November 4, 2012

Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

Originally posted by Christina Bonnington and Spencer Ackerman on Wired.com, August 30, 2012

It seemed like a simple enough idea for an iPhone app: Send users a pop-up notice whenever a flying robots kills someone in one of America’s many undeclared wars. But Apple keeps blocking the Drones+ program from its App Store — and therefore, from iPhones everywhere. The Cupertino company says the content is “objectionable and crude,” according to Apple’s latest rejection letter.

A mockup of developer Josh Begley’s drone-strike app for iOS. Wired.com

It’s the third time in a month that Apple has turned Drones+ away, says Josh Begley, the program’s New York-based developer. The company’s reasons for keeping the program out of the App Store keep shifting. First, Apple called the bare-bones application that aggregates news of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia “not useful.” Then there was an issue with hiding a corporate logo. And now, there’s this crude content problem.

Begley is confused. Drones+ doesn’t present grisly images of corpses left in the aftermath of the strikes. It just tells users when a strike has occurred, going off a publicly available database of strikes compiled by the U.K.’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which compiles media accounts of the strikes.

iOS developers have a strict set of guidelines that must be adhered to in order to gain acceptance into the App Store. Apps are judged on technical, content and design criteria. As Apple does not comment on the app reviews process, it can be difficult to ascertain exactly why an app got rejected. But Apple’s team of reviewers is small, sifts through up to 10,000 apps a week, and necessarily errs on the side of caution when it comes to potentially questionable apps.

Apple’s original objections to Drones+ regarded the functionality in Begley’s app, not its content. Now he’s wondering if it’s worth redesigning and submitting it a fourth time.

“If the content is found to be objectionable, and it’s literally just an aggregation of news, I don’t know how to change that,” Begley says.

Begley’s app is unlikely to be the next Angry Birds or Draw Something. It’s deliberately threadbare. When a drone strike occurs, Drones+ catalogs it, and presents a map of the area where the strike took place, marked by a pushpin. You can click through to media reports of a given strike that the Bureau of Investigative Reporting compiles, as well as some basic facts about whom the media thinks the strike targeted. As the demo video above shows, that’s about it.

It works best, Begley thinks, when users enable push notifications for Drones+. “I wanted to play with this idea of push notifications and push button technology — essentially asking a question about what we choose to get notified about in real time,” he says. “I thought reaching into the pockets of U.S. smartphone users and annoying them into drone-consciousness could be an interesting way to surface the conversation a bit more.”

But that conversation may not end up occurring. Begley, a student at Clay Shirky’s lab at NYU’s Interactive Telecommunications Program, submitted a threadbare version of Drones+ to Apple in July. About two weeks later, on July 23, Apple told him was just too blah. “The features and/or content of your app were not useful or entertaining enough,” read an e-mail from Apple Begley shared with Wired, “or your app did not appeal to a broad enough audience.”

Finally, on Aug. 27, Apple gave him yet another thumbs down. But this time the company’s reasons were different from the fairly clear-cut functionality concerns it previously cited. “We found that your app contains content that many audiences would find objectionable, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines,” the company e-mailed him.

It was the first time the App Store told him that his content was the real problem, even though the content hadn’t changed much from Begley’s initial July submission. It’s a curious choice: The App Store carries remote-control apps for a drone quadricopter, although not one actually being used in a war zone. And of course, the App Store houses innumerable applications for news publications and aggregators that deliver much of the same content provided by Begley’s app.

Wired reached out to Apple on the perplexing rejection of the app, but Apple was unable to comment.

Begley is about at his wits end over the iOS version of Drones+. “I’m kind of back at the drawing board about what exactly I’m supposed to do,” Begley said. The basic idea was to see if he could get App Store denizens a bit more interested in the U.S.’ secretive, robotic wars, with information on those wars popping up on their phones the same way an Instagram comment or retweet might. Instead, Begley’s thinking about whether he’d have a better shot making the same point in the Android Market.

Drones+ iPhone App from Josh Begley on Vimeo.

Source: https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/drone-app/

FBI Agents Take Virginia Resident for Facebook Posts, Roommate says,“he goes before a judge at the hospital from what we have been told.”

by Ezra Van Auken of www.SpreadLibertyNews.com on Aug 20, 2012

Chesterfield Police, the FBI and Secret Service agents have detained Brandon Raub of Richmond, Virginia who spent tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, known as a “respected” Marine and squad leader. On August 16th, at around seven in the afternoon, law enforcement agencies arrived and unlawfully arrested Raub at his house, alone at the time while his roommates were doing other things.

Despite not having any actual reasoning as to why Brandon was arrested, law enforcement did question the 26-year-old about his recent Facebook posts, which overall criticize the nature of what the United States government is today. Making the arrest a very suspicious one.

After calling the Chesterfield police station, an officer noted that their department is not involved with the case; FBI officials are undergoing the investigation.

According to Kati Wood, Raub’s close friend and roommate, “he was taken, the local police said they were charging him with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer,” although Wood believes Raub never countered the agents entering the house with any force. Just the next morning, Raub’s family and loved ones called the Chesterfield PD to learn that he wasn’t even booked at the jail, showing the lack of transparency.

Kati explained, “When we called the morning of 8/17 they told us he had never been booked. We had to contact FBI agent to find out where he was.” Which led the family to discovering Brandon was at John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell, VA. Today around 10:00-10:30AM, “he goes before a judge at the hospital from what we have been told. We believe this is going to take place early in the morning.”

The mother, brother and girlfriend of Brandon Raub have all commented on his state of mind, which Kati described as, “sound minded, level headed and logical,” and in an interview done by WTPN Brandon’s mom said his mind was, “completely healthy” when discussing the situation on Saturday.

When visiting the hospital, Brandon told his girlfriend; “I love the American people with all my heart.” Showing his persistence to remain peaceful through what is going on, although struck by the power grab US government officials have taken. While visiting, Raub also reminded Wood that he was never read his Miranda rights nor did officers present a warrant during the arrest.

“The land of the free and the home of the brave where good men triumph and bad men fall. Come, you brave men and women. Let your hearts guide you. It is time to stand. If there ever was a time to stand for what you believe in. Now is that time. Love and Peace. Prayers for Brandon” - Kati Wood, close friend and roommate to Brandon Raub

Original post: https://spreadlibertynews.com/fbi-agents-take-virginia-resident-for-facebook-posts-roommate-sayshe-goes-before-a-judge-at-the-hospital-from-what-we-have-been-told/

Facebook court ruling: What you share on Facebook is admissible as evidence

Originally posted by tecca.com on August 15, 2012

Author: Fox Van Allen

Did you know that what you say on Facebook can be used against you in a court of law? If you’re sharing something with your friends, you may as well be sharing directly with the judge and jury: A recent ruling in a U.S. federal court says that if you post something on Facebook, your friend can share that information with the police — it’s not a violation of your privacy.

Accused gang member Melvin Colon had argued in court that investigators violated his constitutional right to privacy when they viewed his Facebook profile via one of his friends’ accounts. But US District Judge William Pauley III ruled that Colon’s messaged threats and posts about violent acts he committed were not private, and indeed fair game for prosecutors. To some extent, the ruling makes logical sense: When you say something publicly on Facebook, you’re often sharing a thought with hundreds, maybe even thousands of people. There’s not much that’s private about that.

Courts have settled a number of questions pertaining to Facebook and our legal system this year. Courts have ruled that it is improper to deliver a court summons via Facebook, even when it’s the best method of reaching someone. A court has also ruled that a Like on Facebook isn’t constitutionally protected free speech — something Facebook is vigorously appealing.

Source: https://www.tecca.com/news/2012/08/16/facebook-privacy-court-ruling/

Pirate Bay to be blocked in the UK, court rules

End of the line for PB?

By Marc Chacksfield on April 30th, 2012

The Pirate Bay is set to be blocked by five of the main ISPs in the UK, after a High Court ruled the site is in massive breach of copyright.

According to the BBC, the Swedish website is set to be blocked by Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media.

So far only Virgin has spoken out about the blocking saying it is set to comply with the High Court’s ruling, but believed that it shouldn’t set a precedent for policing the web in the future.

“As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to the company but strongly believes that changing consumer behaviour to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price,” explained A Virgin Media spokesperson.

Infringing copyright

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) is obviously pleased with the ruling, with its chief executive Geoff Taylor explaining: “The High Court has confirmed that The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale.

“Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works without paying a penny to the people who created them.

“This is wrong - musicians, sound engineers and video editors deserve to be paid for their work just like everyone else.”

“TalkTalk have always maintained that we are not in principle against blocking provided there is a court order.”

One person who is critical of the ruling is Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group. He said about the situation: “Blocking the Pirate Bay is pointless and dangerous. It will fuel calls for further, wider and even more drastic calls for Internet censorship of many kinds, from pornography to extremism.

“Internet censorship is growing in scope and becoming easier. Yet it never has the effect desired. It simply turns criminals into heroes.”

The Pirate Bay has been under pressure for some time now to close, but its owners have been finding inventive ways to evade closure.

The latest plan was to send its servers into space, but this sounded more like a pipe dream than something that would actually happen.

It was back in February that the High Court originally ruled that the Pirate Bay’s operators “incite or persuade” copyright infringement.

The judge presiding over the case was the same on that forced BT to block Newzbin2 back in October 201 - which is interesting as BT doesn’t seem to be on list of ISPs which have to block the site.

According to PC Pro, BT has asked for a few more weeks to ‘consider its position’ about whether or not to block the site.

Sources:

https://www.techradar.com/news/internet/pirate-bay-to-be-blocked-in-the-uk-court-rules-1078186

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17894176

The end of Internet privacy (with petition)

Dear friends,

Right now, the US is poised to pass a new law that would permit US agents to spy on almost everything we do online. But we can stop them before the final vote.

Companies that we trust with our personal information, like Microsoft and Facebook, are key supporters of this bill that lets corporations share all user activity and content with US government agents without needing a warrant in the name of cyber-security — nullifying privacy guarantees for almost everyone around the world, no matter where we live and surf online.

If enough of us speak out, we can stop companies that profit from our business from supporting cyber-spying. Sign the petition to these key net corporations now:

https://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa_corporate_global/?vl

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) would allow companies doing business in the US to collect exact records of all of our online activities and hand them over to the US government, without ever notifying us that we are being watched. No warrant, no legal cause and no due process required. To make matters worse, the bill provides the government and corporations with blanket immunity to protect them from being sued for violation of privacy and other illegal actions.

The bill’s supporters claim that consumer information will be protected, but the reality is that huge loopholes would make everything we do online fair game — and nowadays, from banking to shopping, our private information is all stored on the Internet.

CISPA is being moved forward in Congress and will be voted upon in days. Let’s raise a massive outcry to stop corporations from giving the US a blank check to monitor our every move. Click below to take action:

https://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa_corporate_global/?vl

This year, we helped stop SOPA, PIPA and ACTA — all dire threats to the Internet. Now, let’s block CISPA and end the US government attack on our Internet.

WIth hope and determination,

Dalia, Allison, Emma, Ricken, Rewan, Andrew, Wen-Hua, and the rest of the Avaaz team

More information:

CISPA: The internet finds a new enemy (Global Post)
https://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/the-grid/cispa-the-internet-finds-new-enemy-sopa

CISPA protests begin amid key changes to legislation (Los Angeles Times)
https://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cispa-protests-begin-amid-key-changes-to-legislation-20120416,0,5314596.story

Cybersecurity Bill FAQ: The Disturbing Privacy Dangers in CISPA and How To Stop It (Electronic Frontier Foundation)
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/cybersecurity-bill-faq-disturbing-privacy-dangers-cispa-and-how-you-stop-it

New CISPA Draft Narrows Cybersecurity Language as Protests Loom (Mashable)
https://news.yahoo.com/cispa-draft-narrows-cybersecurity-language-protests-loom-134202431.html

Source: avaaz.org email, April 18, 2012

Kim Dotcom: US Military Had 15,634 Megaupload Accounts

By enigmax for TorrentFreak on March 26, 2012

In recent weeks the battle has continued to save the data stored at the now-defunct site Megaupload. Contrary to the image painted by the entertainment industries, untold numbers of people used the file-hosting service for completely legitimate sharing. Today we can reveal that not only did people at the Senate, Department of Homeland Security, FBI and NASA hold Megaupload accounts, so did more than 15,600 members of the US Military.

Ever since Megaupload was dismantled in January there have been concerns about data being held on the site’s servers.

While the MPAA and RIAA insist that the site was simply a huge piracy hub, the facts point to a much bigger picture of people using the site for countless legitimate transfers of files simply too big to email.

As mentioned earlier this month, Megaupload’s legal team is working hard to reunite site users with their data, an aim also shared by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) with their MegaRetrieval campaign.

As part of this process, Megaupload discovered that a large number of Mega accounts are held by US government officials. Today, thanks to fresh information provided to TorrentFreak by Kim Dotcom, we can reveal more details.

From domains including dhs.gov, doe.gov, fbi.gov, hhs.gov, nasa.gov, senate.gov, treas.gov and uscourts.gov, the number of accounts held at Megaupload total 1058. Of these, 344 users went the extra mile and paid for premium access. Between them they uploaded 15,242 files – a total of 1,851,791 MB.

While a couple of million megabytes of lost data is bad enough, another group – the ladies and gentlemen of the US Military – stands to lose much, much more.

From domains including af.mil, army.mil, centcom.mil, navy.mil and osd.mil etc, a total of 15,634 are registered with Megaupload. Of these an impressive 10,223 people paid to upgrade to a premium Megaupload account and between them they uploaded 340,983 files – a total of 96,507,779 MB.

There is no suggestion that any of these military operatives or government employees were using Megaupload for infringing uses but it is almost guaranteed that documents, photographs and videos are now at serious risk of deletion.

More on Kim Dotcom’s response to the US indictment is published in our feature article.

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-us-military-had-15634-megaupload-accounts-120326

Could CISPA Be the Next SOPA?

By Alex Fitzpatrick for Mashable on April 8, 2012

A bill introduced to the House of Representatives late last year could become the centerpiece of the next SOPA-style struggle between the tech community and Washington, D.C.

The bill already has over 100 co-sponsors and the backing of some of Silicon Valley’s most prominent companies, including Microsoft and Facebook — support which SOPAnever enjoyed.

It’s called the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA, for short). CISPA would alter the existing National Security Act of 1947 to allow private businesses and the government to share information about cyberthreats — including “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy” vital networks or “threat or misappropriation” of information owned by the government or private businesses, such as intellectual property.

To ensure that business-government information sharing happens on a two-way basis, CISPA requires the Director of National Intelligence to set up ways for the intelligence community to pass along threat information to private companies and make sure they actually go ahead and do that. To prevent sensitive information from being shared willy-nilly, CISPA requires that any recipient of such threat reports have a security clearance and a valid need for the information.

Finally, CISPA allows third-party cybersecurity firms (which provide cyber protection to the government and private businesses) to “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information in order to protect the rights and property” of their clients. They’re also allowed to share that information with any other business or government department, provided their client gives them permission to do so.

SEE ALSO: SOPA 2.0: Why the Fight for Internet Freedom Is Far From Over
 

CISPA prevents these private firms from using shared cybersecurity information to gain an advantage, and if they share information with the federal government, they don’t have to disclose it to the public. Meaning, if Company X is hacked, they can tell the government about it without alerting employees, shareholders or the public at large.

As long as a cybersecurity firm acts in “good faith” according to these stipulations, it’s immune to civil or criminal lawsuits regarding information sharing.

Rep. Mike Rodgers (R-Mich.), who introduced the bill along with Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), has framed CISPA as a bill to protect American intellectual property from state-sponsored digital theft of intellectual property.

“Every day U.S. businesses are targeted by nation-state actors like China for cyber exploitation and theft,” said Rodgers in a statement. “This consistent and extensive cyber looting results in huge losses of valuable intellectual property, sensitive information, and American jobs. The broad base of support for this bill shows that Congress recognizes the urgent need to help our private sector better defend itself from these insidious attacks,” he said.

Facebook called CISPA a “thoughtful, bipartisan” bill in a letter of support written in February.

“Effective security requires private and public sector cooperation, and successful cooperation necessitates information sharing,” wrote Joel Kaplan, vice president of U.S. Public Policy at Facebook. “Your legislation removes burdensome rules that currently can inhibit protection of the cyber ecosystem, and helps provide a more established structure for sharing within the cyber community while still respecting the privacy rights and exceptions of our users.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group, feels differently.

According to the EFF, the language in CISPA is worded so broadly that it could be interpreted to allow Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and companies such as Google and Facebook to intercept your messages and transmit them to the government.

They also warn that CISPA could be used as a blunt instrument against copyright infringement, similar to concerns about SOPA. Finally, they’d rather not see the Director of National Intelligence in charge of information sharing — they feel a civilian position would provide for more transparency and accountability.

“The idea is to facilitate detection of and defense against a serious cyber threat, but the definitions in the bill go well beyond that,” said the EFF in a blog post. “The language is so broad it could be used as a blunt instrument to attack websites like The Pirate Bay or WikiLeaks.”

You can read the full text of CISPA for yourself at the Library of Congress.

Do you think CISPA is a welcome tool to ward off cyberattacks, or are you concerned it will be used to clamp down on Internet freedom? Sound off in the comments below.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto, PashaIgnatov

Source: https://mashable.com/2012/04/08/could-cispa-be-the-next-sopa

ACTA is worse than SOPA, here’s what you need to know

By J. D. Heyes for Natural News on January 29, 2012

(NaturalNews) As a warrior for Internet freedom, you helped defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA by supporting Web black outs by sites like Wikipedia and by contacting your lawmaker to voice your displeasure. So loud was your voice that even the president of the United States sided with you in opposing it.

But don’t take a deep sigh of relief because, after all, we’re talking about a merger of Washington, D.C., and Hollywood here, as well as global interests. After the motion picture industry, its subsidiaries and all “interested parties” have spent nearly $150 million lobbying for some sort of Internet-centric “anti-piracy” bill, you should have known the powers that be would return.

And they have, only this time they are pushing something far more onerous: ACTA, or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

“Although the proposed treaty’s title might suggest that the agreement deals only with counterfeit physical goods (such as medicines) what little information has been made available publicly by negotiating governments about the content of the treaty makes it clear that it will have a far broader scope and in particular will deal with new tools targeting ‘Internet distribution and information technology’”, says an assessment of ACTA by the watchdogs at the Electronic Freedom Foundation.

“ACTA has several features that raise significant potential concerns for consumers’ privacy and civil liberties for innovation and the free flow of information on the Internet [regarding] legitimate commerce and for developing countries’ ability to choose policy options that best suit their domestic priorities and level of economic development,” says EFF’s assessment.

As is usually the case with dubious, rights-stripping legislation, ACTA - which Forbes.com reports was signed by the U.S. in 2011 and has already been sanctioned as well by Japan, Switzerland and many European Union nations - has largely been negotiated in the shadows and, thus, has largely been devoid of scrutiny… until now.

While the Obama administration was shying away from SOPA, it has been aggressively pursuing ACTA (full disclosure: the process was started under the Bush administration). Critics say it is much more far-reaching than SOPA, bypassing “the sovereign laws of participating nations” and “forcing ISP’s across the globe to act as internet police,” Forbes said.

But ACTA isn’t limited just to the Internet. In fact, the agreement would crack down things like generic drugs and would make food patents more difficult to obtain “by enforcing a global standard on seed patents that threatens local farmers and food independence across the developed world,” Forbes says.

The good thing is, there is not universal acceptance of ACTA and its onerous, liberty-stealing provisions. Emerging nations like Brazil and India are adamantly opposed to it for rightfully fearing its provisions would harm their economies.

But Internet freedom is also under attack from other quarters as well. The EFF also notes that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which is a separate measure, would “rewrite the global rules on IP enforcement”.

“All signatory countries will be required to conform their domestic laws and policies to the provisions of the Agreement,” said the EFF assessment. “In the U.S. this is likely to further entrench controversial aspects of U.S. copyright law. The recently leaked U.S. IP chapter also includes provisions that appear to go beyond current U.S. law. This raises significant concerns for citizens’ due process, privacy and freedom of expression rights.”

SOPA may be history but that doesn’t mean Internet freedom does not remain under assault. Tyrants never stop trying to enforce tyranny.

Sources for this article include:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta

https://www.eff.org/pages/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/

Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/034802_ACTA_counterfeiting_piracy.html#ixzz1kskK7UHG

Image source: https://www.geekosystem.com/acta-primer

Stop SOPA: Users hit back at internet restraints

The dwindling support for congressional efforts to curb online piracy highlights the powerful platform that social networking has given to those who spend little to no money lobbying lawmakers. To be sure, strong opposition from internet giants such as Google and Wikipedia is playing a large role in the retreat of support for the proposed laws simply referred to as SOPA and PIPA.

But countless entrepreneurs, tech geeks and others who do no more than call their local lawmakers, if that, have taken to Facebook and Twitter to voice their displeasure, updating profile pictures with a ‘Stop SOPA’ banner or sharing related posts and stories with their legions of virtual friends.

“What we’ve witnessed here around this campaign is a possibly historic effort in terms of internet entrepreneurs paying attention to what’s happening in Washington,” said Phil Weiser, executive director of the Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship at the University of Colorado. “Unlike more mature companies, they’re not necessarily organised to participate in traditional ways in Washington.”

“Social media has made this type of organising much more impactful,” said Weiser, dean of the CU Law School. Why are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) supposedly so dangerous, as foes argue, when most of those involved agree that illegal use of copyrighted content on the internet is a real problem? In general terms, provisions in the proposed measures make it more likely that internet companies such as Facebook and Google would face legal action if their users upload or share a link to a video with copyrighted content. Proponents of the bills include movie studios and record labels who say more needs to be done to curtail the piracy of digital goods.

As it stands now, internet companies are required to remove the infringing content if asked by the copyright holder but aren’t liable if the material slips through the cracks. “It’s hard for Facebook to proactively check all their users, all the time, in all sorts of ways,” Weiser said.

“If you build in such requirements and subject them to lawsuits on the back end, and if they don’t do it perfectly, that is a real risk to internet companies’ ability to thrive.” Opponents of the measures argue that the requirements would lead to censorship as large companies may limit services and smaller ones may shutter rather than face potentially crippling lawsuits.

“Shifting copyright enforcement responsibility from government to the private sector makes it much more costly to do business on the internet,” said Dan Lynn, co-founder of Denver-based tech start-up FullContact. Lynn is among those who have placed a ‘Stop SOPA’ banner on their Twitter avatars.

The issue is top of mind for many residents as Colorado’s Twitter users are generating about 2% of the tweets about SOPA, according to Trendrr, a social media intelligence platform. California, home to technology-rich Silicon Valley, tops the list at 11%.

Metropolitan State College of Denver criminal justice majorSilvia Arellano said she learned of the issue on Wednesday when she received a text alert about Wikipedia temporarily shutting its site in protest. Tyler Porritt, a Metro State student from Boulder, said content sharing is too widespread to address through legislation. “I understand the legality and income-loss issues, but I grew up in an era where everybody downloads everything,” he said.

Indrajit Ray, an associate professor in the computer science department at Colorado State University, said the onus should be on industry to come up with a business model that works in an internet age. “If we put in some type of legislation, the general trait of mankind is to break that,” Ray said. “One way to solve it is to come up with a different business model where the incentive to do piracy is not that great.”

“Some internet service providers have a voluntary pact with content providers to send subscribers a warning when they are engaging in infringement activity, such as downloading an illegal copy of a movie. Trials of such efforts have shown to be effective in reducing the amount of piracy,” said Weiser, a former deputy assistant attorney general at the US justice department. “If people know that their behaviour is not anonymous, they’re a lot more responsible,” he said.

Weiser said another option to fight the problem is to eliminate avenues for known file-sharing and piracy websites to accept payments or earn advertising revenue, similar to the way the US cracked down on internet gambling.

Republican presidential candidates slam SOPA, Protect IP

In response to question from CNN's John King, Republican presidential candidates find little to love in SOPA or Protect IP.

All four Republican presidential candidates today denounced a pair of controversial Hollywood-backed copyright bills, lending a sharp partisan edge to yesterday’s protest against the legislation by Wikipedia, Google, and thousands of other Web sites.

The bills are “far too intrusive, far too expensive, far too threatening (to) the freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet,” former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said during tonight’s CNN debate in South Carolina.

Romney’s rivals offered similar criticisms of the Senate measure, Protect IP-scheduled for a floor vote next week-and the House bill called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said that while he’s “weighing” the bills, having “the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations” is exactly the wrong thing to do. Former senator Rick Santorum said that while there is a “role” for the government in protecting intellectual property, SOPA and Protect IP go “too far.”

Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning Texas Republican, publicly opposed SOPA long before nearly any other member of Congress, as CNET reported in November. Paul said tonight that “the Republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue”-SOPA’s author is Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, Hollywood’s favorite Republican-and he’s glad to see that changing.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, calls Protect IP an “extremely important” piece of legislation, and is planning a floor vote for next Tuesday despite objections from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican warned today that there are “serious issues” with the bill.

Wikipedia’s English-language pages went completely black on Wednesday with a splash page saying “the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet” and suggesting that readers contact members of Congress. (See CNET’s FAQ on the topic.)


Here’s an excerpt from the transcript of the debate, conducted by CNN’s John King:

KING: Let’s continue the economic conversation with some input from a question from Twitter. If you look up here you can see it, CNNDebate.

“What is your take on SOPA and how do you believe it affects Americans?”

For those who have not been following it, SOPA is the Stop Online Piracy Act, a crackdown on Internet piracy, which is clearly a problem. But opponents say it’s censorship. Full disclosure, our parent company, Time Warner, says we need a law like this because some of its products, movies, programming, and the like, are being ripped off online.

Let me start with you, Mr. Speaker. There’s two competing ends, two engines, even, of our economy here at on this.

How do you deal with it?

GINGRICH: Well, you’re asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: And I’m weighing it. I’m weighing it. I’m not rushing in. I’m trying to think through all of the many fond left- wing people who are so eager to protect.

On the other hand, you have virtually everybody who is technologically advanced, including Google and YouTube and Facebook and all the folks who say this is going to totally mess up the Internet. And the bill in its current form is written really badly and leads to a range of censorship that is totally unacceptable.

Well, I favor freedom. And I think that if you — I think we have a patent office, we have copyright law. If a company finds that it has genuinely been infringed upon, it has the right to sue. But the idea that we’re going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations, economic interests, strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Mr. Speaker, Governor Romney, these companies complain — some of them are based in Hollywood, not all of them are — that their software, that their publishing, that their movies, that their shows are being ripped off.

ROMNEY: I think he got it just about right. The truth of the matter is that the law, as written, is far too intrusive, far too expensive, far too threatening, the freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet. It would have a potentially depressing impact on one of the fastest growing industries in America, which is the Internet, and all those industries connected to it.

At the same time, we care very deeply about intellectual content that’s going across the Internet. And if we can find a way to very narrowly, through our current laws, go after those people who are pirating, particularly those from off shore, we’ll do that.

But a very broad law which gives the government the power to start stepping into the Internet and saying who can pass what to whom, I think that’s a mistake. And so I’d say no, I’m standing for freedom.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: I mean, it’s a big issue in the country right now.

Congressman Paul and Senator Santorum, your views on this one quickly.

PAUL: I was the first Republican to sign on with a host of Democrats to oppose this law. And we have worked -

(APPLAUSE) PAUL: We have had a concerted effort, and I feel like we’re making achievement. This bill is not going to pass. But watch out for the next one.

And I am pleased that the attitude has sort of mellowed up here, because the Republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue. And this is a good example on why it’s good to have somebody that can look at civil liberties and work with coalitions and bring people together. Freedom and the Constitution bring factions together. I think this is a good example.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Those who support the law, Senator, argue tens of thousands of jobs are at stake.

SANTORUM: I don’t support this law. And I agree with everybody up here that is goes too far. But I will not agree with everybody up here that there isn’t something that can and should be done to protect the intellectual property rights of people.

The Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people, and particularly when we’re talking about — in this case, we’re talking about entities offshore that are doing so, that are pirating things. So, the idea that the government — that you have businesses in this country, and that the government has no role to try to protect the intellectual property of people who have those rights in this country from people overseas pirating them and then selling them back into this country, it’s great.

I mean, I’m for free, but I’m not for people abusing the law. And that’s what’s happening right now, and I think something proper should be done. I agree this goes too far.

But the idea that, you know, anything goes on the Internet, where did that come from? Where in America does it say that anything goes? We have laws, and we respect the law. And the rule of law is an important thing, and property rights should be respected.

KING: All right.

Gentlemen, I want to thank you.

Source:

Photo credit: CNN