http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html

This is big news.  Google will likely shutdown operations in China due to highly sophisticated and targeted cyberattacks resulting in the theft of some Google IP and:

“we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.”

Google has reported it to the relevant authorities, one of them being the state department:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135105.htm

On a related note, if you search “google.blogspot.com” (that’s the official google blog) in any chinese search engine, you won’t get any result, and you may not be able to search for while after that.

Go to baidu.com and search “google.com” or “blogspot.com” and you’ll get results for both.  But search ”google.blogspot.com” and see what happens.

Here is more information about the attack, from cybersecurity firm F-Secure:
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00001854.html

I’m very interested in seeing the effect this will have on the democratization of China, given that Internet freedom has become so intertwined with human freedom.

Full Story

From the article:

“Some of its communications technology is proprietary, so widely used encryption systems aren’t readily compatible, said people familiar with the matter.”

Some people say “military intelligence” is an oxymoron.  In this situation, they’d be correct.  I’d have thought the military would have known better than to use proprietary software in a spy plane.

At around 42:40, the President makes a terrible comparison.

“How can a private company compete against the government? My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining, meaning that taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services, and a good network of doctors, just like private insurers do, then I think private insurers should be able to compete.

“They do it all the time. If you think about it, UPS and Fed-Ex are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems…. there is nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace. As long as it is not set up where the government is being subsidized by the taxpayers so that even if they are providing a good deal, we keep having to pony up more and more money.”

First of all, the taxpayers ARE subsidizing the post office.

Secondly, the Post Office isn’t competing with FEDEX, UPS, or anyone.  In fact, if you try to compete with them, you’ll break the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/39/usc_sup_01_39_10_I.html

Thirdly, an excerpt from the July 2009 GAO report:

“GAO is adding the US Postal Service’s (USPS) financial condition to the list of <b>high-risk areas</b> needing attention by Congress and the executive branch to achieve broad-based transformation.
This year, USPS expects to increase its year-end debt to $10.2 billion, and incur a cash shortfall of about $1 billion.”

“This year, USPS expects to increase its year-end debt to $10.2 billion, and incur a cash shortfall of about $1 billion.”

point made?

for fuel.

More specifically, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is developing an Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR), designed for long range missions.  For fuel, it will take advantage of any fossil fuels and/or biomatter in it’s path, though regular gasoline can also be used.

Full Story

The below footage shows protestors overwhelming a few police officers.

Ron Paul being all cool and stuff!

H.R. 1207, better known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, has surpassed 218 cosponsors and sits at 222, with Dennis Kuccinich being the latest addition.  That means that the bill cosponsored by the majority of the House of representatives.  Not just the Republican majority or the Democratic majority, the whole majority.

This is excellent news people, but once the House passes the bill, it will have to go through Senate, and that’s the risky part.  It might be modified too heavily by the Senate to even make a difference, or it may not even be passed at all.

Don’t have a clue what HR 1207 is?  Check out my bill breakdown here.

And use the link below to call your Senators right away, tell them to vote YES on H.R. 1207 when it comes to their mailbox!!!!!

List of Senators

“…That’s why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category.  We must have fair procedures so that we don’t make mistakes.  We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified…If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.  And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.”

You know what’s ironic?  In his speech, the president blasts the Bush administration for creating an ad hoc legal structure to ligitimize their gross violations of constitutional and international law.  Rachel Maddow tears Obama apart on her MSNBC show:

I’ve said it before.  It’s my opinion that the foreign policy of Obama is not very different from that of Bush’s or McCain’s.  I haven’t really been proven wrong on any significant level yet, but I hope that changes.

It’s interesting though, that democrats are starting to dislike Obama, and republicans already dislike him.  It seems like this ‘bipartisan’ discontent is shining a light on libertarian ideas and the people who represent them.  Maybe that’s why Fox news is considering putting “Freedom watch” on television, and maybe thats why Ron Paul’s HR 1207 bill has well over 150 cosponsors, many of them democrats.

Dear President Obama, please keep making stupid decisions (seriously, how can you talk about Constitutional credibility and indefinite detention of potential criminals, in the same speech?)

Full Story

The military’s response to cyber attacks may not be limited to cyberspace.

Kevin P. Chilton, Air Force General and head of U.S. Strategic Command says:

“The United States’ response to a cyber attack would be decided by the president and Defense secretary…our job would be to present them options, just as every other combatant commander would do…I don’t think you take anything off the table when you provide options to the president to decide…you don’t take any response options off the table from an attack on the United States of America. Why would we constrain ourselves on how we would respond?”

It’s not entirely unsensible, but if the military wants to start treating perpetrators of DDos attacks or botnet writers like terrorists, then we would have a problem.

Another concern:

“…Why would we constrain ourselves on how we would respond?”

I find it rather unsettling that a top U.S. commander would say something like that.  But I am not surprised one bit.

S. 773, the Cyber Security Act of 2009, was introduced by Senator John Rockefeller (D, WV) with Senators Evan Bayh (D, IN), Bill Nelson (D, FL), and Olympia Snowe (R, ME) as cosponsors.

Leslie Harris of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT):

“The cybersecurity threat is real, but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Jennifer Granick:

“Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response.”

In forums and comment threads across the internet, users are typing in all caps, scared that this act will give the president unfettered power to “SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET”. I’ve read the bill, and it is as scary as everybody makes it out to be, but let me remind you:  one cannot simply shut down the Internet, that’s virtually impossible.

There are a few ways for you to understand this legislation:

1. Read the full text of the bill, and use your superb linguistic abilities to comprehend it.  Here’s the full text.

2. Read this bill breakdown in it’s entirety, it’ll take awhile, but you’ll understand everything about the bill and you’ll know pretty well how to talk about the bill with others.  In bold lettering throughout the text, you’ll find key points which you can follow if you’re speed reading it.

3. If you’re lazy, just skip to the summary at the bottom.  You’ll get the main points of the bill, but it’ll be out of context and you won’t be well-read enough to discuss the bill with others.

I’ve broken the bill down into each section.  I summarize what each section proposes and provide excerpts of the sections.  Have fun.

Section 2, (6):

Paul Kurtz, a Partner and chief operating officer of Good Harbor Consulting as well as a senior advisor to the Obama Transition Team for cybersecurity, recently stated that the United States is unprepared to respond to a ‘cyber-Katrina’ and that ‘a massive cyber disruption could have a cascading, long-term impact without adequate co-ordination between government and the private sector.’.

Read the rest of this entry »

Full story

Thje “Creation and Internet” bill is a piece of French legislation, backed by President Sarkozy, that would put stif penalties on Internet users caught downloading illegal material.  The bill would implement a three-strikes rule, allowing ISP’s (or forcing them), to disconnect repeat offenders of the new law.

The legislation passed both houses on the first reading, but during the final vote in the National Assembly, a bunch of Socialists (as in the political affiliation, not the swear) showed up to a nearly empty chamber, and tilted the vote against the bill, 21-15.

The bill is nicknamed HADOPI because of a clause in the text proposing the creation of a High Authority for the dissemination of works and protection of rights on the Internet.