posted
Recently, the entertainment industry and ISPs (Internet Service Providers) have come together to "curb online content theft"...
JULY 7TH, 2011
The Content Industry and ISPs Announce a “Common Framework for Copyright Alerts”: What Does it Mean for Users?
Commentary by Abigail Phillips
A coalition of content industry players and ISPs today announced an anticipated collaborative effort to “curb online content theft,” described in more detail on a dedicated website for the initiative. The PR materials put out by the group are more telling for what they don’t say than what they do.
The framework provides for a series of progressive “copyright alerts”—up to six—that ISPs will send their users based on notifications they receive from content owners of alleged infringement on those users’ Internet access accounts. Initial alerts will include “education” resources, further ones will require users to confirm receipt of the alert. Later alerts will provide for “mitigation measures” such as reduced Internet speed and inability to surf the web until the user takes some action, for example, discussing with the ISP or responding to “educational information about copyright.”
What happens after six alerts? The materials emphatically state that ISPs are not required to terminate subscriber accounts as a condition of the agreement with the content industry and that the collaboration does not amount to a “three strikes” regime. But the materials also take pains to assert that the DMCA “requires that the ISPs have in place a termination policy for repeat copyright infringers as a condition of availing themselves of the Act’s ‘safe harbor’ provision.” Translation: The content industry is staking its position that ISPs that don’t terminate subscribers after 5 or 6 alerts will lose their DMCA protection. There are plenty of arguments for why that position is wrong; given that an alert represents nothing more than an allegation untried by a court, we think loss of Internet access would be a draconian measure that Congress did not intend.
posted
Lieberman had come up with a bill proposal in June 2010 that would give President Obama and future American presidents the power of an Internet "Kill Switch", similar to what the Chinese have in place, in their efforts to censor the internet. Some details below...
---"President Obama would then have the power to "issue a declaration of a national cyberemergency." What that entails is a little unclear, including whether DHS could pry user information out of Internet companies that it would not normally be entitled to obtain without a court order. One section says they can disclose certain types of noncommunications data if "specifically authorized by law," but a presidential decree may suffice.
"No amount of tightening of what constitutes 'critical infrastructure' will prevent abuse without meaningful judicial review," says Berin Szoka---
Senators propose granting president emergency Internet power
by Declan McCullagh
JUNE 10, 2010
A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.
The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.
That emergency authority would allow the federal government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people," Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who caucuses with the Democrats.
Because there are few limits on the president's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.
TechAmerica, probably the largest U.S. technology lobby group, said it was concerned about "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and "the potential for absolute power." And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit Internet traffic on private systems."
The idea of an Internet "kill switch" that the president could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or Web sites.
The idea of creating what some critics have called an Internet "kill switch" that the president could flip in an emergency is not exactly new.
A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August 2009 authorized the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or Web sites. House Democrats have taken a similar approach in their own proposals.
Lieberman, who recently announced he would not seek re-election in 2012, said last year that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said.
Civil libertarians and some industry representatives have repeatedly raised concerns about the various proposals to give the executive branch such broad emergency power. On the other hand, as Lieberman and Collins have highlighted before, some companies, including Microsoft, Verizon, and EMC Corporation, have said positive things about the initial version of the bill.
"Declaration of National Cyber Emergency"
The revised Lieberman-Collins bill, dubbed the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, works this way: Homeland Security will "establish and maintain a list of systems or assets that constitute covered critical infrastructure" and that will be subject to emergency decrees. (The term "kill switch" does not appear in the legislation.)
Under the revised legislation, the definition of critical infrastructure has been tightened. DHS is only supposed to place a computer system (including a server, Web site, router, and so on) on the list if it meets three requirements. First, the disruption of the system could cause "severe economic consequences" or worse. Second, that the system "is a component of the national information infrastructure." Third, that the "national information infrastructure is essential to the reliable operation of the system."
But last month's rewrite that bans courts from reviewing executive branch decrees has given companies new reason to worry. "Judicial review is our main concern," said Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which includes eBay, Oracle, Verisign, and Yahoo as members. "A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance."
In some cases, DelBianco said, a company may have a "good-faith disagreement" with the government's ruling and would want to seek court review. "The country we're seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court," he said. "Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure."
Other industry representatives say it's not clear that lawyers and policy analysts who will inhabit Homeland Security's 4.5 million square-foot headquarters in the southeast corner of the District of Columbia have the expertise to improve the security of servers and networks operated by companies like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, and Google. American companies already spend billions of dollars on computer security a year.
At last week's event, Milhorn, the Senate aide, used the example of computers at a nuclear power plant or the Hoover Dam but acknowledged that "the legislation does not foreclose additional requirements, or additional additions to the list."
A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But her decision is final and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.
President Obama would then have the power to "issue a declaration of a national cyberemergency." What that entails is a little unclear, including whether DHS could pry user information out of Internet companies that it would not normally be entitled to obtain without a court order. One section says they can disclose certain types of noncommunications data if "specifically authorized by law," but a presidential decree may suffice.
"No amount of tightening of what constitutes 'critical infrastructure' will prevent abuse without meaningful judicial review," says Berin Szoka, an analyst at the free-market TechFreedom think tank and editor of The Next Digital Decade book. "Blocking judicial review of this key question essentially says that the rule of law goes out the window if and when a major crisis occurs."
For their part, Lieberman and Collins say the president already has "nearly unchecked authority" to control Internet companies. A 1934 law (PDF) creating the Federal Communications Commission says that in wartime, or if a "state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency" exists, the president may "authorize the use or control of any...station or device."
In congressional testimony (PDF) last year, DHS Deputy Undersecretary Philip Reitinger stopped short of endorsing the Lieberman-Collins bill. The 1934 law already addresses "presidential emergency authorities, and Congress and the administration should work together to identify any needed adjustments to the act," he said, "as opposed to developing overlapping legislation."
^The Bottom line: The point of all this is that censorship will not stop at "curbing" supposed internet piracy, but it will go even as far as prying on private accounts and censoring both private and public websites that the government deems as "a threat", which can amount to just about anything that the government doesn't like, since the government will have the power to censor without court approval. The American government has long sort to control the internet, but in effort to uphold the charade of abiding to the rule of law and democracy, it has so far shied away from it. These developments show that even this long held pretense is being pushed aside. As the US economy is ever moving towards a downward trend, and with the global economic slowdown and social unrest, the U.S. government and many other governments around the world want to exercise ever more control over the internet. There is no difference between the US government and the Chinese in their ambitions to censor and control the flow of information on the internet. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply deluding themselves!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lieberman again that ass-hole from Connecticut,the fact is in the U.S there is no more media in the traditional sense of the term they all sold their souls to corporate elites or for government access so no one will ask deep probing questions anymore wiki leaks have become what the media use to be.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
all sold their souls to corporate elites or for government access so no one will ask deep probing questions anymore wiki leaks have become what the media use to be.
Sadly true!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^At the macro level, as the opening post hints to, is the growing trend of previously discrete big corporations consolidating into one under one big corporate brand. This extends to ISPs, which spells bad news for private citizens who own accounts with these internet providers. It is because many entertainment products are becoming owned by the same companies that own the ISPs, and hence, this increased drive towards censorship and constraint on internet freedom. These same companies have a vested interest in abiding by government requests for further censorship, since after all, this is the same government that protects their interests both locally and overseas. The common denominator in both corporate-driven and government-driven censorship, which are essentially intertwined, is that they are done with no confiding with the court, and they can all lead to shut down of private internet accounts on allegations that private citizens would not be able to combat. If the government had its way, soon even websites like WikiLeaks will cease to exist, because they will be shut down with virtually no interference from the court.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its the corporate take over of our lives, they have the Politicians in the bag not they want the net.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The corporate-political establishments want to control the internet because the internet has proven to be a very powerful tool which has the ability to make workers around the world more aware of their common problems, be it in the so-called 'developed' world or the so-called 'developing' world. The spread of civil unrest from Tunisia to Egypt, and then to the Arabian peninsula is a good recent example of this, which had been invigorated thanks to internet socializing. Unlike nations, the internet has no borders and therefore much harder, though not impossible, to police. The internet has given the ordinary folk a platform to be heard all over the world, whereas this used to be the exclusive domain of politicians and celebrities.
Just look at the power networks like YouTube have given to ordinary individuals around the world. It used to be the case that entertainment industries and business had the monopoly of determining who becomes a success story, but now individuals popularize themselves on their own terms by making videos showcasing their talent. Subsequently, businesses are forced to get on board and take notice of internet sensationalism, as opposed to just the traditional media of TV and radio; naturally so, because businesses generally see the "next popular thing" as the next profit magnet, and so, are enticed to invest in it. Individuals used to rely heavily on agencies just to get auditions and get their "foot in the door", I know because I'm supposed to be represented by John Robert Powers agency myself, but now, individuals have the power to turn themselves into a new sensation. This goes for politics too. Ordinary individuals can make themselves into powerful activists and influential figures without having to even leave their bedrooms!
With traditional media no longer able to manufacture consent as they used to before the days of the internet, naturally businesses and politicians are going to be concerned about the freer world of the internet. If the corporate world seemingly has politicians "in the bag", then it is because politicians themselves are in many occasions actually part of corporate boards, if not the CEOs themselves, or else still on the pay roll of corporations. Think Dick Cheney for instance; while on the White House pay roll, the guy was also on the pay roll of Halliburton, which went onto get contracts from the rubble of Iraq. Others like Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and now Obama looks to be next in line, have gone onto make multi-million book deals and turned themselves into astronomically paid international spokespersons for businesses. So, it is more like politicians are of the corporate world, rather than being "in the bag" of the corporate world. The two entities are inseparable, and so, they both have a vested interest in bringing the internet under their direct control more than ever before.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic