Anonops #10: Stop SOPA

quote:

Digital Sit-ins: DDOS is legitimate civil disobedience

Distributed denial of service (DDOS) is a favorite tactic of Anonymous. While the media likes to call DDOS a form of ‘hacking’, this is at best a technical misunderstanding. DDOS does no permanent damage and doesn’t involve breaking into servers or stealing data. Rather, it simply overwhelms a server with UDP traffic - the online equivalent of fans at a football game yelling so loud that the offensive line can’t hear the quarterback. This XKCD comic explains it best:



In the US, DDOS has been treated as a felony under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act punishable by a mandatory 10 years in prison. Given its similarity to long-accepted civil disobdience tactics such as sit-ins and blocking building entrances, this harsh penalty is outrageous and unfair.

Anonymous is not unanimous, and opinion on DDOS is perhaps more divided than any other tactic. Indeed, this very faction, in consultation with anti-ACTA NGOs, has been calling for a halt to DDOS for the last several days.

But after this photo of Polish politicians protesting ACTA went viral yesterday, it’s time we all re-evaluate the role & legitimacy of DDOS. These Parlimentarians were wearing Anonymous Guy Fawkes mask while the Parliament’s website was down due to DDOS by Anonymous. We can’t emphasize that point enough - this is a game-changer.



DDOS has been a remarkably effective tactic for bringing the world’s attention to injustice, from repression in Tunisia and Egypt to censorship by SOPA and ACTA. A symbolically rich response, DDOS says “If you silence us, we will silence you”. In that respect, it works.

But DDOS is a single tool in our arsenal of protest, not the only one. We need to engage in the mainstream political process as well - and for many of us, deeply frustrated by decades of corruption and unresponsiveness, this will require holding our nose. As events in Poland have shown, we have allies in unexpected places. There comes a time when we must use words to articulate our demands and desires, instead of UDP packets. There are still many lulz to be had- in the form of mass emails, fax blasts and overloaded telephone switchboards. We therefore call on Anonymous and all freedom loving Internauts to contact your politicians directly; we demand “No SOPA, No ACTA! Hands off the Internet!”

We’ll be publishing more actions you can take in coming days.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2012 22:03 schreef Bakakame het volgende:

[..]

Papier ik vroeg me af, hoe sta jij tegenover wat Anonymous doet?

quote:

U.S. Embassy wants to know how MEPs vote ws. ACTA. 'Scandal'

An employee of the U.S. embassy in Warsaw to the Polish Sejm phoned and questioned about party discipline during the vote on the desideratum to the Prime Minister ws. ACTA. - It's outrageous, not subject to the administration of President Obama - politicians embarrassed comment.

About what you asked from the embassy?

Przedczoraj committee of innovation and new technologies adopted a desideratum calling Prime Minister Donald Tusk, would be stopped with the signing of the agreement ACTA. Desideratum was adopted because the missing three members of the PO, PSL and SLD.

The day after the vote, the representative of the U.S. Embassy called the Polish Sejm, asking how committee members voted ws. ACTA.

- In the morning, around 11 lady phoned the American Embassy asking how this came to a vote. Podliczyła voices and lacks some deputies. Eight were in favor, three opposed and four abstentions, well, it gives us such a sum, which is not all - told Mieczyslaw Golba of Polish solidarity. As he spoke, a woman inquired whether there was a quorum, if so many members were present.

"We are partners, not subject to the Congress"

TVN24 Grysiak journalist Bridget points out that politicians of all options are surprised and embarrassed by telephone from the embassy.

- Just as interest in the vote, it can still be of great good will assume that it was as acceptable. But the question whether they were party discipline, that's for me to understand and even scandalous - said Mr Slawomir Neumann of the PO. - Americans should cool down a little, because such behavior is interference in the internal affairs of the Polish parliament. We feel great friendship for the United States, but somewhere there are limits that can not exceed two pages. We are partners, not a subordinate parliament in Congress or the Obama administration - he added.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 januari 2012 05:37 schreef Dawnbreaker het volgende:

[..]

google translate?

quote:

Retaliation Fears Spur Anonymity in Internet Case

Federal law-enforcement officials say they are concerned about cyber-retaliation against agents and prosecutors, in light of suspicions that people linked to the hacker collective Anonymous targeted the private life of a government official investigating WikiLeaks.

The concern prompted the government to take the rare step of keeping officials' names out of news releases and public statements when the government shut down the website Megaupload.com last week, charging company officials with violations of copyright law. Those people have denied the accusations. Such materials routinely identify prosecutors and investigators, even in case involving terrorism, violence and organized crime.

Officials said the move to keep officials' names out of the public eye wouldn't affect the prosecution of the Megaupload.com case, where prosecutors and agents will be identified as needed in court. Since the arrests, though, authorities have noticed an uptick in hacking activity linked to Anonymous. Cybersecurity officials at the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning this week that Anonymous has been credited with a string of attacks against U.S. and European government websites.

The decision to keep names out of public statements "shows deference to the sophistication and resolve" of the hacker subculture, said Tom Kellermann, chief technology officer of AirPatrol Corp., a mobile-technology company. "The Internet is a lawless place, and we've seen a turning point where governments and regimes no longer have a monopoly on technology."

Anonymous is a loose affiliation of hackers and activists who are self-proclaimed protectors of Internet freedom. To the Justice Department, the group is something more sinister. More than a dozen alleged members have been charged with computer crimes; they have pleaded not guilty. Anonymous has no formal structure or membership, and in some ways is more of a banner under which hackers and others choose to operate than an actual organization.

Though it has existed in one form or another since 2003, Anonymous raised its profile in 2010 after the website WikiLeaks released a large cache of secret U.S. documents. Anonymous-linked hackers attacked credit-card companies that froze WikiLeaks accounts, law-enforcement officials have alleged.

The U.S. has been investigating WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and has issued subpoenas seeking more information about how he obtained access to the U.S. secrets. No charges have been filed. Mr. Assange's legal team has said the U.S. has no jurisdiction to prosecute him, because he is an Australian citizen who committed no crimes on U.S. soil.

One U.S. prosecutor whose name was publicly linked to the WikiLeaks probe faced so many personal intrusions that colleagues grew concerned about possible bodily harm, according to multiple law-enforcement officials. The prosecutor's home address was spread online, and the person's email account was subscribed to a pornography site, officials said. The prosecutor was also bombarded with harassing phone calls, they said.

"The forces out there are very, very good at moving very, very fast to make it unpleasant," said one person involved.

In light of those incidents, several officials familiar with the Megaupload.com case said the issue of publicly naming those working on the case was the subject of an internal debate within the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Justice Department didn't put officials' names in news releases or in public statements, although papers filed in court did contain some names.

The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.

In the past year, the FBI kept individual names off several public releases about Anonymous cases. The Megaupload.com case was different in that it had no clear connection to Anonymous, yet officials were still concerned that the group, or another like-minded one, would seek to retaliate when the site was taken down.

They were right.

Within hours of the charges being announced, Anonymous and its supporters managed to overload the Justice Department's public website, making it temporarily inaccessible to people trying to load the page. The site was restored after a few hours.

Part of the concern for agents and prosecutors is that their family members could face harassment or worse from Anonymous or similar groups, officials said.

Several people familiar with the matter said authorities want to strike the right balance of making a forceful presentation about the seriousness of the alleged crimes, while avoiding any action that would be perceived as weakness or that would give Anonymous and similar groups additional attention.

quote:

Anonymous swoop on Mexico govt. sites in copyright law protest

Online hacktivist group Anonymous has blocked access to Mexican Senate and Interior Ministry websites. The attack is a protest against a proposed law that will see those who violate copyright online fined one million pesos (over $100,000).

The proposal, from conservative senator Federico Doring, is widely seen as the Mexican version of the SOPA/ PIPA bills, denounced by Wikipedia and other web giants, as well as by the internet community at large, as a threat to internet freedom.

Google, YouTube, Yahoo, AOL and many others have likened the bills to China-style censorship. The deals were supposedly created to protect copyrighted material, but most believe they would cripple the internet, effectively killing all websites allowing user-uploaded content, endangering potential whistleblowers and severely damaging online freedom of speech.

The controversial bills have been shelved indefinitely by the US Congress after the wave of protests and blacking out of popular websites such as Wikipedia, to get the point across.

Despite the victory of internet users in the SOPA/PIPA case, however, other battles rage on. Another controversial treaty – ACTA, an international agreement aimed at protecting intellectual property – sparked mass protests in Poland after its signing by the country.

Anonymous has already targeted official websites in the countries that have signed ACTA. They struck the Polish, French and Czech government websites, as well as the sites of the Irish ministries of justice and finance, the European Parliament, Ireland’s Innovation Minister Sean Sherlock and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

The proposed Mexican law is the new target for Anonymous, who seem ready to tackle any organization or government on the planet that threatens internet freedom and free speech. Anonymous claimed responsibility for the attacks on Mexican websites on their Spanish Twitter account Friday.

Interior Secretary Alejandro Poire told a news conference that the ministry's site had been blocked late morning. It lasted for a little less than five minutes, the site was not compromised and officials were investigating, Poire said.

Doring said in his Twitter feed that Anonymous have the right to show they are against his proposal, but do not have the right to attack websites. He also insisted that the proposal "does not contemplate any criminal punishment" and would not sanction users of social networks because they do not make a profit.

This is not the first time the elusive internet collective is operating on Mexican online turf. Last October, Anonymous threatened to publish information on drug cartels in the country, with the main focus on Los Zetas (one of the most powerful and violent drug cartels) and those, who have been collaborating with the cartels, such as police officers and taxi drivers.

Anonymous posted an online message to Los Zetas drug lord Heriberto Lazcano, reminding him of the futility of trying to fight them, as the "global spirit of this struggle cannot be shot at, or burned with acid."

Over 47,000 people have been killed in Mexico since 2006 at the hands of the cartels.

quote:

Site-blocking law dubbed 'Ireland's Sopa' to pass without parliamentary vote

Ireland is soon to have a law similar to Sopa passed that would give music and movie companies the power to force Irish ISPs to block access to sites suspected of having copyright infringing material on them.

Irish citizens won't have a chance to lobby their democratic representatives because there won't be a vote on the law -- snappily named "S.I. No. of 2011 European Communities (Copyright and Related Rights) Regulations 2011" -- in the Irish Parliament. Instead the law is being enacted by ministerial order because it is being prepared in the form of a Statutory Instrument.

The law could mean that judges can order Irish ISPs -- such as Eircom and UPC -- as well as mobile networks to block access to social networking sites where an individual user has shared infringing material.

The legislation was prepared in response to a court decision that ruled that although the rights of EMI were being breached by internet providers letting its copyrighted works be shared for free, the law didn't have any way of addressing the situation -- something that European law requires. It was hoped that the legislation might appease rights holders, but that hasn't stopped the record label from filing a lawsuit against the Irish government for failing to clamp down on music piracy.

An early draft of the law said that the copyright holder can apply to the high court for an injunction against the person who provides the facilities that are used by third parties to infringe their copyright.

If they are deemed to be infringing copyright, the Irish courts will be able to issue an injunction against ISPs and other companies that provide the facilities that might be used to infringe copyright -- this could mean social networks such as Facebook and YouTube or video hosting sites and forums.

The wording of the early draft of the law is a little vague, but T J McIntyre, an Irish legal expert and lecturer, believes the potential penalties could be extreme.

He says in a blog post: "At a minimum this will probably allow courts to require ISPs to block access to alleged infringing sites (such as the Pirate Bay). Over and above that it becomes impossible to say -- the language is so vague it might, for example, allow a court to require an ISP to introduce a three strikes system or to block certain ports. However, once copyright plaintiffs get hold of this power you can expect it to be pushed to its absolute limit."

Websites deemed to be hosting the infringing content may not even be given notice that they are going to be blocked. This happened in a case in 2009 where Eircom was ordered to block The Pirate Bay.

This sort of approach to legislation could make it harder for Ireland to attract digital businesses. This could prove particularly problematic given that Ireland is trying to position itself as a hub for cloud computing.

For more information about the piece of legislation, visit StopSopaIreland.com.

quote:

UFC hackers mistakenly target Vegas woman

UFC President Dana White recently referred to hackers as terrorists, and they responded with an attack.

The story doesn't end there, however.

The hackers may have accidentally targeted someone else. A hacker posted personal information about White, and it has been circulated around various web sites, including Facebook. The only thing is, it's not White's information. The info belongs to a Las Vegas woman.

Julie Breeler has received more than 500 phone calls since 5 p.m. Thursday. Some of those calls are threatening, and some callers are asking her for donations or even a job with the UFC.

The back and forth battle started when Dana White issued the challenge to hackers because he supports the recently debated online piracy legislation known as SOPA and PIPA.

"They will not intimidate me," White said in a phone interview with FOX5. "I'm not intimidated. I'm not scared of what they're doing."

The hacker, known only as UgNazi, successfully took over UFC.com earlier this week. Following White's challenge, a hacker using the Twitter handle @joshthegod posted the personal information.

Julie feels she's been dragged into White's mess.

"I've had everything from interviews, resumes, threats to my life, hey, what's up? – all sorts of things," she said. "I don't know if I should be afraid – irritated?"

More than Julie's phone number and address are floating around. There are Social Security numbers and addresses for other, supposed Dana Whites.

"You know how many phone calls I got last night? None," White said. "Nobody called me."

White is in Chicago for the next televised fight. He said he's upset that personal information belonging to other people has been posted online.

"This is what happens when you deal with terrorists, and these guys are like terrorists," he said.

He's not backing down from his challenge, though, and Julie wants revenge.

"If I ever find (the hackers), or find a way to get to you, you are going to have a lot of sleepless nights, because I will torment you just like you are tormenting me"!

Julie has contacted Metro Police for assistance.

quote:

The Right to Anonymity is a Matter of Privacy

This January 28 marks International Privacy Day. Different countries around the world are celebrating this day with their own events. This year, we are honoring the day by calling attention to recent international privacy threats and interviewing data protection authorities, government officials, and activists to gain insight into various aspects of privacy rights and related legislation in their own respective countries.

quote:

Mega Aftermath: Upheaval In Pirate Warez Land

While last week’s shutdown of MegaUpload is of huge interest in itself, but a wave of aftershocks and side-effects are proving equally fascinating to watch. In addition to causing all sorts of problems for legitimate users of file-sharing services, there is no avoiding the fact that certain elements of the piracy scene are in a mess. But amazingly, still the beat goes on.


Despite its “rogue site” status and various other warnings, when MegaUpload went down last week it still came as a shock.

But what came next was unprecedented, a dramatic reaction in cyberlocker land that took out vast libraries of digital content and capacity. The perception of the established ground rules had been changed, without the passing of a single new law.

FBI, arrests by huge numbers of police, enormous cash and asset seizures overseas, reward program scrutiny, knowledge of payouts to persistent uploaders of infringing content. Extradition. These are things that changed the game.

“If the US government can come for Kim Dotcom it can happen to almost anyone,” a file-hosting operator told TorrentFreak on condition of anonymity. “I’m trying to think of everything I did possibly wrong in the last 3 years and worrying about that and the next 3 years also, if we even have that long.”

For many hosting sites it was time to react – quickly.

Earlier this week we documented the drastic actions taken by services such as Filesonic and Fileserve who shut down all 3rd party sharing and, like many others, closed down their affiliate payout programs. Later we showed how file-hosting competitors such as 4shared, Rapidshare and Hotfile had grown as users hunted for spare capacity.

In the space of a week and the MegaUpload shutdown aside, huge libraries of both legitimate and pirated material were wiped out as filehost after filehost deleted an impossible-to-calculate number of files and closed down thousands of suspected infringing accounts.

And this is where it gets quite interesting.

For more than half a decade Hollywood and the recording industry have spent millions of dollars not so much on actually eliminating illegal content, but getting rid of links to content such as those found on BitTorrent.

But this week, without a single cease and desist being sent, cyberlockers across the globe not only self-deleted vast quantities of files, but in doing so made millions of links across thousands of ‘linking sites’ completely useless too.

For the operators of these linking sites and their uploaders, this week has been very hard work indeed. For some sites it was all too much and the shutters have simply come down.

The problem, it seems, is money. While there is money to be made in torrent sites, the content sharers there are largely altruistic. The cyberlocker scene is more complex and incestuous, with revenue being generated in a handful of basic ways on both legal and illegal content.

Through reward programs, uploaders get paid on the number of times people subsequently download content. Equally, ‘release’ sites can upload the content themselves and get paid like a regular uploader when people download. Reward programs are important for cyberlockers too since they attract customers away from competitors and also give them an incentive to supply content.

Release sites and warez forums send users to cyberlockers to get content and when they get there they are faced with a choice. Download a little, relatively slowly but for free, or pay for a premium account and get lots as quickly as possible. In many cases choosing the first option means that cyberlockers also make more money from advertising.

When various sites shut their rewards programs this week, those uploading purely for the money were hit hard. In fact, many who had cash mounting up in their accounts lost it all – some cyberlockers simply kept the accrued money. While the ‘victims’ were livid, those who hate financially motivated ‘sharing’ commented that justice had been served.

But while it’s clear that some uploaders, often young and in less well-off countries, are ‘sharing’ small time for a few bucks, for some the reward payouts are more important. For many release sites, those rewards pay the server bills.

“We needed the payout and when [filehost name redacted on request] shut down sharing we were all but finished,” one admin of a release site told TorrentFreak. “90% of our content was hosted there. Then they deleted all our files and closed the account. They won’t even speak with us about it. A whole year’s work gone. We shut at the end of the month.”

But like worker ants whose nest has just been smashed apart by angry humans, others are utterly unfazed and just want to know which hosts are still paying out. Despite the climate of fear, quite a few hosts say they are and it’s evident from the links being posted on release blogs that the upload-for-cash crew have noticed them quickly.

Things, however, are still in a state of flux. Some of the filehosts still paying out appear to be offering tiered reward systems with just about every country in the world getting a reasonable deal but with the United States right at the very bottom.

Another interesting rumor, which at the time of writing we have been unable to confirm, is that one of the filehosts who banned 3rd party downloads earlier this week is now re-enabling them. This is something to look out for. Without 3rd party links being operational users are extremely unlikely to sign up for a premium account and this is where the cyberlockers can make good money.

So finally, one has to ask whether the MegaUpload shutdown has damaged the Internet piracy infrastructure. Providing an answer is not easy.

The amount of material coming online has not really reduced – content feeding from ‘The Scene’ is business as usual. Torrent sites are watching on closely, but the public ones tend not to host content, their users do. Cyberlockers are in a mess, but already recovering. Release sites are continuing, albeit with a reduced number of multiple links to the same content.

Perhaps the best test is whether it’s now very hard or impossible to find and download popular content. Not even close.

quote:

Copyright Industry Calls For Broad Search Engine Censorship

At a behind-closed-doors meeting facilitated by the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport, copyright holders have handed out a list of demands to Google, Bing and Yahoo. To curb the growing piracy problem, Hollywood and the major music labels want the search engines to de-list popular filesharing sites such as The Pirate Bay, and give higher ranking to authorized sites.

censoredIt’s no secret that the entertainment industries believe search engines are not delivering enough when it comes to protecting copyright works. Just last month, the RIAA and IFPI accused Google of massively profiting from piracy, while putting up barriers to make life difficult for rightsholders.

If the copyright industry had their way, Google and other search engines would no longer link to sites such as The Pirate Bay and isoHunt. In a detailed proposal handed out during a meeting with Google, Yahoo and Bing, various copyright holders made their demands clear.

The document, which describes a government-overlooked “Voluntary Code of Practice” for search engines, was not intended for public consumption but the Open Rights Group obtained it through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

In short, the rightsholders want the search engines to make substantial changes so that pirated content becomes harder to find, or is de-listed entirely. In addition, they want to boost the rankings of licensed content. Below are the three new measures they propose.

Assign lower rankings to sites that repeatedly make available unlicensed content in breach of copyright
Prioritize websites that obtain certification as a licensed site under a recognised scheme
Stop indexing websites that are subject to court orders while establishing suitable procedures to de-index substantially infringing sites

In the document rightsholders explain that they find it inexcusable that some websites – Pirate Bay and Isohunt in particular – are still indexed by all major search engines even though courts have ruled they facilitate copyright infringement.

Not surprisingly, there is no mention of the collateral damage that such a broad filter would bring with it – many artists and other legitimate individuals are known to use these websites to share their works.

The document further details how many of the top search results for music, movies and books currently link to pirated copies. In order to stop this, the rightsholders propose that Google and other search engines systematically assign a lower ranking to possibly infringing pages.

“We propose that in order to further protect consumers and to encourage responsible behaviour among websites, the extent of illegal content on a website should become a factor influencing the ranking of that website in search results returned to consumers,” they write.

This should be doable according to the rightsholders, as Google already influences its search results based on various other criteria, such as the lower rankings that are assigned to so-called content farms.

“Given that Google already de-ranks and de-lists sites that do not meet its own ‘quality guidelines’ or otherwise violate its policies, we do not believe that search engines would face significant legal exposure if they were to de-rank or de-list sites using an objective measure, based on their actions in response to legal DMCA complaints, in pursuit of the legitimate objective of preventing their service being used to facilitate copyright infringement,” they write.

Conversely, it’s argued that search engines should also boost the ranking of legitimate sites for certain ‘relevant’ searches. A list of relevant terms to match to these relevant searches should be provided by pro-copyright groups. In the proposal, the rightsholders give the following example in the case of music files.

“We would propose that prioritisation be enabled for searches that contain any of the following key search terms: “mp3″, “flac”, “wma”, “aac”, “torrent”, “download”, “rip”, “stream” or “listen”, “free”, when combined with an artist name, song or album title contained on a list to be regularly updated and provided to a search engine by a recognised and properly mandated agency representing rights holders for a particular sector, such as BPI.”

Aside from these new proposals, the document also calls on the search engines to improve the censorship measures already in place, such as Google’s keyword filter for their “instant” and “autocomplete” services.

Although the proposal from the rightsholders is not a direct threat as it is a long way from being accepted, it clearly shows that rightsholders see censorship as the way forward. The search engines on the other hand were not impressed and are expected to supply a proposal of their own in a future meeting. Again behind closed doors.

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2012 10:38 schreef Dawnbreaker het volgende:
internet is communicatie. telefoon is communicatie. praten is communicatie. gaan ze als mensen praten ook bepalen wat wel en niet gezegd mag worden?

quote:

MPAA Exec Admits: 'We're Not Comfortable With The Internet'

There have been a ton of post mortems about the whole SOPA/PIPA fight, with many trying to figure out where and how the MPAA "went wrong." After all, this is a group that is very used to getting its way inside DC. And it got slaughtered. We've already discussed our thoughts on why the MPAA failed, but what stuns me is how every time someone from the MPAA opens their mouth, they seem to make the situation worse by demonstrating just how tone deaf they are to the online community and what their concerns were. Whether it's just blaming Google or thinking that the solution is more backroom dealing, each response just sounds like a group of people who are playing a different game, and still don't realize the rules have changed.

The Hollywood Reporter's version of the postmortem is a good read, even though it covers much the same ground as many other such recaps. Still, it's worth reading to get a good feel for Hollywood's view of the world. But the really stunning part is the quote from Michael O'Leary, the MPAA's number two guy, who makes what may be the most tone-deaf statement we've seen to date in this fight:

. The MPAA's O'Leary concedes that the industry was out-manned and outgunned in cyberspace. He says the MPAA "is [undergoing] a process of education, a process of getting a much, much greater presence in the online environment. This was a fight on a platform we're not at this point comfortable with, and we were going up against an opponent that controls that platform."

Yes, even when he tries to say that they're trying to learn about that confounded internet thingy, he sounds ridiculous and dismissive. But the real point is his inadvertent admission within that statement: the MPAA (and the rest of "old" Hollywood) simply "is not comfortable with" the internet. And that's really what SOPA and PIPA were about. Rather than trying to understand this new platform, and learn from the many entertainers who do get the internet, they did what the MPAA does and simply tried to regulate that which they don't understand and fear.

Furthermore, even more ridiculous is the end of that sentence: "an opponent that controls that platform." As the article makes clear, he means Google. Which shows that he still doesn't get it. First, Google didn't lead the protests. It came late to the game, after the grassroots had already taken off with this stuff and run with it. But, more to the point, contrary to what O'Leary and the MPAA seem to believe: Google does not control the internet. No one does.

This, of course, explains why the MPAA wants to "negotiate" with Google these days. But that's not going to work. The folks on the internet don't want a backroom deal, whether it's negotiated by Google or someone else. Either way, this suggests that the MPAA is desperately in need of new leadership. They need leaders who don't try to regulate that which they admit they don't understand. They need leaders who aren't so clueless as to think that Google controls the internet (or that Google is somehow "the enemy"). And, really, most important, they need leaders who recognize and understand that the internet is their future too -- and any leadership needs to not fear the internet, but understand it and learn to embrace it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that the MPAA is going to find such leadership any time soon.

quote:

FBI will Monitor Social Media using Crawl Application

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking for a better way to spy on Facebook and Twitter users. The Bureau is asking companies to build software that can effectively scan social media online for significant words, phrases and behavior so that agents can respond.A paper posted on the FBI website asks for companies to build programs that will map sentiment and wrongdoing.

“The application must be infinitely flexible and have the ability to adapt quickly to changing threats to maintain the strategic and tactical advantage,” the Request for Information said, “The purpose of this effort is to meet the outlined objectives…for the enhancement [of] FBI SOIC’s overall situation awareness and improved strategic decision making.”The tool would be used in “reconnaisance and surveillance missions, National Special Security Events (NSS) planning, NSSE operations, SOIC operations, counter intelligence, terrorism, and more.

Although the police, including in Britain, already use Facebook routinely to ascertain the whereabouts of criminals, automatically filtering out irrelevant information remains challenging. The new FBI application will be able to automatically highlight the most relevant information. The FBI is seeking responses by 10 February.

quote:

Support for "hacktivist" group Anonymous is at an all-time high. But as Katie Razzall asks, is the group acting out of an anti-authority ethic or simply hacking for its own sake?

quote:

onguardonline.gov hacked

#opmegaupload #antisec #anonymous
#ANTISEC SEZ ITS SOPA/PIPA/ACTA RETALIATION TIME.
PASS THAT TRASH AND WE WILL RM HALF THE CORPORATE INTERNET

"OnGuardOnline.gov, a partnership of fourteen federal agencies managed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)" ... "the bad guys constantly develop new ways to attack your computer, so your security software must be up-to-date to protect against the latest threats." ... etc etc you got rooted and rm'd. umad? don't like it when your site is wiped of the internet do you?

If SOPA/PIPA/ACTA passes we will wage a relentless war against the corporate internet, destroying dozens upon dozens of government and company websites. As you are reading this we are amassing our allied armies of darkness, preparing boatloads of stolen booty for our next raid. We are sitting on hundreds of rooted servers getting ready to drop all your mysql dumps and mail spools. Your passwords? Your precious bank accounts? Even your online dating details?! You ain't even trying to step to this.

follow @anonymousirc - browse the onion embassy - chat on anonops

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2012 14:34 schreef viagraap het volgende:

[..]

Als hij met 'andere groepen' reële dreigingen bedoelt: Die moeten dan eerst maar eens zo'n breed draagvlak zien te krijgen.