Jump to content

CISPA: Say Hello To Big Brother


Lancer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Eles não podem aceder a sites fora dos EUA certo?

Eu acho que a Internet "paralela" é começarmos a evitar ao máximo sites e serviços online americanos.

Pode até ser difícil mas existe bastantes alternativas aos serviços de email da gmail, hotmail..., do youtube...

Embora ache que para já não seja razão para alarme; para nós que não fazemos nada de "ilícito".

Edited by Porto Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eles não podem aceder a sites fora dos EUA certo?

Eu acho que a Internet "paralela" é começarmos a evitar ao máximo sites e serviços online americanos.

Pode até ser difícil mas existe bastantes alternativas aos serviços de email da gmail, hotmail..., do youtube...

Embora ache que para já não seja razão para alarme; para nós que não fazemos nada de "ilícito".

para q? Todas as empresas quase têm servidores por lá, portanto, isso apenas já lhes dá quase autoridade para fazerem o que querem ao site...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mas claro que é aprovado naquele pais tudo o que sirva para espiar controlar as pessoas passa , a America é tão grande numas coisas e TÃO pequena noutras tantas !!

A Sopa que era menos perigosa não foi aprovada porque as grandes empresas protesteram, agora neste caso em que podem ganhar $$ ja n dizem nada...

Na eventualidade de passar, sendo nos utilizadores europeus será que podem aceder aos nossos dados se usarmos serviços nos servidores dos USA ? Fica a dúvida.

Edited by Pablo Empanada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Na eventualidade de passar, sendo nos utilizadores europeus será que podem aceder aos nossos dados se usarmos serviços nos servidores dos USA ? Fica a dúvida.

Mas tens dúvidas?

Isto só vai lá com imposição da União Europeia em que os dados gerados na Europa são armazenados exclusivamente em território Europeu (sim, eu sei que não há fronteiras na internet, mas foi precisamente por alguns servidores do megaupload estarem em território americano, que deu "legalidade" aquilo que eles fizeram quanto a esse site/empresa)...

E se começarem agora a trabalhar nisso, já começam tarde...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

And so it begins: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft quietly back CISPA

We thought that the nonsense was behind us when we stopped SOPA. The only thing we really did was teach Washington and the supporters in the technology world that if they want to destroy our privacy, they have to ease into it with more subtlety. Thus, CISPA was born.

We will go into much more detail about it in the very near future, but for now it’s important to note that companies that did not support SOPA (at least openly) have quietly thrown their support over to CISPA. According to RT:

A lobbying organization that counts Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple and other tech giants among its clients has lent support to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which is lined up for a vote in the US House of Representatives next week.

This isn’t just a government issue, anymore, and they’re not getting the help of lightweights like GoDaddy. They’re getting help from the top of the technology food chain.This isn’t over. It’s just beginning. More to come…

http://www.techi.com/2013/04/and-so-it-begins-google-yahoo-microsoft-quietly-back-cispa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acho que se kizeres saltar a tralha toda...

The bill's vague definitions like "cybersecurity purpose" and "cybersecurity system" also raise the frightening possibility of a company using aggressive countermeasures. If a company wants to combat a threat, it is empowered to use “cybersecurity systems” to identify and obtain “cyber threat information.” But the bill does not define exactly how far a company can go, leaving it open to the possibility of abuse.

Companies would also be immune from both civil and criminal liability for any action, including but not limited to violating a user’s privacy, as long as the company used the powers granted by CISPA in "good faith."

The immunity even extends to "decisions made based on" any information “directly pertaining” to a security threat. The consequences of such a clause are far-reaching.

Sobre a parte que sublinhei, são os mesmos termos usados para DMCA takedowns... e já sabemos muito bem a "good faith" em que são usados e nadinha abusados...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nem mais. :y:



CISPA is a comprehensive con job designed to pull the veil over the eyes of the world

There’s a scene in The Matrix where Keanu Reeves‘ character, Neo, gets the tar beaten out of him by Agent Smith. After an extremely intense fight that has him narrowly avoiding death by jumping out of the way of an oncoming train, he is tired and staggering away. The train stops and a refreshed Agent Smith steps off, ready to fight again.

This is much like the fight that the people of the internet are faced with right now. Fighting SOPA in January took a monumental effort that called in the combined efforts of juggernaut websites like Wikipedia and Reddit to defeat. It was a long, sustained battle that ended well for the good guys. Shortly afterwards, the US government was hard at work learning from their mistakes and preparing for another round. The internet, tired and still recovering from the last fight, has not shown up to fight this battle. Anonymous has. Most of the big players seem to be sitting this one out.

It isn’t just fatigue. The bill was positioned much better this time. Support was rallied heavily and much earlier this time around. Without casting any direct accusations and with no evidence to support it, I can say with a near certainty that some of the larger companies were “bought off” through promises of favorable legislation and threats of repercussions to anyone who stood in the way. The bill is too universally supported by large tech companies who opposed SOPA for this to not be the case.

By contrast, Anonymous is joined by Reddit, Mozilla, and Automattic (parent company of WordPress) in opposition to the bill. That’s about it.

The bill, on the surface, is better than its predecessors. Unfortunately, if you peel back the layers and understand some of the “minor” points in the bill, you’ll see that they left it open to three loopholes that make it more dangerous than anything we’ve seen. The language used is very crafty. It continuously points to protection of privacy and to narrowing the scope of the bill to only cover cybersecurity threats. It is liberal in its use of favorable terms like “voluntary” and “limitations” to make it seem less potentially harmful. This was done on purpose, of course, to keep as few people as possible from jumping up and crying foul.

Then, there are the standard concerns. Sharing of private information, storage of private data, the use of personal data for marketing, involvement in investigations not pertaining to an individual, government surveillance, the broadness of the definitions – all of these have been addressed in some form or fashion to the point that a valid argument could be made that the bill does not infringe on any of these. The government has made a pretty iron-clad case that the bill is necessary for national security, that it addresses the concerns of previous bills, and that those opposed are “14 year-old Tweeters” in basements.

The con job is working.

The three big points of concern that make this bill so dangerous are minor in the whole scheme of things but open the doors to the problems that most Americans would fear if they understood them properly. Subsection ( B)(3) is the exemption from liability. It reads:

3) EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY- No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in Federal or State court against a protected entity, self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self-protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in good faith–

— (A) for using cybersecurity systems or sharing information in accordance with this section; or

— (B ) for not acting on information obtained or shared in accordance with this section.

Yes, that means that it’s wide open. There are no potential repercussions to those who are “acting in good faith” with the bill. In other words, a company or member of the government does not have to prove that they didn’t do anything wrong. They simply have to demonstrate that they were acting in the best interests for the cybersecurity of the country. They don’t have to prove it in court. If they can demonstrate up front that they thought they were doing the right thing, they won’t have to go to court. In fact, they cannot. They are exempt from liability as long as they were acting in good faith.

The second point of concern is actually quite laughable. They assert several times in both the bill and their mythbusting sheet (pdf) that they cannot retain and use information outside of the scope of cybersecurity. They say nothing about flagging and recording the presence of data of interest, a loophole few are talking about but that acts as a way for the government to record private data about us without actually “recording” it to the letter of the law. Sites like Facebook and entities such as ISPsretain our data whether we like it or not. Most sites and companies maintain in their terms of service the allowance to keep record of everything that happens on their properties.

The government can flag pertinent data in our individual records and then delete the actual information. They don’t need to store it. They only need to know that the information exists and that they know how to retrieve it when necessary. CISPA will make the flow of information so potentially free between entities that the government only needs to know where to get it when they believe they need it. If anything, this allows them to have a much broader view of the populace as well as a more useful view of individuals without having to technically store anything.

The last point of concern is the lack of consequence for breaking their own rules. If they feel the need to infringe on our privacy, they are likely only liable for $1,000. Actual damages due to privacy infringement by a government agency are very challenging to demonstrate. It comes down to a choice – is the data they want on someone important enough to justify the $1,000 at risk. In the name of cybersecurity, this is a no-brainer.

CISPA in its current form was designed to have no chance of losing. They hushed the potential detractors. They did a masterful job of crafting it in a way that seems to be harmless. They learned what they did wrong with SOPA and this new and improved version is almost impervious to assault. Anonymous, Reddit, Mozilla, and Automattic need help. Are you willing to speak out and expose the truth about this dangerous piece of legislation?

http://www.techi.com/2013/04/cispa-is-a-comprehensive-con-job-designed-to-pull-the-veil-over-the-eyes-of-the-world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andando para a frente com isto nunca mais voltam atraz

A unica forma de dar a volta \ protestar contra isto é simplesmente deixar de usar serviços de email\cloud hosting nos EUA.

Eu até diria deixar de usar qualquer serviço americano que recolha info nossa, that's facebook, g+, etc... Mas sei perfeitamente que é irrealista.

Os Estados Unidos e os seus lobbies, provaram N vezes nestes últimos anos que são incapazes de actuar de "boa fé" e de não abusar deste tipo de poder.

Portanto não confio neles.

Tenho vindo a migrar já há algum tempo os serviços que uso para fora de lá, e recomendo que para informação critica ou pessoal que façam o mesmo.

Edited by Lancer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.