Paris, April 19th, 2012 - In the next few weeks, the EU Parliament will continue to work on ACTA, the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement, ahead of its final vote around the summer. This is a crucial moment for the citizen mobilization against ACTA, which will have to resist the growing pressure that the copyright lobbies put on the Parliament. Beyond the rejection of ACTA, the whole EU copyright enforcement policy needs to be revised.
This page provides resources on CISPA , one of several cybersecurity bills currently moving through Congress. CDT takes very seriously the need for cybersecurity legislation, but we have grave concerns about the unnecessary threats to individuals' personal privacy posed by CISPA . Voices of the Internet Community Were Heard
Have you heard about CISPA? It’s the acronym for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act . CISPA is being likened to the now-moribund SOPA and PIPA bills smothered by Congress after widespread public opposition. However, only opponents see similarities.
Anonymous is currently conducting a two-stage attack on businesses and advocacy groups supporting the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). On Thursday, Anonymous uploaded a new video on YouTube announcing that it plans to attack AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft and numerous others who are openly supporting the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act ( CISPA ). The attack will begin on May 1 and consist of not only the typical DDoS assault, but of coordinated physical protests outside locations belonging to the thirty corporations on its list. Essentially the proposed law will allow corporations and the government to share cyber-security information between each other more easily. More specifically, it would give the government “additional options and resources to ensure the security of networks against attacks and enforce copyright and patents.”
Internet-wide protests against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA) launched Monday, April 16, as civil liberties organizations fight to stop the controversial bill that critics say threatens free speech, erodes online privacy and encourages companies to share users' private information with the government, reported Reporters Without Borders. The cybersecurity bill's supporters say the legislation is meant to protect national security and prevent cyberattacks on computer networks, according to Mashable. “Freedom of expression and the protection of online privacy are increasingly under threat in democratic countries, where a series of bills and draft laws is sacrificing them in the interests of national security or copyright,” Reporters Without Borders said in a statement. “A blanket monitoring system is never an appropriate solution. Reporters Without Borders opposes CISPA and ask Congress to reject this legislation.”
By Paul Biba From BoingBoing comes this article by Cory Doctorow , reprinted here under a Creative Commons license: ACTA is the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, an extreme, far-reaching copyright treaty drafted in secret by industry and government trade reps, under a seal of confidentiality that even extended to Members of the European Parliament, who were not allowed to see what was being negotiated on their behalf. In February, the EU rapporteur (a member of the European Parliament charged with investigating pending legislation and presenting it to Parliament) for ACTA handed in his report and resigned as rapporteur, concluding that the treaty was a disaster for privacy, fairness and human rights, and that the process by which it had been negotiated was hopelessly corrupt.
Earlier this week, I was invited to join in on a conference call with Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD), co-authors and chief sponsors of the increasingly-contentious Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, better known as CISPA. During the hour-long talk about the bill, we heard time and again why this legislation is necessary, and why it’s not as dangerous as all of us rascally bloggers and civil liberty advocates are making it sound.
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act has a few things in common with the defeated Secure Online Information Privacy Act the Protect Internet Property Act besides rhyming acronyms, except that Facebook likes CISPA, despite very publicly hating SOPA and PIPA. Unfortunately, CISPA won’t enable Netflix to stream videos to U.S. customers on Facebook, which a precursor to SOPA and PIPA might have done if only the Senate hadn’t attempted to widen the scope of dropped a friendlier law passed by the House of Representatives last year. Instead, CISPA, or H.R. 3523 , tackles hacking, in the bad-guy sense of the term, not the white-hat wearing type that Facebook’s own corporate culture has made fashionable in all-night coding marathons. The bill amends the National Security Act of 1947 to grant access to any data regarding a so-called cyber-threat to not just the government but also private security agencies.
Published time: April 14, 2012 13:50 Edited time: April 26, 2012 16:08 Facebook has defended its support of the controversial cybersecurity bill CISPA Facebook has defended its support of the controversial cybersecurity bill CISPA. In an address to alleviate fears that the legislation will result in massive sharing of private user data with the government, the social network promised not to do it. In a blog post on Friday, Joel Kaplan, vice president of US public policy at Facebook, argued that if enacted into law, the bill would “give companies like ours the tools we need to protect our systems and the security of our users’ information, while also providing those users confidence that adequate privacy safeguards are in place.” He stressed that sharing of data on the part of companies would not be compulsory and pledged that Facebook has no intention to disclose sensitive user data to the US government.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/154977/revealed%3A_cispa_--_internet_spying_law_--_pushed_by_for-profit_spy_lobby/ A cyber security bill moving swiftly through Congress would give government intelligence agencies broad powers to work with private companies to share information about Internet users. While some critics are beginning to organize online against the legislation, defense contractors, many already working with the National Security Agency on related data-mining projects, are lobbying to press forward. Like many bad policy ideas, entrenched government contractors seem to be using taxpayer money to lobby for even more power and profit.
During the week of April 23, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA) . And starting on Monday, a variety of organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology, The Constitution Project, Demand Progress, Engine Advocacy, Fight for the Future, Free Press, Reporters Without Borders, Techdirt, and TechFreedom plan to launch a “week of action” campaign against CISPA, a bill they believe remains dangerously broad in its language, which could result in abuse by the government, and damages to our civil liberties. While many are comparing CISPA to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the two bills are entirely different for a number of reasons.
Nick Merrill, who challenged a demand from the FBI for user data, wants to create the world's first Internet provider designed to be surveillance-resistant. (Credit: Sarah Tew/CNET) Nicholas Merrill is planning to revolutionize online privacy with a concept as simple as it is ingenious: a telecommunications provider designed from its inception to shield its customers from surveillance. Merrill, 39, who previously ran a New York-based Internet provider, told CNET that he's raising funds to launch a national "non-profit telecommunications provider dedicated to privacy, using ubiquitous encryption" that will sell mobile phone service and, for as little as $20 a month, Internet connectivity. The ISP would not merely employ every technological means at its disposal, including encryption and limited logging, to protect its customers.
Update: There is now a new draft of CISPA that has rendered some (though unfortunately not all) of this analysis obsolete. The forces behind HR 3523 , the dangerous Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act which is going to move forward in Congress at the end of the month, are beginning to get cagey about the growing backlash from the internet community. In an attempt to address some of the key concerns, the bill's authors, representatives Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, hosted a conference call specifically geared at digital reporters. The invitation was for "Cyber Media and Cyber Bloggers" (seriously) and took place at 7am Silicon Valley time—thus demonstrating that they are totally in touch with the tech community. During the call, the representatives were intent on hammering certain points home: that the bill respects privacy and civil liberties, is not about surveillance, is targeted at actions by foreign states, and is nothing like SOPA.
HACKTIVISTS from Anonymous have started to protest against the US Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA). CISPA sounds a lot like the proposed UK surveillance bill that will let the Government access communications data. Depending on who you listen to it's either the saviour of industry or a very bad thing, the latest SOPA.
CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 3523), is a successor, of sorts, to the loathesome SOPA legislative proposal, which was shot down in flames earlier this year. EFF's chilling analysis of the bill shows how it could be used to give copyright enforcers carte blanche to spy on Internet users and censoring the Internet (it would also give these powers to companies and governments who'd been embarrassed by sites like Wikileaks). Under the proposed legislation, a company that protects itself or other companies against “cybersecurity threats” can “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property” of the company under threat. But because “us[ing] cybersecurity systems” is incredibly vague, it could be interpreted to mean monitoring email, filtering content, or even blocking access to sites.