* Últimos mensajes

AACC por peltier.... conseguido por electric0
[Julio 05, 2016, 10:08:57 am]


Re:Nuevo foro - Economía y Jácara II por Stuyvesant
[Junio 07, 2015, 16:21:08 pm]


Re:Nuevo foro - Economía y Jácara II por Stuyvesant
[Abril 07, 2015, 19:10:14 pm]


Re:Nuevo foro - Economía y Jácara II por Stuyvesant
[Abril 07, 2015, 19:06:13 pm]


Re:Nuevo foro - Economía y Jácara II por Stuyvesant
[Abril 07, 2015, 18:41:16 pm]


Re:Nuevo foro - Economía y Jácara II por Stuyvesant
[Abril 07, 2015, 18:36:04 pm]


Re:Nuevo foro - Economía y Jácara II por Stuyvesant
[Abril 07, 2015, 18:31:58 pm]


Re:Nuevo foro - Economía y Jácara II por Stuyvesant
[Abril 07, 2015, 18:26:17 pm]


Re:Nuevo foro - Economía y Jácara II por Stuyvesant
[Abril 07, 2015, 18:19:33 pm]


Re:Nuevo foro - Economía y Jácara II por Stuyvesant
[Abril 07, 2015, 18:01:00 pm]


* Webs amigas


Autor Tema: Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...  (Leído 31573 veces)

NosTrasladamus

  • Ha sido citado por PPCC
  • ***
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 3145
  • -Recibidas: 5726
  • Mensajes: 869
  • Nivel: 112
  • NosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #225 en: Abril 27, 2012, 20:39:51 pm »
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/eff-condemns-cispa-vows-take-fight-senate

Citar
April 26, 2012 | By Rainey Reitman
EFF Condemns CISPA, Vows to Take Fight to the Senate

Hours ago, the House of Representatives voted to approve the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a bill that would allow companies to bypass all existing privacy law to spy on communications and pass sensitive user data to the government.  EFF condemns the vote in the House and vows to continue the fight in the Senate.

"As the Senate takes up the issue of cybersecurity in the coming weeks, civil liberties will be a central issue. We must do everything within our power to safeguard the privacy rights of individual Internet users and ensure that Congress does not sacrifice those rights in a rush to pass vaguely-worded cybersecurity bills," said Lee Tien, EFF Senior Staff Attorney.

"Hundreds of thousands of Internet users spoke out against this bill, and their numbers will only grow as we move this debate to the Senate. We will not stand idly by as the basic freedoms to read and speak online without the shadow of government surveillance are endangered by such overbroad legislative proposals," said Rainey Reitman, EFF Activism Director.

EFF extends its deep gratitude to the dozens of organizations that have worked with us on this campaign and the tens of thousand of EFF members who helped us by contacting Congress to oppose CISPA. We look forward to continuing to fight by your side in defense of civil liberties as CISPA moves to the Senate.

Esta era la campaña que se promovía para evitar que se aprobase en el congreso: Pero están resabiados y han adelantado la votación para evitar que la gente se coordinase en contra el día previsto...

Citar
Tell Congress: Keep My Inbox Away From the Government

THe House of Representatives is planning to vote on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) this week. Please call Congress and tell them not to sacrifice the civil liberties of Internet users with this dangerously vague legislation.

CISPA would let companies bypass all existing privacy law, spying on online communications and handing that data to the government without a judge or jury every getting involved. We can’t let that happen.

Here’s a script you can use during you call – feel free to elaborate and make it your own. We also really appreciate it if you ask the Representative’s stance on the bill – does he or she plan to oppose this bill?

   
Citar
Hi my name is [insert name] and I’m a constituent.

    I’m calling about the CISPA cybersecurity bill (HR 3523). CISPA would trample on decades of privacy law, letting companies spy on our online communications. Companies could also pass all kinds of sensitive data to the government.

    Please tell my Congressional representative to stand up for civil liberties. Support privacy-protective amendments and oppose CISPA.

    Thank you for your time.

Once you've made the call, click the button that says "I made the call!" and then tell the world. Then send an email follow-up to Congress so they know you’re serious.

Organizaciones y personalidades que se oponen a esta ley de espionaje y control generalizado de la ciudadanía a través de internet...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/voices-against-cispa

Citar
   By Patrick Steele, EFF Activist Intern

CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (HR 3523), is the new bill threatening civil liberties moving quickly through the House. In the past, we've documented the numerous problems with the bill and with other cybersecurity legislation.


Here is a list of organizations and influential people that expressed concerns about the dangerous civil liberties implications of the bill. Though each organization or person may differ in their terminology, they all reach the same conclusion—CISPA is not a "sharing of information bill only." It is an expansive bill that enables spying on users and allows for unaccountable companies and government agencies that can skirt privacy laws.

To add your organization to this list, please email activist@eff.org.

Access Now in CISPA: The latest attempt to establish a massive surveillance state

“Rogers (the bill’s author) says that the bill aims to 'help the private sector defend itself from advanced cyber threats,' but what it does is allow unlimited sharing of personally identifiable data amongst and between private companies and the government, without a single safeguard for privacy or civil liberty.”

Access Now's petition for companies to withdraw support of CISPA can be found here.

American Library Association in ALA CISPA Information Page

"This bill would trump all current privacy laws including the forty-eight state library record confidentiality laws as well as the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Wiretap Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Privacy Act.

Essentially, CISPA would establish a whole new system for our nation’s privacy laws and policies and legalize extraordinary intrusions into established privacy rights and civil liberties."

Also visit their Call Your Representative Page and help them spread the word!

American Civil Liberties Union in Kicking off "Stop Cyber Spying Week"

“Keeping our computer systems secure is a real concern, but CISPA is absolutely the wrong answer. The bill would create a loophole in all existing privacy laws, allowing companies to share Internet users' data with the National Security Agency, part of the Department of Defense, and the biggest spy agency in the world—without any legal oversight."

Sign their Petition to stop CISPA!

Avaaz.org in Stop CISPA Contact Form

“The US Congress is sneaking in a new law that gives them big brother spy powers over the entire web—and they're hoping the world won't notice. We helped stop their Net attack last time, let's do it again.”

Avaaz has continued their campaign against CISPA - asking activists and users to sign a new petition asking IBM, Facebook and Microsoft to drop their support of CISPA.

The Cato Institute

The Cato Institute has published a series of articles analyzing cybercrime, its truth, its myths, and the hard math behind legislation such as CISPA and the inherit problems with cyber security bills such as this.

"The cybercrime surveys we have examined exhibit [a] pattern of enormous, unverified outliers dominating the data. In some, 90 percent of the estimate appears to come from the answers of one or two individuals. In a 2006 survey of identity theft by the Federal Trade Commission, two respondents gave answers that would have added $37 billion to the estimate, dwarfing that of all other respondents combined. This is not simply a failure to achieve perfection or a matter of a few percentage points; it is the rule, rather than the exception. Among dozens of surveys, from security vendors, industry analysts and government agencies, we have not found one that appears free of this upward bias."

From Cybercrime Statistics to Cyberspying

Further Articles:

Cybersecurity Hype

Soviet-Style Cybersecurity Regulation

Should a Congress that Doesn’t Understand Math Regulate Cybersecurity?

Cybersecurity: Talking Points vs. Substance

The Center for Democracy and Technology in Cyber Intelligence Bill Threatens Privacy and Civilian Control

“If the bill merely extended to other companies the opportunity to receive classified attack signatures from the NSA so they could better defend their networks, CDT would actively support the legislation. However, the bill goes much further, permitting ISPs to funnel private communications and related information back to the government without adequate privacy protections and controls."

Contact your representative page

Demand Progress in CISPA Is The New SOPA: Help Kill It

“CISPA demolishes existing barriers between the government and the private sector -- and between government agencies -- that restrict data sharing without cause, effectively allowing information about Americans' use of the Internet to slosh back and forth uninhibited.”

Help Demand Progress to make Facebook drop CISPA Support on their new petition page!

Entertainment Consumers Association in 1984 Could Be Here Now

"The legislation amends and updates the National Security Act of 1947, which doesn’t contain provisions regarding cyber crime.  While this law absolutely needs to be updated, this legislation is the latest example of Congress debating technology issues, while not understanding the full implications of the legislation they’re trying to pass.

CISPA would have technology companies, like video game systems, internet service providers (ISPs) and more share your use of technology with the Government under the guise of cyber security.  It’s George Orwell’s classic book 1984 right here, right now."

Fight for the Future in its newly launched webpage focused on CISPA

"A cybersecurity bill that lets any company share your info with all of government, with no limits. In short, CISPA is the end of meaningful privacy for anyone with personal data on US-based services."

Free Press in Free Press Action Fund Joins Stop Cyber Spying Week to Protest CISPA

“As it stands, CISPA could lead all too easily to governmental and corporate violations of our privacy and attacks on our right to speak freely via the Internet. While there is a need to protect vital national interests, we can’t do it at the expense of our freedoms."

Free Market Coalition in Amend CISPA to Perserve Freedom, Prevent Gov't Overreach

"CISPA aims to help companies defend against cyber attacks by facilitating the sharing of cyber threat information among government agencies and the private sector. Despite the bill's noble intentions, however, it risks unduly expanding federal power, undermining freedom of contract, and harming U.S. competitiveness in the technology sector. Our coalition letter articulates the following major problems with CISPA and explains how Congress can amend the bill to fix them.. (Continued in article)"

POPVOX in What's Your Position on Cispa?

"What do you think about CISPA? The next vote on this bill will occur in the House of Representatives. How should your representative vote?"

Help POPVOX to show the overwhelming opposition to CISPA!

Reporters Without Borders in Internet Advocacy Coalition Announces Twitter Campaign to Fight Privacy-Invasive Bill (CISPA)

“In the name of the war on cyber crime, it would allow the government and private companies to deploy draconian measures to monitor, even censor, the Web. It might even be used to close down sites that publish classified files or information.”

Sincerely.com in Stop Cispa! Letter Sending Page to Congress

"First there was SOPA, now there is CISPA, the newest proposed bill that gives internet companies the power to hand over your private information over to the government."

Sum of Us.org in Disklike! Facebook Supporting Government Spying

"If the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passes, companies could intercept your text messages and emails to share with each other and the government – giving the US military the power to track, control, and share almost all of your online information without the use of a warrant. They could even block access to websites, or cut off your internet connection altogether. Like SOPA (which Facebook opposed), CISPA is a major threat to internet freedom and gives the government broad power to protect big media companies at your expense. It’s even a threat for internet users outside the US – because Facebook, Google and other major online service providers are headquartered in the US, even their non-American users’ online data could be used by the US military or corporations."

Sunlight Foundation in CISPA is Terrible for Transparency

“The FOIA is, in many ways, the fundamental safeguard for public oversight of government's activities. CISPA dismisses it entirely, for the core activities of the newly proposed powers under the bill. If this level of disregard for public accountability exists throughout the other provisions, then CISPA is a mess. Even if it isn't, creating a whole new FOIA exemption for information that is poorly defined and doesn't even exist yet is irresponsible, and should be opposed.”

The White House’s Statement on Cyber Security in The Hill

“Any cybersecurity bill with information sharing provisions "must include robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens." The White House declared they would not support a bill that would "sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security."

As we have seen in a previous EFF blog post these privacy sacrifices are numerous and extensive.
Other Organizations Voicing Concerns About CISPA's Impact on Civil Liberties

Advocacy for Principled Action in Government

American Association of Law Libraries

American Association of University Professors

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression

American Society of News Editors

American Policy Center

Association of Research Libraries

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Center for Media and Democracy Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington –CREW-

Cyber Privacy Project

Center for Media and Democracy

Center for National Security Studies

Center for Rights

Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic

The Constitution Project

Community Research

Consumer Federation of America

Consumer Watchdog

Council on American-Islamic Relations

Cyber Privacy Project

Defending Dissent Foundation

DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Essential Information

Feminists for Free Expression

Freedom of Information Center at the Missouri School of Journalism

Government Accountability Project

Hon. Bob Barr

iSolon.org

James Madison Project

Liberty Coalition

MuckRock

National Freedom of Information Coalition

National Coalition Against Censorship

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

National Whistleblower Center

OMB Watch 

Openmedia.ca

OpenTheGovernment.org

Patient Privacy Rights

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Project On Government Oversight - POGO

PEN American Center

Personal Democracy Media

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility – PEER

The Pullins Report

Republican Liberty Caucus

Reverse Robocall

The Rutherford Institute

Society of American Archivists

Society of Professional Journalists

Special Libraries Association

Tech Freedom

Understanding Government

Utah Foundation for Open Government

US Bill of Rights Foundation

Washington Coalition for Open Government
Individual Experts, Academics and Policy Makers

As opposition for CISPA grows we have seen an increasing number of influential individuals come out against CISPA.

Many of these people published an Open Letter to Congress that we blogged about this week, and we will continue adding to this list as the campaign continues!

Ron Paul has published a letter oulining his oposition to CISPA

"CISPA is essentially an internet monitoring bill that permits both the federal government and private companies to view your private online communications with no judicial oversight--provided, of course, that they do so in the name of “cybersecurity.”  The bill is very broadly written, and allows the Department of Homeland Security to obtain large swaths of personal information contained in your emails or other online communication.  It also allows emails and private information found online to be used for purposes far beyond any reasonable definition of fighting cyberterrorism."

Tim Berners-Lee - Inventor of the World Wide Web Speaks Out Against CISPA

“[It] is threatening the rights of people in America, and effectively rights everywhere, because what happens in America tends to affect people all over the world. Even though the Sopa and Pipa acts were stopped by huge public outcry, it’s staggering how quickly the US government has come back with a new, different, threat to the rights of its citizens.”

Bruce Schneier. Prominent security researcher and cryptographer, published seminal works on applied cryptography. Active in public policy regarding security issues; runs a weblog and writes a regular column for Wired magazine.

David J. Farber. Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University. Designer of the first electronic switching system. Was a major contributor to early programming languages and computer networking. EFF board member.

Donald Eastlake. Original architect of DNS Security, network security expert. Chair of IETF TRILL and IETF PPPEXT working groups.

Peter Swire. C. William O'Neill Professor of Law, Ohio State University. Former Assistant to President Obama for Economic Policy, and former Chief Counselor for Privacy in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

Eric Burger. Research Professor of Computer Science and Director, Georgetown Center for Secure Communications, Georgetown University. Chair of multiple IETF Working Groups.

Tobin Maginnis. Professor of Computer and Information Science, University of Mississippi. Operating system researcher, GNU/Linux expert, Web architecture researcher and networking expert.

Sharon Goldberg. Professor of Computer Science, Boston University. Network security researcher, member of FCC CSRIC working group on BGP security.

Peter G. Neumann. Principal Engineer, SRI International Computer Science Laboratory; moderator, ACM Risks Forum. Affiliation listed for purposes of identification only.

Stephen H. Unger. Professor Emeritus, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Columbia University. Board of Governors of IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology (SSTI).

Geoff Kuenning. Professor of Computer Science and CS Clinic Director. Harvey Mudd College. File system researcher, built the SEER predictive hoarding system to predict what files mobile users will need while disconnected from a network.

Benjamin C. Pierce. Professor of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania. Research on differential privacy, which allows formal reasoning about real-world privacy.

Richard F. Forno. Professor of Computer Science focused on cybersecurity, signing as a private citizen.

Jonathan Weinberg. Professor of Law, Wayne State University. Chair of ICANN working group, and expert on communications policy.

Joseph “Jay” Moran. Distinguished engineer, AOL technical operations. Experienced executive working in technical operations and engineering for 20+ years.

Dan Gillmor. Technology writer and columnist. Director of Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University, Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University. EFF pioneed award winner.

Armando P. Stettner. Technologist and senior member of IEEE, spearheaded native VAX version of Unix.

Gordon Cook. Technologist, writer, editor and publisher of “COOK report on Internet Protocol” since 1992.

Alexander McMillen. Entrepreneur and CEO, Sliqua Enterprise Hosting.

Sid Karin. Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego. Former founding Director of the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) and National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (NPACI).

Eric Brunner-Williams. CTO, Wampumpeag. Signing as an individual.

Lawence C. Stewart. CTO, Cerissa research. Built the Etherphone at Xerox, the first telephone system working over a local area network; designed early e-commerce systems for the Internet at Open Market.

Ben Huh. Entrepreneur, CEO Cheezburger Inc.

Dave Burstein. Editor, DSL Prime.

Mikki Barry. Managing partner, Making Sense of Compliance.

Blake Pfankuch. Network engineer.

John Peach. Systems Administrator with 20+ years of experience.

Valdis Kletnieks. IT Professional, Virginia Tech University.

Darrell Hyde. Director of Architecture, Hosting.com.

Ryan Rawdon. Network and Security Engineer, was on the technical operations team for one of our country's largest residential ISPs.

Ken Anderson. VP of Engineering, Pacific Internet.

Andrew McConachie. Network engineer working on Internet infrastructure.

Richard Kulawiec. Senior network security architect with over 30 years experience.

Aaron Wendel. CTO, Whalesale Internet, Inc.

David Richardson. Center for High Performance Computing, University of Utah.

David M. Miller. CTO / Executive VP for DNS Made Easy.

Marshall Eubanks. Entrepreneur and CEO, America Free TV.

Edward Arthurs. Manager of Network Installations, Legacy Inmate Communications, Legacy Contact Center, Legacy Long Distance Intl. Inc.

Christopher Liljenstolpe. Chair of the IETF Operations and Management Area Working Group. Chief architect for AS3561 (at the time about 30% of the Internet backbone by traffic) and AS1221 (Australia's main Internet infrastructure).

Christopher McDonald. Vice President, PCCW Global.

Joseph Lorenzo Hall. Research Fellow focused on health information technology and electoral transparency, New York University.

Ronald D. Edge. IT expert.

David Henkel-Wallace. Vice President of Engineering. Terrajoule Corporation.

John Pettitt. Internet commerce pioneer, online since 1983, CEO Free Range Content Inc.; founder/CTO CyberSource & Beyond.com; created online fraud protection software that processes over 2 billion transaction a year

Ben Kamen. I.T./EE Professional.

Christopher Soghoian. Graduate Fellow, Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, Indiana University.

Jo Young. IT professional.

Mark Hull-Richter. Senior software engineer.

Joop Cousteau. VP, Global Network Technology. KLM Airlines USA Ltd.

Jonathan Mayer. Graduate researcher, Security Lab and the Center for Internet and Society, Stanford University

Jeremy Sliwinski. Network engineer with 10+ years of experience.

Nathan Syfrig. Software Engineer and IT Consultant.

NosTrasladamus

  • Ha sido citado por PPCC
  • ***
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 3145
  • -Recibidas: 5726
  • Mensajes: 869
  • Nivel: 112
  • NosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #226 en: Abril 27, 2012, 20:51:35 pm »
http://www.businessinsider.com/cispa-is-ridiculously-hideous-and-it-just-passed-the-house-2012-4

Citar
CISPA Is Ridiculously Hideous (And It Just Passed The House)

I'll be back on RT America today to discuss CISPA's not-so-shocking passage in the House. (Watch David's last appearance discussing CISPA below.)

Total surveillance of the people is what Congress ultimately wants, so it is no surprise that this is apparently a top legislative priority for them -- even at a time when 1 out of every 2 recent college graduates face unemployment. Even at a time when our total public debt is above $15 trillion.

How bad is CISPA in its current form? Here's some analysis from Techdirt: "Up until this afternoon, the final vote on CISPA was supposed to be tomorrow. Then, abruptly, it was moved up today—and the House voted in favor of its passage with a vote of 248-168. But that's not even the worst part. [...] Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for 'cybersecurity' or 'national security' purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA."

Let me put this into perspective for you:

- If the government suspects you are a genuine "bad guy," like a cyberterrorist, human trafficker, drug kingpin, etc... they can already seize all of this online activity information about you. It's called obtaining a warrant. CISPA does away with that. It supercedes ALL existing federal privacy laws. As Techdirt's Leigh Beadon put it, "Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power."

- Online banking and trading: dead as we know it. Who is going to use online banking services, knowing that anyone from a local police department snoop, to a federal spy agency, to even random private companies might be watching your every trade, and your purchase history, without a warrant or court involvement of ANY kind.

- The 'adult entertainment' industry: dead as we know it. Big Brother is watching you. If CISPA becomes law, which it appears on the fast-track to do, who will watch knowing that others are watching you.

- Online health databases and discussion forums such as WebMD: dead as we know it. Who will ask intimate health questions, knowing that your identity is not even semi-anonymous any more?

- Online suicide helplines, depression forums, political discussion communities: dead as we know it. Same reason as above.

- Legitimate criticism of the government: dead as we know it, especially if you are a "job seeker" who doesn't want any blemishes on your record to get in the way of surviving.

- Online communities like Reddit: dead as we know it. So much for the semi-anonymous, crowdsourced hivemind brilliance of multi-million user social communities.

- Facebook: dead as we know it (although they don't seem to care). Who will use the service, knowing that countless other companies could be watching and logging every profile and photo you view, every message you send or receive, and every connection you've ever made...

Again, allow me to stress the fact that CISPA enables snooping without a warrant or court involvement. It is absolutely ludicrous insanity. The minds behind this in Congress should be forced to resign, immediately -- they are acting in the interests of weird lobbying groups and defense contractors. They aren't acting in the interests of Internet users, the economy, nor even the health of the Internet itself.

For those hoping President Obama will wave his veto pen and make this nightmare go away: remain vigilant. He also issued a veto threat on NDAA, and then reversed that, signing it into law on New Year's Eve with almost no media attention given to it. This President, and all future Presidents, now have the ability to order the U.S. military to imprison American citizens, without trial nor access to an attorney.

Strange times.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cispa-is-ridiculously-hideous-and-it-just-passed-the-house-2012-4#ixzz1tGh64XTY


CISPA: Say Hello To Big Brother Small | Large

Currobena

  • Ha sido citado por PPCC
  • ***
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 7702
  • -Recibidas: 4186
  • Mensajes: 785
  • Nivel: 72
  • Currobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medio
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #227 en: Abril 28, 2012, 14:36:23 pm »
Más sobre CISPA:

Citar
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) has cleared the House. Here's a quick guide to what happened, and what happens next.

Despite cries of protest, the House of Representatives approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) in a rush vote on Thursday. The cybersecurity bill, which makes it easier for the government and businesses to share information, passed easily, with a vote of 248 to 168, following the adoption of a number of amendments. Though the legislation may have crossed one key hurdle, the battle against the legislation is far from over. Here, a concise rundown of everything you need to know about CISPA now.
Problems before House vote

Even before CISPA debate began yesterday, things had already gone awry for privacy advocates. The House Rules Committee on Wednesday whittled down the number of amendments allowed to go up for consideration from 43 to just 16, cutting out provisions that would have made CISPA far less dangerous, from a civil liberties standpoint. Some of those included requiring businesses to strip all data of personally identifiable information, and one amendment that would have prohibited the shared data from landing in the hands of military and spying agencies, like the National Security Agency.

On Tuesday, the Center for Democracy & Technology said they would not oppose CISPA’s passage in the House. But after the exclusion of key amendments — specifically, amendments that would have blocked the flow of information directly to the NSA, and the prohibition of using shared data for national security issues unrelated to cybersecurity — the CDT once again came out in opposition to the bill, saying that the bill’s leaders (House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers and Ranking Member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger) had reneged on their promise to meet certain privacy demands by blocking the amendments.
What happened in the House

During hours of debate, the House approved 11 amendments to CISPA. You can see the full list here (2 through 12 were approved; 1, 13, and 14 were not). Of these, perhaps the most important amendment is the one proposed by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), which limits the way information shared under CISPA to that which is “directly pertaining to” threats, vulnerabilities, or unauthorized access to a system or network. The Goodlatte amendment (pdf) also makes it explicitly clear that information pertaining to the violation of businesses’ Terms of Service do not qualify as “cyber threat intelligence” under CISPA, and thus may not be shared.

Another notable amendment is a sunset provision (pdf) submitted by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), which limits the life of CISPA to five years after the date of enactment. After that time, the bill must be re-approved by Congress.

The most controversial amendment approved is the Quayle amendment, which says that information shared under CISPA may “only” be used for the following five purposes:

    cybersecurity;
    investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes;
    protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury;
    protection of minors from physical or psychological harm; and
    protection of the national security of the United States

Prior to the adoption of this amendment, CISPA allowed information to be shared for “cybersecurity” or “national security” purposes, but did not outline any specific ways law enforcement may used the data. Because the language did not lay out any specific uses, privacy advocates feared the government could justifiably use the data to investigate and prosecute other crimes, even if they had had nothing to do with cybersecurity or national security.

Some privacy advocates believe that the Quayle amendment is a bad one because it explicitly expands the ways with which the government may use CISPA data to include things that have nothing to do with cybersecurity or national security. The CDT, however, sees the Quayle amendment as an improvement, since it limits the non-cybersecurity or national security uses to “protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury” and “protection of minors from physical or psychological harm.” Of course, given that many things on the Internet could be construed as potentially causing children psychological harm, this may not be much of a reassurance. But it definitely seems better than giving the federal government a more-or-less blank slate.

So, in short, CISPA has gone through some necessary changes, from a privacy and civil liberties standpoint, but there is still quite a lot of work to be done for it to be a “good” piece of legislation.
What happens next

CISPA now heads to the Senate, where a number of other cybersecurity bills have wallowed in legislative limbo for years. Chances are good that CISPA will face greater resistance in the Democrat-controlled Senate than it did in the House. And it may be changed significantly, or merged with other cybersecurity bills. This is increasingly likely given the fact that President Obama has indicated that he will veto CISPA if it does not provide adequate privacy protections, and explicit protections for critical infrastructure. (An amendment that would have satisfied the latter complaint was shot down in the House as well.)

Regardless, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has indicated that he plans to move with cybersecurity legislation of some kind in May, though he has not spoken publicly about CISPA specifically. So CISPA’s fate in Congress remains uncertain for now, but we will likely see some further movement on it in the coming weeks.

In the mean time, the fight over CISPA will surely continue, with privacy and civil liberties groups, including the CDT and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), committed to fighting the bill as it moves to the Senate.

“Hundreds of thousands of Internet users spoke out against this bill, and their numbers will only grow as we move this debate to the Senate,” said Rainey Reitman, EFF Activism Director, in a statement. “We will not stand idly by as the basic freedoms to read and speak online without the shadow of government surveillance are endangered by such overbroad legislative proposals.


 :(

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/cispa-what-now/
"Ni el interés ni el miedo, el rencor ni la afición, no les haga torcer del camino de la verdad, cuya madre es la historia, émula del tiempo, depósito de las acciones, testigo de lo pasado, ejemplo y aviso de lo presente, advertencia de lo porvenir".

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547-1616).

Machetazo

  • Novatillo
  • **
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 333
  • -Recibidas: 573
  • Mensajes: 210
  • Nivel: 10
  • Machetazo Sin influencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #228 en: Mayo 08, 2012, 23:47:10 pm »
El fundador de Megaupload le ha dedicado un rap a un político de Nueva Zelanda que no recuerda el donativo que le hizo en 2010 para sufragar su campaña electoral. 50.000 dólares (38.418 euros) que el político, según Dotcom, le habría pedido dividir en dos pagos de 25.000 dólares para que pudiese “pasar” como donación anónima. Un clásico de la tramoya política…

El fundador de Megaupload mantiene que el político le agradeció personalmente la donación y le explicó la forma de pago (irregular). El político en cuestión es John Banks, ex ministro y ahora único diputado de un pequeño partido liberal-conservador que es decisivo para sostener el gobierno del primer ministro John Key, ya que su partido, el conservador, se quedó a un diputado de la mayoría absoluta.

El decisivo diputado lo ha negado todo y ha dicho en repetidas ocasiones que no se acordaba de sus encuentros con el fundador de Megaupload. De ahí el título del rap: Amnesia. Kim Schmitz Dotcom ha asegurado que el político incluso utilizó uno de sus helicópteros para visitarlo en su mansión. Banks no lo recuerda. La policía investiga al político “amnésico” por un donativo de más de 65.000 dólares que habría recibido de una empresa de casinos. Otro clásico de la tramoya…

http://www.nacionred.com/partidos-politicos/kim-dotcom-le-dedica-un-rap-al-politico-que-ha-olvidado-que-le-hizo-un-donativo

NosTrasladamus

  • Ha sido citado por PPCC
  • ***
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 3145
  • -Recibidas: 5726
  • Mensajes: 869
  • Nivel: 112
  • NosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #229 en: Mayo 22, 2012, 16:15:48 pm »
Me traigo esta preocupante noticia de EsquenotengoTDT. Necesitan controlar internet ahora que ya nadie cree las mentiras de cartón piedra de los falsimedia que la élite controla.

Ya están aquí, llamando a la puerta

http://bandaancha.eu/articulos/cataluna-obliga-pedir-permiso-emitir-8463

Citar

El Consejo del Audiovisual de Cataluña decidirá quien puede difundir información por internet de la misma forma que lo hacen las televisiones y radios mediante las frecuencias de radio. Servicios como YouTube o la simple emisión de un podcast tendrán la supervisión de los poderes públicos.

La difusión de información a través de la radio o la televisión, siempre ha estado acotada por los poderes públicos a través de las concesiones administrativas de frecuencias. Con la excusa de que el espectro radioeléctrico es escaso, la administración históricamente ha decidido, a través de los concursos públicos de concesión de frecuencias que se celebran aproximadamente cada 5 a 10 años, qué empresas pueden emitir televisión o radio. No son extrañas en estos procesos las denuncias de favoritismo hacia grupos de medios afines al partido que está en el poder en el momento de otorgarse las concesiones.

Las nuevas tecnologías, y sobre todo Internet, han cambiado la forma de difundir la información, que ahora escapa de los escasos canales que el poder podía controlar.

Solo el deseo de recuperar el control de la difusión de la información puede explicar la nueva instrucción que el Consejo Audiovisual de Cataluña ha aprobado, en la que obliga a comunicar previamente la intención de prestar servicios de comunicación audiovisual a través de redes de comunicaciones electrónicas.

Con la nueva normativa, el CAC tendrá un mes para decidir si una persona o empresa puede ofrecer servicios audiovisuales similares a los de una TV o radio a través de internet. Un registro mantendrá los datos de todas las personas que realicen esta actividad, lo que facilitará su control.

Youtube y podcasts obligados a inscribirse

Los servicios similares a YouTube se ajustan a la definición que hace el CAC de los servicios de comunicación audiovisual, puesto que no solo comprende a la emisión continua de contenidos sino a la emisión bajo demanda, seleccionada por el espectador. Los podcasts también se ajustarían a esta descripción.

Els serveis de comunicació audiovisual radiofònica a petició, que es presten per a l'audició de programes i de continguts en el moment elegit per l'oient i a petició pròpia, sobre la base d'un catàleg de programes seleccionat pel prestador del servei de comunicació.




http://www.nacionred.com/gasto-publico/el-cac-toma-internet

Es repugnante ver cómo cada uno intenta arrimar el ascua a su sardina...



Citar
El PP 'català' de Sánchez Camacho y el PSC apoyan la nueva norma
Televisiones y radios que quieran emitir por Internet tendrán que comunicarlo previamente al CAC
Ciudadanos considera que servirá al CAC para controlar las líneas editoriales de las emisiones
Daniel Tercero, 18 de mayo de 2012 a las 06:00

El polémico Consejo del Audiovisual de Cataluña (CAC) ha aprobado una instrucción --publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Generalidad de Cataluña este martes, 15 de mayo de 2012-- que permitirá la regulación de la prestación de los servicios de comunicación audiovisual en internet para televisiones y radios.

Los consejeros del CAC, en sesión plenaria, aprobaron el pasado 26 de abril de 2012 la Instrucció general del Consell de l'Audiovisual de Catalunya sobre les condicions i el procediment de la comunicació prèvia per a la prestació de serveis de comunicació audiovisual mitjançant tecnologies altres que l'espectre radioelèctric (Instrucción general sobre las condiciones y el procedimiento de la comunicación previa para la prestación de servicios de comunicación audiovisual mediante tecnologías distintas del espectro radioeléctrico), que desarrolla las previsiones incluidas en el capítulo IV del título IV de la autonómica Ley 22/2005, de 29 de diciembre, de la comunicación audiovisual de Cataluña (LCA).

"SU DISCONFORMIDAD"

Entre los contenidos de la instrucción [VER TEXTO] se recoge que el CAC tendrá un mes, tras la declaración de comunicación previa por parte de los aspirantes a emitir televisión o radio por internet, para aceptar, o no, la prestación de servicios audiovisuales.

Así queda establecido en el artículo 6.1 de la nueva norma:

    La prestación del servicio podrá iniciarse en el plazo de un mes, a contar desde la presentación de la declaración de comunicación previa, si el Consejo del Audiovisual de Cataluña no manifiesta motivadamente su disconformidad. El Consejo procederá de oficio a la inscripción de la declaración de la comunicación en el Registro de prestadores de servicios de comunicación audiovisual de Cataluña.

Este reglamento solo afectará a las televisiones y radios que quieran emitir exclusivamente en internet, no para las radios o televisiones que ya emiten con licencia en el espacio radioeléctrico, y quedan excluidos los diarios digitales que dispongan de emisiones audiovisuales.

Sí estarán afectados, por contra, los prestadores de servicios cuya finalidad sea la de proporcionar contenidos y programas a través de internet con el objeto de informar, entretener, educar al público en general o emitir comunicaciones comerciales.

Desde el CAC han indicado a Periodista Digital que esta comunicación previa no es comparable a una licencia o una autorización para televisiones y radios. Aseguran que la instrucción solo exige una trámite que ya se lleva a cabo en otras Comunidades Autónomas, como Navarra, y que solo se podría negar la emisión en caso de que un juez haya retirado previamente una licencia o petición anterior al solicitante de la prestación, según recoge el artículo 8 de la nueva norma.

SOLO REGULA POSIBLES "ANOMALÍAS ADMINISTRATIVAS"

Pese a que el CAC tiene la potestad para intervenir sancionando a las empresas por sus contenidos, Santi Rodríguez, diputado autonómico y portavoz de los temas audiovisuales del PP catalán, en línea con lo defendido por el CAC, no cree que esta norma establezca límites a las empresas que quieran emitir por internet.

Rodríguez ha señalado que según un borrador de 2005 sí se exigía una licencia, que otorgaba el CAC, para poder emitir por internet pero que la petición de comunicación previa actual no es comparable.

En este sentido, el popular ha comparado la petición al CAC con la petición de apertura de un comercio, por ejemplo, que con el silencio administrativo es suficiente como para ponerlo en marcha:

    Es para tener identificado al propietario editor. Una comunicación es suficiente. Es un régimen administrativo típico para otros ámbitos, como el de los comercios en los municipios.

Aunque reconoce que "la Administración siempre se reserva la potestad de dar la autorización" para cualquier concesión ha señalado que, en este caso, el CAC no evalúa contenidos y sí solo posibles "anomalías administrativas".

CON DECIR QUE SE EXISTE ES SUFICIENTE

En la misma dirección se ha posicionado Joan Ferran, diputado autonómico y portavoz del PSC en los temas audiovisuales. "Solo hay que notificar que se existe" ante el CAC para emitir por internet, pero no entrará en los contenidos de las emisiones.

Ferran ha recordado que el CAC vigila los contenidos de los medios de comunciación audiovisuales para defender a la infancia, para que no se emita violencia o, por ejemplo, evitar el racismo en la televisión y la radio.

El portavoz del PSC ha señalado que en Francia ocurrió hace un tiempo que, a través de las televisiones por satélite, se recibía la señal de un canal de Hezbolá. Gracias a la regulación francesa se pudo evitar que la señal siguiera llegando al país. Ferran considera que la nueva norma tiene una función similar, dentro del contexto de las funciones generales del CAC.

"CENSOR" PARA CONTROLAR "LAS LÍNEAS EDITORIALES CONTRARIAS AL NACIONALISMO"

Mucho más escéptico con la norma se ha mostrado Jordi Cañas, portavoz de Ciudadanos, que ha indicado que se debería cerrar el CAC y así la Administración autonómica se ahorraría los 6,2 millones de euros que cuestan, según los presupuestos de 2012.

Para Cañas, "ni el CAC, ni nadie, puede evitar la libertad en internet", ha calificado al órgano regulador de la Generalidad como un ente "censor" y ha criticado que una norma que permite al CAC permitir o no emitir por internet a las televisiones y las radios se convierte en un instrumento para controlar "las líneas editoriales contrarias al nacionalismo".

« última modificación: Mayo 22, 2012, 17:04:25 pm por NosTrasladamus »

NosTrasladamus

  • Ha sido citado por PPCC
  • ***
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 3145
  • -Recibidas: 5726
  • Mensajes: 869
  • Nivel: 112
  • NosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influenciaNosTrasladamus Tiene una gran influencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #230 en: Mayo 22, 2012, 17:21:04 pm »
http://www.nacionred.com/default/eugene-kaspersky-sin-nosotros-la-democracia-se-acabara-en-20-anos

Citar
Eugene Kaspersky: "(sin nosotros) la democracia se acabará en 20 años"

Imagínense un mundo en el que todo aquello que no pueda hacerse mediante Internet no se haga en absoluto. En tiendas sin clientes. En elecciones sin participación… En el fin de la democracia en tan solo 20 años.

Este es el futuro que Eugene Kaspersky, el fundador de la empresa de seguridad, imagina si no se desarrollan sistemas de identificación segura en Internet.

El magnate de la ciberseguridad soltaba esta perla en Australia, un país en el que el voto es obligatorio, delante de un público completamente silencioso y el día después que supiéramos que Australia y los Estados Unidos de América han firmado un acuerdo para vigilar la red.

Lo hizo alegando que los gobiernos y estados deben empezar ya a desarrollar sistemas de credenciales digitales para la ciudadanía del futuro, para los niños. Porque ya nadie piensa en ellos, claro.

Según Kaspersky, los niños de hoy en día son nativos digitales, mientras que los adultos somos inmigrantes. Mientras que nosotros hemos crecido en un mundo offline, los pequeños están todo el día conectados, por lo que en el futuro, cuando se hagan mayores, no realizarán ningún trámite presencial en el mundo de los átomos si creen que éste debiera poderse hacer mediante Internet.

    Si no existen pasaportes en Internet, los niños no van a ir a los colegios electorales. Si no van a los colegios electorales, en 20 años no habrá suficientes votantes para elegir a los futuros presidentes o primeros ministros. Si no tenemos pasaportes en Internet, el fin de la democracia llegará en 20 años.

    Las nuevas generaciones no votarán. Estarán desconectadas. Por eso pienso que necesitamos métodos de identificación criptográfica digital.

El discurso del miedo, hasta ahora, lo usaban en mayor parte los halcones de la ciber-paranoia en los Estados Unidos de América. Kaspersky parece haberlo comprado a ojos cerrados.

¡Que digo comprado! Lo ha llevado un paso más allá. Ya no es que los malvados ciber-criminales acechen y tengamos que protegernos. El fin de la democracia, ni más ni menos.

Conflictos sociales, revoluciones y disturbios. Caos. Todo ello puede evitarse si renunciamos a nuestros derechos y aceptamos vivir en la sociedad de control en la que todo se podrá hacer por Internet. En la sociedad en que todos y cada uno de nuestros movimientos en la red serán monitorizados y espiados por agentes y funcionarios del Estado. Obviamente, esas tareas se realizarán con algunas herramientas de Casa Kaspersky.

Recordad, el futuro de los niños reside en esa renuncia. Pensad en los niños. Hacedlo por ellos. La cuenta corriente de Kaspersky os lo agradecerá en el futuro.

En Nación Red | El Pentágono buscará en las redes sociales a los que fomenten el malestar  :o

http://www.nacionred.com/seguridad-en-internet/el-pentagono-buscara-en-las-redes-sociales-a-los-que-fomenten-el-malestar

ndizDtdo

  • Desorientado
  • *
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 85
  • -Recibidas: 90
  • Mensajes: 20
  • Nivel: 4
  • ndizDtdo Sin influencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #231 en: Mayo 22, 2012, 20:57:15 pm »

    Si no existen pasaportes en Internet, los niños no van a ir a los colegios electorales. Si no van a los colegios electorales, en 20 años no habrá suficientes votantes para elegir a los futuros presidentes o primeros ministros. Si no tenemos pasaportes en Internet, el fin de la democracia llegará en 20 años.



Deberían olvidarse de los votos electrónicos en decisiones tan trascendentales, las urnas dejan mejores huellas:

Citar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IfSVQK7Jvo

OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION
Colimbus, Ohio , Diciembre 13, 2005

- Mr. Curtis, ¿Podría decir su nombre completo para el archivo?
- Mi nombre es Clinton Eugene Curtis
- ¿Dónde vive?
- Tallahassee, Florida
- ¿Cuál es su profesión?
- Soy programador
- Sr. Curtis, ¿Existen programas que puedan ser usados para falsear elecciones secretamente?
- Sí
- ¿Cómo lo sabe?
- Porque en octubre del 2000 escribí un programa experimental para el actual congresista Tom Feeney, en la empresa para la que trabajo en Oviedo, Florida, que hacía exactamente eso.
- Cuando dice que hacía exactamente eso, ¿ Quiere decir que falseaba unas elecciones ?
- Convertía el voto 51 en 49 a favor de quien uno quisiera, y en cualquier tipo de elección.
- ¿ Y los responsables de las elecciones habrían podido detectar el tipo de programa que usted escribió?
- Jamás podrían haberlo advertido
- Entonces, ¿cómo puede uno detectar que un determinado programa falsea las elecciones?
- Hay que detectarlo en el código fuente, o contar los comprobantes con el numero total de votos. No hay otra manera de hacerlo.


La transcripción completa en inglés:
http://www.gnorb.net/534/ohio-florida-fixed-elections-video-proof

Editado: Sinceramente, me había ido por la tangente.
« última modificación: Mayo 22, 2012, 22:51:07 pm por ndizDtdo »

EsquenotengoTDT

  • Espabilao
  • **
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 1723
  • -Recibidas: 1207
  • Mensajes: 264
  • Nivel: 19
  • EsquenotengoTDT Sin influencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #232 en: Mayo 26, 2012, 02:29:44 am »
Qué horror eso de Microsoft, Mr. NosTrasladamus.  Asusta. En fin....

Voy a traerme un par de posts que puse en otros sitios y deberían estar aquí.
Si no pica, no cura.

EsquenotengoTDT

  • Espabilao
  • **
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 1723
  • -Recibidas: 1207
  • Mensajes: 264
  • Nivel: 19
  • EsquenotengoTDT Sin influencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #233 en: Mayo 26, 2012, 02:34:04 am »
Ya están aquí, llamando a la puerta

http://bandaancha.eu/articulos/cataluna-obliga-pedir-permiso-emitir-8463

El Consejo del Audiovisual de Cataluña decidirá quien puede difundir información por internet

Edito y recorto: Ya lo había traído NosTrasladamus. No puedo borrar el post pero dejo sólo esto.
Sorry.

El siguiente sí que es fresquito.
« última modificación: Mayo 26, 2012, 02:57:17 am por EsquenotengoTDT »
Si no pica, no cura.

EsquenotengoTDT

  • Espabilao
  • **
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 1723
  • -Recibidas: 1207
  • Mensajes: 264
  • Nivel: 19
  • EsquenotengoTDT Sin influencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #234 en: Mayo 26, 2012, 02:48:02 am »
Qué disgusto, joer, mierda, caca, %/(%(#*&+#%
Es lo que me pasa por tener mitos a estas alturas.

TED.com ha censurado una conferencia porque disgustaba a sus patrocinadores. ((/%(%(#*&+&%/&$&%%$76!!!!

Se trata de Nick Hanauer, uno de los fundadores de Amazon, entre otros éxitos, supermillonario. Que llega al TED y desmonta la teoría de que son los ricos los que generan empleo, y destroza la idea de que que los impuestos a los grandes capitales impiden en desarrollo.

Es la típica conferencia TED, en la que alguien que sabe del tema plantea visiones nuevas sobre temas importantes, pero la organización lo ha censurado por "tener contenido político"
¡ja! Todas las conferencias del TED tienen contenido político, si uno entiende la política con algo de amplitud de miras.

Por suerte, alguien la ha colgado de youtube y ahí sigue, para vergüenza de TED.

Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"


En inglés, sorry. Sólo aclaro que no se refiere a que haya que cargar con impuestos del 85% a los ricos, ni barbaridades así que sueltan rogelios sacamantecas. Es un yanqui, eso ni se lo plantean. En realidad va contra la perversión opuesta, error de hacer que los ricos paguen menores porcentajes que los menos ricos, como estímulo para las grandes inversiones. Bah, eso da igual en este hilo. Lo que me revienta es que lo hayan censurado.

Así que ahora en TED están entre la espada (sin dinero se acaba el tinglao) y la pared (los desprecios que están recibiendo son mayúsculos, y sin prestigio el tinglao no se acaba pero se convierte en un esperpento de lo que era).

La decisión que han tomado quizá salve la continuidad, y tendremos más conferencias sorprendentes y estupendas. Lo entiendo, es de toda la vida:  tragarse un poco de mierda y autocensurarse para poder seguir dando algo que merece la pena.

Lo que pasa es que en este momento estamos hasta arriba de mierda, a punto de colapsar todo por acumulación de decisiones como esta en todos los ámbitos. Por eso yo hubiera preferido que plantaran cara, y si se acaba el TED pues a mamarla. Sólo era un altavoz, la gente que allí hablaba seguirá con sus investigaciones, y ancha es la internet para poner videos.

Yo iba al TED como a un templo. Ahora para mi es como la biblioteca digital del BBVA (si existiera tal cosa). No es lo mismo.
Si no pica, no cura.

Currobena

  • Ha sido citado por PPCC
  • ***
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 7702
  • -Recibidas: 4186
  • Mensajes: 785
  • Nivel: 72
  • Currobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medioCurrobena Destaca sobre el usuario medio
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #235 en: Junio 08, 2012, 12:15:52 pm »
Censura, piratería y corrupción sobre Internet: un esquema.

"Ni el interés ni el miedo, el rencor ni la afición, no les haga torcer del camino de la verdad, cuya madre es la historia, émula del tiempo, depósito de las acciones, testigo de lo pasado, ejemplo y aviso de lo presente, advertencia de lo porvenir".

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547-1616).

ndizDtdo

  • Desorientado
  • *
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 85
  • -Recibidas: 90
  • Mensajes: 20
  • Nivel: 4
  • ndizDtdo Sin influencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #236 en: Junio 10, 2012, 04:01:22 am »
Intentando romper la neutralidad de la red... de nuevo, paralelamente monitorización de nuestras actividades en internet y restricción de acceso  ::)  ::)

Citar

ISPs buscan que empresas web paguen para que su contenido sea accesible fuera de Estados Unidos

Una propuesta europea enviada a la ONU pretende cobrarle impuestos a las empresas estadounidenses de contenidos de internet, como Google, Facebook, Netflix y otros, por utilizar las redes de los ISPs extranjeros.

La propuesta fue escrita por la Asociación de Operadores de Redes de Telecomunicaciones Europea (ETNO), un grupo que representa compañías en 35 países.

Los ISP europeos y compañías telefónicas se han quejado desde hace mucho tiempo sobre las empresas web estadounidenses, ya que gran parte del ancho de banda se usa en entrar a esos contenidos. La idea es que las empresas paguen proporcionalmente por el tráfico que producen y que colapsa aparentemente sus redes. El plan no es nuevo: Ya hace dos años, el presidente de Telefónica había propuesto que Google debía pagarles.

Si la idea se concreta desde las Naciones Unidas, la consecuencia podría ser que las empresas dejen de ofrecer sus servicios donde les resulte caro hacerlo. Esto podría afectar en especial a los países en desarrollo, donde las compañías no están percibiendo ingresos importantes, y por ende les saldría demasiado caro ofrecer sus servicios allí. Habría lugares que se quedarían fuera de internet, denuncian los opositores.

Y si bien las empresas grandes quizás podrían pagar, las más pequeñas, nuevas o que generan pocos ingresos (como Twitter quizás) se verían obligadas a pagar igual, algo que no les sería posible hacer.

El plan se había mantenido en secreto hasta el momento, filtrándose sólo recientemente en el sitio WCITLeaks, con la esperanza de que ahora que es público la discusión permita evaluar los riesgos que un impuesto de este tipo crearía. No se sabe cuánto quiere recolectar la ETNO anualmente, pero los analistas suponen que la cifra está en los miles de millones de dólares.

Link: UN could tax US based web sites, leaked docs show (CNET)




Citar

U.N. could tax U.S.-based Web sites, leaked docs show

Global Internet tax suggested by European network operators, who want Apple, Google, and other Web companies to pay to deliver content, is proposed for debate at a U.N. agency in December.

by Declan McCullagh and Larry Downes
June 7, 2012

The United Nations is considering a new Internet tax targeting the largest Web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix, that could cripple their ability to reach users in developing nations.

The European proposal, offered for debate at a December meeting of a U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union, would amend an existing telecommunications treaty by imposing heavy costs on popular Web sites and their network providers for the privilege of serving non-U.S. users, according to newly leaked documents.

The documents (No. 1 No. 2) punctuate warnings that the Obama administration and Republican members of Congress raised last week about how secret negotiations at the ITU over an international communications treaty could result in a radical re-engineering of the Internet ecosystem and allow governments to monitor or restrict their citizens' online activities.

Los documentos (No. 1 No. 2) marcan las advertencias que la administración Obama y los miembros republicanos del congreso ensalzaron la semana pasada sobre cómo las negociaciones secretas de la UIT sobre un tratado internacional de comunicaciones podría dar lugar a un radical rediseño del ecosistema de Internet y permitir a los gobiernos controlar o restringir las actividades de sus ciudadanos en línea. {Nota: Le dijo la sartén al cazo, sin mencionar UK }

"It's extremely worrisome," Sally Shipman Wentworth, senior manager for public policy at the Internet Society, says about the proposed Internet taxes. "It could create an enormous amount of legal uncertainty and commercial uncertainty."

The leaked proposal was drafted by the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association, or ETNO, a Brussels-based lobby group representing companies in 35 nations that wants the ITU to mandate these fees.
The Internet Society's Sally Shipman Wentworth calls the proposal "extremely worrisome."

The Internet Society's Sally Shipman Wentworth calls the proposal "extremely worrisome."
(Credit: Declan McCullagh/CNET)

While this is the first time this proposal been advanced, European network providers and phone companies have been bitterly complaining about U.S. content-providing companies for some time. France Telecom, Telecom Italia, and Vodafone Group, {Nota: y telefónica/Movistar, desde luego} want to "require content providers like Apple and Google to pay fees linked to usage," Bloomberg reported last December.

ETNO refers to it as the "principle of sending party network pays" -- an idea borrowed from the system set up to handle payments for international phone calls, where the recipient's network set the per minute price. If its proposal is adopted, it would spell an end to the Internet's long-standing, successful design based on unmetered "peered" traffic, and effectively tax content providers to reach non-U.S. Internet users.

In a statement (PDF) sent to CNET on Friday morning, ETNO defended its proposal as "innovative" and said it had been adopted unanimously by its executive board. It would amend the treaties by saying, "to ensure an adequate return on investment in high bandwidth infrastructures, operating agencies shall negotiate commercial agreements to achieve a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services," ETNO said.

Such sender-pays frameworks, including the one from ETNO, could prompt U.S.-based Internet services to reject connections from users in developing countries, who would become unaffordably expensive to communicate with, predicts Robert Pepper, Cisco's vice president for global technology policy.

Developing countries "could effectively be cut off from the Internet," says Pepper, a former policy chief at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. It "could have a host of very negative unintended consequences."

It's not clear how much the taxes levied by the ETNO's plan would total per year, but observers expect them to be in the billions of dollars. Government data show that in 1996, U.S. phone companies paid their overseas counterparts a total of $5.4 billion just for international long distance calls.

If the new taxes were levied, larger U.S. companies might be able to reduce the amount of money they pay by moving data closer to overseas customers, something that Netflix, for instance, already does through Akamai and other content delivery networks. But smaller U.S. companies unable to afford servers in other nations would still have to pay.

The leaked documents were posted by the Web site WCITLeaks, which was created by two policy analysts at the free-market Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Arlington, Va, who stress their Wikileaks-esque project is being done in their spare time. The name, WCITLeaks, is a reference to the ITU's December summit in Dubai, the World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT.

Eli Dourado, a research fellow who founded WCITLeaks along with Jerry Brito, told CNET this afternoon that the documents show that Internet taxes represent "an attractive revenue stream for many governments, but it probably is not in the interest of their people, since it would increase global isolation."

Dourado hopes to continue posting internal ITU documents, and is asking for more submissions. "We hope that shedding some light on them will help people understand what's at stake," he says.

One vote per country
ETNO's proposal arrives against the backdrop of negotiations now beginning in earnest to rewrite the International Telecommunications Regulations (PDF), a multilateral treaty that governs international communications traffic. The ITRs, which dates back to the days of the telegraph, were last revised in 1988, long before the rise of the commercial Internet and the on-going migration of voice, video and data traffic to the Internet's packet-switched network.

The U.S. delegation to the Dubai summit, which will be headed by Terry Kramer, currently an entrepreneur-in-residence at the Harvard Business School, is certain to fight proposals for new Internet taxes and others that could curb free speech or privacy online.

But the ITU has 193 member countries, and all have one vote each.

If proposals harmful to global Internet users eventually appear in a revision to the ITRs, it's possible that the U.S. would refuse to ratify the new treaty. But that would create additional problems: U.S. network operators and their customers would still be held to new rules when dealing with foreign partners and governments. The unintended result could be a Balkanization of the Internet.

In response to the recent criticism from from Washington, ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Toure convened a meeting yesterday with ITU staff to deny charges that the WCIT summit in Dubai "is all about ITU, or the United Nations, trying to take over the Internet." (The ITU also has been criticized, as CNET recently reported, for using the appearance of the Flame malware to argue it should have more cybersecurity authority over the Internet.)

"The real issue on the table here is not at all about who 'runs' the Internet -- and there are in fact no proposals on the table concerning this," Toure said, according to a copy of his remarks posted by the ITU. "The issue instead is on how best to cooperate to ensure the free flow of information, the continued development of broadband, continued investment, and continuing innovation."

Robert McDowell, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission who wrote an article (PDF) in the Wall Street Journal in February titled "The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom," appeared to reference the ETNO's proposal for Internet taxes during last week's congressional hearing.

Proposals that foreign governments have pitched to him personally would "use international mandates to charge certain Web destinations on a 'per-click' basis to fund the build-out of broadband infrastructure across the globe," McDowell said. "Google, Tunes, Facebook, and Netflix are mentioned most often as prime sources of funding."

They could also allow "governments to monitor and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international data flows," added Ambassador Philip Verveer, a deputy assistant secretary of state.

ITU spokesman Paul Conneally told CNET this week that:

Citar
There are proposals that could change the charging system, but nothing about pay-per-click as such. There isn't anything we can comment about this interpretation because, as stated before, member states are free to interpret proposals as they like, so if McDowell chooses to interpret as pay-per-click, that is his right and similarly it is he who should provide pointers for you.


From the beginning, the Internet's architecture has been based on traffic exchange between backbone providers for mutual benefit, without metering and per-byte "settlement" charges for incoming and outgoing traffic. ETNO's proposal would require network operators and others to instead negotiate agreements "where appropriate" aimed at achieving "a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services" based on "the principle of sending party network pays."

"Not all those countries like open, transparent process"

This isn't the first time that a U.N. agency will consider the idea of Internet taxes.

In 1999, a report from the United Nations Development Program proposed Internet e-mail taxes to help developing nations, suggesting that an appropriate amount would be the equivalent of one penny on every 100 e-mails that an individual might send. But the agency backed away from the idea a few days later.

And in 2010, the U.N.'s World Health Organization contemplated, but did not agree on, a "bit tax" on Internet traffic.

Under the ITU system for international long distance, government-owned telecommunications companies used to make billions from incoming calls, effectively taxing the citizens of countries that placed the calls. That meant that immigrants to developed nations paid princely sums to call their relatives back home, as high as $1 a minute.

But technological advances have eroded the ability of the receiving countries to collect the fees, and the historic shift to voice over Internet Protocol services such as Skype has all but erased the transfer payments. Some countries see the WCIT process as a long-shot opportunity to reclaim those riches.

The ITU's process has been controversial because so much of it is conducted in secret. That's drawn unflattering comparisons with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, an international intellectual property agreement that has generated protests from Internet users across the world. (The Obama administration approved ACTA in 2011, before anyone outside the negotiations had a chance to review it.)

By comparison, the Internet Society, with 55,000 members and 90 worldwide chapters, hosts the engineering task forces responsible for the development and enhancement of Internet protocols, which operate through virtual public meetings and mailing lists.

"Not all those countries like open, transparent process," says Cisco's Pepper, referring to the ITU's participants. "This is a problem."

Last updated at 9:30 a.m. PT on June 8

« última modificación: Junio 10, 2012, 04:14:43 am por ndizDtdo »

ndizDtdo

  • Desorientado
  • *
  • Gracias
  • -Dadas: 85
  • -Recibidas: 90
  • Mensajes: 20
  • Nivel: 4
  • ndizDtdo Sin influencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Transición hacia una Internet censurada. Y mientras, en el cortijo...
« Respuesta #237 en: Junio 19, 2012, 14:06:16 pm »
http://ciberderechos.barrapunto.com/article.pl?sid=12/06/18/166232&threshold=-1

Citar
Di NO a A.C.T.A. (Segundo asalto)

Se aproxima la votación final sobre el tratado ACTA en el Parlamento Europeo.

La próxima semana la comisión de Comercio Internacional (International Trade, INTA) vota sobre si recomienda la firma de este tratado o su rechazo definitivo. Los grupos de presión favorables al tratado ya han movido ficha: el parlamentario Karel de Gucht se ha autoinvitado a la reunión del comité INTA para animar a los delegados a votar a for de ACTA. En nuestra mano está ejercer un poco de presión ciudadana y animar por nuestra parte a los delegados a votar en contra. Como en la anterior ocasión, el activista Rick Falkvinge ha publicado en web dos cartas modelo para enviar a los delegados, junto con las direcciones de los mismos. ¿Y tu? ¿Ya has mandado correos a los europarlamentarios?
Si el inglés no es lo tuyo, hay dos europarlamentarias españolas en el comité: la popular María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora y la socialista Josefa Andrés Barea, a las que puedes escribir directamente en castellano, con corrección, y usando tus propias palabras.


 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal