Anonops #9: Get Los(t) Zetas

quote:

UK Copyright Consultation Wants Facts Not Fiction

Perhaps the point that sticks in people’s heads most about the Hargreaves review of Copyright, which was published in April of this year, wasn’t any of the actual recommendations about copyright, such as personal-use exceptions, but a claim made about the way copyright had been handled by governments.

“We urge Government to ensure that in future, policy on Intellectual Property issues is constructed on the basis of evidence, rather than weight of lobbying,” was the damning indictment on past copyright consultations and legislation efforts, and has clearly prodded Her Majesty’s Government into action.

Last week, the UK’s Intellectual Property Office opened a consultation into the topic, covering several proposals. Minister for Intellectual Property, Baroness Wilcox stated:

“The Government is focused on boosting growth and some freeing up of existing copyright legislation can deliver real value to the UK economy without risking our excellent creative industries. We are encouraging businesses to come forward with thoughts and evidence on our proposals to help us achieve this.”

Along with the 171-page consultation document comes a handy little 5 page document (pdf) on data and evidence which is going to leave people at the British Phonographic Institute, the Federation Against Copyright Theft, and other similar industry lobby groups feeling a little sick.

Claims will now have to be backed with numbers, and those numbers will have to be attributed, and where possible, peer-reviewed. Graphs should be accompanied with the raw data in an electronic appendix (to avoid visual manipulation of data) and studies cited will have to include the name of the group that funded it.

Of course, tech-heads also put on notice.

“Documents to be written in clear language: a summary to be given, where possible without the use of technical language”. This is a clear warning for those of us who talk of technical issues beyond general knowledge, since as a rule, politicians don’t understand the Internet.

Yet it’s in the footnotes that the barbs really dig deep into the sides of Big Copyright’s lobby groups, with a demonstration of how figures can be manipulated. In the example given, they show how an actual loss of Ł55 can be turned into an estimated loss of Ł451. The press have started to doubt some of the claims by the copyright industry, but now it seems governments are too.

It’s almost as if someone’s been reading our articles…. (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc.)

The consultation closes March 21st 2012, and can be found here.

quote:

Spanish novelist Lucía Etxebarria quits writing in piracy protest

Author says more copies of her book have been downloaded illegally than sold, and claims politicians too scared to act

An award-winning Spanish novelist claims that the illegal downloading of ebooks has forced her to give up writing and start looking for a new job.

"Given that I have today discovered that more illegal copies of my book have been downloaded than I have sold, I am announcing officially that I will not publish another book for a long time," Lucía Etxebarria announced on her Facebook page.

Etxebarria told the Guardian that Spanish authors faced a difficult future as online piracy spreads from music and film to literature.

She pointed to Spain's position at the top of the world rankings for per capita illegal downloads. "We come after China and Russia in the total number of illegal downloads but, obviously, there are a lot more of them so we win on a per capita measure," she said.

"People are making millions out of online piracy by setting up in places like Belize, which is where the money goes," Etxebarria said. "They are a powerful lobby and our government doesn't dare legislate."

quote:

The outgoing socialist government of the prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, ditched a proposed anti-piracy law this month. "They were too scared," said Etxebarria.

She said she was not convinced that the new conservative People's party government of Mariano Rajoy, who became prime minister on Tuesday, would be any braver.

Etxebarria, who has won several of Spain's best-known literary prizes, said she could no longer justify devoting three years of her working life to producing a book.

Her latest novel, The Contents of Silence, was published in October and although previous books have been bestsellers, this one is ranked low down the sales list on Amazon's Spanish site.

It is not available as a legal ebook but can be downloaded in pdf format from numerous websites. The print edition costs more than ¤20.

"We decided against publishing it as an ebook because that is easy to pirate. It would have been like throwing it straight to the lions," Etxebarria said.

She said she was now considering a job offer, and was also thinking of allowing her books – which have been translated into 20 languages – to be published only in French and German, as the laws in France and Germany offer greater protection to authors.Her vow to stop writing provoked a torrent of abuse from downloaders who filled her Facebook wall with insults. Some said they did not earn enough to buy her books.

"Literature is not a profit-making job, but a passion," said Kelly Sánchez, one of the least vitriolic critics. "If you had a real vocation then you wouldn't stop writing."

Others wanted to know how Etxebarria had spent one of the world's richest literary prizes, the Planeta prize, now worth ¤601,000 (Ł502,000), which she won in 2004. She has also won the Primavera prize, currently worth ¤200,000, and the prestigious Nadal prize.

Writers currently near the top of the Spanish-language illegal downloads list include the British novelist Ken Follett and John Gray, author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.

quote:

Did the US already Privatize Big Brother?

What do you think of the following: YouTube has an "informal system" that allows companies with copyrights to automatically scan all uploads for potential violations. If the software detects the "possibility" of a violation (image, tune, trademark, etc.), it automatically tells YouTube to delete the content. This software is so automated, it can censor millions of uploads a day without human intervention.

Here's an example of how this censoring system was used to block speech that Universal music found objectionable:

quote:

Can the U.S. Government close social media accounts?

The Obama administration and The New York Times are teaming up to expose and combat the grave threat posed by a Twitter account, purportedly operated by the Somali group Shabab, and in doing so, are highlighting the simultaneous absurdity and perniciousness of the War on Terror. This latest tale of Dark Terrorist Evil began on December 14 when the NYT‘s Jeffrey Gettleman directed intrepid journalistic light on the Twitter account maintained under the name “HSMPress,” which claims to be the press office of Harakat al-Shabab al-Mujahedeen, the Shabab’s full name. Gettleman’s article included this passage early on in its account:

. But terrorism experts say that Twitter terrorism is part of an emerging trend and that several other Qaeda franchises — a few years ago the Shabab pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda — are increasingly using social media like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and Twitter.

That has to be the single most amusing phrase ever to appear unironically in the Paper of Record: Twitter terrorism. And, of course, the authority cited for this menacing trend is that ubiquitous sham community calling itself “terrorism experts,” which exists to provide the imprimatur of scholarly Seriousness on every last bit of inane fear-mongering hysteria. That cottage industry (like the government’s demands for greater power and Endless War) remains vibrant only if Terrorism does (that is, Terrorism by Muslims: a propagandistic redundancy). Thus, with Osama bin Laden dead, a full decade elapsed since the last successful Terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and the original Al Qaeda group rendered inoperable, these experts are now warning the nation about lurking sleeper tweets.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 december 2011 15:35 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

twitter:

YourAnonNews twitterde op dinsdag 20-12-2011 om 00:00:32 The @CabinCr3w is currently taking down all of Egypt... reageer retweet

twitter:

anonopsbrazil twitterde op dinsdag 20-12-2011 om 20:20:47 Tango Down - http://t.co/R6xFDIAo #Anonymous #AntiSec #OpEgypt >>> http://t.co/Ws6hpZMG reageer retweet

quote:

RIAA: Someone Else Is Pirating Through Our IP-Addresses

A few days ago we reported that no less than 6 IP-addresses registered to the RIAA had been busted for downloading copyrighted material. Quite a shocker to everyone – including the music industry group apparently – as they are now using a defense previously attempted by many alleged file-sharers. It wasn’t members of RIAA staff who downloaded these files, the RIAA insists, it was a mysterious third party vendor who unknowingly smeared the group’s good name.

Over the past week we’ve had fun looking up what governments, Fortune 500 companies, and even the most dedicated anti-piracy groups download on BitTorrent. All we had to do is put their IP-addresses into the search form on YouHaveDownloaded and hit after hit appeared.

To our surprise, we found out that even IP-addresses registered to the RIAA were showing unauthorized downloads of movies, TV-shows and software.

This curiosity was quickly picked up by other news outlets to whom the RIAA gave a rather interesting explanation. Apparently these file-sharing transactions weren’t carried out by RIAA staffers, but by a third party who’s using the RIAA IP-addresses to share and distribute files online.

“Those partial IP addresses are similar to block addresses assigned to RIAA. However, those addresses are used by a third party vendor to serve up our public Web site,” a spokesperson told CNET, adding, “As I said earlier, they are not used by RIAA staff to access the Internet.”

This is all a bit confusing. First of all, the addresses are not similar, they are simply assigned to the RIAA. Everyone can look that up here, or here.

Secondly, while we are prepared to believe that RIAA staff didn’t download these files, we are left wondering what mysterious third party did. Also, is it even allowed by the official registry to register a range of IP-addresses to your private organization, and then allow others to use these IPs?

Also, just as a bit of friendly advice, it’s generally not a good idea to let others use your organization’s addresses to browse the internet. This time it’s “just” copyrighted material up for debate, but who knows what else they may be sharing online.

Considering the RIAA’s past of suing tens of thousands of file-sharers for copyright infringement, the excuse is perhaps even more embarrassing than taking full responsibility. When some of the 20,000 plus people who were sued by the RIAA over the years used the “someone else did it” excuse this was shrugged off by the music group’s lawyers. Can these people have their money back now? We doubt it.




Elsewhere, Henrik Chulu from the Free Culture blog discovered that someone at the infamous Johan Schlüter law firm downloaded the Danish movie Dirch. But Maria Fredenslund from anti-piracy group RettighedsAliancen had their excuse ready.

Were working for right holders, who obviously have given us permission to collect their material online as part of an investigative work, she told Comon.dk in response.

Notably, Sarkozy is staying quiet and not attempting to justify any infringements carried out in his name. Perhaps a case of least said, soonest mended

quote:

This multi-part article, with original artwork by Mar, is a follow-up to a one hour panel discussion at DEFCON 19 titled “‘Whoever Fights Monsters…’ Confronting Aaron Barr, Anonymous and Ourselves” moderated by Paul Roberts, discussed by Josh Corman, Brian Martin and Scot Terban. The views of the authors are not meant to be a criticism of Anonymous, nor are they meant to be encouragement for future criminal activity. It is an inevitable fact that Anonymous, or similar groups, will become bigger, stronger, and more effective. Discussions on how to build a more potent digital hacktivism group (illegal hacking to achieve a political goal) have occurred for over a decade. This article will not attempt to introduce groundbreaking new ideas, but rather will summarize many existing ideas and subject them to analysis from two security practitioners on two sides of this issue. If anything, this will serve more as a ‘Lessons Learned’ with the aim of broadening the reader’s understanding of the topic, while demonstrating that the “problem” is not going away; the “problem” is evolving and growing.

quote:

<sub>Copyright 2011 by Josh Corman and Brian Martin. Permission is granted to quote, reprint or redistribute provided the text is not altered, appropriate credit is given and a link to the original copy is included. Custom graphic courtesy of Mar - sudux.com.

Should you feel generous, please donate a couple of bucks on our behalf to any 501(c)(3) non-profit that benefits animals or computer security.</sub>

quote:

EXCLUSIVE: Twitter Censorship Firestorm Rages on as New Accusations, Denials Emerge

Instances of alleged censorship of Twitter profiles aligned with controversial topics such as Occupy Wall Street, SOPA and NDAA continue to be exposed, and leading Web experts are scrambling to debunk the claims.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation responded in a lengthy e-mail Tuesday evening to a request by the International Business Times to explain why the Internet advocacy organization does not believe Twitter censors or blocks users based on the content of their Tweets.

"#NDAA has generated at least 117,000 tweets in the last seven days. Does that sound like censorship to anyone?" Trevor Timm, an activist with the EFF wrote in the Tuesday email. "Most importantly, Twitter--as official company policy--is vehemently against SOPA. So even if they did censor (which, again, they don't), why would they ever censor its users for expressing the company line?"

Timm's full response is included at the end of this story.

The issue became a firestorm of sorts over the past several days, as Twitter denied closing the Twitter account of Business Insider reporter David Seaman on the grounds that he was writing too much about the Stop Online Privacy Act, National Defense Authorization Act, Occupy Wall Street and other controversial topics. He made the claims in a Sunday BI column that garnered massive buzz.

A representative from the social media site said its administrators "never mediate content. Period," and the company's support team later told him his account was tagged by an automated spam-removal system and that "it looks like your account got caught up in one of these spam groups by mistake. I've restored your account; sorry for the inconvenience."

But a number of Twitter users have contacted the IBTimes since the censorship allegations emerged to tell tales of having their accounts shut down in what they too believe are acts of content-based censorship.

Doug Johnson Hatlem, an administrator for the open @OccupyBayStreet and shuttered @OccupyBay2 Twitter accounts, contacted the IBTimes on Monday to report the struggles he and his fellow Tweeters have had maintaining a presence on Twitter to get out messages related to the Occupy Toronto movement.

"On the day Occupy Toronto was raided (Nov. 21) we were tweeting and aggregating tweets on police location ahead of the raid. Several of us were tweeting, and we were sent to twitter jail (for the first time--we'd tweeted about 4,000 tweets at that point)," Hatlem wrote. "We opened up a backup account--@OccupyBay2. Just about the time we left twitter jail @OccupyBayStreet, @OccupyBay2 was suspended. It's still down a month later even though we've sent several notes of explanation to Twitter."

Hatlem said he believes that the fact that @OccupyBay2 tweeted out Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's cell phone number in one of its mere 16 posts may be one of the main reasons someone reported the account for spamming.

A Twitter representative confirmed that it had been reported for spam, but Hatlem said he does not believe Twitter took the initiative to censor his account. Instead he believes Ford or someone else with a vendetta against the Occupy Toronto group reported them for spam, knowing that such a move could get the account closed at least for a short period of time while the Nov. 21 raid was underway.

"In other words, we think twitter's spambot remover is the culprit, but that twitter doesn't take into account the use of that blocking function for political means," Hatlem said. "It is furthermore too slow to follow up on reports that what is going on is politically rather than spam motivated. David had his account restored quickly once it became a media issue; ours is still down."

Despite the fact that Occupy Toronto is based in Canada, Hatlem's suspicion dovetails with the increasing evidence that the American government and law enforcement agencies are delving ever deeper into social media.

In one of the most cases regarding Twitter censorship to date, The New York Times exposed on Monday that "some American officials said the government was exploring legal options to shut down the Shabab's new Twitter account," referring to the @HSMPress account supposedly run by Somalia's Shabab militant group.

IBTimes was also contacted by Brian Flowers, an administrator for the Occupy Penn State movement's @occupypennstate Twitter account. He said the account was shuttered "within a day" of it being launched, and was not reinstated until a week later, when he was told it had been caught by Twitter's spam filters.

"My personal account has never been suspended however, even though it's dormant around 11 months out of the year, and when I do use it it's in the same manner I used the occupy account (though about different events) -- sending the same tweet with an @ mention to 5-10 different organizations to keep them updated on protests and other activity," Flowers wrote. "When I do it from my personal account about our 'corbettville' protest, twitter doesn't care. But when I do it from the 'occupypennstate' account, suddenly I get banned. Smells fishy to me."

quote:

http://godaddyboycott.org/

GoDaddy has publicly put their support behind the heinous Stop Online Piracy Act or SOPA. If you work on the internet and do business with GoDaddy you're supporting a company who is actively working against your best interests.

Reddit user selfprodigy got the ball rolling today by posting that he would be pulling 51 GoDaddy-registered domains from the company. He was quickly followed by Ben Huh of Cheezburger (I Can Has Cheeseburger, FAIL! Blog, Know Your Meme) who pledged to move 1000+ of the companies domains. We want you to follow their lead. Can we get GoDaddy's attention?

Several other domain registration services have publicly proclaimed their opposition to SOPA: Hover, NameCheap and Dreamhost, and Name.com to name a few. Many will even give you a special discount if you're switching from GoDaddy. Lifehacker has a good list of alternatives and some instructions.

quote:

Go Daddy No Longer Supports SOPA

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. (Dec. 23, 2011) - Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" currently working its way through U.S. Congress.

"Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has been working to help craft revisions to this legislation - but we can clearly do better," Warren Adelman, Go Daddy's newly appointed CEO, said. "It's very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on this. Getting it right is worth the wait. Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it."

Go Daddy and its General Counsel, Christine Jones, have worked with federal lawmakers for months to help craft revisions to legislation first introduced some three years ago. Jones has fought to express the concerns of the entire Internet community and to improve the bill by proposing changes to key defined terms, limitations on DNS filtering to ensure the integrity of the Internet, more significant consequences for frivolous claims, and specific provisions to protect free speech.

"As a company that is all about innovation, with our own technology and in support of our customers, Go Daddy is rooted in the idea of First Amendment Rights and believes 100 percent that the Internet is a key engine for our new economy," said Adelman.

In changing its position, Go Daddy remains steadfast in its promise to support security and stability of the Internet. In an effort to eliminate any confusion about its reversal on SOPA though, Jones has removed blog postings that had outlined areas of the bill Go Daddy did support.

"Go Daddy has always fought to preserve the intellectual property rights of third parties, and will continue to do so in the future," Jones said.

twitter:

YourAnonNews twitterde op vrijdag 23-12-2011 om 19:54:47 RT @a_w_young: @GoDaddy appears to still support #SOPA, they're just spinning it differently. #NoDaddy #BoycottGoDaddy #Anonymous reageer retweet

quote:

And everything is suddenly explained. Fucking hypocrites corporate immoral cunts.

quote:

Polis pointed out that SOPA and Smith’s amendment already excluded certain operators of sub-domains, such as GoDaddy.com, from being subject to shutdowns under SOPA.

quote:

Boston police versus Anonymous: An Update

Today saw the release of a leaked administrative subpoena from Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley to Twitter, demanding that the company release to them any IP addresses and other information associated with several Twitter accounts held by Anonymous participants. Although the document also requests that Twitter refrain from informing those account holders of the move, the company nonetheless sent an e-mail to one of those involved noting that the subpoena had been issued and that they would decline to pursue the issue if they are informed of any motion to quash. Two of the individuals involved contacted me today and have now been referred to the Liederman Devine law firm in San Francisco, which is already representing another Anon operative who was heavily involved in the North African revolts and which has additionally assisted in arranging pro bono legal defense for Anon activists accused of DDOSing Paypal's website in retaliation for its move against Wikileaks last year.

quote:

http://www.webhosting.inf(...)_domains/GODADDY.COM

quote:

‘Wij, burgers van cyberspace, eisen onze broncodes’

.Ik probeer altijd sceptisch te blijven over ICT-denkers die claimen dat de samenleving revolutionair verandert door de digitalisering van Alles. Zeker, zo is het, maar de krant wordt nog steeds bezorgd. En zolang ik op tijd alle updates installeer, ook in m’n eigen hoofd, hou ik de veranderingen wel bij.

Maar na de oratie van Mireille Hildebrandt donderdag in Nijmegen ben ik uit mijn comfort zone. Zij schetst hoe rechtsrelaties in cyberspace structureel veranderen. Vrijwel alles wat we zien, wat we weten en wat er beslist wordt, is de uitkomst van geheime algoritmes op de computer. Daarbij raken rechtsbeginselen als privacy, discriminatieverbod en gegevensbescherming uit het zicht. De beginvraag ‘mag dat wel’ wordt ingehaald door ‘het kan, het gebeurt, dus het is wel best zo’. En ŕls de burger al een akkoordje moet aanvinken op zijn scherm, gebeurt ook dat automatisch. Zij heeft het over de ‘computationele wending’ in de rechtsorde. Haar conclusie: in de nieuwe techniek moet rechtsbescherming standaard worden ingebouwd. Aan meer papieren wetten is hier geen behoefte.

Vorige maand zat ik op een studiemiddag over de ‘cookiewet’, die het automatisch verzamelen van informatie over surfgedrag aan banden moet leggen. Cookies zijn kleine peilbakens die worden geplaatst door websites die je bezoekt. Ze houden bij hoeveel en welke pagina’s je bezocht (zodat je terug kunt bladeren), ze personaliseren websites en houden je ingelogd.

Reuze handig, maar ze passen ook de advertenties aan op jouw zoekgedrag. Ze vertellen door waar je was en wie je bent. Dat ‘track and trace’ is een voorbeeld. Wie vandaag online een vliegticket zoekt, wordt nog dagen automatisch getrakteerd op hotel- en huurauto opties in de plaats van bestemming. Websurfen doe je tegenwoordig wadend door een veld vol luistervinken, geplaatst door advertentienetwerken, die zien hoe vaak u ‘like’ op Facebook aanklikt en wat u zocht en kocht.

Hildebrandt, nieuw hoogleraar ‘ICT en rechtsstaat’, beschrijft de ‘cognitieve economie’, de handel in informatie die met elkaar in verband is gebracht. Alles draait nu om ‘patroonherkenning’ – het voorspellen van gedrag op basis van digitale sporen. Die informatie is veel geld waard. In cyberspace staat behalve wat je er deed inmiddels ook vrijwel vast wat je straks gaat doen. Je gedrag wordt voortdurend opgeslagen en met gelijksoortige anderen vergeleken: „Om je preferenties te achterhalen, risicovol gedrag te voorzien, prijzen aan te passen, of problemen te voorspellen. En hoe meer cyberspace de toekomst weet te voorspellen, hoe meer het die toekomst ook lijkt te maken”, zegt zij.

Dankzij deze patroonkennis wordt de vrije handelingsruimte van de burger ongemerkt kleiner. Internet, ooit de gedroomde vrije anonieme ruimte waarin je een second life kon beginnen, desnoods als hond, is nu een gouden kooi waarin de gebruiker exact die prikkels krijgt die statistisch zijn afgeleid uit zijn voorkeuren. Ieder leeft in zijn eigen dorp met zichzelf als ijkpunt, met aanbiedingen op smaak, voorgesorteerde informatie en toezicht op maat.

Het recht moet de digitale burger volgens Hillebrandt weer greep geven op de juistheid, betrouwbaarheid en relevantie van de informatie die over hem wordt verzameld. Vooral de rechten op privacy, gegevensbescherming, gelijke behandeling en op tegenspraak worden geraakt door wat zij de nieuwe ‘IT-inkijkstructuur’ noemt. De burger moet weten welke risicoprofielen over hem bestaan en moet kunnen zien hoe die worden beďnvloed.

Er zou daarom een grondrecht op de betrouwbaarheid en doorzichtigheid van cyberspace moeten komen. De burger moet zicht krijgen op de manier waarop hij wordt ‘gelezen’ op internet. „De burger, consument, gebruiker kan dan veel beter inschatten welke machinaal leesbare gedragingen zij unplugged (onbespied) wil verrichten”. Zij stelt zich programmaatjes voor waarmee de burger op ieder moment ‘onder water kan kijken’ om te zien „wie er vanuit welke locatie meekijkt, wat voor profielen de ‘content’ bepalen die we te zien krijgen en hoe data-analyse de beslissingen beďnvloedt waarmee we worden geconfronteerd”. Zodat je kunt begrijpen waarom jouw zorgtoeslag wordt geweigerd, je aanbetaling zo hoog uitvalt en waarom je al dagen alleen maar advertenties voor damespumps te zien krijgt. (‘En wie is er weer via mijn pc online wezen shoppen?’) ‘Wij, burgers van cyberspace’ moeten dus toegang tot de broncodes bedingen, zegt zij. Argumenten als bedrijfsgeheimen, nationale veiligheid of auteursrecht waar bedrijven of overheden mee zullen komen, moeten daar voor wijken. Wie hecht aan een scheiding tussen de publieke en private versie van zijn leven moet dat verdedigen.

quote:

An Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the U.S. Congress

We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it. We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it.

Last year, many of us wrote to you and your colleagues to warn about the proposed "COICA" copyright and censorship legislation. Today, we are writing again to reiterate our concerns about the SOPA and PIPA derivatives of last year's bill, that are under consideration in the House and Senate. In many respects, these proposals are worse than the one we were alarmed to read last year.

If enacted, either of these bills will create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure. Regardless of recent amendments to SOPA, both bills will risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS) and have other capricious technical consequences. In exchange for this, such legislation would engender censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties' right and ability to communicate and express themselves online.

All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended to restrict, but these bills are particularly egregious in that regard because they cause entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just infringing pages or files. Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under these proposals. In fact, it seems that this has already begun to happen under the nascent DHS/ICE seizures program.

Censorship of Internet infrastructure will inevitably cause network errors and security problems. This is true in China, Iran and other countries that censor the network today; it will be just as true of American censorship. It is also true regardless of whether censorship is implemented via the DNS, proxies, firewalls, or any other method. Types of network errors and insecurity that we wrestle with today will become more widespread, and will affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government.

The current bills -- SOPA explicitly and PIPA implicitly -- also threaten engineers who build Internet systems or offer services that are not readily and automatically compliant with censorship actions by the U.S. government. When we designed the Internet the first time, our priorities were reliability, robustness and minimizing central points of failure or control. We are alarmed that Congress is so close to mandating censorship-compliance as a design requirement for new Internet innovations. This can only damage the security of the network, and give authoritarian governments more power over what their citizens can read and publish.

The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open Internet, both domestically and abroad. We cannot have a free and open Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral bastion of free expression. If the US begins to use its central position in the network for censorship that advances its political and economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive.

Senators, Congressmen, we believe the Internet is too important and too valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put these bills aside.

quote:

Desperation: Go Daddy calling customers, begging them to stay

Not to keep beating a dead horse (or elephant), but Go Daddy continues to screw up with its latest PR effort is to let you know that it was just kidding, and that it doesn’t really support SOPA.

When the Internet decided to let the company know that they’d rather have their domain names be kept by a company who doesn’t support the Stop Online Piracy Act, the company flip-flopped on its stance.

They’re not stopping there though, they want to keep you as a customer, because they care about you. Or something like that. One person has reported getting a phone call from a Go Daddy customer support representative, basically begging him to keep his domains put.

Heres an excerpt from a Google+ post describing the awkward call:

. I just got a call from #GoDaddy. The rep said he noticed that Id transferred my 60+ domains away (Ive still got a few there that Im working on transferring, but am being conservative with, since I cant afford any downtime at all with them), and wanted to know if Id tell them why. I got to tell them that it was because of their #SOPA support, and that I couldnt in good conscience give my money to a tech company that would support legislation like that. I told him I was aware that they had reversed their position, but that their explicit support of it in the first place had cost them my confidence in them, as it is at the best viciously ignorant, and at worst, malicious.

The rep was quite sincere in his apology to me, asked if there was anything they could do to win me back. He had a We support IP protections, and now realize that support of SOPA is too broad song-and-dance routine that probably came in from a PR memo today. I told him no thanks, and that was that. Im impressed by the customer service hustle, but it shows that this little incident really spooked them.

While its nice that Go Daddy customer support reps are apologizing to customers, its sad that they have to do this in the first place. Its been a complete PR shitstorm for the company the past few days, and its not getting any better.

Go Daddy failed by supporting a half-baked act that would affect a lot of peoples lives and careers. You cant back it one day, only to back down the next. The damage is done. No amount of phone calls will change that.

/facepalm

quote:

Digitale spionage dreiging voor Nederland

Nederland moet uitkijken voor digitale spionage door andere landen. Volgens de Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding (NCTb) is het aantal incidenten met spionage bij overheid en bedrijven in 2011 gegroeid. Dat staat in het eerste Cybersecuritybeeld Nederland dat de NCTb heeft gepubliceerd.

De samenleving merkt nu het meest van criminelen die op internet opereren, maar staten hebben de kennis en middelen om op grote schaal geavanceerde aanvallen uit te voeren. Landen die bij andere landen spioneren, zijn uit op geheime politieke of economische informatie, of ze hopen er financieel beter van te worden.

Zeer aantrekkelijk
Als het gaat om digitale criminaliteit, lopen bedrijven en burgers meer risico dan de overheid. De dreiging die van deze criminelen uitgaat groeit nog steeds en is duur om te bestrijden, staat in het CSBN. Digitale criminaliteit is voor daders zeer aantrekkelijk, want ze hoeven niet veel te investeren om veel winst te kunnen maken. Bovendien is de kans klein dat ze gepakt worden.

Versterking
Als verdediging tegen de groeiende digitale dreigingen wordt het Team High Tech Crime van de Nationale Recherche versterkt. Dat heeft het kabinet gezegd in een reactie op de dreigingsanalyse. Ook bij Defensie wordt meer aandacht besteed aan digitale dreigingen. Zowel aanvallend als verdedigend moet Defensie meer kunnen. Daarom krijgen de strijdkrachten binnenkort een eigen Taskforce Cyber. Ook zal meer worden samengewerkt met de militaire en algemene inlichtingendiensten (MIVD en AIVD).

In januari gaat het Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum (NCSC) van start, dat onder meer adviezen zal uitbrengen. Ook kan het centrum (helpen) reageren op cyberdreigingen en -aanvallen. In het centrum komen onder andere Govcert - de instelling die gaat over ICT-veiligheid bij de overheid - AIVD, politie, Openbaar Ministerie en Defensie samen. Daar komen in 2012 nog mensen bij uit 'vitale sectoren' zoals telecom en energiebedrijven.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Cabincr3w doxes Santga Claus.

Santa Claus
AKA: Kristopher Kringle
Wife: Laura Claus
Brother: Jack De’Frost
7,599 kids (names redacted due to age)
Bastard Child: Santi Klaus Jr.- Nov. 5 1988 (23)
Ex Wife: Robbin Grinch
Aliases: DJ Big Kringle, JellyBelly, MC Clause, Waka Flocka Clause, Svan Claus

3250 snowball lane,
Santas Hill, NP 00001
House Worth: $53,675,322,1229.23 (tax free due to charity status)

Occupation: Toy Shop Entrepreneur, Reindeer Rancher
Common Hobbies: Making Gingerbread Houses, Flying Sleighs, Spreading Christmas Cheer, stealing cookies , adding kahlua to his milk, breaking and entering, Using magical elves to steal him cartons of smokes, stealing weed and speed from all the houses he visits on Christamas eve
Most Letters Received From: Caleb Spilchen
Most Naughty On List: Barack Obama, Hermain Cain, Tyler Durden, Rob Portman
Favorite Song: YTCracker - Antsec
Favorite Hacking Tool: Slowloris
Most Used Attack: perl slowloris.pl thegrinch.com 1000
Favorite Musicians: AC/DC (duh!)
Favorite Social Network: www.noradsanta.org
Favorite Disney Movie: Lion King
Favorite Food: Cookies and Milk, Brownies (magic ones)
Fun Facts: He likes it when you are naughty (re: lulzy) & nice, Takes pride in his elves ability to create Stuxnet, his most accomplished gift yet

Court Records:
Kristopher Kringle vs State | Child Labor (suspicion of running a sweat shop)
Kristopher Kringle vs ASPCA | Animal Neglect & Inhumane Treatment (reported whipping of Rudolph)
Kristopher Kringle vs State | Breaking and Entering
Kristopher Kringle vs State | Stalking Of Minors

Favorite song lyrics:
You better not put pout,
You better not cry,
You better not shout im telling you why,
Santas stealing your weed tonight
He knows when you are sleeping
He Knows when you’re awake
He knows when you’ve been bad or good
Hes smoking your bud and about to get baked
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You better not put pout,
You better not cry,
You better not shout im telling you why,
Santas stealing your speed tonight
He knows when you are sleeping
He Knows when you’re awake
He knows when youve been bad or good
Hes all geeked up, snortin off of your fireplace
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You better not put pout,
You better not cry,
You better not shout im telling you why,
Santas Clause is coming to town

twitter:

EricHerboso twitterde op zondag 25-12-2011 om 09:26:24 Private global intelligence company @STRATFOR had its site rooted earlier today by #antisec as part of #LulzXmas. BIG data dump. #anonymous reageer retweet

quote:

Could this be Stratfor's "private client list"? And what kind of info do you think we have on them?

#antisec #lulzxmas

Company: Homeland Security Bureau of Miami Dade Police Dept
Company: 17 Concepts
Company: 1707 Corp
Company: 2 Years / $349 - Academic acct
Company: 2-377 PFAR
Company: 21st Century Technologies
Company: 23 Shillings LTD.
Company: 230th ALT, TNARNG
Company: 3 month $59 academic memberships
Company: 3 months and The Next Decade / $16
Company: 303-279-0773
Company: 308-792-4109
Company: 312-719-1711 cell
Company: 3157313 nova scotia ltd.
Company: 334-857-3857
Company: 360∞ MEDIZIN
Company: 3M
Company: 403-263-7052
Company: 4M Firearms Import Service,LLC

quote:

Subject: Important Announcement from STRATFOR
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:49:58 -0500
From: STRATFOR <mail[at]response.stratfor.com>

Dear Stratfor Member,

We have learned that Stratfor's web site was hacked by an unauthorized party. As a result of this incident the operation of Stratfor's servers and email have been suspended.

We have reason to believe that the names of our corporate subscribers have been posed on other web sites. We are diligently investigating the extent to which subscriber information may have been obtained.

Stratfor and I take this incident very seriously. Stratfor's relationship with its members and, in particular, the confidentiality of their subscriber information, are very important to Stratfor and me. We are working closely with law enforcement in their investigation and will assist them with the identification of the individual(s) who are responsible.

Although we are still learning more and the law enforcement investigation is active and ongoing, we wanted to provide you with notice of this incident as quickly as possible. We will keep you updated regarding these matters.

Sincerely,

George Friedman

STRATFOR
221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701 US
www.stratfor.com

quote:

Intelligence Service Stratfor Suffered A Devastating Hacking Attack Last Night

This Christmas will not be a happy one for George Friedman (who incidentally was the focus of John Mauldin's latest book promotion email blast) and his Stratfor Global Intelligence service, because as of a few hours ago, hacking collective Anonymous disclosed that not only has it hacked the Stratfor website (since confirmed by Friedman himself), but has also obtained the full client list of over 4000 individuals and corporations, including their credit cards (which supposedly have been used to make $1 million in "donations"), as well as over 200 GB of email correspondence.

And since the leaked client list is the who is who of intelligence, and capital management, including such names as Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller Foundation and, yep, MF Global, we are certain that not only Stratfor and its clients will be waiting with bated breath to see just what additional troves of information are unleashed, but virtually everyone else, in this very sensitive time from a geopolitical point of view. And incidentally, we can't help but notice that Anonymous may have finally ventured into the foreign relations arena.

We can only assume, for now, that this is not a formal (or informal) statement of allegiance with any specific ideology as otherwise the wargames in the Straits of Hormuz may soon be very inappropriately named (or halfway so).

Chronology of releases from AnonymousIRC starting early this afternoon:

Read more: http://www.businessinside(...)011-12#ixzz1hYLppkeK

quote:

Anonymous said it was able to get credit details, in part, because Stratfor didn't bother encrypting them – an easy-to-avoid blunder which – if true – would be a major embarrassment for any security company.