Search this Topic:
Apr 5 12 2:38 AM
Gusset wrote:Asmar you're on TV start screaming about this shit!
Apr 5 12 9:40 AM
G Vallejo wrote:
So, let's say there's a site I get stuff from, but you have to be a paying member to access it. (You have to pay, but I don't really think any of the movies or mp3s on this site are legal... but I'm not going to ask.) Anyway, to download an album, if I put the mp3s in a Rar with some anonymous name and download that, will the bastards be able to see anything but some gibberish-name Rar file? I don't see how. They can't see what I'm doing unless they join the site, and even then they'd have to break into my account queue to see what I have, right?
Apr 5 12 6:20 PM
Last week, RIAA CEO Cary Sherman confirmed that the country's largest ISPs will voluntarily roll out by July 1 a "graduated response" program aimed at discouraging unauthorized downloading. A Memorandum of Understanding published last summer outlines the program, which was developed without user feedback. Under the new system, a rightsholder accusing an ISP subscriber of infringment will trigger a series of ever-increasing consequences. The responses are graduated in the sense that they escalate after each accusation, beginning with steps aimed at educating users about copyright and culminating in the Orwellian-sounding "mitigation measures" -- bandwidth throttling or account suspension.
As we said last year, this deal is tilted against subscribers. That's not surprising, given that no one solicited subscriber input in advance. In fact, some online commenters have expressed concern that the agreement runs afoul of antitrust law.
One key problem is the arrangement shifts the burden of proof: rather than accusers proving infringement before the graduated response process starts against a subscriber, the subscriber must disprove the accusation in order to call a halt to it. Worse, accused subscribers have to defend themselves on an uneven playing field. For example, they have only ten days to prepare a defense, and with only six pre-set options available. Of course, there's no assurance that those who review the cases are neutral, and the plan sorely lacks consequences for an accuser who makes mistaken or fraudulent claims.
There are still more problems. The plan calls for "education" after the first accusations, but based on the information now available on the website launched last year by the Center for Copyright Information (the entity charged with administering the system), it's likely to be both deceptive and scare-mongering. And the whole system lacks in transparency: while it includes some minimal reporting requirements, those reports need not be made public.
The final rub: subscribers will doubtless be paying for their own "re-education," as ISPs pass on their portions of the administration costs in the form of higher fees.
What can users do at this point? In some cases, they can vote with their feet. This agreement is voluntary for now, and while the participating ISPs include many major companies -- AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable -- there are other options. Users lucky enough to have a choice of providers for their Internet service should consider switching to a service that opted not to "cooperate." For example, companies like Sonic and Cox Communications have a history of fighting for their users where they can, and are notably absent from this arrangement.
Otherwise, users have little choice for now but to watch their ISP roll out this new system against their interests, and maybe familiarize themselves with the six pre-approved responses available to them after an accusation. EFF will continue to follow developments in this agreement closely, and will be offering users a way to speak out against it soon. Stay tuned to updates about these actions on our EFFector mailing list, or by following EFF on Identi.ca or Twitter.https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/graduated-response-deal-steamrollers-towards-july-1-launchI can't get service from either of those two companies here in MI
Apr 26 12 3:33 AM
By Olivier Knox | The Ticket
The White House
came out strongly Wednesday against a bipartisan but controversial House
bill designed to protect the country's infrastructure from cyberattack,
warning that President Barack Obama would veto if it passes in its
current form over civil liberties concerns and other worries.
"The Administration strongly
opposes H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, in
its current form," Obama's Office of Management and Budget said in a
statement. "If H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."
OMB said that the administration
was "committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about
cybersecurity threats" but said the process "must be conducted in a
manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and
civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace."
Morever, it said, the legislation "fails to provide authorities to
ensure that the nation's core critical infrastructure is protected while
repealing important provisions of electronic surveillance law without
instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties
safeguards." OMB specifically cautioned that, in its current form, the
measure fails to set up "requirements for both industry and the
government to minimize and protect personally identifiable information."
have a right to know that corporations will be held legally accountable
for failing to safeguard personal information adequately," OMB said,
adding that the legislation "would inappropriately shield companies from
any suits where a company's actions are based on cyber threat
information identified, obtained, or shared under this bill, regardless
of whether that action otherwise violated federal criminal law or
results in damage or loss of life."
The bill's chief authors--House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and the panel's top
Democrat, Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger--unveiled a raft of amendments on Tuesday aimed at defusing the privacy concerns.
The two lawmakers issued a joint
statement Wednesday saying that "the basis for the administration's view
is mostly based on the lack of critical infrastructure regulation,
something outside of our jurisdiction."
"We would also draw the White
House's attention to the substantial package of privacy and civil
liberties improvement announced yesterday which will be added to the
bill on the floor," they said, stressing that key lawmakers guiding the
measure to a vote in the House "have agreed to a package of amendments
that address nearly every single one of the criticisms leveled by the
administration, particularly those regarding privacy and civil liberties
of Americans. Congress must lead on this critical issue and we hope the
White House will join us."
Apr 26 12 3:56 AM
Apr 26 12 5:05 AM
Thinking clearly about nothing at all.
Apr 27 12 5:23 AM
Though the House was not expected to vote on the controversial CISPA legislation until tomorrow, lawmakers approved the bill late on Thursday by a vote of 248 to 168.
206 Republicans voted in favor of CISPA, as did 42 Democrats, while 28 Republicans and 140 Democrats voted against it. Fifteen members did not vote. The full vote tally is available on House.gov.
CISPA now moves to the Senate. The White House has already threatened to veto the bill.
Privacy groups swiftly condemned the move, but bill sponsor Mike Rogers said "America will be a little safer and our economy better protected from foreign cyber predators" thanks to the the Cyber Information Sharing & Protection Act.
CISPA would allow for voluntary information-sharing between private companies and the government in the event of a cyber attack. Backers argue that it's necessary to protect the U.S. against cyber attacks from countries like China and Iran, but opponents say that it would allow companies to easily hand over users' private information to the government.
House members debated the bill for several hours on Thursday, and offered up amendments that dealt with things like Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests, details about which agencies receive private cyber-security information, clarification on certain terms, and more.
During the debate, Rep. Jared Polis argued that the immunity clauses in CISPA would incentivize companies to hand over users' personal information, which could land in the hands of the military and the NSA.
Rep. Mac Thornberry, however, argued that the number of cyber threats have grown rapidly in recent years, but legislation has not kept pace. CISPA tries "to close that gap between the growing threat and laws and policies, [and is] a step in the right direction," he said.
Hurting or Helping?Not everyone agreed. The ACLU said that "although serious, the scale of the threat from cyberattacks has been greatly exaggerated [and] no credible case has been made to support the top-down regulation of private network security."
The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), whose initial opposition prompted CISPA sponsors to alter the bill earlier this week, said it was pleased with those changes, but was still concerned with two issues: "the flow of information from the private sector directly to NSA and the use of that information for national security purposes unrelated to cybersecurity."
CTIA, the wireless industry trade association, however, applauded "the members of Congress who voted on this important piece of legislation that will help protect our nation's communications networks from cyber threats."
Co-sponsor Dutch Ruppersberger, meanwhile, said CISPA is a "victory for America. Our nation is one step closer to making a real difference protecting our country from a catastrophic cyber attack."
Apr 27 12 8:28 AM
Apr 27 12 10:03 AM
Apr 27 12 10:20 AM
Apr 27 12 4:36 PM
Apr 27 12 6:10 PM
Apr 27 12 6:26 PM
Apr 27 12 9:30 PM
Jul 12 12 8:21 AM
US ISPs become 'copyright cops' starting July 12Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and other Internet service providers (ISPs) in the United States will soon launch new programs to police their networks in an effort to catch digital pirates and stop illegal file-sharing.Major ISPs announced last summer that they had agreed to take new measures in an effort to prevent subscribers from illegally downloading copyrighted material, but the specifics surrounding the imminent antipiracy measures were not made available. Now, RIAA chief executive Cary Sherman has said that ISPs are ready to begin their efforts to curtail illegal movie, music and software downloads on July 12.“Each ISP has to develop their infrastructure for automating the system,” Sherman said during a talk at the annual Association of American Publishers meeting, according to CNET. Measures will also be taken to establish databases “so they can keep track of repeat infringers, so they know that this is the first notice or the third notice. Every ISP has to do it differently depending on the architecture of its particular network. Some are nearing completion and others are a little further from completion.”Customers found to be illegally downloading copyrighted material will first receive one or two notifications from their ISPs, essentially stating that they have been caught. If the illegal downloads continue, subscribers will receive a new notice requesting acknowledgement that the notice has been received. Subsequent offenses can then result in bandwidth throttling and even service suspension.The news comes shortly after the closure of file-sharing giant Megaupload and increased pressure on other networks thought to be major hubs for the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. Some studies show that these measures have had no impact on piracy, however, so organizations like the RIAA have been lobbying for ISPs to intervene and develop systems that will allow them to police their networks and directly address subscribers who illegally download copyrighted content.
The news comes shortly after the closure of file-sharing giant Megaupload and increased pressure on other networks thought to be major hubs for the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. Some studies show that these measures have had no impact on piracy, however, so organizations like the RIAA have been lobbying for ISPs to intervene and develop systems that will allow them to police their networks and directly address subscribers who illegally download copyrighted content.
Jul 12 12 9:22 AM
Jul 12 12 3:53 PM
Jul 12 12 6:41 PM
Jul 12 12 11:25 PM
Jul 12 12 11:45 PM
Share This Link
© 2013 Yuku. All rights reserved.