombs and bullets. But looking ahead, how will Americans respond when others begin to employ cyber means to achieve their ends, perhaps even by attacking us? After all, Stuxnet escaped from that Iranian facility into the wild, and is certainly being studied, reverse engineered and tweaked by many around the world. No country may be foolish enough to engage the incomparable U.S. military in open battle, but we seem like fairly easy pickings to the computer mice that may soon roar. Despite all these concerns, though, a cool war world will be a better place to live in than its Cold War predecessor. Yes, conflict will continue in the years to come, but it will morph in ways that make our self-destruction as a civilization less likely -- even if it means living with occasional disruptions to vulnerable high-tech systems. The bargain made when "cyber" and "war" came together need not turn out to be Faustian. This story can still have a happy ending: As war becomes "cooler," mankind's future may edge a bit closer to the utopian end that all of us, secretly or not so secretly, truly desire. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 20 08:52:49 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:52:49 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Is that really just a fly? Swarms of cyborg insect drones are the future of military surveillance Message-ID: <0A7C0D2A-8BD0-4252-AA57-B277FEAAAA79@infowarrior.org> Is that really just a fly? Swarms of cyborg insect drones are the future of military surveillance By Daily Mail Reporter PUBLISHED: 11:16 EST, 19 June 2012 | UPDATED: 11:16 EST, 19 June 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2161647/Is-really-just-fly-Swarms-cyborg-insect-drones-future-military-surveillance.html The kinds of drones making the headlines daily are the heavily armed CIA and U.S. Army vehicles which routinely strike targets in Pakistan - killing terrorists and innocents alike. But the real high-tech story of surveillance drones is going on at a much smaller level, as tiny remote controlled vehicles based on insects are already likely being deployed. Over recent years a range of miniature drones, or micro air vehicles (MAVs), based on the same physics used by flying insects, have been presented to the public. The fear kicked off in 2007 when reports of bizarre flying objects hovering above anti-war protests sparked accusations that the U.S. government was accused of secretly developing robotic insect spies. Fingertip: The US Air Force unveiled insect-sized spies 'as tiny as bumblebees' that could not be detected and would be able to fly into buildings Official denials and suggestions from entomologists that they were actually dragonflies failed to quell speculation, and Tom Ehrhard, a retired Air Force colonel and expert on unmanned aerial craft, told the Daily Telegraph at the time that 'America can be pretty sneaky.' The following year, the US Air Force unveiled insect-sized spies 'as tiny as bumblebees' that could not be detected and would be able to fly into buildings to 'photograph, record, and even attack insurgents and terrorists.' Around the same time the Air Force also unveiled what it called 'lethal mini-drones' based on Leonardo da Vinci's blueprints for his Ornithopter flying machine, and claimed they would be ready for roll out by 2015. That announcement was five years ago and, since the U.S. military is usually pretty cagey about its technological capabilities, it raises the question as to what it is keeping under wraps. The University of Pennsylvania GRASP Lab recently showed off drones that swarm, a network of 20 nano quadrotors flying in synchronized formations. The SWARMS goal is to combine swarm technology with bio-inspired drones to operate 'with little or no direct human supervision' in 'dynamic, resource-constrained, adversarial environments.' Researchers have now developed bio-inspired drones with bug eyes, bat ears, bird wings, and even honeybee-like hairs to sense biological, chemical and nuclear weapons However, it is most likely the future of hard-to-detect drone surveillance will mimic nature. Research suggests that the mechanics of insects can be reverse-engineered to design midget machines to scout battlefields and search for victims trapped in rubble. Scientists have taken their inspiration from animals which have evolved over millennia to the perfect conditions for flight. Nano-biomimicry MAV design has long been studied by DARPA, and in 2008 the U.S. government's military research agency conducted a symposium discussing 'bugs, bots, borgs and bio-weapons.' Researchers have now developed bio-inspired drones with bug eyes, bat ears, bird wings, and even honeybee-like hairs to sense biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. And the U.S. isn't the only country to have poured money into spy drone miniaturisation. France has developed flapping wing bio-inspired microdrones. The Netherlands BioMAV (Biologically Inspired A.I. for Micro Aerial Vehicles) developed a Parrot AR Drone last year - which is now available in the U.S. as a 'flying video game'. Not so tiny but a good spy: A ShadowHawk drone with SWAT team members Zoologist Richard Bomphrey, of Oxford University, has conducted research to generate new insight into how insect wings have evolved over the last 350 million years. He said last year: 'Nature has solved the problem of how to design miniature flying machines. 'By learning those lessons, our findings will make it possible to aerodynamically engineer a new breed of surveillance vehicles that, because they are as small as insects and also fly like them, completely blend into their surroundings.' The insect manoeuvrability which allows flies the ability to land precisely and fly off again at speed may one day prove a crucial tactical advantage in wars and could even save lives in disasters. The military would like to develop tiny robots that can fly inside caves and barricaded rooms to send back real-time intelligence about the people and weapons inside. Dr Bomphrey said: 'Scary spider robots were featured in Michael Crichton's 1980s film Runaway - but our robots will be much more scaled down and look more like the quidditch ball in the Harry Potter films, because of its ability to hover and flutter. 'The problem for scientists at the moment is that aircrafts can't hover and helicopters can't go fast. And it is impossible to make them very small. 'With insects you get a combination of both these assets in miniature. And when you consider we have been flying for just over a hundred years as opposed to 350 million years, I would say it is they who have got it right, and not us!' --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 20 10:53:04 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:53:04 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The Generation Gap in Computer Security Message-ID: <54C49C73-3A23-48B6-9BFE-CDDCC849516C@infowarrior.org> (I've not read the actual survey yet. --rick) The Generation Gap in Computer Security ? Jun 20, 2012 8:30 AM EST ? 0 Comments By Neil J. Rubenking http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/none/299263-the-generation-gap-in-computer-security When the IBM PC first hit the scene, today's baby boomers were in their 20's. Modern young adults have grown up surrounded by amazing technology, tech that they naturally take for granted. Does their innate tech-expertise make them better at protecting privacy and staying safe online? In a word, no. A recent Dimensional Research survey sponsored by ZoneAlarm clearly shows that while the younger set believe they have more security knowledge, their elders are more effective at implementing protection. The study surveyed over 1,200 PC users in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia during March 2012. The report focuses on differences between baby boomers (56- to 65-year olds) and generation Y (18- to 25-year olds). Click on the image below to view an infographic summarizing what the researchers found. The data strongly suggests that security becomes more of a priority with age. Young folks are more likely to prioritize entertainment or community over security, while more than half of the boomers placed security first. Perhaps not surprisingly, boomers worry more about email attacks while Gen Y expects trouble to come through social networks or P2P file sharing. 63 percent of the Gen Y respondents claimed to be knowledgeable about security, a bit more than the 59 percent of baby boomers. However, 50 percent of the Gen Y crowd actually experienced a recent security problem, compared with 42 percent of boomers. The younger folks are also less likely to pay for security products. 45 percent say security software costs too much, compared with 37 percent of baby boomers. One thread holds across all age groups?the vast majority of people keep sensitive data such as tax records, passwords, and financial data on their computers. As for taking care of this data, the generation gap re-emerges. 78 percent of Gen Y admitted they don't follow accepted best practices for security, while only 53 percent of baby boomers did. The full report, available from the ZoneAlarm website, details all of the statistics described here as well as stats for three age groups between Gen Y and baby boomers. Interestingly, while 48 percent overall agreed that they expect security software to be free, those 36 to 45 years old didn't entirely agree. Only 41 percent of people in this age group expect free security software. The report concludes that everyone should use free antivirus and firewall protection which, by no coincidence, ZoneAlarm can supply. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 20 11:14:20 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:14:20 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Washington=92s_5_Worst_Arguments?= =?windows-1252?q?_for_Keeping_Secrets_From_You?= Message-ID: <2978EDB1-6946-4545-A060-7A83FA5B275F@infowarrior.org> Washington?s 5 Worst Arguments for Keeping Secrets From You ? By Spencer Ackerman ? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/government-secrecy/ ? June 20, 2012 | ? 6:30 am | ? Categories: Info War, Shadow Wars, Spies, Secrecy and Surveillance The government?s vast secrecy bureaucracy does two things with great frequency. The first, of course, is keeping secrets. The second is devising elaborate reasons why you can?t know what those secrets are. It?s hardly a secret that the government overclassifies basic information about what it does. What often gets overlooked is that the reasons it cites are often absurd. Sometimes they?re craven cover-ups learned years after the fact. Sometimes they?re ironic ? or cynical ? invocations that disclosure would aggravate the very problem it?s supposed to solve. Sometimes they?re bald contradictions of established policy or routine procedure. Either way, the government has left a long, twisted trail of pretzel logic when it comes to all of the reasons you can?t know what it?s doing. Here are some of the lowlights. Nuclear Experiments on People Would Have ?Adverse Effects on Public Opinion? Government secrecy is perhaps at its most pronounced with nuclear weapons. And most people would probably agree that discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to the US?s most dangerous arsenal. But that leeway probably doesn?t extend to atomic experiments on human beings. Still, back in the 1940s, the Atomic Energy Commission decided you couldn?t know about anything of the sort. We now know that at the dawn of the nuclear age, the commission indeed used human guinea pigs to learn what the effects of atomic blasts and lingering radiation would be on the human physiology. In 1947, the commission wanted word that it was, among other things, feeding irradiated food to handicapped children kept very quiet. Its rationale was straightforward in its brazenness: We don?t want to be sued by an outraged public. ?It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans and might have adverse effects on public opinion or result in legal suits,? Army Col. O.G. Haywood Jr. wrote to fellow commission personnel on April 17, 1947. The memo?s title itself is an artifact of the days when government personnel felt safe to engage in a baldfaced cover-up: ?Subj: MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ON HUMANS.? (.pdf) Haywood succeeded. Word of these atomic experiments ? a practice that continued for another 15 years ? came to light only after a savvy reporter named Eileen Welsome began exhuming long-forgotten documents at Kirtland Air Force Base in 1987. What she uncovered after a six-year inquiry would later compel President Clinton to form a major commission that ultimately led to official compensation for some of the family members of nuclear test subjects. Even Haywood couldn?t keep everything a secret. Knocking Off Castro Would ?Cause Public Confusion? The 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco was one of the worst foreign policy disasters of the 20th century. A plan hatched by CIA to overthrow the communist government of Fidel Castro led to the training of what President Kennedy was assured was a crack team of exiles ? who were quickly rounded up and killed or captured almost as soon as they hit the Cuban beach. Most accounts of the Bay of Pigs fiasco are incomplete or confusing. That?s by design. Historians have long tried to get the CIA to disclose details surrounding the plot. The final volume of the CIA?s official history has never seen daylight outside of Langley. When the disclosure advocates at George Washington University?s National Security Archive tried to read it, they learned that the CIA thought your minds are too feeble to comprehend just what happened. In 2005, the CIA explained that it was keeping the volume secret because it risked placing ?inaccurate or incomplete information into the public domain.? Scholars, reporters and the public might reach an ?erroneous or distorted view of the Agency?s role in the events described in a draft or otherwise lead to public confusion.? This ?inaccurate? ?draft? is part of the CIA?s official history of the Bay of Pigs. The CIA?s obstinacy might have more to do with its displeasure with the volume. It?s criticized it as a ?polemic of recriminations against CIA officers who later criticized the operation and against those U.S. officials who its author, [CIA historian Jack] Pfeiffer, contends were responsible for the failure of that operation.? In other words, you can?t read it because it makes the CIA look incompetent and petty. Budget Math Will ?Cause Damage to the National Security? George Tenet: one of the worst CIA directors ever or the worst CIA director ever? The case against Tenet usually starts and stops with failing to stop 9/11 and swearing Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Sharp observers of Tenet noticed he?d be a problem back in 1999, when he told a federal court that he couldn?t reveal how much the CIA?s budget is ? even though he had done exactly that for the previous two years. Why? If he did, your grandmother, neighbors, and all of their pets might perish. In 1997, Tenet revealed to Congress publicly that the Clinton administration wished to spend $26.6 billion on intelligence activities. (Back then, the CIA director oversaw all 16 spy agencies; thanks to Tenet?s screwups, that?s no longer the case.) In 1998, Tenet revealed to Congress publicly that the Clinton administration wished to spend $26.7 billion on intelligence activities. In 1999, Tenet demurred. ?I have determined that release of the Administration?s intelligence budget request or total appropriation for fiscal year 1999 reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security, or otherwise tend to reveal intelligence methods,? he said. Steve Aftergood, the secrecy scholar at the Federation of American Scientists, promptly sued Tenet to learn what the figure was ? and why he suddenly couldn?t know how much cash the CIA wanted. Tenet?s reasons reduced to what the great New York MC Jeru The Damaja once called the Wrath of the Math. That is, by comparing subsequent budget figures, someone could figure out the direction of the CIA?s budget trends. And that would lead to chaos. But wait, you say. Couldn?t someone make precisely the same determination based on the 1997 and 1998 budget figures that Tenet himself released? Ah, Tenet responded in court: ?the 1998 appropriation represented approximately a $0.1 billion increase ? or less than a 0.4 percent change ? over the 1997 appropriation? and so ?release of the 1998 appropriation could not reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security.? Bigger fluctuations could provide no such guarantee. Believe it or not, Tenet won this fight. But Aftergood won the war for common sense. In 2009, Dennis Blair, President Obama?s first director of national intelligence, disclosed more of the intelligence budget than any of his predecessors combined. Miraculously, no one died. It Would Violate Your Privacy for the NSA to Say if It Violated Your Privacy The National Security Agency hoovers up a massive amount of voice, text, and other data from Americans communicating with foreigners, thanks in large part to a 2008 law that legalized President Bush?s controversial warrantless surveillance program. No one knows how many Americans have been spied on. And on Monday, the NSA told two skeptical senators that it can?t determine just how many ? lest it violate citizens? privacy. The inspectors general of the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the NSA, joined by ?NSA leadership agreed that an IG review of the sort suggested would itself violate the privacy of U.S. persons,? read a letter from the DNI?s in-house watchdog to Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden. For good measure, the NSA inspector general pled that ?obtaining such an estimate was beyond the capacity of his office and dedicating sufficient additional resources would likely impede the NSA?s mission.? That mission, of course, includes spying on you. The NSA didn?t release this argument at any old time. It released it the day before a House panel was set to vote on renewing the 2008 law expanding the NSA?s surveillance authorities. That?s why Wyden and Udall wanted the figure out there: so legislators would know just what they were voting on. ?A federal agency can write a tart, dry non-response like this,? thundered Jim Harper of the libertarian Cato Institute, ?because Congress is utterly supine before the security bureaucracy.? Sure enough, on Tuesday that House panel gave the NSA?s surveillance powers a big thumbs up ? all without knowing just how vast those powers are. Obama Can Talk About Drone Strikes, Just Not the Agency That Performs Them In 2012, just in time to run for reelection as a tough guy, President Obama began discussing an open secret that?s defined his presidency: the expansive shadow wars, usually waged with armed drones, he has ordered against al-Qaida in Pakistan, Yemen and beyond. ?In full accordance with the law ? and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives ? the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaeda terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones,? disclosed his chief counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, in April. Before Brennan?s speech, administration officials couldn?t even say the word ?drone? without disclosing classified information. But Brennan?s announcement didn?t convince the CIA that it can follow his lead. While it?s wrapped up in a lawsuit over the scope of its drone program, it told a federal judge it would neither confirm nor deny the existence of exactly what Brennan said existed. For two years, the ACLU ? where, full disclosure, my wife works ? has sued the CIA to compel disclosure of information related to the drone attacks, like who is an appropriate target. The CIA, even after Brennan?s speech, has responded by lawyering the issue to death. Such disclosure would ?would reveal information that concerns intelligence activities, intelligence sources and methods, and U.S. foreign relations and foreign activities, the disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security of the United States,? wrote lawyer Catherine Hancock. Wait, hadn?t Leon Panetta, the former CIA director, discussed the drone program himself at times? No matter, Hancock argued: ?Director Panetta?s statements certainly did not confirm the existence of any CIA records on the use of drones responsive to plaintiffs? [Freedom of Information Act] request.? It?s the legal equivalent of trolling: the ACLU should lose its case because government officials haven?t publicly discussed precisely the secret records the ACLU wants. This is an active legal case. As our sister blog Threat Level reported, even after Brennan confirmed the drone strikes, Hancock continued to argue that ?even if there is speculation about a fact, unless an agency officially confirms that fact, the public does not know whether it is so.? And hey, Brennan works for the White House, which isn?t an agency. So forget about learning why the president can order flying death machines to kill American citizens. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 20 11:17:43 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:17:43 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Lamer Smith doesn't want us to know how often NSA spies on citizens Message-ID: <36A42526-746A-486E-9355-F4491C023D57@infowarrior.org> Lamar Smith & House Judiciary Committee Don't Want To Know How Often The NSA Spies On Americans from the fingers-in-ears-approach dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120619/17382219391/lamar-smith-house-judiciary-committee-dont-want-to-know-how-often-nsa-spies-americans.shtml Once again, we are left stunned by the sheer ridiculousness of Congress. In a House Judiciary Committee markup concerning the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), a proposed amendment to require the NSA to reveal how many times it had spied on Americans was voted down 20 - 11, led by chair Lamar Smith who just kept talking about how "important" it was get past the markup phase and pass the bill. Meanwhile, Rep. Dan Lungren lashed out at those who wanted the NSA to explain how often it had spied on Americans without warrants under this bill by saying (and I kid you not): "What evidence is there that it is being used to spy on Americans?" You see, that's the problem. The NSA doesn't have to tell anyone -- and whenever officials ask, they're given ridiculous answers, like the claim that it would violate the privacy of Americans to tell Congress how many Americans' privacy the NSA violated. It's stunning that our elected officials -- many of whom don't know themselves what the NSA is doing -- seem to have no qualms passing this update to the bill without even being willing to ask a simple question: how many Americans have been spied on using this regulation? On the Senate side, as we've noted, Senators Wyden and Udall have been indicating (within the limitations they have, due to security clearances) that the NSA is quite clearly using this law incredibly broadly -- perhaps to the level of scooping up all phone data, which goes way, way, way beyond the text of the law. If some in Congress are so sure that there's no evidence that it's being used to spy on Americans, then have the NSA answer the damn question. But, no, instead, they insist that we just have to push it through, or, as Lamar Smith says, "We have a duty to ensure the intelligence community can gather the intelligence they need to protect our country." You know who you have an even bigger duty to? The American public. That's who you represent. Not the intelligence community. The failure of our elected officials to give even the most basic oversight to the NSA is astonishing. It's shameful. We all deserve better. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 20 15:24:57 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:24:57 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy Need a Dose of Reality Message-ID: Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy Need a Dose of Reality By Col. Alan D. Campen, USAF (Ret.), SIGNAL Magazine June 2012 http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/Signal_Article_Template.asp?articleid=2973&zoneid=353 Planners need to realize it cannot be ordained, imposed or enforced. Today?s approach to the issue of cybersecurity is totally wrong. For years, experts have been propounding similar solutions to the problem of securing the virtual realm. Yet, that realm is less safe today than it was when the first calls for improved security achieved urgent status. The changes that define cyberspace?and what cyberspace in turn has wrought on society?cry out for a new approach rather than add-on measures to the same strategies that continue to prove unsuccessful over the long term. What was conceived in 1982 as a simple four-node network empowering a handful of U.S. Defense Department academics to exchange digital files has exploded into the commercially owned global Internet. Its open architecture is so admissive of malicious activity that it has been called one of the greatest threats to U.S. national security. In seemingly endless headline-making hearings before congressional committees and cyberconferences, military, civilian and private-sector officials bewail that despite significant efforts and money, our information infrastructure may not be available during times of crisis. Finding that ?the energy of the national dialogue on cybersecurity has not translated into progress? and that the nation still is unprepared to meet the challenge, the Center for Strategic and International Studies issued a report titled ?Cybersecurity Two Years Later.? It concludes that the United States needs to ?rethink its policies and institutions for cybersecurity.? U.S. policy and strategies have been founded on public-private partnerships, voluntary information sharing, common global standards, enforceable regulations, laws and surveillance?in short, a top-down governance strategy. This has not sold?not to the wary self-policing and self-financing private industry that owns the information facilities and believes it can cope with the threat; nor to the vocally fearful public that sees an unacceptable threat to privacy and civil liberties. Finally?and crucially?it has not sold to the users. Because of the information tools they demand and carelessly employ, users have become the default architects of the evolving Internet. As Jason Headley notes in his Atlantic Council brief on ?The Five Futures of Cyber Conflict and Cooperation,? today?s generation of digital natives have never known a world without the Internet. Their anticipations of cyberspace?especially in terms of security, privacy and collaboration?is very different from that of previous generations. Former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, USN (Ret.), cautions that this work force not only embraces a fundamental change in the use of information technology, but it also is one that ?knows nothing else.? Any security policy must recognize the attitudes and preferences of this new generation of impatient millennials, which some define as an indifferent technology-empowered citizenry who favor functionality over security. They are charting the course, depth and pace of securitization, and they are the reason why there is no national will to confront the risks of cyber attack. Despite an endless drumbeat of alarmist rhetoric, no consensus exists yet on the probability, severity or consequences of catastrophic cyber attacks. Not everyone is surprised at that lack of consensus. Paul Rosenzweig, in his essay ?Cybersecurity and Public Goods,? says that, ?In the end no solid data on the threat exists?so we can only measure capabilities, and then only by educated guesswork.? We lack, he adds, ?a solid, quantifiable risk assessment of the cyberthreat to national security and this leaves policymakers with only a speculative guess as to the extent of our risk.? In their essay ?Loving The Cyber Bomb? The Dangers of Threat Inflation in Cybersecurity Policy,? Jerry Brito and Tate Watkins write, ? ? with the 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 benefiting private and parochial political interests.? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) opined that the public lacks an accurate sense of the cyberthreat because relevant threat information either is classified by government or is collected but kept private by companies to shield themselves from competitors, customers, regulators and investors. This opinion is reinforced in the October 2011 report by the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, ?Foreign Spies Stealing U.S. Economic Secrets in Cyberspace.? Margaret Heffernan offers yet another excuse for user apathy. While she likely did not have cyber in mind in her book Willful Blindness?Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril, her title suggests willfulness in cost-benefit assessments by those seeking to calculate their individual exposure and risk on the Internet. RAND analyst Martin Libicki puts it bluntly: ?There is, in the end, no forced entry in cyberspace ? ,? and perhaps security always seems to be subordinated to functionality because ?organizations are vulnerable to cyberattack only to the extent they want to be.? The Economist newspaper concludes that ?countless individuals and companies have come to find that the benefits of doing things online greatly outweigh the risks.? More discouraging still is the report from the Government Business Council, titled ?Cybersecurity in the Federal Government.? It states that officials often bypass security controls on purpose ?to get things done.? For those who would rethink cyberpolicy and strategy, several options become apparent. First, governments must make painful cost-risk-benefit decisions when their own policies collide. This painful reality was brought home to the U.S. Department of Energy by its inspector general, who found that the department?s policy of expediting funding for the nation?s new ?smart energy grid? had resulted in inadequate attention to the cyber vulnerabilities of the proposed system. The problem on which to focus national attention is not threat, but vulnerability. I addressed this point in a Viewpoint for the September 1997 issue of SIGNAL. In the lead paragraph, I wrote, ?The United States can improve the security of its information systems more quickly if it forsakes pointless obsession with threat. Instead, it should apply its formidable talents and resources to fixing the vulnerabilities that make these systems such tempting and rewarding targets.? Granted, the challenges of reducing vulnerabilities of a constantly evolving and unpredictable Internet are far more complicated than 15 years ago, but that recommendation still stands. Another option is to banish the word ?war? from the cyber lexicon. Appending that to every incident from accident or misbehavior through crime, espionage and terrorism feeds unproductive hype, makes dramatic headlines and nourishes an ever-hungry cybersecurity industry. It also confounds sensible apportionment of roles, responsibilities and resources among military, government agencies, industry and users. Few information-age challenges can be countered effectively through revision of industrial-age laws, or by crafting nation-state agreements and protocols. Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen believe that ?governments will have to build new alliances that reflect the rise in citizen power and the changing nature of the state.? Any lingering notion that leadership and governance can play a meaningful role in cybersecurity will be frustrated further as the Internet morphs ever more deeply into the pocket and purse of the feckless user?already the weakest link in the cyberchain. Col. Alan D. Campen, USAF (Ret.), is a SIGNAL Magazine contributing editor and the contributing editor to four books on cyberwar. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 06:54:07 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:54:07 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DHS, FBI Warn Law Enforcement of Terrorists Asking Questions Message-ID: <7A341D98-72E5-490A-BC60-C1496C5BDE34@infowarrior.org> DHS, FBI Warn Law Enforcement of Terrorists Asking Questions June 21, 2012 in Featured http://publicintelligence.net/dhs-fbi-warn-of-terrorist-questioning/ A map of operational cities and states using the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting System (NSI). Information collected via the NSI was used to create a DHS-FBI bulletin warning of terrorists "eliciting information" from businesses and security personnel. Map via ncirc.gov Public Intelligence The Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation are warning business owners and law enforcement personnel around the country to be on the look out for terrorists and criminals asking too many questions. In a bulletin from last February, DHS and FBI warn that terrorists and criminals can exhibit the highly suspicious behavior of asking ?pertinent, intrusive or probing questions? about security and operations at sensitive facilities. According to the document, terrorists or criminals ?may attempt to identify critical infrastructure vulnerabilities by eliciting information pertaining to operational and security procedures from security personnel, facility employees or their associates? and that this type of questioning by individuals ?with no apparent need for the information? can provide an ?early warning of a potential attack.? What kind of questions go beyond simple conversation to full-fledged terrorist elicitation of information? To illustrate the concept of ?suspicious elicitation,? the bulletin includes examples of two incidents taken from actual suspicious activity reports provided under the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative. In one incident, a man working at a gas station asked a worker from a nearby chemical plant ?what types of chemicals were used at the plant, whether any were explosive, and whether employees were allowed to take chemicals home.? The gas station employee then asked about the explosiveness of certain chemicals and whether the plant was hiring. In another incident, a man asked a security officer at a train station about shift times and changes, where the security company was located and if security personnel worked after midnight. The man also asked about security cameras at the location and asked for contact information for the security company. DHS and FBI also include a helpful list of possible indicators of ?suspicious elicitation? including ?persons without a need to know seeking knowledge about evacuation procedures, response times and routes, and procedures used by emergency response personnel.? Recipients of the bulletin are encouraged to report information on people asking about ?policies or procedures that would provide insight into a facility?s operations.? The bulletin defines the suspicious activity of ?eliciting information? as ?questioning individuals at a level beyond mere curiosity about particular facets of a facility?s or a building?s purpose, operations, security procedures, etc. that would arouse suspicion in a reasonable person.? Another joint DHS-FBI bulletin from May of this year warns of similar attempts at ?eliciting information? by criminals or terrorists. The bulletin encourages theater owners and organizers of mass gatherings to report individuals who ask about security procedures or ?evacuation procedures.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 07:01:57 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:01:57 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Supercameras Could Capture Never-Before-Seen Detail Message-ID: <7E67D477-3407-419D-8208-E2CBDCDC0EFF@infowarrior.org> (As M said, "Something about that top image makes me think of the puzzle box from the Hellraiser movies." -- to which, I responded, "Your photography will be legendary even for us." lol ---rick) Supercameras Could Capture Never-Before-Seen Detail By Charles Q. Choi, InnovationNewsDaily Contributor | LiveScience.com ? 18 hrs ago http://news.yahoo.com/supercameras-could-capture-never-seen-detail-171825569.html A supercamera that can take gigapixel pictures ? that's 1,000 megapixels ? has now been unveiled. Researchers say these supercameras could have military, commercial and civilian applications, and that handheld gigapixel cameras may one day be possible. The gigapixel camera uses 98 identical microcameras in unison, each armed with its own set of optics and a 14-megapixel sensor. These microcameras, in turn, all peer through a single large spherical lens to collectively see the scene the system aims to capture. Since the optics of the microcameras are small, they are relatively easy and cheap to fabricate. A specially designed electronic processing unit stitches together all the partial images each microcamera takes into a giant, one-gigapixel image. In comparison, film can have a resolution of about 25 to 800 megapixels, depending on the kind of film used. "In the near-term, gigapixel cameras will be used for wide-area security, large-scale event capture ? for example, sport events and concerts ? and wide-area multiple-user scene surveillance ? for example, wildlife refuges, natural wonders, tourist attractions," said researcher David Brady, an imaging researcher at Duke University in Durham, N.C., told InnovationNewsDaily. "As an example, a gigapixel camera mounted over the Grand Canyon or Times Square will enable arbitrarily large numbers of users to simultaneously log on and explore the scene via telepresence with much greater resolution than they could if they were physically present." Gigapixel cameras may have scientific value. For instance, a gigapixel snapshot of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge allowed details such as the number of tundra swans on the lake or in the distant sky at that precise moment to be seen, allowing researchers to track individual birds and analyze behavior across the flock. Very wide-field surveillance of the sky is possible as well, enabling analysis of events such as meteor showers. "I believe that the need to store, manage and mine these data streams will be the definitive application of supercomputers," Brady said. The gigapixel device currently delivers one-gigapixel images at a speed of about three frames per minute. It actually captures images in less than a tenth of a second ? it just takes 18 seconds to transfer the full image from the microcamera array to the camera's memory. The camera also currently only takes black-and-white images, since color pictures are more difficult to analyze. "Next-generation systems will be color cameras," Brady said. In addition, the camera is quite large, measuring 29.5 by 29.5 by 19.6 inches (75 by 75 by 50 centimeters), a size required by the space currently needed to cool its electronics and keep them from overheating. The researchers hope that as more efficient and compact electronics get developed, handheld gigapixel cameras might one day emerge, similar in size to current handheld single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras. "Of course, it is not possible for a person to hold a camera steady enough to capture the full resolution of a gigapixel camera, so it may be desirable to mount the camera on a tripod," Brady said. "On the other hand, motion compensation strategies may overcome this challenge." The researchers are also working on more powerful cameras. They have currently built a two-gigapixel prototype camera that possesses 226 microcameras, and are in the manufacturing phase for a 10-gigapixel system. Ten- to 100-gigapixel cameras "will remain more backpack-size rather than handheld," Brady said. The scientists detailed their findings in the June 21 issue of the journal Nature. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 07:17:12 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:17:12 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Mortgage Rates Reliant on Facebook Pals? Message-ID: <91F0C313-F00C-492D-925F-0ACFE13D1372@infowarrior.org> So despite our income and credit history, those of us not on FB or actively tweeting will be paying 50% interest on our next mortgage, since we're obviously antisocial loners whose network of friends can't vouch for our creditworthiness? This is a perfect culture-jamming opportunity, methinks. :) ---rick ? TOUGH CUSTOMER ? JUNE 18, 2012, 6:19 P.M. ET http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/technology/your-mortgage-rate-may-depend-on-your-number-of-facebook-pals-1339528231951/#printMode Mortgage Rates Reliant on Facebook Pals? By ANNE KADET From the Greek Olympics to SAT scores and rankings of the world's richest billionaires, humans have long delighted in rating and grading each other. So it's no surprise that in A.D. 2007, humankind invented the online-influence score -- a measure of how much attention folks garner with their tweets, posts and LinkedIn updates. Think of it as the social-media credit score. Someday, your mortgage rate could depend on your number of Facebook friends. It started innocently enough. Tech outfits like Klout, PeerIndex and PeopleBrowsr came up with a fun way to measure a person's online influence. Typically, the companies calculate a score based on how many followers you have on services like Facebook and Twitter, how many followers your followers have, and how often people retweet or repost your updates. On Klout's scale of 0 to 100, the average person scores a 20; Martha Stewart has a 71; the glamorous Mitt Romney, an 85. Companies have been using the scores to identify influential consumers and ply them with perks in hopes of nabbing a flattering mention. Audi invited individuals with high Klout scores to test-drive its 2011 A8, for example. Reebok offered free shoes to fitness influencers through PeerIndex. But humans can't resist a metric, and lately, influence scores have been popping up in the strangest places. While it's still largely a bit of a stunt, folks are now using them to select party guests, conference speakers and beta testers. E. Jean Carroll, cofounder of dating service Tawkify, says her company uses Klout scores to match partners. High scorers usually hit it off: "They're very clever, very attuned to culture and very up on the news," Carroll says. Folks with low scores, one presumes, can pair up and spend the evening staring at the wall. No harm there -- no one's forced to join a dating service. But some companies are using the scores to determine everything from sales deals to response times. Gilt, the online fashion outlet, recently offered discounts to customers based on their Klout score; Capital One offered extra bonus miles to its highest-scoring customers. Klout says some companies look at scores to determine who gets priority service at call centers. And there's at least one banking start-up planning to factor influence scores into its rates and fees. Movenbank founder Brett King says clients with high scores are probably a better lending risk -- after all, thousands of followers trust their judgment. And they're valuable customers -- if they're happy with a service, they tweet about it. Influence scores are even creeping into the workplace. Recruiters won't admit it, but they're using these scores in their hiring decisions, especially when it comes to advertising and marketing jobs where online prowess and connections are prized, says John Sullivan, an HR consultant and management professor at San Francisco State University. Hiring can be maddeningly subjective, he says, so a clear-cut metric such as an influence score is irresistible: "We like data." Does this mean we should all be furiously tweeting and friending in an effort to avoid career failure and bad service? "It can't hurt," says Sullivan. Oh, yes, it can! For some of us, the mere prospect of tweeting feels downright painful. But maybe it's a blessing in disguise. If the online glitterati are all dating and hiring each other, maybe they'll leave the rest of us alone. And then we'll be free to contemplate our high interest rates and long hold times -- in blissful, tweet-free silence. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 07:21:39 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - 'Checkpoint of the future' takes shape at Texas airport Message-ID: <5B3A9BA7-FD30-4A98-90FA-BE9D61F8DAE7@infowarrior.org> 'Checkpoint of the future' takes shape at Texas airport By Bart Jansen, USA TODAY http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2012-06-19/Faster-better-airport-security-checkpoints-not-that-far-off/55693916/1 DALLAS ? At a terminal being renovated here at Love Field, contractors are installing 500 high-definition security cameras sharp enough to read an auto license plate or a logo on a shirt. By Michael Mulvey, for USA TODAY In Dallas: Workers use lifts to construct a new gate at Love Field. Soon the airport will have one of the most state-of-the-art systems, including ticketing, security and gates featuring heavy video surveillance. The cameras, capable of tracking passengers from the parking garage to gates to the tarmac, are a key first step in creating what the airline industry would like to see at airports worldwide: a security apparatus that would scrutinize passengers more thoroughly, but less intrusively, and in faster fashion than now. It's part of what the International Air Transport Association, or IATA, which represents airlines globally, calls "the checkpoint of the future." The goal is for fliers to move almost non-stop through security from the curb to the gate, in contrast to repeated security stops and logjams at checkpoints. After checking their luggage, passengers would identify themselves not with driver's licenses and paper boarding passes, but by scanning fingerprints or irises to prove they have an electronic ticket. Passengers would walk with their carry-ons through a screening tunnel, where they'd undergo electronic scrutiny ? replacing what now happens at as many as three different stops as they're scanned for metal objects, non-metallic items and explosives. Passengers would no longer have to empty carry-ons of liquids and laptops before putting them on conveyor belts for X-ray scans. They could keep their belts and shoes on. They could avoid a backlog at full-body scanners and a finger swab for explosive residue. If screeners notice anything suspicious, a passenger would still be pulled aside and possibly patted down. But otherwise, passengers are supposed to reach their gates faster. And machines that accomplish each part of this transformation already exist or are in development. The changing technology, combined with new screening tactics and changes at airports like the ones under construction here at Love Field, could make the checkpoint of the future a reality in a decade, the airlines say. "This isn't really science fiction that we're talking about," says Ken Dunlap, IATA's global director of security. Need to speed security The push for faster security is prompted by necessity. The Federal Aviation Administration projects the number of passengers flying inside the USA will nearly double in the next 20 years, to 1.2 billion. Security has slowed since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Before then, about 350 people passed through checkpoints each hour, the IATA says. A November survey at 142 airports found processing times fell to 149 an hour, with the worst at 60, Dunlap says. "All of this confirms downward trends that we've been seeing since 2005, that show, regardless of the market, regardless of the region, the processing numbers are going down," Dunlap says. The key to speeding up checkpoints and making security less intrusive will be to identify and assess travelers according to the risks they pose to safety in the skies. The so-called riskiest or unknown passengers would face the toughest scrutiny, including questioning and more sensitive electronic screening. Those who voluntarily provide more information about themselves to the government would be rewarded with faster passage. "It's not a single piece of technology, a single system," says John Halinski, the Transportation Security Administration's assistant administrator for global strategies. "There is no silver bullet." But being known to the government is the closest to one, and the TSA already is experimenting with it. Its PreCheck program is designed to give expedited screening to travelers who tell TSA about themselves as frequent fliers at specific airlines. One million passengers have participated since it began testing in October 2011. TSA plans to expand it to 35 airports this year. For $100, Customs and Border Protection has a similar program for foreign travelers called Global Entry, which also qualifies fliers for PreCheck. Identifying fliers The airlines say they could eliminate paper from ticketing if passengers provided information as they do for PreCheck, by linking an electronic ticket to a person's fingerprint or iris scan. Iris scans, which measure the colored part of the eye, are gaining visibility worldwide. Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam began the Privium program in October 2001. It offers fliers with European passports a border passage of 10 to 15 seconds with iris scans. In the USA, about 200,000 fliers have enrolled in the CLEAR program for expedited screening in Denver, Orlando and San Francisco since November 2010. Members, who answer TSA questions and provide either a fingerprint or iris scan, pay $179 a year to breeze past ID kiosks with a special card. Caryn Seidman-Becker, CLEAR's chief executive, says the program brings "much-needed speed and predictability" to traveling. SRI International of Menlo Park, Calif., developed two kinds of iris scanners for airports. One is a turnstile called N-Glance and the other is a portal called PassPort, which looks like a metal detector. "Instead of using a card or a pass, you would simply glance at a spot on the turnstile and it would open the gate if you were qualified to go through," Mark Clifton, vice president of products and services, says of the prospects for airline passengers. "It's very fast." Screening could also speed up. Peter Kant, executive vice president of Rapiscan, which makes full-body scanners, says several companies are developing machines fashioned like tunnels that allow travelers to walk through. Rapiscan has a prototype that would let people keep moving, although it can't scan carry-on bags at the same time yet, Kant says. "It's out of the lab, but it's still a prototype. It allows people to walk through without stopping or posing," Kant says. "You wouldn't have to be there doing all this unpacking and repacking." As equipment is developed, the checkpoint ideally would require three tunnels for passengers. Each would be based on the potential threat that a passenger represents. Travelers who provide information like PreCheck would receive the least scrutiny. Unknown passengers or those with liquids would face the most sensitive tunnel. Dunlap of IATA says initial studies show that breaking down lines into different security risks in programs such as PreCheck already speeds the lines 30%. Having three tunnels should speed the process more, he says. Passengers would be diverted for secondary screening, such as swabbing for explosives residue or pausing for a full-body screening, Dunlap says. Obstacles remain Security analysts acknowledge that checkpoints with three security tunnels could be confusing. Dunlap of IATA says passengers typically take two or three visits to become familiar with a new security routine such as taking off shoes. So, it could take leisure travelers three years to adapt to the changes because they travel less frequently. Two other hurdles to widespread use: extra costs to passengers and the additional airport space needed to set up the machines. "To do it right, what you'd want to do is bring somebody in, get all their biographic information, get their biometric information, and run them through a couple of databases to make sure they're not a bad guy," says James Albers, senior vice president at MorphoTrust USA, which developed software for iris scans. "Do they travel enough to make that worthwhile or cost-effective?" Kant of Rapiscan says another challenge is how to pull aside a suspicious character if a group of people is moving through the tunnel. Tight space at airports could pose a problem. "It's about the size of a three-car garage," Kant says of the tunnels. Hints of the future now What's going on at Love Field represents the changes that need to occur to attain the faster and secure checkpoints of the future. It's undergoing a $519 million renovation because it's projected to triple its passenger load to 12 million a year within four years, according to Karl Martin, senior information technology manger. The project is increasing the space for security checkpoints, with room for new checkpoint tunnels as they are developed, Martin says. "It is quite a transformation," he says. As the walk shortens from parking to the airport's 20 renovated gates, security officials need to better gauge the potential risk that each passenger poses. The project includes about $6 million for high-def cameras from Avigilon, which are already in place at Boston's Logan and Saudi Arabia's King Abdulaziz airports. The difference between previous cameras and new ones, with up to 16 megapixels, is similar to comparing a 1970s rerun with the crispness of a high-def sports telecast. "You're able to actually cover a wider area and zoom into an area to see a face, read a license plate or read a tail number on a plane," says Bryan Schmode, executive vice president of global sales at Avigilon. The focus is clear enough from a camera above the Southwest checkpoint to pinpoint the red-and-white JetSuite logo on the polo shirt of a man in line on a recent Thursday. Another advantage is the ability to send the video to smartphones or tablets. By spring, Martin says, Love Field's police officers or airport workers will get the video of a suspicious person on a hand-held device rather than having to race back to a central monitor to see what happened. "It begins to make all this information real time," Martin says. Security officials are reluctant to describe what sorts of behavior would trigger a response. But Chris Cole, Love's security manager, says the cameras could help with something as simple ? and potentially dangerous ? as finding the driver of an unattended car in front of the terminal. "Now I can start tracing where that person went," Cole says. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 08:18:40 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:18:40 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - How government funding of science rewards U.S. taxpayers Message-ID: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-how-government-funding-of-science-rewards-us-taxpayers/2012/06/20/gJQApDmJrV_print.html How government funding of science rewards U.S. taxpayers By Fareed Zakaria, Published: June 20 It?s hard to find any good economic news these days. Europe is teetering on the brink; emerging markets such as China, Brazil and India are slowing down; and the United States is in a slump. There is one bright spot on the American landscape: technology, particularly biotechnology. The cost of sequencing a human genome is down to $1,000, and the process now takes two hours ? a pace that is much faster than ?Moore?s Law,? which says that computing power doubles while its costs drop by half every 18 months. This technology revolution is already transforming whole industries. It is a reminder that, as we confront difficulties across the economic landscape, the one area where the United States can still move from strength to strength is science and technology ? if we make the right decisions. Take, for instance, the decision to map the human genome. The federal government funded that project at a whopping $3.8 billion cost, over a 15-year period. But consider the payback. One study ? funded by the industry ? calculates that the Human Genome Project has helped drive $796 billion in economic activity and raised $244 billion in personal income; it supported 310,000 jobs in 2010 alone. These numbers may be exaggerated, but the scale of the impact is clear across such vast fields as agriculture and medicine and new areas such as gene therapy. A lot has been said about the government?s $500 million loan to Solyndra, which was indeed a bust. But how often do you hear about the Human Genome Project? ?From a simple return on investment, the financial stake made in mapping the entire human genome is clearly one of the best uses of taxpayer dollars the U.S. government has ever made,? says Greg Lucier, chief executive of Life Technologies, whose foundation sponsored the study cited above and whose company produces the $1,000 gene-sequencing technology. Lucier, and many scientists, argue that we?re at the beginning of a new wave of biotechnologies that could be applied to produce food, fuels and medicines, and to counteract problems such as pollution and climate change. Federal funding for research and development ? a drop in the bucket compared with farm subsidies ? has long been in decline. From 1970 to 1995, it fell as a percentage of gross domestic product by 54 percent in physical sciences and 51 percent in engineering. Federal R&D funding increased slightly in recent years but has resumed its long-term slump ? just as China and South Korea are increasing their funding 10 percent year over year. The budget for Turkey?s government agency for science and technology is slated to grow 15-fold over the next 15 years. In a knowledge economy, American jobs will depend more on scientific research than they did in the 1950s, yet we spend much less as a share of GDP. Government investment in basic science has had huge commercial payoffs. For example, 13 Nobel laureates had devoted major parts of their careers to cholesterol research before cholesterol-reducing statins came to market. Now it is the largest-selling class of drugs in the world: More than 40 million people take them. Funding existing technologies is more complicated. Sometimes it works. The Air Force and NASA were the only buyers of semiconductor chips when they were first manufactured in the 1950s and through the early 1960s ? when costs started plummeting and private industry got interested. Or consider ?fracking,? a technology that was developed using Energy Department grants and loans starting in the late 1970s. On the other hand, there are Solyndra and many flops like it. Even here, however, the case for funding basic science is unimpeachable. If solar panels are to become a subsidy-free form of energy, the breakthrough will come at the level of basic science, in cheaply producing highly efficient alternatives to silicon. Several companies have started using compounds that are now expensive, one of which, Alta Devices, occupies an office building that once served as the headquarters for Solyndra. There is more to encouraging science and technology than simply funding. Government rules and regulations play a large role. Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, the dynamic founder of one of India?s powerhouse pharmaceutical companies, Biocon, argues that the entire American-style set of regulations, clinical trials and lengthy waiting periods are now a serious deterrent to innovation in drugs and pharmaceuticals more generally. ?It takes 12 years to get a drug from conception to market,? she says, ?while it took six years to get the Airbus A380 from the drawing board to flying in the skies.? The science and economics of large-scale increases in support of science and technology are clear. As usual, the politics is the problem. comments at fareedzakaria.com --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 08:25:31 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:25:31 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Apple Patents Data-Poisoning Message-ID: <5DE731E1-E976-4228-A20E-3CA9522A7BC1@infowarrior.org> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/apple_patents_d.html Apple Patents Data-Poisoning It's not a new idea, but Apple Computer has received a patent on "Techniques to pollute electronic profiling": Abstract: Techniques to pollute electronic profiling are provided. A cloned identity is created for a principal. Areas of interest are assigned to the cloned identity, where a number of the areas of interest are divergent from true interests of the principal. One or more actions are automatically processed in response to the assigned areas of interest. The actions appear to network eavesdroppers to be associated with the principal and not with the cloned identity. Claim 1: A device-implemented method, comprising: cloning, by a device, an identity for a principal to form a cloned identity; configuring, by the device, areas of interest to be associated with the cloned identity, the areas of interest are divergent from true areas of interest for a true identity for the principal; and automatically processing actions associated with the areas of interest for the cloned identity over a network to pollute information gathered by eavesdroppers performing dataveillance on the principal and refraining from processing the actions when the principal is detected as being logged onto the network and also refraining from processing the actions when the principal is unlikely to be logged onto the network. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 10:38:42 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:38:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Paper: Policing the Network: Using DPI for Copyright Enforcement Message-ID: <1FE6B30C-19B2-4366-BEC3-697773808A66@infowarrior.org> Policing the Network: Using DPI for Copyright Enforcement Milton Mueller, Andreas Kuehn, Stephanie Michelle Santoso Abstract Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and other network surveillance techniques have become important factors in the policy debate over online copyright infringement. These new technical capabilities reopened an old debate about the responsibility of internet service providers (ISPs) for policing the internet. This paper attempts to understand the extent to which new technological capabilities have the power to alter regulatory principles. It examines political conflict and negotiation over proposals to use DPI for online copyright enforcement in the EU and the USA, using a hybrid of actor-network theory from science, technology and society studies and actor-centered institutionalism in political science. It shows that while the technology disrupted a policy equilibrium, neither the EU nor the US applied DPI to copyright policing in a way that realized its radical potential. The key factor preventing such an integrated response was the disjunction between the interests of network operators and the interests of copyright holders. Full Text: PDF http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/pol_net --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 11:43:53 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:43:53 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - EFF Representing Oatmeal Creator in Fight Against Bizarre Lawsuit Message-ID: <228C0141-FDCA-4E44-B861-69F4543E954C@infowarrior.org> Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release For Immediate Release: Thursday, June 21, 2012 Contact: Corynne McSherry Intellectual Property Director Electronic Frontier Foundation corynne at eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x122 Kurt Opsahl Senior Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation kurt at eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x106 EFF Will Represent The Oatmeal Creator in Fight Against Bizarre Lawsuit Targeting Critical Online Speech Baseless Suit Claims Online Trademark Infringement and 'Cyber-Vandalism' San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is joining with attorney Venkat Balasubramani of the law firm Focal PLLC to represent The Oatmeal creator Matthew Inman in a bizarre lawsuit targeting the online comic strip's fundraising campaign in support of the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation. "I have a right to express my opinion, whether Mr. Carreon likes it or not," said Inman. "While the lawsuit may be silly, the harm it can do is very real." Inman started his campaign last week as part of a protest over legal threats he received from the website FunnyJunk. In 2011, Inman published a blogpost noting that FunnyJunk had posted many of his comics without crediting or linking back to The Oatmeal. A year later, FunnyJunk claimed the post was defamatory and demanded $20,000 in damages. Inman crafted a unique response, which included some comic art. Instead of paying the baseless demand, Inman asked for donations for the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation. The campaign raised more than $200,000 so far. An attorney for FunnyJunk, Charles Carreon, has now responded with a lawsuit filed on his own behalf. Carreon's suit names Inman, the two charities, and the online fundraising platform IndieGoGo, claiming trademark infringement and incitement to "cyber-vandalism." "This lawsuit is a blatant attempt to abuse the legal process to punish a critic," said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. "We're very glad to help Mr. Inman fight back." For this release: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-will-represent-oatmeal-creator-fight-against-bizarre-lawsuit-targeting-critical About EFF The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading organization protecting civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, we defend free speech online, fight illegal surveillance, promote the rights of digital innovators, and work to ensure that the rights and freedoms we enjoy are enhanced, rather than eroded, as our use of technology grows. EFF is a member-supported organization. Find out more at https://www.eff.org. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 12:40:12 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Congress, Internet, Hypocrisy Message-ID: <1DD0FD41-8E1A-4FE7-89E5-8ABAC5491B75@infowarrior.org> The Hypocrisy Of Congress: As Big A Threat To The Internet As The UN They're Condemning from the we-don't-regulate-the-internet,-except-when-we-do dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120619/22411019394/hypocrisy-congress-as-big-threat-to-internet-as-un-theyre-condemning.shtml While it's great to see Congress continue to speak out against the UN's dangerous efforts to tax and track the internet to help out governments and local telco monopolies, it's pretty ridiculous for Congress to pretend that it's declaring "hands off the internet" when it has its own hands all over the internet these days. As Jerry Brito and Adam Theirer write, over at the Atlantic, if Congress is really serious about supporting a free and open internet, it should look in the mirror first: < - > The fear that the ITU might be looking to exert greater control over cyberspace at the conference has led to a rare Kumbaya moment in U.S. tech politics. Everyone -- left, right, and center -- is rallying around the flag in opposition to potential UN regulation of the Internet. At a recent congressional hearing, one lawmaker after another lined up and took a turn engaging in the UN-bashing. From the tone of the hearing, and the language of the House resolution, we are being asked to believe that "the position of the United States Government has been and is to advocate for the flow of information free from government control." If only it were true. The reality is that Congress increasingly has its paws all over the Internet. Lawmakers and regulators are busier than ever trying to expand the horizons of cyber-control across the board: copyright mandates, cybersecurity rules, privacy regulations, speech controls, and much more. Earlier this year, Congress tried to meddle with the Internet's addressing system in order to blacklist sites that allegedly infringe copyrights -- a practice not unlike that employed by the Chinese to censor political speech. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) may have targeted pirates, but its collateral damage would have been the very "stable and secure" Internet Congress now wants "free from government control." A wave of furious protests online forced Congress to abandon the issue, at least for the moment. < - > It goes on to discuss other proposals to regulate parts of the internet, including CISPA and other online security laws. Of course, in each of these cases, the politicians in Congress will come out with a litany of reasons why it "makes sense" (or more accurately "we have to do something!") to pass these laws. But that pre-supposes that all those countries that Congress is now condemning for wanting more ability to spy on and control citizens don't have reasons to do so. Given the increasing evidence that the US government, via the NSA, is already spying on wide swaths of the population -- and Congress' apparent total lack of concern about this, it's incredibly hypocritical to pretend that the US government supports a free and open internet with privacy protections for citizens, when its own actions reveal something very, very different. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 15:02:02 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:02:02 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Endangered Languages Project Message-ID: <4BF254CD-6E2F-4F9D-8380-59A528DCE2EA@infowarrior.org> (major support from Google and academia, too. ---rick) http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/ The Endangered Languages Project, is an online resource to record, access, and share samples of and research on endangered languages, as well as to share advice and best practices for those working to document or strengthen languages under threat. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 20:41:37 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Bird Flu Paper Is Published After Debate Message-ID: <2A5A5F61-D5CE-4E46-B1A0-33865524D22A@infowarrior.org> Bird Flu Paper Is Published After Debate By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. Published: June 21, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/health/h5n1-bird-flu-research-that-stoked-fears-is-published.html The more controversial of two papers describing how the lethal H5N1 bird flu could be made easier to spread was published Thursday, six months after a scientific advisory board suggested that the papers? most potentially dangerous data be censored. The paper, by scientists at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands, identified five mutations apparently necessary to make the bird flu virus spread easily among ferrets, which catch the same flus that humans do. Only about 600 humans are known to have caught H5N1 in the last decade as it circulated in poultry and wild birds, mostly in Asia and Egypt, but more than half died of it. The paper?s publication, in the journal Science, ended an acrimonious debate over whether such results should ever be released. Critics said they could help a rogue scientist create a superweapon. Proponents said the world needed to identify dangerous mutations so countermeasures could be designed. ?There is always a risk,? Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in a telephone news conference held by Science. ?But I believe the benefits are greater than the risks.? Two of the five mutations are already common in the H5N1 virus in the wild, said Ron A. M. Fouchier, the paper?s lead author. One has been found in H5N1 only once. The remaining two have never been found in wild H5N1, but occurred in the H2 and H3 flus that caused the 1957 Asian flu pandemic and the 1968 Hong Kong flu. The Dutch team artificially introduced three mutations. The last two occurred as the virus was ?passaged? through 10 generations of ferrets by using nasal washes from one to infect the next. Four changes were in the hemagglutinin ?spike? that attaches the virus to cells. The last was in the PB2 protein. As the virus became more contagious, it lost lethality. It did not kill the ferrets that caught it through airborne transmission, but it did kill when high doses were squirted into the animals? nostrils. Dr. Fouchier?s work proved that H5N1 need not mix with a more contagious virus to become more contagious. By contrast, the lead author of the other bird flu paper, Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, took the H5N1 spike gene and grafted it onto the 2009 H1N1 swine flu. One four-mutation strain of the mongrel virus he produced infected ferrets that breathed in droplets, but did not kill any. The controversy erupted in December when the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity asked that details be removed before the papers were published. On March 30, it reversed itself after a similar panel convened by the World Health Organization recommended publication without censorship. Dr. Kawaoka?s work was published by the journal Nature last month. Dr. Fouchier had to delay until the Dutch government gave him permission, on April 27. Some of the early alarm was fed by Dr. Fouchier speaking at conferences and giving interviews last fall in which he boasted that he had ?done something really, really stupid? and had ?mutated the hell out of H5N1? to create something that was ?very, very bad news.? He said his team had created ?probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make.? After the controversy erupted, he claimed the news media had overblown the danger. Science magazine on Thursday published seven other articles about H5N1. One, by a team at Cambridge, concluded that it was not possible to accurately calculate the likelihood of all five mutations occurring in nature. Up to three in a single human is ?a possibility,? said Derek J. Smith, the lead author. ?Five mutations is pretty difficult, but we don?t yet know how difficult it is,? Dr. Smith said. Having H5N1 still circulating in birds is like ?living on an active fault line,? he said. But asking whether a five-mutation strain could evolve in human hosts, he said, was like asking if it could ever snow in the Sahara ? unlikely, but not inconceivable. Presumably, if an outbreak with several of the most dangerous mutations were spotted, the world would move quickly to try to eradicate it with vaccines and quarantine; whether it would work is an unanswered question. An important result of the controversy, Dr. Fauci said, is that the United States is now drafting new guidelines for dangerous research. For the moment, most researchers are honoring a voluntary moratorium on this line of flu research. Asked if a rogue researcher could now try to duplicate Dr. Fouchier?s work, Dr. Fauci said it was possible. But he argued that open discussion was still better than restriction to a few government-cleared flu researchers, because experts in unrelated fields, like X-ray crystallography or viral epidemiology, might take interest and eventually make important contributions, he said. ?Being in the free and open literature makes it easier to get a lot of the good guys involved than the risk of getting the rare bad guy involved,? he said. Dr. Fouchier said that many papers are published about pathogens more dangerous than flu. Also, many scientists have said that the two papers have been so widely discussed that experts knew every detail anyway. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 21 21:42:10 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:42:10 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Just say no to portmanteaus Message-ID: <8B42DC29-DF19-4FE5-8BA0-223E0565304F@infowarrior.org> Posted at 06:48 PM ET, 06/21/2012 Just say no to portmanteaus By Alexandra Petri http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/just-say-no-to-portmanteaus/2012/06/21/gJQAQfqetV_blog.html Here?s one of the culprits. (Charles Rex Arbogast - AP) For the love of all that is holy, stop the portmanteaus. I am sired! (That?s a portmanteau of sick and tired.) It?s a lot of bullacleWhip (a portmanteau of two substances that are equally terrible). Please. A person wearing jorts is only marginally more ridiculous than a person saying ?jorts.? It was Grexit that pushed me over the edge. No, it was Drachmail. No, it was Renesmee. Some unnatural combinations work. The occasional centaur or mermaid or chimera can be delightful. But for the most part, taking the hind part of one thing and the front part of another and forcing them together makes a hind part of everyone. It?s wrong. It?s obscene. It?s wrobscene. I want to kangle everyone involved in the making of these words. I want to tear out their innards with a spork. We have a perfectly good language full of perfectly beautiful words. Please, stop making verbal centipedes out of them, attaching them where they have no business being attached and forcing them to crawl around, miserable and mangled, until they limp away into the darkness to die. I have nothing against good portmanteaus. History abounds in them. Stagflation. Brunch. Bodacious. Turducken. Cankles, even. A good sprinkling of portmanteaus is acceptable, to add flavor. But we are living in a glut. ?A glutmanteau!? someone exclaims. No. ?A portmantut!? Stop! Just stop! Whenever two words are glimpsed in public together, we insist on flinging them into this unnatural coupling. It?s foul. It?s obscene. Chindown? Taxmageddon? That doesn?t even make sense! Healthymagination, from GE? Funbelievabubble, from Hubba Bubba? Brostache? Just stop. Please. Jup. Stost. Whatever it takes. First it was just a creeping trend with celebrity couples. TomKat. Brangelina. As though, somehow, the effort of saying ?Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? ? or ?Pitt and Jolie?, for that matter ? were too much for our fragile systems. Then suddenly, portmanteaus were everywhere. They were a substitute for creativity. Everyone was shoving words together, willynilly, in a miserable neologistical orgy. Dramedy. Linsanity. Jazzercise. They were multiplying like flies. They were multiflying. (Oh God, make it stop!) Now listen to us. We sound like newspeaking idiots. It?s enough to make me scry. (The more acceptable of the two portmanteaus of cry and scream.) Yes, I know Shakespeare did it first. ?Twangling. Gnarling.? I know. Shakespeare did a lot of things that weren?t right. I hear he seldom flossed. I hear he bequeathed Anne Hathaway his second best bed. I hear under the rose he wrote naughty poetry in a loose hexameter. There are creative ways of playing with words. There?s the application of old roots to new nouns. Dinosaur is a combination of terrible and lizard. But these portmanteaus are a combination of terrible and terrible. Shoving two words into large hadron colliders and sending them reeling into one another, then demanding that everyone use the resulting term, is about as creative as shoving two wrong pieces of a puzzle together. What?s wrong with Greek Exit, for crying out loud? Sure, ?Greek Exit? sounds a little like a euphemism, but most standard nouns with the word Greek in front of them do. A Grexit, on the other hand, sounds like something with large ears that you find chewing on the side of your car. And the list goes on. Pinterest. Obamacare. Gaydar. Snowmageddon. Anything -pocalypse or -mageddon, really. It?s a portmanteaucalypse. Make it stop. Please. It?s a load of ship. And that?s a portmanteau. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 22 08:27:19 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:27:19 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Drawn Movie Dialogue Message-ID: <55FD6CF4-D925-46D5-B069-B0C4D0C82B11@infowarrior.org> To kick off your Friday with some creative levity, here's a brilliant hand-drawn cartoon depicting all of Chewbacca's dialogue scenes from 'Star Wars' -- http://www.savagechickens.com/chewbacca Just some humour to begin the weekend! Keep cool, -- rick --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 22 09:47:57 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Dig, dig, dig: Carreon might need a backhoe soon Message-ID: <8B779686-C5EA-4579-8FDF-5C30368ED4F5@infowarrior.org> Carreon Admits His Original Threat Letter Was A Mistake, But Keeps On Digging Anyway from the stop-digging,-charles dept Another day, and still, Charles Carreon keeps digging. In case you just woke up from a coma, here are all the earlier posts on Carreon. The latest is both a bizarre semi-backtrack, as well as another case of him feverishly continuing to dig that Carreon Effect hole deeper and deeper. The "backtrack" comes to us via Popehat, pointing us to an interview with Carreon in which he admits that the letter he sent to kick off this whole mess... was a mistake. Yes. You read that right .... BUT....... < - > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/00494419424/carreon-admits-his-original-threat-letter-was-mistake-keeps-digging-anyway.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 22 13:08:42 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - RIAA's New War: Shutting Down The Equivalent Of Internet VCRs Message-ID: RIAA's New War: Shutting Down The Equivalent Of Internet VCRs from the the-virtual-boston-strangler dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/08220419435/riaas-new-war-shutting-down-equivalent-internet-vcrs.shtml The entertainment industry just won't quit trying to kill perfectly legal technologies with substantial non-infringing uses. Back during the big legal fight over Grokster, the RIAA insisted that it had absolutely no interest in stopping technologies people used to record things. In fact, Consumer Electronics Association CEO Gary Shapiro reminded them of this promise after the RIAA went after XM Radio's device to record broadcasts. It appears that the RIAA has no problem continuing to go against its word. Its latest move is to send a letter to CNET, asking it to remove tools from Download.com that can be used to record videos from YouTube. Of course, there a tons of legitimate uses for such tools. Just as you can legally record shows off of TV (thank you Supreme Court), you should be able to record stuff on YouTube (related: shame on Google for blocking such tools as well). Of course, from the parts of the RIAA's request that have been made public by Greg Sandoval at CNET, it sounds like the RIAA isn't directly making a legal threat (which would be tough, given CNET's role as a fourth party service provider for third party tools which might be used to infringe), but rather appealing to its parent company, CBS, arguing that because such tools and their substantial non-infringing uses might also be used to record CBS content (again, just like the VCR), that they should want to put an end to them.. Thankfully, it sounds like CNET has no interest in complying. However, given the RIAA's promises during the Grokster case that it had no interest in blocking such technologies, it seems that, once again, the RIAA has been shown as liars who have no compunction about blocking perfectly legal technologies, just because they haven't figured out how to adapt to modern times. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 22 13:17:58 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:17:58 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Bachelor's degree: Has it lost its edge and its value? Message-ID: <9CB02E7A-37C5-404A-99AA-CC3A0A068CBD@infowarrior.org> Bachelor's degree: Has it lost its edge and its value? Doubts about the value of a bachelor's degree creates new routes to careers. This is part of the cover story project in the June 18, 2012 issue of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly magazine. http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2012/0617/Bachelor-s-degree-Has-it-lost-its-edge-and-its-value?google_editors_picks=true --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 22 13:21:40 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:21:40 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - USOC takes on Ravelry knitters Message-ID: <7ABC5878-A91B-4570-90D4-A7BDF283B45E@infowarrior.org> US Olympic Committee says sorry to knitters whom it claimed "denigrated" the games By Cory Doctorow at 9:44 am Friday, Jun 22 The US Olympic Committee has apologized for describing the knitters' Ravelympics as "denigrating" to real athletes. Ravelympics are an activity on Ravelry, a community for knitters, in which members compete to complete knitting projects while watching Olympic events, producing hybrids like the "afghan marathon" and "scarf hockey." The Olympic Committee, worried that they will have a hard time raising millions for giant, evil companies like Dow Chemicals if knitters are allowed to share patterns that include the Olympic rings, sent a grossly insulting legal threat to the knitters of Ravelry: < - > We believe using the name "Ravelympics" for a competition that involves an afghan marathon, scarf hockey and sweater triathlon, among others, tends to denigrate the true nature of the Olympic Games. In a sense, it is disrespectful to our country's finest athletes and fails to recognize or appreciate their hard work. <-> After a lot of hue and cry, the USOC said sorry, and suggested that knitters could give away the stuff they make to the USOC. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 22 13:37:59 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:37:59 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Twitter is quite thin-skinned, it seems Message-ID: CascadedBug parodies Twitter's crashes, gets suspended By Salvador Rodriguez June 22, 2012, 11:16 a.m. http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-twitter-cascaded-bug-20120622,0,651905.story Twitter on Thursday was plagued by crashes that knocked the site offline and even required the company to revert back to an older version to function. The cause of the crashes? A cascaded bug. Don't worry. If you don't know what that is, that just means you're normal. A cascaded bug, Twitter explained, is when a glitch occurs in the software but spills over to other parts of the system too -- "cascading," essentially. But one user disagreed. To that person, a cascaded bug was just an opportunity to poke fun at Twitter's crashes Thursday, and so that person did. "Gnawing on a few cables in Twitter's mainframe. You'll never find me, engineering nerds!" the user tweeted a few hours after Twitter's biggest crash Thursday. For its next tweet, @CascadedBug taunted Twitter directly by tweeting at the social network. "Hey @Twitter, I'm not a bug, I'm a feature," the user tweeted. And that apparently struck a nerve with the startup, which not long after suspended the @CascadedBug account. But not long after, Twitter went ahead and unsuspended the account causing the bug to tweet "First I'm 'suspended,' then I'm not, then I'm 'suspended again,' now I'm not. Am I the only bug in this mainframe?" But it seems the jokester's days of mocking Twitter could be completely over. Mashable, which did a Q&A with the bug, reports that the account has been suspended once again. "R.I.P., @CascadedBug," the post reads. The account, which was up for less than a day, was fun while it lasted, but it shows a darker side to Twitter's standards. Parody accounts show up all the time, and many are left unchecked, just like this @ZooeySiri account that we wrote about earlier this week. But it seems that when the focus of the parody is Twitter, you should take your jokes to a different social network. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 22 21:21:49 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:21:49 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - ITU denies plans for global internet power-grab Message-ID: ITU denies plans for global internet power-grab By Iain Thomson in San Francisco Posted in Networks, 22nd June 2012 22:58 GMT http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/22/itu_plans_internet_regulation/ The ITU has finalized its proposals for rewriting the regulations governing internet traffic, which will be decided at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WC-IT) being held in Dubai this December. The eleven-day conference will host the rewriting of the international telecommunication regulations (ITRs) that govern the world's communications traffic. This will be the first revision since the last conference in 1988, and the ITU Secretary-General Dr Hamadoun Tour? said that change was essential to kick-start the "knowledge economy." But worrisome proposals for taxing communications, reworking the system of DNS controls, and abandoning network neutrality have been leaked, and even the paralyzingly fractious US Congress has been concerned enough to manage a unanimous resolution reminding the Obama administration of the importance of an open internet. At a press conference in Geneva on Friday, the director of the ITU's standards bureau Malcolm Johnson said that the final proposals had now been hammered out and would be distributed to members shortly. World regions will have a final meeting to decide a common agenda ahead of the talks to try and make consensus easier. "We have a long tradition of cooperation and consensus building," Tour? said. "People may have differences but I believe that we can have friction of ideas, and from friction comes life." The proposals cover a broad range of areas, even down to trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help the disabled online, but the key proposals that have been causing much concern (repeatedly described at the press conference as "delicate issues") are all there: taxation, traffic management, routing, and the worryingly unspecific "general principles on economic issues". One area the ITU seeks to repeatedly reassure about, however, is that the organization has no intention of trying to wrest control of the internet by regulation. Fears of a UN takeover of the online world have been touted by some, but the ITU is firm in its denial. "There has been some mention that somehow the ITU would give itself overall worldwide regulatory authority," said ITU facilitator Richard Hill. "There are no proposals along those lines. The proposals are that the individual countries should take action in these particular areas." Nevertheless, concerns are there. Part of the problem is that the ITU has not been very forthcoming with proposal information. Those documents that have come into circulation, thanks in large part to the wcitleaks website set up to publish them, could alarm "credulous members of the public," Tour? said, but Friday's document dump shows almost nothing of the crucial wording of the proposals, only their general outlines. On network neutrality, for example, the ITU's briefing paper states "it has been proposed to replace 'minimum quality of service' in Article 4.3 with 'satisfactory quality of service,' while administrations should ensure that there is transparency in this area so consumers know exactly what they are getting," which could cover a multitude of sins. "They seem concerned, on defensive, over the transparency issue," Eli Dourado, cofounder of wcitleaks and research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, told The Register. However, there wasn't enough information out there as yet, and he said wcitleaks would continue to try and fill the gap. Dourado also pointed out that the current ITR system was certainly working well enough for the time being, and even the telecommunications industry is split on the need for change ? US operators are broadly happy with the current state of play while Europe hungers for a chance to rewrite the rules. While some non-state organizations will be at the WC-IT conference, it's not for you nor me. The public might be granted access to some of the discussion sessions ? it depends if the delegates decide to allow it ? and webcasts are planned. But Dubai is a long way to go on the off-chance of getting in, although the weather in the United Arab Emirates is delightfully warm during the cold Northern winter months. "It's hardly reassuring to see governments, and those industry organizations that are able to pay the significant membership dues, will go off to this luxurious spot and tell us everything will be just fine," Harold Feld, legal director of internet advocacy group Public Knowledge, told The Register. WC-IT was being dogged by lurid rumors of a takeover by the UN, but this wasn't the case, he explained. But some of the changes being discussed would have profound effects of the internet and its users, notably in terms of civil rights. At the same time, there is a growing momentum for change. Plenty of countries are unhappy at the amount of influence the US has over internet policy and management, he said, and traditional telecommunications firms might long for the good old days of monopoly as they fight to stay profitable in the internet age. One complicating factor is the US presidential election. The identity of the next president will have been decided by this December, but the presidency won't officially enter its next term until the inauguration in January. If President Obama loses, this would leave negotiators in Dubai who know they will be fired upon their return. To complicate things further, if Mitt Romney does enter the Oval Office, then the Republican Party ? which has a somewhat rocky relationship with the UN ? may not be keen to sign up to the policies decided by the oh-so-socialist Democrats. But they may have little choice, since Congress doesn't get to vote on the new ITR, Feld explained. This would be a modification to an existing treaty that the US has already signed and ratified, and so technically can go through on the nod. The US first signed up to telecommunications treaties with the ITU over a century ago, back when the telegraph was king, so special measures would be needed if the regulations were to be stopped ? and the results could be unfortunate. "The US reserves the right to disregard ITRs," Feld explained. "But if everyone else agrees to implement them and the US is the only holdout, then it doesn't leave you in a good place." ? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 25 06:40:35 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:40:35 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Winamp's woes: how the greatest MP3 player undid itself Message-ID: <910F9716-B877-40AE-9242-55FA3D34C060@infowarrior.org> Winamp's woes: how the greatest MP3 player undid itself http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/06/winamp-how-greatest-mp3-player-undid-itself/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 25 07:15:12 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:15:12 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Cyber=3A_A_Weapon_We_Can=92t_Con?= =?windows-1252?q?trol?= Message-ID: <7A45974A-30C2-4E99-BF42-5F9D4F73BCAE@infowarrior.org> A Weapon We Can?t Control By MISHA GLENNY Published: June 24, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/stuxnet-will-come-back-to-haunt-us.html?hpw THE decision by the United States and Israel to develop and then deploy the Stuxnet computer worm against an Iranian nuclear facility late in George W. Bush?s presidency marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet. Washington has begun to cross the Rubicon. If it continues, contemporary warfare will change fundamentally as we move into hazardous and uncharted territory. It is one thing to write viruses and lock them away safely for future use should circumstances dictate it. It is quite another to deploy them in peacetime. Stuxnet has effectively fired the starting gun in a new arms race that is very likely to lead to the spread of similar and still more powerful offensive cyberweaponry across the Internet. Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, however, countries are developing cyberweapons outside any regulatory framework. There is no international treaty or agreement restricting the use of cyberweapons, which can do anything from controlling an individual laptop to disrupting an entire country?s critical telecommunications or banking infrastructure. It is in the United States? interest to push for one before the monster it has unleashed comes home to roost. Stuxnet was originally deployed with the specific aim of infecting the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Iran. This required sneaking a memory stick into the plant to introduce the virus to its private and secure ?offline? network. But despite Natanz?s isolation, Stuxnet somehow escaped into the cyberwild, eventually affecting hundreds of thousands of systems worldwide. This is one of the frightening dangers of an uncontrolled arms race in cyberspace; once released, virus developers generally lose control of their inventions, which will inevitably seek out and attack the networks of innocent parties. Moreover, all countries that possess an offensive cyber capability will be tempted to use it now that the first shot has been fired. Until recent revelations by The New York Times?s David E. Sanger, there was no definitive proof that America was behind Stuxnet. Now computer security experts have found a clear link between its creators and a newly discovered virus called Flame, which transforms infected computers into multipurpose espionage tools and has infected machines across the Middle East. The United States has long been a commendable leader in combating the spread of malicious computer code, known as malware, that pranksters, criminals, intelligence services and terrorist organizations have been using to further their own ends. But by introducing such pernicious viruses as Stuxnet and Flame, America has severely undermined its moral and political credibility. Flame circulated on the Web for at least four years and evaded detection by the big antivirus operators like McAfee, Symantec, Kaspersky Labs and F-Secure ? companies that are vital to ensuring that law-abiding consumers can go about their business on the Web unmolested by the army of malware writers, who release nasty computer code onto the Internet to steal our money, data, intellectual property or identities. But senior industry figures have now expressed deep worries about the state-sponsored release of the most potent malware ever seen. During the cold war, countries? chief assets were missiles with nuclear warheads. Generally their number and location was common knowledge, as was the damage they could inflict and how long it would take them to inflict it. Advanced cyberwar is different: a country?s assets lie as much in the weaknesses of enemy computer defenses as in the power of the weapons it possesses. So in order to assess one?s own capability, there is a strong temptation to penetrate the enemy?s systems before a conflict erupts. It is no good trying to hit them once hostilities have broken out; they will be prepared and there?s a risk that they already will have infected your systems. Once the logic of cyberwarfare takes hold, it is worryingly pre-emptive and can lead to the uncontrolled spread of malware. Until now, America has been reluctant to discuss regulation of the Internet with Russia and China. Washington believes any moves toward a treaty might undermine its presumed superiority in the field of cyberweaponry and robotics. And it fears that Moscow and Beijing would exploit a global regulation of military activity on the Web, in order to justify and further strengthen the powerful tools they already use to restrict their citizens? freedom on the Net. The United States must now consider entering into discussions, anathema though they may be, with the world?s major powers about the rules governing the Internet as a military domain. Any agreement should regulate only military uses of the Internet and should specifically avoid any clauses that might affect private or commercial use of the Web. Nobody can halt the worldwide rush to create cyberweapons, but a treaty could prevent their deployment in peacetime and allow for a collective response to countries or organizations that violate it. Technical superiority is not written in stone, and the United States is arguably more dependent on networked computer systems than any other country in the world. Washington must halt the spiral toward an arms race, which, in the long term, it is not guaranteed to win. Misha Glenny, a visiting professor at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, is the author of ?DarkMarket: Cyberthieves, Cybercops and You.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 25 09:37:49 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:37:49 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT OpEd: Why my child will be your child's boss Message-ID: <8167C768-ED78-4DF6-ACF9-12363B3243E0@infowarrior.org> June 18, 2012 8:53 AM Why my child will be your child's boss By Suzanne Lucas http://www.cbsnews.com/2102-505125_162-57455011.html (MoneyWatch) COMMENTARY Saws. The kind you buy at the hardware store to cut wood. That's what the play-group teacher dumped on the ground for 3- and 4-year-old kids to play with. Knowing that doing this, in the U.S., would result in the teacher being, at minimum, fired and most likely charged with child endangerment, I had visions of emergency room trips and severed limbs dancing through my mind. But this happened not in the U.S. but in Switzerland, where they believe children are capable of handling saws at age 3 and where kindergarten teachers counsel parents to let their 4- and 5-year-olds walk to school alone. "Children have pride when they can walk by themselves," the head of the M?nchenstein, Switzerland, Kindergartens said last week at a parents meeting, reminding those in attendance that after the first few weeks of school children should be walking with friends, not mom. So looking down at the saws, I tried to hide my American-bred fear and casually asked the teacher about her procedures in case of emergencies. She rattled them off to me in perfect English (that's another thing the Swiss believe -- that anyone is capable of learning multiple languages), but added, "I've been a forest play-group teacher for 10 years, and I've never had to call a parent because of injury." What's a "forest" teacher? (No, that 's not a typo or pre-school name.) That alludes to a tradition here that we signed our 3-year-old up for. Every Friday, whether rain, shine, snow, or heat, he goes into the forest for four hours with 10 other children. In addition to playing with saws and files, they roast their own hot dogs over an open fire. If a child drops a hot dog, the teacher picks it up, brushes the dirt off, and hands it back. The school year ends next week, and so far the only injury has been one two millimeter long cut received from a pocket knife. The teacher slapped a cartoon band-aid on it and all was well. No injury form to fill out. No trip to the doctor for an extra tetanus booster. No panic. In fact, she didn't even think it necessary to mention the incident to me. Which it wasn't. Does this mean that Swiss children are capable of handling saws and crossing roads at the same age that American parents are still cutting their children's food and getting arrested for letting them go to the park? Lenore Skenazy's Free Range Kids tracks the stories of how we're failing to prepare our children for leadership. Many parents in U.S. seem to be convinced that children are incapable of making any of their own decisions or even functioning by themselves at the playground. While a high school principal recently threatened to suspend a group of seniors for the dangerous act of riding their bikes to school, and a group of parents protested that their misbehaving 17-18 year-olds were sent home alone on a train, I looked around me and saw 4-year-olds walking to school by themselves and teenagers also traveling alone across Europe, handling transactions with different currency and in different languages. The leadership at many American companies were raised in a similar way to the Swiss children in my neighborhood. Boys had pocket knives. Everyone rode bikes to school. Kids started babysitting other children at 11- or 12-years-old. Now? We coddle and protect and argue with teachers when our little darlings receive anything worse than an A on a paper. The result? Well, the preliminary results from this method of parenting are hitting the workforce now. They are poor communicators who insist on using text-speak. Their mothers are calling employers. They believe they should be given rewards and promotions for the act of showing up to work on time. If this trend in the U.S. continues, American children will become more crippled in their ability to make their own decisions (mom is always around), manage risk (at what age do you become magically able to use a saw?) or overcome a setback (you learn nothing when mom and dad sue the school district to get your grade changed). By contrast, my son learns about risk management every week. He'll be in a school system that has no qualms about holding a child back if he doesn't understand the material. And "helicopter" parenting? Not tolerated by the schools or the other mothers at the playground. So, while he's 4 and generally covered in dirt, I suspect he'll be more prepared for leadership when we move back to the U.S. than will children who have no freedom and responsibility and face no consequences. That is, if he doesn't cut off his own hand with the saw. ? 2012 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 25 10:35:16 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Boeing's 747-400, a Faded Queen of the Skies Message-ID: <09BE764D-5C6B-4064-A143-56175376636E@infowarrior.org> I've not flown the A380 yet but I'm hard-pressed to see how anything can compare to the 747 on longhaul flights. Call me old fashioned if you want. ---rick Boeing's 747-400, a Faded Queen of the Skies By Kyunghee Park and Andrea Rothman on June 21, 2012 http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/58194-boeings-747-400-a-faded-queen-of-the-skies Back in the late ?80s, global airlines scrambled to place orders for Boeing?s (BA) 747-400 widebody, then the industry?s most coveted aircraft for its sheer size, high-tech cockpit, and creature comforts. Now, ten-year-old passenger 747-400s are worth a record-low $36 million, about 10 percent less than similarly aged planes last year, according to London-based aviation consultancy Ascend, as carriers seek more fuel-efficient models. There?s even little interest in converting the passenger jets into ?air freighters because of a slump in air cargo demand. Some 48 of the humpbacked passenger 747-400s worldwide have also been placed in storage, according to Ascend. The onetime ?Queen of the Skies? has been shunned in favor of Boeing?s smaller 777 widebody (which has two fewer engines sucking fuel) or Airbus?s mammoth A380 double-decker. ?There?s not a lot of demand for the 747,? says Paul Sheridan, Ascend?s head of consultancy Asia. ?They?re mostly being broken up for parts.? The decline in prices contributed to Singapore Airlines (SIA2) having a surprise loss in the quarter ended March after the sale of the carrier?s last 747-400 brought in less than it expected. Japan Airlines has stopped using the planes, and operators including Cathay Pacific Airways, Korean Air Lines, and Malaysian Airline System (MAS) are following suit to help counter jet fuel prices that have jumped about 30 percent in two years. ?When oil prices are high,? explains Cathay Pacific Chief Executive Officer John Slosar, ?the last thing you want to do is hold on to your older planes.? The Hong Kong-based airline said last month that it?s speeding up the retirement of its 21 passenger 747-400s. The carrier will shed nine through early 2014 as it adds more 777-300ERs for long-haul flights. Cathay is also retiring three 400-series freighters this year due to the arrival of new 747-8 cargo planes that are slightly larger and more fuel-efficient. Although the original 747 was developed in the 1960s, the first 400 variant?which was more fuel-efficient and required one fewer cockpit crew member?was delivered to Northwest Airlines in 1989. The standard version can fly as far as 7,260 nautical miles (13,450 kilometers), carrying 416 passengers in three classes. Boeing delivered the last of the 400s series jets?all told, some 694 were sold?in 2009. Newer aircraft use less fuel because of the development of more efficient engines and of lightweight materials. Boeing?s new 787, for instance, has a fuselage built from reinforced plastics, compared with the 747?s heavier aluminum shell. ?We?re seeing a lot of airlines understanding that they need more fuel-efficient planes, and that bodes very well for us,? says Jim Albaugh, the head of Boeing?s commercial-plane business. But such changes also can provide rivals an opening. Thai Airways International (THAI) is in the process of selling four 747-400s and it will begin phasing out the model in 2013. The carrier will begin receiving six of the A380s it has on order later this year. Flying 747-400s now ?doesn?t make sense,? Amranand says. ?It?s obvious that with this sort of fuel price that it will cost you.? Simple math tells the story. Malaysian Airline System, which received its first A380 last month, will consume 1,181 barrels of fuel flying the 494-seat aircraft to London from Kuala Lumpur, according to Maybank Kim Eng Securities (MAY) analyst Wong Chew Hann. The carrier?s 359-seat 747-400s use about 999 barrels of fuel on the same route, he says. Fuel accounts for about a third of airlines? costs, according to the International Air Transport Association, so the Airbus jumbo?s 16 percent edge in per-passenger efficiency is a big selling point. The A380, which surpassed the 747-400 as the world?s largest commercial plane when it entered service in 2007, has become the flagship for carriers including Singapore Air and Qantas Airways (QUBSF). That?s left rivals still reliant on the 400 series at a disadvantage in terms of costs and prestige, says Maybank?s Wong. ?It takes an A380 to beat an A380,? he wrote in a June 8 research note. European carriers, operating in slower-growth markets, are replacing 747-400s less quickly. British Airways, the biggest 747-400 operator with its fleet of 55, according to Ascend, will retire the last of its fleet in about 10 years. ?It?s a great aircraft. Customers love it,? says Willie Walsh, chief executive of BA?s parent, International Consolidated Airlines Group (IAG). ?We could replace some of them with 777-300ERs, which we are doing, but we are not looking to replace all of them.? Nonetheless, BA has also ordered 12 Airbus A380s, which will start arriving in about a year. Although Deutsche Lufthansa (LHA) is already flying A380s and has ordered some 747-8s, it will still continue using its 400 series planes. ?We will use it for quite a number of years,? says CEO Christoph Franz. One reason for the loyalty: Lufthansa owns them outright and their costs have long been accounted for. The bottom line: Prices for used 747-400s, the world?s most popular widebody plane, have dropped 10 percent in the past year. Blame it on costly fuel. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 25 11:52:11 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:52:11 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Error 451: This Page Has Been Burned Message-ID: I like this IETF proposal....'tis both practical and philosophical. -- rick Error 451: This Page Has Been Burned By Scott Gilbertson http://www.webmonkey.com/2012/06/error-451-this-page-has-been-burned Earlier this month Google developer advocate Tim Bray proposed a new HTTP Error status code aimed at shining a light on web censorship. Bray?s new Error 451 would work somewhat like the Error 404 pages you?ve probably seen. But instead of telling you that the page could not be found, an Error 451 response would let you know that the page you were looking for had been censored. The number is a tribute to author Ray Bradbury (commenters on a Slashdot thread independently suggested 451 as well). As it stands most web blocking tools return a 403 error (which means access is forbidden) when denying access to censored pages. For instance U.K. ISPs, which are now required to block The Pirate Bay, typically return a 403 error code when doing so. The main advantage of the proposed 451 code is that it would add an explanation of why the content was unavailable. ?Responses using this status code should include an explanation, in the response body, of the details of the legal restriction,? writes Bray in his proposal. Details would include tidbits like which legal authority is imposing the restriction, and what class of resources it applies to. That would mean ISPs could return a message absolving themselves and letting citizens know that the government, not the ISP, is censoring the web. Bray notes in the proposal that many governments might not want such censorship transparency and would likely take steps to prevent it. As such the 451 status code would be optional and clients (like your web browser) are instructed not to rely upon its use. It also remains to be seen whether the Internet Engineering Task Force, which oversees standards like HTTP error codes, will approve of the idea. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 25 12:17:57 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:17:57 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Facebook_Changed_Everyone=92s_Em?= =?windows-1252?q?ail_to_=40Facebook=2Ecom=3B_Here=92s_How_to_Fix_It?= Message-ID: Facebook Changed Everyone?s Email to @Facebook.com; Here?s How to Fix It http://lifehacker.com/5921095/facebook-just-changed-your-email-without-your-permission-heres-how-to-get-it-back Facebook just removed everyone's email address from their profile and replaced it with an @facebook.com email address without asking you. Here's how to easily fix the problem. Long ago, Facebook launched its own email service, which was promptly forgotten by everyone. Recently, they removed everyone's email addresses from their profile, replacing them with a @facebook.com email address instead (not Facebook's internal email address which they use for notifications and password resets, just the one listed on your profile). Luckily, your old addresses are very easy to get back on your profile: ? Click "About" on your profile and scroll down to your email address. Click "Edit" to change them. ? Click on the circle next to your Facebook email address and change its setting to "Hidden From Timeline". ? Click on the circle next to your other email addresses and change their settings to "Shown On Timeline". ? Click the Save button at the bottom of the Edit popup (Don't forget this step). That's all it takes. It's a really quick fix, but it was a big jerk move for Facebook to do this without asking permission, or even telling you that it happened. Spread this info around so people don't get stuck without any contact information, too, lest we lose the one aspect of Facebook that was still useful. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 25 16:35:29 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:35:29 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Putin Wants a DARPA of His Own Message-ID: <3970F34B-C562-4387-A63A-2EE8E9C9DDEC@infowarrior.org> Putin Wants a Darpa of His Own ? By Robert Beckhusen ? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/darpaski/ ? June 25, 2012 | ? 6:30 am | ? Categories: Russia In recent years, the US government has created research agencies for homeland security, intelligence, and energy ? all modeled on the Pentagon?s mad-scientist arm, Darpa. Now Russia has gotten the bug, too. Russian industry and defense leaders announced plans last week to bankroll the Russian Foundation for Advanced Research Projects in the Defense Industry. Russia?s newly re-coronated president, Vladimir Putin, has already sent a bill to parliament to authorize the agency, which will be tasked with keeping track of projects that ?can ensure Russian superiority in defense technology,? according to news service RIA Novosti. One possible location is near the Gromov Flight Research Institute ? an experimental aircraft test base ? to Moscow?s southeast. The future site, though, may also resemble the Skolkovo Innovation Center, a sort of Silicon Valley for Russia?s high-tech companies located on the city?s opposite end. But instead of focusing on civilian IT and biotech like at Skolkovo, the companies near Gromov would take charge of ?all high-risk and fundamental research projects in the military-industrial complex,? Dmitry Rogozin, chief of Russia?s defense industry, said. Basically, Russia wants to modernize, and needs its own far-out research department to do it. Its military is getting old and risks becoming dependent on other (read: more advanced) countries. It?s also a part of a larger Russian push for more military tech. And there?s no telling what projects the agency could come up with. Perhaps the agency, when open for business, can take on the task of controlling our minds and constructing robots that will keep the human brain alive forever. It?s also necessary if Russia is serious about moving forward on plans to build advanced drones and new long-range bombers. Russia has a stealthy new fighter, the PAK FA (or T-50), but it probably doesn?t have the radar, avionics and other advanced technology like the F-22. Russia is interested in making directed energy weapons, like the Pentagon?s Active Denial System, while at the same time being morewilling to use them to zap crowds. There are plans to upgrade submarines and stealth-killing radars. There is also competition from China, which is boosting its defense budget and has its own Darpa-like tech programs. China has a stealth fighter of its own: the J-20. China?s navy may not be alarming, but its missiles are increasingly lethal, and Beijing is catching up in space. Another problem is that Russia has traditionally built its military around quantity, not quality. It?s been slow to modernize, and the civilian sector has historically been left out, nor did it compete for contracts. That?s changed, but scattered private firms without oversight can also bog down development. Russia?s missile-defense-dodging Bulava ballistic missile was prone to delays and test failures during development. Officials blamed the hundreds of subcontractors supplying parts, with varying degrees of quality. Russian defense subcontractors are also prone to duplicating work because Russia has no centralized database to track research projects. Still, it won?t be as easy as building a database. The agency comes just as Russia is preparing a major arms build-up after nearly two decades of austerity. That means Darpaski has some catching up to do. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 25 17:25:06 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Former Righthaven CEO Secretly Hires Lawyers For The Company He No Longer Has Anything To Do With Message-ID: <89051CD1-4E9F-49AC-9580-D38440F1266C@infowarrior.org> Former Righthaven CEO Secretly Hires Lawyers For The Company He No Longer Has Anything To Do With from the that's-not-right dept We'd pretty much thought that the Righthaven saga was over. After all, the company had gone into receivership back in December, and the court-appointed receiver had been auctioning off what little assets the company had in an attempt to satisfy all of the court-ordered attorneys' fees that Righthaven owed to the lawyers of some of the many defendants that Righthaven sued for copyright infringement on a repeatedly-rejected legal theory. At the same time, the CEO/founder of Righthaven, Steve Gibson had stopped showing up in court, had taken another job, and was being investigated by the Nevada State Bar. As far as the court-appointed receiver, Lara Pearson, knew, Gibson and his wife Raisha "Drizzle" Gibson (who had been "COO" of Righthaven) no longer had anything to do with the company. And then... she discovered that Gibson had somehow secured another law firm to supposedly represent "Righthaven" in its appeal of the Hoehn case (the first of the big losses that resulted in attorneys' fees being owed). That firm apparently tried to file some documents in the appeal six months late. This was quite a surprise, and Pearson reacted, as she should, by sending notices to both Gibsons, to the law firm that they employed and to the court explaining why this was ridiculous. In the letters, you can tell that Pearson is quite reasonably angry with the Gibsons, whom she reminds no longer have control over the firm, and makes it explicit to them that they were fired back in December. On top of that, she explains her intent to take legal action against the Gibsons for legal malpractice ... < - > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/13255419469/former-righthaven-ceo-secretly-hires-lawyers-company-he-no-longer-has-anything-to-do-with.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 25 21:37:36 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:37:36 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DNI tightens security rules to avert leaks to media Message-ID: <636109F2-6104-4042-AEA4-8A8194221B16@infowarrior.org> http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/25/12400797-james-clapper-top-us-i ntelligence-official-tightens-security-rules-to-avert-leaks-to-media?lite James Clapper, top U.S. intelligence official, tightens security rules to avert leaks to media By Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube, NBC U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Monday mandated new measures, including lie-detector tests, to prevent and detect unauthorized leaks of sensitive national security information to reporters. The move is an attempt by Clapper to take the Central Intelligence Agency's strict policy regarding leaks of classified information and apply it to employees of the Intelligence Community. The Intelligence Community is a coalition of 17 agencies and organizations within the executive branch, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Energy, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office and the National Security Agency. Clapper's move comes in the wake of news reports derived from leaked information about U.S. involvement in cyberattacks on Iran and an alleged al-Qaida plot to bomb a U.S.-bound flight. From now on, the polygraph test for anyone seeking a classified clearance for any intelligence service will include a specific question regarding contact with journalists and unauthorized leaks to the media. In the event of a leak, anyone in the Intelligence Community who would have had access to the leaked information is subject to a polygraph test regarding that specific leak. Anyone who fails could have their security clearance revoked and could be subject to a criminal investigation. Anyone who refuses the polygraph would immediately have their security clearance revoked and could be subject to additional administrative action and a criminal investigation. Also under consider are provisions that would require anyone with a security clearance within the Intelligence Community to report any substantive contact with members of the media or any arranged meeting or any encounter where business was discussed. These new rules do not apply to U.S. military with security clearances not assigned to an intelligence agency, or to White House officials or members of Congress. Clapper said the inspector general of the Intelligence Community will conduct independent investigations to ensure that unauthorized disclosure cases suitable for administrative investigations are not closed prematurely. "These efforts will reinforce our professional values by sending a strong message that intelligence personnel always have, and always will, hold ourselves to the highest standard of professionalism," said Clapper. "It is my sincere hope that others across the government will follow our lead. It is the right thing to do on behalf of the American people and in the interest of our national security." Senior U.S. officials tell NBC News that in the end, these new guideline may have little practical effect, since most of the leaks traditionally come from reporters' sources who do not work directly for the intelligence community. Two U.S. attorneys have been appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder to lead a Justice Department inquiry of the recent leaks. Republicans have suggested the leaks were orchestrated to boost President Barack Obama's re-election bid. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jun 25 21:39:45 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:39:45 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Defense Industry Shill: Give Lockheed Credit for Bin Laden Kill Message-ID: <9E525ACF-27C1-4DC5-A7EB-E2432DD673DC@infowarrior.org> Danger Room (Wired.com) June 25, 2012 Defense Industry Shill: Give Lockheed Credit for Bin Laden Kill By Spencer Ackerman http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/lexington-seals-corporations/ Shed a tear for the executives at Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and the rest of the sprawling defense industry. Yes, they benefit from billions in taxpayer dollars while millions of Americans struggle to make ends meet. But they?re not getting the praise they deserve for killing Osama bin Laden. Wait, what? That is an actual argument made by Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a Beltway research group that reliably represents the interests of defense contractors. Thompson wants President Obama to tip his cap to the defense companies whose hardware and software SEAL Team Six and the CIA used to kill Osama bin Laden. ?[I]s it really asking too much for some sort of official acknowledgement of the role that private enterprise played in the Bin Laden raid?? Thompson asks in a Monday op-ed. Boeing?s Chinook helos, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman?s sensors, Lockheed Martin?s stealth drone ? all these things the SEALs carried, Thompson writes, so it?s time the defense industry got its due. Yes, the SEALs had impressive gear for the raid, from stealth helicopters to powerful satellites. But if you gave, say, me every piece of equipment that the SEALs had, I regret to inform you that bin Laden would still be alive. Louisville Slugger did not win last year?s World Series. Mario Manningham?s cleats did not keep him in bounds for one of the greatest receptions in Super Bowl history. Even the haters must recognize that LeBron James? NBA Finals performance is not attributable to Nike or Gatorade. In truth, defense corporations receive a different form of acknowledgement for their services: giant Defense Department contracts. Unlike SEALs, the defense industry?s reward isn?t always based on performance. And if Thompson wants to give ?some sort of official acknowledgement? to defense corporations, why stop there? Why not honor the welders who assembled the helicopters; the designers of the algorithms that underlay the sensor processors; or the laborers who mined the metals from the earth contained in the stuff the SEALs used on the raid? Alternatively, why not credit the defense industry?s gear for the success of routine patrols in Afghanistan? Thompson is a defense consultant for profit as well as a military analyst, an inherent conflict of interest. His writing, like that of Lexington?s, more broadly, consistently cheerleads for the defense industry. And it?s especially conspicuous that Thompson?s op-ed is published on the same day that Politico reports Lockheed Martin is threatening to throw thousands of people out of work before a presidential election unless Congress rolls back hundreds of billions of dollars in defense cuts that its failed deficit-reduction gambit teed up. The defense industry makes valuable things for troops, and it makes dubious things. It offers the promise of future US military supremacy and overpriced, lucrative boondoggles, sometimes all at once. It acts selflessly and it acts shabbily. If the industry feels slighted for a lack of public recognition in any military operation, they?ll just have to console themselves with giant stacks of taxpayer money. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 07:55:27 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - more on (1): Defense Industry Shill: Give Lockheed Credit for Bin Laden Kill Message-ID: <65351315-329E-4C56-97DF-ACA897309AAA@infowarrior.org> Loren's rebuttal to the outcry from his first blog post yesterday. -- rick LexingtonInstitute.org June 25, 2012 Early Warning Blog Obama Backers Give Short Shrift To Industry In Bin Laden Takedown Tale Author: Loren Thompson, Ph.D. Supporters of President Obama's reelection apparently have decided that when it comes to discussing his record as commander in chief, Exhibit A has to be the takedown of Al Qaeda kingpin Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan last year. A coterie of current and former Pentagon officials has been making the rounds at think tanks and on the Georgetown cocktail circuit, lauding Mr. Obama's courage in undertaking what by all accounts was a risky mission. And why shouldn't they? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney spent seven years looking for the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, and never managed to corner him. That didn't exactly send the right message to other extremists who might have sought to imitate Bin Laden's example. If you read the published accounts of how he was finally killed, it is clear most of the relevant action occurred on President Obama's watch -- from the tracking of a key courier to the identification of Bin Laden's compound near Islamabad to the daring raid by Navy SEALS. So I'm not going to criticize Obama's backers for highlighting a clear-cut victory in what used to be called the global war on terror. But I am going to complain about the player that wasn't invited to their victory celebration: the defense industry. No doubt about it, the president took a big risk that paid off, the SEALS deserve their commendations and the intelligence community regained its reputation for world-class sleuthing. But would any of this have been possible without the secret technology provided by the defense industry? Probably not. According to the New York Times, intelligence analysts spent weeks poring over satellite imagery of Bin Laden's compound once his courier was tracked to the area making certain they had enough hard information to justify a raid into Pakistan. They also began monitoring the compound using sensitive eavesdropping equipment. Sophisticated software was needed to fuse together all the telltale indications of Bin Laden's presence. And those pictures of the president's security team watching the operation unfold on a monitor in the White House situation room -- that wasn't a feed from the KCBS news copter, it was coming from a stealthy surveillance drone that the Washington Post later reported had conducted dozens of missions in Pakistani airspace to help nail down Bin Laden's location. Based on published reports, the satellites and surveillance drone were probably built by Lockheed Martin, using sensors and other gear developed by Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Raytheon probably led development of the network that processed and disseminated key imagery. The Sikorsky unit of United Technologies probably modified Blackhawk helicopters so the SEALS could fly into Pakistan undetected by local forces and Bin Laden supporters. And Chinook helicopters made by Boeing were vital to the initial staging of the operation. Obviously, there are compelling reasons why the government can't discuss much of this in public. It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of whole constellations of eavesdropping satellites, most of which are apparently built by Northrop Grumman. But is it really asking too much for some sort of official acknowledgement of the role that private enterprise played in the Bin Laden raid? The Bin Laden takedown wasn't just a smashing success for the Obama Administration and the Joint Force, it was the latest victory for cutting-edge American technology. There really should be some mention in public discussions of the Bin Laden operation of the role industry played in making the mission work. If you don't know that part of the story in the global campaign to defeat al Qaeda, then it's hard to explain why the military is now able to move on to an "Asia-Pacific" posture. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 08:06:31 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:06:31 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - more on (2 - comment): Defense Industry Shill: Give Lockheed Credit for Bin Laden Kill Message-ID: Comments from a reader, prefaced with my reaction and expanded/slightly edited. -- rick I agree w/some of your points ... I also think this guy's just trying to develop some marketing fluff for the DIC going into sequestration later this year. That said, I disagree w/his primary message, implied as it might be. If Obama (or any POTUS) said to a contractor, "in six months I need X device that will let us do Y, now go build it for me" and the company delivered, that might be grounds for special recognition or public praise. I am no Obama supporter, but this putz saying that the defense complex deserves recognition for work they do on a regular, planned, basis under QDR/JOPES/DPG/etc with lucrative ongoing terms is not special in my view. There was nothing singularly unique, dedicated or timely about what Lockheed or the DIC did in regard to the bin Laden raid that deserves extra recognition. Using the original blog poster's analysis, we should thank Boeing for inventing air-to-air refueling that allows us to bomb targets deeply inland from aircraft carriers, we should thank Northrop for developing superstrong and lightweight ship hulls that can save fuel during periods of increased operational tempos in the fight against piracy or conducting freedom of navigation exercises, thank COMPANY$ whose products allow real-time viewing of Predator-pr0n or CallofDuty-esque ground video from the Situation Room, and thank Fruit of the Loom for making ACUs that are more comfortable for our operators to wear going into battle. Sorry, it's not the same thing. All of these are evolutionary and contributatory enablers, not revolutionary just-in-time developments that led directly to mission success. Now if the SEALS say we need X to do Y, and you come through in a pinch to give me X, and the operation succeeds, then yeah, okay, I'm all about the praise for your efforts in helping acheive the objective. < -- > On Jun 26, 2012, at 07:04 , XXXXX wrote: > This article is full of looter and moocher drivel! > > First, the Defense Industrial Complex (DIC) deserves some credit, small tho' it may be. But that is not the issue here. > Man's mind is the issue. > > Most of the materials today use some kind of plastic, fibre or sheet. Then they have to be joined, in a certain aspect. > This process is similar to welding, but far more exacting. Then there is the math and analysis behind the software and > electronics. The thanks deserved by the DIC is that they gave someone with a dream time to perfect these devices and methods. > Few could have thought of them, and fewer still can carve out the time to develop them. > > All of these tools enhance the human capabilities, which the SEALs train hard to maximize. To equate the SEALs with muscle > labor is an insult. Less than one in five sailors who show up for SEAL training complete the course. Once they pass, their > job entails getting shot at. The edge SEALs receive from Lockhead and Grumman is hardly so mundane as better traction and > sweat wicking. The edge is one that can expand the number of minds applied to the SEALs job, without exposing those extra > minds to life threatening situations. The edge is also expanding human capabilities beyond that of their enemy. > > The SEALs are the bleeding edge of a team of amazing capability. Every part of that team is needed to meet tasks that the > author is unaware of, and none of us like to speak of at parties. The miners and welders are part of the DIC that deserves > credit, but the contributions of others are so much more. America decided some time ago, that overwhelming force was > necessary. That is why we have a DIC. > > It is this overwhelming force that gives the author the freedom to blather his idiocy. The constitution empowers the > federal government to the provide for the defense, and promote the general welfare, not the other way around. The boondogle is > the redistribution of wealth to those who will never contribute to anyone. The author is engaging in a budget argument, and > arguing that entitlements are more important than both DIC spending, and letting the American people keep what they have > earned. The authors argument can only be won with such oblique vectors to confuse the issue. > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The vector that allowed the SEALS to perform their > task so safely was initiated by the DIC. We have a picture of the administration watching the event in real time. That is the > credit deserved by the DIC. > > From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 08:07:38 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:07:38 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Much-Abused_=91State_Secrets_Pri?= =?windows-1252?q?vilege=92_Under_Fire_in_Congress?= Message-ID: <9119A142-0C83-4E19-9E5F-E075A85F46A9@infowarrior.org> Much-Abused ?State Secrets Privilege? Under Fire in Congress ? By David Kravets ? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/state-secrets-revamp/ ? June 25, 2012 | ? 2:06 pm | ? Categories: Coverups, Paranoia Obama and his successors in the White House would be banned from using false claims of national security to conceal ?embarrassing or unlawful conduct? by the government, under new legislation proposed by lawmakers on both sides of the House. The proposed State Secrets Protection Act, H.R. 5956, introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), would be the first law to rein in the president?s ?state secrets privilege,? a nearly limitless power to kill litigation by claiming a lawsuit would expose national security information to the benefit of America?s enemies. First recognized by the US Supreme Court in a McCarthy-era lawsuit in 1953, the privilege (.pdf) has been increasingly and successfully invoked in the post-9/11 era to shield the government and its agents from court scrutiny in cases involving rendition, torture, warrantless wiretapping, and the lethal targeting of U.S. citizens. ?The ongoing argument that the state secrets privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case is a disconcerting trend in the protection of civil liberties for our nation,? Nadler said of the bill, unveiled last week. ?This important bill recognizes that protecting sensitive information is an important responsibility for any administration and requires that courts protect legitimate state secrets while preventing the premature and sweeping dismissal of entire cases.? Also signing on to the legislation is Tom Petri (R-Wisconsin), John Conyers Jr. (D-Michigan), and Zoe Lofgren (D-California). The bill, which has not been placed for a committee hearing, would require judges to find alternatives to dismissing lawsuits when the privilege is invoked. Nearly every time the privilege is asserted, judges toss lawsuits. There have been a few exceptions, however. A federal judge declined to stop a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation targeting the nation?s telecommunications companies for being complicit in the Bush administration?s secret electronic wiretapping program adopted in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. US District Judge Vaughn Walker allowed the case to proceed, despite the government?s assertion of the privilege. Congress, however, with the vote of then Sen. Barack Obama, adopted legislation in 2008 immunizing the telcos from the lawsuits ? legislation upheld on appeal. Walker, now a retired San Francisco federal judge, also allowed a wiretapping case by two lawyers to go forward despite key evidence in the case being declared a state secret. The legislation would require judges to do what Walker did, and examine whether cases can proceed despite top-secret evidence having to be removed. Walker found in 2010 that two American lawyers? telephone conversations with their clients in Saudi Arabia in 2004 were siphoned to the National Security Agency without warrants. The allegations were initially based on a classified document the government accidentally mailed to the former al-Haramain Islamic Foundation lawyers. The document was later declared a state secret, removed from the long-running lawsuit, and has never been made public. With that document ruled out as evidence, the lawyers instead cited a bevy of circumstantial evidence that Walker found showed the government illegally wiretapped the lawyers as they spoke on US soil to Saudi Arabia. The Obama administration maintained on appeal last month that the lawsuit should have been killed because the privilege was sited. In September 2009, meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the administration would only invoke the privilege when there?s a possibility of ?significant harm? to the country, and won?t use it to hide embarrassing or illegal government programs. It is unknown whether the administration is practicing what it preaches, as evidence it sites to support the privilege is a secret. Two days after Holder?s announcement, Nadler, Petri, and Conyers introduced legislation that was similar to the bill floated last week. That 2009 bill never made it out of committee. The latest legislation is to counter federal judges who routinely accept the government?s privilege assertion on face value without any inquiry, sometimes without viewing any classified material to support the government?s position. That happened in the original case in which the Supreme Court first acknowledged the privilege in 1953. At the time, the government declined to divulge a military airplane accident report in a lawsuit brought by the spouses of three civilian engineers killed in a crash. The government said the report, if made public, threatened to divulge national security secrets. Five decades later, researchers uncovered the report, and discovered the claim was a lie. The report had no military secrets and instead showed that government negligence caused the crash. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 08:49:46 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - USTR Gives MPAA Full Online Access To TPP Text, But Still Won't Share With Senate Staffers Message-ID: USTR Gives MPAA Full Online Access To TPP Text, But Still Won't Share With Senate Staffers from the transparency? dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/23220319444/ustr-gives-mpaa-full-online-access-to-tpp-text-still-wont-share-with-senate-staffers.shtml US Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk continues to insult the intelligence of the Senate. During a recent hearing Senate hearing at which Kirk appeared, Senator Ron Wyden once again quizzed Kirk about the lack of transparency the USTR has (video link, key point starts around 89 minutes and 30 seconds) regarding the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. Except, this time, Wyden went one step further. He pointed out that while many in Congress have no real access to the document, special interest company representatives are given special logins to the USTR's site, allowing them full access to the text of the document. We've pointed out many times before that Kirk seems to have given himself over entirely to the special interests, and this kind of access only shows how true that is. But where Kirk returns to being a disingenuous apologist for these special interests is to argue that this is no big deal because anyone in Congress can see the document too. < - > Wyden: What I've learned is that when trade agreements are negotiated, industry advisors sit in a far stronger position than virtually everyone in the Congress. For example, an industry advisor from the Motion Picture Association can sit at their desk with a laptop, enter their username and password, and see the negotiating text of a proposed trade agreement. Virtually no one in the Congress has the ability to do that. How is that right? Kirk: Well, Senator, I want to make it plain, that it's not just industry, but it's all of the members of our trade advisory commissions which are established by this Congress, and they're cleared advisors, they have security clearance and they represent a broad range of interests from both industry and environmental groups, business groups.... Every member of Congress, any member of Congress, that wants to see the text of a trade agreement we're negotiating has the ability to do so, as long as we're doing so in a secure environment that's private, so I would only offer that one clarification that any elected official in this body has the ability to see the same text as any of those cleared advisors. < - > Kirk's answer is insulting in how misleading it is. He chooses his words very carefully, so let's break this down to expose why Wyden is concerned, and why Kirk's answer is no answer at all. Remember, folks on the MPAA and other "industry advisors" (of which there are no internet company representatives) have a direct login, so they can access the latest negotiating docs wherever they'd like. Kirk's response, in which he claims that any member of Congress can see the same text is technically true, but it is not the same level of access. What Kirk meant is that any member of Congress can go to the USTR offices by themselves and be shown a copy of the negotiating text on a so-called "read and retain basis." That means: no notes, no copies, no staff -- even staff that have all the necessary "security clearance" as Senator Wyden himself found out when he had a trade expert on his staff obtain the necessary security clearance, only to find that the USTR denied him access to the documents. So, let's compare: the MPAA and other industry groups can log into a website at their own convenience. They are even allowed to (with certain limitations) share parts of the text with others, supposedly for the sake of getting an "analysis" of what the text means. But when a Senator -- who is the chair of the Senate subcommittee on International Trade -- wants to take a look at the same document, he has to go to a "private room" where he will be shown the document, but not allowed to make copies, take notes or bring along his own staff expert on the matter. Who does it sound like Ron Kirk is listening to more in this case? The MPAA? Or the Senator who's supposed to have oversight concerning the agreement. I tend to think the word "corrupt" is thrown around too easily, but at this point, is there any way to look at this situation and not judge it to be a case of massive corruption? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 09:01:35 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:01:35 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - US Intellectual Property Enforcement Strategic Plan Message-ID: http://cryptome.org/2012/06/omb062612.htm Intellectual Property Enforcement Strategic Plan [Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)] [Notices] [Pages 38088-38090] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2012-15477] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement; Request of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for Public Comments AGENCY: Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Executive Office of the President. ACTION: Request for written submissions from the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Federal Government is starting the process of developing a new Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement. By committing to common goals, the U.S. Government will more effectively and efficiently combat intellectual property infringement. In this request for comments, the U.S. Government, through the Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (``IPEC''), invites public input and participation in shaping the Administration's intellectual property enforcement strategy. The Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator was established within the Executive Office of the President pursuant to the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, Public Law 110-403 (Oct. 13, 2008) (the ``PRO IP Act''). Pursuant to the PRO IP Act, IPEC is charged with developing the Administration's Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement for submission to Congress every three years. In carrying out this mandate, IPEC chairs an interagency intellectual property enforcement advisory committee comprised of Federal departmental and agency heads whose respective departments and agencies are involved in intellectual property enforcement. This request for comments and recommendations as IPEC develops a new enforcement strategy is divided into three parts. In the first section titled ``Strategy Recommendations,'' IPEC requests detailed recommendations from the public regarding specific recommendations for improving the U.S. Government's intellectual property enforcement efforts. In the second section titled ``Threat Assessment,'' IPEC seeks written submissions from the public regarding existing and emerging threats to the protection of intellectual property rights and the identification of threats to public health and safety and the U.S. economy resulting from intellectual property infringement. In the third section titled ``Optional Questions,'' IPEC seeks written submissions from the public to assist IPEC and agencies in the development of specific action items. Responses to this request for comments may be directed to either, or both, of the two sections described above. DATES: Submissions must be received on or before July 25, 2012, at 5 p.m. http://cryptome.org/2012/06/omb062612.htm --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 09:10:18 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:10:18 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Mac Users May See Pricier Options on Orbitz Message-ID: <635CF030-94AF-4154-A8D3-50BAEE575FEB@infowarrior.org> Mac Users May See Pricier Options on Orbitz By GENEVIEVE SHAW BROWN June 26, 2012? abcnews.go.com http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/mac-users-higher-hotel-prices-orbitz/story?id=16650014#.T-nCVnDENMM Mac Users Pay as Much as 30 Percent More for Hotels Than PC Users Travelers who use Orbitz may want to pay attention to what computer they're on when it comes time to book a vacation. The Wall Street Journal reported that the online travel agency has been experimenting with showing Mac users higher hotel prices than PC users. To be clear, Orbitz is not charging Mac and PC users different prices for the same hotels. Instead, the first results a Mac user sees after a hotel search may be pricier than those seen by a PC user. Rick Seaney, CEO of FareCompare, told "Good Morning America," "If you're the kind of person who likes to pay for premium things, certainly, if I'm Orbitz, I want to offer you those things first." Orbitz says its data show that Mac users spend as much as 30 percent more on hotels than PC users do. Orbitz chief scientist Wai Gen Yee told the Wall Street Journal Mac users were 40 percent more likely to book a four- or five-star hotel than PC users. When they do book the same hotel as PC users, they were more likely to stay in a more expensive room. IPhone and iPad users spend 17 percent more on mobile purchases than everyone else, according to Forrester Research. And given that a Mac is about three times more expensive than its Windows counterpart, it's not surprising that an online retailer would want to try to figure out what those customers like and offer them those options first. The online travel industry is a fractured one, with new competitors entering the market constantly. Most online agencies stopped charging fees for booking airfare in the past few years, leaving hotels and vacation packages as the big moneymakers. Understanding what customers want, and delivering it to them in the initial search results rather than making them scroll through options that don't interest them, is crucial to getting people to book. Orbitz and its competitors do allow users to search by price. Mac users not pleased with what's being shown to them after an initial search may want to try that option. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 09:40:39 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:40:39 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?=91Big_Brother=92=3F_No=2C_It=92?= =?windows-1252?q?s_Parents?= Message-ID: <3BDEBCC0-0263-4D37-8AAA-178A222B3205@infowarrior.org> ?Big Brother?? No, It?s Parents By SOMINI SENGUPTA Published: June 25, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/technology/software-helps-parents-monitor-their-children-online.html?hp When her children were ready to have laptops of their own, Jill Ross bought software that would keep an eye on where they went online. One day it offered her a real surprise. She discovered that her 16-year-old daughter had set up her own video channel. Using the camera on her laptop, sometimes in her bedroom, she and a friend were recording mundane teenage banter and broadcasting it on YouTube for the whole world to see. For Ms. Ross, who lives outside Denver, it was a window into her daughter?s mind and an emblem of the strange new hurdles of modern-day parenting. She did not mention it to her daughter; she just subscribed to the channel?s updates. The daughter said nothing either; she just let Mom keep watching. ?It?s a matter of knowing your kids,? Ms. Ross said of her discovery. Parents can now use an array of tools to keep up with the digital lives of their children, raising new quandaries. Is surveillance the best way to protect children? Or should parents trust them to share if they are scared or bewildered by something online? The answers are as varied as parents themselves. Still, the anxieties of parenting in the digital age have spawned a mini-industry, as start-ups and established companies market new tools to track where children go online, who they meet there and what they do. Because children are glued to smartphones, the technology can allow parents to track their physical whereabouts and even monitor their driving speed. If, a few years ago, the emphasis was on blocking children from going to inappropriate sites on the family computer, today?s technologies promise to embed Mom and Dad ? and occasionally Grandma ? inside every device that children are using, and gather intelligence on them wherever they go. A smartphone application alerts Dad if his son is texting while driving. An online service helps parents keep tabs on every chat, post and photo that floats across their children?s Facebook pages. And another scans the Web in case a child decides to try a new social network that the grown-ups have not even heard of yet. The spread of cellphones and tablets in the hands of children has complicated matters, giving rise to applications that attract the young and worry parents. Earlier this month, for instance, came revelations that an app designed for flirting, called Skout, had led to three sexual assault cases involving children across the country. Even on Facebook, studies have repeatedly shown, there are plenty of children younger than 13, the minimum age for members, and many of them join with help and supervision from their parents. The average American family uses five Internet-enabled devices at home, including smartphones, a recent survey by Cox Communications and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found, while barely one in five parents uses parental controls on those devices. In Richmond, Va., Mary Cofield, 62, is one of the careful ones. She struck a deal with her 15-year-old granddaughter last year. The girl was offered an Android phone with full Internet privileges, so long as Grandma could monitor her every move. ?My theory is, you?ve got to be in the game to help them know what?s wrong and what?s right,? she said. ?Keeping them from it is not going to work. You can either be out there with them in the game ? or they?ll be out there without you.? Ms. Cofield, a retired government tax agent who runs an online travel business, chose a tool called uKnowKids.com, which combs the granddaughter?s Facebook page and text messages. UKnowKids sends her alerts about inappropriate language. It also offers Ms. Cofield a dashboard of the child?s digital activities, including what she says on Twitter, whom she texts and what photos she is tagged in on Facebook. It translates teenage slang into plain English she can understand: ?WUD? is shorthand for ?What are you doing?? Ms. Cofield checks it daily. Often, she says, she gleans when the girl is having trouble with a boy, or when there is conflict among friends. Most often, Ms. Cofield knows to keep her mouth shut. ?Being privy to that information and not using it is also difficult,? she confessed. ?If I did that, she would definitely go underground. I would be hopping on her every day.? Surveys, including by the Pew Research Center, have found that two-thirds of parents check their children?s digital footprints and nearly 40 percent follow them on Facebook and Twitter. But the Pew study suggests that this monitoring is also likely to lead to arguments between parent and child. What?s more, technology is at least as nimble as adolescents, and neither parents nor the technology they buy can always read a teenager?s mind. Sometimes children deactivate their Facebook accounts except at night, when they know their parents are not likely to be logging on. They roll over to new sites, often using pseudonyms. Very often they speak in code designed to stump parents. Danah Boyd, a senior researcher at Microsoft Research who studies American youth online, offered the example of a teenage girl who was growing increasingly frustrated with her mother?s leaving comments on everything she posted on Facebook. Once, when she was feeling particularly low, she posted the song ?Always Look on the Bright Side of Life.? Her mother took it literally, which is what the girl had wanted. Her friends, however, read it for what it was: The girl was sad, and her post was meant to be ironic. Technology companies now market tools for parents of children at every age group. The next version of Apple?s mobile operating system will offer a single-app mode so a parent can lock a toddler into one activity on an iPad. Security companies like Symantec and Trend Micro offer computer software that detects when a child tries to visit a blocked Web site or creates a new social network account. Infoglide, based in Austin, Tex., whose bread and butter is making antifraud software, recently introduced a tool called MinorMonitor, which like UKnowKids mines children?s Facebook pages for signs of trouble. Independent measurements of the market for family safety tools are hard to come by, and most companies do not release sales information. But that the market is large ? and growing ? is evident in two things: every security company and cellphone carrier is pitching such products, and start-ups in this field are popping up every month. Symantec says it added a million new subscribers to its Norton Online Family service last year. A text message application for the iPhone called textPlus allows Kyle Reed of Golden, Colo., to be copied on every text message his teenage son sends his girlfriend. ?I feel torn a little bit. It?s kind of an invasion of privacy,? he said. ?But he?s 13. I want to protect him.? Dan Sherman of Jackson, N.J., is what you might call the alpha monitor of his children?s digital lives, which is not surprising considering that he works in computer security. At home, he has installed a filter that blocks pornographic sites and software that tracks Web visits. He has set parental controls on the iPhones of his 8- and 13-year-old daughters so they cannot download applications. Access to the app store on the 8-year-old?s Kindle Fire is protected with a password. And the older daughter?s Facebook account is tracked by MinorMonitor, which alerts Mr. Sherman if there are references to bullying or alcohol. Does he worry that his daughters think he does not trust them? Mr. Sherman says they should learn that they will be monitored throughout their lives: ?It?s not any different from any employer.? The older daughter, Alexis, said that for now, at least, she does not mind the monitoring. She feels safer for it, she says, ?like I?m being watched over.? She also knows that it affects what she posts for public consumption. Recently, for example, she was tempted to rail on Facebook against a friend who had spread rumors about her, but she checked herself when she thought about what her mother might say. ?Having your parents monitor makes you think twice about what you put,? Alexis said. Ms. Ross, of Colorado, once had a tool that disabled Internet access in the house after a certain number of hours. But her children kept turning it off. Now another program helps her keep an eye on how much time they spend online, so if one of her three girls complains that she does not have time for homework, Ms. Ross need only say: ?Want me to tell you how much time you spent on Facebook this week?? Last Christmas, one of Ms. Ross?s friends, Lynn Schofield Clark, gave her 11-year-old daughter a disabled iPhone on which to listen to music. The child brightly said that a friend at school had showed her how to download an app that let her send text messages and make calls ? which is not what her parents had in mind. Ms. Clark, who has written a book about parenting styles and technology called ?The Parent App,? says she was relieved her child had confided in her. She hopes she will continue to confide, so she does not have to track everything her daughter does online. ?It?s too easy to get involved in surveillance,? Ms. Clark said. ?That undermines our influence as parents. Kids interpret that as a lack of trust.?--- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 10:50:31 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:50:31 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Funnyjunk saga meets Godwin's Law Message-ID: <036F0756-12D0-4DE0-B072-D222880AFE17@infowarrior.org> Well, we survived ONE weekday w/o some more idiocy from Funnyjunk's lawyer. Dig, dig, dig.....and oh, go dig some more.... ---rick FunnyJunk lawyer's wife wades into fray, calls critics "nazi scumbags" Meanwhile, husband Charles pens angry poems defending his mom. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/funnyjunk-lawyers-wife-wades-into-fray-calls-critics-nazi-scumbags/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 10:58:11 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA agent spilled grandfather's ashes, laughs about it Message-ID: <0222E717-5AE9-4463-BCC5-F985AD4C48E5@infowarrior.org> Man seeks apology; says TSA agent spilled grandfather's ashes http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/man-seeks-apology-says-tsa-agent-spilled-grandfath/nPfDK/ An Indianapolis man bringing his grandfather's ashes through a Central Florida airport is now asking for an apology from TSA officials and the worker who he says opened the jar and spilled it. John Gross was going through airport security when he said an agent found the jar marked with the words "human remains" on it in his bag. After explaining that it contained his grandfather's ashes, he said the TSA agent opened the jar and started using her finger to sift through it. That's when, Gross said, she spilled it. "She didn't apologize. She started laughing. I was on my hands and knees picking up bone fragments. I couldn't pick up all, everything that was lost. I mean, there was a long line behind me," said Gross. Gross said about a quarter to a third of the contents spilled on the floor. TSA rules say a crematory container in carry-on baggage must pass through the X-ray machine at the security checkpoint. But, the agency's website says human remains are to be opened under "no circumstances." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 13:43:01 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:43:01 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The Digital Skeptic: Teens Are Web-Addicted, but Digital Illiterates Message-ID: (c/o MS) The Digital Skeptic: Teens Are Web-Addicted, but Digital Illiterates Jonathan Blum 06/26/12 - 08:00 AM EDT http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/11596144.html NEW YORK (MainStreet) -- Sang-Jin Bae thinks something is amiss with computers. He should know. He's used them for decades as a technical director for Disney's(DIS) Little Einsteins and as an animation production supervisor for shows at places such as Nickelodeon. He even teaches. His animation classes are some of the most popular at New York University's ritzy Tisch School of the Arts. To Bae, the problem is not the computer. It's the people using them. Microsoft's stripped-down, tile-based "Metro" OS interface (perfect for use on smartphones and tablets such as its new Surface) makes it the biggest software simpleton of all. "When kids come into my class they divide into three groups," he says. There are the pure geeks who love technology. There are those trying to understand. And then there is the biggest group: "Those who couldn't care less." As remarkable as it is to consider, this hip, articulate 36-year old computer whiz makes a heck of an argument that the computer age is entering a dark new era: the age of the digital illiterate. Today's teens grew up on SMS and Facebook(FB). Everything is being presented to them all the time. Web companies love it, since kids are addicted to their products. But, he says, "They expect less and less from the Web and the software they use." Bae is not just talking about obscure, high-end animation tools. Instead, he sees an essential dumbing down of bedrock computing skills. "The kids I have, and that is roughly two dozen of the brightest young digital artists a semester, often have no idea what Microsoft Word is. They can't tell a Mac from a PC. And forget Excel," he says. He struggles to get his students to use basic computing etiquette. "They will not use email," he says. They can't manage a crowded inbox. "It's a constant struggle to have them simply stop SMSing me." And investors face a whole world of hurt as they consider the new world of digital illiteracy. Not dumb, just "simple." If you view the software biz through Bae's eyes, it's clear "simple is the new black" in the world code. The biggest software simpleton of all, of course, is Microsoft(MSFT). Its latest OS, Windows 8, jettisons the most profitable and complex user interface of all time -- the desktop and pull-down windows -- for the stripped-down tile-based "Metro" interface. Simplicity seems to also now define the Microsoft culture. The word "simple" appears no less than nine times in a single blog post by Steven Sinofsky, president of the Windows and Windows Live division. Serious visual-effects packages are stepping down the simpleton software highway as well. Take San Rafael, Calif.-based Autodesk(ADSK). "They make a visual manipulation tool called Maya," Bae says. "And the new package has automatic features for animating hair. That used to be a specialist's job. But nobody wanted to deal with it. The idea was to make it easy enough for a nontechie to use." Dozens of photo apps also vie to be the super-simplest. The most impressive, to me, is Trey Ratcliff's 100 Cameras In 1. This smartphone photo tool boils photography down into anybody-can-chew bites. According to Ratcliff's travel site, StuckinCustoms.com, this app was recently downloaded 1 million times. And let's not forget the most lucrative app -- not photo app, but app -- of all time: Instagram. This photo-tweaking tool, which does little more than share a picture made from a few preset image setups, fetched close to $1 billion from Facebook earlier this year. "All Instagram does is replicate what photographers already do," Bae says. "And make it so simple anybody can use it." App margins squeezed The investor pain looming with the breaking wave of digital illiteracy is significant. First, this new generation of low-functioning computer users will almost certainly require near full-time handholding from software vendors -- which will not be cheap. "It has gotten to the point now that if it takes something basic like a password, they can't figure it out," Bae said of his students. How will the average Macbook user deal with a problem? Go down to the Genius Bar and stand in line for two hours? You can just hear the margin being ground from software vendors' bottom line. Next, as this new software generation loses touch with basics such as spreadsheets, the products based on those virtual experiences will lose touch with customers. Meaning at great expense. Google(GOOG) Apps, Microsoft Office, Zoho and dozens of others will have little choice but to eat the stiff capital cost of rebuilding their software to stay relevant with the newly ascendant digital illiterate. Few new Instagrams But finally -- and most ominously of all -- it will become increasingly difficult for app makers to strike the right balance demanded by today's computer-challenged. Says Bae, "It's going to get harder and harder to find that next Instagram." Somehow, the once all-powerful, software industry will have to strike the impossible balance of finding an experience simple enough that billions of digital dummies will be able to use it yet compelling enough that the same said illiterate masses will want to use it. "Application developers," he says "are in a race to the bottom." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 14:53:12 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:53:12 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - UVA Board Votes to Reinstate Sullivan Message-ID: June 26, 2012 U. of Virginia Board Votes to Reinstate Sullivan By Sara Hebel, Jack Stripling, and Robin Wilson http://chronicle.com/article/U-of-Virginia-Board-Votes-to/132603 Charlottesville, Va Teresa A. Sullivan was reinstated as the president of the University of Virginia on Tuesday, completing the arc of an improbable comeback tale that began a little more than two weeks ago with her forced resignation. The Board of Visitors voted unanimously to restore Ms. Sullivan, the university's first female president, to office. The action reverses her announcement of 16 days earlier, in which she said she would step down, citing an unspecified "philosophical difference of opinion" with the board. The resignation stunned many people at Virginia and beyond, coming just two years into Ms. Sullivan's tenure at the helm of one of the nation's most elite public universities. In the tumultuous days that followed, faculty, alumni, and students came to the defense of the president, who won praise for her consensus-building style of leadership. Her self-described "incrementalist" approach to change stood in sharp contrast to urgent transformation that leaders of the board, including Helen E. Dragas, the rector, have said the university needs instead. The resulting showdown between Ms. Sullivan, a sociologist and longtime provost, and Ms. Dragas, a real-estate developer who graduated from the university's graduate school of business, became a stark example of some of the fiercest debates that have been escalating on campuses across the country about the future of higher education. It pitted M.B.A.'s against Ph.D.'s and stirred passions about whether the strategies of the business world should be widely adopted within the academic enterprise. Pointed public exchanges?including Ms. Sullivan's 14-page defense of her record and Ms. Dragas's 10-point accounting of "the serious strategic challenges that alarmed us"?grappled with some of the thorniest issues facing higher education. They include how public universities must work to overcome dwindling financial resources and how the nation's top institutions should transform with technology, blending brick-and-mortar education with online, open-course endeavors. At a university that takes special pride in its rigorous codes of honor, the process by which Ms. Sullivan was pressured to resign sparked some of the greatest outrage. Among the quotes by Thomas Jefferson, the university's founder, most commonly cited by Ms. Sullivan's supporters was this: "It is more honorable to repair a wrong than to persist in it." Tougher criticism came at the beginning of a video circulated in recent days by students and alumni who favored Ms. Sullivan's reinstatement. It opens with this quote by Mr. Jefferson: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of conscience to remain silent." Forces of Change Ms. Sullivan resigned on June 10 after she received a visit from Ms. Dragas and the board's vice rector, Mark J. Kington, who has since resigned. Without convening a meeting of the full Board of Visitors or publicly detailing their criticism of her leadership, they told Ms. Sullivan that they had the votes to oust her. E-mail exchanges between Ms. Dragas and Mr. Kington, which were later made public by The Cavalier Daily, showed that the two had been plotting Ms. Sullivan's departure for several weeks. In May, Ms. Dragas sent Mr. Kington a link to a press release from 2005, in which Cornell University's president, Jeffrey S. Lehman, notified the chairman he would step down, "citing differences with the board regarding the strategy for realizing Cornell's long-term vision." A week later, the two exchanged messages about a price quote they received from a consulting company for a "strategic communication project." When Ms. Dragas sent Ms. Sullivan a message on June 7, saying she and Mr. Kington would be in Charlottesville the next day and "would appreciate a meeting with you," the president appeared oblivious to the board members' agenda. She replied to their request and asked, "Is there anything you would like me to prepare?" Ms. Dragas later apologized for the "pain, anger, and confusion" that had swept the grounds of the university in the wake of her meeting with the president and the announcement of her resignation. But the rector also reiterated the need for a change at the top, saying that, "In my view, we did the right thing, the wrong way." "Despite the enduring magic of Mr. Jefferson's University," Ms. Dragas wrote, "the bottom line is the days of incremental decision-making in higher education are over, or should be." The e-mail exchanges between the rector and Mr. Kington demonstrated that the two had been reading widely and regularly about the forces transforming higher education. They traded a number of e-mails with attached articles from The Chronicle, The Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere, many of them about online education and the open-course ventures in which top research universities like Harvard, Stanford, and others, are engaged. As she forwarded one article, Ms. Dragas said it illustrated "why we can't afford to wait." That piece, published in the Journal, was written by John E. Chubb, interim chief executive of Education Sector, an independent think tank, and a distinguished visiting fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and by Terry M. Moe, a professor of political science at Stanford and a senior fellow at Hoover. They wrote about edX, in which Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have joined to host free online courses, and about "higher education's online revolution" more broadly. "The nation, and the world," they wrote, "are in the early stages of a historic transformation." So, too, is the University of Virginia, both Ms. Dragas and Ms. Sullivan agree. Where they disagree is in the pace at which that change should happen and how. Ms. Wilson reported from Charlottesville. Ms. Hebel and Mr. Stripling reported from Washington. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jun 26 14:56:50 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:56:50 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - What's really, truly going on with Facebook? Message-ID: <3206E5A5-47DF-4BAB-A211-1174A0B34AD7@infowarrior.org> What's really, truly going on with Facebook? By John D. Sutter, CNN updated 2:21 PM EDT, Tue June 26, 2012 | Filed under: Social Media http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/tech/social-media/facebook-uproar/ (CNN) -- Every week, there's a new Facebook thing to gripe about. This week, there have been two -- and it's only Tuesday. On Sunday, it was discovered that the 900 million-person social network was "testing" a feature that would let people see a digital list of the people who were nearby in real life. Called "Find Friends Nearby," the app was pulled down by Tuesday morning after the Internet freaked out. Commenters said things like "Hell to the naw" and "BAD FACEBOOK!!" and generally complaining that the feature, which was difficult to find, much less use, invades privacy and will lead to stalking. If that's not enough, a company named Friendthem reportedly threatened a lawsuit, saying Facebook stole its idea for the location-aware feature. Apparently, Friendthem would like to share the heat. Item two: A blogger noticed over the weekend that Facebook, without asking permission, had changed the default e-mail addresses of all of its digital residents to @facebook.com accounts. It's easy enough to change back, as the site Lifehacker and others have detailed, but that little invasion of the hub of digital identity -- the Facebook Timeline -- was enough to make quite a few Facebookers fire back at their digital overlords. Security researchers called the move dangerous. Normal people felt violated. "Up next: Facebook inside your underwear drawer!" a commenter wrote on our site. So that was this week. But it seems like every week has been feeling a little like that. The fact that an anti-Facebook sentiment bubbles beneath the currents of modern life is, of course, nothing new. When the company introduced the now-popular News Feed in September 2006, users threw a fit -- and many abandoned the young network, at least for a moment. Let's put the brakes on for just a second and ask a few questions: Are people mad about Facebook's individual decisions -- the e-mail, the tracking, the News Feed -- or do the roots of this discontent reach into deeper, darker places? If it's the latter, why are people so continually frustrated? Do we hold Facebook to too high of a standard? Is the social network turning its back on users? Or is it just that our digital lives are now so invested in Facebook that it would be nearly impossible to pull out at this point -- and, because of that, we feel helpless? Here are a few theories about what's actually going on with people's unhappiness with Facebook. Take a look and let us know which you think is most accurate -- or offer up a theory of your own -- in the comments. Facebook has become an octopus And by "octopus" we mean it's got too many tentacles to manage. This theory is put forward by the blog the Next Web, which says Facebook is buying too many new companies -- Instagram, Glancee -- and trying too many new things. (This is a critique more commonly lobbed at Google, especially when it was launching one product after the next that flopped: Google Wave, Google Buzz, etc., etc.) "When you start packing in more features while you're removing none of them, feature creep will happen and users will start to ask the question 'Why can't they just make it easy for me to talk to my friends?' " Drew Olanoff wrote. "After all, that's why people started leaving MySpace to go to Facebook in the first place, because it simply tried to do too much." Writing for Forbes, Kashmir Hill puts it this way: "Facebook would love to be the all-inclusive resort of the Web, replete with complementary digital daiquiris (that you're forced to chug) upon entry." Facebook is a technocracy, and we want a democracy As Alexis Madrigal writes for the Atlantic, Facebook has evolved into a "technocracy": a government of sorts that's run by engineers who value efficiency above all else. When you complain to the real-world government, you can expect a response -- or you can use your voting power (or run for office) to push for change. At Facebook, 2 million complaints per week are handled largely by computers and a staff of a few hundred people. Their aim is to process as many issues per day as possible, to help people connect and, as Madrigal puts it, to stop people from leaving the site "by minimizing their negative experiences." "Facebook's desire for efficiency means democracy is out and technocratic, developer-king rule is in," he writes. Even when the site does give its users a chance to weigh in on policy, Madrigal says, users don't take up the offer. In a vote about a recent privacy policy change, 0.038% of users participated. There's no competition Hope and pray all you want, but there's no other online social network with 900 million people. Chances are, most of your fiends are on Facebook, so even if you try to go to a competing network like Google+, it might be as fun as talking to your cat. Here's a list of alternatives from our What's Next blog, but none of them seems like actual competition in terms of numbers. Facebook cares more about investors than users Facebook went public this year, leading to criticisms that the site's motives have changed. Is it focused on cash instead of users? While that complaint may be premature -- CEO Mark Zuckerberg maintains a majority stake in the company, so he doesn't have to listen to investors and his board all that much -- the company's IPO, and the billionaires and millionaires who resulted from it, doubtlessly cloud how people see Facebook's motives. And it doesn't help to know that, in mid-May, you were worth only $1.21 to Facebook. "How much does Facebook value its users? In strictly monetary terms, about as much as a bag of chips," David Goldman wrote for our sister site CNNMoney.com. Or, as Slate put it, Facebook is "conducting an experiment in corporate dictatorship nearly without precedent for such a large and high-profile company." Facebook is no fun (anymore ...) I put the question of what's really wrong with Facebook out on my Google Plus feed, in part because that network is a hotbed for Facebook defectors. Several followers brought up interesting points, the simplest of which is that Facebook, as it grew, became un-fun. "Facebook started as a social network that was 'fun' to update your friends and classmates (since it started for-college students only) and grew into something that can affect your career, reputation and invade your privacy," one user, identified as Julie Hancher, wrote. Here's another thought, from a person identified as Robert Sons: "Bombardment with stories you don't care about from people you barely care about. Depression that you're jealously stalking other's lives instead of living your own. Shallowness of content. The more content you absorb, the less valuable your own posts seem." And I'll give the final word to Carlos Ochoa, who wrote, simply: "Everyone uses Facebook but nobody likes it." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 27 06:27:17 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:27:17 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Happy 40th birthday, Atari. We're officially old Message-ID: Ahhh yes, I remember Pitfall and River Raid, too. Memories.....and now I shall go off and start my day depressed. :) ---rick Happy 40th birthday, Atari. We're officially old http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/happy-40th-birthday-atari-were-officially-old/story-e6frfrt9-1226410143193?sv=bd0c8c68438ed71f44d91224705207f5 HAPPY birthday Atari, and thanks for making us feel so old. Today marks the 40th anniversary of the iconic video game brand, when US developers Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney first founded the company and introduced the world to Pong, one of the most addictive games of its day. The ping pong-style two-player, batting a ball over a line with the lowest of low-fi graphics, became the world?s first video game smash hit and established Atari as a leading gaming brand. Within three years Atari would hook gamers with games like Asteroid, Centipede and Breakout after being bought by Warner Communications in 1976 for an estimated US$28-$32 million (about $143?174 million in today?s money). The Atari 2600 computer console with its two joysticks and paddle controllers pretty much defined the gaming industry during the '70s and '80s. The console, inducted into the National Toy Hall of Fame in New York in 2007, also helped popularise Pac-Man which had been included free with the bundle. Long before there was Angry Birds, there was Pong. The addiction was unprecedented for its time. Picture: Atari While the 2600 sold more than 2 million units in 1981 it was to prove the high water mark for the company. By then Bushnell had been fired over disagreements with Warners about the direction of the brand. After a crash in the video game market in 1983 Atari could not beat later rivals like the wildly popular Nintendo Entertainment System. After changing hands more than 10 times in its history, Atari today is known as Atari Interactive and is owned by French holding company, Atari SA. In honour of its 40th anniversary, the company is redeveloping its most famous game for Apple iOS devices. The company is running a competition, the "Indie Developer's Challenge", where up-and-coming developers can win up to US$50,000 ($49,670) for developing the next Pong smash hit for Apple devices. In the meantime, those who are feeling nostalgic can visit bafta.org to play Pong online. http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/happy-40th-birthday-atari-were-officially-old/story-e6frfrt9-1226410143193?sv=bd0c8c68438ed71f44d91224705207f5 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 27 07:31:40 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:31:40 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Telling The Truth About Cyberwarfare Message-ID: Financial Times June 27, 2012 Pg. 8 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/777fe5ae-bf86-11e1-a476-00144feabdc0.html Telling The Truth About Cyberwarfare World needs some clarity and honesty in the debate Hardly a week goes by these days without some startling new development in the fields of cyberwarfare and cyberespionage. This month senior US officials let it be known that President Barack Obama had personally authorised the deployment of the Stuxnet computer worm against Iran?s nuclear programme. At about the same time, stories emerged about Flame, an even more sophisticated virus that in May 2012 penetrated the computers of high-ranking Iranian officials. This week the head of Britain?s security service MI5 sounded the alarm about growing cyberespionage by Russia and China against western governments and companies. In his view the amount of activity being undertaken by these states -- and by other actors -- is ?astonishing?. These developments can only add to the perception many have had for some time: that aggressive cyberactivity -- whether it involves espionage or the destruction of infrastructure -- is now becoming one of the world?s biggest security threats. Military chiefs today describe cyber as the fifth domain of warfare after land, sea, air and space. The idea that a nation could one day cripple another state?s infrastructure through cyberwar-fare is not inconceivable. But what can the world do to stop this new arms race spinning out of control before it is too late? The instinctive response of many is that world powers must club together and agree some rules of the cybergame. The world clearly needs such rules, mirroring those that have for decades governed the use and development of nuclear and conventional arms. In recent years, several attempts at writing international cyberlaws have been made. But there has been little success. In part, this is because China and Russia want to use such norms to control the flow of information over the web, an idea the US rightly abhors. But the biggest difficulty establishing any rules is that the source of most cyberattacks is anonymous. The Stuxnet story provides the only example we have of a nation bragging about its cyberwarfare operations. These obstacles do not mean nations should stop trying to establish rules. They could, for example, start defining some critical infrastructures that they would vow never to attack. But for now, the only hope for governments and businesses is to continue boosting resilience against the unknown. Companies, in particular, need to know just how much intellectual property is being lost to Chinese and Russian espionage. What is also needed, however, is some honesty. In his speech this week, Jonathan Evans, the MI5 chief, lamented the way ?vulnerabilities in the internet are being exploited aggressively by... states?. He was clearly pointing the finger at Russia and China. But after Stuxnet, such criticism could just as easily be directed at the US, Britain?s chief ally. Until governments start to address these tricky questions -- and be more open about their capabilities -- the struggle to agree the terms of engagement in cyberspace will not advance very far. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 27 07:50:40 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:50:40 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Why_Johnny_Can=92t_Add_Without_a?= =?windows-1252?q?_Calculator?= Message-ID: Why Johnny Can?t Add Without a Calculator By Konstantin Kakaes | Posted Monday, June 25, 2012, at 6:00 AM ET | Posted Monday, June 25, 2012, at 6:00 AM ET Slate.com http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/06/math_learning_software_and_other_technology_are_hurting_education_.html Technology is doing to math education what industrial agriculture did to food: making it efficient, monotonous, and low-quality.. When Longfellow Middle School in Falls Church, Va., recently renovated its classrooms, Vern Williams, who might be the best math teacher in the country, had to fight to keep his blackboard. The school was putting in new ?interactive whiteboards? in every room, part of a broader effort to increase the use of technology in education. That might sound like a welcome change. But this effort, part of a nationwide trend, is undermining American education, particularly in mathematics and the sciences. It is beginning to do to our educational system what the transformation to industrial agriculture has done to our food system over the past half century: efficiently produce a deluge of cheap, empty calories. I went to see Williams because he was famous when I was in middle school 20 years ago, at a different school in the same county. Longfellow?s teams have been state champions for 24 of the last 29 years in MathCounts, a competition for middle schoolers. Williams was the only actual teacher on a 17-member National Mathematics Advisory Panel that reported to President Bush in 2008. Williams doesn?t just prefer his old chalkboard to the high-tech version. His kids learn from textbooks that are decades old?not because they can?t afford new ones, but because Williams and a handful of his like-minded colleagues know the old ones are better. The school?s parent-teacher association buys them from used bookstores because the county won?t pay for them (despite the plentiful money for technology). His preferred algebra book, he says, is ?in-your-face algebra. They give amazing outstanding examples. They teach the lessons.? The modern textbooks, he says, contain hundreds of extraneous, confusing, and often outright wrong examples, instead of presenting mathematical ideas in a coherent way. The examples bloat the books to thousands of pages and disrupt the logical flow of ideas. (For instance, the standard geometry book for Fairfax County, which is used in schools around the country, tries to explain what a mathematical point is by analogy to pixels on TV screens, which are not in fact point-like.) Teachers at other schools in the county have told him that they would rather use the old books, too, but their principals would kill them. Other teachers have told me the same about new technologies?they, like Williams, think the technologies are ineffectual, but lack his courage to oppose them. According to an October 2011 report, 89 percent of high school math teachers think their students are ready for college-level mathematics. But only 26 percent of post-secondary teachers think the students are ready once they get there. This shortfall in mathematical preparation for college-bound students has existed for a long time, but it is being exacerbated by the increased use of technology. College-level math classes almost never use graphing calculators, while high-school classes invariably do. College professors want their students to understand abstract concepts; technology advocates claim their products help teach students such abstractions, but in practice they simply don?t. Take the Promethean, one of the two interactive whiteboards the school uses. When I asked a Longfellow science teacher what she could do with the Promethean she couldn?t do on the blackboard, the first thing she showed me was a music video featuring a Rube Goldberg machine. She did not intend this ironically. The second thing she showed me was a drawing of an electric circuit in which wires connect a light bulb to a battery. When the circuit was closed, the bulb lit up. This drawing goes to the heart of the technological disconnect. Her students like it when the bulb lights up, she says, because it reminds them of a video game. But this shortcut is dangerous. Learning how to visualize?as required when an electric circuit is drawn on a blackboard?is vital for developing the ability to think abstractly. You also have to make students manipulate real circuits with real batteries, with real wires that connect them and sometimes break. Showing them a toy circuit in computer software is an unhappy middle ground between these two useful teaching exercises: You neither learn how to trouble-shoot in the real world, nor do you think clearly about how electrons work. Math and science can be hard to learn?and that?s OK. The proper job of a teacher is not to make it easy, but to guide students through the difficulty by getting them to practice and persevere. ?Some of the best basketball players on Earth will stand at that foul line and shoot foul shots for hours and be bored out of their minds,? says Williams. Math students, too, need to practice foul shots: adding fractions, factoring polynomials. And whether or not the students are bright, ?once they buy into the idea that hard work leads to cool results,? Williams says, you can work with them. Educational researchers often present a false dichotomy between fluency and conceptual reasoning. But as in basketball, where shooting foul shots helps you learn how to take a fancier shot, computational fluency is the path to conceptual understanding. There is no way around it. The fight between those who seek a way around hard work (a ?royal road to geometry,? in Euclid's famous phrase), and those who realize that earned fluency is the only road to understanding goes back millennia and became particularly acrimonious in America in the last half-century in the so-called math wars. On one side are education researchers like Constance Kamii, at the University of Alabama, who argues that teaching children to add and subtract is harmful. This camp says it has insights into the way children learn that warrant departure from traditional ways of teaching math. On the other side is the consensus of working scientists and mathematicians as well as teachers like Williams, who notes that it took very smart adults thousands of years to develop modern mathematics, so it makes sense to teach it to students rather than get them to ?discover? it themselves. What is new to this fight is the totalizing power of technology. A 2007 congressionally mandated study by the National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance found that 16 of the best reading and mathematics learning software packages?selected by experts from 160 submissions?did not have a measurable effect on test scores. But despite this finding, the onslaught of technology in education has continued. The state of Maine was the first to buy laptops for all of its students from grades seven to 12, spending tens of millions of dollars to do so, starting with middle schoolers in 2002 and expanding to high schools in 2009. The nation is not far behind. Though no well-implemented study has ever found technology to be effective, many poorly designed studies have?and that questionable body of research is influencing decision-makers. Researchers with a financial stake in the success of computer software are free to design studies that are biased in favor of their products. (I?m sure this bias is, often as not, unintentional.) What is presented as peer-reviewed research is fundamentally marketing literature: studies done by people selling the software they are evaluating. For instance, a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of graphing calculators from Empirical Education Inc. reports a ?strong effect of the technology on algebra achievement.? But the meta-analysis includes results from a paper in which ?no significant differences were found between the graphing-approach and traditional classes either on a final examination of traditional algebra skills or on an assessment of mathematics aptitude.? In that same paper, calculators were marginally helpful on a tailor-designed test. The meta-analysis included the results of the specially made test, but not the negative results from the traditional exam. Take this gem from researchers at SRI International. They say that standardized tests don?t capture the ?conceptual depth? students develop by using their software, so the ?research team decided to build its own assessments??and, of course, they did relatively well on the assessments they designed for themselves. Another example: A recent study by the Educational Development Center compared students who took an online algebra 1 class with students who took nonalgebra eighth-grade math. The online students did better than those who didn?t study algebra at all (not exactly surprising). But the online students weren?t compared with those who took a regular algebra class. Despite the lack of empirical evidence, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics takes the beneficial effects of technology as dogma. There is a simple shell game that goes on: Although there is no evidence technology has been useful in teaching kids math in the past, anyone can come up with a new product and claim that this time it is effective. I tried using one such product, Cognitive Tutor from Carnegie Learning, which claims to be ?intelligent mathematics software that adapts to meet the needs of ALL students.? One problem asked me to calculate the width of a doorframe, given the frame?s height and a diagonal measurement of the door. After 30 seconds? work with pen and paper, I submitted my answer: 93.7cm. But Cognitive Tutor wouldn?t accept it. It wanted me to go through an elaborate and cumbersome series of steps to get its answer: 93.723. This isn?t teaching math?it?s teaching how to use a particular software package. The supposed ?real-world applications? don?t even reflect the real world. Show me a tape measure that allows you to measure to one-hundredth of a millimeter. Though serious empirical research fails to show any beneficial effects of technology, it also doesn?t demonstrate any harm. The emphasis on technology is in part damaging because of its opportunity cost, both in effort on the part of policymakers and in terms of money. It also distracts from the real problem: teachers who don?t understand enough about math or science. This has been a problem for a long time. A report earlier this year from Michigan State University showed that K through eight teachers with no math specialization (the vast majority?more than 90 percent of K through six teachers and more than two-thirds of sixth- to eighth-grade teachers) got only half the questions right on a base-line test meant to see whether they knew the material they were supposed to be teaching.* The good news is that most teachers are aware of their own limitations: Only about 10 percent of the nonmath specialization K through eight teachers said they were ?confident to teach all topics? in math. Hung-Hsi Wu, a math professor at UC-Berkeley (and another member of Bush?s math panel), has been running three-week classes for elementary and middle school teachers every summer for the last dozen years. His ?students? must wrestle with deep mathematical questions that both pertain directly to simple math and are poorly understood by most teachers. Why does (-2)x(-3)=6? The answer isn?t straightforward, and Wu takes several pages to give it. If you don?t understand it, though, you don?t really understand multiplication. But Wu has only been teaching about 25-30 teachers a summer?there is money for new technology but little for comprehensive teacher training. Meanwhile, the new technology makes it easier than ever for teachers to avoid learning their subject. Promethean, the ?interactive whiteboard? company, advertises as a selling point the fact that teachers can share lesson plans online. But drawing up a lesson plan is itself educative: A teacher who plans his own lecture is forced toward mastery of the material, but one who downloads a PowerPoint presentation doesn?t have to know anything beyond how to download the presentation. It is a mirage of efficiency: empty calories. The real shortfall in math and science education can be solved not by software or gadgets but by better teachers. Programs like Wu?s can make more teachers more like Williams. That?s where efforts should be focused, not on imagined technological solutions, which obscure more than they reveal. In this, the new Common Core standards for math, which were adopted with lightening speed by 45 states and Washington, D.C., fall short. They fetishize ?data analysis? without giving students a sufficient grounding to meaningfully analyze data. Though not as wishy-washy as they might have been, they are of a piece with the runaway adaption of technology: The new is given preference over the rigorous. Computer technology, while great for many things, is just not much good for teaching, yet. Paradoxically, using technology can inhibit understanding how it works. If you learn how to multiply 37 by 41 using a calculator, you only understand the black box. You?ll never learn how to build a better calculator that way. Maybe one day software will be smart enough to be useful, but that day won?t be any time soon, for two reasons. The first is that education, especially of children, is as much an emotional process as an imparting of knowledge?there is no technological substitute for a teacher who cares. The second is that education is poorly structured. Technology is bad at dealing with poorly structured concepts. One question leads to another leads to another, and the rigid structure of computer software has no way of dealing with this. Software is especially bad for smart kids, who are held back by its inflexibility. John Dewey, the father of American education reform, defined miseducative experiences as those that have ?the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further experience.? ?Growth,? he wrote, ?depends upon the presence of difficulty to be overcome by the exercise of intelligence.? The widespread use of computer technology is inimical to the exercise of intelligence. I fear this is no more than shouting into the wind, but resist it while you can, because once it gets locked in?as our food system is, to monocultures and antibiotics in factory farms?it will be even tougher to get away from. Also in Slate?s special issue on science education: Fred Kaplan explains why another ?Sputnik moment? would be impossible; Philip Plait explains why he became the ?Bad Astronomer?; Paul Plotz describes how almost blowing up his parents? basementmade him a scientist; Tom Kalil says that the Obama administration is using the Make movement to encourage science education; and Dana Goldstein explains why you should make your daughter play video games. Also, share your ideas for fixing science education in the Hive. This article arises from Future Tense, a joint partnership of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University. Correction, June 25, 2012: This article originally misidentified the university that carried out a study of teachers? knowledge of math. It was Michigan State University, not the University of Michigan. (Return to corrected sentence.) MySlate is a new tool that you track your favorite parts Slate. You can follow authors and sections, track comment threads you're interested in, and more. Share this article inShare --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 27 10:34:49 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:34:49 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Big ISPs Expected To Start Six Strikes Program This Weekend Message-ID: <59DE4FC6-085E-4DF0-8D5E-513DE1A0EA94@infowarrior.org> Big ISPs Expected To Start Six Strikes Program This Weekend from the just-what-we-need dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/01050319504/big-isps-expected-to-start-six-strikes-program-this-weekend.shtml At this point, it's no surprise, but the RIAA's Cary Sherman has now confirmed that (as had been previously stated) the big ISPs (Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon) will be ready to kick off their "six strikes" plan this weekend. Apparently, the idea of actually giving the public a seat at the table, and looking into whether or not this made sense, wasn't seriously considered. Of course, none of this will do anything to bring revenue back to RIAA or MPAA members. It won't even do anything to stop infringement in the long term. As always, people will figure out ways around this. We've already seen the massive failure of an even stricter program, Hadopi, in France. Can anyone seriously claim that this will somehow work better in the US? Instead, it won't be long until we hear the stories of false accusations, or families who have their internet connection limited or locked down because a neighbor maybe downloaded some infringing content. Little Susie needs to do some research for her homework? Not tonight, kids. Hollywood has to teach you a lesson. Of course, the only real lesson is that the entertainment industry needs to stop blaming customers, and start looking inward, at its own failure to innovate. Pissing people off by limiting their internet connections is not a productive path forward. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 27 13:49:02 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Mobile Carriers Gladly Give Your Data to the Cops, But Not to You Message-ID: Mobile Carriers Gladly Give Your Data to the Cops, But Not to You ? By David Kravets ? Email Author ? June 27, 2012 | ? 2:00 pm | ? Categories: Surveillance, The Ridiculous http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/mobile-data-customers/ The nation?s major mobile carriers have amassed a treasure trove of sensitive data on their customers that they share with police and advertisers ? but keep hidden from the consumers themselves. The major carriers, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, store who you texted, the content of texts and locational tracking information such as cell-site data, which identifies the cell tower to which a customer was connected at the beginning of a call and at the end of the call. Different companies hold your data for different times. Sprint hoards information the longest, according to a Justice Department survey, keeping your call records for an average of 18-24 months. But, according to a survey by Pro Publica, the major carriers won?t disclose the data to their customers, for a host of reasons ? nonsensical ones at best. But they will gladly hand it over to the authorities, even without warrants. The survey comes as the government is increasingly looking to use cell-site data to bolster prosecutions in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling that said the government must obtain a warrant to affix a GPS device to track a vehicle?s every move. The justices said a warrant was necessary to affix the device to the vehicle. So, in response, the authorities claim they may obtain the data from a target?s mobile phone, without a warrant, because Americans have no expectation of privacy in their public movements. Courts have been going along, even before the high court?s January decision. When defeating California legislation this year that would force the mobile carriers to publicly report the number of times they turn over cell phone location information to police and federal agents, they successfully argued that such a plan would be too burdensome, and would take time away from the important work of sharing customer data with cops ?day and night.? T-Mobile declined comment on the Pro Publica survey. But AT&T said giving customers their data ?is not a service we provide.? Sprint said it doesn?t do it ?for privacy reasons.? That answer sounds familiar to a claim made last week by the Obama administration, which said it would violate Americans? privacy if it informed the public on how many times it spied, without warrants, on Americans? electronic communications under the FISA Amendments Act. Verizon said it would provide your data to the cops ?but not directly to you.? All of the carriers? terms of service note that your data is being used to serve targeted ads ?from their own services or from outside companies,? Pro Publica reported. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jun 27 14:43:06 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:43:06 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?The_FBI=92s_Secret_Surveillance_?= =?windows-1252?q?Letters_to_Tech_Companies?= Message-ID: <6019C974-1E9B-42D5-9F09-B0C5AEFED5B1@infowarrior.org> (c/o ferg) (Documents referred to in the article can be found @ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/365031-template-4.html#document/p7/a61565) June 27, 2012, 10:30 AM The FBI?s Secret Surveillance Letters to Tech Companies By Jennifer Valentino-DeVries http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/06/27/the-fbis-secret-surveillance-letters-to-tech-companies/ Just what kind of information can the government get with a so-called ?national security letter? ? the tool that allows investigators to seek financial, phone and Internet data without a judge?s approval? It?s a secret. Information requested on phone records The letters let the Federal Bureau of Investigation get information without going before a judge or grand jury if it?s relevant to a national security investigation. The letters have been around since the 1980s, but their use grew after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and passage of the USA Patriot Act. Tens of thousands of the requests are sent each year, but they are generally subject to strict secrecy orders. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Justice Department has revealed for the first time templates for each of the types of national security letters it sends ? nine in all. Among other things, the letters show that the FBI is now informing people who receive the letters how they can challenge the documents in court. But some key elements of the letters remain blocked from view ? including lists of material the FBI says companies can send in response to the letter. The most basic requests outlined in the templates are for name, address and length of service for either phone or Internet accounts. The broadest requests seek things such as entire credit reports, Internet activity logs, phone ?billing records,? ?financial records? or ?electronic communications transactional records.? What exactly do those terms mean? Well, there?s the rub. A 2008 opinion from the Justice Department?s legal counsel found that the letters could request ?only those categories of information parallel to subscriber information and toll billing records for ordinary telephone service.? What exactly counts as ?parallel? could be debated. In several of the templates, the FBI includes a list of specific items that ?may be considered? by the companies to be responsive to the requests. The list for phone billing records includes 15 bullet points; there are 13 points on the list for electronic data. The items associated with financial records appear to stretch on for two pages. But we can?t know for sure what is there because it has been redacted. Some broad outlines are available: Financial records include ?any record held by a financial institution pertaining to a customer?s relationship with the financial institution.? Electronic records involve ?transaction/activity logs? and email ?header information,? which includes things such as the ?to? and ?from? lines of a message. The letters point out that companies aren?t supposed to tell investigators about the content of their customers? messages; courts have long held that phone conversations and the texts of recent emails are available only with search warrants. The template to get electronic records specifically warns companies not to provide the subject lines of emails for this reason. Beyond that, it?s unclear. ?There is a growing divide between the government?s and the public?s understanding of the government?s surveillance authority,? said Alexander Abdo, a staff attorney with the ACLU. ?To this day, the government refuses to specify what certain surveillance laws?including ?national security letters??allow it to collect.? The government says it seeks only the information it?s allowed to get and must maintain the secrecy of national security letters to avoid tipping off potential terrorists. ?NSLs are integral to determining whether, how, and by whom our nation is being put at risk,? then Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security Todd Hinnen told a House Judiciary subcommittee last year in written remarks. The templates disclosed in the ACLU files show how the FBI has changed the letters in response to court rulings and new laws. The gag order that accompanies most of the letters is no longer an ?automatic feature,? the FBI says in instructions to agents. To get a secrecy order, the agent must certify that disclosure ?may endanger the national security of the United States, interfere with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life of physical safety of a person.? In all of the letters, the FBI tells the recipient that it can challenge the letter ?if compliance would be unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful.? It also outlines a process for fighting the nondisclosure order: The company has 10 days to tell the FBI it wants to challenge the gag order, and the FBI says it will then ?initiate judicial proceedings? to get a court order to enforce the gag. In the first two years after the FBI began including this notice in its letters, only a handful of companies challenged the gag orders, the FBI has said. Many major technology companies have guidelines for handling national security letters, although they cannot confirm or deny ever having received the letters, under the strict secrecy order that accompanies most of the requests. Mr. Hinnen told the subcommittee last year that a ?small number of providers? had concluded that the FBI wasn?t entitled to electronic communications transactional records, because the law wasn?t clear. Companies are reluctant to disclose their specific policies, though. In responses to questions from The Wall Street Journal, Facebook was the only company to say specifically what data it would give out. ?We interpret the national security letter provision as applied to Facebook to require the production of only two categories of information: name and length of service,? said Fred Wolens, a public policy spokesman for the social networking giant. Other companies were more vague. Google and Twitter both said their companies comply with ?valid legal process? and seek to notify users of requests whenever possible. Verizon and AT&T both said they do not comment on national security matters. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 28 06:57:06 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:57:06 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?I_Can_Use_A_Banana_to_Rob_a_Bank?= =?windows-1252?q?=3A_Why_We_Don=92t_Ban_Things_Just_Because_They_Can_Be_M?= =?windows-1252?q?isused?= Message-ID: <5928AA60-4B12-45B0-A10D-815E9B35C1DC@infowarrior.org> http://www.publicknowledge.org/print/6963 I Can Use A Banana to Rob a Bank: Why We Don?t Ban Things Just Because They Can Be Misused [1] By Michael Weinberg [2] | June 22, 2012 Earlier this week, YouTube-MP3.org [7] announced [8] that it had received a letter from YouTube essentially asking them to shut down. YouTube-MP3.org was a site that allowed you to strip audio from a YouTube video and save it as an MP3. Yesterday, it came to light [9] that CNET had received a similar request from the RIAA to remove software from its popular Download.com [10] site that performed the same purpose. These requests are dumb. Software That Downloads YouTube Videos Has Many Legitimate Uses This is not idle speculation: we use this software here at PK all the time. Many [11] members [12] of [13] Congress [14]regularly [15] release videos on YouTube. Beyond that, many important Congressional events are only available in places like C-Span [16]. We regularly incorporate these clips into our own videos [17]. And the best way (many times the only timely way) to get those videos is to use a tool like those hosted on Download.com. The video-to-MP3 services also serve an important purpose. To name an immediate example, every day here in Washington people are hosting great roundtables, panel discussions, and talks. In a perfect world I would be able to go to all of them, but that is not always possible. I also do not always have time to sit down and watch the video. But I do have time to listen on my walk to work and as I wander around the city on my way to meetings (anyway, if you have seen one group of people sitting in front of an audience, your imagination can fill in the visuals for just about any DC panel). This Software is No Different than a DVR or Taping Songs off the Radio Even most of the uses that specifically concern the RIAA are probably not illegal. These services and software are essentially functioning as a DVR for YouTube. If I am allowed to record music videos from MTV (or MTV Jams or wherever music videos are actually being played on TV) on my Tivo, it is hard to think of a legal principle that prevents me from recording music videos from YouTube onto my computer. Furthermore, it is hard to think of a reason that my recoding has to include the video as well as the audio. Of course, using these tools to take songs from YouTube and put them up on a file sharing service would be illegal. But that would be because sharing songs you do not own with the world is illegal, not because getting them from YouTube is illegal. Back to the Banana and the Bank It is possible to use a banana to rob a bank. It is also possible to use a phone to defraud people of millions of dollars [18]. But we do not make possession of a banana or the use of a phone illegal. We make bank robbery and fraud illegal. We do not outlaw bananas and phones because bananas and phones serve any number of socially useful services. It would be dumb to outlaw them just because someone could use them in a bad way. That?s why the test that the Supreme Court identified in the famous Betamax case [19] is so useful. As long as a technology is capable of ?substantial noninfringing uses? we welcome it. Because those substantial noninfringing uses are great to have, and we cannot stop innovation just because it can sometimes be abused. Note: It is worth mentioning that the situation between YouTube and YouTube-MP3.org is a bit more complicated than the one between the RIAA and Download.com. The RIAA has specifically mentioned fears about infringement in its request to CNET. YouTube?s letters apparently focus on the use of its API, which is governed by contract law. While YouTube is generally free to limit how people use its API, that power does not extend to preventing people from downloading videos by other means ? means that YouTube-MP3.org is apparently using instead of the API. While YouTube can tell people how to use their API, their ability to dictate what I do with the videos that are streamed to my computer is much more limited. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Copyright ? 2009: Public Knowledge | Privacy Policy | Contact Us Social network icons by Komodo Media and Deleket.com Source URL: http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/i-can-use-banana-rob-bank-why-we-don%E2%80%99t-ban-th Links: [1] http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/i-can-use-banana-rob-bank-why-we-don%E2%80%99t-ban-th [2] http://www.publicknowledge.org/user/2258 [3] https://twitter.com/mweinbergpk [4] http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/innovation [5] http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/piracy [6] http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/riaa [7] http://www.youtube-mp3.org/ [8] http://www.youtube-mp3.org/help-us [9] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57457982-93/riaa-to-cnet-follow-google-nix-video-to-mp3-conversions/ [10] http://download.cnet.com/ [11] http://www.youtube.com/user/EricCantor [12] http://www.youtube.com/user/SenRonWyden [13] http://www.youtube.com/user/RepDarrellIssa [14] http://www.youtube.com/user/NancyPelosi [15] http://www.youtube.com/user/SenatorSanders [16] http://www.c-span.org/ [17] http://www.youtube.com/user/acurtis?feature=results_main [18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff [19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc. [20] http://twitter.com/share? [21] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 28 09:34:06 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:34:06 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: JPMorgan Trading Loss May Reach $9 Billion Message-ID: <2A5A01FC-D122-4D81-ADED-CB6B0A73FAFF@infowarrior.org> (They picked a good day to leak this stuff out, knowing everyone is focssed on SCOTUS and the AHCA decision this morning. --rick) June 28, 2012, 2:30 am JPMorgan Trading Loss May Reach $9 Billion By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and SUSANNE CRAIG http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/jpmorgan-trading-loss-may-reach-9-billion/?hp&pagewanted=print Losses on JPMorgan Chase's bungled trade could total as much as $9 billion, far exceeding earlier public estimates, according to people who have been briefed on the situation. When Jamie Dimon, the bank's chief executive, announced in May that the bank had lost $2 billion in a bet on credit derivatives, he estimated that losses could double within the next few quarters. But the red ink has been mounting in recent weeks, as the bank has been unwinding its positions, according to interviews with current and former traders and executives at the bank who asked not to be named because of investigations into the bank. The bank's exit from its money-losing trade is happening faster than many expected. JPMorgan previously said it hoped to clear its position by early next year; now it is already out of more than half of the trade and may be completely free this year. As JPMorgan has moved rapidly to unwind the position - its most volatile assets in particular - internal models at the bank have recently projected losses of as much as $9 billion. In April, the bank generated an internal report that showed that the losses, assuming worst-case conditions, could reach $8 billion to $9 billion, according to a person who reviewed the report. With much of the most volatile slice of the position sold, however, regulators are unsure how deep the reported losses will eventually be. Some expect that the red ink will not exceed $6 billion to $7 billion. Nonetheless, the sharply higher loss totals will feed a debate over how strictly large financial institutions should be regulated and whether some of the behemoth banks are capitalizing on their status as too big to fail to make risky trades. JPMorgan plans to disclose part of the total losses on the soured bet on July 13, when it reports second-quarter earnings. Despite the loss, the bank has said it will be solidly profitable for the quarter - no small achievement given that nervous markets and weak economies have sapped Wall Street's main businesses. To put the size of the loss in perspective, JPMorgan logged a first-quarter profit of $5.4 billion. More than profits are at stake. The growing fallout from the bank's bad bet threatens to undercut the credibility of Mr. Dimon, who has been fighting major regulatory changes that could curtail the kind of risk-taking that led to the trading losses. The bank chief was considered a deft manager of risk after steering JPMorgan through the financial crisis in far better shape than its rivals. "Essentially, JPMorgan has been operating a hedge fund with federal insured deposits within a bank," said Mark Williams, a professor of finance at Boston University, who also served as a Federal Reserve bank examiner. A spokesman for the bank declined to comment. In its most basic form, the losing trade, made by the bank's chief investment office in London, was an intricate position that included a bullish bet on an index of investment-grade corporate debt. That was later combined with a bearish wager on high-yield securities. The chief investment office - which invests excess deposits for the bank and was created to hedge interest rate risk - brought in more than $4 billion in profits in the last three years, accounting for roughly 10 percent of the bank's profit during that period. In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee last week, Mr. Dimon said that the London unit had "embarked on a complex strategy" that exposed the bank to greater risks even though it had been intended to minimize them. JPMorgan executives are briefed each morning on the size of the trading loss. The tally could shrink if the market moves in JPMorgan's favor, the people briefed on the situation cautioned. But hedge funds and other investors have seized on the bank's distress, creating a rapid deterioration in the underlying positions held by the bank. Although Mr. Dimon has tried to conceal the intricacies of the bank's soured bet, credit traders say the losses have still mounted. While some hedge funds have compounded the bank's woes, others have been finding it profitable to help JPMorgan get clear of the losing credit positions. One such fund, Blue Mountain Capital Management, has been accumulating trades over the last couple of weeks that might help reduce the risk of the bets made by JPMorgan in a credit index, according to interviews with more than a dozen credit traders. The hedge fund is then selling those positions back to the bank. A Blue Mountain spokesman declined to comment. As traders in JPMorgan's London desk work to get out of the huge bet, which started generating erratic losses in late March, the traders based in New York are largely sitting idle, according to current traders in the unit. "We are in a holding pattern," said one current New York trader who asked not to be named. Long before the losses started mounting, senior executives at the chief investment office in New York worried about the trades of Bruno Iksil, according to the current traders. Now known as the London Whale for his outsize wagers in the credit markets, Mr. Iksil accumulated a number of trades in 2010 that were illiquid, which means it would take the bank more time to get out of them. In 2010, a senior executive at the chief investment office compiled a detailed report that estimated how much money the bank stood to lose if it had to get out of all Mr. Iksil's trades within 30 days. The senior executive recommended that JPMorgan consider putting aside reserves to deal with any losses that might stem from Mr. Iksil's trades. It is not known how much was recommended as a reserve or whether Mr. Dimon saw the report, but the warning went unheeded. The losses are the most embarrassing fumble for Mr. Dimon since he became chief executive in 2005. In appearances before Congress, Mr. Dimon has taken pains to assure investors and lawmakers that the overall health of JPMorgan remained strong and that it had more than sufficient amounts of capital to weather any economic dislocation. Even as he apologized for the trade, calling it "stupid," Mr. Dimon emphasized to lawmakers that the loss was an "isolated incident." The Federal Reserve is currently poring over the bank's trades to examine the scope of the growing losses and the original bet. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jun 28 10:54:45 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:54:45 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - CNN & Fox's "Dewey Beats Truman" incident Message-ID: <2A27042D-2CBB-46C5-BE8F-405D6876E46A@infowarrior.org> (screenshots of the 'news' at the link provided. And the last paragraph is something ALL news and 'news' outlets need to remember each and every day. --rick) CNN's mistake on Obama health care ruling historic 3 m ago By LANE FILLER http://www.newsday.com/opinion/viewsday-1.3683911/cnn-s-mistake-on-obama-health-care-ruling-historic-1.3810723 Finally, with today?s Supreme Court decision, a decades-long battle is over: ?Dewey Beats Truman,? is no longer the biggest major screw-up in American media history. In other news, it was a pretty good day in the decades-long battle to ensure lots and lots of health care deprived Americans. CNN, in full-throated Wolf Blitzer-mode, fell victim to the biggest fallacy of the modern news media -- that it?s really important to have the story first, even if it's only by, say, a nanosecond. The network announced that the Affordable Care Act, and the mandate that all Americans who can afford it must buy health insurance, had been struck down, the exact opposite of what happened. Fox News also misunderstood the ruling, and originally announced the mandate to buy health care or pony up money to the government had been struck down, but figured out the mistake much more quickly. On any other day, Fox's gaffe might have become the stuff of media legend, but CNN's goof seems the have eclipsed Fox's in the public consciousness. Let me ask this: Do you actually know who broadcast this Supreme Court decision first? No? Do you know who broadcast any of these breaking news items first: ? The death of Osama bin Laden? ? The attack on the World Trade Center? ? The death of Princess Diana? ? The death of Saddam Hussein? Personally, I don?t have the slightest idea, and I love media like an aerobics instructor loves boneless, skinless chicken breasts. What matters is being right. Who the hell cares if you can be counted on to be first if you can?t be reliably accurate. Wolf Blitzer, and CNN, may have just written their own epitaphs, and those, at least, will probably recount today?s events as they actually happened. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 29 06:57:40 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:57:40 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Minitel: The rise and fall of the France-wide web Message-ID: <15B79B3C-E12B-4A90-BA36-45BFC7ABA824@infowarrior.org> 27 June 2012 Last updated at 19:36 ET Minitel: The rise and fall of the France-wide web By Hugh Schofield BBC News, Paris http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18610692?print=true France is switching off its groundbreaking Minitel service which brought online banking, travel reservations, and porn to millions of users in the 1980s. But then came the worldwide web. Minitel has been slowly dying and the plug will be pulled on Saturday. Many years ago, long before the birth of the web, there was a time when France was the happening-est place in the digital universe. What the TGV was to train travel, the Pompidou Centre to art, and the Ariane project to rocketry, in the early 1980s the Minitel was to the world of telecommunications. Thanks to this wondrous beige monitor attached to the telephone, while the rest of us were being put on hold by the bank manager or queueing for tickets at the station, the French were already shopping and travelling "online". Other countries looked on in awe and admiration, and the French were proud. As President Jacques Chirac boasted: "Today a baker in Aubervilliers knows perfectly how to check his bank account on the Minitel. Can the same be said of the baker in New York?" Chirac was speaking in 1997, exactly half way through the life-cycle of France's greatest telecoms innovation. At the time, he could be forgiven for thinking it would last forever. This was the high point, with nine million Minitel sets installed in households around the country, an estimated 25 million users, and 26,000 services on offer. But of course, the story was already written. The internet was moving in. Today bakers from Timbuktu to Tallahassee are not just consulting their bank statements online, but doing just about everything else as well. And so on Saturday, exactly 30 years after it was launched, the Minitel is bowing out. After that, the little beige box will answer no more. It was born in the white heat of President Valery Giscard d'Estaing's technological great leap forward of the late 1970s. An expert report then concluded that with proper investment the nation's telephone network could be complemented by a visual information system, accessed through screen-keyboard terminals. "As well as being a technological project, it was political," says Karin Lefevre of France Telecom. "The aim was to computerise French society and ensure France's technological independence." Rolled out experimentally in Brittany, Minitel went national in 1982, offering the telephone directory and not much else. Gradually the offer increased to a vast array of services - banking, stock prices, weather reports, travel reservations, exam results, university applications, as well as access points to various bits of the state administration. All users had to do was dial up a number on the keyboard, then follow instructions that juddered out in black and white across the screen. It may have been the ultimate in computer clunk, but it worked. "Of course it looks terribly old-fashioned by today's standards," says Lefevre. "But it was simple to use. You pressed a button and it did something. Just like on a tablet today." Apart from ease of use, two other factors ensured Minitel's success. First was that it was distributed free of charge by the then state-owned France Telecom (or its predecessor the PTT). This meant that even the poorest of households contained a set, subsidised by the taxpayer. The other reason was the variety of content, facilitated by a business model that was not exactly free-market but for a while proved highly effective. From the start, there were commercial interests that were highly suspicious of Minitel - the newspaper industry, which feared the new creation would drain vital small ads revenue. So France being France, the government intervened to save the press. It made a rule which said that the only institutions entitled to provide services on Minitel were registered newspapers. Soon these were creating all kinds of new ideas, leaving to France Telecom the hassle of collecting and then passing on their monthly fees. The most lucrative service turned out to be something no-one had envisaged - the so-called Minitel Rose. With names like 3615-Cum (actually it's from the Latin for "with"), these were sexy chat-lines in which men paid to type out their fantasies to anonymous "dates", most of them sitting in the 1980s equivalent of call-centres. Until very recently, billboards featuring lip-pouting lovelies advertising the delights of 3615-something were ubiquitous across the country. Some people are said to have spent thousands of francs every month on the Minitel Rose, and a number of entrepreneurs certainly got rich. It turned out to be quite easy to set up a newspaper. Once you were registered, you quietly let it die and got on with making money from Minitel. Today, as switch-off approaches, debate rages in France about Minitel's legacy, and whether in retrospect it has proved more of an embarrassment than a mark of pride. What once was shiny and new now looks like a shoddy bad investment - of interest to the retro market, but not to anyone else. One thing that is very telling is that Minitel was a uniquely French institution. It never made it abroad (apart from Belgium). Briefly in the early 1990s, France Telecom did set up a pilot project in Ireland. The idea was to test Minitel in a small Anglophone environment, with an eye on a bigger launch in the UK or the United States. A few thousand terminals were sold, but it never took off. "I remember when I joined in 1990, it all felt extremely funky. My friends were all very impressed that I was bringing in this new sexy piece of French kit," says Gary Jermyn, who was the joint operation's finance director. "But there were so many problems. First of all, unlike in France, we were selling the terminals, not giving them away. That was a huge handicap. And then the internet was arriving, and that was the death knell. "Minitel wasn't an open platform. It only provided Minitel services, which was quickly going out-of-date as a model. Also by the early 1990s the terminal itself was the clunkiest piece of desk manure you could imagine. It was embarrassing." A decade later, Jermyn says all that remained in Ireland were a few disused Minitel sets gathering dust in a handful of remote B&Bs (a tourist booking service had been one of the key ideas). For Benjamin Thierry, a Sorbonne university lecturer and co-author of the recent book on Minitel, France's Digital Childhood, Minitel's failure to penetrate foreign markets is a classic French experience. "When the French try to sell overseas, they insist on selling a whole system lock, stock and barrel. They don't know how to adapt, to break it up into parts. That just puts people off," he says. Indeed the whole Minitel adventure can be seen as a typical French experience. Only in France could the public resources have been mobilised to give the project its initial boost. So for a few years, the country was the envy of the world. But then, immobility and inertia - as the market simply passed by. "The failure of Minitel was not one of technology," says Benjamin Bayart, head of France's oldest internet provider, French Data Network. "It was the whole model that was doomed. Basically to set up a service on Minitel, you had to ask permission from France Telecom. You had to go to the old guys who ran the system, and who knew absolutely nothing about innovation. "It meant that nothing new could ever happen. Basically, Minitel innovated from 1978 to 1982, and then it stopped," he says. But others are less critical. Valerie Schafer, Thierry's co-author, says "the way Minitel is now fobbed off as risible and old-fashioned" is unfair. "People forget that many of the ideas that helped form the internet were first of all tried out on Minitel. Think of the payment system, not so different from the Apple app-store. "Think of the forums, the user-generated content. Many of today's web entrepreneurs and thinkers cut their teeth on Minitel," she says. "The world did not begin with the internet." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 29 13:38:06 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:38:06 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Ad Biz Claims It Must Disregard User Privacy Choices to Safeguard "Cybersecurity" Message-ID: <24A48E96-AE8B-4A48-9042-B19D88581F8B@infowarrior.org> Ad Biz Claims It Must Disregard User Privacy Choices to Safeguard "Cybersecurity" Senator Rockefeller dismisses "cybersecurity" claims as "red herring" At a hearing yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee took up the issue of online tracking, the browser-based Do Not Track flag, and, in an unlikely turn of events, cybersecurity. The hearing included testimony from Ohio State University Law School?s Prof. Peter Swire, Mozilla?s Alex Fowler, the Association of National Advertisers? Bob Liodice, and TechFreedom?s Berin Szoka. While there were a number of heated moments in the hearing, the most surprising was the advertising industry?s claim that respecting consumer choice will harm "cybersecurity." This new argument from the advertising industry only raises more concerns for the civil liberties implications of online tracking and was, as Rockefeller aptly noted, little more than a "red herring." < -- > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/ad-biz-claims-it-must-disregard-user-privacy-choices-safeguard-cybersecurity --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 29 14:44:38 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: Cisco forcing consumer router upgrades, installing spyware References: <20120629194355.GA25059@gsp.org> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Rich Kulawiec > Date: June 29, 2012 3:43:55 PM EDT > To: Dave Farber , Richard Forno > Subject: Cisco forcing consumer router upgrades, installing spyware > > (The referenced items don't call it spyware, but I do: it clearly fits > the definition.) > > Cisco Pushing 'Cloud Connect' Router Firmware, Allows Web History Tracking > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/06/29/1425210/cisco-pushing-cloud-connect-router-firmware-allows-web-history-tracking > > Linksys just pushed and installed (without my permission) a cloud service to my Linksys router. Goodbye internet security :(. > http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/vptu9/linksys_just_pushed_and_installed_without_my > > I haven't seen any reports of this showing up on enterprise routers -- yet. > > ---rsk > --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 29 17:45:05 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:45:05 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - USTR denies Issa request on TPP observation Message-ID: U.S. denies congressman Issa request to observe trade talks Thu, Jun 28 2012 By Doug Palmer http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-usa-trade-congress-idUSBRE85R1PM20120628 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. trade officials on Thursday told a Republican lawmaker at the center of a legal fight with the Obama administration he cannot sit in on trade talks next week in San Diego between the United States and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Mac Campbell, assistant U.S. trade representative for congressional affairs, told Representative Darrell Issa in a letter that his request to observe the negotiations was denied, but he and two members of his staff would receive credentials to attend the event as "stakeholders." "With these credentials you will be able to attend public portions of the event. However, only negotiators from each country are present for negotiation sessions," Campbell said. Issa, who represents northern San Diego County, is chairman of the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He has been pushing the White House to release key documents from the botched "Fast and Furious" U.S.-Mexico gun-running investigation. On Thursday, the Republican-run House voted to find U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for withholding some documents related to the probe. Although the U.S. Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction over trade, the executive branch conducts negotiations under a long-established division of labor through both Republican and Democratic administrations. The White House consults with Congress on U.S. negotiating objectives, but lawmakers do not typically sit in on talks. Congress can vote to approve or reject most trade deals. The negotiations next week in San Diego on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership are between the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. Mexico and Canada are also expected to join the negotiations in coming months. Issa said he wanted to learn more about intellectual property rights provisions in the pact that critics fear could impose tough new rules on Internet companies and users. "It is my hope that observing the negotiating process firsthand will help to alleviate some of my concerns about the process through which the agreement is being negotiated," Issa said in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk. Members of President Barack Obama's own party are also pushing for more information about the talks. On Wednesday, a group of about 130 House Democrats sent Kirk a letter urging him to release draft texts under negotiation and "to engage in broader and deeper consultations" with lawmakers on U.S. laws and regulations that could be affected by the pact. (Reporting by Doug Palmer; Editing by Will Dunham) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 29 22:20:12 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: Your E-Book Is Reading You References: Message-ID: <22164069-6219-48D5-8313-DB1A4BB9F34B@infowarrior.org> > From: Monty Solomon > > Your E-Book Is Reading You > > Digital-book publishers and retailers now know more about their > readers than ever before. How that's changing the experience of > reading. > > By ALEXANDRA ALTER > June 29, 2012 > > It takes the average reader just seven hours to read the final book > in Suzanne Collins's "Hunger Games" trilogy on the Kobo > e-reader-about 57 pages an hour. Nearly 18,000 Kindle readers have > highlighted the same line from the second book in the series: > "Because sometimes things happen to people and they're not equipped > to deal with them." And on Barnes & Noble's Nook, the first thing > that most readers do upon finishing the first "Hunger Games" book is > to download the next one. > > In the past, publishers and authors had no way of knowing what > happens when a reader sits down with a book. Does the reader quit > after three pages, or finish it in a single sitting? Do most readers > skip over the introduction, or read it closely, underlining passages > and scrawling notes in the margins? Now, e-books are providing a > glimpse into the story behind the sales figures, revealing not only > how many people buy particular books, but how intensely they read > them. > > For centuries, reading has largely been a solitary and private act, > an intimate exchange between the reader and the words on the page. > But the rise of digital books has prompted a profound shift in the > way we read, transforming the activity into something measurable and > quasi-public. > > The major new players in e-book publishing-Amazon, Apple and > Google-can easily track how far readers are getting in books, how > long they spend reading them and which search terms they use to find > books. Book apps for tablets like the iPad, Kindle Fire and Nook > record how many times readers open the app and how much time they > spend reading. Retailers and some publishers are beginning to sift > through the data, gaining unprecedented insight into how people > engage with books > > ... > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304870304577490950051438304.html --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jun 29 22:25:27 2012 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - RIAA: Keep 6-strikes details secret, cuz they might draw criticism Message-ID: (via @csoghoian) RIAA: 6-strikes emails w/copyright czar must remain secret to avoid criticism or opposition from critics, like me. p5 (shortened link is to a PDF file of her testimony) -- http://t.co/O4BNzbFv --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it.