12160 Social Network2024-03-29T12:11:31ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1961328541?profile=RESIZE_48X48&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1https://12160.info/group/savetheinternetnewscensorshipand/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=1s90y2nmvhhxa&feed=yes&xn_auth=noHOW TO KEEP YOUR CHATS TRULY PRIVATE WITH SIGNALtag:12160.info,2017-05-02:2649739:Topic:16810452017-05-02T22:06:58.392ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32
<div class="Post-header-grid"><div class="Post-header-row"><div class="Post-header-block"><div><div class="Post-title-block"><h1 class="Post-title"><a class="Post-title-link" href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/">CYBERSECURITY FOR THE PEOPLE: HOW TO KEEP YOUR CHATS TRULY PRIVATE WITH SIGNAL…</a></h1>
<div class="PostByline byline"><div class="PostByline-images"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="Post-header-grid"><div class="Post-header-row"><div class="Post-header-block"><div><div class="Post-title-block"><h1 class="Post-title"><a class="Post-title-link" href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/">CYBERSECURITY FOR THE PEOPLE: HOW TO KEEP YOUR CHATS TRULY PRIVATE WITH SIGNAL</a></h1>
<div class="PostByline byline"><div class="PostByline-images"><a class="PostByline-image-link" rel="author" href="https://theintercept.com/staff/micah-lee/"><img class="PostByline-image" src="https://prod01-cdn04.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2017/01/Micah-Lee-1485659935.jpg" width="60" height="60"/></a></div>
<div class="PostByline-names"><a class="PostByline-link" rel="author" href="https://theintercept.com/staff/micah-lee/">Micah Lee</a></div>
<br />
<span class="PostByline-date">May 1 2017, 10:36 a.m.</span></div>
<div class="PartnershipArticle-FeatureVideoPost-PostByline"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="Post-body"><div class="Post-content-block-outer"><div class="GridContainer Post-scroll-container"><div class="GridRow"><div class="Post-content-block"><div class="Post-content-block-inner"><div class="PostContent"><div><p class="caption">Video by Lauren Feeney</p>
<p>Whether your private conversations are personal, professional, or political, what you say or type into your phone may be of interest to snooping governments, both foreign and domestic. Criminals might be interested as well, especially when you send someone a password or credit card number. There are others you might worry about too: You might want to apply for a job without your current employer finding out. You might discuss something with a lawyer. You might talk to your friends about attending a protest, getting an abortion, or buying a gun. You might send private selfies to your partner that you don’t want anyone else to see. You might be dating someone new and not want your coworkers to find out. The list goes on.</p>
<p>Fortunately, privacy is a fundamental human right.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, most ways that people communicate with their phones — voice calls, SMS messages, email, Facebook, Skype, Hangouts, etc. — are not as private as you might think. Your phone company, internet provider, and the corporations that make the apps you use to communicate can spy on what you say. Your chats can be accessed by police, the FBI, and spy agencies like the NSA. They can also be seen by <em>anyone</em> who can pick up your phone and sift through it. Some of them can even be read by anyone in a position to simply glance at your phone’s lock screen and read the notifications displayed there.</p>
<p>But it’s possible to make sure that your private conversations are <em>actually </em>private. It starts with installing an app known as Signal, and getting your friends to install it too. Then you’ll want to tweak the settings to lock everything down.</p>
<p>The Signal app is easy to use, works on both Apple’s mobile operating system iOS and Google’s Android, and encrypts communications so that only you and the people you’re talking to can decipher them. It also has open source <a href="https://github.com/whispersystems/">code</a>, so experts can verify its security claims. You can download Signal from the Android <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.securesms">Play Store</a> and the iPhone <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/signal-private-messenger/id874139669">App Store</a>.</p>
<p>Although Signal is well-designed, there are extra steps you must take if you want to maximize the security of your most sensitive conversations. (I <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/07/02/security-tips-every-signal-user-should-know/">outlined</a> some of these steps last year, but Signal has changed significantly since then.) There are also some useful features in Signal that you might not know about.</p>
<p>I discuss these at length below — and in the video above, created with Lauren Feeney.</p>
<p>If you wish to jump ahead to a specific section, you can click the appropriate link:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/#friends">Get your friends to use Signal</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/#lockdown">Lock down your phone</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/#screen">Hide Signal messages on your lock screen</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/#retention">Don’t retain your messages forever</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/#images">Send and receive private photos and videos</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/#groups">Have secure group discussions</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/#calls">Make secure voice and video calls</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/#contacts">Send messages to numbers without adding them to your contacts</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/#verify">Verify that the encryption isn’t under attack using safety numbers</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/#desktop">Using Signal on your computer</a></li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/cybersecurity-for-the-people-how-to-keep-your-chats-truly-private-with-signal/#desktop" target="_blank">MORE ABOUT SIGNAL</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div> LEAKED NSA MALWARE THREATENS WINDOWS USERS AROUND THE WORLDtag:12160.info,2017-04-14:2649739:Topic:16772162017-04-14T21:48:57.570ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32
<h1 class="Post-title"><a class="Post-title-link" href="https://theintercept.com/2017/04/14/leaked-nsa-malware-threatens-windows-users-around-the-world/">LEAKED NSA MALWARE THREATENS WINDOWS USERS AROUND THE WORLD…</a></h1>
<p></p>
<div class="Post-header-grid"><div class="Post-header-row"><div class="Post-header-block"><div><div class="Post-title-block"><div class="PostByline byline"><div class="PostByline-names"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h1 class="Post-title"><a class="Post-title-link" href="https://theintercept.com/2017/04/14/leaked-nsa-malware-threatens-windows-users-around-the-world/">LEAKED NSA MALWARE THREATENS WINDOWS USERS AROUND THE WORLD</a></h1>
<p></p>
<div class="Post-header-grid"><div class="Post-header-row"><div class="Post-header-block"><div><div class="Post-title-block"><div class="PostByline byline"><div class="PostByline-names"><a class="PostByline-link" rel="author" href="https://theintercept.com/staff/sambiddle/">Sam Biddle</a></div>
<br />
<span class="PostByline-date">April 14 2017, 3:35 p.m.</span></div>
<div class="PartnershipArticle-StandardPost-PostByline"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="Post-body"><div class="Post-content-block-outer"><div class="GridContainer Post-scroll-container"><div class="GridRow"><div class="Post-content-block"><div class="Post-content-block-inner"><div class="PostContent"><div><p>The ShadowBrokers, an entity <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/the-nsa-was-hacked-snowden-documents-confirm/">previously confirmed by The Intercept to have leaked authentic malware</a> used by the NSA to attack computers around the world, today released another cache of what appears to be extremely potent (and previously unknown) software capable of breaking into systems running Windows. The software could give nearly anyone with sufficient technical knowledge the ability to wreak havoc on millions of Microsoft users.</p>
<p>The leak includes a litany of typically codenamed software “implants” with names like ODDJOB, ZIPPYBEER, and ESTEEMAUDIT, capable of breaking into — and in some cases seizing control of — computers running version of the Windows operating system earlier than the most recent Windows 10. The vulnerable Windows versions ran more than 65 percent of desktop computers surfing the web last month, according to <a href="https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0">estimates</a> from the tracking firm Net Market Share.</p>
<p>The crown jewel of the implant collection appears to be a program named FUZZBUNCH, which essentially automates the deployment of NSA malware, and would allow a member of agency’s Tailored Access Operations group to more easily infect a target from their desk.</p>
<div class="img-wrap align-center width-fixed"><a href="https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2017/04/2008-1492192653.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-article-medium wp-image-122766" src="https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2017/04/2008-1492192653-540x394.jpg" alt=""/></a><p></p>
</div>
<p>According to security researcher and hacker Matthew Hickey, co-founder of <a href="https://www.myhackerhouse.com/">Hacker House</a>, the significance of what’s now publicly available, including “zero day” attacks on previously undisclosed vulnerabilities, cannot be overstated: “I don’t think I have ever seen so much exploits and 0day [exploits] released at one time in my entire life,” he told The Intercept via Twitter DM, “and I have been involved in computer hacking and security for 20 years.” Affected computers will remain vulnerable until Microsoft releases patches for the zero-day vulnerabilities and, more crucially, until their owners then apply those patches.</p>
<p><a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/04/14/leaked-nsa-malware-threatens-windows-users-around-the-world/">https://theintercept.com/2017/04/14/leaked-nsa-malware-threatens-windows-users-around-the-world/</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div> ICANN is now planning to take over domain privacy providers, a plan driven by the people who brought you SOPAtag:12160.info,2015-06-29:2649739:Topic:15716212015-06-29T02:51:32.122ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32
<h1>ICANN is now planning to take over domain privacy providers, a plan driven by the people who brought you SOPA"</h1>
<p>This post is extremely long and detailed and is on quite a dense subject. Here is the short version.</p>
<p>Trouble is brewing.</p>
<p>ICANN, the body that has a monopoly on domain registrations, is now planning to attempt to take over domain privacy providers (like RespectMyPrivacy) as well. Driven in no small part by the people who brought you SOPA, they have a three-step…</p>
<h1>ICANN is now planning to take over domain privacy providers, a plan driven by the people who brought you SOPA"</h1>
<p>This post is extremely long and detailed and is on quite a dense subject. Here is the short version.</p>
<p>Trouble is brewing.</p>
<p>ICANN, the body that has a monopoly on domain registrations, is now planning to attempt to take over domain privacy providers (like RespectMyPrivacy) as well. Driven in no small part by the people who brought you SOPA, they have a three-step plan:</p>
<p>They will introduce a new accreditation program for domain privacy providers, complete with fees and compliance headaches. (Meaning higher costs for you.)<br/> As a condition of accreditation, require domain privacy providers to adopt privacy-eviscerating policies that mandate disclosure and, in some cases, publication of your private information based on very low standards.<br/> They will require ICANN-accredited domain registrars (i.e. all domain registrars) to refuse to accept registrations that use a non-accredited domain privacy provider, thus driving any privacy provider that actually plans to provide privacy right out of business.<br/> Here are some of the great ideas they’re considering:</p>
<p>Barring privacy providers from requiring a court order, warrant, or subpoena before turning over your data.<br/> A policy based on the “don’t ask questions, just do it” model of the DMCA. Except that with the DMCA your site can be put back after an error or bogus request; your privacy can never be put back.<br/> Requiring privacy providers to honor law enforcement requests to turn information over secretly, even when under no legal obligation to do so.<br/> Outright banning the use of privacy services for any domain for which any site in that domain involves e-commerce.<br/> If this happens, domain privacy will become little more than a fig leaf. Your private information will be available to anyone who can write a convincing-looking letter, and you may or may not be able to find out that it was disclosed.</p>
<p>ICANN</p>
<p>The whole proposal is a giant pile of BS that does nothing but service ICANN’s friends in governments and intellectual property (think RIAA/MPAA) at the expense of anyone who’s ever set up a web site and thought that maybe it would be good if their detractors didn’t have their home address. But as much as some at ICANN want to, they can’t just scrap privacy services. ICANN’s members are domain registrars and they make a lot of money from it. So this is the compromise: providers can still sell privacy, it just won’t actually do any good, and when they hand over your info, if they tell you about it at all, they’ll blame ICANN and say their hands are tied by the policies they have to follow.</p>
<p>If you think maybe paying a lot more for a lot less privacy isn’t such a great idea, ICANN is accepting public comment on this subject until July 7th, 2015. You can email them atcomments-ppsai-initial-05may15@icann.org or fill out their online template if you prefer.</p>
<p>If you do feel like submitting a comment on this, I encourage you to read this whole post (and, if you have time, the working group report). The more informed you are, the more effective your comments will be.</p>
<p>The full story<br/> If you’ve never heard of ICANN, you could perhaps be forgiven for that. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the behind-the-scenes non-governmental organization that runs Internet domain registration.</p>
<p>If you are familiar with them, it may be thanks to some of their greatest hits:</p>
<p>ICANN is the organization that granted Verisign a(n effectively) perpetual monopoly over .com and .net, complete with provisions for automatic regular price increases without any sort of oversight or justification.<br/> ICANN is the reason why we have to hassle you repeatedly when your domain expires, even if you tell us in no uncertain terms that you want it to expire.<br/> ICANN is behind the policy that requires your domains to be suspended if you don’t respond to email verifications that have ICANN-mandated text that frequently trips spam filters.<br/> ICANN is a “non-profit” that is massively profitable. The fees they charge (which are ultimately borne by you the domain registrant) are so far in excess of what they need to operate that as of the end of 2013, they had $168M in cash on hand.<br/> It’s ICANN that requires that when you register a domain, you make your full name, address, telephone number, and email address available in the public whois database, helping to make sure that anyone who might object, stalkers, creepers, criminals, mentally unbalanced people, big corporations or anyone else to find, harass, and possibly murder you.<br/> ICANN is sad<br/> For several years, something has been bothering ICANN. They’re worried that their treasured public whois database isn’t “effective” enough. (Some of us strongly feel that the public whois database is a menace and should not exist at all, but ICANN is not at home to that point of view.) Part of the effectiveness problem, they posit, stems from inaccurate information. And they’ve tried to address that with programs like WAPS (the “whois accuracy program specification” that leads to your domain being suspended for not clicking a link in a spammy-looking email).</p>
<p>But the real “problem” with the “effectiveness” of the public whois database is the proliferation of privacy and proxy contact services (like RespectMyPrivacy). These services allow you to outsource the service of making it possible to contact you by receiving mail, telephone calls, email, and faxes on your behalf and forwarding them to you. This is an invaluable service for anyone who may want to register a domain name but doesn’t have a (required) phone number. Or anyone who doesn’t want to put their home address on their blog about abuses by their local police department. Or anyone who doesn’t have a corporate legal department to hide behind, in an era when death threats, rape threats, and tricking SWAT into raiding people’s houses, all as retaliation for what people say online, are everyday occurrences.</p>
<p>So ICANN is looking to put a stop to that.</p>
<p>Their planned method of doing so is to introduce a new accreditation program for privacy and proxy providers, complete with fees, compliance requirements, and strict guidelines on how they can operate, and then to require accredited domain registrars to refuse any registration that uses a non-accredited privacy or proxy service.</p>
<p>That is, itself, a disturbing abuse of their monopoly position in the domain registration market to gain control of a related industry. Where does that end? How long before your ICANN-accredited domain registrar must refuse any registration that uses a non-accredited web host? How long before your ICANN-accredited web host requires you to use an ICANN-accredited payment processor? Or an ICANN-accredited blog software vendor? (Some large hosting/domain companies would just love the ability to dictate what providers you use for every aspect of your online presence.) If you’re a tech-head, and this sounds familiar, it may be because Microsoft was sued by the DoJ for using their Windows monopoly to force Internet Explorer on the world. However, the DoJ will not be our friend here as there are few things they despise more than online privacy.</p>
<p>They claim this is to protect registrants, but their actions do not bear this out. This is the initial report of their working group, and here are some of the ways they want to “protect” registrants:</p>
<p>“Domains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations.” (Yeah, your home-based business? Sorry about that.)<br/> The working group is still debating whether accredited proxy providers would be required to comply with law enforcement requests not to tell a registrant about an inquiry, even and expressly in the absence of any legal requirement to do so. (Thankfully we live in a world where abuse of investigative powers by government agencies never happens. Oh, hang on a second…)<br/> Requiring a court order to release information to someone who asks for it is specifically called out as prohibited. I.e. an accredited privacy or proxy provider would be required to have a policy allowing disclosure of your private information based solely on “well it sounds like they have a good reason.” (Copyright and trademark issues have been specifically called out as nigh-unchallengeable examples of “a good reason.” Criticize a big company by name? “Trademark!” They get your info.)<br/> Having read the entire 98 page working group report, it sounds like their goal is to adopt “don’t ask, don’t tell” as a policy; you can keep your information private as long as no one asks for it.</p>
<p>Much of the proposed policy is misguided on a technical level as well. There are many areas where the privacy and proxy provider would be required to take actions that such a provider can typically only do if they are also your domain registrar. Actions like publishing something in the whois database entry for your domain — like your contact information, often without your consent and possibly without telling you first. Only your registrar can do that. It could well be that independent companies (like RespectMyPrivacy) that exist only to protect your privacy will no longer be allowed to exist. Only “captive” services — those run by the registrars themselves — will be able to meet the proposed requirements. And I’m sure no one reading this has ever had a problem with one of those.</p>
<p>There are also huge issues the working group hasn’t considered at all, like correlation. What if Jane Smith has an online business and a blog? Even if her blog is “allowed” to have a private registration, her business may not be. (I say “allowed” because the nerve of a group of self-appointed people deciding who deserves privacy and who doesn’t galls me. Like speech, privacy is an inalienable right.) If someone doesn’t like the content of her blog, do we think they won’t look at her business domain to get her home address just because it’s unrelated? That’s pretty farfetched. Correlating details from multiple unrelated sources, and lying to get them are standard practice for Internet harassers and “doxxers.”</p>
<p>But, really, ICANN as an international organization tasked with managing domain names, should not be sticking its nose into issues related to the content. Which is ultimately what this is about. What determines if your domain will be eligible for privacy services? It’s content. What determines if your info will be revealed to anyone who asks? Your content. This is a massive effort by the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” crowd to undermine anonymous online speech.</p>
<p>Why are we telling you about this? Because right now the working group is soliciting public comment. You have the opportunity to make your voice heard. (Although given ICANN’s past disregard for the registrant constituency it supposedly serves, I won’t pretend that I’m expecting miracles. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. This isn’t a situation where we expect to tell them and for them to listen, this is a situation where we feel it will be important later to be able to say “we told you and you didn’t listen.”</p>
<p>What do we think about this?<br/> There are real issues with privacy and proxy services. There’s a lot of trust there, as it is almost always possible for such a provider to hijack your domain if they decide they want it. So there is real potential for abuse, and some oversight really could help keep the industry clear of unethical providers. There are also some services that are really inadequate, like the registrar-affiliated ones that (in violation of already-existing registrar rules) plaster “POSTAL MAIL DISCARDED” in the address field.</p>
<p>Along that line, the working does have some good ideas for policies that privacy and proxy services not interested in screwing their customers would have. And anytime a good idea comes up, it doesn’t matter the source, so it’s certainly given some food for thought for how to improve things. But RespectMyPrivacy doesn’t need to be forced to improve things for its customers; that’s its job. So whatever good ideas do come out of this process, we’ll take ’em.</p>
<p>However, ICANN has demonstrated again and again that they prioritize the concerns of their executives, law enforcement agencies, intellectual property holders, registries and registrars; registrants are dead last by a wide margin. They are not an organization that most people would trust to look out for the best interests of registrants. We certainly wouldn’t.</p>
<p>If ICANN wants to develop an accreditation program for privacy and proxy providers, even if that’s nowhere in their official mission, they should feel free to do so. If they developed a good one, RespectMyPrivacy would do it. This isn’t a good one.</p>
<p>But even if they do develop an accreditation program for privacy and proxy providers, ICANN absolutely must not require accredited domain registrars to refuse to accept registrations that use privacy and proxy services not accredited by ICANN. That its morally bankrupt to do so really ought to be enough, but it’s also illegal. Their accredited privacy and proxy providers must succeed or fail on their own, not be handed success by banning everything else.</p>
<p>What to do?<br/> The working group is soliciting feedback from the public on these issues, among others:</p>
<p>Should registrants of domain names associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions be prohibited from using, or continuing to use, privacy and proxy services?<br/> If they do prohibit privacy and proxy services for domains that perform either “commercial” or “transactional” activities, should they define “commercial” or “transactional?” (No, I am not making this up.)<br/> Should it be mandatory for accredited P/P providers to comply with express LEA requests not to notify a customer?<br/> Should there be mandatory Publication for certain types of activity e.g. malware/viruses or violation of terms of service relating to illegal activity? (In this context, “Publication” means canceling the privacy service and posting all details in the public whois database.)<br/> Should a similar framework and/or considerations apply to requests made by third parties other than LEA and intellectual property rights-holders?<br/> You can send your thoughts on these matters or on other aspects of the proposal tocomments-ppsai-initial-05may15@icann.org by July 7, 2015. You may also fill out theironline template if you prefer.</p>
<p>Please take a few minutes to tell the working group that you value your online privacy and that you oppose any proposal that will make it easier for large, powerful organizations and dangerous individuals to get at their critics. Tell them that policies that require providers to have low standards for disclosure of personal information harm that privacy. And please remind them that imposing requirements on privacy and proxy providers that are really the province of domain registrars will only create a broken, unworkable system that creates more problems than it purports to solve.</p>
<p><a href="https://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2015/06/27/icanns-assault-on-personal-and-small-business-privacy/" target="_blank">NFS</a></p> Internet access “not a necessity or human right,” says FCC Republicantag:12160.info,2015-06-29:2649739:Topic:15715382015-06-29T01:43:49.907ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32
<p>Federal Communications Commission member Michael O’Rielly yesterday argued that “Internet access is not a necessity or human right” and called this one of the most important “principles for regulators to consider as it relates to the Internet and our broadband economy.”</p>
<p>O’Rielly, one of two Republicans on the Democratic-majority commission, outlined his views in a speech before the <a href="http://internetinnovation.org/community/members">Internet Innovation Alliance</a>, a coalition…</p>
<p>Federal Communications Commission member Michael O’Rielly yesterday argued that “Internet access is not a necessity or human right” and called this one of the most important “principles for regulators to consider as it relates to the Internet and our broadband economy.”</p>
<p>O’Rielly, one of two Republicans on the Democratic-majority commission, outlined his views in a speech before the <a href="http://internetinnovation.org/community/members">Internet Innovation Alliance</a>, a coalition of businesses and nonprofits (<a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0625/DOC-334113A1.pdf">see transcript</a>).</p>
<p>O’Rielly described five “governing principles” that regulators should rely on, including his argument that Internet access should not be considered a necessity. Here’s what he said:</p>
<blockquote><p>It is important to note that Internet access is not a necessity in the day-to-day lives of Americans and doesn’t even come close to the threshold to be considered a basic human right. I am not in any way trying to diminish the significance of the Internet in our daily lives. I recognized earlier how important it may be for individuals and society as a whole. But, people do a disservice by overstating its relevancy or stature in people’s lives. People can and do live without Internet access, and many lead very successful lives. Instead, the term “necessity” should be reserved to those items that humans cannot live without, such as food, shelter, and water.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://govtslaves.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/michael-orielly-640x361.png"><img class=" size-full wp-image-48994 aligncenter" src="http://govtslaves.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/michael-orielly-640x361.png" alt="michael-orielly-640x361" width="640" height="361"/></a></p>
<blockquote><p>It is even more ludicrous to compare Internet access to a basic human right. In fact, it is quite demeaning to do so in my opinion. Human rights are standards of behavior that are inherent in every human being. They are the core principles underpinning human interaction in society. These include liberty, due process or justice, and freedom of religious beliefs. I find little sympathy with efforts to try to equate Internet access with these higher, fundamental concepts. From a regulator’s perspective, it is important to recognize the difference between a necessity or a human right and goods such as access to the Internet. Avoiding the use of such rhetorical traps is wise.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>O’Rielly’s other governing principles are that “the Internet cannot be stopped,” that we should “understand how the Internet economy works” and “follow the law; don’t make it up,” and that “the benefits of regulation must outweigh the burdens.” O’Rielly was <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/leadership/michael-orielly">nominated</a> to the commission by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate; the president nominates both Democratic and Republican commissioners, ensuring that the ruling party maintains a 3-2 advantage.</p>
<p>While O’Rielly is certainly correct that one can live without Internet access but not food or water, the FCC is essentially required by Congress to act on the presumption that all Americans should have Internet access. The <a href="http://www.cybertelecom.org/broadband/706.htm">Telecommunications Act of 1996</a> requires the FCC to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans” by implementing “price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.”</p>
<p>The FCC is required to determine on a regular basis whether broadband is being extended to all Americans “in a reasonable and timely fashion” and must “take immediate action to accelerate deployment” if it finds this isn’t happening. The last time the FCC did this was in January of this year; O’Rielly <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-industry-claims-that-customers-dont-need-faster-internet/">voted against</a> the FCC’s conclusion that broadband isn’t being deployed quickly enough and that the definition of broadband should be changed to support higher-bandwidth applications.</p>
<p>O’Rielly and Wheeler have disagreed on several other votes affecting broadband availability and the terms under which it’s offered. O’Rielly cast unsuccessful, dissenting votes against Wheeler’s plan to<a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/">reclassify Internet providers</a> as common carriers and impose net neutrality rules, against Wheeler’s plan to <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/">overturn state laws</a> that protect Internet providers from municipal competition, and against Wheeler’s plan to use the LifeLine phone service subsidy program to <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0618/DOC-333992A1.pdf">subsidize broadband</a> for poor people.</p>
<p>FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in a <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-334141A1.pdf">speech today</a> that “broadband should be available to everyone everywhere.”</p>
<p>The FCC was created in 1934 with the <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/universal-service">mandate</a> to ensure universal access to telephone service at reasonable prices. Today there is a “Universal Service Fund” to subsidize access to Internet and other communications services but no strict requirement that everyone in the US be offered broadband. Availability varies widely throughout the country, with many rural customers <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/internet-nightmare-att-sells-broadband-to-your-neighbors-but-not-to-you/">lacking</a>fast, reliable Internet service.</p>
<p>World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee says that Web access should be considered a human right.</p>
<p>“Access to the Web is now a human right,” Berners-Lee<a href="http://www.networkworld.com/article/2202043/lan-wan/berners-lee--web-access-is-a--human-right-.html">said in a 2011 speech</a>. “It’s possible to live without the Web. It’s not possible to live without water. But if you’ve got water, then the difference between somebody who is connected to the Web and is part of the information society, and someone who (is not) is growing bigger and bigger.”</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf">United Nations report in 2011</a> said disconnecting people from the Internet is a human rights violation. Vint Cerf, who co-created the networking technology that made the Internet possible,<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html">wrote</a>that Internet access is not a human right, arguing that “technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself… at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.”</p>
<p><a href="http://jon%20brodkin/" target="_blank" rel="author">Jon Brodkin</a></p> Do you have an iPhone, iPad or an Android phone? Help RBN win $20,000! No money Involved!tag:12160.info,2014-01-07:2649739:Topic:13892682014-01-07T04:46:00.008ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>Many of you know me as John’s wife, over the years I have had the privilege to get to know many of our listeners. I am still active with helping at RBN but I also am a realtor with Keller Williams Realty.</p>
<p>I am asking to enlist your help with a competition that will run Dec. 16 – March 31st 2014.</p>
<p>This will NOT COST anything and it will give me a chance to win $20,000 for RBN. All participants nationwide will go into a drawing to win $50,000.</p>
<p>Here’s what you…</p>
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>Many of you know me as John’s wife, over the years I have had the privilege to get to know many of our listeners. I am still active with helping at RBN but I also am a realtor with Keller Williams Realty.</p>
<p>I am asking to enlist your help with a competition that will run Dec. 16 – March 31st 2014.</p>
<p>This will NOT COST anything and it will give me a chance to win $20,000 for RBN. All participants nationwide will go into a drawing to win $50,000.</p>
<p>Here’s what you do:</p>
<p>1) You can click <a href="http://app.kw.com/KWIJLREB">http://app.kw.com/KWIJLREB</a>.<br/> 2) Download the app for your device (Free Download).<br/> 3) Enter my agent code <strong>KWIJLREB</strong> at the startup of the app or via the “My Agent” button on the main menu.</p>
<p>Or</p>
<p>1) On your device, go to your “App Store”<br/> 2) Type in: Keller Williams Realty Real Estate Search<br/> 3) Download the app for your device (Free Download).<br/> 4) Enter my agent code <strong>KWIJLREB</strong> at the startup of the app or via the “My Agent” button on the main menu.</p>
<p>The realtor with the most downloads at the end of March wins $20,000.</p>
<p>Would you please help me to help RBN win this much needed money and it will not cost you a penny, you may just win $50,000.</p>
<p>I want to say “THANK YOU” RBN family!</p>
<p>Sandra</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://republicbroadcasting.org/do-you-have-an-iphone-ipad-or-an-android-phone-help-rbn-win-20000-no-money-involved/">http://republicbroadcasting.org/do-you-have-an-iphone-ipad-or-an-android-phone-help-rbn-win-20000-no-money-involved/</a></p> SOPA rides again: USA’s secret TPP treaty outlaws phone jailbreaks and unlocking, introduces crazy copyright lawtag:12160.info,2013-11-19:2649739:Topic:13617232013-11-19T19:08:36.449ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32
<p></p>
<p>Over the last few weeks, a storm has been gathering around a treaty known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty, or TPP. Last week, Wikileaks published a draft version of the TPP that dates to this previous August, and the restrictions it places on digital freedoms and consumer rights are incredible. If you thought that the content creation industry had learned something from the failure of SOPA in the US or the international ACTA treaty, you were wrong. Or rather, you…</p>
<p><span></span></p>
<p>Over the last few weeks, a storm has been gathering around a treaty known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty, or TPP. Last week, Wikileaks published a draft version of the TPP that dates to this previous August, and the restrictions it places on digital freedoms and consumer rights are incredible. If you thought that the content creation industry had learned something from the failure of SOPA in the US or the international ACTA treaty, you were wrong. Or rather, you were right. What the content industry learned was that treaty negotiations needed to be kept even <em>more</em> secretive. Access to the TPP text is so tightly controlled, even members of Congress were kept in the dark.</p>
<p><span></span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TPP.png"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-171224" alt="TPP" src="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TPP.png" height="401" width="639"/></a></p>
<p><span id="intelliTXT"></span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171223-sopa-rides-again-usas-secret-tpp-treaty-outlaws-phone-jailbreaks-and-unlocking-introduces-crazy-copyright-law">http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171223-sopa-rides-again-usas-secret-tpp-treaty-outlaws-phone-jailbreaks-and-unlocking-introduces-crazy-copyright-law</a></p> NSA pays tech companies millions to engineer backdoors into encryption protocolstag:12160.info,2013-09-13:2649739:Topic:13152452013-09-13T13:49:07.945ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32
<div class="headlines-wrap white-bg"><br></br><div class="headline-content"><div class="post-section"><p><img alt="" src="http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Hands-Passing-Money.jpg" title="Hands-Passing-Money"></img></p>
<p>‘There is a saying that says, when it comes to government, they’ve got you coming and going.</p>
<p>No truer words are spoken when the subject comes to serial invasions of your privacy. Not only is the National Security Agency monitoring your every electronic communication, but the agency is paying your tech company and Internet service provider to hack you as well.’…</p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="headlines-wrap white-bg"><br/><div class="headline-content"><div class="post-section"><p><img src="http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Hands-Passing-Money.jpg" title="Hands-Passing-Money" alt=""/></p>
<p>‘There is a saying that says, when it comes to government, they’ve got you coming and going.</p>
<p>No truer words are spoken when the subject comes to serial invasions of your privacy. Not only is the National Security Agency monitoring your every electronic communication, but the agency is paying your tech company and Internet service provider to hack you as well.’</p>
<p><a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/042038_NSA_tech_companies_encryption_protocols.html" target="_blank">Read more: NSA pays tech companies millions to engineer backdoors into encryption protocols</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div> MPAA Gets Its Wish: Court Basically Says It Can File Bogus DMCA Takedowns Without Concern For Fair Usetag:12160.info,2013-09-12:2649739:Topic:13142692013-09-12T16:15:46.356ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32
<h2 id="title"><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130911/18073124494/mpaa-gets-its-wish-court-basically-says-it-can-file-bogus-dmca-takedowns-without-concern-fair-use.shtml" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130911/18073124494/mpaa-gets-its-wish-court-basically-says-it-can-file-bogus-dmca-takedowns-without-concern-fair-use.shtml">MPAA Gets Its Wish: Court Basically Says It Can File Bogus DMCA Takedowns Without Concern For Fair…</a></h2>
<h2 id="title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130911/18073124494/mpaa-gets-its-wish-court-basically-says-it-can-file-bogus-dmca-takedowns-without-concern-fair-use.shtml" title="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130911/18073124494/mpaa-gets-its-wish-court-basically-says-it-can-file-bogus-dmca-takedowns-without-concern-fair-use.shtml" rel="nofollow">MPAA Gets Its Wish: Court Basically Says It Can File Bogus DMCA Takedowns Without Concern For Fair Use</a></h2>
<p>Still, if we accept the court's reading of this, it seems (to me, at least) to only further the argument that the DMCA takedown process is a clear violation of the First Amendment, because it now clearly allows for blatant censorship, with no remedy even if the process is abused to remove non-infringing speech, such as fair use.</p> Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-viewtag:12160.info,2013-09-12:2649739:Topic:13141792013-09-12T16:14:13.932ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32
<div id="irc_mimg"></div>
<div id="irc_mimg"><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&docid=scqfIneZmXbBBM&tbnid=mkgxQdl3Byd0WM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.androidpolice.com%2F2013%2F07%2F16%2Ffun-fact-att-and-vzws-new-jump-like-upgrades-will-actually-make-leaving-your-carrier-early-more-expensive%2F&ei=T-gxUvi9C6254AOC44GgAg&bvm=bv.52109249,d.dmg&psig=AFQjCNHz9ykhSScAbI_V71IbMUa2odpG3A&ust=1379088844841410" style="border: 0px none;" id="irc_mil" name="irc_mil"><img style="margin-top: 90px;" id="irc_mi" height="212" width="283"/></a></div>
<p>Think of all the things that tick you off about cable TV. Along with brainless programming and crummy customer service, the very worst aspect of it is forced bundling. You can't pay just for the couple of dozen channels you actually watch. Instead, you have to pay for a couple of hundred channels, because the good stuff is scattered among a number of overstuffed packages.</p>
<p>Now, imagine that the Internet worked that way. You'd hate it, of course. But that's the direction that Verizon, with the support of many wired and wireless carriers, would like to push the Web. That's not hypothetical. The country's No. 1 carrier is fighting in court to end the Federal Communications Commission's policy of Net neutrality, a move that would open the gates to a whole new -- and wholly bad -- economic model on the Web.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/verizons-diabolical-plan-turn-the-web-pay-view-226662">http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/verizons-diabolical-plan-turn-the-web-pay-view-226662</a></p> NSA leaks hint Microsoft may have lied about Skype securitytag:12160.info,2013-06-13:2649739:Topic:12224822013-06-13T22:36:58.143ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32
<p><a href="http://rt.com/usa/gallagher-nsa-microsoft-skype-653/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="http://rt.com/usa/gallagher-nsa-microsoft-skype-653/">NSA leaks hint Microsoft may have lied about Skype security</a></p>
<div id="main"><div class="content"><div class="node story" id="node-246293"><div class="content"><p>Microsoft may have misled millions of Skype users around the world by making claims last year that have since been contradicted by intelligence leaked by former NSA…</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://rt.com/usa/gallagher-nsa-microsoft-skype-653/" title="http://rt.com/usa/gallagher-nsa-microsoft-skype-653/" rel="nofollow">NSA leaks hint Microsoft may have lied about Skype security</a></p>
<div id="main"><div class="content"><div id="node-246293" class="node story"><div class="content"><p>Microsoft may have misled millions of Skype users around the world by making claims last year that have since been contradicted by intelligence leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.</p>
<p>National Security Agency documents leaked by Snowden to the Guardian and Washington Post last week have grabbed the attention of Americans concerned over the NSA’s blanketing surveillance of communications involving United States citizens. The NSA is regularly retaining the phone records for millions of Verizon customers, the documents revealed, and a separate program called PRISM allegedly lets federal investigators access Internet use information for customers of the biggest online services. One of those documents, a slideshow examining how the NSA has access to conversations conducted over nine major Internet services, may have caught Silicon Valley giant Microsoft in a lie.</p>
<p>Ryan Gallagher of Slate noted this week that one of the slides cited by the Washington Post was labeled a “User’s Guide for PRISM Skype Collection,” suggesting that the NSA has in place a method for eavesdropping on conversations conducted over the popular Web client acquired in 2011 by Microsoft.</p>
</div>
<a href="http://rt.com/usa/gallagher-nsa-microsoft-skype-653/">http://rt.com/usa/gallagher-nsa-microsoft-skype-653/</a></div>
</div>
</div>