If you can dream it, you can do it. -Walt Disney
Quality is a great business plan. -John Lasseter
Let's make some funny pictures. -Tex Avery
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. -Howard Zinn
When critics sit in judgment it is hard to tell where justice leaves off and vengeance begins. -Chuck Jones
And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? -Jesus
A man should never neglect his family for business. -Walt Disney
What's most important in animation is the emotions and the ideas being portrayed. -Ralph Bakshi
Once you have heard a strange audience burst into laughter at a film you directed, you realize what the word joy is all about. -Chuck Jones
Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. -Buddhist Proverb
News and events from around the world
9 posts • Page 1 of 1
This war on the internet will only get more intense as the government, RIAA, and MPAA fail to take control.
Say hello to H.R. 3523, The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011. We don't know how far this bill will go yet but time will tell.
Not that it matters that much because they are starting to do whatever they want anyway.
Anyway, the best thing to do is to do research so you know what it is.
HR 3523 The New SOPA
SOPA-Inspired Bill Introduced by US Government; Allows Feds & Companies to Bypass Every Single Existing Law
EFF warns about vague cybersecurity bill in Congress
I don't think any of this stuff whether it's ACTA or this 3523 thing is getting enough attention. It's kind of strange how SOPA got so much attention and when other laws that are as bad or worse come up it's all quiet.
Come on people, they are taking control of the internet and sucking out whatever privacy is left while no one's looking.
While most folks are looking elsewhere, it appears that Congress is trying to see if it can sneak an absolutely awful "cybersecurity" bill through Congress. We've discussed how there's been some fighting on the Senate side concerning which cybersecurity bill to support, but there's a similar battle going on in the House, and it appears that the Rogers-Ruppersberger bill, known as CISPA (for Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) or HR 3523 is winning out, with a planned attempt to move it through Congress later this month. The bill is awful -- and yet has somehow already gained over 100 sponsors. In an attempt to pretend that this isn't a "SOPA-like" problem, the supporters of this bill are highlighting the fact that Facebook, Microsoft and TechAmerica are supporting this bill.
However, this is a terrible bill for a variety of reasons. Even if we accept the mantra that new cybersecurity laws are needed (despite a near total lack of evidence to support this -- and, no, fearmongering about planes falling from the sky doesn't count), this bill has serious problems. As CDT warned when this bill first came out, it's way too broad and overreaching:
However, the bill goes much further, permitting ISPs to funnel private communications and related information back to the government without adequate privacy protections and controls. The bill does not specify which agencies ISPs could disclose customer data to, but the structure and incentives in the bill raise a very real possibility that the National Security Agency or the DOD’s Cybercommand would be the primary recipient.
If it's confusing to keep track of these different cybersecurity bills, the ACLU has put together a handy dandy (scary) chart (pdf) comparing them all. And what comes through loud and clear is that the Rogers-Ruppersberger CISPA bill will allow for much greater information sharing of companies sending private communication data to the government -- including the NSA, who has been trying very, very hard to get this data, not for cybersecurity reasons, but to spy on people. CISPA has broad definitions, very few limits on who can get the data, almost no limitations on how the government can use the data (i.e. they can use it to monitor, not just for cybersecurity reasons) and (of course) no real oversight at all for how the data is (ab)used.
CDT has put together a reasonable list of 8 things that should be done if politicians don't want to turn cybersecurity into a new SOPA, but so far, Congress is ignoring nearly all of them. Similarly, EFF is asking people to speak out against CISPA, noting that it basically creates a cybersecurity exemption to all existing laws. If the government wants your data, it just needs to claim that it got it for "cybersecurity purposes" and then it can do pretty much whatever it wants.
This is a really bad bill and it looks like it's going to pass unless people speak up.
Read more at techdirt.com:
Forget SOPA, You Should Be Worried About This Cybersecurity Bill
Here ya go...
Here's a list of corporations that support CISPA. Surprisingly facebook is on the list and I've been hearing that a lot of tech people are starting to delete their facebook accounts and move over to google+ or just not have a "social" account.
List of Corporations supporting CISPA
I believe this is an article that went along with the video above. I posted it below.
An onrush of condemnation and criticism kept the SOPA and PIPA acts from passing earlier this year, but US lawmakers have already authored another authoritarian bill that could give them free reign to creep the Web in the name of cybersecurity.
As congressmen in Washington consider how to handle the ongoing issue of cyberattacks, some legislators have lent their support to a new act that, if passed, would let the government pry into the personal correspondence of anyone of their choosing.
H.R. 3523, a piece of legislation dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short), has been created under the guise of being a necessary implement in America’s war against cyberattacks. But the vague verbiage contained within the pages of the paper could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and essentially monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties. Critics have already come after CISPA for the capabilities that it will give to seemingly any federal entity that claims it is threatened by online interactions, but unlike the Stop Online Privacy Act and the Protect IP Acts that were discarded on the Capitol Building floor after incredibly successful online campaigns to crush them, widespread recognition of what the latest would-be law will do has yet to surface to the same degree.
Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology tells RT that Congress is currently considering a number of cybersecurity bills that could eventually be voted into law, but for the group that largely advocates an open Internet, she warns that provisions within CISPA are reason to worry over what the realities could be if it ends up on the desk of President Barack Obama. So far CISPA has been introduced, referred and reported by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and expects to go before a vote in the first half of Congress within the coming weeks.
“We have a number of concerns with something like this bill that creates sort of a vast hole in the privacy law to allow government to receive these kinds of information,” explains Burman, who acknowledges that the bill, as written, allows the US government to involve itself into any online correspondence, current exemptions notwithstanding, if it believes there is reason to suspect cyber crime. As with other authoritarian attempts at censorship that have come through Congress in recent times, of course, the wording within the CISPA allows for the government to interpret the law in such a number of degrees that any online communication or interaction could be suspect and thus unknowingly monitored.
In a press release penned last month by the CDT, the group warned then that CISPA allows Internet Service Providers to “funnel private communications and related information back to the government without adequate privacy protections and controls.
The bill does not specify which agencies ISPs could disclose customer data to, but the structure and incentives in the bill raise a very real possibility that the National Security Agency or the DOD’s Cybercommand would be the primary recipient,” reads the warning.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, another online advocacy group, has also sharply condemned CISPA for what it means for the future of the Internet. “It effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity'’ exemption to all existing laws,” explains the EFF, who add in a statement of their own that “There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by ‘cybersecurity purposes.’”
What does that mean? Both the EFF and CDT say an awfully lot. Some of the biggest corporations in the country, including service providers such as Google, Facebook, Twitter or AT&T, could copy confidential information and send them off to the Pentagon if pressured, as long as the government believes they have reason to suspect wrongdoing. In a summation of their own, the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, explains that “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy” either “a system or network of a government or private entity” is reason enough for Washington to reach in and read any online communiqué of their choice.
The authors of CISPA say the bill has been made “To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities,” but not before noting that the legislation could be used “and for other purposes,” as well — which, of course, are not defined.
“Cyber security, when done right and done narrowly, could benefit everyone,” Burman tells RT. “But it needs to be done in an incremental way with an arrow approach, and the heavy hand that lawmakers are taking with these current bills . . . it brings real serious concerns.”
So far CISPA has garnered support from over 100 representatives in the House who are favoring this cybersecurity legislation without taking into considerations what it could do to the everyday user of the Internet. And while the backlash created by opponents of SOPA and PIPA has not materialized to the same degree yet, Burman warns Congress that it could be only a matter of time before concerned Americans step up to have their say.
“One of the lessons we learned in the reaction to SOPA and PIPA is that when Congress tries to legislate on things that are going to affect Internet users’ experience, the Internet users are going to pay attention,” says Burman. H.R. 3523, she cautions, “Definitely could affect in a very serious way the internet experience.” Luckily, adds Burman, “People are starting to notice.” Given the speed that the latest censorship bill could sneak through Congress, however, anyone concerned over the future of the Internet should be on the lookout for CISPA as it continues to be considered on Capitol Hill.
Source: Even worse than SOPA: New CISPA cybersecurity bill will censor the Web
Here's another one on this...supporters of CISPA are claiming it is not like SOPA, but it still gives the powers that be the power to shut anyone down without question. As usual everyone is still guilty until proven innocent and you have to prove your own innocence. This crap will never stop until lots of things are drastically changed.
You may not have heard of it yet because it's been flying under the radar. It's a lot like PIPA, which was a lot SOPA (I'm sure you heard of those). Actually, some people are calling it "worse than SOPA," and it's sponsored by a congressman who thinks the death penalty should be considered for Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking military information to Wikileaks.
Be worried: they think we stopped paying attention after SOPA -- so they made this.
CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (PDF) (aka H.R. 3523), is up for a vote in two weeks. Unlike its failed cousins, it has the support of companies such as AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, Symantec, Verizon, and many more. A full list of all 28 corporate supporters is here.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), is also trying to get tech press to tell you to think that his bill CISPA is "nothing like SOPA."
Don't believe it.
CISPA's primary function is to remove legal barriers that might keep Internet companies from giving all your communication and information to the government. It allows "cyber entities" (such as Internet service providers, social networks like Facebook and cell phone companies like AT&T) to circumvent Internet privacy laws when they're pressured by Homeland Security to hand over or shut down -- well, almost anything of yours online that the government wants, no warrant needed.
Critics like the the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy & Technology say CISPA's crazily vague wording makes it possible for the US government to take extreme measures against sites like The Pirate Bay and Wikileaks, and could extend to sites that publish Wikileaks-like information such as Guardian UK or The New York Times.
They're not that far off the mark with the Wikileaks association, given that Rogers appears to be out for blood with Manning. CISPA was drafted just after Rogers said an execution should be considered for Manning. The bill has been in revisions for nearly one and a half years now.
Sound much different than SOPA? Nope, not yet. Still, Rogers is trying. Recently, he and CISPA's co-author Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) staged a conference call to influence tech reporters whom they called "Cyber Media and Cyber Bloggers." In the press briefing, CISPA's authors unconvincingly tried to spin CISPA as being nothing like SOPA.
They pointed out that CISPA has nothing to do with domain seizures. This is true on the surface, yet under the hood the bill is designed to give the Homeland Security entities involved in ongoing domain seizures a broad range of shiny new tools to use for shutdowns.
CISPA is primarily a surveillance bill. With CISPA, a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your e-mails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and keep it from being sent if it fits into a plan to stop "cybersecurity" threats.
Full Story: Say 'hello' to CISPA, it will remind you of SOPA
After Google played a central role rallying the public against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R – MI) claims that Google is secretly supporting the bill many are calling “SOPA 2.”
“They’ve been helpful and supportive of trying to find the right language in the bill,” Rogers said of Google, which declined to comment on the new bill called the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).
Read More: Google Secretly Backs CISPA
The only reason companies didn't like SOPA was because it could be costly for them. CISPA wont cost companies anything so they're all for it. CISPA seems to only be bad for people.
If you want proof that most companies do not care about people, check the link below.
As the campaign against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) heats up, it's important for the opposition movement to understand just how many companies directly or indirectly support the legislation (i.e. through a trade group). Here, the complete list of CISPA supporters.
CISPA supporters list: 800+ companies that could help Uncle Sam snag your data
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.
Full Article: World's Largest Organization for Computer Professionals Comes Out Against CISPA
9 posts • Page 1 of 1